2013-2014 Washington University in St. Louis Application Thread

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members don't see this ad.
lalax said:
You said "SCOTUS decision on this topic" (affirmative action).

“This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved,” he wrote, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. “It is about who may resolve it. There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this court’s precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters.”
Click to expand...
Yes, the SCOTUS decision in the news that happens to relate to this topic. Is that better?
 
DermViser said:
Yes, the SCOTUS decision in the news that happens to relate to this topic. Is that better?
Click to expand...

Now it's a more obviously irrelevant comment, so I guess it's better. Before it was just subtly irrelevant.
 
DermViser said:
Yes, and experience with those communities are in your patient population, which St. Louis definitely fits. And I'm glad that you believe that Whites and Asians are "necessary". How magnanimous of you. Asians apparently don't benefit from affirmative action policies, even though they have had no historical advantage not based on their stats: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/asians-too-smart-for-their-own-good.html
Click to expand...

Asians are necessary. They are already 400% over represented in medical school though. They don't need AA in medical school admissions or college admissions. I would argue that Asians need AA in politics/media/business etc. How many Asians do you see on TV or in the news or in politics? AA is not for just Blacks and Latinos in medical school. You take AA away in college admissions you indirectly. weaken initiatives to increase Asian representation in other areas.

DermViser said:
There are many other factors as to why URMs don't pursue medical school (which I won't get into here as it goes off on a broader tangent).
Click to expand...

That's exactly what AA is for. Helping students overcome these barriers.
 
I feel that Asians are the biggest losers here. Asians could have supported Affirmative Action in university admissions where Blacks and Latinos are historically represented and used that as a spring board to use Affirmative Action to increase Asian representation where Asians are historically represented (government/politics/media). We are all in this together.
 
DermViser said:
WashU is a top ten school that hasn't followed the trends of its peers in the top 10-20. That's the issue. If even Case Western Reserve, can do true P/F in the preclinical years, that tells you that other schools have caught on, and it's a lot more than just Case, Stanford, Yale, etc. Another example is U of Chicago. Same with a 1.5 year curriculum (which essentially just removes redundancies), and protected research time (you can add Duke to that list, and now Vanderbilt)
Click to expand...
Firstly, the URM issue and diversity is important. And let's not conflate the issues. We still want to recruit superstar URMs and not just any URMs to "fix the numbers".

WashU isn't into "following the trends of its peers" willy-nilly because it prefers to listen to it's own students. Year after year students have voted to keep the grading in 2nd year so that ranking in med school is at least 30% objective (as opposed to the subjective grading in clinical years). I don't find this surprising among students who do great academically by objective standards.

There is dedicated study time for the boards. About 4-6 weeks between 2nd and 3rd year. Most students do great. The only thing that can increase the scores, I suspect, is if the professors deliberately teach to the boards. But then again, I haven't seen any data showing highest step 1 scores = best doctors in the long run. We either have no metrics for the latter or I'm just not aware of them. Physicians here ( particularly the program directors) don't think a regurgitation of random facts that lead to a great Step1 score substitutes for a strong foundation in clinical reasoning.

There might be some redundancy in 2nd year, but even I am hard pressed to identify which classes I can cut out. Only the 1st half of 2nd year is basic science (pathophys) The rest of 2nd year is actually clinical subspecialty lectures. Instead of cutting out the latter, the transition seems to be more exposure to the wards without making it the start of formal clerkship where the pressure really is on.

There is protected research time during the summer between 1st and 2nd year. A lot of the students here would resent any more required research time. Those who really love research take the additional year to publish MULTIPLE papers (arguably better than just one).
 
Last edited:
Espadaleader said:
I feel that Asians are the biggest losers here. Asians could have supported Affirmative Action in university admissions where Blacks and Latinos are historically represented and used that as a spring board to use Affirmative Action to increase Asian representation where Asians are historically represented (government/politics/media). We are all in this together.
Click to expand...
ARE YOU CALLING ME A LOSER?? HOW DARE YOU!! Haha sorry I couldn't help myself. Please continue with the discussion at hand.

PS - that joke was so lame, I just confirmed that I am, in fact, a loser.
 
Asperphys said:
Firstly, the URM issue and diversity is important. And let's not conflate the issues. We still want to recruit superstar URMs and not just any URMs to "fix the numbers".

WashU isn't into "following the trends of its peers" willy-nilly because it prefers to listen to it's own students. Year after year students have voted to keep the grading in 2nd year so that ranking in med school is at least 30% objective (as opposed to the subjective grading in clinical years). I don't find this surprising among students who do great academically by objective standards.

There is dedicated study time for the boards. About 4-6 weeks between 2nd and 3rd year. Most students do great. The only thing that can increase the scores, I suspect, is if the professors deliberately teach to the boards. But then again, I haven't seen any data showing highest step 1 scores = best doctors in the long run. We either have no metrics for the latter or I'm just not aware of them. Physicians here ( particularly the program directors) don't think a regurgitation of random facts that lead to a great Step1 score substitutes for a strong foundation in clinical reasoning.

There might be some redundancy in 2nd year, but even I am hard pressed to identify which classes I can cut out. Only the 1st half of 2nd is basic science (pathophys) The rest of 2nd year is actually clinical subspecialty lectures. Instead of cutting out the latter, the transition seems to be more exposure to the wards without making it the start of formal clerkship where the pressure really is on.

There is protected research time during the summer between 1st and 2nd year. A lot of the students here would resent any more required research time. Those who really love research take the additional year to publish MULTIPLE papers (arguably better than just one).
Click to expand...

This is an issue too. I was talking to some medical students about this very matter and I think its the nail in the coffin for WashU. I think WashU not being able to recruit minorities is an effect of location + this very fact. Almost every top-tier medical school has eliminated grading. Why the hell would I want to go to a school where the students want grading. That's nuts. I can go to Yale, HMS, Hopkins, Duke, Columbia, Case, CC, Sinai, Pitt etc. and NOT have grades and in most cases not have ranking. I think WashU probably isn't recruiting White and Asian students too, its just more of them in the pool. @Asperphys on this very fact WashU is the laughing stock of the elites. Literally, the first things every student says is that "we don't have grades". WashU students VOTE to have them?
 
Espadaleader said:
I feel that Asians are the biggest losers here. Asians could have supported Affirmative Action in university admissions where Blacks and Latinos are historically represented and used that as a spring board to use Affirmative Action to increase Asian representation where Asians are historically represented (government/politics/media). We are all in this together.
Click to expand...

:smack:
 
Asperphys said:
Firstly, the URM issue and diversity is important. And let's not conflate the issues. We still want to recruit superstar URMs and not just any URMs to "fix the numbers".

WashU isn't into "following the trends of its peers" willy-nilly because it prefers to listen to it's own students. Year after year students have voted to keep the grading in 2nd year so that ranking in med school is at least 30% objective (as opposed to the subjective grading in clinical years). I don't find this surprising among students who do great academically by objective standards.

There is dedicated study time for the boards. About 4-6 weeks between 2nd and 3rd year. Most students do great. The only thing that can increase the scores, I suspect, is if the professors deliberately teach to the boards. But then again, I haven't seen any data showing highest step 1 scores = best doctors in the long run. We either have no metrics for the latter or I'm just not aware of them. Physicians here ( particularly the program directors) don't think a regurgitation of random facts that lead to a great Step1 score substitutes for a strong foundation in clinical reasoning.

There might be some redundancy in 2nd year, but even I am hard pressed to identify which classes I can cut out. Only the 1st half of 2nd year is basic science (pathophys) The rest of 2nd year is actually clinical subspecialty lectures. Instead of cutting out the latter, the transition seems to be more exposure to the wards without making it the start of formal clerkship where the pressure really is on.

There is protected research time during the summer between 1st and 2nd year. A lot of the students here would resent any more required research time. Those who really love research take the additional year to publish MULTIPLE papers (arguably better than just one).
Click to expand...

There are no objective metrics to classify one as a "good doctor". A lot of evaluation is overall gestalt, not just multiple choice exams. Med school, for all intents and purposes, is a CV buildup game at which at the end you apply to match. No one has said USMLE Step 1 score is an indicator of how good a doctor you will be. However, the REALITY is that USMLE Step 1 score serves as a barrier to entry for certain specialties. USMLE Step 1 score effectively closes doors to certain specialties, while others are still in contention. The pinnacle of the first 2 years that matters to PDs, is USMLE Step 1. Not a piddly grade in a basic science course.

One isn't saying to cut our courses, but coursework topics that keep repeating. If Baylor and Case Western can do it, I'm sure WashU can. No one's even saying to go to an extreme of Duke - that does all of basic sciences in 1 year.

I hardly doubt they would complain if the research was in their specialty of choice (besides the Primary Care applicants - who would complain about any extra work put on them regardless, since the barrier to entry to those specialties is lower and doesn't require research).
 
Espadaleader said:
This is an issue too. I was talking to some medical students about this very matter and I think its the nail in the coffin for WashU. I think WashU not being able to recruit minorities is an effect of location + this very fact. Almost every top-tier medical school has eliminated grading. Why the hell would I want to go to a school where the students want grading. That's nuts. I can go to Yale, HMS, Hopkins, Duke, Columbia, Case, CC, Sinai, Pitt etc. and NOT have grades and in most cases not have ranking. I think WashU probably isn't recruiting White and Asian students too, its just more of them in the pool. @Asperphys on this very fact WashU is the laughing stock of the elites. Literally, the first things every student says is that "we don't have grades". WashU students VOTE to have them?
Click to expand...
Yeah. It does sound strange. And I'm not speaking for my fellow students when I say this but, not knowing how I will be perceived as a clinical student during my clerkship, I liked the security blanket of having done great during the preclinical years contributing to my final class rank. That part of my grades I have full control over because grades corresponded neatly with effort.

I had found myself being misunderstood by some attendings (ie Peds for me) and being graded poorly during some clerkship rotations even though I worked really hard. If you don't mesh with the clinical team you're rotating with (ie OB-Gyn for me), it can also lower your clerkship grade. Ditto, if you have difficulty dealing with the patient population (ie Psych for me). These things I did not have any control over.

I don't think it's a question of grades vs no grades at all. It's a question of what contributes to class rank. I prefer a combination of objective and subjective grading because I was hedging my bets. I personally would be leery of going to a school where my all my grades depend entirely on subjective evaluations.
 
Espadaleader said:
This is an issue too. I was talking to some medical students about this very matter and I think its the nail in the coffin for WashU. I think WashU not being able to recruit minorities is an effect of location + this very fact. Almost every top-tier medical school has eliminated grading. Why the hell would I want to go to a school where the students want grading. That's nuts. I can go to Yale, HMS, Hopkins, Duke, Columbia, Case, CC, Sinai, Pitt etc. and NOT have grades and in most cases not have ranking. I think WashU probably isn't recruiting White and Asian students too, its just more of them in the pool. @Asperphys on this very fact WashU is the laughing stock of the elites. Literally, the first things every student says is that "we don't have grades". WashU students VOTE to have them?
Click to expand...

You're surprised that students with the highest GPAs and MCAT scores compared to the rest of the nation want to maintain a system in which they can get ahead in rank among their class, by capitalizing on their mastery of multiple choice exams, both standardized and non-standardized?
 
Asperphys said:
I had found myself being misunderstood by some attendings (ie Peds for me) and being graded poorly during some clerkship rotations even though I worked really hard. If you don't mesh with the clinical team you're rotating with (ie OB-Gyn for me), it can also lower your clerkship grade. Ditto, if you have difficulty dealing with the patient population (ie Psych for me). These things I did not have any control over.

I don't think it's a question of grades vs no grades at all. It's a question of what contributes to class rank. I prefer a combination of objective and subjective grading because I was hedging my bets. I personally would be leery of going to a school where my all my grades depend entirely on subjective evaluations.
Click to expand...

To be fair, you were misunderstood by attendings on Peds bc you keep referring to the abdomen, rather than the "tummy" and didn't wear a cartoon tie. On OB-Gyn, it was bc you were breathing.

At other schools: clinical clerkship grades and USMLE Step 1 score are usually used for AOA. In general, studying for professor made multiple choice exams can be quite different than studying for multiple choice questions on the USMLE.
 
Last edited:
Espadaleader said:
on this very fact WashU is the laughing stock of the elites
Click to expand...
Ahem, let's not take it as far as insulting a well respected medical school here
And who exactly are the "elites"? WashU is highly respected in the medical community (it's anecdotal, but of the schools I interviewed at - almost exclusively top 20 - my doctor friends and colleagues were most impressed with WashU).
 
DermViser said:
You're surprised that students with the highest GPAs and MCAT scores compared to the rest of the nation want to maintain a system in which they can get ahead in rank among their class, by capitalizing on their mastery of multiple choice exams, both standardized and non-standardized?
Click to expand...

Surprised? I am frightened.
 
Amygdarya said:
Ahem, let's not take it as far as insulting a well respected medical school here
And who exactly are the "elites"? WashU is highly respected in the medical community (it's anecdotal, but of the schools I interviewed at - almost exclusively top 20 - my doctor friends and colleagues were most impressed with WashU).
Click to expand...

I'll say it again. It is the laughing stock of the elites for medical school. Listen, WashU is at the apex of medical education, medical training, research etc. That is a fact. There isn't a soul alive that would dare say otherwise. But in regards to the curriculum, especially the grading Wash U is a joke. I am just being honest. This is how people perceive the school in regards to the fact the students vote to keep grades when everybody else is voting to keep them out.
 
DermViser said:
There are no objective metrics to classify one as a "good doctor". A lot of evaluation is overall gestalt, not just multiple choice exams. Med school, for all intents and purposes, is a CV buildup game at which at the end you apply to match. No one has said USMLE Step 1 score is an indicator of how good a doctor you will be. However, the REALITY is that USMLE Step 1 score serves as a barrier to entry for certain specialties. USMLE Step 1 score effectively closes doors to certain specialties, while others are still in contention. The pinnacle of the first 2 years that matters to PDs, is USMLE Step 1. Not a piddly grade in a basic science course.
Click to expand...
You are setting up a straw man here. The Step 1 scores contribute greatly to the screening of applicants for interviews, I agree. And I never said anyone gives a **** about preclinical grades. I was arguing against just teaching to the boards despite Step 1 being the penultimate screening tool. There is that quality in students that PDs also look for during the interviews or are aware of per the school's reputation-- call it clinical reasoning or ability to do great during residency that is aided by solid understanding of preclinical and clinical material and not just mastery of stuff in First Aid.

One isn't saying to cut our courses, but coursework topics that keep repeating. If Baylor and Case Western can do it, I'm sure WashU can. No one's even saying to go to an extreme of Duke - that does all of basic sciences in 1 year.
Click to expand...
And I'm telling you that there aren't that many classes that are obviously redundant. Our professors just insist in teaching us everything under the sun, whether we need it for Step 1 or not, just so we are aware of new drug or treatment developments etc. It's a difference in teaching philosophy. They'd rather give us too much info than leave anything out.
I hardly doubt they would complain if the research was in their specialty of choice (besides the Primary Care applicants - who would complain about any extra work put on them regardless, since the barrier to entry to those specialties is lower and doesn't require research).
Click to expand...
Yeah, we listened to students who really really don't wanna do research. They tend to be loud. Besides, you already have a summer to do research. If you need more time, you can fill it out during 4th year as a 12 week elective or you take the extra year and get a nifty masters degree in the process.
 
DermViser said:
One isn't saying to cut our courses, but coursework topics that keep repeating. If Baylor and Case Western can do it, I'm sure WashU can. No one's even saying to go to an extreme of Duke - that does all of basic sciences in 1 year.
Click to expand...
Actually, Case has a "standard" (in terms of length) 2 year preclinical curriculum, not a condensed one.
But I agree that schools like Baylor and Penn do spectacularly with their condensed curricula, which is why schools like Vandy and Cornell are following their example.
 
DermViser said:
Well, the diversity train pass can only take you so far. Then it's either put up or shut up.
Click to expand...

Stop with the racist stuff. So you're saying that WashU is not recruiting students because their standards are too high? What about HMS, Columbia and every other top ten? We do fine there.
 
Espadaleader said:
Stop with the racist stuff. So you're saying that WashU is not recruiting students because their standards are too high? What about HMS, Columbia and every other top ten? We do fine there.
Click to expand...

Asking for URMs to be at the matriculation average of everyone else is not having "standards [that] are too high". One would not even really call that affirmative action. I already said LOCATION is the reason they can't effectively recruit URMs like Harvard.
 
Espadaleader said:
Stop with the racist stuff. So you're saying that WashU is not recruiting students because their standards are too high? What about HMS, Columbia and every other top ten? We do fine there.
Click to expand...
No one is saying that. In fact we already pointed out that geography etc limits our ability to recruit quality URMs.
 
Asperphys said:
You are setting up a straw man here. The Step 1 scores contribute greatly to the screening of applicants for interviews, I agree. And I never said anyone gives a **** about preclinical grades. I was arguing against just teaching to the boards despite Step 1 being the penultimate screening tool. There is that quality in students that PDs also look for during the interviews or are aware of per the school's reputation-- call it clinical reasoning or ability to do great during residency that is aided by solid understanding of preclinical and clinical material and not just mastery of stuff in First Aid.


And I'm telling you that there aren't that many classes that are obviously redundant. Our professors just insist in teaching us everything under the sun, whether we need it for Step 1 or not, just so we are aware of new drug or treatment developments etc. It's a difference in teaching philosophy. They'd rather give us too much info than leave anything out.

Yeah, we listened to students who really really don't wanna do research. They tend to be loud. Besides, you already have a summer to do research. If you need more time, you can fill it out during 4th year as a 12 week elective or you take the extra year and get a nifty masters degree in the process.
Click to expand...

One can teach BOTH. They're not mutually exclusive. Also teaching everything under the sun is quite silly in and of itself, based on typical human retention.
 
Espadaleader said:
Stop with the racist stuff. So you're saying that WashU is not recruiting students because their standards are too high? What about HMS, Columbia and every other top ten? We do fine there.
Click to expand...
Other schools in top 10 are not as selective in terms of GPA and MCAT as WashU. They also seem to be more flexible stats wise when it comes to recruiting URMs, while WashU is not. This is not to say that URMs can't have high stats, it's just that the pool of URMs with high stats is very small. Which is the point that @Asperphys has been making here.
 
Amygdarya said:
Other schools in top 10 are not as selective in terms of GPA and MCAT as WashU. They also seem to be more flexible stats wise when it comes to recruiting URMs, while WashU is not. This is not to say that URMs can't have high stats, it's just that the pool of URMs with high stats is very small. Which is the point that @Asperphys has been making here.
Click to expand...

Okay so Harvard Medical School, Yale, Columbia, Duke, Stanford etc. URMs aren't has good as WashU's. Okay then, WashU can shove it. What makes WashU so good that it has to have have standards over The Hopkins/Yales/HMS? Just don't get it.
 
DermViser said:
To be fair, you were misunderstood by attendings on Peds bc you keep referring to the abdomen, rather than the "tummy" and didn't wear a cartoon tie. On OB-Gyn, it was bc you were breathing.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the much needed levity! 😀

At other schools: clinical clerkship grades and USMLE Step 1 score are usually used for AOA. In general, studying for professor made multiple choice exams can be quite different than studying for multiple choice questions on the USMLE.
Click to expand...
All too true. This begs the question, how much dedicated time do people feel they need to study for Step1? I thought 4 weeks was plenty...
 
Last edited:
I guess URMs are just going to have to settle with schools with lower standards like Stanford Yale and UChicago.
 
Espadaleader said:
Okay so Harvard Medical School, Yale, Columbia, Duke, Stanford etc. URMs aren't has good as WashU's. Okay then, WashU can shove it. What makes WashU so good that it has to have have standards over The Hopkins/Yales/HMS? Just don't get it.
Click to expand...
Dude... Chill out. You are deliberately misunderstanding everyone. Again, no one is saying that. WashU being a non-ivy, relatively new institution has found that choosing students with the highest stats is a great way to build a reputation. No one is saying that makes WashU better than others. What's clear is that it is the one strategy that helped WashU compete with the likes of the institutions you named.
 
Espadaleader said:
Okay so Harvard Medical School, Yale, Columbia, Duke, Stanford etc. URMs aren't has good as WashU's. Okay then, WashU can shove it. What makes WashU so good that it has to have have standards over The Hopkins/Yales/HMS? Just don't get it.
Click to expand...
WashU students, URM or not, are not better than students at other schools, it's just that they were selected using slightly different criteria. Any school can select the kind of students it wants; again, they are not necessarily *better*, but simply the kind the school wants.
That said, as was mentioned multiple times here, there are other factors that hurt WashU student recruitment, whether URM or not, which is why those high stats URMs are likely to go to Harvard, Columbia, Penn etc.
 
Espadaleader said:
Even @DermViser gotta be with me on this one.
Click to expand...

You would be wrong. WashU as an institution is hardly a "laughingstock of the elites". I would agree they unnecessarily create a more competitive environment due to grading their second year H/HP/P/F, but hardly a laughingstock. WashU students are already ambitious and self-motivated to study and master preclinical material, esp. for Step 1 and pimping questions on the wards. These are hardly students who need a motivator of a grade to excel. The difference between the mastery of one who got a "H" vs. "HP" is so narrow, it's almost negligible.

WashU's students are of high caliber, which is not surprising as they come in with very high academic prowess, based on their GPA and MCAT scores. WashU doesn't have location nor Ivy League name dropping to rely on. If it tells you anything, look at the residents they recruit into their residency programs.
 
DermViser said:
You would be wrong. WashU as an institution is hardly a "laughingstock of the elites". I would agree they unnecessarily create a more competitive environment due to grading their second year H/HP/P/F, but hardly a laughingstock. WashU students are already ambitious and self-motivated to study and master preclinical material, esp. for Step 1 and pimping questions on the wards. These are hardly students who need a motivator of a grade to excel. The difference between the mastery of one who got a "H" vs. "HP" is so narrow, it's almost negligible.

WashU's students are of high caliber, which is not surprising as they come in with very high academic prowess, based on their GPA and MCAT scores.
Click to expand...

You should read what I said:

It is the laughing stock of the elites for medical school. Listen, WashU is at the apex of medical education, medical training, research etc. That is a fact. There isn't a soul alive that would dare say otherwise. But in regards to the curriculum, especially the grading Wash U is a joke. I am just being honest. This is how people perceive the school in regards to the fact the students vote to keep grades when everybody else is voting to keep them out.
 
Amygdarya said:
WashU students, URM or not, are not better than students at other schools, it's just that they were selected using slightly different criteria. Any school can select the kind of students it wants; again, they are not necessarily *better*, but simply the kind the school wants.
That said, as was mentioned multiple times here, there are other factors that hurt WashU student recruitment, whether URM or not, which is why those high stats URMs are likely to go to Harvard, Columbia, Penn etc.
Click to expand...

Any school can select any student it wants. That's true. doesn't mean its the best move.
 
Espadaleader said:
You should read what I said: This is how people perceive the school in regards to the fact the students vote to keep grades when everybody else is voting to keep them out.
Click to expand...

Must be all those over represented Asians they take voting. I kid, I kid.
 
Last edited:
Espadaleader said:
Any school can select any student it wants. That's true. doesn't mean its the best move.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that for now, it is. WashU can easily do a lot worse if it thinks it has the same name-dropping power as HMS and suddenly changes admissions standards etc.
 
Asperphys said:
I'd argue that for now, it is. WashU can easily do a lot worse if it thinks it has the same name-dropping power as HMS and suddenly changes admissions standards etc.
Click to expand...

You can bet the moment WashU has the name-dropping power of HMS, high MCAT and GPA will be nowhere near enough to get in. A place like Harvard, is so ridiculous to get in that admissions is essentially a crapshoot bc of its namedropping power.
 
Asperphys said:
I'd argue that for now, it is. WashU can easily do a lot worse if it thinks it has the same name-dropping power as HMS and suddenly changes admissions standards etc.
Click to expand...
Asperphys: Out of curiosity, do you see WashU's name recognition/prestige/badassness rising substantially in the future, leveling off, or falling? I ask because I know that ~10 years ago WashU had the #2 spot in the USNWR rankings, but has slid a tad since then.
 
termitechips said:
Asperphys: Out of curiosity, do you see WashU's name recognition/prestige/badassness rising substantially in the future, leveling off, or falling? I ask because I know that ~10 years ago WashU had the #2 spot in the USNWR rankings, but has slid a tad since then.
Click to expand...
That's a good question. I honestly don't know how we are gonna be ranked in the capricious USNWR system in the future. So I can't answer your question directly.
What I can say is that I don't expect WashU's reputation will fall substantially in the future. There is just too much money in the BJC/WashU/SLCH consortium for it to fail. We are currently expanding our medical facilities with most of the new buildings being done by 2015-2016. That's more operating rooms and inpatient units to capture a bigger volume of patients in the Midwest. Ditto for the expansion of the referral network, giving us more access to patients who could be airlifted to STL for advanced tertiary care. Research is also expanding with new lab bldgs cropping up all over the place.
As for the med school itself, nothing is static. Even the curriculum is changing. But like I stressed previously, nothing has been drastic as every minor change underwent some limited implementation and repeated evaluation before broad application (eg clinical mentoring for 1st years by 4th years to cover basic clinical skills for the H&P). It can only get better.
As for WashU's reputation when applying for residency, I thought that we did great overall. In my field, I saw 6/8 of my classmates in the same top 10 residency program interviews. We're as well represented as the students from the likes of HMS, Yale, Penn etc. Notice that I am citing where we interviewed, not where we matched bc the latter was determined by other factors besides prestige like preferred geography/location, significant other preferences etc. WashU's reputation in essence helped us get interviews, as much as the other big shot institutions helped their students. I hope that addressed your concerns to some degree. I'd be happy to clarify additional issues you may have.
 
Espadaleader said:
But in regards to the curriculum, especially the grading Wash U is a joke. I am just being honest. This is how people perceive the school in regards to the fact the students vote to keep grades when everybody else is voting to keep them out.
Click to expand...

Whoa there. I hardly think WashU's grading policy is a "joke." Whether one likes preclinical grading or not is a matter of personal preference. I, for one, think there are various merits to preclinical grading, many of which Asperphys pointed out. I don't think you can make sweeping generalizations about this matter.
 
Last edited:
blimpflimp said:
Whoa there. I hardly think WashU's grading policy is a "joke." Whether one likes preclinical grading or not is a matter of personal preference. I, for one, think there are various merits to preclinical grading, many of which Asperphys pointed out. I don't think you can make sweeping generalizations about this matter.
Click to expand...
I agree. There is a whole lot of generalization here by espadaleader. You can't say "people perceive" WashU as this and that, because you haven't talked to the majority of the people out there...your opinion is your opinion, as are your experiences, but you can't expand that to the applicant pool.

In regards to top applicants, WashU has their own measure, which fits with their way of teaching (massive amounts of information). Maybe that's a deterrent to some, but top applicants don't make top doctors. WashU picks people they believe they can help become top doctors.
 
Espadaleader said:
How can a school with only 3% Black students approve an affirmative action ban? A public school at that.
Click to expand...
Because it's a public school, it's accountable to the state, the state's legislature, and the state's voters, who do not want race-based affirmative action. Same goes for the University of California.
 
termitechips said:
Out of curiosity, do you see WashU's name recognition/prestige/badassness rising substantially in the future, leveling off, or falling? I ask because I know that ~10 years ago WashU had the #2 spot in the USNWR rankings, but has slid a tad since then.
Click to expand...

It's hard to predict the future, but it's fair to say that WashU has long-term stability. In terms of reputation, you can go back to surveys from 1971 and find that WashU was in the top 10 medical schools. Check out the rankings for yourself: http://bit.ly/1f4AAMK You can see that most of the top 10 back then are still top 10 today. Cornell dropped a bit, but that's it. The sliding from #2 to #6 is, I'm convinced, more a function of changes in USNWR algorithms than actual change in the reputation of the school. If you look at the raw reputation scores only (from surveys of other deans and residency directors nationally), you'll see that WashU has been stable for most of the past decade at about rank 5.

Stability not only describes the reputation of WashU, but also the institution as a whole. 1) The decision-making structures emphasize consensus-building and often result in a more conservative approach in policy (e.g. pass/fail). 2) The financial structure is minimally reliant on tuition, endowment income, and grant funding, and results in maximal security in times of economic recession and sequestration. (Compare against HMS, which is reliant on endowment, and had to beg its affiliated hospitals for special funding during the recession.) 3) There are no earthquakes in Missouri. The ground is stable. 4) That's all I got.
 
chronicidal said:
It's hard to predict the future, but it's fair to say that WashU has long-term stability. In terms of reputation, you can go back to surveys from 1971 and find that WashU was in the top 10 medical schools. Check out the rankings for yourself: http://bit.ly/1f4AAMK You can see that most of the top 10 back then are still top 10 today. Cornell dropped a bit, but that's it. The sliding from #2 to #6 is, I'm convinced, more a function of changes in USNWR algorithms than actual change in the reputation of the school. If you look at the raw reputation scores only (from surveys of other deans and residency directors nationally), you'll see that WashU has been stable for most of the past decade at about rank 5.

Stability not only describes the reputation of WashU, but also the institution as a whole. 1) The decision-making structures emphasize consensus-building and often result in a more conservative approach in policy (e.g. pass/fail). 2) The financial structure is minimally reliant on tuition, endowment income, and grant funding, and results in maximal security in times of economic recession and sequestration. (Compare against HMS, which is reliant on endowment, and had to beg its affiliated hospitals for special funding during the recession.) 3) There are no earthquakes in Missouri. The ground is stable. 4) That's all I got.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your analysis and views.

how do you get to look at the raw reputation scores? does it come with the subscription if you pay for the usnwr rankings?
 
termitechips said:
Thanks for your analysis and views.

how do you get to look at the raw reputation scores? does it come with the subscription if you pay for the usnwr rankings?
Click to expand...
yea
usnwr-rep-ranks.png
 
chronicidal said:
Stability not only describes the reputation of WashU, but also the institution as a whole. 1) The decision-making structures emphasize consensus-building and often result in a more conservative approach in policy (e.g. pass/fail). 2) The financial structure is minimally reliant on tuition, endowment income, and grant funding, and results in maximal security in times of economic recession and sequestration. (Compare against HMS, which is reliant on endowment, and had to beg its affiliated hospitals for special funding during the recession.) 3) There are no earthquakes in Missouri. The ground is stable. 4) That's all I got.
Click to expand...

Not so fast. :caution: The risk of earthquake in the greater St. Louis area (particularly in the southern part of the state) is a lot higher than you might think.
 
Espadaleader said:
Any school can select any student it wants. That's true. doesn't mean its the best move.
Click to expand...
Not the best move for whom? Judging by the caliber of its graduates, it seems to be working fine for WashU.
 
Last edited:
Can we expect the earliest WL movement to start around May 15th? Or does WashU sometimes admit students off the WL prior to that date?

Should we address update letters/LOIs to Dean Ratts? Should we send it to the Office of Admissions email address or upload it online? Thanks.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

wysdoc
2024-2025 Washington University in St. Louis
16 17 18 19 20
Replies
955
Views
311K
bananasundae3
B
wysdoc
2023-2024 Washington University in St. Louis
17 18 19 20 21
Replies
1K
Views
284K
derek dixon
derek dixon
wysdoc
2024-2025 Ponce (St. Louis)
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
297
Views
41K
dbqvic0129
D
wysdoc
2024-2025 Saint Louis University
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
499
Views
107K
Sue C
Sue C
wysdoc
2024-2025 University of Washington
10 11 12 13 14
Replies
680
Views
144K
stew_md
S
Top