<p>
</p>
<p>Excellently stated!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you for the link. As a digressive point, I am glad to see that the Writing section is now evaluated.</p>
<p>Chicago’s score ranges now exceed those of Stanford!</p>
<p>^I don’t believe it’s being evaluated this year, but rather just being reported for some reason (it’s probably simply being used if it helps the case for the applicant and disregarded if it’s not strong - just as subject tests are used in some institutions’ admissions processes). After all, the ACT w/ writing is still optional…</p>
<p>Thank you#116. Unfairness is exactly what many of the RD applicants and I feel right now. The main reason that many of us held back EA becos we wanted to spend time on the essays, which was supposedly what a UofC application is about. We applied in good faith of a 20-27% chance based on past EA and RD acceptance rates + some anticipated 10-15% increase and the numerous marketing emails that make us believe that we have a fair shoot. Many’d never pply if the chance of below 12% is known.</p>
<p>It is a fact that many applied EA to Chicago along with another ED university with the blessing of counselors, and Chicago knows that hence they took in 500 more despite the spike. The strategy of many applicants was to use Chicago as a safety becos it is non-binding, not becos Chicago is their first choice. Out of the 4 EA admits that I know, 3 are not going because they are binded somewhere, and the remaining one is aiming for an ivy with a safety at hand. There are of course many EA applicants considered Chicago as their first choice as well, especially legacies.</p>
<p>Another unfairness is about the uncommon essays that UofC stressed so much about and applicants labored so much on…even up till the last minute of application as impressed by the love letter. Someone in this forum already suggested that adcoms won’t look much at the essays this year because of the surge, we totally agreed. It seems that the so-called uncommon essays would amount to nothing more than a marketing slogan, for this year and the future.</p>
<p>UofC adcoms model concept to this year’s uncommon prompts would be as follows. </p>
<p>We, and the applicants, got caught in the numbers games of today’s admissions-the reality of life; we have outgrown all our peers in applications, and certainly the philosophical trousers of the former dean’s that has made Chicago so distinctive; the essence of human personality is to outgrow your peers, and feel more superior (or never feel inferior) than all of them, especially Columbia; there are no rules of the game, all prior rules are discarded for a new era as long as the numbers look good; topic of your choice: the common misperception of uncommon essays–you are caught!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some applied to UChicago as their first choice, then got deferred and, after this whole admissions debacle this year, no longer have UChicago as their first choice.</p>
<p>All this may be obscuring the really important initiative Chicago is undertaking this year, hiring 100 new faculty members while many of its peers are freezing or cutting back on faculty. That will make more of a difference than a single year’s admission increase in strengthening the University.</p>
<p>UofCApplicant you are talking as if you were already rejected. You still have a chance; don’t be so pessimistic! And of course “it is a fact that many applied EA to Chicago along with another ED university with the blessing of counselors.” That is the case every year. The yield for EA admits last year was only 43%. Additionally, I do not believe that the admissions counselors will skim through the essays. UChicago has an adequate admissions staff to read through ~13,000 RD applications. In fact, the essays will probably play an even bigger role this year. With 42% more students applying, most of whom have similar GPAs and test scores, creative essays may be the best means of sorting applicants. </p>
<p>If you are still nervous I would suggest sending an email expressing your interest in the school to your admissions counselor. Good luck! Perhaps I’ll be seeing you in the fall :)</p>
<p>Appreciate yr encouragement#127. As long as the rules of the game are honored during the game, the results of the game will be respected.</p>
<p>UC App - we all realize that the flip side to the jump in applications is that it’s harder for great young people like you to get good news, and that the surprising spike in applicants plus a frankly equally surprising to me increase in the relative rate of EA vs ED admits must seem to you guys like a nasty unfair midstream change of course. Please remember that well over half the spots in the class are up for grabs and it sounds like your passion for Chicago gives you a great chance to distinguish yourself from many of the RD applicants who, unlike you, didn’t apply early because their first choices were other places. Hang in there and good luck!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hyeonjlee, you seem to be making two assertions here. One is that Chicago’s decision to maintain a high acceptance rate for EA applicants is not “rational” and, in fact, “irresponsible”. The broader claim is that the university has a moral obligation to treat its applicants in a totally predictable manner. I take issue with both of these points. </p>
<p>Firstly, to rationality. As you pointed out, EA applicants tend to have a higher yield than RD applicants. It’s quite easy to imagine that even expecting a major increase in applications, the admissions office would decide that keeping a high EA accept rate is in the best interest of the university. I believe you would agree with this.</p>
<p>Really, what your point is that the University has a moral responsibility to keep the system as predictable as possible for its applicants. This is simply not true. Unlike its faculty, alumni, and current students, applicants are not stakeholders. The university is under no obligation to create the most pleasant possible experience for applicants at the expense of its own interests; in fact, doing so would be morally irresponsible. As a student, I would frankly be disappointed if I found out that the admissions office was accepting sub-optimal or lower-yield student groups just to balance the two acceptance ratios. </p>
<p>Ultimately, regardless of how the university weights admissions policy, essentially the same number of students will be accepted and the same number rejected. Retaining historical accept ratios would do nothing to change that. Hurting the college’s prestige and statistics merely to maintain those ratios, however, would truly be “scandalous and irresponsible”.</p>
<p>I just have to say that this is exaclty what happened to me! I loved U of C and it was my number one but then after the way the Early Action Decisions happened, I’m no longer as excited about Chicago. It was just so messy and unorganized that it makes me wonder about the College itself. And now with this huge in increase in applications, I’ve just basically given up hope on Chicago and it’s kind of dropped to like number three on my list.</p>
<p>^ditto…it really is a shame.</p>
<p>omg. Like everyone else said, it’s a good thing I applied EA</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Easier said than done…</p>
<p>HYPSM became HYPSM due to a confluence of myrial factors that had little to do with marketing and rankings. HYPSM achieved universal name recognition long before the USNWR rankings ever came along. The USNWR gets credibility insofar as it reflects that reality. (One year after Caltech became #1, the USNWR changed its methodology.)</p>
<p>Both Chicago and Penn, for example, have seen dramatic rises in their USNWR rankings in recent years. This does not imply that either will become household names. Mostly it is due to the fact that they have been burdened with names which do not connote prestige. They sound like public schools. Just as average Americans confuse Penn with Penn State, they confuse Chicago with UI @ Chicago.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While this is not addressed to me, I think that this is the kind of poor excuse that schools with Tufts Syndrome (here I am NOT including U Chicago) probably use to legitimate their underhanded admissions tactics.</p>
<p>Even if I buy your argument that the universities are under no moral obligation to make the application process as predictable and pleasant as possible, they owe it to their applicants to make the process as fair and meritocratic as possible (within the limits of competing goals of diversity and such).</p>
<p>Chicago academically is one of the best schools in the world. I think that its 8th place USWNR ranking is an indication that it is finally being recognized as one of the world’s premier academic institutions. This dramatic rise in applicants is also a good sign.</p>
<p>This being said, I know this year is particularly unpleasant for applicants. I have several friends all who loved Chicago and were deferred EA. With the bump in apps, they are less likely to get in RD. I don’t think they would be as disappointed if it were Stanford or Yale they were applying to. I think everyone is disappointed because they thought they could count on Chicago. Prestige aside, for a school which academically is the same caliber as HYPMS, 27% admittance is ridiculously high. It was only a matter of time before it took a sharp drop.</p>
<p>Those accepted to Chicago should be really happy. Others should know that there are many places out there just as good as Chicago; perhaps even a better fit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>SAT scores are not perfectly correlated with prestige and selectivity. For example, WashU’s and Pomona’s score ranges exceed those of U Chicago!</p>
<p>Keep in mind that Stanford admits students with off-the-charts ECs, world class athletes and a higher percentage of URMs than U Chicago.</p>
<p>This is why the range is the 25th to the 75th percent. This allows one to compare minus outliers at either end. </p>
<p>Pomona is slightly higher, WStl is slightly lower, the differences are meaningless. What is impressive is that Chicago students have these number (which are from last year) when SAT scores are not the basis for Chicago decisions. Pomona and WStl, for example, list test scores as very important, Chicago lists them only as considered. Since these numbers came during the Ted O’Neill era, we can be confident that that is true. (I am not implying we cannot trust Nondorf only that I know of no public statements he has made on this topic, whereas O’Neill was oft quoted on the topic of SATs.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Neither are they the basis for Stanford decisions…</p>
<p>IMHO, it is unnecessary and uncalled for someone in the Chicago forum to brag: “Chicago’s score ranges now exceed those of Stanford!”</p>
<p>For no one in the Stanford forum says: “Stanford’s prestige and selectivity have and will always exceed those of Chicago!”</p>
<p>Apparently, some Chicago students and alums are learning a lesson in class from their Dean Boyle. As they say, “act like you’ve been here before.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s why I said that: “SAT scores are not perfectly correlated with prestige and selectivity.”</p>
<p>With which part of this statement do you disagree???</p>