<p>I was checking out SAT scores for different schools' entering classes and realized that UChicago's is now obscenely high. Possibly the second highest average scores in the nation after Caltech, with some of the highest average proportions of students scoring above 700 in each section. I was just curious as to what people's opinions about this would be. What does this say about Chicago? Is the University focusing too much on high numbers compared to its peers? Is this just a consequence of Chicago's more academically leaning student population? Is this good for the University? What do you guys think?</p>
<p>My son just got 2400 on SAT, and 800 on math subject. I guess he should apply to U of Chicago.</p>
<p>on that same link, acceptance rate is now 9% - down from 13% that was for the previous class</p>
<p>Where are you getting this? Are Chicago’s score-related data meaningfully different from those of any of the schools one might consider the usual suspects?</p>
<p>JHS,</p>
<p>At least in terms of SAT scores, UChicago’s mid 50% range tends to be narrower than many of its peers. For example, UChicago’s 50% range for the class of 2017 was: 1450 - 1550. Penn’s was: 1380 - 1560, and Dartmouth’s was: 1360 - 1560. Duke’s was: 1390 - 1570. </p>
<p>This shows that, at uchicago and in contrast to its peers, the mid 50% is clumped together more closely. Tis also demonstrates that, for whatever reason, uchicago is attracting more of a high scoring group with less disparity in scores. I tend to think this occurs because uchicago values scores and less range in scores more highly than its peers. While penn or dartmouth or duke might be willing to take a great candidate with a 1350 sat and some other great attribute, uchicago might be less inclined to go the same route. </p>
<p>Put another way, UChicago’s score band seems more similar to a technical institute like MIT (1440-1590) than it does to Dartmouth’s, and the school might simply value smarts more than some of its liberal arts counterparts. Personally, I think this is to the detriment of a non-technical institute, where other attributes in the class matter more. </p>
<p>I was going off of the “Percent of Freshmen in each SAT score range” stat, which does show a meaningful difference. </p>
<p>For example, 85% of Chicago’s freshmen scored above 700 on their Critical reading section of the SAT compared to Princeton and Yale’s 76%, and Duke’s 62%. I was just wondering what might account for this difference</p>
<p>It means Chicago has a stronger class academically and/or the students are better test takers than those of other schools. </p>
<p>Correlation between awesome supplement essays and the SAT critical reading?</p>
<p>Theluckystar:</p>
<p>I’d qualify your statement somewhat. The higher range in SAT scores means UChicago VALUES higher SAT scorers more than its peer schools (save for technical institutes like MIT). If Dartmouth or Penn or Duke really wanted to have very high SAT scores, they easily could. The difference, though, is that those schools probably value other qualities (proficiency in certain sports, legacy status, etc.) more highly than UChicago, and thus have a less “uniform” class in terms of SAT scores. </p>
<p>Personally, I think the approach taken by UChicago’s peers is better. Once students are “smart enough” (whatever that threshold may be), the other factors can really add vibrancy to a class, especially at a liberal arts college. </p>
<p>It could also mean that, given the heavy reading/writing burden of the Core, Chicago doesn’t get as many applications from people who are great with numbers but far less great with words, or doesn’t accept as many of those people if they apply. “Good enough” may have a different meaning when you are effectively requiring people to take nine heavy reading/writing courses, at least three the first year, versus three or four and only one first year elsewhere.</p>
<p>And/or, it could simply mean that the number of athletes the other colleges recruit is greater by 50-60 kids, and that’s enough to move the percentage lines somewhat.</p>
<p>JHS,</p>
<p>Both those points are accurate - and imply that UChicago has a different definition of “good enough” than many of its peers. Since the proportion of athletes (who tend to score more toward the left tail) is lower at UChicago, and, given its more difficult reading/writing requirements, the school may deem it necessary to accept more high scorers. In this way, UChicago may resemble a tech institute, in that scores tend to be higher and more uniform at these places.</p>
<p>The valid open question, though, is whether this structure and policy is good. I tend to think other schools have more successful models of class composition. </p>
<p>Well, Chicago’s class is a little bigger than Yale’s and Princeton’s. If Chicago had enrolled the same absolute number of applicants with CR scores under 700 as Y or P, it would have had 80% of its class over 700 rather than 85%. The whole difference amounts to about 125 kids with lower CR scores.</p>
<p>Another possibility is that Chicago is trying to admit those kids, but losing them to Yale and Princeton (and others). The universe of kids with sub-700 CR scores who you would want to admit to colleges like that (other than athletic recruits with 680s) may be pretty small, and the students easy to identify. We don’t know that Chicago isn’t accepting them, just that it’s not enrolling them. (My son had a prom date in that category one year. English was her fourth language, she came to the US at 15. In 18 months, she went from a 400 CR SAT to 680. She was brilliant and driven. She was accepted almost everywhere she applied, and went to Harvard.)</p>
<p>At the end of the day, though, I think Chicago would be a little scary to someone who had enough issues with the CR test to score under 700. On math, too. It’s a place where it’s uniquely hard to minimize one’s exposure either to math or to extensive reading/writing.</p>
<p>I would add that neither Cue7 nor I knows jack about the success of Chicago’s current model of class building, because it’s maybe three years old, if that. It will be a decade at least before anyone can tell if Chicago is really doing anything different from HYPS (or, for that matter, from the Chicago of 6-7 years ago), and whether it has worked or not.</p>
<p>JHS said: “Another possibility is that Chicago is trying to admit those kids, but losing them to Yale and Princeton (and others). The universe of kids with sub-700 CR scores who you would want to admit to colleges like that (other than athletic recruits with 680s) may be pretty small, and the students easy to identify. We don’t know that Chicago isn’t accepting them, just that it’s not enrolling them.”</p>
<p>This very well could be true. Those sub-700 students who are highly recruited by other schools probably have other “hooks” (athletes, legacy status, some may be development cases for the fundraising office, etc.), and probably shy away from UChicago’s current culture. Should the school want to prioritize such students and admit/recruit them, the culture of the school probably has to change a bit too. Again, I’m not sure it’s a positive that as a liberal arts college, UChicago’s SAT range most closely resembles MIT and Caltechs. </p>
<p>According to Chicago’s published criteria, test scores are only considered and not listed as important or very important. It seems those who have the curriculum and essay Chicago’s after also score high.</p>