@milee30 - I say lightly hooked because I suspect that my D would have had the same – or similar – results without being Latina, just as the only other cross-admitted unhooked student from her school did. At the end of the day, the two of them were among the top “academic superstars” at their HS, but more than that, they were interesting, quirky kids that wrote incredible essays and had one or more veteran teachers say they were the top student(s). Ever. Which is likely more than what was said about the valedictorians who did not make the HYPS cut EA or otherwise. The only other SCEA admit was development/legacy. Ultimately, another kid got off the waitlist at another of the HYPS, but that’s it.
I’m not buying the proposition that Chicago doesn’t get its share of academic ubermenschen. I try to put myself in the shoes of that kind of kid (admittedly a stretch) and ask myself what schools have (a) the most rigorous programs, (b) the highest quality teachers and © fellow students who especially honor academic achievement. The last of these is perhaps the most important inasmuch as no one who is 18 years of age wants to feel misunderstood and freakish in the eyes of his or her peers. Though Chicago isn’t the only elite school that satisfies all those requirements, it satisfies them as well as any, and the last one especially well. It would take more than someone’s hunch to convince me that Chicago is laboring under any kind of disadvantage with this type of kid. However the curb appeal of the lettered schools is what it is, both for good and not so good reasons.
@DeepBlue86 You have your opinion and I will disagree with it on the intellectual prowess of UChicago students vs. HYPSM. However, yes, UChicago is fooling around with their admissions policy in order, IMO, to get the best possible class, not to dilute the class for yield. I believe that the current classes are comparable to previous classes before ED and comparable to HYPSM (except for URM’s which I believe HYPS gets their pick of, and that is really due to the fact that HYPSM is just simply more well known). After all, every one of these schools turn down very high academic achievers that maybe lack other interests. Neither of us can prove a thing, we have anecdotal evidence that really doesn’t settle anything.
I thought I’d give my 2 cents on this post.
Quick background for me: I applied to college last year. I was accepted to quite a few schools, including Yale (RD), Cambridge, Georgetown (EA), USC (RD), UMich (EA), Cornell (RD), and NYU (RD). I was rejected from UVA (EA) and Princeton (RD). I enrolled at Cornell, didn’t know what I was doing, and then withdrew. I’m re-applying to colleges this year. I consider myself a pretty competitive applicant. I had a 4.53 weighted GPA, taking 11/13 of the AP courses my school offered (the other 2 being language APs), have a 35 ACT, 2 800s and a 780 for SAT2s, and I got 5s on all my AP exams except for APUSH. In addition, I’d like to think I wrote great essays, and I have an interesting background.
For my early results thus far, I was accepted to MIT and Mcgill, and I was deferred from Chicago (EA) and Columbia (ED). My RD list is Yale, Princeton, Brown, Stanford, Swarthmore, Haverford, Carleton, Davidson, (+Columbia & Chicago) and there might be another that I’m missing. I changed my deferred Chicago app to ED2. I recently received a likely letter from Yale (or rather a call), so I’ve been thinking about if I would choose Chicago over Yale, and yes, I would. Now for a bit, I was thinking I was only saying this because I’m “justifying” my decision to do ED2 for Chicago, but after looking at the criteria I’m looking for, I would still pick Chicago over Yale. And obviously, given that I was accepted to MIT but I’m switching my UC application to ED2, I would pick Chicago over MIT, but that’s more because I want to go into the humanities.
(1) In terms of academics, I’d say they are equally on par with one another. Though, I think I would pick UChicago given that I like the aspect of no grade inflation. Obviously, both schools would be challenging, but UC has the “where fun goes to die” reputation, and I like that. I love to study, and I like the idea of a challenge. I was recently talking to a girl who graduated a year ahead of me from my high school who goes to UC. She is planning on going to business school, and she was telling me about how she purposely picked a professor for a stats class because he had a reputation of being more difficult. I asked her if she was worried about her GPA. She answered, “Sure I worry about my GPA for business school, but I believe the pros of taking the more challenging class easily outweigh the con of my GPA suffering.”
(2) In terms of people, I think I would pick UC. I love the people at both schools, but UC has the reputation of quirky intellectuals, and it shows. There’s definitely tons of people like that at Yale as well, but at UC it seemed that was everyone. As well, given that Yale has the ivy name, there’s definitely quite a few people there who choose it only for the name or because they’re a legacy or such. UC definitely has a name, but the general public think it’s a state school and have never heard of it, and thus, I think less people choose UC for the name aspect. I must say, my aunt asked me what my top choice was last week and I told her UC, and she exclaimed, “I’ve never even heard of that school. Why would you even consider it after being accepted to MIT!” I wasn’t sure what to say, but I just told her to go look at the US News rankings—despite the fact that I hate those rankings. But the people who matter for my future know UCs name, and that’s what matters. As long as grad schools and employers know of the school, then I’m fine with that.
(3) In terms of campuses, this is a close one, but I’d pick UC. Both obviously have the gothic architecture, but UC, in my opinion, is just so much prettier. Granted, it was built in the late 1800s which probably has partly to do with it compared to Yale which was built much earlier. Plus UC has way better dorms than Yale in my opinion. Both have singles—which really appeals to me given that the thought of someone watching me sleep (not that my roommate would do that) freaks me out—but UC actually has AC in many of theirs and they’re so huge!
(4) Financially, I obviously can’t compare, but I think UC will actually give me more aid given that they only ask for the custodial parent’s info—my mom is middle class and my dad is wealthy—so given that they don’t want my dad’s info, that’s definitely beneficial for me.
What I can say is yes, UC is definitely playing the rankings game. They have slowly been climbing the ranks of USNWR and I have no doubt that Zimmer would love that top spot. I don’t particularly mind ED, but what I don’t like about it is how ED applicants are given the significant advantage. I wish ED and RD applicants were treated the same. I do like that even with Chicago adding ED and ED2 that they kept EA—I think that was nice. It’s quite annoying how almost all the highly selective schools only have ED and not EA, save HYPSM.
I’ve definitely always considered Chicago on par with HYPSM, at least in terms of academia. Though, just in general I think ranking schools is ridiculous, especially as a whole. Each school has their strengths and their weaknesses. Visiting my friend at UPenn recently, her dream school had always been Yale. Her parents had ingrained Yale in her from Day 1, but she was rejected SCEA. Ultimately, from the schools she was accepted to, she ended up narrowing it down to UPenn, Harvard, and Northwestern. After visiting all three schools, she picked UPenn, but she told me there were things she loved about all of them and things she hated about all of them, and she said even going and looking at Yale now, there’s things she hates about it but again, things she loves. It’s hard for me to say “Harvard is better than Columbia” or “Yale is better than UChicago” because I think it completely depends on what you’re looking for.
@takacatboy If you think UChicago’s EA is helpful to applicants, I’m afraid you haven’t figured out the game UChicago is playing. UChicago wants you to fall in love with it by applying ED1, just like the other ED schools. However, if you don’t, it wants you to apply EA. Not for your benefit but for UChicago’s because it would make UChicago appear more selective (the number of early applicants is in the denominator of all selectivity measures). Of course, you are deferred in the EA round. UChicago then asks you whether you want to switch to ED2. Now you’re trying to figure out whether you should by researching your options on CC and other places. To your horror, you find out staying with RD will almost guarantee a rejection (or be put on a waitlist) and your chance with ED2 is order of magnitude better. You switch to ED2. Now you’ve finally fallen prey to the Great Game.
@1NJParent Ah. I hadn’t thought of it in that way. There’s no doubt that UChicago is playing the admissions game. Granted, just in my personal case—I didn’t apply ED1 to Chicago simply because I wanted to do ED Columbia. I hadn’t really thought about the acceptance rate when switching to ED2, I’d just generally thought about my priorities in a school and switched my application. And not going to lie, I’m an applicant who hasn’t really thought about acceptance rates at all this time around given that last year I was accepted to Cambridge (although it has a huge acceptance rate of American students since it’s already self selecting), and Yale, as well as a multitude of other schools which are often deemed “a tier lower” —that was definitely a confidence booster for me!
I’d argue that Chicago’s EA is still helpful to applicants considering I suspect the EA acceptance rate is still much higher than the RD’s 2%, and it probably hovers similar to the overall acceptance give or a take a percent or two—which is no different than MIT of Caltech in that regard, but then UC has the ED to make of for that. I think UChicago still has a ways to go before they would consider switching to SCEA, and I don’t think their yield rate would drop (given that it was not that much lower when they only had EA), but their acceptance rate would certainly increase by a large margin.
And while I think Chicago can compete with HYPSM in terms of its reputation in academia, business, and various other fields; it by no means can compete among the general public. It’s certainly gaining more attention, but unfortunately, the vast majority of people still have never heard of the school, and I think that, honestly, is one of the only reasons someone would pick HYPSM over Chicago, well not the only reason, but at least the only reason to not consider against them. In fact, that was one of my reasons for applying to Columbia ED1 over Chicago. I determined both schools were my “top choice” but I gave Columbia the edge given that it arguably has a bigger name (although, it’s still quite sad about the amount of people who have never heard of Columbia).
Another reason is that they are easily identifiable. You can’t just post that you won first prize in Regeneron without giving up your identity.
@takacatboy UChicago is certainly a great school, in terms of its academics. None of us is arguing about that. Its most comparable school in the Ivies is probably Columbia. The only things we’re arguing about are whether UChicago has risen to the next level and its admission practices are fair or not.
@takacatboy Don’t let @1NJParent infect you with his one-note obsession. For him every aspect of admissions policy is driven by a single objective - to game the the rankings. You ought to think about the more obvious objective - to recruit the best and most appropriate (as Chicago sees it) entering class. You may believe the policy is not achieving that objective or you may not like some of its effects. Fair enough. We have vigorously debated the merits here on cc. However you should resist cockamamie conspiracy theories. These tell you more about the person who holds them than about what they purport (with no actual evidence) to describe.
@marlowe1 We’re having a debate on some serious issues. Calling people’s names is beneath a Chicago’s education. I hope you’re not a UChicago product.
"The only things we’re arguing about are whether UChicago has risen to the next level and its admission practices are fair or not. "
Not sure there’s been much argument that UChicago isn’t at the same academic level or doesn’t hold the same level of prestige within the academic community and with employers as does HYPS. So no, we’re not arguing about that.
There has been some anecdotal discussion about what people believe in their heart to be true… which all boils down to the idea that in certain geographic areas and among certain populations HYPS has more common “prestige” so will be more desirable. Said discussion has been countered with other anecdotal discussion that in other areas and among other populations, UChicago is more desirable. Stalemate. Unlikely anybody is going to be convinced by anecdotes.
As to whether admissions practices are fair, fair isn’t really the key driver here. There are many things about the entire college admissions system at any college that aren’t fair. The most important issue is whether the admissions practices are achieving the results desired by UChicago. If we as a community guess what those desired results are, the guesses would almost certainly center around USNWR ranking (whether or not we personally agree with this or find it meaningful) and class composition. It’s tough to argue against the idea that the practices are producing impressive results with the USNWR rankings and with excellent class composition.
@milee30 That’s a fair assessment. We may come to some very different conclusions based on some very limited data (especially in this case with UChicago since it doesn’t release officially any data). I personally don’t care about the prestige factor. I also think USNWR ranking is among the worst things that happened to US higher education, but that’s a different topic.
Well thank you, @marlowe1 I definitely agree that Chicago does focus on the “best” class more so than other schools. I think just looking at the applications themselves, UC cares more about fit than other schools — @1NJParent As I said earlier, I do agree that Chicago is trying to game the system to an extent—especially since Zimmer and Nondorf have taken charge. I don’t really understand why you’re saying “The only things we’re arguing about are whether UChicago has risen to the next level and its admission practices are fair or not.” Have I not discussed those?
Addressing the other issue, whether UChicago has risen to the next level, as I first stated, I think it’s ridiculous to argue its merits in comparison to other schools. What exactly does make HYPSM so much better than all other schools? In the same way people say you can’t compare Harvard to Williams, I think you can’t really compare Harvard to Yale to Princeton to Stanford to MIT to UChicago, as well as the so-called “2nd tier schools.” If we’re looking at admissions rates, why isn’t Columbia in that top tier? I’d argue Columbia could probably get rid of ED and still keep up comparably with yield and acceptance given that their yield rate isn’t too far behind Yale’s and Princeton’s already and they get more applications than most of the ivy’s, and if they switched to SCEA or EA, they’d arguable get more applications since less people would be worried about the binding policy.
On a second note, I must say, I’m really excited to work in the admissions office as an undergraduate. We talk about how schools “game the system,” but I’m even more fascinated with how students “game the system,” and I’m excited to get a closer look at that. I’d love to study philosophy (specifically ethics), and I’d love to examine more closely the education system, applying principals such as rational egotism and such. I’m someone that is generally cynical of the US education system, and I would love to be a part of the change it needs.
@takacatboy You’re a great student and I’m sure UChicago will be lucky to have you.
Yes, if Columbia were to adopt SCEA or unrestricted EA, it would get more applications. But its acceptance rate wouldn’t drop because its yield would certainly drop and it would have to increase the number of acceptances to compensate for the drop in yield.
To me, the best admission practice for students is that of MIT. Totally unrestricted and meritocratic. No legacy consideration. No advantage to early applicants, in letters and spirits. It may try to balance its gender composition but that’s understandable.
@1NJParent - I’m with you on the lack of caring about prestige. And I find it funny how people who are concerned with prestige are completely incapable of even conceiving of other intelligent humans who feel differently on the subject. Luckily, it’s a very big country and UChicago doesn’t need to worry about regional preferences preventing them from having a large number of top candidates who have UChicago as their first choice.
USNWR has definitely created disruption. Colleges have incentives to game the ranking system and also to focus on metrics that aren’t meaningful to their students. At the same time, it has been helpful to have some method of comparison and also to publicize just how good some schools - like UChicago - are that were previously only known to top academics and employers. As that Harvard/Stanford study I mentioned in a previous post discovered, most low income highly competitive students don’t even apply to selective colleges and if they do, they’ll send in one application to a school they have heard of, like Stanford or Harvard. Ratings systems like USNWR help to spread the news about top colleges so students who don’t otherwise have knowledge of top colleges and don’t have access to top advising like GCs can research schools where they may be a fit. It would be a good change IMO if students stopped applying to college based on what their parents thought was prestigious or based on hearing about a school on the news or via their football team and instead researched what the individual college offered.
@millee30 I agree with you that many applicants, and their parents, are unfortunately swayed by colleges’ prestige. Where we differ is whether USNWR ranking is helpful. The ranking dumbs down a complicated analysis to a single number. The simplicity sells and it’s a great business. It’s no coincidence that almost every publication publishes some sort of ranking. Many applicants select their colleges based on this single number and it’s no wonder colleges try to game the ranking system. GCs are no help in most public HS and they’re similarly swayed by the prestige factor and college rankings.
I’m glad you jumped into the discussion, @takacatboy. Upthread, when I was citing admittedly anecdotal evidence of other students that I knew had multiple HYPSM acceptances that were also considering UChicago, your were in the forefront of my mind but I didn’t feel it was my place to use you as a data point.
In both our PM communications, and as I will expound upon here, you’ve articulated no shortage of sound reasons why Chicago would be a great fit for you. You should absolutely celebrate your choice and not look back. As I’ve told you on numerous occasions, I think you would have been equally happy with Columbia’s core or Yale’s Directed Studies, or Princeton’s Hume Sequence or Stanford’s SLE, or Swarthmore, or Brown, or Carleton, or, or, or… While each of these schools might have something different to offer programmatically, socially, geographically, etc. and while any one of these schools might be a better overall fit than another, I have no doubt in my mind that you would forge great relationships with both students and professors at any or all of these schools. More importantly, for what you are seeking intellectually and academically, all of these schools can deliver. In your particular case, knowing what I know about what you are seeking, I would say that UChicago and Columbia might have a slight edge over some of the others, but you can’t go wrong with any of these schools.
That said, I am in agreement @1NJParent about how Chicago games the system. My H (who got his PhD at UChicago and who thinks very, very highly of the undergraduate teaching there) shares my disdain for ED in general and for UChicago’s particular brand of EA/ED1/ED2 in particular. When he and I were talking about your situation, he felt that, after your EA deferral, UChicago was strong-arming (actually, I think he said bullying) you into switching to ED2 to their advantage – forcing you to make a choice without having all of the data regarding some of your other choices (Columbia RD, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, etc.) As it turns out, if it is indeed the case that even with some of that additional data at your disposal (i.e., Yale’s likely letter), you would still choose UChicago (as it seems you would), you should celebrate your choice and not look back. Well done!!
And, as for the general case, as I’ve said earlier, I do not think that there is a qualitative difference between the education a student would bet at a “lettered” school versus UChicago. In my D’s case (who perhaps shares some of your intellectual interests), she would have seriously considered going there were it not for two main reasons: 1) the weather; and 2) some aspects of the core (i.e., math and science) that were perhaps not as flexible as the gen. ed. requirements at schools like Yale and Stanford. It would have been interesting to see what might have happened had Chicago given her the Stamps (full-ride) scholarship…now THAT might have been tough to turn down. 
Rankings correlate with the actual. justified prestige of the place in that the type five listed are likely top 5 schools (no matter the exact “order”) the top 10 are likely top 10 schools etc. Obviously this correlation is a lot less accurate the farther out you go.
Using a variety of rankings (USNWR,Shanghai, CWUR, etc.) give you a much better understanding of where your school falls. There is the potential problem of these agencies over depending on other agencies and vice-versa but if each is a bit different in terms of it’s rankings objectives (ie one is for undergrad only, one is for grad only, one might be based on peer reviews only etc) then that multi-ranking viewpoint can be very helpful. Any school that shoots up in the USNWR but not the others is highly suspect.
They ALL game the system so you can assume that’s all baked into the rankings cake. Shouldn’t change relative movement (unless they are lying about data - which has been known to happen).
“To me, the best admission practice for students is that of MIT. Totally unrestricted and meritocratic. No legacy consideration. No advantage to early applicants, in letters and spirits. It may try to balance its gender composition but that’s understandable.”
@1NJParent - MIT plays the game as well, regardless of what they say. First of all, they are EA because they don’t need to be ED or SCEA. How do I know that? By the simple fact that they are EA. Colleges don’t have a particular admissions plans out of the goodness of their heart. Colleges have admissions plans to achieve their goal of finding the best students that fit the place and try to get them to attend. If they need to switch to ED to do that - or SCEA, for that matter - then rest assured that’s what they will do.
Second, of COURSE there is an advantage to applying EA, according to their own statistics. 10.5% of EA applicants were eventually admitted, while only 4.7% of RA applicants were. That’s over a 2:1 advantage! What they perhaps mean is that there is no advantage to getting an EA admission? But that’s a bit deceptive too as EA admit rate is 7.8% and RA (including deferrals) is 6.6%. Perhaps they mean that conditioned upon deferral, your chances are pretty low for admission? That’s true - it’s a point lower than the RA pool (3.8% vs. 4.7%). But that’s not as meaningful a stat - you can be deferred because you are on the edge in terms of qualifications, or for other reasons (see below). Not all deferrals are the same - it’s going to be a wide pool of talent.
Their talk of accomodating all applicants using the decision plan that meets their needs is nice and all but no different from any other school offering more than one plan (which is pretty much everyone). And the part about spreading out the work is silly as they can zero in on exactly who they need to look at very quickly and defer the rest to look at later. Everyone’s app. gets the same attention as at any other top school - MIT is no different from the others.
Also, their gender composition goals are commendable but they don’t trump their yield goals - we have friends with a brilliant daughter who is there now (and competing in a D1 sport for them), after getting deferred and needing to assure them she would attend if admitted. Seems if you are TOO brilliant they want to know a bit more about whether you are serious. She had major bucks from other places.
“I hadn’t really thought about the acceptance rate when switching to ED2, I’d just generally thought about my priorities in a school and switched my application.”
@takacatboy this is why you probably have a good shot at UChicago now. That’s the kind of attitude that makes an application stand out.
“My H (who got his PhD at UChicago and who thinks very, very highly of the undergraduate teaching there) shares my disdain for ED in general and for UChicago’s particular brand of EA/ED1/ED2 in particular. When he and I were talking about your situation, he felt that, after your EA deferral, UChicago was strong-arming (actually, I think he said bullying) you into switching to ED2 to their advantage – forcing you to make a choice without having all of the data regarding some of your other choices (Columbia RD, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, etc.)”
@LoveTheBard - Someone is “bullied” into applying EDII? That’s a new one on me. What’s next, demanding you be admitted to all your schools of interest because you worked super hard on all your applications?
Perhaps someone ought to start a twitter feed: #E(D)Too. Testimony will consist of stuff like “I was confused and didn’t question it . . . but now I know it’s NOT OK”. Beg pardon for the snark.
@1NJParent you only have to look at the proliferation of rankings to see that many institutions are into ranking universities. Rankings have there place, someone has done a lot of research into schools, showed you how they did it and came up with a ranking. It really helps students and parents compare universities. If you like ROI use Forbes, if you like xxx find the ranking that uses xxx. These are good tools that can help you sorting through the thousands of colleges out there. Saying that USNRW is the worst thing to happen for admissions is ridiculous, it’s not, it has helped millions of student become aware of colleges (and there profiles) they might not have ever known about. The only downside (for some) is that now there are some colleges that were once difficult to get into are almost impossible now. Frankly, admissions is more fair now then ever before.