<p>Do you guys believe that U Chicago accepts a lot of under-qualified students? I mean compared to Duke and Columbia (who share the same rank as Chicago), it is much much easier to get into. From the Decision threads from past years, I have noticed that people with SAT scores ranging from 1900-2400 get accepted, but the majority have only a 2000 or 2100.</p>
<p>I would never refer to them as "under-qualified". There is a reason UChicago is tied with Duke and Columbia. Besides, high acceptance rates can be attributed to a self-selecting pool and the relative obscurity of Chicago to, say, Columbia. In ten years, things will be way different.</p>
<p>Chicago applicants actually do quite well on the SAT and ACT.</p>
<p>ACT: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/359547-national-universities-highest-act-scores.html%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/359547-national-universities-highest-act-scores.html</a> (Chicago #6)</p>
<p>SAT CR: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/585845-usnwr-2009-looking-data-xvi-avg-sat-cr-scores-25-75-a.html%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/585845-usnwr-2009-looking-data-xvi-avg-sat-cr-scores-25-75-a.html</a> (Chicago #6)</p>
<p>SAT M: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/588151-usnwr-2009-looking-data-xvii-avg-sat-math-scores-25-75-a.html%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/588151-usnwr-2009-looking-data-xvii-avg-sat-math-scores-25-75-a.html</a> (Chicago #18)</p>
<p>Could the relatively high test scores in the statistics and relatively low ones in the "accepted thread" be because Chicago accepts fewer academically under qualified athletes in comparison to other schools? </p>
<p>This would mean that Chicago's average test scores are higher but the acceptance standards (in terms of test scores) for "academics" are lower relative to other top tier schools.</p>
<p>Tell the friend of my D who got into Stanford but was rejected at UofC that the latter is easy to get into.</p>
<p>Fact is that Chicago seems to be less numbers driven than its peer schools, which may account for the SAT score delta. SAT scores are easy to compute, easy to compare, but not the best tool for college admissions, and most savvy adcoms know this. </p>
<p>The era of UofC as a safety school ended about a decade ago.</p>
<p>You still don't get bragging rights if you attend, though, because too many people confuse it with other places like Chicago State. :) But that's another topic.</p>
<p>UChicago attracts relatively fewer applicants and thus accepts a higher percentage of them because it simply lacks the name, prestige, "fun college atmosphere" and elite image that Stanford, the Ivies and even Duke/MIT have. </p>
<p>Despite anecdotal evidence to the contrary, on the whole more Americans know about HYPS than Chicago. Chicago isn't associated with social climbing, college fun, or prestige, therefore it attracts fewer applicants. </p>
<p>So in that respect, yes, it is easier to get into Chicago than a comparable school. I feel that anyone from a competitive high school will also encounter that same reputation. Doesn't mean Chicago is inferior in any way; it just appeals to a different (more informed? :P) demographic.</p>
<p>The applicant pool imo is generally more qualified for Chicago than other schools for the exact reasons butcherer mentioned. Only really academic kids, or those who know just how good a school Chicago is, will apply. The mediocre students that are looking for a reach (who will just add to the reject pile of a top school) will more often than not pick Ivies, MIT, Stanford, Duke over Chicago. So maybe the Chicago pool isn't more qualified, but has less underqualified people if that makes sense? </p>
<p>This is all just conjecture btw. But just a small anecdote, there was one Chicago EA applicant that was deferred EA but accepted to MIT EA. Look at the deferred and rejected students in the 2013 EA Results threads, these kids aren't slackers.</p>
<p>it depends on how you judge intelligence, worriedhssenior.
test scores, grades, essays?</p>
<p>why will this all be different in 10 years?</p>
<p>^^^ The University of Chicago is quickly catching up to more elite schools. Once it gets a larger reputation, it will probably be more selective than almost every non-HYPSM school. Of course, there's no way of knowing that for sure, but I think it can happen.</p>
<p>The shift at Chicago started some years ago.</p>
<p>First, they started emphasizing undergrad education a bit more, including developing more of a campus life - hence the new dorms. Some might argue the first real shift was lightening up the core.</p>
<p>Then they fixed the stats reporting to USNWR which lifted UofC into the top ten. </p>
<p>These things have led to an increase in applications, which in turn feeds on itself. </p>
<p>On top of that, fewer students report back to their HS about UofC being an unhappy place. That did happen years ago. As a matter of fact, few alums from 20+ years ago want their own kids to go to UofC. That has now changed. It is a different place.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This would mean that Chicago's average test scores are higher but the acceptance standards (in terms of test scores) for "academics" are lower relative to other top tier schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is one reason why the mid 50% statistic is used for comparison and not the average. The lower athlete scores are not typically not used for comparison.</p>
<p>I also think U of C is less concerned about yield then its immediate peers, and this boosts the qualities of accepted students. Dean Ted O'Neill often states: "We accept the very best, and then we'll take as many as we can get."</p>
<p>So while Chicago may take only 10% of cross admits with Princeton, they'll readily accept all of the top kids, and then take as many as they can from these other schools. Other schools, such as Penn or Wash U, that are very cognizant about yield, will practice yield protection a bit more. </p>
<p>Finally, to the original poster, why - when Chicago is tied with some fine schools - will many associated with the U of C still say the college is under-ranked? Sorry to just rely on the strength of the brand over time, but in a Newsweek article released way back on Chicago admissions, when a young admissions counselor asked why admissions standards for the U of C were so rigorous, Dean O'Neill simply stated (to paraphrase): "What other standard would we use? WE ARE the University of Chicago." </p>
<p>A not insignificant group of people vigorously believe that Chicago is the pre-eminent college in America. When you ask, does the U of C accept under-qualified students, I think Dean O'Neill and many others would scoff and remind you that this is - lest you forget - The University of Chicago.</p>
<p>Cue7, It is interesting how many folks rationalize the relatively weaker admissions stats by saying either that UofC's applicant pool is self selecting (whose is not?) or that UofC pays less attention to SAT scores. </p>
<p>In truth, there's scant evidence for either. It is true that UofC does not require SAT II test scores (unless something has changed) and it is true that UofC is not located in a coastal location (unless you count Lake Michigan. :) Most don't). It is also true that UofC is reputed to have a tough curriculum, but MIT, Caltech and others have a similar reputation. </p>
<p>Much of this stems from, dare I say, a bit of defensiveness because of weaker name recognition, and frequent loss of cross admit battles with coastal schools. </p>
<p>Such is life. For example, outside the Northeast and that cohort hungry for an Ivy education of any brand, colleges like Penn or Brown are not well known, and each regularly loses cross admits to "higher" ivies. I'm sure they decry their own "problems" too.</p>
<p>In summary, I think it time the UofC family recognize that (1) UofC will never be an Ivy, even though it was a founding member of the Big 10 (2) Chicago (the city) will never be considered coastal (3) UofC will always be confused with UIC and CSU among some groups, and will never be a brand name recognized by your aunt...Soooo, it is what it is, and we should let kids like the OP find out on their own what "fairly easy" means. After all, intelligent shopping is an important maturity factor.</p>
<p>Totally in agreement with you, nmd. But I think it's important to point out, for those posters at home who might not have a chance to experience Chicago's eliteness before attending the school, that Chicago is very, very, very, very, very famous, but it's famous in a quiet way. </p>
<p>The kinds of people who care about prestige beyond ESPN appearances and sweatshirt appeal are more or less wowed by the Chicago name. The school has been and continues to be a leader in fields all across the academic curriculum, and draws in some of the brightest undergraduate students in the nation.</p>
<p>But again, it's up to you to make your decisions about schools.</p>
<p>Newmassdad - perhaps I wasn't clear enough in what I was posting. As opposed to Brown, Penn, Williams, etc., where a variety of concerns (legacy status, ability to play squash, etc.) get attention, at Chicago, intellectual merit and ability, coupled w curiosity, are the driving factors in U of C admissions. Since Chicago cares less about yield, the fact is they will just accept a lot more students than Harvard, etc., and just take as many as they can get. </p>
<p>So, instead of accepting 500 allstars, and then 2000 so-so applicants to make the class, chicago will accept 3500 really top-notch students, and hope that about 1200 or so will come. This makes chicago admissions competitive and very distinct from its immediate peers.</p>
<p>Also - when I took Ted O'Neill's quote: "Remember, We Are The University of Chicago," I meant it as I believe he did - disregarding what others may know about the school, Chicago maintains the highest possible standards in all its endeavors because those invested in the school believe it stands for excellence and preeminece. Dean O'Neill, administrators, students, etc. would all agree that the school lacks the star power of some of its peer institutions.</p>
<p>I don't think that's what O'Neill meant with his quote, however. For those that care and are invested in what Chicago is all about, the highest possible standards must be maintained. To be blunt, it's not at all about what others from the outside think. It's about what those on the inside know.</p>
<p>Cue7,</p>
<p>Things are changing at UofC. I won't bore you with the details. Suffice to say it is not by accident that a new prez of the university came along some months ago and now the admissions leadership is leaving. Clearly something more than the common application triggered the leadership change. What more I can't say, because I have no privy to inside information.</p>
<p>Because of this, I would not ascribe noble motives to what happens with UofC admissions. It may or may not have been noble in the past - we can't really know, only guess. We can guess with more confidence, though, that the U leadership is working to achieve more "mass" appeal for the college.</p>
<p>The reason for this, with only a small amount of inference on my part, is probably financial - the U has said in the past, albeit quietly, that it makes money on undergrads. Whether they still can, given the economic meltdown and financial aid competition from the HYPS+ is an interesting question. Assuming they still can, it is to the U advantage to increase mass appeal for a variety of financial reasons, especially long term.</p>
<p>The new VP of enrollment will pick the next admissions dean. It will be interesting to see the backgrounds of those individuals; that is what will indicate where things are really headed. That appointment should happen soon.</p>
<p>Newmassdad - I think you very well may be right. Dean O'Neill made that quote in a Newsweek article from the late 90s that came out during my time at the College. I do think that, in the mid 90s or so (when I was applying), Chicago really did have a pretty unique - and, in some ways, noble - stance on admissions. It's unfortunate that's changing but - as the numbers indicate, something definitely is afoot at Chicago.</p>