<p>bnb, i chose uchi over northwestern and rice. now, i know that neither fo these schools are of the "20 percent or less" variety (though rice comes close), but i have yet to meet someone who beleives that any of these schools, including uchi, aren't selective. in fact, most of the people i met believe uchi the hardest school to get into out of all three. those who dont know about its unusually high acceptance rate are impressed, and those who do know attribute the high acceptance rate to the self-selective nature of the applicant pool, and are still impressed. (btw, most of these are kids who didnt even apply to the u of c). </p>
<p>most schools of the 20 percent or less variety will admit that they will have to turn down many applicants who are qualified because of the enormous number of applications they receive and the small number of spots available. uchi doesn't get as many applications, so fewer qualified students are turned down. uchicago believes that you dont have to be a valedictorian with a 1550+ SAT to succeed in college. frankly, i think the university should be commended for their attitude toward admissions. as you've made the point before, uchi could easily bring its acceptance rate down by switching to ED and to the common application, but then they would lose many of the applicants who are dedicated to the school.</p>
<p>there are three types of students who end up going to the u of c:
1. students who had the amazing grades and test scores to be accepted to harvard, yale, etc., but who decided to go to the u of c for the academic challenge.
2. students with equally good grades and test scores as the above, but were rejected by HYPSM because of bad luck. the hyperselecftive nature of these schools forces some very qualified applicants thorugh the cracks.
3. students with good grades and test scores who weren't quite qualified for the most selective schools, but are hard-working intelligent students nonetheless who would do well at any school, and have enough academic initiative to take on uchicago.
there are plenty of "selective" schools with similar types of accepted students, including northwestern, rice, georgetown, cornell, berkeley, etc., who are not forced to reject most of their intelligent, hardworking applicants. since uchicago happens to have a more self-selective applicant pool than most of these other schools, it makes up for the higher acceptance rate and makes uchic about as selective, if not more so, than these other schools.</p>
<p>wow very well put, odyssy!
i also agree about uchic's admission process and commend it as well.
i also commend their acceptance letter. sorry to go off on a tangent - but i liked how they didnt have anything about the stats or numbers of applicants in the letter and you didn't feel like just another number. and the letter itself was very warmingly sincere. and valuable. im sure other schools may have warming letters. i wouldnt know cuz i didn't receive many :p. but for me, it made myself feel actually honored to be accepted to such a school instead of just another statistical number. annnnnd that is the end of my rambling opinion.</p>
<p>odyssy, odyssy, odyssy: it appears that you went back for seconds of the kool-aid. i will try to address all your points but forgive me if i miss a few. first off, i don't know who you were talking to regarding the degree of difficulty of getting into uchi over nu or rice. they could have been jocks who were recruited by nu or rice and if that were the case, sure, uchi would be harder to get into, uchi has no sports to speak of. i can only say that uchi is a great school, but a 40% acceptance rate is laughable. the low uchi yield is concerning. what does self selective mean exactly? uchi apologists use this phrase all the time to address the high admit rates. it doesn't matter who "self-selects" to apply to uchi. the question is why does uchi have to accept practically every other applicant? oh, i know, it's because these self selecting students self select anothe college after they are admitted to uchi. that is why the yield is so low and that is why uchi has to accept so many applicants. instead of just regurgitating the line about self selection, please explain to me and yourself what that means? as an aside, you say "most of those kids didn't even apply to u of c," i say thank god for that, if they did, acceptance rates may have been pushing 50% instead of 40%.</p>
<p>your second paragraph is basically saying that more applications will bring down uchi's acceptance rate? i don't have the stats at hand, but i think that amherst has less applicants that uchi and they have an 18% acceptance rate. so why does uchi need more apps to lower their acceptance rate when amherst has less apps and a much lower acceptance rate? maybe the amount of applications have nothing to do with acceptance rate. maybe the yield is what determines acceptance rate? ever think of that?</p>
<p>regarding your last paragraph, items 2 and 3, i certainly agree with. item 1? those kids probably get major merit aid from uchi otherwise, they wouldn't sniff twice at uchi. look at washustloo, they have a ton of kids turning down the 20% and less for them. the common denominator is that they all got serious merit aid. those kids are all bought and paid for. sorry, probably the same at uchi. there aren't that many, if any 20% and lower schools that give any type of merit aid.</p>
<p>concerning your last sentence, nothing makes up for the high acceptance rate. as evidenced by the sensitivity of the subject, all it does is eat away at the collective pyche of the admitted populace at uchi. it's a great place, but in terms of desirability among students with a lot of the uber selective schools, uchi is a notch below, ergo the low yield. the proper response to that is "so what." yet, the uchi people here can't deal with that concept. the truth is out there....</p>
<p>Odyssy, exactly! I agree with cookiemonkey: Very well put!</p>
<p>I, too, think the Chicago acceptance letter was very nice. It made me feel that my test scores were not what made it for me (I know they weren't!); instead, it was my hard work and love of learning. I think I fall into Odyssy's third category, although my scores were decent; I just didn't see a need to apply to HYPS when Chicago offers everything they have - as well as the highly intellectual atmosphere they lack.</p>
<p>By the way (another tangent), I received an acceptance letter from another school that basically said, "Congratulations! Now go to our web site and download all of these forms because you will accept us and we are too cheap to actually send you those forms."</p>
<p>blacknblue - are you bashing uchicago because of its acceptance rate? in my opinion, a high acceptance rate is not 'laughable.' sorry, but i take offense at that.
only those who are committed to the uncommon application and really want to go to Chicago apply. that's probably why uchicago doesnt use the common app - just so that people don't apply "for the heck of it."
ok, so uchicago has a higher acceptance rate than most other prestigious schools. but uchicago has that distinguishing intellectual vivacity and fostering of creativity in the school's atmosphere that some other schools may lack.</p>
<p>The fact that Chicago has a 40% acceptance rate is irrelevant.</p>
<p>People don't apply to Chicago because they want a big name on their diploma; they apply because they love learning. They know that there is no easy way out of Chicago. One has to work like crazy because there aren't those "fluff" courses that more prestigious universities have.</p>
<p>The Uncommon Application helps the University weed out the students who apply just for the heck of it. Only the students who truly want to attend will take the extra time - instead of filling out the common app and pressing "Send" for 15 schools.</p>
<p>bnb,
um, last time i checked, selectivity is determined by the number of applications and the number of spots open. amherst is probably more selective because it's a small liberal arts school with less spots open.</p>
<p>also, im not saying u of c is just as selective as HYPSM because of its self-selecting applicant pool. nobody in their right mind would argue this. HOWEVER, in comparision to schools like nu, georgetown, cornell, and the other schools i listed above, u of c is equally selective, if not more, because the students who apply are generally brighter than the students who apply at these other schools. why? because you can just throw in a common app at the other schools (even though northwestern has its own essay questions, they're very similar to the common app's). plus, u of c has the reputation of being "where fun comes to die." thus, most of the applicants who are left are intelligent, hardworking students who are willing to put up with essay questions about mustard and an academically rigorous undergraduate experience. thus, the discrepancy in acceptance rates between u of c and the other schools (which, for schools like northwestern, is not very much) is made up for by the self selecting nature of the applicant pool.</p>
<p>as for the low yield, many of the academically dedicated students who are accepted to the u of c have the grades and test scores to get accepted to schools like HYPSM, and since it would be difficult for most students to turn down such schools, even those who sincerely desire academic rigor, the yield suffers. however, most of the schools listed above have the same difficulties. in fact, just about any non-ivy school with the exceptions of Stanford, MIT, and maybe Duke have to deal with the stereotype of being a school for "ivy rejects." all im saying is, the self selective nature of the applicant pool makes up for the high acceptance rate when comparing u of c to other elite, but not hyperselective, schools.</p>
<p>bnb why are you putting down uchicago in a forum full of people who are going to take you down with their ardent love for the school? you can't win. stop trying to put us down with your condescending remarks!!!!</p>
<p>I think BnB is just looking for reasoned argument, not dogma on why one school is better than the other and definitely not hyperbole for Chicago.</p>
<p>Edit: Especially Katharos' claims. From the moment I started reading this forum, I noticed the exaggerated nature of her posts. Instead of fawning over a particular school and deriding others by using baseless generalizations, she should try to carefully scrutinize what it is that other schools offer. Rose-tinted glasses are difficult to remove when you love seeing the world in such a way.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Basically, while they said the architecture was nice, it is no place where one can study; my mom calls the place a "country club" for a reason (She decided not to apply there because of that.). Also, my little sister said the girls there are all "a bunch of floozies" (I think that is cute; she is only 11.), and everyone is hooked up to some contraption, be it a cell phone, iPod, or laptop. Also, they said there were NO intellectual conversations, and some students were talking about a paper they were going to write on the mythological importance of unicorns' horns. So much for a liberal arts education.</p>
<p>In the end, they said they would rather attend the U. of C. - and they answered without hesitation. </p>
<p>Just what I heard about a university that is ranked above the University of Chicago. . .</p>
<p>Go Maroons!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I like UChicago, but the above post is university-related jingoism. This reasoning ranks barely above supermarket check-out line conversation among soccer-moms about universities.</p>
<p>let's see if we can dispel some of the misconceptions here, shall we? lets start at the top of the page. "only those who are committed to the uncommon application and really want to go to Chicago apply" what does high admit rate have to do with the uncommon app? all the people that applied used the uncommon app right? that's a given. so why does so many of the students who go to all the hardship of the uncommon app, then choose to attend another school after acceptance? it is singularly, this one reason why the admit rate is so high. also, to respond further further to katheros, people may or may not apply to uchi because they don't want a big name on their diploma, what the yield indicates is that people apply to uchi because they are afraid they won't get into the 20% or less school that they also applied to. however, if they do get in, goodbye uchi, which is why the yield is so low. the uncommon app does not weed out the applications for the stud student in hs. those kids know how to work and answering a few arbitrary and silly questions on the uncommon app is not going to deter those students from submitting an app to their s_____ school. it will weed out some of the borderline students though. </p>
<p>on the other hand, odyssy's statement concerning "uchi being the place where fun comes to die" may be the ultimate reason the yield is so low. sure, a lot of schools can be considered a dumping ground for ivy rejects, it's just that the populace of this forum thinks that uchi is part of the rejecting group and not clumped with the rejectee group.</p>
<p>I never claimed to have visited Stanford. My dad and siblings did visit, though, and that is what I have heard. I know it has an excellent reputation (especially in regards to science-related fields), and I have very close relatives who attended. But, based on what my family told me after visiting (and my dad went to Stanford for his BA, by the way), that is how they portrayed the school.</p>
<p>I live on the University of Chicago campus, so I do know what it is like here. I don't think I am "fawning" over Chicago; it is simply the school I want to attend, and I have countless reasons why. </p>
<p>And yes, there are tons and tons of "fluff" courses at the big name schools. Just look in the course catalogs. Chicago does not completely lack them, I understand, but it does better in keeping them out than do many schools. </p>
<p>I would really rather not get into a fight, by the way. Truce? :)</p>
<p>yes. I am sick of seeing people bash other schools to make themselves feel better for going to UofC. Why? In my opinion you should be excited.... And how the hell do Ipods, and computers lower a campus' worth?</p>
<p>BnB is not evil.... It is insane how long this debate has gone on. </p>
<p>-Its yield is low.
-Its acceptance rate is high compared to schools that BnB believes UofC is on par with.
So what?
-If you want prestige it has it. At least among those who "matter" (the educated, the job world, graduate programs).
-If you want a great challenge it is known to have that too (How I am supposed to know I've only sat through one Econ class).</p>
<p>
[quote]
I never claimed to have visited Stanford.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never claimed that either.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I live on the University of Chicago campus, so I do know what it is like here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said you did not. I instructed you to remove the rose-tinted glasses.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And yes, there are tons and tons of "fluff" courses at the big name schools. Just look in the course catalogs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said anything about "fluff courses."</p>
<p>Please try to respond to what I have argued. Your obsession with UChicago, in my opinion, largely prevents you from appreciating what other universities have to offer. To be sure, it also prevents you from recognizing that other universities might be... god forbid... better!</p>