<p>Unalove, I enjoy your posts, but I think you sell yourself short. Comparing your objective measures from the time you were admitted in the past to now is a little like comparing the NFL player of the 1970’s to one now. Today’s player is faster, fitter, and more likely to survive his career healthy. The 1970’s player could look at today’s version and say, “No way I could play!” But of course, today’s player is a product of a much better training system than that which existed in the 1970’s. This is true, I believe, in the academic realm as well. I am product of the 1970’s. I was a good student, I got good test scores for the time, and I was admitted to a school which is now considered relatively elite. My objective measurements then are well below the average of the admitted student now. But I did not have the benefit of SAT classes, a tiger mom, or, Heaven forbid, College Confidential. To illustrate, I hitchhiked home from my SAT test. And I only took it once in my junior year. Who does that now who is interested in an “elite” college? My point, of course, is that your (Unalove) raw material is probably as good as the kids today, the environment was just different when you applied, less likely to produce very high objective scores. But I’ll bet your essays were bang-up then as they would be now.</p>
<p>As far as UChicago’s “selling point”, for my son, who is attending starting this fall, it is the pure and genuine intellectualism of the place. I believe that among the National type universities, it is unique. The only school we came accross that is close was Princeton. And, also, UChicago with its core curriculum and its core values, both well established, somewhat immune to fad, and honed over decades of teaching, convinced my son (and me) that it is the best place possible to go to become the most intellectually developed person he could be.</p>