I’ll post something on the Race thread that addresses this (it’s more relevant on that thread).
Thinking out loud: for admissions strategy, should students (URM or not) consider the 25th percentile as the unofficial cutoff for whether to submit?
In test-optional admissions, how is the reported range calculated - if most students (URM or not) below the 25th percentile no longer submit scores, does the 25th percentile move higher?
“With this change in policy, the applicant now has to ask, “do I want to send in my scores?” Clever. The burden has been shifted to the applicant, who has no real information about the actual admissions process or the true criteria for admission.”
- Bingo.
"Why force this decision onto the student, who is flying blind here? Why doesn’t UC instead ask, “do we want to see the scores for this applicant?”
- Because they don't need to.
“I just want to point out that UChicago has never been a fan of these standardized exams. It has never required SAT II subject tests, though most students still submit them anyway.”
- Not sure that first part is accurate. Before the SAT (and then ACT), UChicago administered its own admissions test. So if wasn't a fan of STANDARDIZED tests, it certainly believed in admissions testing. But I also doubt it didn't like standardized testing which, of course, started out as a way of measuring IQ. Psychometrics might be out of fashion in general, but should be alive and well as an academic discipline. As for the 2nd part, do we actually know that's a fact say, back in the 80's, when pretty much most selective privates required at least one subject test? Currently, they are considered supplementary. My daughter could have submitted hers but opted not to because she felt they didn't add any new information to her application. Someone else who, say, blows away the chem subject test despite poor grades might want to submit because that can be useful information.
Seriously, how do you know what they want? Maybe they just want to virtue signal by increasing URM enrollment to the level of its perceived peers, but still want to maintain their published score ranges. I posted in the Race thread that there is a plausible argument that there are no additional URM who can score above UC’s 25th percentile and who are available to UC. (See http://talk.qa.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/21594751/#Comment_21594751.)
If they want to increase first gen kids, and not hurt their reported score range, well there are tons of them who will score well above even UC’s 75th percentile (I was one of them, and I can show them the exact schools where they will find such kids - not that they don’t know where to look already).
Let’s just keep an eye on the data going forward. One should always ready to change his opinion and acknowledge erroneous reasoning in light of countervailing facts. But the fact that UC is only 4% black while its peer universities are typically double or even triple that rate must be a source of great embarrassment to the institution. If that figure rises in future entering classes without a coordinate drop in the 25-75 numbers, I would think that’s strong evidence of what they are really targeting here. I find it implausible that all its peer schools can have such higher percentages, but somehow these applicants are not available in UC’s applicant pool. I suspect yield is very low for black admits, and UC now needs to reach much lower down into the broader URM talent pool in order to get the numbers up. This phenomenon has been documented extensively and conclusively in law school admissions, where any even minimally qualified black applicant (qualified at the level of the top 14 schools) is hoovered up by two or three schools at the top of the food chain.
I thought UChicago is about 10% African American and about 14~15% Hispanics?
^ I actually had some trouble getting exact figures at UC, seeing 4% for a recent entering class and another at 5% for black undergraduate representation. (UC does not publish a CDS apparently and there are dead links on its website.)
This looks official, and would suggest 5%, so I stand corrected!
https://registrar.uchicago.edu/sites/registrar.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/IPEDS-ENROLLMENT-SUMMARY.pdf
“The burden has been shifted to the applicant”
You didn’t know “the burden” has always been on the the applicant??! Seriously? That it’s up to the kid to be the right candidate, to present as the right one?
Have we now found the Holy Grail of why so many adults on CC are so-darned-confused? Because, all along, they thought it was up to the college to indicate the wise decisions, the savvy path? And then ice your chances with points for how you dream of this school?
Then chose your flagship or a directional.
The most recent entering class has 9% African American and 14% Hispanic.
https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/apply/class-2021-profile
@Poplicola - Thanks for that I wish I would have seen it before i posted my analysis.
So, according to the IPEDS summary data, as of Fall 2016, UC was 5.3% black across all undergraduate years. For the class entering Fall 2017, that class was 9% black, quite a jump, and the school reported an ACT score down to 20 and an SAT score down to 1020 (yet were able to keep their 25-75 numbers at 32-35 at least for this year). Now it is dropping the testing requirement. It will be interesting to see the reported score ranges going forward.
Regarding the percentage URMs, there are a variety of different ways this can calculated, which relates to the variety in numbers. Percentage 2 or more races, and international students are common sources of discrepancy. Universities tend to report in way that makes URM percentages larger on their website. The following numbers use a consistent source – IPEDS, listing the median of the 3 most recent years. UoC does seem to be lower than bulk of its peers, but hardly any are double or triple.
Percentage African-American
Chicago – 5%
Caltech – 1%
Stanford – 6%
MIT – 6%
Harvard – 6%
Northewestern – 6%
Yale – 7%
Princeton – 8%
Percentage Hispanic
Chicago – 9%
Princeton – 9%
Harvard – 10%
Northewestern – 11%
Yale – 11%
Caltech – 12%
MIT – 15%
Stanford – 16%
So, it was always up to the applicant to figure out if he wanted to present other components of the application, like GPA and LORs and Essays? OK. I have always had a sneaky suspicion that there are a few accomplishments that are auto-admit anywhere, so all that other mumbo jumbo could be skipped… And I always knew that the mere provision of applicant name was enough to complete an application for a very select few…
Note that all of the above is nearly unchanged from the previous year.
In the class of 2020, UoC reported 8.6% black on website with min scores of 20 ACT and 1020 ACT
In the class of 2021, UoC reported 9% black on website with min scores of 20 ACT and 1020 ACT
IPEDS reported 5% for the same year that UoC reported 9%, which likely primarily relates to including multi-race students in their corresponding URM category, such that percentages would sum above 100%, had they included white students.
UoC’s peers are usually similar or worse in misleading reporting and usually have similar or lower min score ranges. For example, Harvard reported 14% African-American on their website in a year that they reported 6% to IPEDS. Harvard’s CDS for that year indicates that SAT/ACT scores among matriculating students included min scores of 400s on SAT math, 400s on SAT CR, and scores in 18-23 range on ACT composite.
The 25th percentile is difficult to predict, especially when you consider that it differs among admitted and matriculating students, and changes from year to year. Instead I’d expect it’s more a question of whether you think the scores are inconsistent with the rest of your application UoC’s FAQ about when to submit scores states the following. The “additional material” they mention can include other standardized tests like SAT II, AP, and A-level; as well as non-stat things things like research, a business plan, theater performances, etc.
Historically, there has been a small increase in 25th percentile scores when colleges go test optional, but a far smaller increase than some of the posts in this thread suggest. For example, Wake Forest went test optional in 2008. A summary of their reported SAT scores is below. There wasn’t much change in either SAT score percentile or percent submitting SAT scores in the first year of test optional, and 25th percentile scores did not increase much in following years.
2007 – 610/630 (80% submitted SAT, 20% ACT)
2008 – 610/630 (72% submitted SAT, 28% ACT)
2009 – 580/600 (68% submitted SAT, 39% ACT)
2010 – 610/613? (64% submitted SAT, 36% ACT)
2011 – 610/620 (63% submitted SAT, 37% ACT)
2012 – 620/630 (52% submitted SAT, 32% ACT)
2013 – 600/630 (52% submitted SAT, 40% ACT)
Helpful, @Data10, thanks. So, Harvard is reporting 6% black on IPEDS at the same time it is touting 14% black in its marketing materials? Does anyone else think this is a problem? And this sort of misleading marketing by admissions offices is fairly common in the Ivies? And yet we should assume they are being truthful in other pronouncements about their admissions policies?
Mark Twain popularized the expression, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” In Harvard’s case, I believe they are reporting percentages of admitted students, lot matriculating students. They also don’t have categories for 2 or more races or international, so I expect mixed students are included in the percentages, perhaps international African students as well.
No, not up to the student to decide whether to submit gpa, etc. C’mon.
Rather, up to them to present their best, to know enough, when it comes to these tippy top colleges, to have an idea what that is and to make wise, infored decisions. That responsibility. I don’t see the bright kids as helpless. Nor do I think top colleges should need to explain in the way some hs teachers do.
But I do think many hs top performers miss this responsibility. They seem to feel they are a fait accompli, having mastered their own hs, no more is needed.
I also think it’s a mistake to assume anyone not reporting scores falls into the bottom 25th percentile. There are many reasons why one might not.
I also want to say, if anyone is interested in UoC and asking a score question…it shouldn’t fall on Data10 to be the one to go looking for Chi’s own words, in a FAQ. The student or parent shold be able to do the same, when the attitude is there, along with the spirit of inquiry.
Fair enough. You don’t need a degree in math to understand that 14% versus 6% is very unlikely to represent admitted versus enrolled in a school with 80% average yield, though!
Perhaps the ACT data might give some context? In that very large data set, blacks are approximately 13% with mixed being 4%, and presumably that mixed figure includes all mixed race.
I guess the lesson is that yes this is no longer the 1920s but Harvard still appears to be misleading people about race and admissions. I wonder if Twain would agree?
"Rather, up to them to present their best, to know enough, when it comes to these tippy top colleges, to have an idea what that is and to make wise, infored decisions. That responsibility. I don’t see the bright kids as helpless. Nor do I think top colleges should need to explain in the way some hs teachers do.
But I do think many hs top performers miss this responsibility. They seem to feel they are a fait accompli, having mastered their own hs, no more is needed."
Let them eat cake! UChicago’s announcement of the Empower Initiative specifically states that it is designed to attract first gen and low income students by removing barriers. This thread is also primarily discussing first gen and low income students. These students don’t often have access to decent guidance counseling in the crummy public schools, they may or may not have parents with any knowledge, they often don’t have guidance from teachers who know what top colleges are looking for and may not know peers who have matriculated to top colleges. Yet it’s reasonable for them to have enough knowledge of the college admissions process to make wise, informed decisions?!? When top students with every resource available struggle with this? Ridiculous.
Of course some of them will get help and some will figure it out on their own, but to assume they will is about as realistic as the idea that they won’t need scholarship money because they will just eat cake. This is the sort of thinking that shows how little some people understand the challenges facing first gen, low income students who are not lucky enough to have access to a Stuy or Questbridge. They are not helpless, but they don’t know what they don’t know and expecting them to absorb it through magical means is insensitive.
I still don’t see the alternative to holistic admissions in some form. There are far more high stat kids then can be admitted by Harvard or U of C or any other elite school. Should it be a lottery? What would then happen to the different characters that schools now enjoy. Harvard is not Brown is not Swarthmore is not U of C. If schools admit entirely on rank all of that disappears. Schools need some ability to admit the kids who will fit at the campus and enhance it.
And then what happens to Student’s choice? Does the highest ranked kid have to go to the highest ranked university? Why should the kids be able to choose “holistically” but not the schools? This works both ways. Luckily in this country there are enough excellent schools so that no truly excellent student will be entirely shut out. There is no unfairness in the fact that every student can’t have his or her first choice.