UChicago and test optional

^ Was thinking as well that this little ditty won’t make it into the talking points this year LOL.

It was over 1500 last year. 1510 I think. I think that was #2.

If you’re looking for the profile of a student who was admitted to UChicago RD without test scores, see this post below:

http://talk.qa.collegeconfidential.com/what-my-chances/2129514-chances-of-getting-into-stanford-uchicago-or-ucla-p1.html

@sgopal2 Yes, that girl has a very compelling story. I hope she matriculates at UChicago this fall.

@sgopal2 do we actually know whether that poster applied test optional? Sorry if he/she posted that information and I missed it.

Update: nvm - missed the part that said she didn’t submit scores to Chicago.

That’s a kid who could get accepted test-optional.

Do you think they’ll announce how many got in Test Optional?

They’ll do that right after they announce the admit rates for ED1, EA, ED2 and RD.

Doubtful they will announce anything.

They should announce it though… it would be a free news/marketing about a top school that gives a chance to people whose only weakness is taking timeboxed, standardized testing. If the students want to be profiled by the newspapers, they will likely make for a good feature story too.

UChicago will “own” the news in the months prior to the next round of applications.

^UChicago first has to make sure those students matriculate. Not how many of them were ED.

If the test optional admits are mostly SAT 1250s (like the profile above) then UChicago is probably the highest ranked school they will get into, and most likely they will matriculate.

Now if the words get out that if you are SAT 1250 UChicago is THE school to apply and to get into, I think its really going to hurt the UChicago brand.

The reasoning above in #31 is all kinds of faulty.

Most test-optional colleges don’t go test-optional because they think the tests are worthless, or because they plan to admit a lot of students with low test scores. They do it because they know that there’s a small number of fabulous candidates they would love to admit who happen not to have high test scores, and they are afraid those students won’t apply because they think their test scores disqualify them. They would be happy to admit those students even knowing their test scores.

Those students aren’t a dime a dozen. They have personal qualities, verifiable achievements, and usually some compelling origin story that leapfrog them over thousands of other applicants with test scores that are meaningfully higher. (Applicants with test scores meaningfully higher than 1250 SATs – which are not that low – are a dime a dozen.)

There’s no good reason to believe that Chicago values those qualities more than other hyperselective colleges, besides the fact that Chicago has decided to allow applicants not to submit test scores in order to encourage them to apply. The same factors that make an applicant attractive to Chicago notwithstanding relatively low test scores will make the applicant attractive to many other colleges as well. There may even be a bidding war.

For similar reasons, there is little chance “words” will get out that Chicago is the school for people with 1250 SATs. At most a handful of such people will be accepted; I bet their qualifications will be unique, compelling, and obvious. Most of them won’t be posting on CC or elsewhere about how low their SATs were. People in their communities will know them only for the fabulous qualities that got them into Chicago in the first place, and those people will probably assume the students’ test scores were great, like everything else about them.

Perhaps not viewed as “the” school for those with 1250 SATs. But very likely - to those particular applicants - viewed as “the only” shot at a top elite. Predicting the College will continue to get a bump from TO going forward. Very few this year seemed to remember that TO is actually part of the Empower Initiative so that connection is not likely to gel in the minds of future applicants. Therefore, a sizable majority applying TO will see UChicago as a great school that doesn’t care about awful test scores. But a few unique candidates will “get it” and will be accepted. Hopefully, they will attend.

How can this possibly hurt UChicago’s brand? At the very least, it’ll help keep the admit rate down.

I am not at all a foe of TO, quite the contrary. However, I do worry a bit about those who are admitted under it. Will they be able to keep pace? It will take a deft and discerning touch by the admissions people to identify kids who have qualities Chicago wants and who can be successful even if their test scores would almost certainly have disqualified them. The qualities that swayed the AOs can’t be entirely or even mostly non-academic achievements or adornments: these kids will, like all UChicago students, have to be able and willing to do the hard work of study. It will be terrible for them at this school of all schools if they can’t.

My guess is that TO isn’t for good students who don’t test well but rather for exceptional students who were otherwise prevented from testing well. UChicago is implicitly claiming that they can tell which is which.

It will be interesting to see if this particular applicant has any other acceptances come April.

BTW if you look at the scores on the low end of accepted applicants at elite schools you will see that they are quite low (in relationship to other acceptances), and that there are only a handful of them.

That applicant also got into UCLA, with scholarship $. I dont think UChicago they are that much of a risk.

Yes, all of the elite schools, except maybe Caltech, admit a handful of students with test scores that are meaningfully lower than just about everyone else’s. There aren’t enough of them to move the needle on any statistics that matter, and if necessary they get a lot of support to keep them from failing. Most of them are either (a) the children and grandchildren of mega donors, or (b) All-America-level talent in sports that lots of alumni care about. But a handful of the handful may be super-talented artists or people with really extraordinary, inspiring narratives. A lot of care is taken with this small subset of admissions, because I think everyone recognizes that kids like this could actually be worse off for going to a college where it will be harder for them to succeed, notwithstanding their amazing qualities. (With the athletes, the responsibility to make it work for the kid falls to the coaches and ADs. With the legacies, it falls to their families.)

An example, someone my daughter met through one of her extracurriculars. He was an African-American kid from a destitute family in a bombed-out neighborhood. He went to a violence-filled, academically failing neighborhood high school. He was the best student at the school in the past 30 years, president of the class, leader of everything. Worshiped by the faculty, his fellow students, and even the local gang members who more or less explicitly gave him a free pass. He got profiled in the Philadelphia Inquirer for his substantial contributions to reducing violence in his neighborhood. When my daughter met him, she said that there was no question, he was simply the greatest kid in the world, completely sincere and able to connect with anyone and inspire their trust. His SATs were below 1100. Penn recruited and accepted him ED, but with a lot of extra support, including a summer of being tutored prior to enrollment.

Frankly the admit with a $25K scholarship to UCLA is almost worthless over four years for an OOS bill of almost $240K. Still a nice gesture but not really worth anything.