Thoughts on Wash U in St. Louis?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Are you being sarcastic? Wash U is one of the best private universities in the country - it's definitely on par with UVA or UMD.

On par? I went to UVa and have worked with WashU grads. I consider WashU superior (but I consider UVa overrated, so there's that).

[Anonymous]

Definitely superior to College Park. And probably to UVA.

Plus they want non-midwesterners.

[Anonymous]

Not sure how relevant one person's parents views from 20 years ago is to establishing what a school's reputation was back then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re quasi sleazy tactics. Here are some (Wash U is far from alone, and not as bad as some):

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/22/us/a-mighty-fund-raising-effort-helps-lift-a-college-s-ranking.html

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/02/which-schools-arent-lying-their-way-higher-us-news-ranking/61874/

The NY Times article linked above is TEN years old! The rankings methodology has changed since then and # of applications is just one small factor is one of many categories: selectivity. If you could influence rankings as much as some think by just increasing the # of applications, the California State schools would own the top ten - their check the box and apply to every school approach resulted in nearly 100,000 apps to UCLA this year. It's not that simple folks.

The other (main) factor the NY Times discussed a decade ago is a 3.5 billion fund raising push to increase endowment. Hard to imagine anything "sleazy" about increasing resources and improving facilities leading to improved rankings. One of the great thing about the US News rankings is that it identifies and rewards the schools making improvements so those looking to learn about colleges don't have to rely only on outdated stereotypes and what they thought they knew 20 years ago.

Schools that rise in the rankings seem to draw scorn from some boosters of the “old guard.” One approach to maintaining the “status quo” would be to match the efforts of the up and coming schools with regard to investing in infrastructure and resources and increasing endowment to (among other things) lessen reliance on tuition to allow increased selectivity. The other approach is to piss all over the rankings and insist that nothing ever changes.

[Anonymous]

Again, I will reiterate that Wash U reaches out to students it has no intent of admitting, encouraging them to apply, just so it can appear to be more selective. Other schools with which it would like to be compared simply don't do this. The kids see through this and most parents know exactly what they are trying to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Are you being sarcastic? Wash U is one of the best private universities in the country - it's definitely on par with UVA or UMD.

On par? I went to UVa and have worked with WashU grads. I consider WashU superior (but I consider UVa overrated, so there's that).

UVa is definitely over-rated by DC residents. It's good, but it's not THAT good.

[Anonymous]

I meant that as a whole, wash u is far more selective with a far higher caliber of student than UMD or UVA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I meant that as a whole, wash u is far more selective with a far higher caliber of student than UMD or UVA

Not really but I can understand why you might want to believe this if you're paying hefty private tuition to send your kid off to school in a declining, depressed city like St. Louis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I meant that as a whole, wash u is far more selective with a far higher caliber of student than UMD or UVA

Washington University is ranked ahead of Ivy Leagues schools such as Cornell, UVA and UMD are not even close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again, I will reiterate that Wash U reaches out to students it has no intent of admitting, encouraging them to apply, just so it can appear to be more selective. Other schools with which it would like to be compared simply don't do this. The kids see through this and most parents know exactly what they are trying to do.

Imagine that there really was such a simple inexpensive way for a school to increase its academic standing - wouldn't you be disappointed if your school was too dumb to take advantage of it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, I will reiterate that Wash U reaches out to students it has no intent of admitting, encouraging them to apply, just so it can appear to be more selective. Other schools with which it would like to be compared simply don't do this. The kids see through this and most parents know exactly what they are trying to do.

Imagine that there really was such a simple inexpensive way for a school to increase its academic standing - wouldn't you be disappointed if your school was too dumb to take advantage of it?

No. There are plenty of schools that don't game statistics to try and garner respect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I meant that as a whole, wash u is far more selective with a far higher caliber of student than UMD or UVA

Not really but I can understand why you might want to believe this if you're paying hefty private tuition to send your kid off to school in a declining, depressed city like St. Louis.

Have you been to St. Louis? Wash U is in a beautiful area adjacent to Clayton, U City, and a large city park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, I will reiterate that Wash U reaches out to students it has no intent of admitting, encouraging them to apply, just so it can appear to be more selective. Other schools with which it would like to be compared simply don't do this. The kids see through this and most parents know exactly what they are trying to do.

Imagine that there really was such a simple inexpensive way for a school to increase its academic standing - wouldn't you be disappointed if your school was too dumb to take advantage of it?

Since when do the rankings have anything to do with "academic standing?"

The rankings reward certain expenditures and distort the way schools handle admissions. I have very little respect for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again, I will reiterate that Wash U reaches out to students it has no intent of admitting, encouraging them to apply, just so it can appear to be more selective. Other schools with which it would like to be compared simply don't do this. The kids see through this and most parents know exactly what they are trying to do.

So, I guess this means that your kid got rejected from Wash U?

That is how your repeated posts make it appear.

It doesn't give the impression at all that there is anything wrong or dubious about Wash U's admission process. It just makes it seem like you have sour grapes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I meant that as a whole, wash u is far more selective with a far higher caliber of student than UMD or UVA

Not really but I can understand why you might want to believe this if you're paying hefty private tuition to send your kid off to school in a declining, depressed city like St. Louis.

Have you been to St. Louis? Wash U is in a beautiful area adjacent to Clayton, U City, and a large city park.

Agree.

I think PP is confusing St. Louis proper, South County, West County and St. Charles with North County and East St. Louis.

PS. Don't forget Cardinals baseball. Go Cards