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.
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.


The other factor that adds to stability is the fact that the med school at Wash U is their pride and joy. The university as a whole is certainly well-regarded, but there's no doubt that the medical school is their crowning jewel and they treat it appropriately. The chancellor of the entire university came to our orientation first year and told us as much. The reputation of the medical school raises the profile of the school as a whole (as opposed to places where the opposite is true) so Wash U is very motivated to do what it takes to keep the reputation up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The other factor that adds to stability is the fact that the med school at Wash U is their pride and joy. The university as a whole is certainly well-regarded, but there's no doubt that the medical school is their crowning jewel and they treat it appropriately. The chancellor of the entire university came to our orientation first year and told us as much. The reputation of the medical school raises the profile of the school as a whole (as opposed to places where the opposite is true) so Wash U is very motivated to do what it takes to keep the reputation up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A corollary is that WashU is very motivated to refrain from giving prominence to things that might drag its reputation down. If it's not excellent, then WashU doesn't really want to deal with it. One example on the undergrad campus is that the department of sociology was disbanded altogether 25 years ago (plans to bring it back are just starting) when its big names left. The business school is a so-called embarrassment, and I promise that there won't be an MD-MBA program in the near future. There's no WashU school of nursing or pharmacy, but the School of Medicine houses top programs in physical therapy (#3) and occupational therapy (#2). The MPH program is new and not (yet) excellent, and so even though it is run out of the School of Social Work (which is #1 among such schools), there is still no MD-MPH program. Instead you can pick from an MPHS, MSCI, or MA to go with your MD. Also look at which specialties are not department-level at WashU and compare that to rankings of top 10 programs in that field. The correlation is not a coincidence (though you could argue it's a chicken-egg problem). Examples: emergency medicine, physical medicine and rehabilitation, dermatology, primary care, urology. The bright side is that you can be assured that if a program or department exists by itself, it's probably excellent.
 
A corollary is that WashU is very motivated to refrain from giving prominence to things that might drag its reputation down. If it's not excellent, then WashU doesn't really want to deal with it. One example on the undergrad campus is that the department of sociology was disbanded altogether 25 years ago (plans to bring it back are just starting) when its big names left. The business school is a so-called embarrassment, and I promise that there won't be an MD-MBA program in the near future. There's no WashU school of nursing or pharmacy, but the School of Medicine houses top programs in physical therapy (#3) and occupational therapy (#2). The MPH program is new and not (yet) excellent, and so even though it is run out of the School of Social Work (which is #1 among such schools), there is still no MD-MPH program. Instead you can pick from an MPHS, MSCI, or MA to go with your MD. Also look at which specialties are not department-level at WashU and compare that to rankings of top 10 programs in that field. The correlation is not a coincidence (though you could argue it's a chicken-egg problem). Examples: emergency medicine, physical medicine and rehabilitation, dermatology, primary care, urology. The bright side is that you can be assured that if a program or department exists by itself, it's probably excellent.
Interesting. Did the same thing happen to the dental school?

I experienced a smaller scale version of this. In my PhD department, they'd rather let faculty go when their grants run out and leave the labs empty than keep hiring on people who do not publish in high profile journals.
 
Interesting. Did the same thing happen to the dental school?

I experienced a smaller scale version of this. In my PhD department, they'd rather let faculty go when their grants run out and leave the labs empty than keep hiring on people who do not publish in high profile journals.

Oh, yes, how could I forget about the dental school!

"In June 1989 the Board of Trustees moved to close the Washington University School of Dental Medicine. The decision was based upon budget deficits; increasing tuition rates; competition from less-expensive, state-funded dental schools; limited outside funding; and a declining student pool." http://beckerexhibits.wustl.edu/dental/history/index.html
 
A corollary is that WashU is very motivated to refrain from giving prominence to things that might drag its reputation down. If it's not excellent, then WashU doesn't really want to deal with it. One example on the undergrad campus is that the department of sociology was disbanded altogether 25 years ago (plans to bring it back are just starting) when its big names left. The business school is a so-called embarrassment, and I promise that there won't be an MD-MBA program in the near future. There's no WashU school of nursing or pharmacy, but the School of Medicine houses top programs in physical therapy (#3) and occupational therapy (#2). The MPH program is new and not (yet) excellent, and so even though it is run out of the School of Social Work (which is #1 among such schools), there is still no MD-MPH program. Instead you can pick from an MPHS, MSCI, or MA to go with your MD. Also look at which specialties are not department-level at WashU and compare that to rankings of top 10 programs in that field. The correlation is not a coincidence (though you could argue it's a chicken-egg problem). Examples: emergency medicine, physical medicine and rehabilitation, dermatology, primary care, urology. The bright side is that you can be assured that if a program or department exists by itself, it's probably excellent.
I can only speak for Dermatology but, two reasons why Derm can stay as a division within Internal Medicine:
  • 1) it can bring in quite a bit of extra revenue to the IM dept. which it can then spend on overall IM operations, and so IM is sometimes hesitant to let Derm go and let it become it's own dept.
  • 2) Tradition, esp. at more conservative institutions in which Dermatology falls as an organ system under IM. In fact many of the prominent derms in the field, completed both an IM residency and then a Derm residency right after.
WashU's Derm residency program (which is a division under IM) has all 3 ACGME fellowships in Pedi Derm, Dermpath, and Mohs/Procedural Derm, which even some Derm Departments don't have.
 
Last edited:
do any students know what the potential waitlist movement might look like this year?
 
Regarding grades, Dr. Diemer (Assistant Dean of Career Counseling, who writes the Dean's Letters for residency apps) said that when considering whether or not to make second year pass/fail, they recalculated class ranks for previous years (can't remember how many, sorry) as if preclinical years had been completely pass/fail, and not a single person's rank (i.e. top/middle/bottom third) changed.

Personally, I prefer one year of true pass/fail plus one year of grades over preclinical curricula that is completely pass/fail but with internal rankings (like Baylor).
 
Has it ever been released how many people are on the waitlist?

*not asking how many get off of it
 
Regarding grades, Dr. Diemer (Assistant Dean of Career Counseling, who writes the Dean's Letters for residency apps) said that when considering whether or not to make second year pass/fail, they recalculated class ranks for previous years (can't remember how many, sorry) as if preclinical years had been completely pass/fail, and not a single person's rank (i.e. top/middle/bottom third) changed.

Personally, I prefer one year of true pass/fail plus one year of grades over preclinical curricula that is completely pass/fail but with internal rankings (like Baylor).
Pass/Fail isn't a ranking problem, it's an internal competition problem. A class that is graded P/F will react differently than a class that is graded H/HP/P/F. The second option just turns a class to being more neurotic, as the class is already a bunch of high achieving individuals (esp. at WashU) to begin with. The problem is that as a whole, residencies have turned to USMLE Step 1 scores which are standardized, not basic science grades, as a metric for basic science knowledge. That wasn't the intention of the licensing exam, but that is what it has become. This exam plays a MUCH huger role in the barrier to entry for certain specialties, than it did decades ago.

Basic science grades are a measure of how well you did on exams written by PhD faculty (many of whom could care less if their exam questions are formatted in the way the USMLE tests), so it ends up being more rote memorization, short questions, and 1 step thinking, rather than clinical vignettes with conceptual application and 2 step questions. Even when MD lecturers contribute questions, they also don't write USMLE style questions due to clinical responsibilities, unless they're very dedicated and they may not even know the new format of the USMLE. Really the only real standardized questions available are NBME Subject Exams in the basic sciences, which are used by only a few schools (at this time).

A Pass/Fail system allows a student to use board review books (like Pathoma, etc.) without having to sacrifice a grade in a course bc he/she chose not to get too wrapped up in Professor emphasized material that may not be boards relevant. Baylor happens to have a 1.5 yr. curriculum, arranged almost entirely in organ system blocks, in which they are not required to take Step 1 before entering clerkships and get a long time to study, and their faculty are known to actively incorporate board review material into their curriculum, hence their stellar average board score. The comparison between WashU and Baylor isn't valid.
 
Pass/Fail isn't a ranking problem, it's an internal competition problem. A class that is graded P/F will react differently than a class that is graded H/HP/P/F. The second option just turns a class to being more neurotic, as the class is already a bunch of high achieving individuals (esp. at WashU) to begin with. The problem is that as a whole, residencies have turned to USMLE Step 1 scores which are standardized, not basic science grades, as a metric for basic science knowledge. That wasn't the intention of the licensing exam, but that is what it has become. This exam plays a MUCH huger role in the barrier to entry for certain specialties, than it did decades ago.

Basic science grades are a measure of how well you did on exams written by PhD faculty (many of whom could care less if their exam questions are formatted in the way the USMLE tests), so it ends up being more rote memorization, short questions, and 1 step thinking, rather than clinical vignettes with conceptual application and 2 step questions. Even when MD lecturers contribute questions, they also don't write USMLE style questions due to clinical responsibilities, unless they're very dedicated and they may not even know the new format of the USMLE. Really the only real standardized questions available are NBME Subject Exams in the basic sciences, which are used by only a few schools (at this time).

A Pass/Fail system allows a student to use board review books (like Pathoma, etc.) without having to sacrifice a grade in a course bc he/she chose not to get too wrapped up in Professor emphasized material that may not be boards relevant. Baylor happens to have a 1.5 yr. curriculum, arranged almost entirely in organ system blocks, in which they are not required to take Step 1 before entering clerkships and get a long time to study, and their faculty are known to actively incorporate board review material into their curriculum, hence their stellar average board score. The comparison between WashU and Baylor isn't valid.

Good points, but Wash U doesn't do too poorly on the boards either, with a 241 average each of the past 2 years. Yes, Wash U does start with the highest median MCAT score (by 1 pt), but their current curriculum does a good job of getting the most out of their students still.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Good points, but Wash U doesn't do too poorly on the boards either, with a 241 average each of the past 2 years. Yes, Wash U does start with the highest median MCAT score (by 1 pt), but their current curriculum does a good job of getting the most out of their students still.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I would say that's more a function of the standardized test taking ability of the students themselves, not the actual curriculum. Not surprising with students with the top MCAT scores in the nation, from top notch undergrad institutions like Penn, Harvard, Stanford, etc.

Speaks nothing as to where they actual basic science curriculum at WashU prepares students well for Step 1, or whether students along with going thru coursework studying, have to prepare for Step 1 topics on their own, since WashU doesn't "teach to the test".

Compare this to Baylor with a lower average MCAT score, but whose students testify to how well their curriculum prepares them for Step 1 AND is only 1.5 years vs. WashU being a full 2 years with a LOT more class contact hours.
 
Last edited:
I would say that's more a function of the standardized test taking ability of the students themselves, not the actual curriculum. Not surprising with students with the top MCAT scores in the nation, from top notch undergrad institutions like Penn, Harvard, Stanford, etc.

Speaks nothing as to where they actual basic science curriculum at WashU prepares students well for Step 1, or whether students along with going thru coursework studying, have to prepare for Step 1 topics on their own, since WashU doesn't "teach to the test".

Compare this to Baylor with a lower average MCAT score, but whose students testify to how well their curriculum prepares them for Step 1 AND is only 1.5 years vs. WashU being a full 2 years with a LOT more class contact hours.

I'm not sure what you suggest be done about this. It's not as if WashU is producing incompetent physicians or is holding students back from matching to dream residencies. Students here are doing quite well.

There are differences between WashU and other programs. Every school has its strengths and weakness, yet you are seemingly determined to point out every scratch. Please let the accepted students decide what the best fit is for them. We would like to welcome our future classmates to a positive environment, rather than have the focus centered around the comments of a single individual.

In other words, we hope the students on this thread are excited about WashU and decide to come
here. If you guys have any questions please let us know!
 
I'm not sure what you suggest be done about this. It's not as if WashU is producing incompetent physicians or is holding students back from matching to dream residencies. Students here are doing quite well.

There are differences between WashU and other programs. Every school has its strengths and weakness, yet you are seemingly determined to point out every scratch. Please let the accepted students decide what the best fit is for them. We would like to welcome our future classmates to a positive environment, rather than have the focus centered around the comments of a single individual.

In other words, we hope the students on this thread are excited about WashU and decide to come
here. If you guys have any questions please let us know!
Follow the entire back and forth from Meihua's comment down. As Meihua said, if what Dr. Diemer said is correct, regarding not a single person's rank (top 1/3, middle 1/3, bottom 1/3) changing after recalculating ranks, with MS-2 being pass/fail, then it serves no purpose at all to grade MS-2.

It will however, lower any competitive feelings or quibbling over grades, help overall mental health of the student body, and decrease the overall neuroticism of the class. Wash U can easily change grading, curriculum length, organization, etc. if it wants to. Those are quite easy things to fix, which is likely what they are starting to do now, to be implemented later. I don't understand why you're so hurt by that. MS-2 grading affecting class rank to a measurable degree has never really been the issue.
 
Last edited:
Follow the entire back and forth from Meihua's comment down. As Meihua said, if what Dr. Diemer said is correct, regarding not a single person's rank (top 1/3, middle 1/3, bottom 1/3) changing after recalculating ranks, with MS-2 being pass/fail, then it serves no purpose at all to grade MS-2.

It will however, lower any competitive feelings or quibbling over grades, help overall mental health of the student body, and decrease the overall neuroticism of the class. Wash U can easily change grading, curriculum length, organization, etc. if it wants to. Those are quite easy things to fix, which is likely what they are starting to do now, to be implemented later. I don't understand why you're so hurt by that. MS-2 grading affecting class rank to a measurable degree has never really been the issue.

Bottom line is, no one knows what wash u's curriculum except the students who have gone there, and most of us like it quite a bit. It's not for everyone, perhaps, but it has been working very well preparing students for both Step 1 and clinical medicine and so I don't think the administration sees any reason to change it. As the old saying goes, "if it ain't broke don't fix it." 🙂


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Bottom line is, no one knows what wash u's curriculum except the students who have gone there, and most of us like it quite a bit. It's not for everyone, perhaps, but it has been working very well preparing students for both Step 1 and clinical medicine and so I don't think the administration sees any reason to change it. As the old saying goes, "if it ain't broke don't fix it." 🙂

Correct. Right now for those entering it will likely not change and stay: MS-1 as P/F, MS-2 as H/HP/P/F, with the basic science curriculum staying the full 2 years vs. 1.5 yrs, with a lot of lecture contact hours: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...plication-thread.895409/page-10#post-13603173

Whether that's actually conducive to one's ability to score well on Step 1 and whether H/HP/P/F increases neuroticism unnecessarily, is up to the applicant to decide.
 
Here is what I've been wondering: how much of the outcome (Step scores, match etc.) is due to student's own abilities/motivation and how much is due to curriculum/peers etc? In other words, if someone accepted to WashU is presumably capable of performing at WashU student level (at least WashU adcoms thought so), will he/she be able to perform at that level elsewhere? Or does the school give you just enough of a push to take you to the top?
Of course, seeing as the null hypothesis is hard/impossible to prove this becomes a merely rhetorical question.
 
Here is what I've been wondering: how much of the outcome (Step scores, match etc.) is due to student's own abilities/motivation and how much is due to curriculum/peers etc? In other words, if someone accepted to WashU is presumably capable of performing at WashU student level (at least WashU adcoms thought so), will he/she be able to perform at that level elsewhere? Or does the school give you just enough of a push to take you to the top?
Of course, seeing as the null hypothesis is hard/impossible to prove this becomes a merely rhetorical question.

I can only answer in this way: I can't think of any other possible system/environment in which I could perform any better than I do here. Wash U is definitely the best place for me and has allowed me to reach my full potential as a medical student


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Here is what I've been wondering: how much of the outcome (Step scores, match etc.) is due to student's own abilities/motivation and how much is due to curriculum/peers etc? In other words, if someone accepted to WashU is presumably capable of performing at WashU student level (at least WashU adcoms thought so), will he/she be able to perform at that level elsewhere? Or does the school give you just enough of a push to take you to the top?
Of course, seeing as the null hypothesis is hard/impossible to prove this becomes a merely rhetorical question.

Here's a study at the undergraduate level tracking how students end up when they got into an elite place but chose to go elsewhere: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/dalekrueger_More_Selective_College.pdf The conclusion there was that where you go doesn't matter for the outcome of income post-graduation, unless you're from some disadvantaged demographic. The authors speculate that perhaps the networks that elite colleges open up to people (or other such advantages) would otherwise be unavailable to people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Here's a study at the medical school level (in Canada) tracking how students who got in to McMaster University but chose to go elsewhere did on national boards (MCCQE): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23212501 The result was that students who chose to go to McMaster did significantly worse on boards (the Canadian equivalents of steps 1 and 2) than their also-accepted colleagues who matriculated elsewhere. This result suggests that differences do arise, either from self-selection in matriculating to different schools and/or from different curricula. It's possible that all the best students opt to go to better schools, like Toronto or McGill. But it's also very possible they have a weird curriculum that's not conducive to excelling on the boards. After all, this is the birthplace of such paradigm-shifting ideas as EBM, PBL, and MMI.

The question of the value of a specific school comes up frequently, and economists have developed models to think about this. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/10/economic_models_1.html I think a reasonable position is that a lot of value attributed to specific schools is selection (who gets in and who chooses to attend), let's say a third. This is the "ability bias" model. Much of the rest of the value attributed to a school is "pure signaling". This is like when you hear people talk about the value of "the Harvard brand name" or the value of getting a bachelor's degree. The implication is that what you're learning at Harvard or at any college is not necessarily useful, but the mere fact that you came from Harvard or that you hold a piece of paper with a fancy seal on it retains value in society (and for your future prospects for employment, marriage, etc.). On the medical school level, this is like when you have a curriculum that brands itself as rigorous and robust, but much of that knowledge does not in fact make you a better doctor. Nevertheless, the fact that you wasted some time and managed to survive such a curriculum at all and have some arbitrary letters on your transcript showing such provides value. Let's say this factor, "signaling," contributes also a third to the differences observed between graduates of different schools. Finally, the last third is "human capital", that what you see is what you get in terms of differences attributed to education. A school taught you directly applicable job skills and set you up to do well on boards or whatever.

I kind of view my experience in medical school in this way. I chose to go to a school that has a strong brand name within medicine because I know society values such things and it can help me get an extra look down the road. I expect that some portion, but certainly not all, of the things I learn at this school will directly make me a better doctor than I would be coming from some worse alternative school. I also expect that the ability that I came in with, e.g. my work ethic and background knowledge, will contribute significantly to outcomes such as how well I do on boards.

The answer to your question is: it is a mix; one would not do exactly the same in different places. I can certainly think of MANY alternative systems and environments in which I might perform worse/better or be more/less stressed. But it's in my nature to question the status quo and identify places where things could be improved. The average person is more complacent.
 
Here is what I've been wondering: how much of the outcome (Step scores, match etc.) is due to student's own abilities/motivation and how much is due to curriculum/peers etc? In other words, if someone accepted to WashU is presumably capable of performing at WashU student level (at least WashU adcoms thought so), will he/she be able to perform at that level elsewhere? Or does the school give you just enough of a push to take you to the top?
Of course, seeing as the null hypothesis is hard/impossible to prove this becomes a merely rhetorical question.
The tuition you're paying at WashU is for the brand name of WashU along with it's clinical (Barnes-Jewish and St. Louis Children's) and research infrastructure prowess that comes with it. It's not paying the for high quality PhD professors who want to help you to do well on the boards. Their employment does not hinge on how well you do on USMLE Step 1, and thus there is no incentive for them to tailor their lectures to include USMLE Step 1 relevant material. Their employment largely hinges on their ability to bring in research grants and to publish in high-impact journals.

That being said, assuming your abilities/motivations are the same regardless of the medical school you're present at, it does help for professors to incorporate boards relevant material in their lectures, for the simple purpose of repetition of exposure, so that when you review later, it truly is in fact, just a review, and not learning things you haven't seen before, for the first time. It helps when professors take the time to write USMLE Step 1 style questions, although the best surrogate is using NBME shelf exams for the basic sciences, so that students get a good idea of what boards questions really look like, and how to start thinking in the way the boards wants you to think.

Several schools have reported in the literature higher USMLE Step 1 scores after incorporating
-- a more integrated, organ systems-based curriculum (vs. by traditional basic science subjects)
-- less real-time contact lecture hours, rather than overloading in didactics from 9 to 5
-- more active learning (i.e. PBL) although this varies
-- writing test questions that emphasize concepts, application, and critical thinking rather than purely rote memorization of minutiae
-- using NBME shelf exams which allows students to actively assess how well they're doing with regards to preparing for Step 1

I would add having enough time scheduled after classes end to be able to review, go through question resources, and cement the material is also critical. All these things help make preparing for USMLE Step 1 easier -- as demonstrated by Baylor which has one of the highest Step scores relative to it's matriculating MCAT/GPA. The average MCAT for WashU is 38, the average MCAT for Baylor is 35.

If your basic science curriculum is 1.5 yrs. vs. 2 (most likely by eliminating redundant topics), then you get nearly six months of early elective time or research vs. your peers, which would undoubtedly help you in the match for competitive specialties. I think Duke goes even further and cuts basic sciences down to 1 year, but most would say that's a little bit extreme, not to mention they take USMLE Step 1 after completing clerkships during their research year in MS-3.
 
Last edited:
@chronicidal and @DermViser , thank you so much for your thorough and insightful responses!
I can only answer in this way: I can't think of any other possible system/environment in which I could perform any better than I do here. Wash U is definitely the best place for me and has allowed me to reach my full potential as a medical student
I have no doubt whatsoever that you're being perfectly honest in your response and that WashU is a great school. But the problem is, you can only go to one school (well, normally), so you can't really know whether you could do better elsewhere, you know what I mean? 🙂

In any case, the fact that WashU students are so enthusiastic about their school speaks volumes about the school. Thank you guys, you've been awesome!
 
Withdrew. I'd been debating this decision for quite a while, and WashU was certainly hard to let go of. It's a great school that just doesn't seem to be the right fit for me.

Best of luck to those hoping to get accepted to WashU!
 
Just got in off the wait list. Literally can't believe this is happening. Have wanted to go to this school since I was a little kid.

And so it begins. Were you notified by email, phone, status update? My heart is going to be pounding away every time my phone buzzes...
 
Here is what I've been wondering: how much of the outcome (Step scores, match etc.) is due to student's own abilities/motivation and how much is due to curriculum/peers etc? In other words, if someone accepted to WashU is presumably capable of performing at WashU student level (at least WashU adcoms thought so), will he/she be able to perform at that level elsewhere? Or does the school give you just enough of a push to take you to the top?
Of course, seeing as the null hypothesis is hard/impossible to prove this becomes a merely rhetorical question.

The school provides the framework to do well, but more importantly, the fellow students at WashU are the real catalysts for your success (I was a lazy one). Your peers who excel in research, publication, and public service motivate you to do more and better. Having almost every single one of your classmates engage in research the summer after 1st year is an example; seeing your classmates know stuff during the incessant pimping by attendings pushes you to study harder during M3 is another. There is surprisingly no competitiveness. If there is, it's just in your head. WashU has a phenomenal group of med students, and when you get in, you can be both the motivator and the motivated.
 
First post, but I got the call I was accepted off the waitlist yesterday, hadn't provided an update yet as I was waiting for my final grades to be posted.

To answer the other question my status did change on the website, nothing saying I was accepted or anything but the option to reaffirm wait list interest is gone
 
Set on washu, and on meeting everyone next year. GL to those in waiting.

Will I be seeing any Canadians in my class?
 
Just to feed into the frenzy, I called admissions the other day and they said they usually accept 50-100 people off the wait list. They wouldn't tell me how many people were actually on the wait list, though.
 
Accepted off of the waitlist just now-- but am not attending as I just found out about a scholarship offer elsewhere yesterday. Didn't send any update letter. Best of luck to everyone waiting!
 
Last edited:
Accepted today as well! So Ecstatic 🙂 Does anyone know if we need to submit any fees or anything? The dean mentioned something about fedex-ing a packet of info that we need to turn in within 24 hours, but then she said we have until Monday to decide so now I'm slightly confused..? But sooo thrilled to be attending this amazing school in the fall!
 
So I was accepted today and given a scholarship offer as well 😀 (weird right?!) which is making my decision super difficult now. Can anyone tell me if there's a Facebook group for Wash U accepted students and if so give me a link or something to it? I thought I saw one but now can't find it for the life of me. Getting on there would at least give me some semblance of knowing anyone else who goes there / will be going there and should help me make my decision.
 
So I was accepted today and given a scholarship offer as well 😀 (weird right?!) which is making my decision super difficult now. Can anyone tell me if there's a Facebook group for Wash U accepted students and if so give me a link or something to it? I thought I saw one but now can't find it for the life of me. Getting on there would at least give me some semblance of knowing anyone else who goes there / will be going there and should help me make my decision.

It's here.
 
Top