<p>I know that it is a common opinion of the posters here that the University of Chicago puts less of an emphasis on testing than other elite schools. I work at the U of C, live here, and have degrees from here. My own experience through people I've met is that the University is much more willing to overlook unimpressive high school performance than unimpressive testing. The "Legend" may have got started because of their unique essay questions.
Don't take my word for it. Check the numbers.
From the 2007 edition of USNWR College Guide-</p>
<p>Univ. of Chicago 1350-1530 SAT range 40% admit 79% top 10%
Swarthmore 1350-1530 22% 88%
Wash U. 1360-1520 19% 93%
Columbia 1340-1540 13% 92%
U. Penn 1340-1520 21% 94%
Brown 1330-1540 15% 90%</p>
<p>As long as I can remember, the U of C has stood out as the school most likely to take a chance on smart people they thought didn't fit in high school, may not have felt challenged there, or were underaged (Watson of DNA fame).</p>
<p>In my opinion, no active admission person is apt to say for public consumption that they value testing more than transcript. They don't even like to think that way. Please read Michele Hernandez "A Is For Admission", the best book on elite college admissions to date.</p>
<p>... Or maybe the myth comes from the Chicago info on the collegeboard website:</p>
<p>Very important admission factors:
Character/Personal Qualities
Application Essay
Recommendations
Rigor of secondary school record
Talent/Ability</p>
<p>Important admission factors:
Class Rank
Extracurricular Activities
Volunteer Work
Academic GPA</p>
<p>Considered:
Alumni Relation
Interview
Racial/Ethnic Status
Standardized Test Scores
Work Experience
First generation college student
Level of Applicant's Interest</p>
<p>... Or maybe from Libby saying that nobody is ever rejected based on test scores.</p>
<p>Take a hard look at your numbers. You will note that, of the schools you included, UC takes by far the greatest number of its applicant pool. Think of it this way. If you are, say, Brown, you can take only one in five or so. You begin to look for reasons to exclude people. Class rank below the top 10% is one of those reasons. </p>
<p>Also, understand that the number of kids with very high class rank has a LOT to do with the admissions philosophy a place has. Some schools would prefer the val of a terrible high school in the Ozarks to someone in the 11th percentile at a place where 35% of the student body are NMSFs. To me, this is like preferring the starting QB of a weak high school football team over the 3rd string QB for an NFL team, but this is the way many admissions people appear to think.</p>
<p>Please do not believe everything you read (including from me)!
You have to explain how the U of C achieves the SAT range it does with a 40% admit rate and a 33% yield (class of 2009).
Brown had a 15% admit rate and a 56% yield .
Columbia had a 13% admit rate and a 60% yield.
In every case I've seen (except maybe Harvard's), the SAT profile of enrolled students is lower than that of admitted students.
It's impossible to escape the conclusion that the U of C values the SAT very, very highly.
The schools that are at the same level on the SAT- Swarthmore, Brown, Columbia, etc., are not the schools that are on the same level on high school record- schools like Tufts, William and Mary, or Lehigh.
I've been up close and personal with this school for 20 years. But if I wasn't, the numbers to me are overwhelmingly clear.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's impossible to escape the conclusion that the U of C values the SAT very, very highly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh yea? You haven't had statistics, logical inference or data analysis, have you? :)</p>
<p>The proper conclusion is:</p>
<p>U of C values factors that may lead to selecting an applicant pool that has high SAT scores. </p>
<p>This can be done with NO reference at all to SAT scores. And this should not be surprising since SAT scores are so highly correlated with other factors a college admissions committee might find attractive.</p>
<p>BTW, most of us who have seen the U of C admission process "up close and personal" from the applicant side can see enough examples of why it is not about SAT scores or grades alone. I think the admissions folks are being honest when they say how they decide.</p>
<p>danas: newmassdad basically took the words out of my mouth. Libby Pearson in another thread even commented on the paradox of a school that does not emphasize test scores, but has the third highest SAT verbal scores in the country. Perhaps those who are committed to a life of the mind, took challenging courses, write good essays, and get good recommendations, might score pretty well on those SAT & ACT tests as well.</p>
<p>I'm a fan of the U of C too, or I wouldn't have come here for my graduate degrees. But there seems to be a belief in something almost mystical about the admissions process here, that things are very much different than at other admissions offices, and out pop high SAT scores.
The difference that I do see is that they have a history of taking a chance on high scoring students without a corresponding level of school performance. I would encourage bright students who didn't enjoy high school for a variety of reasons (I can't see why a lot of smart kids would enjoy the experience) to consider applying. Just being around many other bright people and being treated like an adult should be a refreshing change for many.</p>
<p>Well, OK. Take a chance and apply. But that advice would apply to just about any kid at any place, if they think they can do the work, especially if they have confounding factors in their app package.</p>
<p>But the problem with your advice is, I think, that it is hard to distinguish slackers (low grades, high SAT scores) from those that performed poorly because they did not like HS (low grades, high SAT scores). But, if this is to be done at all, it leads right back to those things UofC says really matter the most, see post 4. </p>
<p>Am I the only one that sees some circularity here? Maybe, in an indirect way, danas is pointing out another way in which UofC gets high scores: not because it seeks high scores, but because it seeks kids that have the Character/Personal Qualities, Application Essay, Recommendations, Rigor of secondary school record and Talent/Ability (seen this before?) that tell admissions that they'd excel at UofC. Just so happens that these same kids have high SAT scores!</p>
<p>indeed. I think Danas draws a perhaps not so iron clad conclusion from the "statistics".</p>
<p>it could be that U of Chic really takes into account high sat scores very much, making their "claims" false.</p>
<p>for me, call me naive but i think its more that the pool of applicants to UofC have better SAT scores. and possibly not as good high school scores. A matter of student self selection rather than school selection philosophy.</p>
<p>If one examines Libby's post about what is important in the admission decision one will see GPA also falling near the bottom of the list. There is a difference between those who attempt a challenging curriculum and push themselves intellectually, perhaps somewhat outside of school, and those who simply obtain a good GPA. They are selecting for the faculty. They want students the faculty would want in a classroom. This, I believe is first and foremost. I do not believe Libby or any other admissions counselor is trying to deceive anyone.</p>
<p>Now what the pool characteristics are is another question. It may be that most have high scores (must be some truth to that) and perhaps some have lower than typical GPA's (no way to asses that), but that does not change the criteria applied to the pool.</p>
<p>Frankly folks this is degenerating into a medieval discussion of angels on pinheads.</p>
<p>The fact is, all the stuff counts to one degree or another, even ECs to some degree. How much depends on many intangibles, including the U's current policies (which they can change without telling us!), the reader, the applicant (the tides, phase of the moon?). </p>
<p>And how much of this is REALLY under the control of the applicant? By the time one applies, not much. GPA building began long before. EC's, same. Schedule, same. SAT? Maybe coachable, maybe not, but high random variability.</p>
<p>So, you take your best shot if you care, and send the app in. And then hope.</p>
<p>We all need to take a deep breath and remember that some things are unknowable, and that includes the true ranking of admissions factors. </p>
<p>Kinda like picking a romantic partner? We can talk all day over a beer about what we think we want and what matters. A few months later our best friend reminds us that our current flame is nothing like what we said we wanted. We agree, and begin to say "but...". I'm sure adcoms do a lot of the same.</p>
<p>True, but when you choose a school, or at least when I chose my school, one of the "pull" factors for Chicago was the emphasis on intellectual development and stretching rather than just GPA and SAT scores. Appealed to me very much. </p>
<p>So such insinuations that this might actually not be so, and that Chicago might actually be placing a high premium on good GPA and SAT scores OVER that of outside cirricular or non-school based mental activity would be...not well received. By me at least. It would mean that I was quite wrong in my "awarding" U of Chic a special distinction in this aspect apart from the other schools.</p>
<p>If you trust anonymous posters on the internet more than officials of the university that speak on the record, that's your choice. But good luck.</p>
<p>on the contrary, i'd rather not trust anonymous posters which is why i say, call me naive but i'd believe the university. </p>
<p>honestly, it is partly about feel good. one just has to feel good about going to a university that cares more about intelligent activities than grades! :)</p>
<p>You are right to have a little bit of scepticism even regarding the U's pronouncements. With the marketing/messaging/spin orientiation of so many commercial messages, and anything an admissions office says about their activities or processes is commercial, it is difficult to separate fact from wishful thinking from exageration from falsehood.</p>