Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

in admissions selectivity or just the general atmosphere. thanks.

By Oh_So_Bored (Oh_So_Bored) on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 07:36 pm: Edit

i've heard it called the princeton of the south, but I'm not much a fan of the south or princeton, and I still applied...call me crazy

By Feenotype (Feenotype) on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 03:10 am: Edit

princeton of the south?

well, first Missouri is not in the South, and WUSTL is not considered a southern school like emory, vanderbilt, or duke; its a midwestern school, with northwestern and such.

and who calls a school a 'princeton of [insert region]'? its saying that its not good enough to be the 'harvard' of its region.

By Pistolpete (Pistolpete) on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 03:18 am: Edit

So call it the [insert Ivy name here] of the midwest.

By Princezaki (Princezaki) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 02:12 am: Edit

Lol, we'll Duke's already the Harvard of the South...Or Harvard the Duke of the North depending on which side of Mason-Dixon you're on!

Missouri was a slave state, that's south enough for me...

By Sleepingawake2 (Sleepingawake2) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 01:18 am: Edit

Well usnews ranks WUSTL number 9 in doctoral university tied with dartmouth...

By Tao (Tao) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 01:36 am: Edit

Yeah number 9...its in the same prestige boat as the lower Ivies, Northwestern, UChicago, Hopkins, but certainly not Stanford, Duke, or Upenn.

By Dior2004 (Dior2004) on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 05:52 pm: Edit

If one has to choose a school for undergraduate bio-engineering degree between North Western in Chicago, Washington University in St. Louis, and the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign (UIUC) then which one will be a good and right choice.

NW and Washu bioengineering is an old program. At UIUC bioengineering has it own department starting Fall 2004 and only 25 students are admitted in the first batch starting Fall 2004. UIUC engineering program is 3rd in the nation.

By Washu08 (Washu08) on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 06:32 pm: Edit

i believe in the princeton review top 350 colleges book, they call it the "harvard of the midwest"

By Goofy (Goofy) on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 07:52 pm: Edit

Actually, Stanford, Duke, and U-Penn fail miserably in the area I study, whereas WashU is one of the top schools. That rankings b.s. is such crap. And really, Ivy League, Harvard of the South, Duke of the North. Why don't we all get sweatshirts with little logos: Harvard of the South - Harvard of the Midwest. South-Midwest, that's actually a good question. As far as slavery goes, one would find that Missouri had their hands in both jars. I'd like to meet the person who has spent time in the Ozarks and doesn't shudder at the word drawl. On the flip side, large parts of Missouri fought against the South in the Civil War. Ah, who cares. But really, lets not stoop to mimicing someone elses need for plastic laurels. Duke, Stanford, Harvard, U Chicago, and WashU are all good schools. Look and see where Nobel-Prize winning professors come from, and you'll find a good amount from all. Harvard's probably got that one squared away though !

By Stanfordnualum (Stanfordnualum) on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 12:32 am: Edit

Goofy, can you tell us what "area" you study? Also, I don't know WashU has "good amount" of Nobel-Price winnging professors. Are you sure about this "fact"?

By Tosg (Tosg) on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 03:57 pm: Edit

Standfordnualum, why do you put everything in "quotes"?

By Stanfordnualum (Stanfordnualum) on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 11:10 pm: Edit

Because I don't know if that's just BS unless given specifics.

WashU is a great school esp if you treat rankings as irrelevant. But since he's making reference to ranking of some sort, I want to know which program he's talking about. I can't recall WashU has any top-ranked ones at the undergrad level, let alone one that Stanford/Duke/UPenn "fail miserably".

By Wobudong (Wobudong) on Friday, May 21, 2004 - 05:14 pm: Edit

Goofy: Would you please identify any Nobel laureates at Wash U and list the undergraduate courses that they teach?

By Goofy (Goofy) on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 11:37 am: Edit

Sorry, was busy working on papers etc. One of the most widely respected Nobel Laureates at Wash U is Oliver North who is one of the top economists in the world. I was recently out of the country and watched an interview with him on tv ... chuckled because it said Nobel Prize winning economist and then didn't say the university, boo. That's the one that comes to mind first. There are more, but you can look for yourself.

By Goofy (Goofy) on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 11:49 am: Edit

Sorry Stanfordualum, I don't think it is necessary to tell you what I study. Do your own research; its not that hard to find out. I'll tell you that the top ranking schools are Berkeley, Princeton, Harvard, Yale, WashU, Virginia, Cornell ..... not necessarily in that order or exclusively those schools in the top 7. Notice Duke is nowhere to be found. Stanford's department is small but good; it just doesn't have the size to be in the top tier.

By Melissa27 (Melissa27) on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 05:14 pm: Edit

what is this a riddle or something? just tell him your area of study, geez.

By Stanfordnualum (Stanfordnualum) on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 05:33 pm: Edit

I think the riddle has no solution. LOL!

By Wobudong (Wobudong) on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 04:36 pm: Edit

Goofy: Actually his name is Douglass North. You must learn to take better notes. Oliver North is more of an entrepeneur than an economist--made a lot of $ selling junk military hardware to the Iranians and passed on the profit some folks in Central America. You didn't answer the question about teaching undergrads. What undergrad courses does Douglass North teach?

As to the others on the faculty, there are none. There have been many associated with the medical school in the past, but they are no longer there. Most are deceased or retired. Other than Douglass North, there have been three or four outside of the med school, which really is exceptional, but none in the last forty years.

By Jfehr (Jfehr) on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 11:43 pm: Edit

There have been at least 13 Nobel Prize winners associated with Wash U in the last 40 years...http://library.wustl.edu/units/spec/archives/facts/nobelprizes.html

By Wobudong (Wobudong) on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 12:08 pm: Edit

Actually, since 1959 three Nobel winners have been members of the faculty, one in the Department of Economics and two in College of Medicine. One is still at Wash U.

The last Nobel that was awarded to someone "associated with" Wash U. went to Robert Furchgott in 1998 for work that Dr. Furchgott did at SUNY Downstate Medical Center in the late 1970's. Dr. Furchgott worked in the Pharmacology Department at Wash U from 1949 until 1956. Other institutions that could make the "associated with" claim for Dr. Furchgott include the University of South Carolina, UNC-CH, Northwestern, Cold Spring Harbor, Cornell, and of course SUNY, where he actually did the Prize-winning research twenty years after leaving Wash U.

By Wobudong (Wobudong) on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 12:08 pm: Edit

Actually, since 1959 three Nobel winners have been members of the faculty, one in the Department of Economics and two in College of Medicine. One is still at Wash U.

The last Nobel that was awarded to someone "associated with" Wash U. went to Robert Furchgott in 1998 for work that Dr. Furchgott did at SUNY Downstate Medical Center in the late 1970's. Dr. Furchgott worked in the Pharmacology Department at Wash U from 1949 until 1956. Other institutions that could make the "associated with" claim for Dr. Furchgott include the University of South Carolina, UNC-CH, Northwestern, Cold Spring Harbor, Cornell, and of course SUNY, where he actually did the Prize-winning research twenty years after leaving Wash U.

By Goofy (Goofy) on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 02:09 pm: Edit

Again, my silly apologies for the Oliver Douglass mishap...needless to say I don't study economics or politics or business...thus the name goofy Wobudong.....where exactly do you have the info that there have only been three since 1959? The website above seems to suggest otherwise, though I guess you could say that is true if you go by where they did the significant portion of their prize-winning research. Not sure if that is relevant. Hhhhammm regarding my department, I don't think that's wise info to give out, thus you won't find it....notice the very anonymous - and fitting - name This is my last post in this area. My original point was this: don't compare schools by saying you are the whatever of wherever....its unnecessary and silly.

By Wobudong (Wobudong) on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 09:06 pm: Edit

Goofy: According to the Wash U. web site, since 1959 three Nobel laureates have been members of the faculty. The year when the Prize was awarded is to the left of each name. The period when each individual was "associated with" Wash U. is listed to the right. If you would like detailed biographical information for each, including the university or institution where they actually did the work for which the Prize was awarded, you will find it on the Nobel site under the individual's name. Most of the Nobel biographies are very interesting.

By Mafmaf22 (Mafmaf22) on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 09:37 pm: Edit

In regards to the original question of what it's equivalent to, the Fiske guide listed overlaps as Duke, Northwestern, Harvard, UPENN, and STanford. i can't say hopw accurate this is, but thats what the guide considers to be similar

By Stanfordnualum (Stanfordnualum) on Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 03:41 pm: Edit

Hey Wobudong,

Don't you agree Wash U is a master of marketing? The way it streches its credit seems to reflect its sense of insecurity. The number of Nobel laureates got nothing to do with quality of undergrad education. Wash U shouldn't feel the need to pull strings to claim some of them.

Here's how Stanford claim laureates: "The business of "claiming" laureates can be controversial: Where and when was a winner's work done? Stanford, for example, lists but does not claim laureates who are not on the faculty, even if they have a significant Stanford connection. And Stanford does not list winners with a more fleeting or tenuous connection. John Steinbeck, the 1962 literature winner, for instance, did not make the cut although he attended Stanford -- receiving a "C" in freshman English in 1919 and dropping out in 1921, only to reenter the university as a journalism major in 1923 and drop out again in 1925."

By Skulkarni1 (Skulkarni1) on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 05:10 pm: Edit

okay wash u is not princeton. no one attack me. it's not.

wash u is probably most like JHU. this is because of hte heavy masses of premeds at the schools, and the high tendency of preprofessionalism.

By Wobudong (Wobudong) on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 11:14 pm: Edit

Stanfordnualum: I agree that Wash U.'s P.R. department has done a superb job of enhancing the university's image, particularly during the past few years. I would not go so far as to suggest that this effort is a reflection of insecurity. Rather, I believe that the excellence of Wash U. was largely unrecognized for decades and that the current administration has taken appropriate steps to gain broader recognition. Perhaps they went a bit overboard with the mass mailings, but that is a minor point. As for the list of Nobels, we can question the meaning of "associated with", but Wash U.'s web site provides sufficient information for anyone who might be interested to determine the exact association of each person who is named. Of course the raw number is not a very good starting point to play my dog's better than your dog.

I heartily agree that the number of Nobel laureates has little or nothing to do with the quality of undergraduate education except for those rare instances where a Nobel laureate is also a good teacher and regularly teaches undergraduates.

To return to your point, if the folks who market the university also teach, then Wash U. is a very good place to study marketing.

By Missmolly (Missmolly) on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 07:38 am: Edit

To all college students-to-be:

Check out Wash U and other schools that are reviewed by students/ www.studentreview.com
I think you all are going to love what students say about Wash U!!!

By Bfjava (Bfjava) on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 11:24 am: Edit

why don't you just visit washu for yourself? ;) I visited early last year as I went with my bro who applied there. I also have another friend who went there is this past but is now transferring to the Uni of Detroit. I think it's a great college but horrid if you don't want to drink. She even asked for a non-drinking hall but didn't get it. She was paired with a roommate who was a heavy drinker and who also consistently had her b/f in the tiny dorm room every other minute. :\ It's get worse and there are reasons why it gets worse, heh but I think she's entitled to her privacy!

anyways, we visited her last october and she told us the night before we came she had trouble studying. heh, kinda funny but also sad...she was studying when a drunk girl walked into her room attempting to start-up useless conversation (that's what happens when you're wasted ;)). haha my friend was like "umm yea, bye bye now" and closed the door on her. hehe, this is a freshman dorm too. haha let's see...my other friend told me when he visited he saw 2 Indians pushing each other in a grocery cart around the campus while drunk. hahaha, funny but if you don't want to drink, thennn i dunno. they're also very strict on freshman staying on campus, hmm i dunno. i suppose all colleges have these problems tho, heh ;)

oh but one thing the washu admissions consistently stressed was their "secret-ivy" status. during the Q&A section it was interesting to hear a mother who had a close family friend with "perfect" everything who was rejected the year before. she was like "how can my son who is a great student from the same school, but not the same caliber as ____, even have a chance applying here?? if you don't accept the very best, (she said he had perfect grades and perfect scores), then why should other ppl even apply!?!" the admissions officer was just like "yes, we are very selective, but for no reason should your son not apply here." poor admissions officer...she was more like a recently graduated student who just joined their admissions office. it was quite the show and it definitely made me perceive washu as an 'ivy.' hehe but i'm assuming that mother was not aware of other important factors, i.e. ECs and recs. who knows...but anyways, the university looks amazing, though. haha, except my friend told me the bio building is rather old. she said it didn't really matter, though. heh, all i covered were negative aspects of washu. sorry! keep in mind that that +s far outweight the -s. for me, though, i don't feel interested. the academics sound great, but the campus seemed a bit small IMO. plus, i don't know anyone who attends the college, so i have no real to go there. i dunno...i want to go East coast to live somewhere outside the midwest (i live in ks). furthermore, it'd take a lot of work to apply to a college like that (since they want interviews). you shouldn't waste your time applying unless you're interested first. hehe, usually ppl apply, then visit the college. therefore, their apps are already in. for me, tho, I was able to see everything as a junior just starting the year.

hmm, as far as st louis, great city with a very polluted river, hahaha. i mean, yuck, the water smells. it supposedly has a lot of great restaurants...and it has the big st louis arch. students on campus said there isn't much to do in st. louis though other than the arch, though. once you see the arch once, that's it i guess. i dunno, just for me, st. louis and small campus don't fit me. if i was only concerned about academics, i'd definitely want to go, though! so go apply!