<p>Interesting Information:
- Average SATs rose 20 points to 1420-1530 from 1400-1530 last year.
- Average ACT rose 1 point to 31-34 from 30-34 last year.
- Yield improved ~1% to ~40% from ~39% last year.
- Males continue to outnumber females 53%-47%, same as last year.
- The geographic distribution is approximately the same as last year and the years before.</p>
<p>Also, Chicago's profile has been updated on Collegeboard.com, which has even more information:
- % of students in the top 10% of their classes rose by 6% to 95% from 89% last year.
- Of the first-year class, only 5% are Hispanic and 4% are African-American, both figures down about 50% from 2 years ago. Under Nondorf, Chicago has quit affirmative action.
- Chicago's % of donors has increased by 5% to 37% from 32% a year ago.</p>
<p>Analysis: All statistical features of College Admissions are improving significantly, and it's difficult to believe that there's substantially more upside. Chicago's SATs are now substantially higher than Stanford's and MIT's and are now ahead of Columbia's and only 10 points behind Harvard's. The % of students in the top 10% of their classes is now on par with the figure of the top Ivy Leagues. Chicago should be top 5 next year for selectivity as ranked by US News and Report.</p>
<p>It is impossible to avoid the question of how this will impact our rankings next year. The objective answer: greatly. Chicago will either keep its position as the #5 best school in the country (and break ahead of at least 2 of the schools it is tied with) or will move into a tie with Columbia at #4 (which is most likely). Why? 2 Reasons:</p>
<h1>1. A 6% increase in the H.S. top-10% figure. This measure itself accounts for 40% (!) of US News' selectivity ranking and 6% of the total score. A 6% increase is practically unheard of and is extremely impressive. This measure by itself is enough to increase Chicago's US News point total by 1 and move it into a tie with Columbia at #4.</h1>
<h1>2. The increase in donor participation is absolutely outstanding. A 5% increase in a single year is incredible. Remember that this measure in itself accounts for 5% of the total ranking! For better of for worse, the figure that US News uses is the average between the present year and last, so that this year, the figure will count as (32+37)/2 = 34.5%. This is still a 2.5% increase for the year, and will certainly make its impact on the rankings. If Chicago maintains a 37% participation rate or better next year, this means that in the 2013 issue of the US News rankings, Chicago will have an addition 2.5% added to this score, boosting its ranking even further.</h1>
<p>Phuriku - kudos to you for putting all of this analysis together.</p>
<p>I think it’s becoming quite clear in what Chicago wants from its applicants: students who help enhance the US News ranking of the school. So, under Nondorf, the school seems to pay more attention to % rank in HS, the SAT scores need to be very, very high, etc. No doubt, Nondorf is also concentrating on improving UChicago’s HS Counselor score a little more too - which is really the only weak part of the reputation ranking remaining for U of C.</p>
<p>Moreover, it seems as if Nondorf and the administration is carefully tailoring the school to excel in all US News categories. In the past couple years, marketing to gain alumni donations has increased a TON, and efforts have been made to increase yield, etc. </p>
<p>Perhaps more than many of its peers, Chicago seems focused on solidifying that high rank. This will be good for the general reputation of the school, BUT…</p>
<p>I’m disappointed by the diversity numbers. Under the previous admissions head, Ted O’Neill, the office prided itself on really focusing on diversity as an institutional goal. Just a few years ago, all those efforts really bore fruit:</p>
<p>In 2008, UChicago had about 10% african american and 10% hispanics in the incoming class. Those levels have dropped by half for the Class of 2015.</p>
<p>Quite frankly, UChicago needs to improve on this. Questions need to be asked about why the numbers have fallen so precipitously for the '15 class. Chicago needs to balance US News concerns with other legitimate concerns that US News does not rank, such as diversity in the class.</p>
<p>UChicago: Why does College Navigator list UChicago’s median SAT scores as 1400-1570 in comparison to UChicago’s official report of 1420-1530? Also, prior to this update, College Navigator included UChicago’s median writing scores, but now it does not. Does this mean that UChicago does not consider SAT writing in its decisions?</p>
<p>I also have one question for UChicago. In some publications (NY Times etc, see the following links), they said Chicago accepted 3446 from roughly 21700 applicants, while in Chicago’s newly published profile for the Class of 2015, it says the accepted number is 3539. Does it mean UChicago accepted the difference (3539-3446) from the waiting list?</p>
<p>@Calexico, while we try to keep up with as many online college guidance sources as possible, it can often be difficult to contact or update material with particular sites, and those that draw their information from our website or other sources often do not update frequently or contact us to receive correct information. We are often made aware of incorrect statistics on websites we never knew about from places like College Confidential! While we are constantly trying to keep outside sources updated with the right numbers, our website is always the best source of data about UChicago’s incoming class, and we are working to make sure information is available on the website faster than it has been in the past. We do not require either the SAT writing or the ACT with writing.</p>
<p>You know, regardless of what people might think about Nondorf and his goals, you really have to admire him for how good he is at his job. I’m impressed.</p>
<p>Neltharion - Agreed. Chicago’s incoming classes now are undoubtedly much stronger than they were even five years ago. There are of course still areas where Chicago can improve in its admissions goals, but considerable progress (across a range of traditional metrics) seems to have been made quite steadily.</p>
<p>I messed up on my previous post. I added the two median scores for CR and M, which is not the same as the median score for CM and M together. Oops!</p>
<p>UChicago lagged far behind many peers (Yale, MIT, Harvard, Princeton and Stanford) in publishing the profile for the Class of 2015. The profile hadn’t been updated before the application deadline for the Class of 2016.</p>