<p>it wasnt 41% this year was it? they received a lot of applications this year compared to years past i thought</p>
<p>on that note... back in 1999 i think it was 72%, and this year they are expecting it to be around 36% (the numbers only come out in the summer)... i think that there is something to be said for a school which has received so many more applications even though it didn't play the common app game... i think it says something about its growing reputation and prestige... bottom line, I think that right now Chicago is a fantastic place to be, and I think that decisions like randomperson's will be more and more commonplace</p>
<p>randomperson: I think those are from 95.</p>
<p>dendankin,
can you visit Chicago and/or Amherst this month?</p>
<p>
[quote]
randomperson: I think those are from 95.
[/quote]
Yeah... they are old. But it is nice to have them all in one place (unless there's a better link somewhere), and I think that most departments change less than we would expect in a decade.</p>
<p>I posted this on the Harvard forum in a similar discussions about acceptance rates... might be relevant here:</p>
<p>Consider this: if "percentage accepted" is your measure of "selectivity," then undeniably less selective admissions practices can result in greater apparent "selectivity."</p>
<p>Say that a university decides to emphasize cloudy, subjective "personal" factors to a much greater extent, making the process (from an outside perspective) more random. If prospective applicants view the process as more arbitrary or luck-driven, more will apply (after all, you might as well buy yourself a lottery ticket!). This increase in applicant numbers means that more students will be rejected, and that admission rates will tumble.</p>
<p>How exactly is this supposed to reflect selectivity?</p>
<p>on that note, I will direct someone to the following New Yorker article which explores randomperson's point quite remarkably... also, look for the UofC reference, which is quite interesting, putting it as a direct antithesis to Harvard.</p>
<p>felipe: look, please don't get your panties all in a twist. you like uchi, fine, the op asked and i wanted to answer. why does four of the eight ivy's have lower avg sat scores? first, i don't know that they do, but assuming arguendo, that you are correct, each of the ivy's are heavy sports recruiters whereas uchi is not. i'm not saying jocks are stupid, but they do tend to level out an sat average. noone said that uchi did not provide a great education, in fact, i may have been the one to say that harvard provided a cupcake education, but the facts are pretty clear even anecedotally (sorry, i'm a lover not a speller) on this thread. amykins would have gone to princeton had she been accepted. another person on this thread chose uchi over an ivy, but merit aid made it happen (bought and paid for). so what? what's the big deal. the big deal is that you and other uchi apologists are soooo sensitive about being the backup to these other schools. uchi people are almost as sensitive as tufts people. at least tufts has their own syndrome, uchi just about takes everyone (ok, that was a cheap shot). i would venture to say that 9.5 people out of 10 would choose a 20% or less school over uchi. not just because they are more exclusive, but because there are reasons why so many apply to those places for so few spaces. that said, what is wrong with being the first choice of all the students that don't get into the 20% and lower? you tell most people that you attend uchi and the response is wow. the low yield is a fact of life for uchi, it shows what it shows. if the op wants to be in more exclusive company, well then it would be his or her loss, but that doesn't change the fact that uchi accepts a disproportionately high number of applicants for a school that is so good. so if one defines elite as exclusive, then uchi left at the curb if you define elite as world class, then uchi makes the cut.</p>
<p>But no one defines elite as exclusive, only a complete egoist would do that. And even if every football player got an 800, their SAT average would lower about 10 pts. That's a pretty ridiculous asumption.</p>
<p>I am visiting chicago on the 10th and amherst sometime before the 20th</p>
<p>hey mikey: how do you know that noone defines elite as exclusive? i'm sure there are quite a few egoists out there. also, did you have to take your shoes off to do the math on that sat avg problem or did you just make it up?</p>
<p>I think it's more that we're sensitive about being called an ivy backups.
Okay I speak for myself.</p>
<p>I completely understand wanting to provoke discussion- but BlacknBlue your comments are calibrated towards twisting up our panties.</p>
<p>I didn't need to. My superior commonsense disregarded your comment as trying to mke up some reason Ivy SATs were lower. Listen to it, that's the stupidest idea I've ever heard.</p>
<p>ok pyramid: you may be right on the panty thing, but you have to admit the high acceptance rate at uchi, coupled with the 20% or lower schools rejections that most of the uchi attendees have (of course, that doesn't count the uchi kids that had no aspirations of getting into a 20% or lower school) really is a sensitive subject, wouldn't you? oh wait, you already admitted that.</p>
<p>WHo has the departments rankings of the lacs?</p>
<p>Exactly. It is a sensitive subject- but I only speak for myself. It's probably true for others but it might not be.
Why are you doing the panty thing? Especially given that I've already agreed with you about myself?</p>
<p>mikey: you have superior common sense? can you also leap tall buildings in a single bound? let me ask you, did you apply to any schools that had an admit rate of less than 20%? and what was the result? i think it would add flavor to this particular discussion</p>
<p>pyramid: i do it because...i'm not sleepy and watching the oakland a's get creamed by the yankees on opening day really isn't my thing</p>
<p>I don't exactly understand. Are you saying that Chicago students, or most of them anyways, got rejected at schools below 20%??? One thing I have learned from this round of college admissions is how arbitrary it is. I got into some pretty awesome schools such as Chicago, W&M, and JHU (apparently the most competitive year in history), but waitlisted at UVa instate.</p>
<p>ah and so ****ing people off and then trying to trip them up (with varying degrees of success) is?</p>
<p>actually...I love doing that. I only wish I had the guts to do it a lot more.</p>