Uchicago Official Early Action Class of 2012 Results

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
142

<p>
[quote]
Phuriku: I usually find your posts informative but I have to scratch my head at this most recent post. What sort of data set are you basing this comment on - "Minorities with low stats getting in"? Stuff that you've read here on CC? Ppl whom you've met at school? Anecdotal evidence? What happened to critical inquiry at Chicago? Addressing a topic like this absolutely requires responsibility on your part to make sure that you have the evidence to back up your argument.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The problem here is that there is no evidence to judge by. You have to judge by anecdotal evidence and the people you meet, all while keeping in mind that you're only meeting a sample of the student body.</p>

<p>I said what I said based on feel... not on hard statistics. Does anybody have the link to the acceptance thread from last year? Just look through the entries and compare them with the entries here, and I think you'll see a great difference. Although CCers are generally not typical applicants, I think it's fair to judge past CC results with current CC results to see patterns in admissions.</p>

<p>
[quote]
None of here, as far as I know, have been privy to discussion between Z. and Ted O'Neil. We have no information other than hearsay to address these supposed machinations on the part of Z.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Everything I've said makes sense from looking at past actions from Zimmer. Nearly everything he has done thus far as president has contributed to our ranking in U.S. News. For example, he said that one of his goals was to decrease the acceptance rate to 25% in less than 5 years. What purpose would such an action serve other than to increase our rank? Then does it not make sense to want to make the average incoming freshman's SAT higher? And to make nearly all acceptances to be in the top 10% of their graduating high school class? Perhaps I should remind you of the criteria for U.S. News rankings:</p>

<p>America's</a> Best Colleges 2008: Undergraduate Ranking Criteria and Weights -- U.S.News & World Report</p>

<p>15% of the ranking is based on student selectivity, 50% of this ranking is SAT/ACT scores, 40% is percentage of top 10% of graduating h.s. class, and 10% is acceptance rate.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Moreover, given that UChi is dealing with a huge increase in numbers of applicants, one would expect that they would run into similar admissions issues as those facing the more popular Ivies. So how would you deal with problem? Make the U of C less popular and go back to the days of accepting 78% of a "self-selecting" applicant pool?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't see any problem with doing exactly how we've been doing it in past years. Admitting the students who fit the best into UChicago. These students are NOT the people with the best stats.</p>

143

<p>May the data stand up please, and speak for itself</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/276516-official-university-chicago-class-2011-early-action-results.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/276516-official-university-chicago-class-2011-early-action-results.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I would love to see someone argue that this year's class is similar to last year's. For every positive (for the applicant) SAT/GPA/rank outlier pointed out in this year's thread, I commit to providing evidence of two from last year. Anybody up for the challenge?</p>

144

<p>Groovygeek, I don't understand why you're posting this link. Given the limited size of the sampling pool and the questionable assumption that the posters to CC are indicative of the entire class of 2011/2012, one could argue that everyone on the thread you linked to is an outlier.</p>

<p>Indeed, the standard deviation on a sample range that small renders any conclusion totally unusable.</p>

145

<p>
[quote]
Groovygeek, I don't understand why you're posting this link. Given the limited size of the sampling pool

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't see a problem with the size of the sampling pool. AP/Gallup polls are often conducted to get a view of the opinions of the entire United States of America with a sample of 1000 people. Here, we're looking at something like 100 people out of 3000, which isn't too outrageous.</p>

<p>
[quote]
and the questionable assumption that the posters to CC are indicative of the entire class of 2011/2012, one could argue that everyone on the thread you linked to is an outlier.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not necessarily. First of all, I'm not all for the theory that CCers are so different from the normal applicant. We've seen plenty of deferred and rejected applicants, and probably only a slightly higher percentage of accepted applicants than would be if we selected a random group of applicants.</p>

<p>Secondly, even if we assume that CCers are all outliers, which is really pretty ridiculous, you can still look at patterns WITHIN this group to see admissions trends. This was the point of the above link.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Indeed, the standard deviation on a sample range that small renders any conclusion totally unusable.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look at my previous example of AP/Gallup polls. Those kind of polls are almost always correct within 5 percentage points, even though you're looking at less than .001% of the population.</p>

<hr>

<p>Perhaps disconnectedly and unprofessionally, I'd like to say that I think the results here are pretty obvious. One can always come up with a somewhat rational argument to refute any other argument, but I don't think you can seriously say that there was no drastic change in admission from last year to this year when you compare the EA threads of 2011 and 2012. I've seen people argue against the apparent fact that affirmative action is used at leading institutions like MIT. After all, there's really very little non-anecdotal evidence of affirmative action taking place, is there? MIT doesn't publish statistics like that, and they never will. So how can you judge on whether there is AA at MIT? Anecdotal evidence, personal experience, and common sense.</p>

146

<p>Phuriku:</p>

<p>Groovygeek's argument rests on 2 main points:</p>

<p>1) that posters to CC are statistically representative of the entering class
2) that one can draw usable data from a sample pool ratio of 100:4500</p>

<p>Addressing point #1, I would say that the simple fact, as one poster pointed out, that there are many more Asian posters on the UChicago boards than there are in the student body at large skews the data fatally. Again, I don't have the exact numbers of how many Asians/Whites/Black/Latino there are on CC, but this simply reinforces the point that there is no way that we can reliably argue that posters to CC are statistically and reliably representative of the student body at large. </p>

<p>Addressing point #2, yes, you can use a sample group of 2 if you'd like, but it would still give you an extraordinarily high standard deviation. Saying that one can reasonably draw a statistically reliable conclusion from a sample ratio of 100:4500 based on a highly questionable assumption (that the CC posters are representative of the Chicago student body), simply doesn't hold any water.</p>

<p>Moreover, there is the further assumption that the acceptance criteria have somehow changed over time based on comparisons over 2 consecutive years. Again, working with a data set of 2 (2 entering classes, back to back) would leave you with an enormous standard deviation. You would need to compare entering class data over a much longer period of time to draw reliable conclusions. This would be an incredibly difficult exercise to prove and until one actually does some serious and clever data mining, there is no way that we can accept such a charge on anecdotal evidence.</p>

147

<p>
[quote]
Addressing point #1, I would say that the simple fact, as one poster pointed out, that there are many more Asian posters on the UChicago boards than there are in the student body at large skews the data fatally. Again, I don't have the exact numbers of how many Asians/Whites/Black/Latino there are on CC, but this simply reinforces the point that there is no way that we can reliably argue that posters to CC are statistically and reliably representative of the student body at large.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I've addressed this. There's actually a pretty big Asian student body at UChicago, if you've ever visited. I'd say 1 in 3 is Asian (counting internationals). But as I've said before, even if we assume that the CC crowd is atypical, it should be obvious that this atypicality should be constant over time, which means that we can compare the two groups over time.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Addressing point #2, yes, you can use a sample group of 2 if you'd like, but it would still give you an extraordinarily high standard deviation. Saying that one can reasonably draw a statistically reliable conclusion from a sample ratio of 100:4500 based on a highly questionable assumption (that the CC posters are representative of the Chicago student body), simply doesn't hold any water.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I've addressed this. Any statistician will tell you that 100/4500 is a reasonable sample, just as 1000/300000000 is a reasonable sample. Your statistical argument doesn't hold.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Moreover, there is the further assumption that the acceptance criteria have somehow changed over a time based on comparisons over 2 consecutive years. Again, working with a data set of 2 (2 entering classes, back to back) would leave you with an enormous standard deviation.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But this doesn't make sense... I'm not comparing gradual change of admissions policies over time. I'm saying that there has been a significant change from last year to this year based on Zimmer's new fetishes.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You would need to compare entering class data over a much longer period of time to draw reliable conclusions. This would be an incredibly difficult exercise to prove and until one actually does some serious and clever data mining, there is no way that we can accept such a charge on anecdotal evidence.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I've addressed this. There may not be a way to prove it, but it's pure good-old rational common sense.</p>

148

<p>Phuriku:</p>

<p>You're talking about AP/Gallup polls. They are opinion polls. There are no right or wrong answers to opinion polls and they are not subject to the same tests that we're trying to establish here. We need to come up with a reliable data set from which we can reliably extrapolate conclusions. We do not have that yet.</p>

<p>Moreover, you cannot reasonably argue that CC posters are ethnically representative of the UChicago student body at large. Without this baseline, all conclusions are questionable.</p>

<p>Moreover, you hit the nail on the head with your phrase, "significant change". You simply cannot argue that there has been "significant change" based on the anecdotal and "common sense" arguments that you have presented. Imagine trying to argue that temperature differences between September 15, 2005 and September 15, 2006 are somehow statistically relevant. They are not. There is simply too much random and standard deviation to draw any significant conclusions from a data set that small. You would have to look at a much, much longer period of time to draw any significant conclusions on weather and temperature trends.</p>

149

<p>A few things:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Chicago is an elite, highly-ranked school, and elite, highly-ranked schools don't get that way without some kind of strategic decision-making. Libby has emphasized the high school transcript as the most important component in one's application. The idea that you can get into Chicago despite not having tippy-top credentials is somewhat apocryphal and doesn't seem to have any truth to it besides speculation by well-meaning posters here on CC.</p></li>
<li><p>Not everybody who is an intellectual gets in. This has been true at least from my year (05-06) and probably before that. If you read my other post about what I did the day of my acceptance, you'll know that one of my good friends who is quite intellectual (she can talk about Proust and Rand in the most endearing ways) was deferred EA and then rejected; my other good friend was rejected RD. Did Chicago make the right decision regarding my friends? No, to the extent that these are my friends, I love them, they wanted to go to school with me and I wanted to go to school with them, but yes to the extent that I do not think either one of them would be too happy here. My Proust friend is extremely self-directed, had a very spotty academic record, and is much more of an arts person (RISD came calling for her), and she's quite happy at Bard; my other friend is doing well at CMU and studying medicine and business. I'm happy that the intellectual love has been spread around-- it reminds me that Chicago is not the only school in the country where you can find people who like obscure French movies and talking about random things. That makes me incredibly hopeful for those who do not have a chance to attend the U of C.</p></li>
<li><p>I believe that there are schools that are more holistic in the way they look at applicants. Chicago is just not one of them. These schools have sacrificed elite standing in USNWR in exchange for the opportunity to admit "real" students, and I think that's incredible. I would say that schools that go beyond numbers include schools in Loren Pope's book, "Colleges That Change Lives" (Reed, Beloit, Hampshire, etc.) and schools like Sarah Lawrence, Bates, Bryn Mawr, and Grinnell. These schools are small enough and have a small enough applicant pool that the ad coms can pay a lot of attention to who is applying, and I imagine that a prospective Chicagoan could probably find a lot to love about the schools listed in CTCL or the others I mentioned.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>I'm happy that a lot of you think so highly of the school and its philosophy as to also think that it makes the "right" admissions decisions, but it's also important to remember that at the end of the day, we're just a school that's comparable to other elite schools, not Mother Teresa or Gandhi or Martin Luther King. I'm flattered that you think so highly of the U of C, but honestly to put us on a pedestal that way is to set yourself up for major disappointment!</p>

150

<p>I haven't looked at the "data" here. I do agree that, scanning the EA Results thread, it looked kind of "statsy" as an impressionistic matter. I have a couple of reasonable hypotheses about that, however, that don't involve a dark conspiracy between President Zimmer and the Magisterium to subject Chicago to the Church of USNWR.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Remember what happened this year. Roughly 6,000 kids who might have been expected to apply early to Harvard or Princeton did something else, instead. On the whole, that would be a bunch of kids with very strong stats. It looks like hundreds of them, at least, applied EA to Chicago.</p></li>
<li><p>I think Chicago is less different from Harvard, etc., than some of the Chicago students like to think. At least 75% of the students at each school -- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown, certainly Columbia -- would be perfectly happy at Chicago, and vice versa. There is no reason to believe that all those additional applicants with relatively high stats don't fully exhibit the Chicago values that current students care about. I would be the first to agree that having 2300 SATs, and a 3.9 unweighted GPA, and being President of the Debate Club doesn't mean that a kid is an intellectual . . . but it doesn't mean that he isn't one, either. Many of those kids are going to have teachers who respect them, are capable of writing kickass essays, and, in fact, care deeply about learning and intellectual inquiry.</p></li>
<li><p>Faced with a choice between two otherwise similar, passionate, intellectually curious, personable applicants, what criteria is the selection committee supposed to use to distinguish between them? SATs and GPA aren't the be-all and end-all, but they are better than darts or dice, and I think it's hard to avoid them.</p></li>
<li><p>Having pored over scattergrams from various high schools a few years ago, I got the following impression about Chicago's admissions practices: They were clearly quirky and less predictable than those of many other colleges, and Chicago was clearly capable of rejecting kids with high stats. But -- in part because Chicago rejected fewer kids than many of its competitors -- it didn't reject THAT many kids with high stats. Chicago's acceptance rate seemed pretty clearly to correlate with SATs and GPA. Not perfectly, but significantly nonetheless. A kid with 1500/4.3 w might have a 70% chance of admission, while one with 1300/3.8w might have a 30% chance. And, of course, if other schools rely more heavily on stats, Mr./Ms. 1500 would be more likely to have other attractive admissions offers and to go elsewhere, while Mr./Ms. 1300 was comparatively more likely to enroll at Chicago. So the enrolled class (and the local atmosphere) would be more skewed towards the unusual cases than the admitted population as a whole.</p></li>
<li><p>And what's different this year is that more of the high stats group is showing up at the EA stage, vs. the RD stage where they always applied after being deferred by Harvard or Princeton. If we were playing under last year's rules, the same group of kids would have applied to Chicago, and would have been accepted, except more of it would have happened RD.</p></li>
</ol>

151

<p>My $.02 on this debate:</p>

<p>I looked at the 2011 and the 2012 threads, and in 2011 I noticed that the SAT scores tended to be >2100, so I decided to use that as my cutoff. Just looking at the first five pages (1/2) of each thread (I'm not so into this that I'll waste ALL of my time, at least not until christmas break :-p ), I counted 5 accepted 2011 students with SATs at 2100 or below, and 4 accepted 2012 students that met the same criteria. I also noticed multiple examples of very high-scoring (and even high-GPA) candidates on the 2012 thread who were not accepted (e.g., see the deferred person someone on pages 1-5 who had a 2400 and a 4.0). As far as minority consideration goes, you can't use CC stats as a representative sample of all accepted students, because if you did then you'd expect UChicago to be a nearly all-Asian school.</p>

<p>Also, a note in defense of standardized testing: though it shouldn't be the only major factor, we need to recognize that these tests are generally the ONLY aspect of the ENTIRE application that the admissions people can be sure was a product of the student alone. True, there may be indirect help in the form of tutoring, etc. - but the tests (the SATs, at least) are designed so that it is very possible to score a 2400 without any outside help whatsoever beyond the general principles learned ordinary classes (and maybe some practice questions), whereas an essay may be heavily influenced by someone other than the applicant.</p>

<p>I think, though, that the folks at admissions - if they take pride in their job - look for a <em>lot</em> more than some of you folks give them credit for. For the 2400/4.0/Asian person earlier in this thread, who presumably wrote decent essays and had decent recommendations, something was clearly missing - something that doesn't fit into some of your neat categories like "minority status," "superscoring," and the like.</p>

152

<p>i think that much more of these "high stat" individuals will be enrolling at chicago in the near future because of its progressive increase in ranking.</p>

153

<p>As an admit for the class of '12, I must say that this conversation and the contentions of some on here are somewhat frightening. Throughout high school, I always knew that I would most likely end up at Uchicago, and because of this I put less emphasis on grades and more emphasis on learning what I wanted to learn. Luckily, the University agreed. (for anyone's information: I had a 2220 but around a 3.5 with hardest courseload [and a few C+'s] at a very competitive public school).</p>

<p>The thing is, if Zimmer is the sort of insiduous character that people are describing him as and if he does really intend to turn Uchicago into a mini-ivy via rankings, he's headed in the completly wrong direction! It seems very clear to me that the trend is moving away from "rankings", especially the US News and World Report ones. I know a conglomeration of reputable schools recently decided to remove themselves from the ranking, but even things like the SATs don't really hold the same weight they once did in admissions. </p>

<p>I'm sort of conflicted though. Several people have mentioned to me that Chicago is a "hot" school, or is "on its way up"; the thing I like about this (besides self-interest) is that this reputation is built not on the pre-existing name (like Harvard, for example) but really on the quality of the students that are coming out of this institution. So on the one hand, I appreciate this aspect of Zimmer's changes, but I am weary of my (future) school "selling out"--why compete with Harvard and Yale when the university already has one of the greatest intellectual records in this country?</p>

<p>And if that anecdote about Ted's speeches is true, it's saddening indeed. I guess I'll see first hand next fall...</p>

154

<p>unalove, I find your post problematic.</p>

<p>"1. Chicago is an elite, highly-ranked school, and elite, highly-ranked schools don't get that way without some kind of strategic decision-making. Libby has emphasized the high school transcript as the most important component in one's application. The idea that you can get into Chicago despite not having tippy-top credentials is somewhat apocryphal and doesn't seem to have any truth to it besides speculation by well-meaning posters here on CC."</p>

<p>fair enough; Chicago is an elite school. Fact. The difficulty I have is, admittedly, a sort of implicit claim that pervades your post, namely, that Chicago SHOULD model itself and compete with the likes of Harvard and Yale. At least in my conception of the university, Chicago is a radically (emphasis: Radically) different school than the 8 universities above it on the US news rankings, and it shouldn't try to make itself out to be a little Harvard or a place for ivy rejects (there's already Cornell for that!). And, I would disagree with the people who say that "90% of students" at Harvard or anywhere would be "happy" at Chicago. Sure, and vice-versa; but it's nota bout being happy, it's about really thriving. The students taht I know who are not really loving uchicago (but are still "happy") are one of the following: 1) unqualified legacy admits, 2) people who describe most of their peers as "weird" and 3) people who really had their hearts set on another university. I understand your #3 about how there are other schools that will sacrifice their rankings for the "better fit" candidate, but I am saying that 1) this is alreayd the case with Chicago and 2) if it is not, it SHOULD be (hence my uneasiness in my previous post).</p>

<p>In any event, I doubt the institutions that are currently in place (like the Economics dept.) won't be changing drastically as a result of this "shift" in demographics of admits, and after all, I want to attend for the institutions first and the people second.</p>

155

<p>Personally, I find it hard to take a side in the "how should Chicago model itself?" debate. My gut tells me that we should do everything we can to be as different as we can, but my head tells me that we spent a lot of time being weird and being different back in the days of President Hutchins and things didn't quite work out that well for us then. Additionally, I think that the quality of the student body is going up (not only academically, but also personality-wise-- I feel like I see a lot more students that I like around campus, and a lot more zest and smiling faces than I did when I visited back in '01).</p>

<p>The emphasis put on USNWR rank might be a superficial means to a more important end: that is, making the U of C more desirable to the kinds of people who should come here. I remember reading in the Maroon last spring about how a girl who wanted to go to Chicago over another top school persuaded her parents to let her attend by showing them how we placed on the ranks. It reinforces that we're a great school and worth the money, etc. Do I personally care how we place? Not in the least. But other people do.</p>

<p>I think the fundamental difference between our points of view is that you see the U of C as a peerless institution, while I see it as comparable in many ways to the Ivy League (both in terms of institutional quality and in terms of students attending). You, I gather, are a high school senior; I've been here a year and a third. I agree with you to the extent that the U of C has a different feel to it, as academics get a big emphasis here while other schools tend to cater to the "well-rounded" ideal, but at the end of the day I'm really not sure how different we are from other schools. Part of that uncertainty stems from the fact that I haven't attended any other schools, so I'm not in the best position to make judgments about them.</p>

156

<p>[ size=+1]
[ color=green]
[ b]
Accepted
[ /b]
[ /color]
[ /size]</p>

<p>[ b]Stats:[ /b][ list]
[ *]SAT: Didn't take
[ *]SAT II: Didn't send (they were alright, but since Chicago downplays them so much, I didn't bother)
[ *]ACT: 32
[ *]GPA: 3.95 UW
[ *]Rank: 11/375 (3rd percentile)
[ *]Other Tests: (AMC, AP, IB) 3 5's on World, US History, English Lang. 2 4's on European History and Chemistry
[ /list]
[ b]Subjective[ /b][ list]
[ *]Essays: I just tried to let my personality shine through, as though I were writing an essay to a teacher at the beginning of the year that wanted to get to know me. Long essay, I went with the table prompt and wrote about the table of my mind and all the personalities that pop up and contrast and complement one another in different situations of my life. Why Chicago, I talked about theatre and the city Chicago and my belief that learning is the only thing that you can have forever. The third I focused just on my favorite books and wrote about why I loved them.
[ *]Teacher Recs: Never saw them, but I love the teachers I had write them. Pretty sure the feeling is mutual.
[ *]Counselor Rec: Never saw it, but I get along decently with my counselor. I don't think she knows how to spell my name correctly, but I guess that was okay. :)
[ *]Supplementary Material: I had my theatre director, who knows me the best out of all of my recommenders, write a letter. I also had clips of shows ready to go if I needed more stuff if I got deffered.
[ *]Hook: Yeah, none. [ /list]
[ b]Personal[ /b][ list]
[ *]Location: Wisconsin. MOO!
[ *]High School Type: Large, upper-middle class public
[ *]Ethnicity: White
[ *]Gender: Female
[ *]Applied for Financial Aid: Yes [ /list]
[ b]Other[ /b][ list]
[ *]Extracurriculars: Theatre 30-40 hrs/week all year long, have stage managed shows with hundreds of actors, lab assistant for my school, National Honor Society, Link Crew for the freshmen, etc. Done 4 years of Latin in 2 years through independent study. Work at McDonald's about 15 hrs/week.
[ *]Awards: AP Scholar w/ Distinction, department awards in my foreign languages, just random here and there. 4 Varsity letters in theatre performance, 2 letters in Community Service...I think that's all I put down.
[ *]Advice? Commiserations? Feel like bragging?: My case was weird, in that I applied Early Action but somehow I got put down for Regular Decision. My counselor and I gave admissions a jingle the 14th and they realized what had happened and said I would get a decision this week in the mail (meaning TODAY :D). I was really pumped up, but prior to this I was sure I was going to get rejected because I figured I was kind of blah and average and didn't really have a great hook. I'm just really grateful that I go in and that I have this amazing opportunity presented before me. I'm low income, so I'll have to twiddle my thumbs and see what financial aid turns out to be...if all goes well, hopefully I'll get to go. I'M SO EXCITED! [ /list]</p>

157

<p>re OracleP7's posts:</p>

<p>I am constantly amazed by the lack of historical perspective among the current high school and college student cohort. Since practically the day it was founded, Chicago has never NOT been regarded as a top-rank American university, which by the middle of the last century meant it was a top-rank world university. In 1900, it was a founding member of the Association of American Universities, the original accrediting organization for American PhD-granting universities, along with Harvard, Columbia, Berkeley, and Johns Hopkins, and hosted the organization's first conference. When I was an academically ambitious prep-school student in the early 70s, I saw it as pretty much the exact equivalent of Columbia -- which meant that it was maybe less attractive than HYP, and maybe more attractive than Penn, but without question a first-class institution, a place full of smart people like me. </p>

<p>The sense that there is some huge gulf between the reputation of Harvard and that of Chicago is an artifact of the past 30 years, and has its source in several things: the sharp decline of the Chicago south side in the late 60s, the slow decline of the economic vitality of the upper Midwest, the comparative rise of California and the Sun Belt, the fact that Chicago did not do as good a job of raising endowment as many other schools, including colleges which were not remotely seen as comparable to it a generation ago, the rise of athletics as a marketing tool, and the fact that -- other colleges having produced many more screenwriters, actors, and politicians -- Chicago did not have the media presence of its academic peers as interest in elite institutions was exploding in the 90s. Rory Gilmore never mentioned it; no one road-tripped there from Orange County; it never had a Conan O'Brien. What is going on now is much less the rise in reputation of a former unknown than the restoration of a balance that existed for nearly a century until very recently.</p>

<p>Chicago is and has been different than Harvard (or Yale, etc.) in many ways, but not RADICALLY different by any stretch of the imagination. For a long time, it has emphasized intellectual inquiry and critical thinking almost exclusively, while places like Harvard also emphasized "leadership" and artistic achievement, too. But those are relative weights. Harvard has always been, and tried to be, a center of intellectual inquiry and critical thinking, and Chicago has never turned its back on leadership or art, exactly. It's probably true that, within the senior class at, say, Horace Mann, Scarsdale, or Harvard-Westlake, there's a big difference in attitudes between the kids whose first choice is Harvard and those who would choose Chicago under any circumstances. But someone from Mars, or Japan, or maybe even Mexico, would barely discern any difference, in the kids or in the institutions. (Except, of course, for the whole endowment thing.)</p>

158

<p>Question for you UChicago students:
actually, a few:</p>

<p>1) Can you guys automatically take classes at the grad schools in your 4th year, or do you need to be approved/ have a certain gpa etc.?</p>

<p>2) Do many undergraduates get accepted in graduate engineering programs?</p>

<p>3) Are you allowed to stay in your dorms between quarter breaks?(other than summer)</p>

159

<p>

**
Accepted!!!!!
**

</p>

<p>I was accidentally placed in the RD pool, too (see outinguam's post!). I'm so relieved and happy. I'm also glad that my fellow accidental-RDer got in as well. =)</p>

160

<p>LesOs and outinguam -</p>

<p>Congratulations!!! I am glad you don't have to wait.</p>

161

<p>yay! I only wish everyone who ever applied got accepted…life would be much nicer :)</p>