<p>There's a senior at my school who got into UChicago. He has a 3.8 weighted, a 26 ACT, he's latino, and he's on varsity football. Another girl has over a 4.0, way harder classes, a 31 on the ACT, and varsity basketball, but she was denied at both chicago and vanderbilt. They're both in NHS and I don't know what else. My friend and guidance counselor both said that the reason he got in was because he's on varsity football. I don't believe that's the reason though, what does everyone else think?</p>
<p>I would guess the essays, maybe? Extra-curriculars? It's kind of hard to tell when we have exactly five pieces of information on two individuals... the school definitely saw more than that.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Why do you care? It isn't the most productive activity to speculate on why A got into X college and B didn't. It isn't productive if you are A or B, and it really isn't productive if you're C (unless C stands for Counselor).</p></li>
<li><p>Anyway, you know some of the answers here perfectly well. Statistically, (a) it's a little easier for boys, (b) it's a LOT easier for football players, especially if they are on the coach's list, and (c) Chicago cares about diversity and does not have a lot of Hispanic students, so they are probably willing to stretch a bit to get one (especially if he's willing to play football there).</p></li>
<li><p>And here's what you don't know: What their essays were like. What their recommendations were like. What their interviews were like. How their areas of interest matched up with those of other admitted students. All you have is the public information, but that's probably less than half of the relevant information. There's no way you can make any judgment about how strong an effect being Latino or playing football had, because you really don't have any idea what each looked like as a candidate.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>JHS: Why do YOU care that almisivi cares? If you do not want to answer the question, then don't, but save us your rhetoric.</p>
<p>almisivi, I believe that the same question can be asked about admissions to competitive schools all over the country. Without looking at the whole application it is very difficult to tell (that 's one reason why I think that posting chances threads is pretty useless). I have been told that sometimes the ECs and leadership make all the difference together with coming from an underprivileged social situation. Some schools, especially the ivies, build their freshman year classes like a mosaic and if you are one of the pieces they are missing (like the varsity football student) that could play a very important role as well. Chicago does the same thing to some extent.</p>
<p>serchingon: thanks, that's a good way to put it.</p>
<p>JHS: I want to know why some people get into UC when seemingly more qualified applicants don't because I want to apply but face a more qualified pool</p>
<p>the simple truth is that he got in because he is latino...and they have lower standards for URMs.</p>
<p>"I want to know why some people get into UC when seemingly more qualified applicants don't because I want to apply but face a more qualified pool"</p>
<p>The college admissions process is going to be pretty tough on you if you don't learn, right away, that there is NOTHING that makes anybody a shoo-in for top schools. Having higher statistics, more EC's, better recs, nothing will necessarily guarantee your admission into a school over anybody else's. This isn't just a Chicago thing, this is common to most highly-selective schools. I remember high school really well - a lot of privileged kids in my town with excellent grades and 10 AP's and a thousand EC's and all the motiviation and positive attitude in the world were getting rejected from the Ivies for whatever reason. There wouldn't be this whole mystique around the admissions process if there was a clear-cut line of who got in and who didn't - all you can do is look at generalized trends and overall averages, not individual cases.</p>
<p>Again, it's not enough to just say "Well his SAT was X and hers was Y." Chicago had access to way more information about the two kids then that, and they made their decision. It might not be fair, sure - but there are many people applying for a limited number of openings and the school has to make choices.</p>
<p>it's called college admissions, and it isn't perfect. Same thing actually happened to me: a student with way higher scores, similar grades, and more shinings EC's got rejected. I got in. He would have hated it here. I adore it.</p>
<p>Also, is it clear that the stronger student would have liked Chicago? Sometimes I think the admissions office will pass over a strong student if it feels he or she is not a fit for the school, as I think was the case with my friend.</p>
<p>He got in because he is latino and plays football. Getting a minority who can play a sport is like killing two birds with one stone in a college's mind. He isn't stupid; a 26 isn't an awful score. He might struggle at first, but I have no doubt that he has the ability to succeed. The admission's committee wouldn't have accepted him otherwise. </p>
<p>almisivi: You have to realize that nearly every college is going to lower its standards for URMs. That is the point of affirmative action. These kids receive an opportunity and believe it or not, they usually succeed. It may seem unfair to you that this kid got in over a more qualified girl, but nobody said college admissions are fair. Chicago is Division 3, so they don't care that much about sports. Go to a football scouting website like scout.com or rivals100.com. You can find out what schools are recruiting kids and see test scores and gpa's for some of these kids. I follow college football closely, and I consistently see top academic, Division 1 schools accept minorities with scores around 18-24 on the ACT. I'm talking about schools like Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Harvard, Princeton, Yale....</p>
<p>^^^
[quote]
You have to realize that nearly every college is going to lower its standards for URMs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have a problem with this comment. I do not believe that there is a "lower" standard for URMs because essentially you would be comparing apples to oranges. If you come from a disadvantaged background, first college generation, English as a Second Language, etc and have a 26 or 28 ACT, maybe, that would be the equivalent for a white middle class kid score of 32 or 34. Perhaps the URM, given the opportunity and the training, could reach the same goals as the other kids. It is that "opportunity" what the schools try to make available..( at least that's the way I see it )</p>
<p>Now, the same would apply for any kid that comes from an underprivileged background....whether white or blue....</p>
<p>Lowering the standards, apples and oranges, seperate sets of rules. Call it whatever you like. URM's are treated differently in the admissions game. They have to be. If colleges want underprivileged kids, then colleges cannot expect them to score as highly as rich kids with private tutors. Depending on the situation, I agree, a 26 can be equivalent to a 34. Because colleges are not naive, they realize this and adjust their admissions criteria on a case by case basis.</p>
<p>I think serchingon is the only person who actually got the question. Everyone else just said things I already knew or said it was an impossible question. What I was trying to do was isolate the reasons why people with lower GPA's and test scores get in over people with higher ones. I'm trying go beat out a 'seemingly more qualified' applicant pool, so all of this is relevant. Serchingon had a good analogy with the mosaic. There are common attributes to the lower scoring students, I want to know those common attributes.</p>
<p>I think you misunderstood serchingon's answer, though. There may be "common attributes" to lower scoring students, especially if you look across a large number of competitive colleges, but at any particular college the low-scoring students are likely to have widely different attributes, because they are meeting widely different needs the college has. Also, even if you knew that a particular student is there because he's a good defensive tackle, and that another particular student is there because she's an oboist and a prospective Ancient Greek major, you wouldn't really know how that defensive tackle or that Greek scholar got picked from all the applicants who might have qualified. You also wouldn't have any idea, looking from the outside, whether the school was going to be short of defensive tackles or oboists this year, or whether there wasn't some superfine other candidate out there for one of those slots. </p>
<p>Also, if you look at any of the scattergrams that people link to here, you will see that all the top colleges regularly accept relatively lower-scoring students over relatively higher-scoring ones. In some cases, that's because of special talents, status (legacy, extreme wealth, extreme poverty), or diversity factors, but in most cases it's because the admissions committee reads the whole application, not just the stats summary.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, even if you knew that a particular student is there because he's a good defensive tackle, and that another particular student is there because she's an oboist and a prospective Ancient Greek major, you wouldn't really know how that defensive tackle or that Greek scholar got picked from all the applicants who might have qualified.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What? That's a poor analogy because the poster has already established a premise for the comparison. Lower scores are being compensated by the need the school has for a "defensive tackle or a Greek scholar".Now if you have a bunch of defensive tackles or Greek scholars with lower scores (therefore they are applicants who might have qualified), then you would throw in another factor into the equation to choose among then. The higher scorer student has already been eliminated on the basis of the "other" specific "needs" for the mosaic the school wants to build.</p>
<p>Individuals with URM & athletic differences are not the only ones with lower "numbers" to admitted. My S was admitted while people with much higher GPA's were not. If one reviews past posts by Libby Pearson, she goes to great lengths to explain that GPA and test scores come somewhere at the bottom of the admission considerations. Further, a scan of this and past years' admits posted on this forum will show a great deal of variation in numbers of those admitted. No overall conclusion can be drawn except that Libby was being accurate in her description of the process. Although a little dated, I would hazard a guess that the overall process is probably not much different than this: <a href="http://www-news.uchicago.edu/citations/99/990329.admissions1.html%5B/url%5D">http://www-news.uchicago.edu/citations/99/990329.admissions1.html</a></p>
<p>(There is a little peek into what Ted O'Neill thinks of athletes in the article as well.)</p>
<p>"I want to know why some people get into UC when seemingly more qualified applicants don't because I want to apply but face a more qualified pool"</p>
<p>You need to be able to demonstrate to Chicago that you will be able to be a successful student, even if your numbers are not stellar. EC's, additional materials, rec's, essays will help. Beyond academic ability, Chicago will also be looking to see if the fit looks good - again, your application taken as a whole will be important.</p>
<p>As Chicago becomes more competitive from an admissions standpoint, serchingon's analogy of a mosaic will become more apt. If you CAN'T take all the academically talented students for whom Chicago is a good fit, who do you take? This is why it is critically important to have a good list of colleges (including a financial safety or two) - you really don't know how the dice are going to in any particular year.</p>
<p>The mosaic factor will indeed be interesting to watch. Currently, Ted O'Neill has stated, when asked about this, that Chicago does not admit a class, only individuals, and has no idea of the distribution of students until all the acceptances are sent out.</p>
<p>Thanks ohio_mom and idad</p>
<p>My original post was specifically about whether or not being latino and playing varsity football was alone enough to compensate for his grades. My guidance counselor saw both applicants entire profile, including essays and recs, and she told me that the primary reason the boy got in was because he played football.</p>
<p>serchingon answered that question, so now I have a more general question, what kind of pieces make up the mosaic? I know this is really tough to answer because they analyze students individually.</p>
<p>The link I provided earlier does a good job of explaining this. I'm not sure playing football at Chicago is all that much of a hook. The coach can send a letter of support, but does not get to choose players. A bit of trivia. The GPA for the football team is higher than for the student body as a whole.</p>
<p>The overall GPA for the football team was 3.04 in 2006.</p>