<p>The easiest way to explain the difference is this: Chicago generally looks to admit the students that the chicago FACULTY would MOST enjoy teaching. Chicago’s Ivy League peers, instead, generally look for some mixture of: intellectual ability, HOOKS (legacy status, athletic ability, etc.), and leadership potential. </p>
<p>In short, the ivies look to appeal to their constituent groups (alums, sports reqs, etc.) and/or train future leaders and pre-professionals, whereas Chicago still looks to admit those students that the faculty would enjoy teaching the most. This is a key distinguishing factor between the U of C and many of its peer school. </p>
<p>Put another way, if you have good baseline stats (say, a 1300 or so SAT, good grades), and you are GREAT at soccer (could compete well on the D1 level), this would make you a very, very appealing candidate to an ivy league school. Chicago wouldn’t care as much. </p>
<p>On the other hand, if you are very bookish, have great board scores, and demonstrate a high level of intellectual curiosity, you have a great shot at Chicago. The ivies, however, tend to put a strong cap on the “eggheads,” and this sort of applicant would not have the same sort of draw at a Princeton rather than a Chicago. </p>
<p>One final way to distinguish the schools - Chicago still has a rightfully earned reputation as a very scholarly, somewhat eggheaded sort of place. When you think of, say, a Princeton or a Dartmouth, do these schools immediately connote nerdiness? I’d wager they don’t, and that’s because these schools look for very different sorts of students, and tend to value very different qualities within their student bodies.</p>