<p>wow, i'm looking at how some people are doing and they have crazy extra credits and good scores, etc and people are saying UC is a reach. I'm expecting about a 2000 on the SAT I. A G.P.A of around 3.5. My app lists Model UN, School Government, Basketball (Captain + Coach..our school was ghetto), and a Hospital Internship.
I'm doing A Levels which is considered college level courses. Im guessing Chicago is a reach for me too?</p>
<p>Instead of worrying about the credentials you already have, focus on finding out as much about the school as possible and writing really compelling essays as to why you should be there. UChicago admissions staff likes to admit people they think will do well at their school -which really makes sense, when you think about it...</p>
<p>Hey man, don't worry about the others on here. Each person has something unique that keeps ticking and that's what Chicago is looking for. They want to see who that real 'you' is and if that YOU is right for them. Find yourself and show yourself and that's all you can do. Good luck.</p>
<p>here are some positives. i am not certain that uchi is all that selective. it's a world class institution no doubt. the guidebooks however list their admissions rate at about 40-45% and i'm betting their ea acceptances are even higher. that's a far cry from yale's 9.8%. sure, the uchi advocates will say that the applicants are "self selective", but we know that's not true either because the uchi yield is fairly low. i know, it seems like i am slamming uchi, but those statistics seem favorable for sahaider. i would try, it's just that they have the darndest essay topics.</p>
<p>"they have the darndest essay topics"
That's one of the reasons that only truly interested students apply. You can't just recycle some essay you wrote for another school to send there.</p>
<p>it's my first choice school, but definitely a reach for me. <em>sigh</em></p>
<p>The admit rate for this year was about 40%, with about 34% or those deciding to attend (<a href="http://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/level3.asp?id=377)%5B/url%5D">http://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/level3.asp?id=377)</a>. Two students we know who were accepted did not attend after visiting and sitting in on classes. They remarked that the Core was just too much for them even though they initially thought they could do it. One thought that humanities majors had to take too much science and went to Northwestern, the other to an LAC, with fewer requirements. Self-selection continues to operate after the admit letters are received.</p>
<p>BlacknBlue, you omit the SAT range of Chicago as well as its top 10% statistic--the former is on par with that of any Ivy, while the latter statistic is comparable to many other extremely selective schools.</p>
<p>So yes, Chicago may have a self-selecting pool and a high admittance rate--but the students are highly qualified, and for the most part, kids with sub-3.5 GPAs and SATs under 1400 are usually not admitted if their essays and recs are not stellar. </p>
<p>Yes, Chicago takes 40% of applicants--but by the same token, would a school with a 100% acceptance rate be considered easy to get into if every kid accepted had a 1550 and 3.8? Unlike the Ivies, Chicago doesn't get a lot of "what the hell" apps, so a higher percent of the applicant pool is qualified. Coupled with a low yield, the acceptance rate increases. The bottom line is that the qualified kids get in, while those who aren't don't.</p>
<p>according to the USNews website, acceptance rate for EA and RD are both 40%, but the RD rate would include students who applied EA and were deferred to RD.</p>
<p>why is uchicago's yield so low? i'm very curious.</p>
<p>in response to jpps1, I did say that uchi is still a world class institution, yet one must admit that with a forty percent acceptance rate, there must be something amiss. that acceptance rate is clearly not on a par with any of the ivies and much higher than a lot of lac's as well. i attribute the higher acceptance rate to the low yield. low yield usually indicate that the school is considered a saftey school. sure, uchi wouldn't be a safety school for someone with 1200 sat's (old), but amongst those that take the time to fill out their uncommon app, it is clear that uchi is not the preferred destination. the ivies don't take all the 3.8's and 1550's that apply, and they end up with a great education at uchi. I think that sahaider has an excellent chance at uchi if his essays are up to snuff especially on ea.</p>
<p>The self-selection process brings the number of applicants is far below that of many Ivies. Chicago receives about half the applicants of the Ivies. If it had double the applicants, with the same admit rate, it would be at 20%. As far as yield, as I indicated above, some soul searching occurs with many applicants not wanting to confront Chicago's intellectual demands once confronted squarely with the decision whether or not to attend. </p>
<p>Most of the Ivies believe that the future success of its graduates is determined prior to their admission and what goes on in college is not much of a determining factor. Chicago does not entirely share that view. One does not get the immediate name recognition of some of the Ivy League schools; accordingly, only those who value the ultimate intellectual undergrad experience choose to attend. </p>
<p>Chicago's admit process is also quite unique. They are looking for students who are likely to thrive in Chicago's tough academic environment, and use different criteria than are typical of many other top tier schools. It also doesn't share the opinion that a school's value is determined by its overall popularity or the "numbers" of its incoming class, but by the quality of its curriculum and how its students are changed by being there. Chicago could increase its applicants and its yield by eliminating its Core, lightening the workload, and going to an EA policy like Harvard's, but then it would cease to be Chicago and would have to relinquish its unchallenged role of being America's intellectual powerhouse. That last time that was tried, the students almost rioted; and, that's what makes Chicago, Chicago, and the students there so special.</p>
<p>idad, no disrespect intended towards uchi, it's just that your arguments don't stand up to inspection. that uchi recieves only half the applications of an ivy is not a reflection on uchi's size, but rather a reflection on uchi's desirability. amherst, williams and swarthmore get even less apps than uchi, yet their admit rate in in the low 20%. regarding yield, not all those admitted students that choose not to attend is afraid of uchi's intellectual demands. they choose not to attend uchi, but rather attend what they feel is a more prestigious institution.</p>
<p>your statement "Most of the Ivies believe that the future success of its graduates is determined prior to their admission and what goes on in college is not much of a determining factor," is just not true. none of those eight schools will ever tell you that nor would any of their students agree with that. you further state "only those who value the ultimate intellectual undergrad experience choose to attend." if push came to shove, i would state that "only those who get rejected by an ivy, then value uchi's ultimate intellectual undergrad experience choose to attend" that statement would be more accurate, imo. also, uchi has great name recognition.</p>
<p>lastly your last paragraph is also self serving. what is so unique about a colleg looking for students who are likely to thrive in a tough academic environment. isn't cornell looking for the same thing (albeit for cornell's tough academic environment). how unique is uchi's admit process when they accept over 40% of their applications? Uchi doesn't need to increase their applications, they need to increase their yield, then they can lower their admit rate. your last two sentences are just way over the top. i don't believe that uchi has the unchallenged role of being america's intellectual powerhouse. i may give that mantle to mit or caltech. i believe the last time students rioted was when the bulls won their last championship and frankly, that's what makes chicago, chicago.</p>
<p>Maybe students choose against UChicago because UChicago life quality is mediocre -maybe it's not much related to academics one way or the other... Believe it or not blackandblue, not much correlation has been found between students' college GPAs and a difference of 100 points on an SAT one way or another. It is true that UChicago has less grade inflation than the ivies, and that can be a deterrent to some students. I can say as a Bio major, UChicago's requirements for the major are in fact tougher than those at Princeton. I can also say I've known a couple of people who went to Harvard and thought it felt like a state school, that it was not "tough" or "intellectual" enough. One of those people transferred to UChicago and is now more content. However, there is definitely less partying and fun stuff here than at most of the ivies. Some people are cutthroat competitive in classes -I don't know if that happens at the ivies or not, but I for one hate it. Also, last year I believe UChi accepted more like 35% of applicants, so selectivity, if that is what you value, is going down.</p>
<p>hi escape, i don't recall saying there was any correlation between college gpa and sat scores. all i said was that i thought sahaider has a good chance of getting into the school and that it was less selective than many schools. i agree with you in that i have also heard some things about student life at uchi that should give cause for sahaider to reconsider. i hear northwestern is nice.</p>
<p>Hrm... I have something to add to this.</p>
<p>I know of three people who turned down at least one of HPSM (one of whom turned down three of them) to come to U of Chicago. While the primary reason for this was the school's financial aid, U of C does indeed provide an incredible education, one capable of meeting the needs of HPSM-capable students.</p>
<p>While this shows that U of C does indeed provide a great education, I have to say, all of them did consider UofC a safety.</p>
<p>So I guess that's what it boils down to... a school as capable as the ivies, but with less prestige.</p>
<p>BlacknBlue see: <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/articles/051010crat_atlarge%5B/url%5D">http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/articles/051010crat_atlarge</a> for a discussion of the types of students the Ivies are looking for.</p>
<p>As far as my logic is concerned, all I said was that double the applicants would provide a 20% admit rate. Amherst & Williams have a yield of about 38%, about the same as UChicago. Both schools have an acceptance rate between 19% & 21%, with over double the applicants per available slot as compared to Chicago (put another way, about the same number of applicants with over half the slots; which accounts for their increased "selectivity"). Williams has a slightly higher yield of 49%. Swathmore accepts 38%, the same as Chicago, but has a yield of only 26%, another school with a reputation for tough academics.</p>
<p>As far as Chicago being an America's Academic Powerhouse, from the WSJ (<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110006623):%5B/url%5D">http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110006623):</a></p>
<p>"Harvard is also a much less important intellectual hub than it once was. The University of Chicago, for one, has wielded much more influence in recent decades. It is no exaggeration to say that Chicago laid the intellectual foundation for the conservative ascendancy and nurtured the ideas that now drive the debate over economic policy, legal theory and foreign affairs. The key ideas of the so-called Reagan Revolution, including monetarism and deregulation, trace their origins back to the free-market theorizing of Chicago's economics department. (One striking measure of the department's clout: Of the 55 economists awarded the Nobel Prize since 1969, when economics was added to the roster, 10 have taught at Chicago and an additional 13 either trained at Chicago or had previously taught there. Harvard, by contrast, has had four faculty winners.)</p>
<p>One of those Chicago Nobel laureates, Ronald Coase, is acknowledged to be the godfather of law and economics, unquestionably the most influential branch of legal theory in the past quarter-century. (It applies economic reasoning to legal questions.) And while Harvard certainly has its superstars, when you look at the people who have taught at Chicago in the past 40 years or so--Milton Friedman, Richard Posner, Allan Bloom, Leo Strauss, Robert Lucas, Albert Wohlstetter, Richard Epstein, Leon Kass, Saul Bellow, Martha Nussbaum--it is pretty clear which school has been giving off more heat."</p>
<p>And from the Center for Media & Democracy:</p>
<p>"Since the 1940s, the University has been an academic powerhouse, accumulating more nobel laureates than any other American institution. Its physics, mathematics, sociology, and economics departments are particularly influential."</p>
<p>idad. it appears that you are a big booster of uchi and that's great, your citing articles from the new yorker and the wall street journal and the center for media & democracy does not change the fact that the school accepts 40% of their applicants. sure if they doubled their applications then their admit rate would be halved, so let them double their applications then and this thread would end. the fact of the matter is, uchi can't double their applications. so what else can they do to bring their admissions rate down to the levels of more selective schools? just accept less. to do that would mean that they can't fill their class. why? because their yield is so low. why is their yield so low? because most of the admits would rather attend another institution and not their safety school. yet, uchi is a magnificent institution, why? because the quality of the rejects from the ivies and their ilk are still tremendous in their own right. you can rattle off all the names you wish concerning who taught at uchi, the ivies have their own list of greatness, the bottom line is the applicants. there are a few who choose uchi over hpys and aws, but i stress the word "few." frankly, uchi gets their table scraps (choice leftovers nonetheless). so i say again to sahaider, if your numbers are in the ballpark and you go ea, you have a much better chance with uchi than at a more selective school. also, if you get in, some of the other threads seem to indicate that a warm coat and body armor will come in handy.</p>
<p>Actually, in the midwest UChi is a much bigger name than AWS, so I'm not sure that most applicants prefer AWS over UChi -could be wrong, of course...</p>
<p>hi escape. uchi being a bigger name that aws in midwest is understandable, illinois is closer. applicants from the midwest may prefer uchi to aws and that's great because uchi would be easier for them to get into.</p>