This is going nowhere. You make a number of assumptions that, IMO, the data just doesn’t support.
If you ever come up with data which more fully supports your assumptions, I’ll be glad to reconsider my opinion.
Until then, thanks for the interesting discussion.
You are a bit cryptic for me, MT, but I’ll take a shot: You are on the staff of HW. A teacher or counsellor? The DEI officer? The Principal?
As for me, what I know comes from the descriptions of others at this and similar schools, augmented by whatever motherwit I can summon and a certain knowledge of human nature that comes with gray hairs. If you were ever able to forego your Straussian fondness for secret writing and share your experience with us with some specificity you might convince us that there’s another reading of the situation. Although I deplore the theory everywhere present in the school’s statement on racial matters, perhaps you could convince me that the reality isn’t so bad. That’s assuming you haven’t consigned all skeptics and critics to the purgatory of the unenlightened.
We haven’t heard from any parents supporting the new racial emphasis in this present discussion nor have you or anyone else directed us to any. That was what I was pointing out. I did say that I assume they exist.
Not sure when you last applied, but the Anti-Racism Plan was released in July of 2020, and has been prominently featured in the DEI section since then. And the Mission Statement has been around since early 2014.
I agree. It seems like the school is trying to make strides to address this, but unfortunately even when HW is moving in the right direction, it moves very deliberately, and the pace is extremely frustrating for those who support the change.
That is some of what is funny about the opinions expressed on this thread. HW is considered “traditional” to the point of stodgy by LA standards, and sometimes for good reason. (How about that math flowchart, though.)
None of the above. I don’t work for the school.
I have shared my experiences with the specificity with which I feel comfortable. I’m not thrilled that HW has been become the outrage du jour in the culture wars and out of respect for the privacy of the students, teachers, administrators, I have avoided going into details and will continue to do so. I will say, though, that I am extremely proud of the way the vast majority of the community has reacted, especially the students.
And, frankly, I don’t care whether I convince you or not. I just didn’t like seeing the school misrepresented, so I countered the inaccurate narrative.
Why did you write that other HW parents and students “haven’t spoken up?”
The very beginning of the forum rules, to which everyone agreed upon registering:
Our forum is expected to be a friendly and welcoming place where members can post without their motives, intelligence, or other personal characteristics being questioned.
http://talk.qa.collegeconfidential.com/guidelines
One can, and should, feel free to express differing opinions, but users should address other users with respect. One should address users on this site as one would if having a civilized conversation face to face.
I looked at the math flow chart. It looks completely normal to me. Is there something odd about it?
So… you have a sample of two that I presume you deem not quite okay… and a sample of one that you deem to be okay (yourself)… not sure how one can conclude anything about the whole alumni body from this anecdote.
Can’t speak for the law graduates but students in some of the other graduate schools and departments definitely carried a sense of superiority as well as a chip on their shoulder when I attended many years ago, and I don’t believe the College is all that different today. I think it’s part of the ethos of the university. So it shouldn’t be too surprising to find such on the UChicago forum. What IS surprising is the number from elsewhere who continually come on this forum to “correct” this. They of course are welcome to go back and booster their own school - but they don’t, I guess because UChicago is the more interesting discussion. I can only conclude that they must crave the spirited exchange and even occasional sparring and debate which, for whatever reason, isn’t to be found on their own school threads.
One prominent faculty member in the humanities who’s name escapes me said when asked where he was educated said “I received my PhD from Stanford but was educated at the University of Chicago.”
Why couldn’t UChicago bring in the top of the class via ED2? Something is explaining the fact that UChicago is less likely to admit from the top of the class than the middle of the pack. It’s more likely that the top of the class prefers other schools, period, and so isn’t applying ED2 but RD. UChicago is less likely to admit you if they think you are headed elsewhere. They have gotten increasingly good at selecting high-matriculation potential admits in the RD round; the non-binding yield is higher now than the overall yield was only a few years ago (before ED). The high admit rate for the mid-packers is an indication that UChicago thinks they’ll do fine there. While we don’t have retention and four-year grad rates for HW kids specifically, what we have is an understanding of UChicago’s overall recruitment strategy which has been targeted and deliberate for several years now, and we also have their retention and 4-year graduation stats which are among the highest, if not the highest, in the Ivy+ group.
That sounds right to me. And I suspect U Chicago is trying to change that preference by cultivating a stronger relationship with HW.
You have to specify what 25-75 range you are looking at…is it enrolled from the CDS? Or admitted scores? Obviously, admitted scores are of more interest to potential applicants, as well as more representative of what happens during the admissions selection process.
Enrolled vs admitted ranges may explain the difference between your analyses and those that other posters are using.
Maybe. What I do see is a shift to increase yield of HW students, but of course we’d need a few more years of data to verify that. However, it dovetails with their overall efforts to nail all admits, whether binding or not, and to use binding rather aggressively (contrary to how other top schools use that option).
Here is what I see looking at all the available data I can find quickly on HW; keep in mind that ED was implemented for the high school class of 2017:
So if they are working to increase yield at HW, ED seems to be a plausible way to do so.
As to the GPA’s, it seems that UChicago consistently admits from the top half of the range:
2016-18: 37 admits; 31 in the top half.
2017-19: 31 admits; 28 in the top half.
2018-20: 27 admits; 25 in the top half.
However, again consistently, they don’t admit more than 50% from the upper echelon (w/4.3+, uw/3.8+):
2016-18: 32 applications, 12 admits.
2017-19: 35 applications, 13 admits.
2018-20: 37 applications, 8 admits.
Note that these GPA/admission trends straddle years of ED and years prior to ED. However, there is, indeed, a notable reduction in upper echelon admits ending with the class of 2020; if that continues going forward, then it’s safe to say that UChicago isn’t bothering as much with the tippy-top because perhaps they are applying RD and not likely to attend if admitted. Only time will reveal if this is indeed the case.
My comment applied equally to ED2. To paraphrase a popular meme, top HW students like Chicago, but they just aren’t that into Chicago.
As for the rest of your post, you seem to be saying the same thing that I have been saying throughout. Chicago doesn’t prefer these middle kids, it is taking what it can get. Chicago has reputation of being extremely concerned with managing yield, and It doesn’t take an especially adept AO to figure out that if a top kid passed up applying to Chicago in all of the early rounds, then the kid isn’t all that into Chicago, and there is a pretty solid chance that the kid won’t choose Chicago over other RD acceptances. And we aren’t necessarily talking about Ivy+ schools, unless Ivy+ includes about 30 or more schools.
2016-2018 is not “prior to ED.” It is two years with ED and one year prior.
Not top half. Approximately the top 60%. (It varies from year to year.)
*Edited to correct inaccurate numbers (it’s 60% not 75%.)
My post specified that I was using the IPEDS federal data base, which should match the CDS and other federal reporting sources. All federal reporting that I am aware of is based on enrolled students. This is the only criteria colleges are required to report. Some colleges choose to also report SAT/ACT stats on applying students or admitted students, but it is up to the college if they choose to report this, and most colleges don’t.
The other poster’s stats also appeared to be using the same 2019-20 IPEDS federal database (at least in the most recent version), so the stats matched, when so called “mean SAT” was computed as (25th math + 25th EBRW + 75th math + 75th EBRW)/2. Most sources that report information for all colleges use some form of information in this database. USNWR is an exception and sometimes uses information from their direct surveys to colleges instead.
IPEDs database currently has data for 2020-21 school year (when I go to IPEDs, then ‘search for a college’, it takes me to college navigator which has 2020/21 data). The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
If you are going to use pre-pandemic enrolled numbers from 19/20, just know that some TO schools (like Bowdoin) required all matriculants to report test scores (and IPEDS would reflect this), while other TO schools like UChicago did not require all matriculants to submit a score.
These different policies can impact reported matriculant score ranges, which is another reason to use admitted student ranges. Going forward not sure any schools will require all matriculants to submit a score though, time will tell.
Even though schools might not be required to report admitted student ranges, they have that data. Many publish it, and for those that don’t, they will generally share it if one inquires…no school has ever said no to my request for that data.
They are in the process of updating from 2019-20 to 2020-21. Some components of the full IPEDS database are in 2019-20 and others are in 2020-21. I was using the “final release” database, which is still on 2019-20. The “provisional release” database instead uses a mix of the latest years – probably scores on 2020-21, but some of the other related stats on 2019-20. In any case, the other poster stat’s were using 2019-20, so 2019-20 was necessary to match. Many test optional colleges are excluded under the IPEDS reporting rules.
To stay relevant, I expect this policy will need to change for 2021/22, as 2/3 of four year colleges were TO this cycle.
The subsequent years are 100% ED and you see the corresponding decline. If you have earlier numbers than 2016-18 please share them so that we can all take a look.
Please feel free to provide the details backing up your suggested distribution. From the most recent profile, the top half of the GPA’s begin at 3.9-4.099 (w). For the years 2016-2019, the sizable majority admitted to UChicago began in that range or higher.
The numbers don’t really support that; they do support that UChicago may not be into the top HW kids.
Admission is probably the best evidence of whether UChicago prefers certain kids or certain other kids. Since the College passes up top GPA’s and test scores all the time in the ED round, there’s clearly more to demonstrating good fit than being a “top kid.” The RD round is a large number of acceptances at UChicago, and has a high yield (as I mentioned earlier, the non-binding yield rates are now higher than overall yield prior to ED) so they get a LOT of good-fit top kids in this round - many from prep schools - who commit. Whether that holds true for the HW kids in particular is an open question - time and data will shed more light.
And not a few of us expect that to continue! I agree the policy will need to change.