I agree with you. Because so many institutions have so many competing priorities, it’s difficult to understand them. Having more objective metrics would be helpful to counterbalance what’s happening today.
I prefer this than what IIT does or what S. Korea does. Essentially, if you don’t score well, your life is pretty dire. At least here in the US, it’s not so black and white, and there are so many wonderful colleges beyond the T20. Ultimately, one’s success does not solely depend on your undergraduate degree. Thankfully.
IIT (India) and Suneung (S.Korea) are other extremes and no system is perfect. But per my understanding in India there is a centralized test and even private colleges have to admit at least 30%-50% of their students based on that ranking to maintain accreditation. Other remaining admits, colleges can fill however they want. Even some system like that all T20s have to fill x% through published criteria and remove subjectivity out of it will be a huge improvement and puts some sunshine on the opaque process.
This is a system that produced the current CEO of Google, and many computer games and smart phones and technology! What’s wrong with having objective criterion built into admissions? And to the other post above, yes there are many above 1550 on SAT and 34+ on ACT, but we are talking about a full 1600 SAT and or 36 ACT, there just aren’t too many. There are only a handful, and these super scorers also shine in other academic metrics, but have no place at T20 (without hooks again)! It’s the lifetime of effort devoted to their academics, without a recognition in sight.
Add CEO of Microsoft, IBM, And numerous other tech giants and startups to that list as well. No one system is perfect but always good to learn from others and improving the process. We have moved way too much to the extreme by colleges developing an opaque, tea leaf reading process that is now genuinely discouraging and demotivating hard working academic students. As students/parents we have no choice with no regulation.
Would you happen to know how many of the perfect 1600/36 did not get into T20?
And on the CEO’s, it’s hard to argue that IIT has placed 3 CEOs, without recognizing the other many other fortune 500 CEOs who didn’t go to IIT. The schools that have produced the most CEOs are graduate school MBAs, and MBA programs primarily use a holistic system. Satya went to Booth.
For the sake of clarity, I’m arguing that both holistic and completely objective schools can produce CEOs, and neither are necessarily superior than the other.
This is a UChicago thread. It’s a school with a history and an ethos that are opaque only to those who have not been interested enough to educate themselves about it, much less embrace it - or have simply applied to it in the same way they applied to every T20 school in sight.
Measurable high credentials are a fine thing and Chicago is definitely interested in them: throughout its history, when the ivies were focussed on attracting the wealthy and the decorative, Chicago was focussed on merit. But it’s a peculiar sort of merit - high marks and scores, yes, but also a capacity for originality and a longing to sponge up “the best that has been thought and said.” That’s why the essays are important, and they’re important not for simply saying these banal things but in demonstrating them. If a kid is baffled by this and finds it off-putting, well, that’s an indication the kid, great as he or she may be in other respects, may not have the right stuff for a Chicago education. It’s a big world, and there are other schools out there.
The way CDS data is published, it will be hard to come up with this number. But if you look at the cc posts, these are routinely rejected by T20, without having other hooks (URM, athletics). In our school district (>1000 graduates each year), we have seen these kids go to our flagships routinely. Again, I am trying to convey the message here that it took a special effort to get there, and colleges fail to recognize this talent.
Thank you for your response about the UChicago being such esteemed institution that they can do no wrong and it is always the student’s fault. And since it is perfect, that there is no opportunity for improvement.
I assume (and realize the risk here) UChicago doesn’t see a need to improve. Their method is working for them. They get the students they want. Not that it’s anyone’s “fault” - it just is what it is.
Talent can be measured in different ways. I have one DC who had a 1600 SAT, 5s on all his APs and 800s on SAT subject tests. I’ll be honest: it did not take him “special effort.” He just had a gift for that sort of thing. However, he also was very cautious about the classes he took, the ECs he took on and the amount of time he would spend on things. He was very bright and attends a T20 school. But I have another DC who had strong, but not perfect test scores, lower AP scores, but a much stronger GPA and a varied array of ECs where she pushed herself more. Neither is better than the other. They are just different. But the latter DC is going to UChicago. The prior one probably would not have been admitted and that’s OK.
So you’re saying only students with top grades, valedictorians, highest SAT, highest GPA, highest AP test scores deserve to have access to top universities?
I am sort of uncomfortable with the overdetermination of a 1600 or 36 as a benchmark. My kids went to a school with 3600 students - they gain entry via a single test. Their grades, attendance, etc are not even looked at - so, pretty close to the objective measure some are wishing for. Some kids who are total slackers in middle school but are whip smart get in. Their middle school grades were horrible. Their attendance atrocious. Their behavior - really bad. Am I mad that they get in for making the cut score instead of kids who worked their butts off to get great grades, attend school and behave? No, because those kids have the intellectual chops for the school and probably do poorly in middle schools that are not challenging. Those same kids, along with their more academically A type peers all take the SAT (as a matter of fact, it was given in school today). The schoolwide average for 900+ juniors with all kinds of grades is 1520. Many, many kids apply to and attend T20 schools. Last year, 190 applicants to UChi. The year prior, 51 accepted. 24 kids applied to UChi with 1600s. We have kids who are geniuses and graduate at age 12. One kid in my son’s class started a non-profit that raises 50K a year, another won NASA’s genes in space contest and his experimental design is now orbiting the earth. There is a kid whose work at Sloan Kettering is published in multiple peer reviewed journals. These are only a few. This is a public school and is one of 8 high schools in our city that produce similar cohorts. Many of the kids are working class or poor. They don’t have 10K for college consultants. No one deserves or is entitled to a space at any institution, no matter what their transcripts, test scores, or any other part of their application shows. There are many more qualified kids than there are spaces for our high school, too. As a teacher, I learned early on that there is no such thing as pure objectivity and that having a variety of kids with different impressive skills and talents in a room makes for more dynamic learning. An A tells me about mastery of material. But it does not tell me what having that kid in a classroom is like. It does not tell me what they bring or what they want to get out of the learning experience. It is an incomplete picture at best. And UK schools do have the UCAS essay and are not liberal arts institutions, so what makes a student a good fit is different - a deep commitment to a subject vs. a more connected interplay of subjects, for example. Neither is better nor worse, but the lens is different. I don’t think it is devoid of subjectivity, though. One of my son’s friends is going to Oxford. A bunch are going to UChi. Others to Harvard, Yale, Princeton - with more to come. They have similar stats, but are dissimilar kids. Once they are all out in the world, will this matter as much as we think it might? Probably not. My husband went to SUNY Albany because that was what they could afford. He applied nowhere else. Was #1/500 in his major and you know what, no one cares now about any of that. They don’t ask him his GPA. And he hires and fires people who went to T20 schools all the time. He writes performance reports and assigns bonuses, and like anything, including grades, those have an element of subjectivity to them, too. I am so sorry people are feeling like any of this means their child is less worthy. My nephew got a 1600 on the SAT (took it cold) and went to community college not too far from UChi. He is no less amazing for it. He is applying now to finish at a 4 year. Let’s not split hairs over whether we are looking at their light in the form of a poem or as a data point. Light is light is light - let it shine.
My advice for students who want to go to one of the top D3 soccer schools in the country for men or women is to spend less time on linear algebra and more time kicking a soccer ball. As noted in many of the posts, great academics and good extracurriculars is not a guarantee for admission to any of the top schools in the country. However, good academics combined with great athletic accomplishments almost certainly is.
Does anyone have good information on the culture at UChicago? Heading there for accepted student days and hoping my child meets nice students and feels like it’s a place he’d enjoy spending 4 years. We definitely enjoyed the tour we took last August and liked the people we met.
Are students more laid back and casual or more pre-professional? We are casual
Aside from all the hard work, do the students also have fun? What are the highlights of the year? Is it the scavenger hunt?
How fun are the residential colleges? Are they close knit or is it just like any other dorm situation?
What about Greek life, is there Greek life and if so is it a big thing?
What do students do for fun? Do they support athletics in any way or are they not that into sports?
Just trying to get a feel for what it would be like to attend from anyone with inside knowledge.
Congrats to you and your student @Texastennismom! I can only share my daughter’s experience, and there are definitely different experiences to be had at UChicago.
My student met so many different kinds of people at UChicago! I’d say, yes, students study hard, but it’s not a competitive atmosphere. My D once told me that there was less academic pressure at UChi than high school.
From what I hear, there are varying experiences with the “houses.” Some are more active than others. DD had a wonderful experience with hers - she jumped right in, did all the activities, played on the house bowling, broomball, and spikeball teams, got to go to theatre events, apple picking, etc. with her house, and hung out in the house lounge with other members of her house a lot. She is not a partier, so it was a great way for her to socialize.
As far as highlights, there is Scav, Kuvia, Summer Breeze. This page details some of the events on campus.
My daughter was completely uninterested in Greek life and is not an athlete, so I have no insight there.
I guess overall I’d say, UChicago is not a party school, although there are partiers there. It was a good fit for my D as she was more interested in activities than parties. There are plenty of clubs to join. Some welcome all, some are competitive to get into.
Congratulations to your child!! My daughter is a stem major and athlete. She has had a wonderful experience so far.
Yes, she works very hard, but has enough time for team practice, research, and fun experiences on the weekend. Let’s just say, she has to be very productive during the week and Sunday evening. She finds the majority of student collaborative and has met so many amazingly talented and nice people.
She loved her dorm experience and formed many close friendships through her house. She didn’t do a lot of the organized house events, but had many an adventure with groups of friends from her house. She also has very close friends from her team. They have all gotten very close, so it’s quite a big family of friends.
She did not go Greek, but two of her roommates did. She was able to go to all the events, even though she wasn’t a member; it’s very laid back, not like “Greek life” at a state school. The chapters realize how busy the students are, so the experience is not overwhelming, stressful, or time consuming. Most students are not involved in the Greek system. It’s there if ya want it.
As for fun, it depends on the kid. My daughter works very hard during the week so she can have fun on the weekend; usually a party and/or going downtown to explore the city. She also enjoys just hanging out with friends on campus.
Her time at Uchicago has been everything she hoped it would be. Uchicago has become her new home. Hopefully your child will have the same experience. My advice: meet as many people, form friendships, and MAKE TIME FOR FUN!
Thank you for all this! It sounds like a great school and I will share this with my child
As a stem major, what has been her experience with class sizes for intro level classes? Mine is thinking about majoring in chemistry and doing pre-med requirements (calculus, Chemistry, bio, etc) but I’m worried about the size of the intro level classes. Also, do you know if classes grade on a curve at University of Chicago?
Thank you both for sharing your kids experiences! It’s very helpful.
