Philosopy and premed is an interesting combo. Don’t worry about it. If she has the goods for philosophy, that’s great.
Lol, afaiac, agree pilosophy is not where you go to enhance your gpa. Some commenters claim the reading heavy majors are an asset, as med school requires reading and comprehension, as well as decision sorting skills.
Go for it.
The queston about future interests is on the Common App. Some colleges will ask more in the supp.
“Premed” is not a major. It is merely a set of courses that need to be completed in at the undergrad level. I also think that the premed courses would probably fulfill the math/science core requirements at Chicago. And French or Philosophy or social sciences/classics are not “uncommon” majors – they are majors that are part of a normal liberal arts curriculum and can be found at just about any elite college.
But the assertion that these are somehow fake or easy majors that students take only to boost their GPA’s represents exactly the kind of unidimensional, conventional thinking that I believe is promoted by emphasis on standardized tests. It is back to the worldview that everything has a single “right” answer; and that one’s options are limited to a set of given possibilities. As well as the assumption that anything outside of STEM is “easy” or lacks value, and students would only choose those majors to boost their GPA. As opposed to the idea that a person could want to pursue a course of study as an undergrad for the sake of learning, while at the same time having a career goal do do something that is different from the undergraduate major.
Chicago just announced that they don’t care to see the test score.
That is what this whole thread is about.
So no, submitting that 35 ACT or 1550 SAT isn’t going to help get a spot at Chicago. They just said they didn’t care. They are looking for something else.
I don’t know what that something else is. But maybe someone in the admissions department is tired of looking at apps from students who think that their GPA and test scores mean they are smarter than everyone else, and would like to see more apps from students who are willing to wrestle with complex ideas and to take some risks along the way.
the video says. But from the video, those two girls did not do any ECs related to medicine. How do they know they are interested in medicine? More importantly, did they say their future plan is medicine in their applications? I guess not. We have warned our kid about the 12+ years ahead and even sent our kid to a Georgetown medical camp just to see if it can be comfortable with a corpse. Most people who claim they are premed are just for the money and medical schools know it. I am curious how those two girls’ premed endeavors are going? (since they are not anonymous, their friends must know if they are still premed) I am not saying that they can’t do well in physiology or organic chemistry. Well, if reading and comprehension is important, try taking a physiology course in freshman year to see if that kind of reading and comprehension is what they have expected. (hint: REALLY A LOT) Most if not all AOs are humanity majors. They have to make sure not ALL of the incoming class are going premed. Right now, I guess at least 1/3 to 1/2 are going for it based on premed course registration numbers. In Ivies, 13% to 18% eventually apply to medical schools.
Check out this [PRE-MED MYTHS: GETTING INTO MEDICAL SCHOOL](https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/hotterthanhadelees/attachments/20081001/adb009a4/attachment.pdf ) from Stanford
@gallentjill - I am sorry for my phrasing. I didn’t mean that the kids who follow a high-achieving but conventional path through high school don’t have value. I just mean that within the college admissions process, it is hard for their applications to be distinguished from others except for objective measures of achievement. If they have the same set of courses and the same set of activities as most of the other applicants, then very often their GPA, class rank, and test scores are the most “stand out” qualities they are left with. I’m sure some also manage to write a particularly moving or intriguing essay… but those type of extra-special essays are probably quite rare.
My son was that type of kid – good grades, good test scores, but nothing remarkable to set him apart. He had the benefit of NM Finalist status which essentially guaranteed him admission to a whole slew of very selective, but non-elite colleges – so that’s an example of a test score working in someone’s favor.
And in the context of this thread-- what U of Chicago wants going forward – I really think that Chicago might want a more diverse set of applicants to choose from. Because there was something edgy about what Chicago represented or seemed to want to be back in the days when it had a 40% admission rate, but was known to have a self-selected applicant pool because of the intensity of its curriculum. (“where fun comes to die”)
Why would they need to do that for undergrad? If the student wants to major in French, then she should apply to schools with good French departments. If she thinks she wants to become a doctor, that is something she can discuss with the premed advisor after she gets to college. If that kid has done pre-med sorts of things in high school… fine – but that has nothing to do with getting into med school.
Nor does it have anything to do with the admissions decisions being made by the undergrad college, which is concerned about its current needs and how its student body fill those needs, not what the students are planning to do after college.
It’s a question on the Common App. And adcoms can see it and look at he app/supp in that context- the prep, the experiences. Those show much about the thinking.
“Chicago just announced that they don’t care to see the test score. … So no, submitting that 35 ACT or 1550 SAT isn’t going to help get a spot at Chicago. They just said they didn’t care.”
This isn’t really accurate.
From Chicago’s FAQ:
“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.”
Well, this is the part that is significant: “if you think that they are reflective of your ability and potential”
I interpret the new policy to mean that Chicago isn’t going to hold it against any applicant who chooses to withhold them, and instead demonstrate ability and potential in different ways.
Obviously Chicago is going to want to continue to want strong and capable candidates, but I don’t think Chicago will hold it against most candidates who choose to withhold them.
I can see some situations where the test scores might be important, such as with a homeschooled applicant – but the implication was that if a kid like my daughter was applying in today’s environment, lack of high scores would be a hindrance. Whereas I think just the opposite – I think that without the actual scores in front of them, the admissions staff would tend to assume a higher score for my daughter, given the imbalance between GPA/class rank & score level. They might assume that the scores were withheld for a reason, but in today’s admission climate there are enough students who would think a 30 ACT or a 1400 SAT was a bad score that they aren’t going to be able to project much one way or another from a withheld score.
@calmom I think you have it exactly right. There are kids who simply feel that the scores don’t represent their real potential for one reason or another. That could be test anxiety, difficult with timed tests or many other things. Those kids will still have to demonstrate that they are capable to pursue their intended major. But there are many alternate ways of doing that. Its just ridiculous to think that a college would be unable to figure out what an applicant is truly capable of.
I think your point about kids who might have been admitted being scared off by falling outside of the school’s score range, is well taken. I know there is one particular program that I think would be great for my daughter but the chances are so slim we almost decided not to apply at all. But honestly, that makes no sense. I think the program is perfect for her and that she might be what they are seeking. Why not let the school make that choice?
I think U of C wants to encourage more potentially excellent candidates not to self-censor.
Because there is a cost in both time and money to apply.
So it makes sense to concentrate resources where odds of admission are perceived to be reasonable.
I’m not saying that you shouldn’t have your daughter apply to that reachy program. I’m just saying that there are others who might decide that it’s too iffy to justify the added application fee and expenditure of time on an application. And some schools and/ or parents do place an upper limit on the number of colleges that the student can apply to.
Would a kid like my apply in today’s climate with her test scores? Likely not – what made sense in the context of a 35% admit rate probably doesn’t make sense in the context of a 5% admit rate. But if the test scores don’t have to be disclosed? Well, that changes the calculation somewhat.
Does anyone think those candidates who are so unique and don’t even bother to submit a score will self-select to go through UChicago’s core curriculum and take 42 courses to graduate? Remember, those guys at Chicago don’t have much freedom there. If you don’t like part of the core curriculum, what do you do? Like it or not, you have to go through it. If you want to learn to like UChicago, you had better learn to like SAT/ACT first, which means, like everyone else, take and submit the exam. The school will force you to go through things you might hate. The whole propaganda is just a total nonsense. Back in the days when UChicago had 40% admission rate, those self-selected candidates probably know what they are getting themselves into. Nowadays, I guess most don’t. They just participate in free lottery.
Back in the day was only 2007. I’m getting old.
“Does anyone think those candidates who are so unique and don’t even bother to submit a score will self-select to go through UChicago’s core curriculum and take 42 courses to graduate?”
I think the ones they select, that they have vetted for the right attributes and strengths, who choose to matriculate, have every chance of graduating, same as any other student. Lots of colleges have a core curriculum or structured requirements. Nothing says you have to ace every single class. Or love every single one. And they will not be operating in some mythical vacuum, with only coursework, without any academic support.
It wonder if in part Chicago’s move is in reaction to the Harvard lawsuit, a way to say clearly that UC students won’t be judged simply on the basis of grades and test scores so there’s no point in forcing UC to admit students based on those metrics.
I think of the “something else” as the “so what?”. You’re a bright, capable kid. So what? What are you going to do with that ability in college and beyond? It’s the reason elite schools are sometimes willing to take a kid with a less than perfect record over a kid with a 4.0 and 1600 but no direction beyond that set out for them. Honestly, don’t we all know kids we instinctively sense are going somewhere? They’re not always perfect, and schools don’t always do a perfect job of identifying them, but IMO they do have an extra something that sets them apart.
They weren’t judged solely on the basis of stats, up to now.
Other selective test optional colleges have high graduation rates. For example, Bowdoin has a 95% 6-year graduation rate. Several studies have found similar graduation rates between submitters and non-submitters at test optional colleges. Furthermore graduation rate is one of the key metrics that both highly selective colleges and less selective colleges value. It’s also a key metric for USNWR ranking. I very much doubt UoC is going to do anything to put their graduation rate in jeopardy.
UoC’s core curriculum does require more classes than most, but they are intro classes that I’d expect most UoC admits to find fairly basic. I’d expect higher level major-specific classes to be the more challenging ones, and UoC often requires few of these higher level major-specific classes than other selective colleges. For example, the majors I checked at UoC require 7 to 17 quarter classes beyond the core. Some of the Stanford engineering majors require more than 30 quarter classes beyond their general education requirements. The majority of other majors I checked require more quarter classes at Stanford than at UoC.
42 quarter courses is similar to most other selective colleges on the quarter system. For example, UCSD require 45 quarter courses, Northwestern requires 42, and Stanford requires ~45 (exactly value depends on credits per class). Why would test optional admits to UoC not be able to take an average 3.5 courses per quarter (assuming no AP credit)?
@nrtlax33,
Bates has general education requirements not unlike UC’s core curriculum. (14 semesters of course requirements at Bates vs. 15 trimesters at UC, slightly more required science at UC, slightly more required math at Bates.) In the 20-year study of test-optional outcomes done by the former admissions director at Bates College, students who did not submit scores, who on average had significantly lower scores than students who did submit, had a very slightly lower GPA upon graduation (3.06 vs. 3.11) but graduated at a very slightly higher rate.
I agree, but some parties seem to want to force elite colleges to admit students on the basis of quantifiable factors, and I wonder if this is UC’s way of saying they won’t be forced into that box.
This question doesn’t even make any sense.
Under Chicago’s new test-optional policy, anyone whose standardized test scores are weaker than their GPA, and/or on the low end of Chicago’s score range would be stupid to submit them. It doesn’t add value to the application and it is now something that Chicago specifically has said they don’t require; they don’t consider essential to an application; and that should only be submitted if the applicant feels that they are reflective of their ability and potential.
I mean that’s just the standard advice that has always held for test-optional schools: a student will only submit scores if they add value to the application.
That has nothing to with whether the student wants a college with a strong core curriculum.
@Sue22 : I have read many comments comparing UChicago’s test-optional policy with other schools’ such as Bates, Bowdoin. They key difference is that UChicago has a very high average student’s SAT/ACT score and a more rigorous core curriculum. UChicago’s stats are even higher than most Ivies. I would say UChicago is UCBerkeley of the Midwest regarding stats. Another school which saw the number of applicants dropping last year is JHU which has a reputation of … well, you know what I mean. All three schools have a relatively large number of Asian students compared with their peers. Schools with high number of Asian students are often perceived as “cut-throat” since those low stats kids are having a hard time to catch up. They don’t understand how someone can score 100+ point while the average score is at low 70s. The low stats kids might catch up but they are really better served by going elsewhere.
UChicago is the North Korea of the higher education. Whenever you see North Korea in the news. UChicago wants to do something differently to rival North Korea. It is the motive which matters. EDs attract rich kids and hide its unattractiveness (we don’t do ED). Free apps attract uninitiated kids (you can’t lose money, why not spend a few minutes?) Now this test-optional policy with a goal of encouraging those low stats kids to withhold scores so UChicago’s SAT/ACT scores would look even better. (those who don’t submit don’t count … Northeastern’s trick.) But throwing those lambs to the wolves is a disservice to those low stats kids. Wake up ! UChicago. Being the emperor in “The Emperor’s New Clothes” story is no good. Nobody is envious.