Omniac Attack!

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

The Chicago "Class of 2014" is an Awful Admissions Harbinger

  
  
  
  
  

University of Chicago University of Chicago (LHOON via Flickr

There is no question that the University of Chicago is a prestigious university that attracts some of the best and brightest high school students in the world. Founded in 1890 by the American Baptist Education Society and funded by a donation from John D. Rockefeller, the University is the crown jewel for the Hyde Park area of Chicago and a prime example of the effectiveness and quality of private liberal arts institutions across the country.  Year after year, the University of Chicago stands as an outstanding, well-funded institution staffed by some of the best teachers, thinkers, and scientists in the world.

Yet, as an admissions crunch has overwhelmed Ivy League schools like Harvard and Yale, Chicago has remained an extremely reasonable option for high-achieving students.  While the ACT and SAT averages for Chicago stretch toward the 99th Percentile, the admission rate in recent years (20-30%) has been consistent with an admission process that welcomes students who are excellent without being miraculous and wonderful without being perfect.

Harvard and Yale expect you to walk on water to get an admission letter (7% admission rates!); University of Chicago admits hundreds of students every year who stand out through their great GPAs, excellent test scores, and solid extracurricular activities.  In fact, I often advise students to seek out schools like Chicago in lieu of applying to Ivy League schools because the process at a school with a 25% admission rate is fundamentally more rational and reasonable than the process at a school with a 7% admission rate.  In years past, you could count on this "second tier" of quality schools to respect and value solid applications that would be pushed aside at Harvard and Yale for flashier, more "impressive" applications. 

This year, however, things were different.

Chicago received approximately 13,500 applications for admission to their freshman Class of 2013, a slight increase from the previous year.  For the upcoming Class of 2014, however, the University of Chicago received nearly 42% more applications, pushing the number of applicants close to 20,000.  This did not bode well for the applicants: the admission rate dropped well below the norm to a measly 18%.

Students that otherwise would have been admitted were waitlisted; students that otherwise would have been waitlisted were denied outright.  Chicago had so many students applying that they were given a new level of options when viewing the applications.  No longer did the admissions officers need to look deeply at a student with a lower test score or a slight downturn in GPA: they had all the applicants they needed to be as picky as they wanted to be.  Like it or not, some applications were thrown out that would have been considered deeply in the past, denying some students the chance to impress the admissions officers through less concrete achievements.

It's in this way that schools with extremely low admission rates enter some sort of Twilight Zone where normal rules simply don't apply.  A 89th Percentile ACT Score?  We've got tons above 90th!  A 3.8 GPA? Too common around here.  We need to see something really impressive to admit a student to Our Prestigious University and we're not seeing it from you...

If current trends continue, University of Chicago is no longer a rational place for students to apply.  It's as if Harvard, Yale, MIT, and every other Ivy League school have reached a point of saturation where they simply aren't attracting more applicants at the same rate.  Perhaps students, like locusts, realize that there is no more meat on the bones of these schools and they must move on.  And, like locusts, they ravage the schools who are just a little bit down from the Ivies on the list, driving admission rates down ever further in their quest for a Golden Ticket.

Every student who is looking to apply to those schools "down the list" from the Ivies better get ready for the coming storm.  It's going to be a nasty, drop-down, drag-out fight as schools like University of Chicago see their applicant pools swell and their admission rates drop.  Solid applications won't garner much attention; excellent applications are going to be the new normal.   There is simply no more room for students to be anything less than the best possible applicant the school has ever seen.

Comments

This has got to be one of the most misguided articles I have found on the perspective of University of Chicago. 
 
First and foremost, the author suggests that a higher acceptance rate is correlated with lower students "flashy" students. Though it is commonly known that University of Chicago focuses more on a "holistic" student and focuses less on test scores and grades alone, the assumption that test scores and grades are lower than other top institutions is false. 
 
Compare the average SAT scores at 3 top Universities: Cornell, Penn, and University of Chicago last year... 
In Cornell, the acceptance rate was 19% -- the average SAT score was  
Critical Reading: 
630 - 730  
Math:  
660 - 770  
(They don't look at Writing) 
In Penn the average acceptance rate was 18% -- the average SAT score was 
Critical Reading: 
660 - 750  
Math:  
690 - 780  
Writing:  
670 - 760 
 
According to the author's logic, with a last-year acceptance rate of 28% at University of Chicago, SAT score should be lower than those other schools. It isn't, in fact it's higher... 
Critical Reading:  
690 - 780  
Math:  
680 - 780  
Writing:  
670 - 760 
 
So even with University of Chicago's de-emphasis on test scores and grades, the school never had to "look deeply at a student with a lower test score or a slight downturn in GPA."
Posted @ Tuesday, June 22, 2010 4:21 AM by David
@David - Thanks for commenting! You've raised some interesting points. 
 
I never meant to imply that admission rates and test scores correlated with each other. Obviously, they don't (as you proved with a bit of data from Penn and Cornell.) 
 
However, schools with acceptance rates above 20% behave differently in practice than schools with acceptance rates lower than 20%. If you have a high test score (and GPA) and apply to a school like U of Chicago circa 2005, then you have a very, very strong application. All things considered, the school would prefer the high-scoring student. 
 
If you have similar scores and grades and apply to a school like Penn, Cornell (or even Harvard/Yale), something quite different happens. Your test score no longer stands out and those schools aren't going to look at anything less than the 99th Percentile. 
 
Chicago doesn't have any room to improve their average score; they are already at the top. But their admissions process changed this semester because of the number of applicants they got...
Posted @ Tuesday, June 22, 2010 9:03 AM by Mark Truman
As a graduated senior who successfully applied to and will be attending the University of Chicago, I find that this article wrongfully discourages those applicants who have less than spectacular applications. I had good grades, a few extracurricular activities with one significant leadership position, and recommendations from a couple teachers who saw my best work. There was no honors program at my school, only a few AP classes were offered, and my test scores were good but at the lower end of the average range for the schools I applied to. I admit I was discouraged that I didn't have the "golden application", but it was solid, honest, and accurately portrayed that I had taken advantage of everything that was offered to me. That is why I was admitted to Cornell University, University of Chicago, and the University of Michigan. Colleges understand that not everyone will have the opportunity (or the money for that matter) to study abroad in India, have a ridiculously inflated GPA because of 20 AP classes, or attend a high class private school. Test scores don't necessarily have to be perfect; most people that apply have just about the same scores anyway. And I know that valedictorians and people with fabulous test scores get rejected all the time. The fact is colleges aren't admitting SAT scores or GPAs; they admit people. The essay is considered the deciding factor in many admissions processes anyway. A great essay and significant recommendations can make all the difference. 
 
 
 
Also, I do not think the University of Chicago should be described as "down the list from the Ivies" just because it has a higher acceptance rate than other schools. UChicago has consistently been ranked on par with and, on some lists, higher than Ivy League schools. Just because the acceptance rate is higher, does not necessarily mean it's a "second tier school". I’m sorry to say that you display some ignorance to the admissions process at Chicago. Just because they have more applications does not mean that they will abandon their goal to build the brightest, most diverse, and unique group of individuals they can. In fact Chicago prides themselves on the quirkiness and brilliant thinking of their students, not their test scores. The admissions website, collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/admissions, specifically states: “Our goal in the admissions office is to extend our knowledge of a student well beyond a test score or GPA and understand, as much as possible, that student's personal and academic qualities…Above all we look for the intense curiosity that makes University of Chicago students such exciting young scholars in our intense academic community, and such lively members of campus, neighborhood, and city. This quality does not manifest itself in high test scores, but in writing that is willing to take chances, in recommendations that speak to a love of learning and active engagement in the classroom, and in the selection of a strong curriculum.” So despite what you say, there is room for less than perfect applications and plenty of room for great students to showcase their achievements, even if those achievements didn’t earn them a Pulitzer Prize
Posted @ Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:46 PM by A.M.
First, I don't want to give the impression that students shouldn't apply to the University of Chicago. It's a fantastic school and you're lucky to be attending in the fall.  
 
I do, however, want to remind students that the process is growing more competitive. Regardless of where U of Chicago chooses to focus, more applicants will cause the process to be more selective.  
 
To that effect, I think you've missed my point. It is true that U of Chicago is competitive with Ivy League schools, it has an admissions process looks at other factors, and a great essay can make all the difference to a student's admission. My point, however, was that their admissions process is getting substantially more competitive. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, June 23, 2010 3:54 PM by Mark Truman
As a member of Chicago's Class of 2014, I found this article very materialistic and shallow. 
First, U Chicago is hardly a "second-tier" school nor is it "a little below" the Ivy League. Chicago's relatively higher admissions rates of the past attest more to the self-selecting applicant pool. Chicago was never a "brand name school" in that the Average Joe would assume it was the city college. It has always had a reputation among educated circles as an academic powerhouse and modern lyceum though it never boasted of the recognition of HYPSM. 
Likewise, many Ivy League applicants are rejected because of their blatant desire for prestige and lack of sincere interest in the school. Chicago has never had this problem.  
Yet because students have begun to view the college admissions process as an eBay auction as you suggest, Chicago has had to weed out the sincere from those who only looked to its US News top 10 ranking.  
I'd like to believe students are never statistics for colleges. It's more about the fit or at least that's true at Chicago.  
There were 4 people at my high school who applied to Chicago this year. Two were ranked higher than me and one of the two had higher test scores. According to your theory, Chicago would have jumped at the chance to accept the valedictorian. Yet I was the only one offered admission.  
Sincerity, rather than "flashiness," matters more.
Posted @ Friday, June 25, 2010 11:35 PM by Linda
Additionally, I think you're neglecting the increase in cross-applicants. A LOT of students this year applied to every school ranked in the top 15 to try their luck and for the prestige, which will result in lower yields.
Posted @ Friday, June 25, 2010 11:42 PM by Linda
@Brainwiz - My point is that U of Chicago is receiving so many applications that their process will change.  
 
I'm not at all saying that U of Chicago is only jumping at high test scores/gpa. Instead, I'm saying that what used to be a reasonable admissions process (20-40% admissions) has become a lot more competitive. 
 
Finally, how would cross-applicants invalidate my argument? I believe it's just the opposite: those excellent applications are a huge chunk of the problem here.
Posted @ Saturday, June 26, 2010 12:30 AM by Mark Truman
I'm battling the admissions office right now, as I have been denied twice for no justifiable reason. Their admissions have gotten increasingly competitive, and with that, the office of admissions has become much more prone to mistakes, including myself. I'll explain: 
 
Class Rank: 2 GPA: 4.2 on a 4.0 scale  
 
Clubs: Science Club, Mathletes, Scholastic Bowl, National Honor Society  
 
Sports: Soccer (4yrs), Wrestling (3yrs), Track & Field (4yrs)  
 
Out of School: Volunteer at hospital (2 summers)  
 
Awards/Accolades: Captain of Track team, Dean's List (at current college), All-State Chicago Fire Academic Team - 1st Team, AP scholar, Illinois State Scholar,All Conference Scholastic Bowl, Dean's List (at my current university) and other things I can't remember at the moment.  
 
Individual projects: writing my own book, started my own political group, have my own political blog.  
 
Bonus: Letter of recommendation from a former UC professor and their current political consultant who said, "you belong there," and "you sound like a UC student." 
 
Colleges look for 2 things in a student: qualifications, and how well they would fit in with the school (every counselor agreed with me). For most, the latter would be a gamble with the student, as the admissions office would have to make an educated guess as to how well the student would fit in based off his/her application. Thing is, when I have a professor who taught me at a different university vouch for me, I don't become the gamble anymore.  
 
The entire point of this is to highlight the ridiculous nature of the admissions office and how it undermines the logical and cerebral reputation the university is known for.  
 
They say they don't allow appeals, which the concept in it of itself is illogical and flat out lazy. So I'm battling them, and I'll be happy to see others in the class of 2014 this fall ;)
Posted @ Friday, July 08, 2011 12:29 AM by Ricky Gandhi
@Ricky - I admire your tenacity, but I have to caution you that no student is entitled to a spot at any university. As impressive as your application is, there are a great number of students each year who have similar applications and apply to U of Chicago.  
 
It is unlikely that an appeal will work, as any spot they offer to you is a spot that they would have to take away from an already admitted student. Have you considered transferring after your first year or taking a gap year?
Posted @ Friday, July 08, 2011 1:43 AM by Mark Truman
Yes, I realize no student is "entitled," but no student should be rejected for no reason either. I've already finished my freshman year of college, and am trying to transfer right now. If I keep waiting, I'm going to miss out on a majority of the Core Curriculum, which is one of the biggest reasons I want to go there.  
 
I'm just going to keep fighting them, since I have nothing to lose at this point anyways. They don't necessarily have to take a spot away, since there are still room in dorms and in classes, and if they can't prove that every single person accepted (and wait-listed) has higher credentials and proves a better fit than me, then I still have a case.  
 
I understand that many have similar credentials as I do, yet they got in. Also, to assume every person has better credentials and a recommendation from someone within the university is an overstatement (especially since I know some who got accepted and wait-listed).  
 
By the way, I don't know what "gap year" means exactly, but I just know that I can't be pushed around any more.
Posted @ Friday, July 08, 2011 4:53 PM by Ricky Gandhi
Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics

Find / Friend / Follow

Need More Help?

Subscribe by Email

Your email: