<ol>
<li> It’s hard to believe that interviews are very important. It’s just too hard to compare people across interviewers, and lots of candidates live in places where interviews are hard to arrange. I suspect that the real value of interviews, and the reason they are part of the process, is twofold: (1) Applicants who have an interview are probably more likely to enroll if accepted. (2) Alumni interviewers are probably more likely to give to the university on a regular basis than other alumni.</li>
</ol>
<p>On the other hand, remember that in the recent past Chicago’s admission rate was over 50%. Things have been changing so fast that they probably don’t know what, exactly, will be important or not year to year. The more fine distinctions they have to make among applicants, the greater weight is likely to be placed on even suspect data like interview reports.</p>
<ol>
<li> Who the heck knows? Obviously, they are far from determinative, since lots of high-SAT (or ACT) applicants get turned down or waitlisted. I’m pretty sure there is a strong positive correlation between SAT scores and likelihood of admission, but that doesn’t mean the scores are driving the decisions. I think what I heard years ago from a Yale admissions person (then a colleague of Jim Nondorf, Chicago’s current admissions dean) holds true for all of the elite colleges: “We pay a lot less attention to SAT scores than you think we do, but more than we admit.”</li>
</ol>
<p>3.If you don’t send them scores from five tests (and your high school doesn’t put all the tests on your transcript), then they won’t know you took it five times. Don’t send scores from five tests. They say it doesn’t matter – and, indeed, it may be that the actual admissions officers never see anything but your highest set of scores – but it’s hard for me to believe that no one would care. Taking the test two or three times wouldn’t matter, but beyond that it starts looking ridiculous and unattractive.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>This is one of those questions that maybe no one knows the answer to. As far as I can tell, there’s no official policy. The issue may not have come up until very recently. Chicago had very small undergraduate classes in the 60s-70s (less than half of today’s size), and by most accounts many of them were unhappy and did not encourage their children to apply. And until 7-8 years ago, the only preferences that really mattered at Chicago were for people who were alive, had applied, and were qualified academically. Now that Chicago is hot, the issue will probably come up with some frequency. My guess (and it’s just a logical guess) is that they will have some modest preference. It’s good for alumni relations, and good for yield.</p></li>
<li><p>Ridiculous. If you put that many 18-23 year-olds together in one place, they are going to do what 18-23 year-olds (and bunnies) do, which is to socialize and date.</p></li>
</ol>