beyphy

Part of what it means to be selective is to have a large share of applicants that a given school is able to select from for the generally small and limited undergraduate class. This usually goes hand in hand-with-having a small admit rate (UCLA's California admit rate last year was about 18%) Given that Chicago lacked the larger applicant base, and the small rate for most of its existence, i think it would be at least slightly disingenuous to call them "selective."

I wouldn't call Lafayette College selective with its +60% admit rate even if most of their applicants are 'self-selecting'. I don't see why it'd be different with Chicago in the '70s.

Hunt

A college with a 60% or 75% admit rate IS selective. It's rejecting a lot of students. To know what that really means, though, you have to look at the pool of applicants.

tk21769

With perfect marketing a college would have nearly a 100% admit rate, and nearly a 100% yield, while still satisfying its admission standards (however high they might be). Imagine (as a thought experiment) a little-known but excellent school with application by invitation only (focused on a few very exclusive feeder schools).

In 1950, 278 students from elite prep schools applied to Harvard; 245 were accepted. The acceptance rate from Exeter and Andover was 94 percent. Was Harvard not "selective" then?

'The Chosen': Getting In - New York Times
Some Notes on Historical Admissions at UChicago & Ivies

Pizzagirl

Perhaps a better way of putting it is that Chicago was more self-selective in the applicants who bothered to apply there. So, their acceptance rate was (relatively) high, but that didn't mean that they didn't have high caliber students.

Hunt

It a top ten college issued a notice that said, "Look, don't bother applying unless your SAT is at least 2000," would that make them more or less selective if application numbers declined as a result?

Barfly

Wfergus18, looks like your questions started a UC-NW war. But there are other great schools not too far from Chicago. You mentioned UIUC, which is a great option, especially if you are an Illinois resident and in-state tuition is important to you. Another option, and similar to UIUC in that it is a large, public, Big-Ten university, is Purdue. It's about 130 miles from Chicago, in Indiana, and many grads end up in Chicago.

Pizzagirl

Purdue is an interesting choice that is nowhere on the CC radar screen, but from where I sit in the Chicago area - lots of smart kids wind up there and it's generally pretty well regarded.

FStratford

You dont know what "Second City" is? Its obvious. The references to drama, arts and artists was lost on you?

AboveTheLaw

I attended UChicago for grad school and have many friends who went to NU undergrad. NU is more "traditional" and the undergrad student body is more pre-professional than that of UChicago. UChicago is more intellectual and quirky than NU.

While not a large research university, Wheaton College (where i went for my undergrad) is probably the best LAC in the Chicagoland area. It's religiously affiliated (Christian) so it's not for everyone, though.