2023 Class Profile is finally up!

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
21

Spoke to someone in UC admissions today…they stated that all of the stats in the class of 2023 profile are up-to-date and accurate, including the range of admitted student standardized test scores (ACT 20-36, SAT 1020-1600…the only stat in the profile that is for the admitted group, not the matriculated group).

This does not explain, as @makemesmart asked, why students would submit such low standardized test scores now that UChicago is TO (yet it clearly worked for the ones in the admitted pool!).

They also confirmed that athletic recruits can apply test optional.

22

@Mwfan1921 - wow. Guess I owe you a cup of coffee.

With all due respect to the admissions office, I’m still very skeptical. I have the profiles dating back to the Class of 2017 and those mins used to move around but stopped doing so after the class of 2020, despite the SAT being completely revised with a new scale system in 2016 that tilted scores upward (not downward), especially around the mean of the distribution (which is right around 1020, in fact). You can see that the Class of 2020 data is rather jarring in comparison with earlier data.

Class of 2017: 20-36, 1110-1600
Class of 2018: 21-36, 1170-1600
Class of 2019: 22-36, 1120-1600
Class of 2020: 20-36, 1020-1600
Class of 2021: 20-36, 1020-1600
Class of 2022: 20-36, 1020-1600
Class of 2023: 20-36, 1020-1600

But, as you point out, they say the score range is for the admitted group. I assume that means the actual group, not some wide range within which they will give your app. a serious look. It also explains how the mid 50th can be increasing over time,* since admitted isn’t necessarily matriculated.

*Classes of 2017-19: 32-35 and 1450-1550. Class of 2020-21: 32-35 and 1460-1550. Class of 2022: 33-35 and 1490-1560. Class of 2023 (reflects new TO policy): 33-35 and 1500-1560.

Not sure how they would have gotten those scores unless the applicant chose NOT to apply TO. Of course, UChicago superscores and so they encourage applicants to submit all scores; you can definitely opt for TO even if you’ve already done that. So who knows if the adcom actually saw those low scores. What the Admissions office has access to and what the adcom sees can be two entirely different sets of numbers.

BTW, beginning with the Class of 2020, “Involvement in high school activities” was another data group that didn’t budge until the current profile (despite moving around a bit earlier). But rest assured that varsity athletics was still at 53% of the incoming class as far back as the Class of '17 (although it dropped to 40% the Class of '18 for some reason). Theater truly seems to have remained under 20% till relatively recently.

Not surprised to learn that AR can apply test optional.

23

“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.”

UChicago doesn’t publish a CDS. My son is in the Class of '23 but submitted test scores. Because he did so he needed to make sure they had an official one on file. However, according to the instructions received, those rules didn’t apply to TO admits. Theoretically, TO applicants can skip taking the test altogether, although UChicago does not recommend they do so. Here is the FAQ on the subject:

"Because standardized test scores are optional portions of your admissions process, does that mean I shouldn’t take the SAT or ACT?

The SAT, ACT, and other standard measures can continue to be an important part of the University of Chicago’s holistic admission process for students electing to send scores and are a required part of the application process at many other highly selective schools. These tests can provide valuable information about a student which we and other colleges will consider alongside the other elements in a student’s application. We encourage students to take standardized tests, like the SAT and ACT, and to share your scores with us if you think that they are reflective of your ability and potential. Given that many of our peers do require testing, we anticipate that the vast majority of students will continue to take tests and may still submit their test scores to UChicago."

https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/contact/faq

Beautifully vague. I guess someone might feel that a 20 is relevant in a particular context? a 1020 SAT is currently at the 52nd percentile for all high schoolers and below the 50th for students actually sitting the SAT. I would expect an ACT of 20 to be around the same part of the distribution.

24

It may also be that the lower range is the “Lowest” of the scores that a student submitted. So if a student takes the test multiple times and gets higher scores, then the range may indicate the broadest range of possible scores, but may not be the actual score that resulted in the admission offer for student. In other words, if I get a 1100 and take the test four more times and high score a 1400 and am admitted, maybe the 1100 is reported?

25

Yes, thinking the same thing…they report full range of scores for all the scores they received from admitted students…which could contain multiple scores from any given admitted student.

Other random surmisings:

I am skeptical of the data, same as @JBFlying, despite the admissions officer telling me all data was correct and current.

Regarding why students with relatively low scores might choose to not apply TO:
—As above, could be multiple scores from a given applicant, with some being higher, perhaps significantly so.
—Another potential factor…there are many high schools especially those serving URM, low SES, and/or first gen students who don’t have GCs, or have less the competent one who might have had no idea UChicago was TO…really, this happens. It’s highly likely those low end scores for admitted students came from URMs, low SES and/or first gen applicants.

I didn’t ask if the score ranges on the profile were superscored…some (many?) schools that superscore do report superscored test stats on their profiles/CDSs, etc.

Also, even though recruited athletes can apply TO, I didn’t ask if they require a test score when doing the academic pre-read (some/many(?) TO schools do, and some/many(?) TO schools don’t allow athletes to apply TO)…if so, and this student ultimately applied TO, perhaps those test scores found their way in to the data as well.

26

I do believe that UChicago has a particular incentive to post those low ends. As Nondorf has stated “we send signals by our policies.”

The reason they went TO in the first place is because they knew they were having difficulty reaching a certain type of high achieving applicant (who would be scared off by the high median scores) and that, among others, UChicago (and Nobel laureate) economist JJ Heckman has done excellent studies on predictors for college success and found that GPA dominates test scores.

The truth is, when both the testing agencies and the colleges allowed multiple retakes, “score choice” and superscoring, they significantly watered down the valuable predictive power of test scores. It’s just a ‘prep’ game at that point (no one is guaranteed to “prep” their way to a 34, of course, but it’s much easier to achieve one via superscoring so if that gets the same weight as a single-shot 34, then what exactly is the value of testing?).

As I said upthread, what the adcom sees and what the AO has on file for all their admits might have some differences. Totally agree that it might be due to superscoring or even TO admits who had already submitted scores (taking advantage of the free score-send) before opting for TO. Another possibility I guess is that someone sent in a low score to make a point, or just didn’t care, and ended up admitted anyway.

27

The scenario I most agree with involves 1 person out of the thousands that applied did not think too much about their SAT score and sent it anyway. There’s tons of possiblilities but my brain zeroed in on this: This someone did not apply TO-- and UChicago was a super reach - but got in because their essays and their story was super convincing. Perhaps they are one of those “pointy” applicants who have done a lot of work with a famous mentor in something like Aramaic, Akkadian or Middle Kingdom Egyptian.

Remember it only takes 1 out of ten thousands of applicants to get “lucky”

28

I think some are misreading this data. 60% listed varsity athletics as a high school extracurricular. A very small percentage of high school athletes play varsity in college as they aren’t good enough. It’s a big leap to college caliber.

Chicago does recruit as most other top D3’s do. It involves the student reaching out to this colleges to start the process.

My son was an athletic recruit but he also scored a 1570 on his SAT. He does it because he loves it. Someone mentioned parents pushing their kids strategically into sports. Frankly that is highly doubtful to be successful. The level of motivation required needs to be internal.

29

^ Agree with the first paragraph. Best guess is that UChicago’s incoming class is NOT 60% recruited athletes! However, the percentage is still significantly higher than prior years, so does reflect a changing mix of incoming students.

30

Yes definitely NOT 60% recruited athletes to play at the D3 level, but having 60% of the class owning varsity letters in high school means the class is fairly athletic, no?

I realized hs athletic programs vary widely, and there are surely some unathletic kids on varsity teams, but, on the whole, making varsity seems to denote some level of athleticism. Not college-level varsity athleticism, but athleticism nonetheless.

And I don’t know, I say this as the “classic” Chicago admit from back in the day - the kid who had no chance of making a varsity team in anything, and rode the pine on a JV team as a senior (to fulfill a PE credit). And I can assure you, most of my cohort in the 90s was like me.

31

Yes there is a wide variety of athletic ability on varsity teams, all 3 of my DD were varsity athletes, and one was a recruited athlete. However there is a signifigant difference in there athletic abilities (although while snowboarding with them today I found that all three can blow by me and I am not slow). :smirk:

32

I would have guessed that as well, but in my admittedly small sample size amoung acquaintances it’s been surprisingly successful. Especially for the less common sports. Granted, one or two kids who hung their hopes on the sports push were unexpectedly derailed by things that wouldn’t have impacted them in the same way had they chosen nonathletic ECs (an example are the swimmers who had been planning their training peak carefully around a certain few meets and then a hurricane meant those meets were canceled so they had to use older, less optimal official times), but for the most part the athlete plan worked very well and seemed much less tied to any superstar internal motivation and much more tied to the size of the kid (a 6’4" boy or 5’10" girl has a pretty good natural advantage in rowing for example) and resources/pushiness of the parents.

33

But even with rowing being a leverage sport, unless you have the VO2 max and work ethic to go with it you won’t make the varsity boat. Now to be recruited, it’s basically genetic for the concept 2 erg score. And to be on a high school boat is helpful. Height alone won’t make you recruitable. And only the top programs have slots and they recruit internationally. Men’s rowing isn’t an NCAA sport. So no amount of parents gaming the system will succeed here (the word gaming just prompted the USC rowing scandal which still upsets me). Sports are just too competitive now and the work required is huge.

34

^ Women’s rowing is D1. We do know a young woman who was recruited by the coach her first week at MIT. She was a swimmer in high school so that helped in terms of fitness, but she wasn’t a recruited athlete during the admissions process. She just happened to be in the right place at the right time during orientation (it helped to be over 6’). One of her parents was actually against the idea because she didn’t want her daughter’s academic career derailed by “athletics.” Nevertheless, this gal rowed for four years - and then went on to get into several top PhD engineering programs. This unusual story still makes me smile.