<p>Many people would think that acceptance rate determines the quality of the university. For most colleges it is true. But what about chicago? why in such a prestigious school the acceptance rate is so high? why do people refrain from applying here? WHy should someone go to a school with an acceptance rate of 41 (Chicago) rather then 18 (Amherst) Thanx</p>
<p>The applicant pool of UChicago is self selecting since it is generally as good if not better than most of the Ivy leagues' undergraduate programs, but doesn't carry the name dropping status of say...Harvard amongst the non-professional/intellectual community. As such, you actually have to WANT to get an education instead of merely prestige. Not to say that everyone who goes or wants to go to an Ivy League is merely in it for the prestige, nor is that necessarily a bad thing. It just affects the applicant pool in such a way that reduces the # of people applying. Also...the essays are quite specific, so good luck including UChicago in your mass application spams. <3.</p>
<p>that's my hypothesis and I'm sticking to it. kthx.</p>
<p>Why anyone would ever, ever, EVER consider choosing a college based on their admissions acceptance rate is beyond me...</p>
<p>Anyway, there have been posts on this topic before, but I can think of a couple of reasons. One is that the acceptance rate is higher than some other top schools because the applicant pool is more self-selecting; not every high schooler would fit in at Chicago. It may also be that Chicago does not practice defensive admissions, which many other schools do, in which the school rejects or waitlists the very top applicants in order to keep low acceptance rates and high yields. Another possibility is that most schools are very easy to apply to: the common application is easy and even schools that do not use the common app generally have applications that are pretty similar. Chicago, on the other hand, has an application that requires specific time and thought; it is not an application that a student applying to a million schools can simply add without a thought. In order to complete the application, the student will most likely have an invested interest beyond that required by other schools' applications.</p>
<p>Amherst has a low acceptance rate because it is a small, very well-known school. Just because Amherst can only take so many kids does not mean it's a better school-- in fact, in many ways it's the opposite, as most of the people I know at Amherst/Williams are less amazing students that you would expect, but they were admitted to play DIII sports for the school. (Because Amherst is a small school with many sports, the admissions office has to go fishing for athletes to play those sports and sometimes intelligence is compromised a bit in exchange for a good running back, and these pseudo-recruits make up a higher percentage of the college population than at bigger schools.)</p>
<p>Also, as many have said before, Chicago is extroadinarily self-selective. A friend of mine who will be going to Columbia next year said he didn't even touch the Chicago application, he was so scared of it. Same with another friend who is going to Harvard-- he gave up on the application. I'm sure the case is such with many other students who were Ivy-level and were considering Chicago-- and had they all applied, Chicago's acceptance rate would be lower. Consider that the Ivy League schools all use the common app or a slight mutation of the common app, both of which are rather generic and easy to fill out. Chicago's application, on the other hand, requires highly unusual essays.</p>
<p>Chicago puts up high fences so they can see who really wants to go-- it's not a matter of less prestige or more prestige</p>
<p>I agree with corranged. Nobody should select a school based on its acceptance rate.</p>
<p>^Trust me on this: UChicago doesn't really have that much more of a self-selective pool (or even any more, possibly) than, say...MIT or Caltech, as those schools are also known for their rigor and intensity. They, however, maintain an acceptance rate less than 15% consistently. </p>
<p>That said, the high acceptance rate, induced by a low yield rate, is not necessarily a bad thing. It just means that most people who apply to the elite schools would also be satisfied with a Chicago education, which is more than can be said for many other schools of supposedly the same calibre (or at least the same US World NewsRating).</p>
<p>i third that. acceptance rates are bs. go because you want to go, not because of stupid statistics. uchicago students are more than that.</p>
<p>Caltech has a small small small undergraduate class. MIT isn't that large either.</p>
<p>BlacknBlue is right. Chicago is a horrible school with a crappy reputation and horrible programs. I would much rather be at a small LAC with twice a large of a student:faculty ratio and 1/3 the endowment. Go bark up another tree you muckraker.</p>
<p>amykins is right. ok heres the deal:
MIT and caltech may be as self-selective as uchicago is, but MIT and caltech are the cream of the crop schools. therefore, their applicant pools will be huge.</p>
<p>with uchicago, their application, to put it quite frankly, "scares people off". when the cream of the crop students are looking for a good semi reach next to their ivys, they wont just add an application to uchicago in their mix of schools because of uchicagos app.</p>
<p>oh stop being so sensitive! blacknblue's not attacking the school, he's just responding to the OP.</p>
<p>Well, I got into Amherst and CHicago, and now I am biting my nuckles. Do I want that "life of mind" ******** and as u have implied a school considered "second best" by most high caliber applicants? Do I want to go to a school where those who were not admitted to harvard or MIT go? Or would I rather go to Amherst, which is number one? Or should I stick to the life of mind</p>
<p>Here's what I think is rather remarkable: Let's entertain BlacknBlue's point for a second and assume that people at the University of Chicago really are those who were by and large turned down by the Ivies... care to explain the fact that, even though the school takes SAT into account very little, that it still manages to have a higher SAT average than four(half) of the ivies?</p>
<p>Once again we have a thread debating the acceptance rate, yield, self-selection etc for Chicago.</p>
<p>If Black n' Blue has come out of the woodwork, can Byerly be far behind?</p>
<p>These arguments are getting stale. So what about acceptance rate and yield? Judge a school by what it offers. If the school is not for you, go somewhere else. There are no bad decisions with any of these fine schools.</p>
<p>I think it would be funny to find out Black n Blue is actually Byerly</p>
<p>Good point.</p>
<p>Well, that's what I am trying to find out</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do I want that "life of mind" ******** and as u have implied a school considered "second best" by most high caliber applicants?
[/quote]
I was accepted to Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Caltech, Stanford, Duke, etc., and I'm probably going to Chicago. By no means is it a "lesser" school. That said, I can't claim that I would hold Chicago in quite the same esteem if it didn't give me merit aid (I really like MIT). But in general, I think its academic programs rank right up there with the schools at the top of US News's ridiculous "hierarchy." In a lot of cases, Chicago is better.</p>
<p>"Many people would think that acceptance rate determines the quality of the university."</p>
<p>Not being most people, I would tend to look at the faculty, resources such as the libraries and research centers, and so on.</p>
<p>If you want something quantitative but more meaningful than US News, you could look at the National Research Council rankings, compiled on one page by a Texas A&M professor: <a href="http://www.stat.tamu.edu/%7Ejnewton/nrc_rankings/nrc41.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~jnewton/nrc_rankings/nrc41.html</a></p>
<p>They are supposed to evaluate the caliber of a department's graduate programs and research, which doesn't directly imply strength in undergraduate teaching, but the same faculty teach both undergraduate and graduate courses, so there's certainly some value to the numbers.</p>