We is smart.
- Thread starter Passion
- Start date
Probably because she's from MIT, and was thus applying to the grad school for Computer Science/EE. They are in the process of making amazing suff, such as a sensor that you attach to your cell phone, where you control the phone with hand gestures while it's in your pocket. So yeah, some programs are ridiculously hard to get into at UW, others not so much (hence me graduating from there).
Last edited:
sarktastic
New Fish
Uh huh... but... is she chineeze or japaneeze?
Full disclosure.
uzi
New Fish
One of you smert fuckers needs to explain how UW is 14th in the world as a "Global University" but 48th as a "National University"
Different set of measures.
HTH
Can't believe that wasn't obvious.
Well he supposedly went to Oregon... a school that might not be in the top 100 on either list...
creepycoug
Well-known poster
Just because I'm a little slow ... You're joking right?
creepycoug
Well-known poster
No you don't. You know an Asian girl who told you a great story.
creepycoug
Well-known poster
One of you smert fuckers needs to explain how UW is 14th in the world as a "Global University" but 48th as a "National University"
@Tequilla
He can explain it. I seem to recall him talking about this years ago...something about the National rankings take all kinds of bullshit like acceptance rate and class size and other useless shit into account, which puts UW into solid top tier school, but nothing super special. But when you look at a school for award winning faculty, reputation among other academis, and research contributed to different fields (the non bullshit indicators of schools), UW is a powerhouse. Or some such shit. He can explain this better than me. I'm jalf drunk already.
#res#lyfe
Let me help Swaye. It's the least I can do for all of your visual contributions.
That's like evaluating a track team with a bunch of slow kids who run on a great home track and have great coaches, and comparing them to another track team with faster kids who also run on a great home track and have great coaches.
Academically, UW has a great home track and good/great coaches, but the actual athletes are relatively average. One track team is better than the other. The world rankings focus on the track and the coaches. The US News National University ranking factors in the athletes. It's that simple.
UW's admission hurdles are fine, but they are, as you said, nothing special and far from elite.
I would avoid Tequillahomer on this topic.
finally, i would not call acceptance rates and class size bullshit. there are instances when it is - like if a school has a low acceptance rate because of artificially inflated application #s, and the GPA and test scores are nonetheless still mediocre, then, yeah, that's not all that meaningful. likewise, if you have small classes full of stupid people, then that doesn't matter.
but there's no question that low admit rates and class size typically mean something. I've always said, the killer at UW is those first two years when you are in classes that now don't even fit into Kane's largest lecture halls, and your kid is watching a monitor in the hall way. they need to address that in a big way. the place has too many undergrads. it's that simple.
Last edited:
One of you smert fuckers needs to explain how UW is 14th in the world as a "Global University" but 48th as a "National University"
@Tequilla
He can explain it. I seem to recall him talking about this years ago...something about the National rankings take all kinds of bullshit like acceptance rate and class size and other useless shit into account, which puts UW into solid top tier school, but nothing super special. But when you look at a school for award winning faculty, reputation among other academis, and research contributed to different fields (the non bullshit indicators of schools), UW is a powerhouse. Or some such shit. He can explain this better than me. I'm jalf drunk already.
#res#lyfe
Let me help Swaye. It's the least I can do for all of your visual contributions.
That's like evaluating a track team with a bunch of slow kids who run on a great home track and have great coaches, and comparing them to another track team with faster kids who also run on a great home track and have great coaches.
Academically, UW has a great home track and good/great coaches, but the actual athletes are relatively average. One track team is better than the other. The world rankings focus on the track and the coaches. The US News National University ranking factors in the athletes. It's that simple.
UW's admission hurdles are fine, but they are, as you said, nothing special and far from elite.
I would avoid Tequillahomer on this topic.
finally, i would not call acceptance rates and class size bullshit. there are instances when it is - like if a school has a low acceptance rate because of artificially inflated application #s, and the GPA and test scores are nonetheless still mediocre, then, yeah, that's not all that meaningful. likewise, if you have small classes full of stupid people, then that doesn't matter.
but there's no question that low admit rates and class size typically mean something. I've always said, the killer at UW is those first two years when you are in classes that now don't even fit into Kane's largest lecture halls, and your kid is watching a monitor in the hall way. they need to address that in a big way. the place has too many undergrads. it's that simple.
Good analogy. Our facilities and track coaches are in the worlds elite. Our track runners are average to slightly above. So simple even a drunk Injun can grasp it. I still wanted to see @Tequilla write on this, but I guess he got Ebola.
In your typical Washington 3A high school, ~20 kids, whose grades range from C average to A average, will go to WSU/Western/Eastern (mostly Wazzu). Some kids who are 4.0 students will choose to go to Wazzu because they will most likely get a big scholarship. Only about 5-10 kids at the most will go to UW, and they will either have perfect grades, or mediocre grades but great SAT scores. The most butthurt kids of all are the ones who were A/B students but didn't participate in anything and get rejected to go to UW. They become the biggest Cuogs of all, along with the A students who "NEVER APPLIED TO UW BECAUSE UW FUCKING SUCKS AND IS OVERRATED" because their parents are Wazzu alumni and forbid them to.
That might illustrate where UW is as a school in this region.
That might illustrate where UW is as a school in this region.
creepycoug
Well-known poster
One of you smert fuckers needs to explain how UW is 14th in the world as a "Global University" but 48th as a "National University"
@Tequilla
He can explain it. I seem to recall him talking about this years ago...something about the National rankings take all kinds of bullshit like acceptance rate and class size and other useless shit into account, which puts UW into solid top tier school, but nothing super special. But when you look at a school for award winning faculty, reputation among other academis, and research contributed to different fields (the non bullshit indicators of schools), UW is a powerhouse. Or some such shit. He can explain this better than me. I'm jalf drunk already.
#res#lyfe
Let me help Swaye. It's the least I can do for all of your visual contributions.
That's like evaluating a track team with a bunch of slow kids who run on a great home track and have great coaches, and comparing them to another track team with faster kids who also run on a great home track and have great coaches.
Academically, UW has a great home track and good/great coaches, but the actual athletes are relatively average. One track team is better than the other. The world rankings focus on the track and the coaches. The US News National University ranking factors in the athletes. It's that simple.
UW's admission hurdles are fine, but they are, as you said, nothing special and far from elite.
I would avoid Tequillahomer on this topic.
finally, i would not call acceptance rates and class size bullshit. there are instances when it is - like if a school has a low acceptance rate because of artificially inflated application #s, and the GPA and test scores are nonetheless still mediocre, then, yeah, that's not all that meaningful. likewise, if you have small classes full of stupid people, then that doesn't matter.
but there's no question that low admit rates and class size typically mean something. I've always said, the killer at UW is those first two years when you are in classes that now don't even fit into Kane's largest lecture halls, and your kid is watching a monitor in the hall way. they need to address that in a big way. the place has too many undergrads. it's that simple.
Good analogy. Our facilities and track coaches are in the worlds elite. Our track runners are average to slightly above. So simple even a drunk Injun can grasp it. I still wanted to see @Tequilla write on this, but I guess he got Ebola.
@Tequilla IS the ebola.
HTH
creepycoug
Well-known poster
In terms of the region, there is no doubt ... UW is the school among large universities. The academic talent pool is a lot deeper at a place like Whitman, but that's apples and assholes.
Speaking of assholes - notwithstanding TexasTony's rejection-fueled rants on Middlebury Bob's choice of schooling, the high end LACs are a completely different animal (and by "different" I mean generally better) because there are simply ZERO kids at your college - in any class - who don't meet the following two descriptions: (1) very, very smart and accomplished, took very hard courses in high school and generally have the academic goods; and (2) are working their asses off all the time and take their shit seriously.
The thing that happens in small schools full of smart kids is that it forces the issue. There is no place to hide, and they don't have easy courses and if you don't belong there it shows right away and you blow up.
At UW back in the day, if you weren't smart enough to get through, say, QM 201 (pre-req. stats classs for the biz school), you could satisfy it in 50 other (and easier) ways, including this eeezy, peezy japaneezy Social Stats class taught in the Sosh department. Every dumb fucking girl I knew who couldn't handle QM 201 took THAT class and 4.0'd it. That class does not exist at Whitman, nor do the students who need it.
The only way you get away from that at the big publics are the ones that are so overwhelmed with applications (UCLA and Berkeley and Virginia mostly) that you can legitimately infer that the dipshit factor is negligible (sans the athletes of course - let's not forget that Marshawn Lynch is a Berkeley man)
The funny thing is, you actually believe the bullshit you just wrote.
I agree that UW is somewhat overrated, most of the students there (at least in my experience) thought they were smart simply because they were a UW undergrad, and that UW has nothing to say to schools like Virginia. At UW one can take some easy A classes to pad their gpa's (hell I did that a quarter or two). But I just like to be a myopic douchebag and compare UW to all the other public schools in the Northwest.
One opinion I have that probably won't be popular is that in my department at UW, the non-white kids were constantly paraded around by the faculty for graduating with a 3.2 and were from south Seattle, whereas white students like myself who were 3.8+ graduates with honors were seen by the faculty as "Well of course you did this, you have so much more privilege than these other kids." Fuck that.
Dennis_DeYoung
New Fish
Using undergrad quality to approximate the quality of a University is SunnyDodgetFS.
The end.
The end.