MODERATOR’S NOTE:
Please move off from sharing anecdotes of what scores your kids received with or without prep courses. While a delightful topic, that’s one better for the cafe than this thread.
I wonder how UChicago alums and faculty would react to the news. Now that UChicago has already said ACT/SAT is not required AOs will be obligated to show some admits without ACT/SAT scores next year.
Ted O’Niell talked the talk, but did not walk the walk on test scores. They would rather have accepted a kid with high test scores and not great grades than the other way around.
Class of 2012 alum here. I for one applaud UChicago’s test-optional move. When I applied for college in 2008, I didn’t have the best scores. I had always struggled with these exams, particularly SAT I. (My critical reading score was below the University’s 10th percentile at the time, even after 6 months of exam prep using free resources.) I’m not dumb; I just couldn’t seem to do well on the SAT for whatever reasons. Yet, UChicago took a chance on me, and I’m eternally grateful. Worked my butt off during undergrad, graduated Phi Beta Kappa, and went on to pursue an MD/PhD at a top 5 medical school. My story serves as a perfect example of how standardized testing does not necessarily predict college success.
Given my experience, I’m inclined to agree with what @hftarete wrote:
I sincerely hope that this new test-optional policy will enable UChicago to accept students like me – students who have that “quirky spark” it’s looking for but may have sub-par standardized exam performance.
Note: Dean Ted O’Neil really did walk the walk. All athletes at UChicago are student-athletes. They’re not pros, and our high SAT/ACT average simply reflects that fact.
“I don’t like this. These are quite easy tests that any capable student can self-prepare for.”
Not really. If that were true, the standardized test industry wouldn’t be the huge racket it is. Plus, people’s minds work differently. Not all intelligence responds well to a standardized testing format/scope. I think people here that point to high test scores = intelligence have an unfortunately narrow view of what intelligence is.
I have no doubts that Chicago and other schools track the performance in and out of the classroom of students that are admitted and matriculate. Colleges that have been test optional for awhile have long pointed out that test scores have little correlation to success at college and after. I’m sure we can all think of anecdotal evidence where that is true. I’m sure before making this policy change, they’ve looked at the data and feel comfortable with it.
I think there is too much weight given on CC to the importance of test scores both in admissions and as an indicator of talent. If I was an Adcom, I’d be looking for students that were making their mark in and outside the classroom not students who are focusing their time and energies on maximizing their test scores through endless prep and multiple tests, although certainly high test scores and interesting engagement can often be found together.
I can’t help but smile knowing how irksome this is to some University of Chicago boosters on CC, getting all touchy-feely and holistic and stuff. 
What I want to know is when are they going to start releasing Common Data Sets to the public?
I don’t like that they dropped the interview. So, what, now they are just going to accept kids who can make goofy videos?
Submitting videos is truly optional I believe.
Interviewing prospective applicants has been a logistical nightmare for both the admissions office and us alumni. I do have reservation about getting rid of in-person interviews though. They could’ve just switched to Skype interview or something.
@intparent , what is the evidence that test scores were once privileged over other factors at the U of C? I think you’re equating an undoubted Chicago objective - identifying and recruiting a certain kind of brainy kid - with high test scores. The scores have the weaknesses in identifying intellectual ability which I keep pointing out, but over and above those weaknesses they can’t capture the ideal Chicago student, who has a certain attitude toward learning which doesn’t coincide with braininess pure and simple. Though the word “quirky” is a slightly pejorative way of describing this, it isn’t completely inapt.
Videos may be optional, but it’s natural for people, adcoms included, to feel warmer towards kids they’ve seen in a video than towards faceless papers. On the other hand, it’s easier to have something rub them the wrong way. So my guess is they’ve just made admissions a whole lot more subjective.
@marlowe1 Couldn’t agree more. I feel that Chicago wants to return to its admissions root – identifying students whose attitude toward learning helps them embrace the Core and thrive in it (and at the same time see the Core as a complement rather than an impediment to their professional ambition). This is not something that can be gauged through standardized testing.
As an alum, I see this move as a positive development for my alma mater.
@marlowe1 IF test scores are a proxy for parental wealth or parental involvement or IQ or other kinds of privilege the what should they be replaced with? Grades cannot possibly be a better metric than a uniform test? Do you really believe that top GPAs are a better metric for preparedness that a standard test? So all 4.0s (or equivalent) are interchangeable? I think when we are talking about admissions to top academic institutions it is tragic to contemplate increasing the number of students with the right GPA. What happens when all these kids get into school and are in the same classes? Will their lower grades/nferior performance once again be excused? Note the recent data on grade inflation across the US.
How do you identify “an attitude about learning” when you are plowing through 1000s of applications?
Knowing admissions officers personally, I can assure you that they really do read every word in every application. They know exactly what they are looking for.
“So all 4.0s (or equivalent) are interchangeable?”
Give admissions more credit than that. It has never been the case and that isn’t going to change now.
No one knows the effects of this change three years from now. But if you are a high scoring kid you probably would be less interested in UChicago now compared to its peers. I know my kid deliberately crossed off the schools that did not require SAT/ACT. I imagine most high scoring kids would have similar psychology when looking at schools. Perhaps, UChicago will be better off without many high SAT/ACTs, but if no other elites follow suit it may have a negative impact on UC’s rankings.
I predict at least one other top 10 goes test optional next year. Any bets on who?
“If you are a high scoring kid you probably would be less interested in UChicago now compared to its peers.”
Interesting thought, jzducol.
I have a high scoring kid who is almost certainly applying to UChicago and I find it hard to imagine this might change his attitude either way.
^If something you are good at is now less valued it would certainly have some psychological impact. Whether it is enough to make a difference for all kids remains to be seen.