<p>Okay, so I know that Chicago is known for very hardworking students, however, how smart are they. I mean I understand also that the applicant pool is very self-selective, but still the fact that it has a 40% admission rate makes me a little suspicious. Does the intelligence/gpa/sat scores and stuff match up to schools that are its caliber such columbia, dartmouth, etc?</p>
<p>Simply, yes.</p>
<p>Of course. Their SAT averages and top 10% of class rates are right up their with the Ivies.</p>
<p>wow, thats kind of crazy considering it huge acceptance rate. so your saying kids going to chicago are jsut as smart as kids going to columbia? wow, i guess i just always get a different impression becaues columbia's admit rate is so low (the reason why im comparing with columbia is because it ties columbia according to usnews, and its a good school of coures)</p>
<p>Well, columbia rejects many excellent applicants. Im not sure chicago is the same way. If you well and truly rock, Chicago will probably offer you a place. Just my $.02.</p>
<p>This is such a silly question.</p>
<p>With your logic, students at Harvard must be the smartest on average. </p>
<p>Students at HYP simply worked a bit harder, kissed their teachers more and participated in school activities - typical type-A students. They are not necessarily the smartes. Acceptance rates do not have any meaningful values other than the fact that it may indicate the popularity of schools among students.</p>
<p>Columbia's acceptance rate is lower than Chicago simply because more students apply to Columbia than Chicago. Chicago's harsh grading system and rigorous academic environment discourage/scare "normal" students to apply. </p>
<p>Chicago looks for students who are simply brilliant. These students may not have for some reason fully exerted their full potential during their high school years. </p>
<p>In terms of pure smartness, Chicago is one of the top schools known to have smart kids. You need to ask this question to students at HYP or Columbia. They will all be scared of Chicago kids.</p>
<p>You need to look at what percentage of Chicago students are represented at top graduate schools, top jobs and etc. Then, see how they do at those institutions. Chicago produces the top quality students.</p>
<p>If you are fortunate to get the admission, you will be silly to turn it down for some other schools because of your belief. </p>
<p>If you think that you are smart already, go to Chicago and you will feel stupid.</p>
<p>Go to Chicago and feel stupid? I think not.</p>
<p>When I visited I felt quite the opposite. People seemed to range from above average intelligence to genius, but the classes were not mind-blowingly difficult or exceptionally esoteric. All around it simply had an aura of learning... not sure what school you visited if you went there and felt "stupid."</p>
<p>The strength of the Chicago student body comes from a plethora of sources, most of which are pure intelligence, but they have quite a few kids who maybe weren't top 10%... who maybe didn't score 2200+ on the SAT, for the simple reason that there are a lot of really smart kids who just don't give a **** about High School. </p>
<p>UChicago is just about the only good University on the face of the planet who recognizes that, which is why I applied there instead of all these other self-aggrandizing ivy-leagues. </p>
<p>Before I start repeating myself in this little rant, I'll throw in one more thing...</p>
<p>Part of what makes the Uncommon Application so unique and valuable, and this choice to move to the Common App so disturbing is the fact that these were the tools that Chicago used to create this atmosphere and attract students who were extraordinaly intelligent but were left hiding in the nooks and crannies of the application process by other colleges because they felt they just didnt have the grades/SATs or whatever. </p>
<p>Hate to break it to you guys, but Chicago is not anything like an Ivy League.</p>
<p>Because, quite simply, Chicago has proven that those over-hyped, TA-taught schools in the North are inferior in comparison to their alternatives.</p>
<p>/end rant.</p>
<p>Have a blast with your decisions guys.</p>
<p>you stole all my thoughts on this!
ditto</p>
<p>
[quote]
Does the intelligence/gpa/sat scores and stuff match up to schools that are its caliber such columbia, dartmouth, etc?
[/quote]
Approximately, yes. SAT scores are roughly comparable to its peers, while GPA and class rank are slightly below its peers. This is a predictable result of placing more importance of essays and curriculum than test scores and GPA. Remember that Columbia, Dartmouth, et al have binding ED and a higher yield and can thus afford to reject a much larger portion of applicants. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I mean I understand also that the applicant pool is very self-selective
[/quote]
MIT and Caltech are highly self-selective as well. Self-selective doesn't necessarily mean high admit rates.
[quote]
You need to ask this question to students at HYP or Columbia. They will all be scared of Chicago kids.
[/quote]
LOL
[quote]
UChicago is just about the only good University on the face of the planet who recognizes that, which is why I applied there instead of all these other self-aggrandizing ivy-leagues.
[/quote]
No, it's not. It just hypes itself up more than the others.</p>
<p>"No, it's not. It just hypes itself up more than the others."</p>
<p>I agree with you that it's not the only university that realizes this, but I disagree that they "hype" themselves more. I think it is perhaps the most acdemically well-respected school to practice its style of admissions, but I don't think it markets itself nearly as much as schools like St. John's or Reed do.</p>
<p>My S has had the opportunity to study at both a top Ivy and Chicago. He reports that students are very smart at both places, but Chicago was different. At the Ivy students where more practical and approached courses as very smart and sophisticated students. At Chicago everything is much more theoretical and the students approach classes often as though they are members of the discipline. The atmosphere permeates the school at Chicago, while at the Ivy, talk centered around career and next steps in the process. </p>
<p>My guess is that students adapt to whatever culture exists at a school. Of course, these are overlapping distributions and nothing is completely one or the other.</p>
<p>If acceptance rate is relative to the intelligence of the student body, the smartest kids would be at Julliard. :D So there are obvious exceptions to that rule, although it does often hold true. I think we'll be seeing a considerable drop in Chicago's admit rate in the future with its movement to the Common App. Then, and only then it would seem, you can feel convinced of the superiority of Chicago.</p>
<p>Chicago Is F-ing Awesome!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think it markets itself nearly as much as schools like St. John's or Reed do.
[/quote]
It certainly does. It's a pity that Columbia surpassed Chicago in the number of Nobel Prizes collected because now Chicago has to change all of their propaganda brochures. ;)</p>
<p>Brand, Chicago is switching? Are you sure? That doesn't seem like Chicago.</p>
<p>"Go to Chicago and feel stupid? I think not.</p>
<p>When I visited I felt quite the opposite. People seemed to range from above average intelligence to genius, but the classes were not mind-blowingly difficult or exceptionally esoteric. All around it simply had an aura of learning... not sure what school you visited if you went there and felt "stupid."</p>
<p>The strength of the Chicago student body comes from a plethora of sources, most of which are pure intelligence, but they have quite a few kids who maybe weren't top 10%... who maybe didn't score 2200+ on the SAT, for the simple reason that there are a lot of really smart kids who just don't give a **** about High School. </p>
<p>UChicago is just about the only good University on the face of the planet who recognizes that, which is why I applied there instead of all these other self-aggrandizing ivy-leagues. </p>
<p>Before I start repeating myself in this little rant, I'll throw in one more thing...</p>
<p>Part of what makes the Uncommon Application so unique and valuable, and this choice to move to the Common App so disturbing is the fact that these were the tools that Chicago used to create this atmosphere and attract students who were extraordinaly intelligent but were left hiding in the nooks and crannies of the application process by other colleges because they felt they just didnt have the grades/SATs or whatever. </p>
<p>Hate to break it to you guys, but Chicago is not anything like an Ivy League.</p>
<p>Because, quite simply, Chicago has proven that those over-hyped, TA-taught schools in the North are inferior in comparison to their alternatives.</p>
<p>/end rant.</p>
<p>Have a blast with your decisions guys."</p>
<p>My thoughts exactly. I really hope Chicago accepts me.</p>
<p>I'm firmly in the idad fan club. I find his takes on things right on the vast majority of the time.</p>
<p>In the ivory towers and faculty lounges, the University of Chicago is widely, widely admired. So are the top Ivies, of course. But the UC has a reputation for very tough academic demands on undergrads that turns them into splendid graduate students. And they use the word "splendid" a lot, which I think is one of the biggest attractions.</p>
<p>
Neither does trying to move up in US News rankings. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>From the horse's mouth:
<a href="http://uncommonapplication07-08.blogspot.com/2006/12/truth-about-common-application.html%5B/url%5D">http://uncommonapplication07-08.blogspot.com/2006/12/truth-about-common-application.html</a></p>
<p>"the bottom line is that we are an elite institution, and 9th place should still feel low"</p>
<p>wow,
this is not good news. Is this all the work of the new president?</p>
<p>Umm......when the Columbia thing happen? I didn't even think they were close before this year. Did Wikipedia just change the criteria they used or what?</p>