<p>Please do not ask others to chance you because Chicago values "essays" the MOST.(The second being rigor of academic record.) I have seen some people only posting their SAT or ACT, which are not important factors in decision. There is no way anybody would tell you if you will get into Chicago or not without reading your essays.(Unless you got 2400 SAT and 5 on at least 7 AP tests with 4.0 uw GPA) Please only ask if it is worth spening time on filling out applications.</p>
<p>i second that, spark15. uchicago values essays very highly.</p>
<p>Actually, I'm pretty sure academic rigor is most important at Chicago and most other colleges. But lots of people don't even bother putting that on "chance" threads.</p>
<p>I agree that chance threads aren't useful; most responses for come out as "solid chance assuming good essays."</p>
<p>do they really value essays the MOST? I mean, for a school that only accepts the smartest, you really think they would accept someone with an essay belonging in the New Yorker, but who has 1800 on SATs and a B- average, and like 1 EC? I dunno, this may be extreme, but what I am trying to say is I don't think Chicago would be such a great school if it only accepted people who are creative enough to write good essays to their uncommon prompts.</p>
<p>I'm with Smirkus. The importance of the essay is a bit overhyped on this forum. I think the essay is more important at UChicago than it is at other schools, but it's not everything as some people seem to put it.</p>
<p>"I mean, for a school that only accepts the smartest, you really think they would accept someone with an essay belonging in the New Yorker, but who has 1800 on SATs and a B- average, and like 1 EC?"</p>
<p>I think that the real question is whether a brilliant author could come up with less than stellar stats. Well, let's see. SAT's show either a degree of brightness or the pesistance to beat the miserable tests into submission. However, they correlate a little too closely with parental income, education and the numberr of advanced courses taken (for me, anyway) to entirely trust their predictive ability.</p>
<p>A B- average can be due to a bad attitude, poor study habits, working a job for too many hours, as well as a lack of scholarly ability. Plenty of authors with bad attitudes - towards HS, anyway. </p>
<p>(One really good EC is fine, so I'm not going to address it).</p>
<p>So, does Chicago let in our brilliant author with an attitude - that attends a miserable school, works too many hours, and can't break 500 on the math portion of the SAT? Just maybe - if the application indicates that the student could handle the work and blossom in Chicago's unique environment. Yes, down to the essays.</p>
<p>I'm not really comfortable with doing chances for one school unless its really one with a numbers-based admission. I usually try to find out the kid's list, and see if it is likely that it will produce at last a couple of acceptances. If it is, fine, if not - I mention something about it.</p>
<p>well, see, you were putting conditions on top of my conditions! Of course there would be exceptions at any institution in allowing a kid like that in--they could have a building named after their family, yes--they could be a gem from a ghetto school. I was just trying to show that you can have a great piece of writing for the essay, but if your stats don't do it, I don't see how you can get in.</p>
<p>Also, you made me realize a very good point. Test scores are stupid no matter what anyone says, but GPA is not. If nothing else, it is at least a number that shows how hard you work (as I def believe good grades are 90% hard work, probably more, you can be an idiot, but if you work long and hard hours you will have a great gpa). Chicago is a school that requires a huge amount of work, and part of accepting kids is that they will be able to cope with the workload and make something of themselves and add to the U. </p>
<p>A brilliant writer is brilliant--but do they deserve to get in (have they earned it?) if their stats suggest they don't work hard, aren't super bright (aside from writing essay prompts to U of C), and aren't very interested in anything in general? Will a fantastic essay cancel all that out? I say not.</p>
<p>A low gpa is not always a reflection of poor work quality.
Sometimes the student who works for himself rather than for the grade does not get the grade.
One reads Moliere on sparknotes, the other one in French. That second one might be getting more out of Moliere, but will spend less time memorizing chemistry formulas which he half-understands because it's a plug and chug class, not let's-understand-chemistry. In the long run, he gets more from the day. But his chem grade suffers.
True, you can both read Moliere in French and do chem.
But what about the next student, who decides that instead of taking time on chem, he REALLY likes Moliere and decides to read a whole other play (perhaps in French) on the same day?
Then he writes a comparative essay which wasn't assigned and which, thus, will not be graded.
Then he decides chemistry is interesting,
but not his chem class.
so he goes to the public library and gets a college textbook, starts reading it.
Chem turns as fascinating as Moliere,
and he gets a good grade on the quiz.
But he still didn't memorize those other chem formulas the week before.</p>
<p>Aah, more conditions atop of conditions.
But this is actually a typical scenario from my last year.
I did lots of work, it just wasn't necessarily the assigned work.
I think I will cope at the U of C, because the work that they assign will probably interest me more than high school chem.</p>
<p>Did I deserve to get in? It's a difficult question. I think that there are people who sacrificed more for their grade- including more of their education. I chose not to. And I think that I will still flourish at Chicago.</p>
<p>I believe Libby listed strength of curriculum as the first consideration, essays are number two, followed by recommendations, then EC's, with GPA and test scores last.</p>
<p>Smirkus -
"but do they deserve to get in (have they earned it?)"</p>
<p>This, of course, is the really heart-wrenching thing about admissions. A student can 'deserve' something - in that they have worked hard, done everything the school asked - and still come up short if the admissions officers don't see a fit in the application. This is true at every competitive school: it you have to pick just one, do you pick the brilliant but snotty author, or the good student with the stats, or the kid with the building named after dad. </p>
<p>Colleges have to exist within the world of the bean-counters while maintaining their place with the more rarified atmosphere of academia. Chicago and Caltech are, from what I have seen in four admissions cycles, among the 'cleanest' for admissions. If you can present that you and the university are a good fit for each other, and you have in some way demonstrated that you can handle the work, you have a reasonable chance of admissions (assuming that you are not an international requesting aid). Your chances won't be <em>noticably skewed</em> if you are not an althete (many LAC's), or male (MIT), or neglected to select parents from UPenn.</p>
<p>haha its funny you mention that last one mom--my school historically has had great relations with Penn. I am a double legacy there (3 degrees between my parents-1 undergrad, law, and wharton), and they have been consistent donors.</p>
<p>I applied ED, and everyone EVERYONE was very sure I would get in (as my stats are very nice, tho my test scores aren't great). My college counselor (ex-Brown Admissions Counselor, very credentialed) joked that its a shame I that my Chicago app was so "phenomenal" because I was just gonna get into Penn.</p>
<p>Lo and behold--I was deferred along with one other girl, two others were rejected (those kids should NOT have been outright rejected!), and guess what, the only person to get in early was the girl whose number two school was American U. She got in because she was single legacy, and a building was named after her grandfather. The new regional counselor who apparently doesn't like my school told my counselor "she had an angel in the family."</p>
<p>So at least in answer to your question--it would be an easy choice for those schools to make--they would accept the kid whose building is named after daddy/grandaddy.</p>
<p>I think that the heart of the matter is not that chance threads help them decide if they are going to get in or not, but how they can improve. I know when I was a naive soph/junior, I had no clue what I was getting in to. They let it to lightly that I was not up to par with other applicants. They critiqued what i could do better and now, almost 2 years later- i got in. I really wanted to come back him and thank them- but lo, they don't come here anymore. </p>
<p>Chance threads do help- I'm living proof.</p>
<p>You should ask if it is worth spending time on Chicago application with your stats. That does not mean that you should ask "other applicants" about your "chance to get in" without posting how "rigor the class schedule" is.</p>
<p>Plus, some people perform overwhelmingly better with advantages that are not offered in tests.(such as dictionaries, extra time, computers) Chicago will never give assignments that requires students to read a passage and answer 25 questions without the use of any aids.</p>
<p>Smirkus,
you know, I was going to use Brown as an example of legacy admits and then remembered that they changed the policy a couple of years ago ... many less admits ... really bent a lot of people out of shape (mainly 'rents) because the heuristics changed midstream. I wonder if something UPENN changed policies, too.</p>
<p>The image that I got (usually in a nightmare) when my son was applying was that of a handfull of dice being rolled. I was fairly sure that he would get a good cast, but not sure which ones would turn in the desired direction.</p>
<p>"SAT's show either a degree of brightness or the pesistance to beat the miserable tests into submission. However, they correlate a little too closely with parental income, education and the numberr of advanced courses taken (for me, anyway) to entirely trust their predictive ability."</p>
<p>Ok, TOTALLY off topic here, but ohiomom: I don't understand your logic. Why does the correlation of SAT scores with those factors delegitimize it? Afterall, correlation does not equal causation. And wouldn't you EXPECT them to correlate with education level and advanced curriculum? And their parents are most likely wealthier because they are smarter, and hence would pass it on to their kids. What seems biased or off to you?</p>
<p>drummerdude--SATs are stupid by default. In America especially, you don't need to be smart to be able to be wealthy, but you do need tobe wealthy to pay for a tutor and classes, and to live in an environment where its ok to practice and not be distracted.</p>
<p>For a test that is meant to measure how well you can do in college no matter who you are, for it to be proven that prep/tutoring/classes vastly improve scores, doesn't that show how incorrect it is at accessing success in college? Just because the class I took improved my score X amount of points DOES NOT IN ANY WAY mean I will do proportionally that much better in college. Therefore, the test is stupid--people should get close to identical scores every single time they take it--not jump up 200 points like a lot of kids do.</p>
<p>Also, there have been SO MANY studies proving that SAT scores are not correlated to success in or out of college, or intelligence. This is why it has been greatly deemphasized over the years--because its stupid.</p>
<p>That, and it's a silly way for dumb people to feel superior to smarter people--because they got a better score. Its a number, and thats it, and sure it can measure how good you are at certain types of thinking--but obviously these types of thinking represent such a small percentage of all the types you actually use in college their measurement of them means nothing. There's also debate over how well it measures that kind of thinking.</p>
<p>Ok, that was a rant, probably an incoherent one at that, but whatever.</p>
<p>Okay,
I think it's time we de-mystified the SAT's a little bit.
What, exactly, is SAT math?
It's a set of questions on the math we learned in 9th grade, testing how well we avoid careless mistakes, how many practice tests we took, and how long ago we did Euclidean geometry.</p>
<p>Then, there's critical reading:
part of it tests how many SAT vocab words you know. Hardly a test of innate intelligence.
The second part objectifies an intrinsically subjective field- literary analysis. There is no single right interpretation of any of its passages, and the answers change as the depth of your thoughts change.
It's a matter of knowing what the SATs would want you to think.</p>
<p>With writing,
There's the essay. Basically you take a position, whether you believe in it or it's at all credible.
You write as long a 5-paragraph essay on it that you can in the space of 25 minutes.
Topic and concluding sentence,
and examples.
(what would a chicago professor say?)</p>
<p>Smirkus is right;
economics and sat scores correlate because test prepping costs money. The more you prep, the more familiar you are with its format.
The first time I took a practice test, I got a 500 on the critical reading.
Then I took a few more tests, and learned what they wanted.
I ended up with an 800 on the actual test.
There was no dramatic change in my 'innate intelligence'.
It's a test of adaptability, of how well you can change your thought to fit inside the box.
Most creative endeavor, however, involves just the opposite.</p>
<p>"Ok, TOTALLY off topic here, but ohiomom: I don't understand your logic. Why does the correlation of SAT scores with those factors delegitimize it? Afterall, correlation does not equal causation. And wouldn't you EXPECT them to correlate with education level and advanced curriculum? And their parents are most likely wealthier because they are smarter, and hence would pass it on to their kids. What seems biased or off to you?"</p>
<p>Firstly, it does not take smarts to become wealthy. I know that this scenario is not as common any more but, at least in my local area, a worker on an assembly line at the auto plant makes at least 2 to 3 times what a beginning teacher with a masters degree makes. Also, wealthier parents are more able to afford to send their children to better private schools. Private schools in my area have better curriculum with APs and SAT prep classes. My school has ZERO APs and SAT prep classes are after school and cost money. Wealthy parents can also\ send their children to $3000 Princeton Review classes. College admissions is a rich man's game and the SATs are no exception.</p>
<p>On a sidenote, the joke is on the rich people who pay for Princeton Review classes: they suck. And 2nd, intelligence IS highly correlated with wealth in America. By and large, you DO have to be smart to be rich. And actually, the fact that the test is somewhat studiable probably increase the correlation with success in college. Think about it: aren't the kids who are willing to study to improve their SAT the same ones who are going to study and improve the most in college?</p>
<p>I simply do not believe there is evidence that the SAT is biased against the poor or minorities or anyone. You can say that the poor score lower and that minorities score lower, but that's totally meaningless unless you control for the difference found in intelligence between those groups: wealthy/poor and black/white.</p>
<p>You do need to be smart to be incredibly rich. You do not need to be brilliant to have enough money to send your kid to a private school.</p>
<p>This "difference found in intelligence" found between blacks and whites astounds me. Not to mention the fact that poor people are stupider. Please show me some research.</p>
<p>First you state that parents that are "smarter... would pass it on to their kids" and then in the next post you say that there are "differences in intelligence" between rich and poor. Last time checked they still haven't discovered the gene for "being poor". So which is it nature versus nurture? Did you do good on your SATs because your genetically smarter that black people or because your wealthier than poor people?</p>
<p>I cant wait to hear your reply.</p>
<p>Way to be bigoted.</p>