You have different personal preferences. That is fine.
I would suspect that people who have honesty and integrity as their motto would choose to demonstrate that instead of offering odd, breathless rants attacking a college that isn’t their choice for not operating the in the same way as other colleges. The idea that making different admissions decisions, to not disclose data is evil or somehow similar to an illegal act of fraud says more about your view than it does UChicago.
UChicago doesn’t seem to care that it is different than the other unis. People can choose to believe that is a strength, a weakness or a nonissue.
You don’t get to be the #10 ranked research university in the world by lyin’ and cheatin’ your way to the top. If the College is notably different, it will eventually show up in the rankings. Disgruntled CC posters aren’t the only ones with the knives out.
Regarding merit aid, UChicago seemingly has gone from aggressive merit to nothing (advertised). People still tell me that the College offers merit but not sure whether their information is outdated or not. When they expanded their admission policy to include EDI/EDII it seemed that they restructured their merit policies as well. For example, and as I’ve posted before, the $4,000/yr. guarantee for accepted NMF’s went away. My impression is that they are offering much more aggressive need-based aid and eliminating strict ‘merit’. If someone has a different take, please post.
57% full-pay might well change over time, especially once they roll out the Empower Initiative. Those who applied EDI/EDII and didn’t apply for fin. aid. presumably didn’t need it; however, some might have opted not to try in the first place. Furthermore, Fin. Aid. is something that you re-apply for each year so it’s possible that a rising second year who was full-pay in Year 1 (skipping the FAFSA and Uchicago fin. aid. forms altogether) might have filed this year and will receive fin. aid in years 2 - 4.
"According to the MIT stats page, approximately 2/3 of MIT applicants who submitted ACT scored a 34-36 on ACT composite. Assuming that having a high score is correlated with other admissions criteria MIT values, like MIT said occurs in the quote I listed a few posts back; MIT’s 25th percentile score would be 34+ even if MIT did not consider test scores in the admissions decisions. MIT’s actual range is 33-35. The lower 33 likely relates to yield issues and certain powerful hooks.
It’s a similar idea for English scores. 73% of MIT applicants scored a 34-36 on the ACT English. So if MIT admitted applicants through random lottery without considering the application at all; MIT would be expected to have a 25th percentile English ACT of 33 or 34 (assuming no yield issues)."
This ignores the information value that posting such detail on their page provides to prospective applicants. Do you think it’s random that so many 34 - 36 ACT candidates apply to MIT? This level of detail - on the Admissions page no less - is way above-and-beyond than provided by most - if not all - of the other top-10 schools.
When you signal that low scores need not apply (barring exceptional circumstances/demographics, etc.) then “test scores” obviously don’t drive the admission decision. And when 2/3 of your applicants submit scores of 34 - 36, you can superscore all you want
@JBStillFlying : UChicago is undoubtedly one of the top research universities in the world even without playing any game by its undergraduate admissions office. It is the transparency of its policy which causes concerns. UChicago is famous for it vigorous curriculum which is a great thing for those people who love “The Life of the Mind”. In the past those self-selected candidates know that is what they are getting themselves into. I am very concerned what would happen to those uninitiated who are admitted and committing without knowing what they are getting themselves into. UChicago is mum about everything. According to [this article](https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2018/4/10/mental-health-and-the-ucpd-shooting/)
and more importantly, this
It is important to put a warning line in the news release like the required one on a cigarette pack. Unlike UPenn and Columbia which at least try to assist their students, UChicago is not very helpful when they need help … and why is that “demand for [their] services is so high.” :-/ :-/
We are not one of those uninitiated. Even with a WGPA of 4.82 (AP=5), we chose to stay away (well, we need financial aid, so ED for any school is out of question.)
The page with the test score stats gives a long explanation about how “It is important to understand, however, that these numbers do not determine our admissions process but are the result of our process…” and links to the article I quoted earlier saying:
The stats page itself indicates that applicants who had a 34-36 had a 9% admit rate, compared to 5% with 31-33. Given the correlations described in the quote above, this difference in admit rate by no means indicates a strong preference for scores of 34-36 over 31-33.
There are a variety of reasons why MIT gets so many high scoring applicants, and I doubt that having an admission stats page on their website that includes test score numbers is the key one. Instead I’d expect it more relates to MIT’s reputation as rigorous and exceptional college focused on engineering and CS. I doubt that the typical HS student would want to attend a rigorous college focused on engineering and CS like MIT, even if they thought they were a guaranteed admit due to some kind of super hook. Non-“…institute of technology” highly selective colleges have a lower scoring applicant pool than MIT, even among colleges that have a similar admission stats page.
^ so desiring a rigorous and exceptional college that emphasizes difficult subjects like Engineering and CS tends to be associated with scoring in the top 1% of the ACT? Not surprised by that in the least.
^^Also, if UChicago wants to scrape scores altogether and select for other major achievements such as IMO, that’s great. Of course there’s an extremely high correlation between those exceptional achievements and a high test score. Just keep in mind that MIT publishes exquisite detail about its test score distribution and that’s not lost on the average STEM applicant. And you don’t just have to be proficient in Math; ACT subscores across the board are strong - guessing that’s gotta be true for SAT as well.
As an old friend’s grandmother used to advise her progeny: “when you socialize among the rich you can marry for love.”
Edit/Addendum: If MIT really wanted to admit people, not test scores, they would follow UChicago’s new policy and go test optional.
Only 37,000 out of the 1,800,000 test takers scored a 1500 or above.
There’s no mass score inflation and countless perfect scores to be had. It’s a myth. Maybe all top test takers in the world come to cc, so it seems that way.
But it’s not happening. The facts are the facts.
Only 10k scored 1550 or above. That’s one half of one percent. .0055. 55 basis points to be exact
According national survey results from the American College Health Association, about half of undergraduates surveyed in 2016 had felt “things were hopeless” in the past year; similarly, 58 percent had felt “overwhelming anxiety.” Data from the University of California, Los Angeles’s Higher Education Research Institute, fall in line with this: in 2016, 41 percent of the incoming freshmen surveyed responded that they “felt overwhelmed” by all they had to do, a sharp increase from the 29 percent in 2010, and even sharper when compared to the 18 percent in 1985. Mental health has become one of the foremost issues that we face.
Schools must have statistics which shows the kind of students most likely to have mental problem. Maybe MIT is using SAT/ACT scores to reduce the possibility that a student commits suicide there. I honestly believe instead of dropping SAT/ACT, UChicago should announce that it is going to start an initiative to reduce the number of students who need mental help. I get that life in the city of Chicago is hard. According to [Chicago Tribune](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-homicides-data-tracker-htmlstory.html), 244 people have been killed as of July 1. But the welfare of the students should still be the number one priority of an educational institution. Has UChicago researched the potential outcome of its new SAT/ACT testing requirement? Some drugs are pulled from the market even after FDA approval because clinical trial can only produce so much data. Perhaps some students might die from this new policy, which would be one step ahead of “where fun goes to die".
@milee30 : I don’t participate in those "leave us a review and you will be entered into a drawing for a chance to win a $50 gift card!!! " kind of lottery. UChicago’s practice is exactly like that kind of lottery. People have no clue if they have a chance to win or where their chances are. Granted, UChicago won’t get money out of those free gamblers. But those RD applicants waste their precious time hopping for something which their chance of winning is extremely slim, just like those gift card offers.
I used to joke that if you happen to be in the same class with my kid’s friends in Princeton, you soon will realize that you make a big mistake to be in the same class with them. So you don’t have a score and you want to join UChicago? Welcome aboard.
"I don’t participate in those “leave us a review and you will be entered into a drawing for a chance to win a $50 gift card!!! " kind of lottery. UChicago’s practice is exactly like that kind of lottery. People have no clue if they have a chance to win or where their chances are. Granted, UChicago won’t get money out of those free gamblers. But those RD applicants waste their precious time hopping for something which their chance of winning is extremely slim, just like those gift card offers.”
It’s a reasonable and good choice for you to decide not to participate in something you view as hopeless. That does not mean, however, that others make decisions or view things in the same way as you do.
You’re in such a lather about this that you already forgot your rant about how UChicago waives the admission app fee for everyone applying for financial aid. If they are, as you state, gaming the system and increasing their app numbers by handing out free apps then it’s unlikely they’re getting “money out of those free gamblers.” Pick and choose your gripes. Or… realize you’re allowing your personal opinion to taint your judgment.
I’ve noticed over the years on CC that when someone clearly has an agenda to post negatively about a particular university, very often that is the parent of a child who was rejected by that particular university. Just sayin’
Yep, @nrtlax33 has had a fascination with Brown and UChicago. I’m sure his kid is at a UC school after the rejections came in, and so I guess going on the forum and badmouthing UChicago makes him feel better,
@calmom : Unfortunately, your guess is not correct at all. As I already said, I sense there is fraud involved in the whole scheme and see a bunch of promoters go with it. Just want to offer a different perspective. I only chimed in after a couple hundred posts after seeing things kind of getting out control.
BTW, I guess someone must have forwarded this thread to your scam master. I am waiting for the response to get some real information.
To quote one of my favorite movies, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Your example of the SEC action relates to a completely different issue - outright lying and misstatement of factual information. Choosing not to divulge information that you are not legally required to disclose is not remotely the same issue. For a college to choose not to disclose detailed admissions information is legal and is not fraud. You may decide you don’t like this practice of not disclosing detailed information so this is not an institution that is a match for your family, but that does not mean it is fraud. You may decide you don’t agree that the Empower Initiative makes sense or that it will result in some bad unintended consequences that are opposite from the stated objectives (and I’d agree with you on that) and that based on that, you would prefer not to associate with UChicago. Still doesn’t mean any fraud has occurred.
Using loaded language like fraud or comparing a college to North Korea doesn’t help your credibility. If you disagree with the policies, it would be more effective if you just debated their merit rather than make them into more than they are.
Hi, @JBStillFlying#701, My daughter 21’ was accepted EA, but she did not commit until April. In February she received an email from the admissions office offering her a scholarship of 15.000$ per year. It was a total surprise, we did not even know that UChicago offered merit scholarships.
^^ @privatebanker are those world wide SAT stats or for US students only?
ACT is similarly scarce at the top. For the Class of 2017 (national), the “top 1%” (which actually contains 1.8% of testers) has similar #'s (rounded):
2,800 scored a perfect 36
12,400 scored a 35
20,500 scored a 34
So 35,700 total.
Addendum: 2,000,000 testers in 2017, so 34 is top 1%, 35 is top .6%, and 36 is top 1/10 of 1%.
@milee30 : Although elements of Civil Fraud may vary by jurisdiction and the specific allegations made by a plaintiff who files a lawsuit that alleged fraud, typical elements of a fraud case in the United States are that:
Somebody misrepresents a material fact in order to obtain action or forbearance by another person;
The other person relies upon the misrepresentation; and
The other person suffers injury as a result of the act or forbearance taken in reliance upon the misrepresentation.
I agree that the word "fraud’ might be too strong since the most students can lose is their time/hope. The North Korean term is what I casually use frequently if I see someone behaves totally differently from the rest of the society. I apologize if those words offend you.
The reported stats are not superscored… but the colleges do superscore.
So while only 37,000 SAT takers score 1500 or higher in a single sitting… there are an undetermined number who might have lower scores in a single setting who are able to attain higher scores that will be reported as such by the colleges that admit them.
I’d add that the eight schools that make up the Ivy League accept less than 23,000 students each year. They have spots for only about 14,500. So if every student who scored 1500 could only apply to one college, and if the Ivy League only accepted applications from students with those scores - there still would be 14,000 students with 1500 scores who would be turned down by the Ivy League.
And if you were to assume that every single student who scored 1500 ended up with an Ivy League spot – after enrollment, that would leave 22,500 high-scorers attending non-Ivy colleges. (Some of which might be elite colleges like MIT, Stanford, Chicago, etc. – but even those schools don’t have spots for them all).
Of course in the real world there is considerable overlap in acceptances; and all the colleges accept many students with lower scores. So bottom line, many more high-scoring test-takers than the elite colleges have space for.
