Chicago doesn’t feel cut-throat to my DD now, nor did it feel that way to my DH and our many friends in the 70s/80s. It’s one of the positive things about the school, imo, one aspect that attracted DD to the school. She has not been disappointed in that respect. My DD is not of Asian descent, but her House has a number of kids of Asian descent and a few from Asia, and they, like the other students, readily help each other out with school work and everything else. They are not the kinds of kids who want people to be “envious” of them.
Note: “cut-throat” is not synonymous with, or even related to any of the following: high achieving, smart, intellectual, or prioritizing academic learning and scholarship.
“UChicago is the North Korea of the higher education.” Oh boy.
I am curious, @nrtlax33 : what is your relationship to the U of C?
I wonder if it’s possible for some here to make their points without continuously referring to “low stats kids” whom you insistently predict will be unqualified, unable, and now, will have a hard time to ‘catching up.’ Are you familiar with the vetting that occurs with test optional? Or you assume it’s superficial?
Nothing has shown test optional fails students. And this isn’t Podunk suitcase college where admissions takes any one breathing and there is no support. (I feel it’s dismissive of UChi to insinuate they’re too dumb to know how to do their job.)
In ways, I think this conversation could be elevated, not freaking circular.
It was getting a little circular until the drunken sounding rant. I can’t wait to hear how the Berkeley of the Midwest (almost as awesome a phrase as “lesser Ivy”) discriminates against Asians, uses Asians as a secret weapon of competitiveness and simultaneously channels North Korea. This is getting good!
Those sneaky Midwesterners. Who knew such diabolical intrigue was afoot?
@lookingforward : I always evaluate issues from the contrarian perspective. For example, if Apple’s phone has the highest profit margin, I would be losing the most amount of money by buying one the those phones. If you agree that those who do not submit a score have lower scores, there are only two circumstances.
One, he/she has spikes but scores very low in one section. This kind of kids should go to an open curriculum school to focus on his/her spike. The other possibility is that the kids just do badly no matter what. Those kids should not go to a high stats school in the first place, even if GPA is not the goal. I have repeated this argument more than once. Yes, it is getting a bit circular.
On the contrary, I think those UChicago folks think they have outsmarted everyone else by playing all those games. Their job is to pump up the ranking and they are doing a fantastic job. They know exactly what they are doing.
@Leo111 : I have no relation with UChicago whatsoever. As I said early, I have very high regards for UChicago’s academics. I hate propaganda, especially from educational institutions which should focus on their students. If UChicago starts to share its statistics instead of generating news with information which is dubious, it will win my respect back. Did you read the WSJ article [The SEC Has Had Its Own Questions About LaCroix](The SEC Has Had Its Own Questions About LaCroix - WSJ) yesterday? In the article, it says
Well, Nondorf is just like Caporella . The only new information I got here is that UChicago has between 12K and 13K ED applicants which can’t be confirmed. Speaking of propaganda … Maybe SEC should take a look at UChicago.
They may not be wholly predictive. But what else is there that can’t be manipulated into a mosaic that isn’t designed specifically to gain entrance to a school of choice. This is not a discussion about the efficacy of standardized tests as uniquely important in the process. But they are an important ingredient. Does flour on its own make a great pastry. No there is a multitude of components and ultimately the result is subjective. But you can’t even start without the basics.
Tests are a basic ingredient. Coupled with other components really make the picture
No one is saying a student with bad scores can’t be a great student at any school. This is about awarding coveted spots in a complete and honest way. If there are thousands of equally excellent t candidates and all being equal why punish them for doing well on an exam. As long as the rest of the picture is equally strong, unique and creative.
It’s not tests versus everything else. It’s everything else coupled with a standardized tests give a fuller and more even handed set of tools to evaluate. It’s the only thing everyone does the exact same way. And only 37k out of 1.7mm test takers scored a 1500 or better. The test is easy and everyone can prep for a perfect score is a specious argument. Not backed by facts.
Bowdoin’s median test ACT score among test submitters for the class of 2017 was 33. UoC was likely also 33 (range was 32/35). A large portion of the class has high scores at both schools. Bates requires the semester equivalent of more courses than does UoC for general education requirements. Neither school sounds like they require especially rigorous STEM courses as part of their core, but Bates at least requires taking a lab course.
Asian percentage by school are below, as listed in IPEDS/Navigator. I’m not sure what colleges you mean by “peers”, but UoC’s Asian percentage seems similar to most other extremely selective privates.
Chicago: 18%
Stanford: 21%
Princeton: 21%
Harvard: 17%
Several studies have shown that test scores add little to prediction of academic success (as measured by graduation rate or GPA) beyond controls for HS GPA and a good measure of HS course rigor. Several studies have found that non-submitters at test optional colleges tend to have similar graduation rate and GPA to submitters.
I’m not sure what some here don’t understand. No one is "punishing"anyone for doing well on a std test. But, it’s not just about stats. Too many kids, as it is, get those higher scores and still miss what the “more” is. Scores don;t make one intellectual or ensure critical thinking. So why pretend scores are some special definitive bullet? Or that they super qualify any kid?
I think some here are just funning, intentionally swinging back to stats and missing the chance to examine what truly makes the students who add the most to the discussion, atmosphere, and growth, in a college that does want the “life of the mind,” not simply score superiority. Nor is college simply about grades- and certainly not grades in every single class you take.
In fact, imo, it’s counterintuitive to try to discuss the intellectual aspects by reverting, knee-jerk, back to scores. This isn’t the olympics where the fastest runner wins.
“This isn’t the olympics where the fastest runner wins.”
Athletes shouldn’t have to be judged on one 3-hour competition. Some don’t perform well on “game day”. Much better to remove that arbitrary standard from athletic events. Look at their overall record and assess them that way. Also, how about allowing them to opt-out of the Big Game (or equivalent) with no penalty to their record. They can submit something like a public service message, a workout video or well-written “How To” book - or how about their score on “Dancing with the Stars”?
I would submit scores, regardless. Skeptic that I am, if I were an AO, looking at a high GPA, good rigor, didn’t submit scores applicant, it would send up a red flag: “What are you hiding?” or “Why aren’t you confident that your score is ‘good enough’; we want confident students!”. If a student with a perceived low score submitted those scores, I’d be inclined to think: "This kid knows his faults, isn’t afraid to own it and is willing to accept the consequences"or " This kid is willing and able to be resilient; that is the kind of student that I’d want populating my campus and the kind of school I’d want my kid to attend, because I value, openness, honesty, humility and resilience. What is UofC looking for in an applicant? From what I am reading, it would appear what UofC wants has changed a fair bit in the past 10 years! It doesn’t matter to my family, we weren’t interested in buying what UofC, or their ilk, are selling, but it will sure be interesting to see what it is that UofC hones in on.
I honestly don’t think there are many kids that fall into the solid high (UofC desired) GPA/ uncharacteristically low standardized test score pool. In general GPAs and test score correlate and most schools are using test scores to substantiate GPA not the other way around. There’s no real reason not to submit scores for most applicants. I think there are more kids that fall into the low GPA/high standardized test pool, who will still be submitting scores. As for spikes…I don’t think a spikey standardized test score tanks an application in the world of holistic review. My DD2018 scored a 34 on the ACT reading section and a 25 on the math section, one sitting. She is going to be a psychology major; does it really matter that her math score was disproportionately low compared to her reading score in context with the courses that she will be taking over the next 4 years? Probably not. When evaluating her application I assume that AOs referred to her decent GPA, course rigor and all of her subsections scores in conjunction and concluded that she will be fine overall. DD was ultimately accepted at a multitude of schools.
@nrtlax33 I definitely don’t think spikey students need to attend an open curriculum school that will cater to spikes; in my DD’s case…so what if she gets a lower grade in her 2 required math courses, other courses will balance out. An overall lower composite standardized test score (and by lower I mean anything in the mid 20’s and up for ACT) certainly doesn’t indicate that she, or anyone else, would be “better served going somewhere else” (ie. a non elite school) particularly when you look at the overall picture.
In the near term, I don’t think the change is going to make one bit of difference in the quality of UofC’s admitted class. (I have not read every page of this thred, but are any UofC alum or parents particularly disturbed by the change?) I certainly don’t think this move is as altruistic on the part of UofC as they would like us to believe. I don’t think any school that has gone test optional is doing it for altruistic reasons. I believe it is all about gaming their numbers, marketing their school at a target audience and as I said in another thred, it’s ultimately all about the money. But, you go UofC, be the trailblazer amongst “elite” research universities!
This thread is expiring, lol. Does Chi let kids submit a workout video?
I know you aren’t serious, but combined with comments about the publicity machine and NKstyle propaganda, it all comes out as dismissive. Based on what? A desire to be curmudgenonly?
There is a reason I chose to use IPEDS/Navigator numbers from the federal database, rather than profile pages from college websites. Different college websites use varying and inconsistent methodologies for calculating race percentages particularly in how they handle mixed race students, particular class vs all undergrads, admitted vs matriculating, and internationals. IPEDS/Navigator and similar federal methodologies use the same racial definitions for all colleges, making it more of an apples to apples comparison.Looking at selective, private research colleges in/near the midwest, IPEDS/Navigator reports the following percent Asian:
Chicago: 18%
Northwestern: 17%
WUSTL: 17%
Case Western: 20%
Brown is not in the midwest, but yes it is lower than most at 14% (using federal racial definitions). There also other plenty of other selective colleges outside of the midwest that are higher, such as 43% at Caltech.
@lookingforward, I submit that you could well be part of a crowd that hyper-focuses on single-elimination athletics and who would begin to squawk once that’s eliminated from their TV-viewing. And how would one game or race on a certain day truly define someone’s athletic abilities anyway? Watch a tennis match or marathon sometime.
“are any UofC alum or parents particularly disturbed by the change?”
I’m not particularly disturbed by the change. To be fair and put it into context I’m also not someone who cares too much about detailed USNWR rankings so whether this moves UChicago up or down doesn’t concern me.
I do question if going test optional makes sense in the context of the assertion that this is being done to attract more qualified low income applicants. The low income students who have access to known schools like Stuy or scholarship to expensive boarding schools have already largely been attracted and are aware of UChicago, so the low income applicants that are as of yet untapped or unaware are going to be from unknown schools in areas where UChicago is unlikely to have a relationship, experience or a track record. So without standard test scores it will be tough to evaluate if the 3.9 GPA from Rural Podunk HS indicates a student is qualified or not. These are also the same students who will be unlikely to have the funds or access to many ECs or the ability to make an intro video. So for most of these kids, the app will show a high GPA from an unknown school, thin ECs, LoRs from teachers who don’t often write them so may not know key words selective schools are looking for… in those cases a high standard test score can be a huge plus since it helps show that the kid has the potential. It’s not doing those kids a favor to make that piece optional. Because of this, I suspect that going test optional is ill conceived or will be used in ways other than the stated objective.
I’m willing to give it a few years to see how things actually shake out before making a final decision on whether this is helpful or not.
@lookingforward : Unlike Asian countries’ college entrance exams, students here can take SAT/ACT many times. That is why I said “getting a low score no matter what”. If a student has an illness or other circumstances preventing him/her from getting a score which is representative of his/her potential, the person can retake it. If a student has a similar problem at Asian style entrance exam, the next chance is next year. US style SAT/ACT exam is already giving students a lot of rooms to recover.
But college admissions isn’t about “awarding” spots in a competition. It’s about meeting a college’s broad and varied agenda. It is about building a class with an appropriate distribution of interests and talents so that the relative strength of various academic departments are maintained, the richness of college social and cultural life is maintained, and that the caliber of discussion and inquiry that takes place in classes benefits from a student body that represents diverse viewpoints and life experiences.
It wasn’t in any way inappropriate for my daughter to be offered (not “awarded”) a spot in Chicago’s class of 2010 when students with significantly higher test scores were turned away, based on academic qualities she brought with her that weren’t even testable. (Not covered by SAT Subject tests or AP’s). She could document to the college what she had done, but not how well she had done it
And that’s based on an assumption that she was admitted on that basis – perhaps not. After all, the admission letter didn’t offer up any reasons. Maybe they just liked her sense of humor. The point is that they did “like” her, based on a qualitative mix of factors.
I can see an argument in favor of standardized, test-based admission considerations for a public college, because there is an obligation of a state to serve its populace in a way that is not arbitrary. But a private college can use whatever criteria it wants for selection. And it is not required to choose the students who meet an objective standard of being better than the competition – it is not a race where having the fastest time or crossing the finish line ahead of the others necessarily matters. They want variety.
And obviously they’ve decided that there is something about the tests that is in some ways hurting their admission process more than it’s helping. So yes, the information might be helpful in some cases… but in other cases it is not.
I hear you. And appreciate what you are saying. I do think in shaping its class and you have so many equally talented applications in each of these categories. Whichever the school chooses and it’s their right.
I only suggest that in shaping the class with equally excellent candidates for the one spot in that category, the test can be an unbiased way of assessing these two individual and holistically equal candidates.