<p>So you are saying that it is a coincidental correlation that UC students have high SAT CR scores, and not the fact that the adcoms might actually place a good deal of weight on those scores in the admissions process? And that essays can be explicitly measured? I am much too jaded to go along, sorry.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So you are saying that it is a coincidental correlation that UC students have high SAT CR scores, and not the fact that the adcoms might actually place a good deal of weight on those scores in the admissions process?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And that essays can be explicitly measured?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am much too jaded to go along, sorry.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your problem, I guess.</p>
<p>Why not believe them? My guess is that students capable of writing the type of essays they are after and taking the most challenging courses will also do well on standardized tests as well, even if they are not much a part of the process.</p>
<p>Here is a series of comments form an admissions counselor concerning the importance of the different parts of the application:</p>
<p>"I'd actually say that test scores are the least important factor. GPA would probably be the second least important factor...</p>
<p>Most important: transcript. What classes have you chosen to take (the most rigorous ones?) and how well have you done in them?</p>
<p>Second most important: essays. We work very hard on our essay questions and are looking for creative thinkers and strong writers."</p>
<p>And from a later comment: "...I agree that it is a little weird that we have the 3rd highest verbal and 14th highest math scores in the country, given that we purport not to look at scores. However, I'm not lying. I've noticed that people with better test scores tend to also take harder classes, seek out more educational opportunities, and write better essays."</p>
<p>On the topic of EC's"</p>
<p>"...It makes me uncomfortable to see the way that college applicants are changing their lives so that they will "look better" to college admissions counselors who really only want to see them be happy and healthy. A question we ask ourselves a lot, and that you should probably ask the college counselors you meet, is: are we educators or are we businessmen? I am an educator, and as an educator I want my applicants to be healthy, and as healthy applicants, I'd rather you go on a bike ride than clock that 500th hour at a community service venture you don't really care about.</p>
<p>If your EC list shows that 1) you are interested in something (or two or three or four things) and, 2) you are doing that thing(s) you are interested in, then you've won."</p>
<p>SBDad -
One of the comments that my son made when we were discussing his first year at Chicago is that there really weren't any poor writers there. </p>
<p>Based on the smallish sample of Chicago essays and stats and results I have looked at ... IMO the essays really are important. Not all the essays that I have read have been undying masterpieces of literature, but they do seem to indicate a certain faclility in the world of ideas. The CR score likely provides a certain degree of predictive value, but an 800 CR with a fluff essay may well be unpleasantly surprised come April.</p>
<p>SBDad, my daugher was accepted at Chicago and has a SAT CR score of 620, well below the 25th percentile for Chicago (CR range 680-770). Her ACT composite score was also below Chicago's reported 25th percentile. (White kid, public school in a major urban area, and Chicago also accepted one other student from her high school with higher grades & test scores -- so there are no 'diversity' factors at play). </p>
<p>She writes extremely well -- her teachers have always raved about her writing, including a teacher for a community college course that she took at age NINE. But she consistently tests poorly, at least in the context of standardized, multiple choice tests. (She does fine on AP exams). </p>
<p>I think that the heavy emphasis on writing quality would tend to lead to admission of kids who usually score highly, with my poor testing daugher being the exception rather than the rule; that is, most students who write as well as my daughter does probably score much better on the test. But it also shows that Chicago focuses much more on the paperwork they are presented with than the number arrived at through a standardized multiple-choice test. If Chicago had been looking at test scores, they would have rejected my daughter out right. </p>
<p>I'd also note that my daughter was deferred EA; after that she submitted a second essay and also sent in a graded writing sample, but did nothing else to bolster her application. Since she had submitted a humorous essay on a self-created topic to start with, she simply opted to provide the college with something that showed her writing in an academic context. Since that strategy works, it seems that she guessed correctly that Chicago was primarily interested in seeing the quality of her writing. </p>
<p>I think Chicago wants to see originality in thinking and they want to see students with very strong writing skills. When they come up with new and unusual questions each year, it makes it very difficult for students to simply use the same essay themes that fit for all the other colleges. The standard and very hackneyed essay topics fly out of the window, and the college gets to see what happens if you throw something new and unexpected at the student.</p>
<p>"Me, I think Admissions knows exactly what they're doing."</p>
<p>And you offer the successful comparison with schools in Chicago's lofty category as Exhibit A, don't you? Yes, the admission knows what they are doing, especially explaining why a school with the resources and reputation of Chicago does not collect the most applications in its own area, and has to settle for subpar applications and admission rates at a time when its competitors face explosions in applications. </p>
<p>What a cushy job it must be to simply ensuring that fewer and fewer applicants decide on Chicago. Must also save a ton of money: no viewbooks to print, no recruiting campaigns, and no need to hire competent and affable staff. </p>
<p>Oh yes, I forgot, the subpar application numbers are caused by the inclement weather of Illinois. Funny, that the weather is so different over Northwestern's Evanston.</p>
<p>Chicago had record applications and a record yield despite its self-selective reputation. These sub par applicants have some of the best student numbers in the country and the school barely uses them for admission, must be someone is doing something right.</p>
<p>xiggi,</p>
<p><em>yawn</em> Are you being serious? Because you have your facts almost precisely backwards.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, the admission knows what they are doing, especially explaining why a school with the resources and reputation of Chicago does not collect the most applications in its own area, and has to settle for subpar applications and admission rates at a time when its competitors face explosions in applications.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Fact: Admissions have been steadily increasing over the last several years. Google it if you don't believe me. The Class of 2010 is the most "selective" class yet.</p>
<p>And in what way are the applicants "sub-par?" Because they average 29-33 on the ACT rather than 30-34? Give me a break. And while you're at it, give me some meaningful statistics. Things like graduate school placement, scholarships received, etc. Those are better measure of a school's academic quality than standardized tests which, at best, only predict ones success their first year of college.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh yes, I forgot, the subpar application numbers are caused by the inclement weather of Illinois. Funny, that the weather is so different over Northwestern's Evanston.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What are you even talking about? I think you've gone bonkers.</p>
<p>Xiggi, most students who go to Chicago aren't stupid enough to use the USNews ranking system as a way of assessing the quality of a college. If they do, they might look at the "peer assessment" score rather than the raw ranking -- Chicago's peer assessment rating of 4.6 puts it in the top 10, along with colleges like Duke & Cornell. </p>
<p>Most colleges have artificially inflated applicant pools and artificially deflated admission rates because they work hard via their marketing to convince unqualified and disinterested applicants to apply, and they also make it the application process exceptionally easy. </p>
<p>This does nothing whatsoever to improve their academics. It improves their prestige only insofar as the admit rate is taken as evidence of prestige. </p>
<p>We all know where you go to college, Xiggi, so be careful about what you decide to call "subpar". Chicago students have higher SAT scores (1310-1490 compared to your school's 1310-1490), a better faculty/student ratio (4:1 vs. 10:1) ... and as noted, is viewed as being much better in the eyes of faculty and administrators at other colleges (peer assessment of 4.6 vs. 4.0). But your college, which accepts the common app, is twice as hard to get into... so does that make you feel better? </p>
<p>From what I can see, Chicago gets exactly the students it wants year after year, and they don't suffer by their failure to attract applicants who prefer to have weaker statistical chances of admission to weaker schools. On the contrary, they don't waste their own time reading applications from students who would rather be somewhere else, and they don't waste the time or money of applicants by encouraging an upredictable process.</p>
<p>I think some people are flunking CR here. "Subpar application numbers" means "subpar number of applications" not "subpar applications" or "subpar applicants."</p>
<p>In the same vein, criticizing the writing prompts is not the same thing as criticizing the school.</p>
<p>I too don't understand the Northwestern reference. It is a wonderful school, and does receive more applicants than UChicago, but has about the same yield. It is also a little bigger, about 7900 vs 4600 undergraduates. As for student numbers (using the PR numbers) they are quite comparable.</p>
<p>Northwestern:
SAT - Verbal Range (25-75%): 650-740
SAT - Math Range (25-75%): 670-760
ACT (25-75%): 29-33</p>
<p>UChicago:
SAT - Verbal Range (25-75%): 680-770
SAT - Math Range (25-75%): 670-760
ACT (25-75%): 29-33</p>
<p>I agree, criticizing the essays is not the same as criticizing the school, one should not confuse the two. (It is when that line gets, or appears to get, crossed that folks tend to get a little testy.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
has to settle for subpar applications and admission rates
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think I misread that. If xiggi was talking about application rates, it should read "subpar application and amission rates." As it stands now, it's the applications that are subpar, not the application rate. "Applications rates" doesn't make sense to me, and even then the sentence itself is ambiguous: it could mean either [subpar [[applications and admissions] [rates]]] or [subpar [[applications] and [admissions rates]]].</p>
<p><em>shrug</em></p>
<p>If it was a typo or ambiguously worded I take back my comments.</p>
<p>Xiggi didn't say "subpar application numbers" - he said, "subpar applications and admission rates". CR means not adding in words that aren't there.</p>
<p>I assume he thinks that if Chicago was suddenly flooded with twice the number of applications, mostly from Ivy wannabes wanting a safety that didn't require too much extra work, as well as from students who had no chance whatsoever but figure they might as well send the common app out to a few reach colleges just to see what he ... then suddenly the applicaitons would be better. </p>
<p>As far as "subpar admission rates" go... I think its the other way around. I think Chicago has a reasonable admission rate, and it is colleges with single-digit admission rates who have made themselves "subpar." I applaud any college that takes measure to keep the admission process and acceptance rate reasonable. I think its totally insane that highly capable students need to apply to a dozen or more top schools simply because the competition has been artificially ratcheted up to the point that it's next to impossible to predict odds of admission -- and if the college can successfully discourage the weaker end of the applicant pool from applying in the first place, then more power to them. By "weaker end" I mean those who aren't serious about applying or attending as well as those who may have weaker academic qualificatons. Any student who would be deterred from applying because they are confused or upset by the questions isn't Chicago material in any case: I say that because Chicago is not a nurturing environment, and the essay questions on the Common App are trivial compared to the demands that will be made of those students in the classroom.</p>
<p>You are really complicating your life by trying to find issues with what I wrote. Are you really intimating that I would such casual and uneducated error as to discuss the QUALITY of an applicants' pool by its mere size? </p>
<p>The heart of the discussion in this thread IS the number of applications that the Admissions' Office generates or ... forgoes because of its choice of eesays. </p>
<p>The discussion about what I WROTE about the applications--or application or appplications'-- rates is mindboggling, as I have commented on the rates of admission and the number of application SEVERAL times in this thread. At no time have I discussed the quality of the school in pejorative terms nor have I equated number of applications with quality of education.
For the record, I am happy to discuss the finer points of admission rates, number of applications, or yield at any time. For the benefit of Idad, the ratio of admitted students to number of applications is not expressed in the form of yield -which the ratio of students who enroll after being admitted. Northwestern admits about 22% of its applicants, Chicago about 40%. Now, compare those two numbers with the schools that are considered as having an overlap of students with Chicago. Could it be any clearer than that?</p>
<p>Lastly, please have the integrity to recognize that I commented about the reputation of the school in extremely favorable terms, as I included the school among the most competitive schools in the country. Further, I believe that some of terms I use regarding my view of Chicago were "respect" and "admire."</p>
<p>"As far as "subpar admission rates" go... I think its the other way around. I think Chicago has a reasonable admission rate, and it is colleges with single-digit admission rates who have made themselves "subpar." I applaud any college that takes measure to keep the admission process and acceptance rate reasonable."</p>
<p>Calmom, are you telling us that you view the admission rates of Barnard negatively when compared to Smith or Mt Holyoke? Would some cutting and pasting of past posts help reviewing your position?</p>
<p>What is your comparative analysis of Columbia and Chicago when it comes to the number of applications and the rates of admission?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I too don't understand the Northwestern reference. It is a wonderful school, and does receive more applicants than UChicago, but has about the same yield.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yield is not the same as the rate of admissions.</p>
<p>NW - US News 2006
15,600 Applications
4,684 admitted
22% Admission Rate </p>
<p>Chicago - US News 2006
8.751 Applications
3,503 admitted
40% Admission Rate</p>
<p>
[quote]
You are really complicating your life by trying to find issues with what I wrote. Are you really intimating that I would such casual and uneducated error as to discuss the QUALITY of an applicants' pool by its mere size?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You write an ambiguous sentence and get upset when half of us read it one way and half of us read it another? Pha. I'll be charitable and take your extended exposition to say, "Oops, sorry, yes, I meant the application rate was subpar, not the applications."</p>
<p>Anyways, why would an increased application rate be better for Chicago? Explain it to us in no uncertain terms and maybe then we can stop talking past each other.</p>
<p>I still don't understand why you think Chicago wants more applicants? </p>
<p>Their 2006 season has ended up with a 36% admit rate and a housing crunch, because of unexpectedly high yield. I'd think that the last thing in the world that they would want is to make their admissions process and yield prediction more complex by enticing less committed applicants. </p>
<p>They aren't competing with Northwestern -- Northwestern is one of those colleges that has a big emphasis on Division I athletics and 123 fraternities and sororities. The kind of place that attracts students looking for a traditional "college life" type of experience. Chicago has none of that -- it is a Division III school (meaning no money for recruited athletes) and only a handful of fraternities & sororities. The kind of student who would be happy at Northwestern would probably be miserable at Chicago - and vice versa. Chicago probably has greater overlap with schools like MIT or Reed... far more bookish, far more interested in academics than other offerings.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Calmom,are you telling us that you view the admission rates of Barnard negatively when compared to Smith or Mt Holyoke?
[/quote]
I was very frustrated that Barnard has gotten so selective in recent years. I first started thinking that Barnard was an ideal college for my daughter about 4 or 5 years ago when the admission rate was much higher - I think that when Barnard first came to my attention, admission rates were still above 50%. My son had a good experience applying for college, targeting excellent colleges that all seemed like "matches" for him -- it was stress free with a lot of excellent choices in the spring. I though then (and still do), that the ideal college selection process is to find good fit colleges that also offer academic challenge where the student is a strong candidate for admission and very likely to get in. Over the years the college process has reminded me of the housing market back in the days when we were young and trying to save up for a down payment -- it was a moving target, and the prices were going up faster than we could save. (College tuition is kind of like that, too.)</p>
<p>This year, I had nothing but stress, worrying that my daughter was going to see a slew of rejections in the spring. She went to visit match/safety schools in September and was disappointed -- she knew that those colleges simply weren't academically at the level she was looking at, though we all tried to pretend otherwise as she assembled a list. The situation was complicated by my daughter's area of interest & intended major -- for the most part, it is only offered at schools that are also very strong academically. </p>
<p>Since we are dependent on need-based financial aid, ED wasn't an option for us -- so my daughter couldn't take advantage of any alternate way to lessen the competition or increase her odds of admission. It seems to me that ED is an escape valve for rich kids, which lets them head off the competition and compete in a more rational process... and the RD kids bear the brunt of the rankings game. </p>
<p>I am glad that my daughter got in to Barnard, but she was ONE applicant and it makes no difference to us once she accepted how many other students were turned away. She didn't choose Barnard over Mt. Holyoke or Smith because of its degree of selectivity; she chose Barnard because it is urban and associated with a large research university. </p>
<p>If Barnard accepted 70% of its applicants but still was the same school, with the same offerings, my daughter would have applied. My son applied to Reed back in the days when it did accept 70% or more or its applicants - it was his top choice, definitely favored over Pomona (which was far more selective) and many other more selective colleges, and he would have attended but for the fact that they did not offer him any financial aid. </p>
<p>I felt relieved and overjoyed this year when my daughter was accepted to Barnard, but if Barnard were to announce a change in admission practices that would reduce its applicant pool, making it a less uncertain process for other students ... I'd be all for it. (For example, I would favor a policy that would prohibit students from applying to both Barnard & Columbia, thereby eliminating the part of the applicant pool that is looking at Barnard primarily as a backup to applying to Columbia - I'm sure that would probably cut their applicant pool by at least 20%, but I also think that would be better for Barnard in the long run.)
[quote]
What is your comparative analysis of Columbia and Chicago when it comes to the number of applications and the rates of admission?
[/quote]
Obviously it is easier to get into Chicago, as Columbia has less than 10% admit rate. I think that Chicago is probably a somewhat better choice academically, because of the better faculty/student ratio and smaller average class size. I understand that classes at Columbia are very large and that it is a somewhat impersonal, bureaucratic environment.</p>
<p>We all know yield is not the same as admission rate, but what does it matter how many apply if the resulting student body has the characteristics of the UChicago student profile? Looks like the self-selection thing is working.</p>
<p>Interestingly, there has been some concern about the increasing selectivity of UChicago now at 36% with an overenrolled 2010 class. Currently, there is little thought given to forming a class and students are not compared too much to one another but to whether or not they would be a fit in the Chicago environment. It would be sad if that were to change too much.</p>
<p>Diocletian, I am neither upset nor in need of what you call charity, especially with your assessment of my lengthy exposition. I maintain that the context and the contents of my post should have been very clear to anyone who read the earlier discussions. I am most definitely not offering the unnecessary "Oops, sorry..." but since a roadmap seems to be needed, here is the Cliff Notes' version:</p>
<p>Prepare your own list of schools that compete with Chicago for the same students -based on the superior statistics posted in this thread or even the rather irrelevant but often quoted peer assessment of US News. Now, ask yourself why more students apply to the competitors. Then, go look for how many schools issue press releases that extol a lower number of applicants. Finally, ask yourself if the role of the admissions office is to secure MORE applicants or fewer. Then examine the role of the choice of essays. </p>
<p>A far as explaining in no uncertain terms what I meant, I'll simply refer to my earlier posts. How much clearer do I have to be?</p>