<p>Thank you hyeonjlee for the caution. I agree that statistics do not lie, and if anything, should be used judiciously in identifying the rights schools as to safety, match and reaches. I have a high achiever kid (scores, GPA, coursework, etc. in top 10% or better) with plenty of ECs and other soft stuff, but I still think that schools like HYPS are a reach, perhaps because of the crapshoot nature of the admissions process. We are treating Chicago as a reach, though with her stats I would be personally surprised if my kid got a reject from UoC.</p>
<p>Your message of having a well laid out strategy is sound, and one that I cannot argue with.</p>
<p>I also think that hyeonjlee is doing a service to these kids. Each year on CC, it seems that there’s a wonderful group of avid posters who become close (in a cyber way). They are so articulate that it’s easy to imagine that they start to believe that their killer essays will pull them through. The enthusiasm is wonderful. But the reminder to have some other choices is invaluable.</p>
<p>Wow, this must be the most trusting person I have seen in years. Do you put aside actual, EMPIRICAL data and favor the words and statements of the people who have a vested interest in preserving their party line? Are you this trusting of your elected officials and CEOs also? University administration is not made of pure souls whose whole purpose is helping people without any agenda of their own!!! They are a business, selling different products, and their officials are judged by how well their “product” is performing in the market.</p>
<p>My kid would just love to go to U Chicago, but alas, it’s a very high reach. It’s good to see some hard discussion on facts and yes, EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS.</p>
<p>It bears remembering that University of Chicago admissions practice is not some time-honored classic that has been studied and understood for years. It’s a fast-moving target, and it’s probably changing as we watch.</p>
<p>Between the college class of 2007 (or thereabouts) and the class of 2013, the number of applications doubled, the size of the class increased by 25%, and the acceptance rate went from about 45% to 28%. When my daughter, who just graduated, applied, the EA acceptance rate was just under 50%, and that was the lowest it had been in decades at the time. In the meantime, there was a change in administration at the university and now a change in the key admissions leader.</p>
<p>When Chicago was accepting 40% of a smaller, less impressive applicant pool, there was a lot of room to take some chances. It was clear back then that SATs were far from the be-all and end-all of Chicago admissions, and that an interesting applicant with 1350 SATs would be accepted over a boring applicant with 1550 SATs. As of last year, I think the boring applicants were still out of the running, no matter how high their numbers. But if you are choosing among a set of really interesting, terrific applicants, and you can’t take all of them, and some of them have much higher grades and scores, and your institutional directive is to go toe-to-toe with the Big Boys . . . well, your admissions profile may look a little different than it did even a few years before. The kids who got the bulk of the attention and discussion five years ago may not even be on the table, and instead you are looking hard at the distinctions among candidates who would have been automatic, barely discussed acceptances then.</p>
<p>I’m not sure anyone, least of all Jim Nondorf, really has a precise idea of what University of Chicago admissions for the class of 2014 will be.</p>
<p>“Do you put aside actual, EMPIRICAL data and favor the words and statements of the people who have a vested interest in preserving their party line? Are you this trusting of your elected officials and CEOs also? University administration is not made of pure souls whose whole purpose is helping people without any agenda of their own!!! They are a business, selling different products, and their officials are judged by how well their “product” is performing in the market.”
My, my, and aren’t you just eager to make loads of politically biased assumptions and jump right into a political rant based on my non political statement about Chicago’ admission’s practices. Too bad you don’t seem to understand that Chicago, and top universities in general, are non-profit institutions that have more than enough “buyers” for their “product”. Unlike you, I do know a lot about Chicago’s admission’s practices, after paying careful attention to them over many years, [ son, who had sky high SAT’s, was accepted in 2006 ] and I have seen how they have changed recently. You might want to read a lot more about Chicago before letting your emotions about politics in this country color your response to a non political post. sheesh…</p>
<p>were I a prospective UcHicago applicant, I would be put off by this thread. Isn’t it enough just to say to students - have some dream schools, some reach schools, some safe schools and a state university on your list? My son is a 2nd year and was admitted with a 3.96 and 2200 on the SAT. I think that the class of 2012 was admitted with pretty much the same policy of overlooking the GPA/SAT numbers a bit when the applicant seemed interesting and not a robotic clone. I imagine that is still true for the class of 2013, 2014…
It is important not to kill people’s dreams with statistics - just to caution them about a spread of schools is sufficient.</p>
<p>op, I don’t really understand what you are trying to accomplish with this thread. Like drdom said, a simple warning to have some safeties would have sufficed.</p>
<p>I find this thread to be a wake up call. I, for one, am very thankful that the OP started this thread. My kid will apply to Chicago, but I will also look carefully into other schools with a realistic assessment on the odds. If somebody just warned me about necessary scores, GPA, the acceptance rate, etc, it would just have registered as one of the thousand items on the college application to do list - “yeah, safeties, sure check. matches, etc”.</p>
<p>I needed this blunt reminder based on an analysis on actual numbers. It’s so easy to get into the mind set of telling myself “my child is so smart and so special, surely they would see that in spite of scores and stats, etc”. </p>
<p>Nobody has put together such a clear statement about what’s really going on and why reckless optimism can do real damage when one loses a realistic perspective. It motivated me to reevaluate several options my kid has/should have.</p>
<p>I discovered this thread today and just read all the posts. I did it primarily because it was started by my CC friend hyeonjlee. She and I have been exchanging posts on another live thread and although we may not be in agreement on everything, I can say this about hyeonjlee - her opinions and positions are often supported by stats, analyses and rationales. You can feel the effort she put in her posts. </p>
<p>While you may not agree with some of her assertions, please at least acknowledge the good effort and rigor here. It is very easy to attack a post with words that are either surface deep or out of context without given the benefit of doubt to the OP, especially when it is obvious that the OP had put a lot of thought in her post. An attack loses its appeal if it is not backed by rationales of matching rigor. It is much easier to find faults than to come up with an alternative view supported by the same level of rationale and analysis. </p>
<p>Before we lash out with disagreements, we can first check our own assumptions and ask the OP to clarify points that may have triggered our disagreement. As a community endeavored to discovery and learning through sharing of ideas, our interaction should encourage each other to post thoughtful comments backed by good rationales, even if we don’t agree with them. We may often find ourselves being corrected at the end of an “argument”. How else can we learn if we are always right? Most of the posts on CC do not come close to the depth of what we see from hyeonjlee, and many of us still want to see posts at this level in the future.</p>
<p>“An attack loses its appeal if it is not backed by rationales of matching rigor.”
While I appreciate your post in support of the OP, these forums were not set up to foster passionate “debates”, with extra points given for long posts. They were set up for the exchange of information, which can often be accomplished by short, succinct posts. If a poster considers that the expression of a differing opinion is an “attack” then they misunderstand the purpose of CC. Sorry that this is a short post but some people have other things to do with their time.</p>
<p>menloparkmom, you are my CC buddy too! Thanks for your many fine posts on the other thread :).</p>
<p>I stand corrected - “difference in opinion” should be substituted for “attack”. And yes, an exchange of information can be “accomplished by short, succinct posts.”</p>
<p>menloparkmom, I do think that your last line is suggestive and unnecessary. I am referring to your “Sorry that this is a short post but some people have other things to do with their time.” I do not think that these forums were set up to judge how people should spend their time.</p>
<p>hyeonjlee has done more than one can reasonably expect from a contributor to a thread. She may have her own style, you may not like that style, but you have to give her credit for her effort. Whether her posts were ‘too long or not too long’ resides in the eyes of the beholder. They may have been too long for you, but they were not for me. To me it is relevant that a post gives me food for thought and hyonjlee has provided me with plenty of that.</p>
<p>The funny thing is, menloparkmom is a prolific poster, posting frequently and consistently throughout the day, while hyeonjlee seems to post a couple a day maybe less unless it’s her own thread. Obviously, one of them has really A LOT of time on her hand posting many comments without depth and thoroughness (regardless of length) while the other poster posts a few with depth and impact based on a very thorough research. I know which poster I would rather read.</p>
<p>I really did not appreciate casual and snide remarks without much depth, analysis, and thought against well researched posts that actually helped me a lot and other members here too. This is an example of gratuitously negative attitudes and behavior that drive away real contributors from the forum, the kind of posters who actually help others with their research and experience. </p>
<p>I am graduating from this thread also. I think I got what I needed out of this thread. </p>
<p>this was posted by ROTCherewego on this thread </p>
<p>“Are you this trusting of your elected officials and CEOs also? University administration is not made of pure souls whose whole purpose is helping people without any agenda of their own!!! They are a business, selling different products, and their officials are judged by how well their “product” is performing in the market.”</p>
<p>this post strikes me as
“an example of gratuitously negative attitudes and behavior that drive away real contributors”
et tu brutus…</p>
<p>As a mom who is edging into the waters, and therefore fooling with data a good bit, I’ll note that I’ve noticed that a considerable percentage of kids do not submit class rank. (You can find out percentages by looking at the common data set.) So, for example, if only 30% of the applicants submit class rank, it may not be a very valid measure.
I’m not sure how to handle the GPA. The range in rigor in high school classes is tremendous. I’ve seen classes that are not even officially honors which require far more than AP classes. I know of teachers that never curve. I know of other teachers that curve hugely - a AP class that had a high B average , yet not a single kid got a 4 on the exam.</p>
<p>At Chicago, rigor of coursework is much more important than GPA. GPA is not even reported on their student profile website. They take a careful look at the transcript and match it against what they know about the school to see if the student has really challenged him or her self. If a school does not offer AP courses, that is okay as long as the student took the most challenging courses available. This is also where teacher recommendations make a difference. A teacher is free to say, “Whereas my course was not listed as either honors or AP, it is recognized as one of the most challenging courses offered at our high school…”</p>