If you actually look at the Harvard data, 1NJ, you will see that it is not merely athletes but LDCs, broken out separately, which populate the middle and lower reaches of Harvard’s academic deciles. At the highest levels they are advantaged as against non-LDC by factors of 5 and 6 times. At the lowest levels they are still being admitted long after non-LDC are no longer being admitted. Add in the preferences for athletes and the statistics become even more conclusive.
The data also discloses that 43 percent of Harvard’s admits from all sources are drawn from this generally lower-achieving ALDC cohort. That percentage is surely higher for the prep schools. That being so, it follows that most of Harvard’s admits from the prep schools are not “tippy-top” on the academic spectrum, whatever they may be on the Fitzgeraldian golden-boy or girl spectrum. Some are, but not most. This is not merely “noise.” It is the reality of gaining admission to Harvard.
Those who don’t care to look closely will always be stubbornly certain of their opinions. As Mark Twain once said, it ain’t what you don’t know that causes you to get things wrong but what you know that ain’t true.
Again, we’re saying student-athletes aren’t also academic superstars at Harvard or Stanford. Some of those student-athletes are represented in the lower deciles and some aren’t.
Just because student-athletes aren’t spending 100% of their time in their books, or labs, doesn’t mean they’re not academic superstars. They just choose to spend an enormous amount of their time on their sport.
They’re (Harvard, but especially Stanford) the elite of the student-athletes, spending part of their waking hours studying playbooks and training.
Is this like all those athletic superstars who aren’t spending 100% of their time on the court or workout room but instead choose spend an enormous amount of time on their books or labs?
Edit to add: just realized that my are “athletic!”
The specific numbers are summarized in the paper at https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf . According to table 2, 29.2% of domestic admits were ALDC and 70.8% were non-ALDC. Across the full class, 75% of admits had a high 1-2 academic rating. Among non-ALDC, 82% had a high 1-2 academic rating compared to 78% among LDCs. In both non-LDC and LDC groups, ~80% of admits appear to have a high 1-2 academic ratings. Athletes are a different story an had mostly average 3s.
Percent of Admits with High Academic Rating
Non-ALDC – 82%
LDC – 78%
Athletes – 25%
Rather than being academically weak, the more noteworthy differences between non-LDC and LDCs occur when you compare admit rates among kids with a particular academic rating. For example among applicants with a high 2 academic rating, the admit rates were as follows. Both groups are likely to have good stats and be well qualified academically, but there is a huge difference in admit rate. The well qualified ALDC kids seem to get a huge boost in chance of admission over well qualified non-ALDC.
Chicago doesn’t publish this level of detail, but one can get some rough numbers from the freshman surveys at the 2 colleges. The Chicago class of 2020 survey (most recent one I could find that lists legacy and athlete) and Harvard class of 2020 freshman survey lists the following percentages. I am defining legacy as having at least one parent who attended the college.
Class of 2020 Freshman Survey: Legacy and Athlete %
Chicago – 10.1% legacy, 5.6% recruited athlete
Harvard – 14.6% legacy, 10.3% athlete
There does appear to be a significant difference between the 2 schools, particularly for % athlete. In addition to Harvard having more athlete admits, I imagine that there is also a substantial difference in how influential being an athlete is for admission at the 2 schools, given that they compete in different NCAA divisions (Div I vs Div III).
How much this changes conclusions from the prep school matriculation totals is unclear. We need more information than just number of matriculating to students to draw reliable conclusions.
Is there anything new to add that had not been rehashed on other threads? Because these Harvard lawsuit arguments by the same users on a UChicago thread are feeling both old and circular.
Table 2 doesn’t address the tippy-top point. If that expression means anything at all with respect to academic excellence, it would be reflected in the stats for admits in the top decile as shown in Table 7. That table shows 952 white LDC admits comprised in the top decile, from a total of 4,175 of them in all deciles. Most of these LDC admits come from the middle categories. This does not even bring athletes into the equation. Overall, the ALDC admits comprise 43 percent of the total as shown in Table 10.
The point here is not specific to Harvard but to address the proposition that the kids at these private schools who go to the ivies are, as distinct from those who go to Chicago, mostly the academic superstars. It aint so.
Actually table 2 does address the “tippy-top point”, better so than the AI index information you listed. AI is calculated based on stats alone, with 2/3 based on scores. Academic rating encompasses more than just having near perfect scores… Only 1-2% of applicants receive the maximum possible academic rating of 1, which is associated with being one of the best academic scholars in the class and often involves having academic work reviewed by Harvard faculty. Among the admits in table 2, only 4% had this rare perfect academic rating, indicating the tippy top point . The % of each group with this rare “tippy top point” in academics is below.
Percent of Admits with Rare 1 Academic Rating
5% of non-ALDC admits
3% of LDC admits
<0.1% of Athlete admits
It’s debatable how significant this 5% of non-ALDC vs 3% LDC difference is. I don’t doubt that it’s significant in a statistical standard error sense, but it’s not what I would consider a very large difference… or large enough to draw conclusions about whether academic stars from top prep schools are attending Harvard vs Chicago. Again the more stark difference occurs with recruited athletes. In all but 1 of the sample years, none of the recruited athletes received this rating.
The specific numbers from table 10 are below. % ALDC admits using table 10 comes out to 29% (of domestic admits)… not 43%, just as % ALDC admits comes out to 29% when using the numbers from table 2. . I suspect the discrepancy occurs because you only looked at one race column, rather than summing all 4.
Total Athletes Admits = 817+124+54+101 = 1096
Total LDC Admits =1362+81+122+270 = 1835
Total Admits = 4993+1392+1283+2443 = 10111
% ALDC = (1096+1835)/10111 = 29%
There isn’t enough information to conclude which colleges the “academic superstars” from prep schools are attending by just looking at the matriculation totals + stats from the Harvard lawsuit. If you are really interested, I imagine some persons in the prep school forum have stats for their high school.
Sorry I’m not an “academic superstar,” so I didn’t understand your post.
These Chicago “cheerleader” type threads are as common as house flies here on CC.
There are many elite private and public HS’s here in the SF Bay Area and I wouldn’t rely solely on Nueva and College Prep as representative sample here to support the “top prep school to a UChicago pipeline” theory.
Of course athletes and employee kids get breaks. Same is true for some large donor kids. Top prep schools in Chicago should favor UofC and those in Boston should tip for Harvard.
For our Texas high school (last 10 years):
UofC – 14 apply per year; 12% admitted; 1530 avg SAT of admittees; 4.32 WGPA
Harvard - 21; 6%; 1493; 4.47
Stanford - 29; 5%; 1565; 4.55
Columbia - 17; 7%; 1574; 4.55
N’Western - 22; 12%; 1537; 4.42
Duke - 29; 12%; 1578; 4.52
Yale - 18; 7%; 1530; 4.47
Princeton - 18; 7%; 1546; 4.51
Rice - 26; 21%; 1531; 4.42
Some of the Harvard admits have been athletes. Same for good chunk of others but I believe football and basketball get more weighting than other sports.
I get you are saying not all Harvard students are tippy tops. But the question at issue is: are all tippy tops going to Harvard (way oversimplified version of the question to clarify the distinction).
We can all agree that not all athletes or legacies at HYPSM are tippy top prep school kids.
My observation, for which there is no data collected to analyze in the aggregate, it that most tippy top prep students still aspire to HYPSM schools. Some prefer UoC or other schools, which is great. But recognition bias still has a hold on the hopes and dreams of many prep school families. I don’t see that changing any time soon, nor should it surprise anyone.
I also think it is a fair observation that UoC has improved its stature at prep schools in the past decade quite a bit. But to say it is the favorite isn’t accurate or something that can be discerned from the data presented anyway. The matriculation data doesn’t show WHY a particular kid ends up at a particular school.
Kids don’t always apply to or attend their favorite - so in the end the analysis doesn’t provide actionable information, fun as it has been.
UChicago’s meteoric rise has been extremely well strategized. While the school has indeed risen in prominence and reputation (i.e. by the above-mentioned “poaching” of top faculty), they have also taken extremely pragmatic measures to drive down their acceptance rates by attracting as many applicants as possible. Their relentless advertising and even their pre-pandemic shift to test-optional have served this goal.
At the same time, they have managed to keep the percentage of entering students receiving need-based financial aid under 40%. This is lower than other schools on these lists with smaller endowments than UChicago’s 8.5 billion, such as Brown, Cornell, and NYU (percentage receiving aid in the mid-40’s) and considerably lower than the schools with endowments in the tens-of-billions, like Harvard, Yale, Columbia and Stanford, which give need-based aid to more than half of entering freshman.
So, how does UChicago have need-blind admissions and full-need-met aid, yet end up with noticeably more full-pay students than its peers? Emphasis on Early Decision is one way, but others like Penn and NYU and Rice do this too, and still have a higher share on financial aid. Admitting a bigger share of international students (who aren’t subject to the need-blind and full-need-met policies) is another way, but Columbia and NYU have lots of internationals too, and still have noticeably fewer full-pay students. Athletic scholarships aren’t taking up any slack, because Chicago is a DIII school.
So, perhaps targeted marketing to well-funded prep school students is another piece of their successful strategy in attracting a high share of full-pay students to support their bottom line.
(Source - common data set via CollegeData website - % of freshman applying for financial aid multipled by % of FA applicants qualifying for need-based aid.)
Sorry that the argument went over your head. I’ll make it simple. “Academic superstar” is usually determined by some sort of metric (top grades, a curriculum that includes graduate courses or the rigorous version of a subject, etc.). One is not deemed an “academic superstar” merely by being smart and/or getting into a top school (Harvard in your example), and athletes would of course be subject to the same metrics as anybody else on campus. Obviously, it’s possible for athletes to pull good grades while choosing to spend an enormous amount of time on their sport, but we know from personal experience and more objective assessments that this usually involves choices that tend to water down the chances for being an “academic superstar.” No doubt they are all still receiving a fine education at a top D1 - and no doubt there would an exception or two.
As to the second comment, I’d argue that the analogy isn’t quite correct. The flies would be what the thread seems to attract. Perhaps the thread is more like honey.
Of course, that is your metric, grades and scores. And others may agree with you.
But you see IMO, your metric doesn’t account for students, who are both elite in their sport AND their academics enough to be recruited by a Harvard or a Stanford. These elite student-athletes may not need a high SAT score, so some may just walk into an SAT test center on a Saturday, with little or no hours of prep and get the test score that they need to get into a Harvard or a Stanford, because they are a recruited athlete.
Coach says “you need X.” Athlete responds “Shoot, I can do that without even studying.” Why bother spending all that extra (or any) SAT prep time when it’s just not needed.
I know a few.
OTOH, I’m sure that there are some these “academic superstars” at UoC that take the SAT 2, 3 or more times, just to get a test score that a non-athlete needs to qualify for entry. And these “academic superstars” also may have the time, since they’re NOT on a court or field, being “grade grubbers” in their “spare time,” which athletes do not have. These “grade grubbers” probably realize that the only way into a UoC is to pester their teachers for “extra credit” or that extra 0.5% or whatever to get that A-, instead of a B+.
I know a few.
IMO, you can’t simply boil the definition of an “academic superstar” to just their SAT test score and grade deciles on a chart. Not all “academic superstars” fit into that nice neat little top box(es) in the CDS.
How did you weight %applied, admit rate and yield rate to get your ranking
TJ is a STEM school so maybe it is reasonable to suggest that the self-selection bias affects UChicago negatively in the %applied metric since UChicago does not have an engineering school.
Sure - and there are more than a few with a ACT of 30 after multiple attempts, but Coach is ecstatic because that’s still above the threshold so will allow some of those 26’s in as well. I know a few. And by they way, they are fine students, smart and hardworking. Very dedicated athletes. They are not “academic superstars.”
UChicago’s standardized test scores - prior to TO - were actually higher than both Harvard’s and Stanford’s. All three allow for multiple retakes, “super-scoring” etc. so it’s kind of silly to paint a pretend scenario implying otherwise. Data!
Thank you for providing your personal definition of “academic superstar” to be anyone smart enough to get into Harvard or Stanford athletics. That actually reveals a lot - and you are not alone here - about just how seriously you take the academics at a couple of these top schools.
Well, it’s whatever keeps attracting you, Sushy - but the fact is, you just can’t keep away from it.
No they are not. They are only in the “University of Chicago” threads. What did you expect? Moaning and groaning? Yeah, no. Here we look at data and logic, and we don’t hold sacred unexamined opinions. Get used to it?
Oh wow. That Harvard SAT number… that’s ALDC right there.
And if the Admit rate is 6%, it pretty much means that this school’s unhooked acceptance rate is basically nil?
No wonder unhooked applicants are looking at UChicago more and more these days.
That’s like saying sport superstars should not be judged by their number of goals/assists/touchdowns/wins. Yeah, no. Of course you should judge academic superstars by their performance in class, their research, their grades, their co-curricular projects. A person with unrealized potential because they did not devote enough time to realize that potential is not a superstar - this is true for both sports or academics. (in my opinion)
In reading through the above interesting commentary from Marlowe, Cate, UChiParent, Izzalu, and Data, I’m curious if any of the prep - savvy posters here know how many kids at their schools apply to UChicago ED1 or ED2. Sorry if I happened to miss it upthread. That just seems definitive that the school would be first or 2nd choice, for whatever reason. Given UChicago’s many admissions plans, I’d be looking closely at which ones those prep school students are choosing and my guess is that anyone with a connection to a guidance counselor can find this out. It doesn’t mean that UChicago is necessarily more “popular” than other places but what it might signal is the level of enthusiasm for matriculating there among those who do apply. And you can bet that Admissions understands that percentage as well. For instance - just to use Data’s percentages at TJ (not completely comparable, I know . . . ): if, say, all of the 21% who apply to H are in RD, but all of the 16% who apply to UChicago are ED1, then that might suggest that UChicago attracts a smaller but more enthusiastic group of applicants. Not sure what that says about popularity but I think it’s insightful nonetheless. The converse would be true as well: if all of the 21% applied SCEA to H and all of the 16% applied RD to UChicago, I’d say that might suggest UChicago is more of a backup compared to Harvard.
Funny similarity about academics and athletics: they both rely on metrics to form any sort of relevant assessment. In a parent’s eyes, all kids are superstars, but the real world is a tad less sentimental.
