<p>prodigalson - of course people are going to overcompensate and eye the numbers at HYP… because it’s HYP.</p>
<p>Also, don’t confuse “holistic” admissions practices with “strangely peculiar” practices. American universities love reviewing obscure factors in their applicants, such as how well they can swing a squash racket or kick a ball to what family the applicant arbitrarily happened to be born into 18 years ago. Much of this emphasis on “holistic” factors is still rooted in the anti-semitic admissions practices that started in the 1920s, where elite schools needed ways to keep high-scoring jewish students out. </p>
<p>If you’re interested, read Jerome Karabel’s “The Chosen” for more info on this. It’s fascinating how in America, as opposed to China or Europe or most other parts of the world, admissions is such a bizarre game.</p>
<p>Compare the discrepancy between EA and RD acceptance rates at Chicago (especially during this admissions cycle) to that at HYPSM and we see that this is a preposterous proposition.</p>
<p>Though the general public may not know Chicago as well as HYP, in Academe it ejoys a very special reputation that sets it apart from its HYP peers. It is time to reprint Robert Pippen’s quote (commenting on his conversations at peer schools during the last presidential search):
</p>
<p>Having spent many many years in and out of Academe, I have found this to be the case. </p>
<p>One personal note. I was a convocation speaker at a west coast college. The Chancellor somewhat startled me during the introduction by saying, “He earned is Ph.D. at ‘The University.’” He paused, looked at the audience and said, “For the faculty and educated among us, there is no need to say more.”</p>
<p>Students have, in the past, been admitted who would most likely fit in and thrive in such an environment. I believe this will continue and will also continue to separate The University from its less “pure” peers.</p>
<p>So much for taking the complete context of the statements.</p>
<p>Here is what I said (the entire quote): “I do not think that idad agrees with your assertion that Pomona’s and WUSTL’s scores exceed those of Chicago. WUSTL’s do not and Pomona’s only to some extent.”</p>
<p>Here is what idad said (again, the entire quote): “I was not dissagreeing only commenting on the fact the Chicago lists SAT scores as only considered while many of it’s peers list them as very important, yet there is little difference.”</p>
<p>These are two separate conversations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is a difference between holism in the college admission process and admission criteria that confer preferential treatment to those by virtue of birth (race, legacy status) and emphasis on athletic recruitment. I take holistic grading procedures to connote viewing the applicant’s accomplishments in light of the circumstances that surround them (i.e. low-income background) or by placing greater weight on accomplishments that fulfill a certain niche for the school. For instance, an individual who demonstrates exceptional talent in literature but has an SAT breakdown of 800 CR/ 800 W/ 550 M shows great promise to succeed as a literary figure but under a mechanical, equation-based rubric would be rejected due to his or her academic imbalance. The truth is that Stanford places more weight on ethnic background and athletic ability (more weight on legacy is debatable) than academic merit in the admissions process than HYP and this reflects in its test scores (as collective bodies, minority applicants and athletes enter elite private institutions with substantially lower scores on objective standards so do not deny this). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am arguing that that is the general public’s opinion - not my own. My point is that, in the public’s eye, Chicago is not the quintessence of American education. I have my own personal anecdote to illustrate this in post #148 (many individuals are completely unaware of Chicago’s reputation). When an individual states that he/she was admitted to HYPS, however, the common response is markedly different which is peculiar considering that the academic quality of Chicago’s student body is relatively equal to those of HYPS. It is true that HYPS have more distinguished names among the general public. But to state that I personally believe that there are “many more reputable schools” is to misconstrue my point. Indeed, in terms of specific academic fields, Chicago arguably exceeds the quality of the departments of any other American institution (i.e. economics, pre-law, evolutionary biology). </p>
<p>Ultimately, the primary point that I wish to communicate is that Chicago’s academic reputation is underrated in the public’s eye and that this year’s increase in Chicago’s popularity is precisely what is needed for it to bridge this gap with its peer institutions. As an EA acceptee, I share enthusiasm for Chicago simply because of the opportunity that it offered me and because it is finally receiving some warranted recognition to rightfully increase its reputation among the public.</p>
<p>Actually, the discrepancies between the EA and RD acceptances rate at Chicago are projected to be proportionally similar to those of YSM (H and P discontinued their EA programs). For instance, Yale and Stanford have an SCEA admission rates of approximately 14% ([Yale</a> SCEA 2014 Acceptance Rate](<a href=“yaleherald.com”>yaleherald.com)) ([Stanford</a> SCEA 2014 Acceptance Rate](<a href=“http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/12/15/24759/]Stanford”>http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/12/15/24759/)) whereas their RD acceptance rates should hover around 5%. So although 12% and 28% may seem more disproportional, they really are not.</p>
<p>This is one of these situations in which numbers tell only part of the story. You have to look at intent. Yale and Stanford’s (approx.) 14% SCEA acceptance rate is so low that it’s really hard to argue that it has been manipulated somehow. Save for Brown, Columbia and Dartmouth, it is lower that the OVERALL acceptance rate of every single non-HYPSM school in the country.</p>
<p>Also, keep in mind that since Yale and Stanford’s early program is “Single Choice,” this applicant pool is much more self-selective than their RD pool. Presumably, the SCEA applicants are more qualified than the RD applicants as well, or so the anecdotal evidence seems to suggest.</p>
<p>As for Chicago, there doesn’t seem to be any qualitative differences between its EA and RD applicant pools, except for their timing.</p>
<p>Agreed. You have every right to share your enthusiasm. But why does every other celebration of Chicago in these forums seem to inevitably involve knocking HYPSM??? For example: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not only are these comments over-the-top, but also they are untrue. No offense, but if we’re talking about “pure” academics, faculty and departments, Chicago does not measure up to Harvard, Stanford and Berkeley and is at best Princeton’s equal. If we’re talking about STEM fields, add MIT and Caltech to the mix. </p>
<p>Mind you, these comments are coming from a parent, no less. Said comments reflect neither security nor maturity.</p>
<p>It seems presumptuous to suggest that Stanford cares less about life circumstances, especially since among other things, the Questbridge program was founded by Stanford. But that’s neither here nor there. I see that we’re heading towards a philosophical discussion about the meaning of “meritocracy,” which is going to be totally off-topic. So it’s probably best to end the discussion right here.</p>
<p>Suffice it to say, Stanford seems to be less concerned with test scores, period.</p>
<p>Yes, I do agree with your argument that Chicago’s EA-RD discrepancies suggest different admission standards based on when one applies. I do believe that the collective quality of the Yale and Stanford SCEA pool is a bit more competitive than their RD pools. But SCEA applicants may still have an advantage over their RD counterparts - albeit perhaps not to the extent of those applying to Chicago. With a dash of reasoning and basic acquaintance with the nuances surrounding the EA policies of Chicago, Yale, and Stanford, I believe that we can all safely conclude that Chicago has most visibly instituted a lower standard for its EA pool (relative to other years) as part of its prerogative to increase it yield. Truth be told, all institutions (to varying degrees) admit EA/SCEA/ED applicants at a higher rate than their RD applicants that disproportionally exceeds the extent to which the early pool displays greater academic, personal, or intangible merit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is human nature to trump the achievements of anything that one might associate himself with.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I do not suggest that Stanford’s policies demonstrate any more or less cognizance of circumstances that are disadvantageous to individual success. But Stanford’s admission policies are markedly different from those of HYP. This is demonstrated in its greater degree of racial minority representation and greater proportion of athletic recruits. After perusing the 2013 decisions threads and the 2014 SCEA thread, in the absence of minority, legacy, or athletic status, Stanford’s admission practices seem to be very random. That is, with the lack of any intangible factors that may be beneficial towards ones “competitiveness,” certain meritocratic criteria including standardized test scores and GPA seemingly show little influence in the admission decision. The HYP admission threads, however, do indeed demonstrate a distinct correlation between the classical criteria of academic merit and acceptance. These incongruities in the admission processes of Stanford and HYP are overtly shown in their test score statistics. Again, considering the hefty overlap of the HYPS applicant pools, these discrepancis directly imply different priorities in forming an incoming class.</p>
<p>But yes, we are digressing from the main point of the thread and I agree that it is best to terminate and avoid any tangential discussions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe that the irrational prioritization of other intangible factors in the college admission process (including preference for EA applicants) is inherently discriminatory. However, I fully understand that elite, private universities choose students that best serve their own interests. The predominant drawback is that it shows an apparent disregard for their obligation to offer the best opportunities to those who demonstrate the greatest promise to contribute to the quality of the nation’s workforce and to sustain and enhance our nation’s image.</p>
<p>As a new kid on this forum, I found the arguments of justifying UofC as a unique institution excessive. Perhaps the dramatic increase in applications this year finally give the die-hards the added immunition for further justifications.</p>
<p>As applicants, we applied to our list of universities for many reasons, including our own liking, the image of the schools, our chance, and the schools’ achievements. It was said in this forum that some of us gamed our applications and implied that we should bear the consequences of not applying EA. You bet we gamed. We all do. We naively believe in everything that was said and done about the universities- public statements, the websites, the marketing campaign, the past acceptance rates, the sweet seminar talks, the SAT requirements, and the essays, with an ambition of getting into a good university, not necessary the “best.” We all know that the Us cannot fit in every fitted applicant and even fancy a fair chance of admission.</p>
<p>For me (what do I know!), every school is unique. UofC certianly is distinctive, in a class of its own, and, in my opinion, uniquely branded because it is not branded as a group. I applied for this reason, and of course, taking the chance aspect into account. There is no need for this U to “get in line with peers” and compare with other institutions in terms of numbers of applicants hence the resulting drop in acceptance rates and edging-up in rankings. UofC is already known as an indisputable, top-notch research U utmostly respected by applicants and peers–that is, if it can keep its distinctiveness as an uncommon institution. </p>
<p>Someone proudly suggested in this forum that the U receives the most attention in CC, this is uncommon, but I wonder if it is good or bad for the univeristy.</p>
<p>“I think, just generally, creating a more varied class is going to make the student body overall well, HAPPIER. The students will be pursuing more varied endeavors, and it’ll just liven up the campus a bit.”</p>
<p>Students, however, do tend to self-congregate among those who share common backgrounds and the same self-interests so diversity is not as well achieved as many may believe.</p>
I can’t comment on whether or not such claims are excessive, but claims of uniqueness are made by others as well. As posted on a different thread, in a recent book The Great American University: Its Rise to Preeminence, Its Indispensable National Role, Why it Must be Protected by Jonathan R. Cole just such a claim was made. Cole is a Columbia sociologist was the Provost and Dean of Faculties there. Here is what he had to say in an interview:
</p>
<p>This is an oft repeated depiction of the University, and is an view one hears from those inside and outside of the school. This is the story the “outside world” needs to hear, and I believe is beginning to hear and in large part accounting for the rise in applications.</p>
<p>It is human nature to use “human nature” as a default rationalization for boorish behavior…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just because you haven’t figured out the logic behind Stanford’s admission practices doesn’t make them “very random.” It’s interesting that you’d draw such definitive conclusions based on the “perusal” of anecdotal (not to mention unverifiable) evidence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t believe that Stanford prioritizes “intangible” over “tangible” factors, let alone irrationally. Neither do the authors of the “Revealed Preference” study who showed that there was a linear correlation between one’s SAT scores and one’s chances of admittance to Stanford. (This is not true of all schools, which basically proved that some schools indeed practice yield protection.) The burden of proof lies on you to show that Stanford’s admission policies and procedures are “inherently discriminatory.” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Stanford doesn’t seem to think that those with the highest test scores by definition “demonstrate the greatest promise.” Given your narrow and debatable conception of “meritocracy,” it’s understandable why you do.</p>
<p>Actually the Chicago website shows 1320-1530. The numbers are different for other schools as well. The CB numbers for USC are also higher than on the USC website. As long as they are consistent in what pool of numbers they use, comparisons can be made.</p>