<p>
</p>
<p>Not all schools have different CB vs. website #'s.</p>
<p>So Chicago has something in common with the transparency (or lack thereof) of USC, of all places. I thought you said that Chicago is unique, totally distinctive and without peers…</p>
<p>I’m wondering why Prodigalson seems to have such an axe to grind over this. He/she seems to have a deep personal stake in the outcome of this discussion.</p>
<p>Perhaps Prodigalson should spend less time arguing with strangers on the internet and more time being a (better) parent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps Archiewaldron should spend less time attacking the messenger and more time addressing the message.</p>
<p>Oh, by the way, I am a college student, NOT a parent. But I am sure the CC Parents Forum would love to hear your ideas about (better) parenting ability…</p>
<p>My guess is since the CB administers the test, they have access to the data they use in a way that may be different than the Colleges themselves. The numbers were recently changed on the CB website, which used to match the Colleges, and may reflect updated numbers that the schools may not care that much about since it is only purpose is to provide a general overview of the admitted class.</p>
<p>"Mind you, these comments are coming from a parent… " – Prodigalson</p>
<p>Sorry, Prodigal, I only saw this part and assumed that you were referring to yourself with the above comment. Sorry for the misundrstanding. And may you have many fruitful young when your time comes to be a parent.</p>
<p>And say hi to your mom for me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Boorish behavior?” Since when is it crass, insensitive, and/or ill-mannered to state that Chicago’s standardized test scores are increasing? Moreover, stating that an institution’s scores may exceed those of other schools is in no way an implied insult against the university with lower scores. The act of simply asserting that the academic quality of Chicago’s student body is on par or greater than those of many other highly reputable institutions is not an impolite remark.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But admission practices are seemingly very random processes and the logic behind certain decisions is absolutely baffling (i.e. acceptance at HYPS and rejection at Tulane or Tufts or an acceptance of an 1800/3.5 at the expense of several 2400/4.0s). The truth is that Stanford does not weight objective standards to the same extent as HYP to accommodate legacy applicants, racial minorities, athletes, and those with other qualities that are not inherently meritocratic qualities. I contributed approximately 105 posts to elaborating my thoughts on these criteria in this thread: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/yale-university/830524-quadruplets-admitted-yale.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/yale-university/830524-quadruplets-admitted-yale.html</a>. If you browse through the 49 pages you can definitely obtain a greater impression of exactly what I believe meritocracy should truly entail. </p>
<p>Admission policies are discriminatory insofar as institutions select less qualified students without definite purpose. This is particularly true if students are selected based on certain stereotypes that society creates for them or if admission committees indiscriminately assume the degree to which certain circumstances contribute to personal merit. I firmly believe that achievements must be taken into the context in which they are achieved, but I maintain that circumstances that have been disadvantageous to personal success must be overtly communicated to the admissions committee and more objectively evaluated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with idad’s comment on this in post #184. Actually test score discrepancies are quite common and largely depend on when the data was reported and the source from which they are derived.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did you write this comment simply because of the CB/school website SAT discrepancy?</p>
<p>And if I may ask, are you a Chicago student, prodigalson? I apologize if you have already identified yourself as one on this thread.</p>
<p>I’ve heard Dean Boyer make a comment similar to the one he made about Columbia on multiple occasions. At a breakfast last year, he was comparing the U of C to Northwestern when he said, “Northwestern is a great school, but it simply anywhere near the caliber of the U of C.”</p>
<p>Regardless of Dean Boyer’s , however, you will find that no other institutions offer comparable rigor in across such a wide variety of academic fields. Chicago’s math and science students take classes as hard as their counterparts at CalTech and MIT. Chicago and MIT have the best economics programs in the world, dwarfing the Ivies both in prestige and academic rigor (Steven Levitt often pokes fun at the Harvard undergrad economics degree program because he “had never seen a partial derivative until he got to grad school”). The average philosophy major at Chicago read Heidegger and Hegel before they step foot into a philosophy class. </p>
<p>The novel thing about the College at the University of Chicago is that all of the students have had to do many or all of the things I just mentioned. Everyone takes a year of mathematics (Calculus or higher), everyone reads Smith, Marx, and Durkheim (and Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Mill, Hegel, Schmitt, Burke, Fannon, etc.), everyone reads the basic classical texts (Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, etc.), everyone takes at least 4 quarters in the Physical and Biological sciences, everyone takes 2-3 quarters of History, and so on.</p>
<p>The fact is that the University of Chicago (both the College and the greater University) is damn good at everything it does. Yes, it is on the exact same level, if not at a higher level, than the so-called HYP schools.</p>
<p>Hegemon91: While I do agree with your final sentiment, not all students do take all that you described. It is possible to never take a calc course, and the 131 series is not that different from those taught elsewhere, and one can take Hum and Sosc classes that do not involve reading most of the writers you mentioned. The thing I that impresses me is that most do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe “boorish” is a little excessive (or at least off-the-mark). How about “insecure” or “defensive”??</p>
<p>Another example:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What Chicago supporters may not realize is that when you try to drag down HYP to make your school look better, you’re ironically re-affirming the superiority of HYP by making them your standard for comparison.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, you’re a great writer as are many other CC members, but 105 posts and 49 pages are not exactly my cup of tea…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here’s the rub: we fundamentally disagree about what counts as a “qualification.” You seem to have a narrow conception of “meritocracy”; I have a broader view. This irreconcilable difference is the main source of our debate.</p>
<p>Two other things:</p>
<p>(1) Of course, institutions have a “definite purpose” in mind with respect to their admission policies. It goes without saying that you disagree with some of these purposes, but they are no less definite as a result.</p>
<p>(2) The term “discriminatory” is unnecessarily inflammatory (not to mention inappropriate to the argument at hand)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I attend one of the less “pure” HYPSM schools… :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Classy…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What 20-year-olds who get told they are fantastic all the time may not realize is how condescending and immature they sound when they assume everyone else is dumber than they are.</p>
<p>JHS: thanks for a morning chuckle.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am 18…</p>
<p>I just join the group.Just want to say Hello!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Funny, this is exactly what I get every time I read one of your posts re: “THE University.”</p>
<p>I sincerely hope that someday I can develop “the life of my mind” so that I am intellectually qualified for Chicago grad schools…</p>
<p>This surge in applications is 100% about PR, bragging rights, and fundraising. This isn’t bad, IMO. Any increased angst among applicants just puts UofC more into the camp of other highly selective schools. From application numbers alone, UofC can’t be judged any more or less “fair” than the process of admissions to HYPS.</p>
<p>The surge is long overdue. Recruiting to the UofC in the past was very laid back, “cerebral” rather than emotional. The turn toward a more “WashU” type of aggressive advertising was bound to have the effect we’re seeing this year, when added to what UofC has been doing “on the ground” in recent years with new dorms, athletic facilities, and even the creation of more flexibility in the “core.”</p>
<p>The biggest question that I have is whether the admissions office will change how it evaluates applicants. My guess is that it will keep its classification and review system (with ratings for both academic qualifications and “fit”), but it will just have more who are virtually automatic or high probability admits. These won’t necessarily be the applicants with the more polished and flashy resumes, but those who appear to be accomplished and sincerely committed to learning.</p>
<p>Another question is whether it will take a more systematic approach to estimating “yield”? And will this feed indirectly into admissions or financial aid? So in addition to accomplishment and commitment to learning, how much will commitment to UofC matter?</p>
<p>I’m amused by suggestions here about intercollegiate athletics. Rejoining the Big Ten? Never ever will happen; it can’t happen just based on a couple of sports. Going D1 in a couple of minor and compratively inexpensive sports (squash, fencing, tennis)? Why not? But this can’t make much if any difference to the student body at large, the alumni, or donors. Better it should compete in some of the more “intellectual” competitions (e.g., debate, quiz bowl, and science/technology). (Re: reference to Michigan State above – MSU has successfully made itself into a regular national power in debate. Why shouldn’t Chicago consistently be one too?)</p>
<p>UofC already has a great product to offer students: intellectual engagement, the core curriculum (even its present watered-down version), and the “aura” of its focus on learning. It does a very good job promoting the achievements of its faculty and alumni. Substantial percentages of its graduates earn higher degrees in professional and doctoral programs (in the latter, significantly larger percentages than all of the Ivies). It could do more to highlight and support the development of “careers” generally, including its placement services.</p>
<p>As a “UofC dad” it gives me pride to see UofC gaining more national attention.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UChicago is the new WashU…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t assume everyone…</p>
<p>@Prodigalson: No, UofC will never be WashU.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s hope not, but UofC is doing a darn good imitation…</p>