Northwestern vs. U of Chicago admissions

<p>Overall which one is easier to get into?</p>

<p>I'd say UChicago. It's an awesome school, but the rigor seems to scare people, resulting in fewer apps than Northwestern, a higher acceptance rate, and a lower yield. However, UChi's adoption of the Common App will probably make it more competitive in the future.</p>

<p>
[quote]
However, UChi's adoption of the Common App will probably make it more competitive in the future.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>or decrease its yield even more.</p>

<p>northwestern is ever so slightly more selective.</p>

<p>NU may be the harder school to get into.. but due to Chicago's high academic rigor.. Chicago probably holds the academically stronger student body.. unless NU gets crazily more selective in the next few years. (And I mean CHYMP level...)</p>

<p>Well if current trends hold...</p>

<p>neither is easier. If there is a quantifiable difference in selectivity or prestige, it's on an atomic level.</p>

<p>What's important to keep in mind is that the student who would be happiest at Northwestern is not the student who would be happiest at Chicago, and vice versa. I also think that while a student who likes Chicago could also like Northwestern (that student would be me), a student who likes Northwestern will not necessarily like Chicago. The schools are way, way, way different from each other, excellent as they both are, and both deserve a visit.</p>

<p>Chicago has always had a higher acceptance rate than NU, close to 40%. NU has had a 30% acceptance rate in the past, but NU's applicants are increasing every year, with apparently 21,839 applicants this year in particular which equates to an 18.5% increase from last year's figures.
(source: <a href="http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2007/02/admission.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2007/02/admission.html&lt;/a&gt;)
the acceptance rate this year is bound to have decreased because they aren't drastically increasing the class sizes. Chicago is easier to get into, period. less applicants, higher acceptance rate.</p>

<p>but i wouldn't see why someone would apply to both schools. they are simply different animals.</p>

<p>"Chicago probably holds the academically stronger student body.."</p>

<p>but that wasn't quite the OP's question.</p>

<p>besides i simply don't get the reason why people jump to this conclusion when objective data shows there isn't much of a difference in the academic aptitude of the two student bodies. the average SAT scores for NU and Chicago are respectively 1410 and 1425, while the ACT score ranges are 29-33, 28-33, where 1 point translates to roughly 10-15 points on the SAT scale. they're roughly equal in objective figures, so from where do you draw this myth of yours? rankings? only a year ago NU ranked three spots higher than Chicago, but surely that doesn't mean our student body was academically stronger back then, does it?</p>

<p>of course you can always argue "standardized tests" are not representative of academic strength, and they probably aren't, but frankly i don't know how else you would measure such a subjective quantity like "academic strength" to be able to openly state that Chicago's student body is academically stronger than NU's. please refrain from such inflammatory statements.</p>

<p>^It is possible that a higher percentage of academically stronger applicants apply to Chicago than NU..in that sense, a person would have to be more qualified to get into Chicago.. which would make it harder to get into. I'm not saying this is necessarily true but someone with a 1400 SAT and who is in the lower top 10% of his or her class would likely have an easier time getting into NU than Chicago. Acceptance rate isn't the only way to determine selectivity.</p>

<p>Think about it! I know your argument is that academic strength is "subjective".. but overall many who would be in the bottom 50% of Chicago's applicant pool academically would be in the top 50% of NU's applicant pool. Many are turned off by Chicago's academic rigor and NU has the "Big Ten" label..</p>

<p>I'm not even in my top 10%, and I'm completely confident I would've gotten into U Chicago, even without my super legacy (mom went undergrad and graduate). The two schools are very different- I was shocked I got in to NU (though I was in a bit of a slump from a realllly bad Ivy day...). </p>

<p>Anecdotal: The only kid from my school going to U Chicago next year is not even in the same league as any of the otehr top school bound kids.</p>

<p>Apples to Pears.</p>

<p>"It is possible that a higher percentage of academically stronger applicants apply to Chicago than NU.. in that sense, a person would have to be more qualified to get into Chicago.."</p>

<p>how in the world would you prove that when they essentially have the same standardized test scores? sure, it's possible. but it's also possible that it's the opposite. everything's possible when you're dealing with a subjective matter like this and not substantiating yourself with facts.</p>

<p>"I'm not saying this is necessarily true but someone with a 1400 SAT and who is in the lower top 10% of his or her class would likely have an easier time getting into NU than Chicago."</p>

<p>again, how do you get to this conclusion?</p>

<p>"Think about it! I know your argument is that academic strength is "subjective".. but overall many who would be in the bottom 50% of Chicago's applicant pool academically would be in the top 50% of NU's applicant pool."</p>

<p>i've thought about it. i've come to the conclusion that you think using percentages might make you're argument seem more valid but there is no such data that proves chicago's bottom 50% equals NU's top 50%. i would hope duke teaches you better logic and reasoning.</p>

<p>"Many are turned off by Chicago's academic rigor and NU has the "Big Ten" label.."</p>

<p>and many are turned off by Stanford's "Pac Ten" label. after all they're in the same league as the University of Oregon right?</p>

<p>Notice all of the qualifiers.. geez.. I'm just speculating here for the most part.. I'm not trying to prove that Chicago is more selective than NU. I'm just trying to explain why acceptance rate is not the only way to determine selectivity.</p>

<p>I admit that my argument is somewhat based on intution.. there needs to be statistics on the applicant pool for each school before we know obviously.</p>

<p>My argument is that you can't simply say that acceptance rate is the ultimate factor for how selective a school is. (40% in 2005.. from what I understand Chicago's acceptance rate went down recently.)
Is Andrews University just as selective as University of Chicago? A school with a similar acceptance rate...
Of course not! Andrews average ACT score is a 23.. Chicago has a 1440 SAT average. It is obvious here that Chicago is more selective than Andrews due to a more selective applicant pool. Also if you want to argue yield.. Andrews happily has a 70.6% yield. </p>

<p>I am not saying that I'm right.. I am just saying that it is very likely that the reason why Chicago has so few applicants is because that the school is likely to be a turn-off for those who are weaker academically than the average Chicago and Northwestern student.</p>

<p>Just look at the people who get accepted to NU & Chicago.. those who get accepted to Chicago (while they may not be better academically overall...), they are not weaker than those accepted to NU.</p>

<p>I agree that Chicago attracts a unique type of applicant. However, given the stats of the incoming class (% in top 10%, test scores, avg. GPA), it can be concluded that the applicant pool (at least admitted) is no stronger than that of Northwestern, which brings us to percentage admitted. NU was around 25% this year and Chicago was just under 40% I believe.</p>

<p>If the quality of applicants is the same and the percentage admitted is considerably different, I think it's safe to assume that NU is harder to get into than Chicago. Again, that says nothing negative about the school unless one assumes a school's quality is relative to its admissions rate (hint: it's not).</p>

<p>
[quote]
If the quality of applicants is the same and the percentage admitted is considerably different, I think it's safe to assume that NU is harder to get into than Chicago

[/quote]
</p>

<p>yep.</p>

<p>and chicago isn't "more difficult" academically than northwestern, if someone really wants to challenge me on this, i'll dig up the links i posted earlier. the average GPA at each school is ~3.30</p>

<p>The people who are admitted to NU & Chicago are definitely similar academically.. BUT on the other hand, it is LIKELY that the overall quality (when you approach the bottom at least..) of the applicant pools is somewhat different! </p>

<p>Also think about this, those who get 5's on the Stats AP are likely to get 5's on the Calc AP.. but just because a higher percentage of people get 5's on Calc doesn't make it an easier test to get a 5 on...</p>

<p>Agree with brand_182...</p>

<p>and others' shared opinions...apples to oranges...both amazingly talented/intelligent student bodies...</p>

<p>the way I see it, they are both on an even playing field. Once an applicant is admitted to both schools (assuming they apply to both, which often isn't the case), they then have to choose which path to take on that completely even playing field...and the choice is relatively easy for most people.</p>

<p>Keep in mind these two schools consider themselves rivals, more academic than athletic...my point being that if these two schools were across the country from each other, with no apparent links we wouldn't be making this comparison in the first place.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The people who are admitted to NU & Chicago are definitely similar academically.. BUT on the other hand, it is LIKELY that the overall quality (when you approach the bottom at least..) of the applicant pools is somewhat different!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>we can't be sure of this without knowing the statistics of rejected students at each school. for all we know chicago gets exactly 1700 (or however many it needs to accept to fill its class of 1000) qualified applicants each year, and the rest are C- average students with 19 ACT scores, while northwestern turns away 15,000 valedictorians each year.</p>

<p>we can't know.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Once an applicant is admitted to both schools (assuming they apply to both, which often isn't the case), they then have to choose which path to take on that completely even playing field...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>if you look up "revealed preference college" in google, you will see that northwestern is ranked slightly higher in the study, meaning students admitted to both will choose in more cases to attend northwestern, adding to the idea that northwestern is more selective, as students consider an acceptance there more attractive than one to university of chicago.</p>

<p>I don't know if this post will contribute to the whole NU vs. U Chi argument.. but here goes:</p>

<p>I personally think that admissions stats shouldn't be taken too seriously. To give an example, MANY people apply to schools like HPY and Stanford; ones who probably should not apply. Ones who apply on a whim out of High School, not knowing anything about the admissions process. I personally know a guy who's mom applied him to Harvard and his GPA was in the 2.0's. On the contrary, schools like Northwestern and most LACs are relatively unknown to the average student/parent. When I tell people I'm going to Northwestern, they ask whether its in Washington or Oregon. I think the LACs prove my point better. <em>THESE NUMBERS ARE PURELY HYPOTHETICAL</em>
Say that Harvard has a 10% admit rate, and Williams has a 20% admit rate. This doesn't neccessarily make Harvard more selective. Harvard receives a TON of applications, many of which are underqualified. Williams receives a number of applicants, but the fact that they applied there means that they think they have a reasonable shot at getting in; they did not apply blindly just because they liked the name or the ivy league label.</p>

<p>Unfortunately what I said above adds nothing to this argument because U Chi and NU are both relatively obscure in comparison to the brand name schools like HPY.</p>

<p>"Unfortunately what I said above adds nothing to this argument because U Chi and NU are both relatively obscure in comparison to the brand name schools like HPY."</p>

<p>-Not really. I'd say that Northwestern is more well-known, and is a more media-friendly school than Chicago. Northwestern is in the BIG 10 after all....</p>

<p>"if you look up "revealed preference college" in google, you will see that northwestern is ranked slightly higher in the study"</p>

<p>The revealed preference ranking is such bs.... I don't think it should be used as evidence for anything, let alone for saying that Northwestern is more selective. After all, Wellesley and Notre Dame are ranked above Swarthmore, Georgetown, Rice, Duke, Williams, Cornell, Northwestern, Chicago, Pomona... I mean, even Brigham Young is ranked above Northwestern. So, unless one will concede that Brigham Young is more selective than Northwestern, the RP shouldn't be used to support that Northwestern is more selective than Chicago. Moreoever, the difference in spots for Northwestern and Chicago is the same as for Harvard and Princeton, and most would agree that Harvard isn't all that more selective than Princeton... </p>

<p>But in the end, honestly, who cares???? BOTH will get a graduate the same kinds of jobs/ grad school placement (and if you believe the Wall Street Journal, Chicago is actually BETTER at grad school placement)... although I don't put much stock into that either.... I don't know why this argument even exists. I also agree that if Chicago and Northwestern were not as close to each other people wouldn't be so quick to compare them. They're really VERY different institutions.</p>

<p>Honestly, I thought this dilemma was impossible. Who out there is actually deciding between the two schools. They're completely different. Unless you're a really dynamic person with several different intersts and tastes, you shouldn't have this trouble. U Chi, tends to have kids that are probably smarter, it's harder working and more purist intellectually, but the average student will probably have poorer social skills, compared to Northwestern. And no offense to Northwestern, but at least among some circles, it's viewed as the school for Harvard rejects. I'm sure this is untrue, but I think there's still some truth to it. It has a really high greek percentage, whereas U Chi is very low, and tends to be more conservative. They're really, very different institutions. I have heard Northwestern is great for perfroming arts types, and I'm not positive, but I think a semester abroad is required, which I think is really cool.
DISCLAIMER: these are extreme generalizations about these schools. Do not assume that the average student is like my description, I'm just going off of my experiences, my parent's experiences, and my college visits, which to be honest, don't add up to much. I've only met a couple people who go to each, all of whom I liked, but these are at least the stereotypes.</p>