University of Chicago Admit Rate and SAT relative to Ivy/Competitive Set

Colleges & Universities University of Chicago
281

^^ Cue, I’m pretty sure there was no “faculty push” - what was described was one professor who was then compared to another in another department with a different view on the matter. Faculty are free to set their curves how they want, pretty much. Even the Calc. sequence will have some variation and those are all worker-bee grad students. You’d think they would WANT a fairly standardized curve.

At the time of the College expansion/Core revision controversy, faculty were very concerned about the quality of student who would be admitted going forward. The LAST question on their collective mind would be how to start handing out easier A’s.

Evidence of grade inflation existed back in the 80’s. I knew an Econ PhD grad student at the time who experienced pressure from both the registrar and a college advisor until some seriously crappy student’s sub-par grade was changed. There have always been at least a few obnoxious and demanding students even at UC, and shifting that curve slightly to the right to begin with is an easy way to stem complaints.

282

Yup, this is what I have been saying. Student demand for those jobs are increasing and will continue to increase because of support from Trott and other programs; nd with more business-major-like offerings plus increasing “acceptability” of those jobs in UChicago circles, yield would increase. And so, the recruiters will come back with increasing campus presence and intent to hire more.

But really, that is not what I think is important. What is important is what doors are opened, and how open are they to letting gradutes in … if 10 years ago 10 people had a 50% chance of getting an offer from Goldman and Morgan, and if now 200 people would get a 50% chance getting an offer from Goldman and Morgan, then really, its all the same. Sure, it may look easier because the applicant gets wined and dined more than before, but the outcomes are the same.

These yardsticks based on “elite” employment is at best incomplete… The “elite” destinations have changed. The pecking order cahnged too. The number and type of “elite” options continue to change. At one point GE was where things are, before that it was IBM, and Xerox and HP before that. And it their zenith, they were more elite than MBB or GS/MS

If in 10 years it is more valuable to undergrads to get a job at the likes of Tesla or SpaceX, then, it would not mean anything if applications to the Bulge Brackets go down to 5 applicants - as long as the acceptance rate is still 50%. Besides, judging employment quality based on a limited set of employers that are considered elite in the 80s is imperfect at best… the IBanks are not the only finance game in town - one can make an argument that Dimensional, Citadel, AQR and even small mid-tier quants are just as lucrative and more “elite”, and probably a better fit to UChicago grads with math, data science, CS and econ background. (In the same vein that VCs and startups replaced IBanks in the Stanford totem pole of financial services employers back in the 80s, 90s and aughts)

Anyway, . Things have changed, things will change, and things are changing. Lets make sure to measure success properly, and not judge the school based on a limited and possibly antiquated set of employers. Using proxies like IBank and MBB recruitment, or even T15 Law or M7 BSchool, are imperfect since the relative attractiveness of these options wax and wane based on what else is out there within reach (they are more like backups, if there is nothing else better to do). In fact, nowadays, the ability to get employment in big tech probably trumps banking and consulting. (I was at a Penn/Wharton shindig before this whole CoVid thing and the 2 parents that I talked to shuddered at the thought that their kid would end up settling for a consulting job at McKinsey… hmm… but then again, maybe that is more of a San Francisco thing…)

The yardstick that I am looking at more closely? Startups after college, That, to me, would be a new, additional measure of “confidence” that we could put into the mix - because entrepreneurs will have to say “no” to the Goldmans, MCkinseys and Googles of the world to forge their own path. (but this is not likely to hockeystick until after the Business Econ major is established and their links to Molecular Eng, CS, Chem, Physics, Bio, Med are solidified)

283

The numbers-rule applies to the unhooked. Get above both of Harvard’s medians and you have better than a 65% chance of admission. Above both 75ths and its over 90%. (If an applicants has both numbers at a top 10 undergrad, like Chicago, they’d be on the higher end of the admission tail.)

Diversity matters, so URM’s, particularly AA Males, get a boost. Those with world-class EC’s also get a strong look. Olympic caliber biker with a 3.4 and good LSAT? Sure, come on in. Published author in peer-reviewed journal? Scion of world leader? Lived in car during undergrad?

Those unhooked applicants with numbers below both medians better bring something else as the odds at any top LS, including HLS, go way down.

284

@bluebayou - so you don’t think the admission committee takes into account where you got your undergraduate degree (oldest was WL at Harvard College but didn’t get in)? So 173/3.9+(~mid 50%) from Harvard counts equally as other schools? Recommendation letters from peers weigh the same as from other schools? Undergraduate classes you might have taught mean the same as classes from elsewhere? The rule of thumb you mentioned applies equally without regard to where you got your undergraduate degree? Not specifically to HLS but applied to this thread, I’m hearing different but maybe that’s just me?

285

Blue - at the risk of going off topic how would law schools treat splitters (ie GPA/LSAT at disparate percentiles) - UChicago, as one example, tends to interview the applicants or at least those who get to a certain point. I’d think if you were, say, a favorable demographic or even a favorable gender (Chicago traditionally matriculated a minority of women though apparently that changed this year) and you interview well, that might be enough to get you over the top (assuming sufficient softs).

286

@Waitlistedparent just a few data points from awhile ago, but my brother graduated top 20% from an HYP (so about a 3.8 GPA at Chicago today) but had an LSAT score in the same percentile as 167 today (94th-95th percent). Not sure how that score stood up relative to top law school medians the year he applied but I believe it was between 25th and 50th. Blue would have a better idea (this was the 90’s). GPA was probably at or near the median. Anyway, he was shut out of the T15 and ended up at a school ranked similar to Vandy now. He did well (graded on to law review etc) clerked for one of the federal appellate courts, went on to work for a top litigation firm etc. so the outcome was comparable to others his year who got into Chicago. But it seemed that the bar was particularly high for white males and where you graduated from wasn’t enough. One college classmate was hitting those medians and got into U of MN as his best case. Another blew them away and got into Chicago. Both white males.

I’ve always had the impression that the curves will depend on your gender and demographic, depending on the individual law school. My (unhooked) son thinks this isn’t even a question that he would need top grades (even from UC) and an impressive LSAT (ie north of 170) to have a shot at the T15.

287

@JBStillFlying - Hope your son not just get into T15 but in T5?
I know that what you do “after” is more important but doors open up to those with pedigree - give you the benefit of doubt?

288

^^In answer to both questions.

WL Parent: yes, undergrad institution does count but mostly as a tie-breaker. Someone with the 75th’s from a Top 10 Uni will have to have ax murderer not to get an invitation from HLS. Someone with those numbers from Podunk Directional State U will be on Harvard Law’s last in group. But again, Harvard Law accepts an extremely large class and for it to hold its medians, it has to accept the vast majority of 173’s that apply. (There are just not enough to go around, and Yale and Stanford will take some, and others in the T14 will throw merit money at them.)

OTOH, a top 10 uni doesn’t make a 3.5 magically turn into a 3.75+ for admissions purposes.

Generally, all LS Recs and essays are great, so unless teh Adcom knows the recommender personally, how can they judge? Now, will an outstanding rec letter from an Ivy President/Provost get more weight, no question. Will one of the most memorable essays in years get a second and third look, sure.

Re: splitters. Yes, this is where a top 10 Uni can gets some bonus points. But remember, most applicants are splitters, including those from Harvard and Yale colleges. So when competing in the splitter pool, HLS is gonna take Harvard College applicants first. Ditto YLS.

Years ago I suggested that females got a small break (on LSAT, as they are more reverse splitters) but was pilloried for it, so I no longer go down that path.

289

“Years ago I suggested that females got a small break (on LSAT, as they are more reverse splitters) but was pilloried for it, so I no longer go down that path.”

Figures. Well, it definitely happens and my guess is that there are female reverse splitters in every top law school, which is an area traditionally under-represented by women. Best guess is that each admissions committee knows the 25th-75th for the women vs. men and for the demographically hooked vs. unhooked and admit based off that information. That doesn’t mean that a female reverse splitter has the same chances as a URM, all else equal, but a bump does exist. Lack of available data as well as attempts to shut down the conversation would point in that direction, if nothing else.

290

^^yep, the last time LSAT published data ranges by gender (years ago), it showed that 175+ were dominated by guys (as a % of test takers). But any gender bump, if it still exists, would be much less than that for URM.

291

@bluebayou - thank you for #287. We’re hoping for a trifecta with accountant (or does this need to be replaced with engineer for 21st century?), lawyer but in need of a doctor so maybe we should push DD20 to aim for 98~99 percentile on the MCAT but maybe that’s easier said than done…

292

Keep learning new things. But what is a reverse splitter?

293

It was the out pitch thrown by the legendary reliever Kent Tekulve: the ball backed up as it arrived at the plate. It was un-hittable.

294

@River65 - A “splitter” is a just a euphemism for someone with a significantly higher LSAT score than GPA, while a “reverse-splitter” is the opposite, with a higher relative GPA than LSAT score, with the two scores being separated by at least a quartile based on a school’s admissions profile.

295

OK. Hi there. I’m an ED admit for the class of 2024 and I have been set on going to law school since I was thirteen years old.

Not gonna lie, I feel duped. I have a packet of posters in my room with glossy numbers and laughing faces. I guess I was stupid enough to buy into the fantasy that I could have a fulfilling education that got me places in the real world.

Nonetheless, I have combed through this dizzying thread, and am left with three, very simple questions.

  1. Is it possible to get a GPA at UChicago (if I major in Political Science + Econ) that is above the 3.7-3.8 range? How difficult is it?
  2. Will I have to sacrifice rigor and academic exploration to make that happen?
  3. Do Chicago students have a good chance of getting into a T-6 law school?
296

Aha, at last we have a live subject on whom to practice our theories! Thanks for joining the conversation, @rnarayanan15 .

Other commenters on this board will be able to give you more focussed answers to your three questions. Here are some pertinent but less pointed reflections:

Weren’t you somewhat convinced by the denouement of the great grade-deflation debate that that phenomenon no longer exists at UChicago? The upshot of that debate was a surprise to me and even, I think, @Cue7 , but the facts are the facts and they appear to be otherwise than the legend. And as to the question of whether Chicago undergrads punch below their weight at top law schools, the evidence is inconclusive: my own hunch is that they do, but we have only the data as to admissions to those schools, not the numbers of actual Chicago applicants to them.

The factors that would explain this relatively less numerous representation at those schools, if it is actually even true, appear to me to be cultural - the culture of the UChicago student body and the culture of the T-6.

As for Chicago undergrad culture, consider that you are an individual and that Chicago culture is not monolithic. If it is true that fewer Chicago students have a fixation on attending the top-six (most of which are on the eastern seaboard) that doesn’t mean you can’t have that fixation. You will certainly find others who do, though perhaps not as many as at the peer schools. In this narrow sense I don’t see Chicago culture operating against you. In a broader sense it may: it may broaden your interests and may start up new interests. That happened to almost everyone I knew in my day in the College. I went up to it wanting to be an anthropologist or sociologist; I ended up an English major; and after a hiatus of years I got a law degree and became a lawyer. Life is tricky and unpredictable. Few people take a direct line from their beginning point to their end point. That’s sort of the fun thing about the adventure of life, don’t you think? You will be knocked for loops of all sorts you cannot presently imagine. The University will do this to you in general, particular courses and profs will do it, even History (not only the study of it but the thing itself) will do it. This is not to argue you out of your present focus, just a prediction: check in with us in four years!

With all that said, I can’t divest myself of a sense that at the top-6, including Chicago Law itself, Chicago undergrads operate at some slight disadvantage versus undergrads from the peer schools. The top law schools will get sufficient numbers of applicants with top numbers from everywhere on the planet. At lesser-tier but still very good law schools the numbers may be completely decisive. At the very top schools they will be necessary but not utterly decisive. For them it will be a case of numbers plus something else. As @MohnGedachtnis, a very knowledgeable commenter on this subject, describes it for Yale Law, the tie-breaker will come in the form of a special accomplishment in the years between undergrad and law school. You have it in your power to do something like that if it fits your own life’s trajectory; yet these options probably fit ivy types more than Chicago types.

And here’s a further hunch: with so much choice in filling entering classes of limited size the top schools do not choose only from elite undergrad schools. There is too much talent scattered throughout the schools of the nation, not to mention a perception problem if that talent were ignored. Where do Chicago undergrads fit in after all the talented kids with their excellent numbers have been plucked from the lacs and the state U’s, leaving limited space for a large remaining pool from the elites? I can’t help thinking that the prestige of an HYSP degree will be decisive as against a Chicago degree - the thumb on the scales, the old-boy advantage, call it what you will. The Yale Dean admitted as much with respect to Yale undergrads applying to Yale Law. That may well be a gaffe on his part of the sort defined by Michael Kinsley (himself a Harvard Law grad) as “an inadvertent telling of a truth that everyone has agreed should not be told.”

Where does this leave you? Take your best shot. Life could have worse options than spending the next four years in a stimulating idea-rich environment filled with kindred spirits. If you come out of it still wanting to be a lawyer, you will be able to do that just fine on the strength of good numbers coupled to the ever-enhancing prestige of a Chicago degree. You might even conclude that you don’t require a T-6 in which to do it and that prestige is not all it’s cracked up to be.

297

@rnarayanan15 - per this thread, it looks like chicago has the same gpa inflation as harvard and stanford, and roughly similar LSAT scores.

Getting into a T6 law school is very hard, but how is chicago inhibiting you here?

My biggest takeaway from this thread is chicago’s gpa inflation is basically like everywhere else. This isn’t a military academy gpa any more. You’ll be fine, but note it is hard to get into a T6 - very hard. You still need to be at the top end of a chicago class (hard to do) and get a 99th percentile lsat score (also very hard to do).

298

@rnarayanan15 My son is a second year, majoring in Philosophy and Econ with a 3.9 GPA. He also runs XC and Track and is the President of a very time intensive Student Organization that competes across the country in the Fall Qtr. This year he also worked on campus 10 hours a week. In his club, the past two presidents received large scholarships to attend HLS, a couple are at YLS and others are at other T-14 schools, so yes you can make it if you make it your mission.

He is not super human, but he does work hard and is fairly smart. I say this not to brag, but to encourage you. Most of the people on this thread aren’t doing it today and are only observers from the outside, albeit concerned and connected from their days on campus a couple decades ago.

299

@rnarayanan15

If your goal from age 13 was to practice law, then that will happen if you work hard and take advantage of the intellectual and pre-professional opportunities available. If your goal from age 13 was to attend a T6, then you might want re-examine that goal. Getting into a T7-T20 won’t keep you from practicing law, nor will it be anything but a significant accomplishment by that point. Many outside the tippy-top offer merit so that’s a consideration as well (law school is expensive). Also, something to keep in mind: your intellectual, professional and educational goals may well pivot to another area while you are at UC. That’s not an uncommon there.

Aiming high is fine. Making a prestigious law school admission your primary reason to attend college might cause some frustration over the next few years, regardless of where you actually matriculate. Since you were admitted ED, you are clearly a great fit for the challenges of a UChicago education. Please allow yourself to go for it and meet those challenges head on.

From #275, re-posting below what top law schools look for regarding academic record. To this I would add that you should choose Core sequences that interest or fascinate you, not just the ones that are rumored to be “easier.” Nothing is worse than being stuck in something you don’t like for two or three quarters.

"Your Academic Record
In the admissions process, your academic record is a very important element. Therefore, be sure to concentrate in a subject area that you enjoy and do well in. Admissions officers know from experience which departments have strong academic reputations and which courses have high and low curves. . . . "

“There is no “right concentration” that is recommended for preparing for law school. Law schools are looking for a diverse group of students from a variety of backgrounds. They are interested in students who have selected courses that are academically challenging and that have cultivated and developed the student’s ability to make inferences, reason logically, and analyze and present complex information in a condensed and clear manner."

https://ocs.fas.harvard.edu/prelaw

300

This meandering and arcane thread is more useful for parents and older U Chicago grads to enjoy themselves.

My son will be a freshman in the class of 2024 and knows better than to read College Confidential.

Yes you will have a chance of getting into a T5, T10 or T15 law school. But as the prior posters have suggested, it is a hard feat from any college, including Harvard or Yale. Don’t let that deter you from having a great college experience at Chicago.