https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/apply/class-2023-profile
As usual, summer melt has adjusted the stats a bit. 6.2% admit rate and 81% yield as opposed to 5.9% and 83% shared earlier on an unofficial basis and reported in the Maroon.
https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2019/7/11/yield-rate-rises/
https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2019/4/1/uchicago-acceptance-rate-drops-record-low/
The geographical distribution from the North Central and Northeast is familiar to this long-ago alumnus. What seems remarkable is the 60% varsity sports and 25% theater participation rates. There seems to be a shift away from the exclusively sedentary cerebral types.
I like that they included a range in addition to the middle 50% for scores.
The 60% varsity sports is up from 53% last year. A notable jump.
I can only speculate as to what those numbers might mean. To what extent, if any, are athletes being given preferences in admission? Is it merely that a certain kind of very good and very focussed student nowadays also tends to play a sport on the side, having gained admission fair and square for the essential reasons?
Doing anything seriously and intensely requires discipline and fortitude - qualities essential to studiousness. Once upon a time I was a better student than ballplayer, but playing ball was also part of my life, and I think I benefited from it. The problem arises, as Hutchins knew, when the tail wags the dog.
It would be interesting to know - and someone here may know - what percentage of these Chicago athletes are recruited as such. We know from that Harvard study (cited in a previous thread) that recruited athletes comprise approximately 10 percent of the Harvard student body. The Chicago figure must be a fraction of this. I expect the statistics, if they were available for Chicago, would reveal some level of preference.
We know that the preferences given to Harvard’s recruited athletes are extremely great. Of all Harvard applicants in the middling academic category 79.5 percent of the athletes get admitted, whereas the figure for what are called non-ALDC kids (that is, applicants who are not athletes, not legacies, not extremely rich - and hence ticketed for future donations - and not children of faculty) is a paltry 2.4 percent. At the next lowest academic rating 79 percent of athletes are still being admitted, whereas virtually no non-ALDC are admitted.
At Harvard being able to throw a ball or swing a racket is your ticket to ride. I would be shocked and very disappointed if anything like that is the case at Chicago.
I have copies of each incoming class profile from the past 4 years, and varsity athletics has been measured at over 50% the entire time. But it jumped 7 points for Class of '23. Theater has also jumped from about 17% to 25%.
I wonder if the shift up has been a result of TO.
Also important are the increasing number of parents who are aware of the outsized role that athletics play in admission so are encouraging/forcing/cajoling their kids into sports. Of all the acquaintances we have that have degrees from top US colleges, almost all are borderline forcing their kids to play at least one sport. Some are even very strategic about what sports have the highest chance of helping admissions.
As cynical as I think that approach is, I can’t disagree with their assessment or the results so far. For the families and kids we know well enough to have a good idea of their stats, grades and abilities of the kids the two biggest factors in gaining admission to top colleges have been whether the kid was in private school and a certain level athlete. The local expensive private prep school has a fantastic guidance department and does some sort of magic to get their kids into colleges at least a couple of tiers above what the kid would have experienced had they had the same record but graduated from the public schools. Similar story with the top athletes.
The lower limits of ACT/SAT (20/1020) are surprisingly low.
@makemesmart those “lower limits” haven’t budged in 4 years, even with the revised scale for the SAT. Also, the new TO policy probably renders them completely irrelevant.
Do those ranges include the scores of matriculants who applied TO?
Some TO schools require TO applicants to submit an official score upon matriculation…then when reporting stats these schools have test scores for all.
UChicago does NOT require that you report a score upon matriculating if you apply TO.
If that is the case, who would submit such low scores AFTER TO was implemented?
We know Chicago gives top recruits a sort of “likely letters”, seeing the extremely low test scores of matriculating students, it is more than likely Chicago is giving huge preferential treatment to athletes as well. Not pointing fingers, another sign of Chicago entering the elite class, I guess.
“If that is the case, who would submit such low scores AFTER TO was implemented?”
- The most likely didn't. As mentioned upthread, that low limit hasn't budged in years.
“We know Chicago gives top recruits a sort of “likely letters”, seeing the extremely low test scores of matriculating students, it is more than likely Chicago is giving huge preferential treatment to athletes as well. Not pointing fingers, another sign of Chicago entering the elite class, I guess.”
- Other parents of RA will attest that those scores are well below UChicago's athletic average. In fact, they are below the national averages of those tests at this point. Very doubtful that an athlete with a 20 ACT will be recruited by another elite school but things might be different at D1. UChicago is D3.
@marlowe1 and @JBStillFlying - wow, the percentage of varsity athletes is quite high! It seems to indicate that, with academic strength being equal, certain “tips” (like athletic ability) may make a difference.
Also, I don’t think Chicago is lowering academic standards for athletes - certainly not to the extent of D1 schools, but I do think it’s clearly focused on athletes as an institutional initiative, and offers special pathways for athletes.
For instance, “likely letters” and more coach input on recruits probably occurs for athletes. This in and of itself is a really nice advantage - likely letters are great at securing yield, but also give athletes a lot of advanced notice on their admission.
Back in the day, athletes were actually frowned upon by the admissions office (I heard coaches complain that they were met with actual disdain by admissions officers), and I think those days are long gone. Our Admissions Dean cut his teeth (and is a athlete and graduate of) Yale, and our Athletics Director was a deputy at Princeton, our football coach was at Dartmouth, so this isn’t too surprising. They found successful models at their prior institutions, and seem to be instituting some of this (in a less intense way) at Chicago.
I don’t understand what this means…matriculants did submit these low scores because they are in the profile. Why, if not required, would an applicant submit these low scores now that the school is TO?
Perhaps Chicago still requires test scores from all athletic recruits (which is not uncommon among TO DIII schools)?
@Mwfan1921 - it’s inaccurate information. Bet you a cup of coffee.
The rules are clear: if you submitted scores, you need to make sure that official scores are sent as soon as you enroll. (UChicago accepts self-reported before then). TO-admits are NOT required to submit scores upon enrollment at least according to the official communications that went out to the Class of '23 admits.
Coaches may well want scores but I doubt those go to Admissions or are reported in any capacity.
Once the NCES data on College Navigator is updated for Class of '23 we will see whether they include SAT/ACT scores for “enrolled.” My understanding is that if the institution doesn’t require from 100% of the incoming class, then those fields are left blank.
@Cue7 - if ‘back in the day’ means the Hutchins era and its three decade aftermath, then you are correct. Prior to that time, the UC football team was known as the “Monsters of the Midway.”
Got it, that’s why I asked…I didn’t understand that you are saying what U Chicago has posted is inaccurate.
Edited to add:
NCES/College Navigator is inconsistent in how they report this. As but one example, Bowdoin is TO but requires all matriculants to send an official test score report even if they applied TO. But, College Navigator does not show test scores for the enrolled students…Bowdoin does report the test scores for the full class in their CDS.
@Mwfan1921 it’s a holdover stat. UChicago didn’t update the “highschool activities” section for a few years either. Or these didn’t move all that much till this year. One never knows with UChicago. My rule of thumb is that if the information appears updated, it’s likely accurate. If it isn’t, then who knows. Most realize that the profile page is looked at by prospies; maybe Admissions wants to signal that theoretically they would accept students who can’t or haven’t been able to test very well. But now those students would just apply TO. That’s why I believe the information is totally outdated. Well, that and the fact that it simply hasn’t budged since at least the Class of 2020.
Edit to add that the Test Score mid 50th reflects lack of scores from 15% of the admitted class. Sloppy of them not to bother making that a footnote.
@JBStillFlying - yes, by back in the day, I meant in the past 40-50 years, not the 1920s and 1930s, when Chicago was an academic AND athletic powerhouse. (Talk about a powerful AND, right?)