<p>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.” </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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). </p>
<p>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? </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>