Thoughts about Statistics, Misconceptions, and Stupidity in Admissions

<p>As much as I subconsciously don’t believe what I am about to say, I know it is true: the university doesn’t make the people, the people make the university. As a dogma, it is perhaps the most important thing to understand when it comes to college admissions. But what does it really mean?</p>

<p>Well, starting at a basic level, a university is not the buildings or the campus, but rather the people there, professors and students. Eh, I guess we can throw in admissions counselors too. When accepted, you are forming part of the university. It is not this great privilege you are receiving; you are simply a part of the university. But what does this really mean?</p>

<p>Let’s look at a single cell. You have your endoplasmic reticulum (English department), your ribosomes (Computer Science department), your vacuole (Philosophy department), etc. Each of these is composed of many proteins (people) all working together to form something great. Usually you would expect such an analogy to be made for the purpose of relating a fundamental characteristic of whatever is being discussed, but instead I am using it to illustrate what I don’t mean. First, why would you want to be a protein in this cell? It would be completely unrewarding - you are simply part of a whole, and nothing more, not of any individual importance, for no one cares about a protein but with respect to what it does in the cell. Second, why is the whole so dependent on the parts? Would not a university continue to exist without the existence of an English department? Yet a cell would certainly fail without an endoplasmic reticulum. (interestingly enough, a university would fail without the existence of endoplasmic reticulums, and a cell would be perfectly fine without an English department :)) So, I have tackled one extreme of misconception of what it means to be part of a university. It is not a selfless act of contribution of your awesomeness (and money), as much as admissions counselors would love to believe this is your motivation for applying to Chicago.</p>

<p>Also, however, it is not merely an opportunity for you to serve as a leech in the college community to advance yourself. You are not trying to deceive the admissions officers in order to gain access to this great supply of knowledge. As much as students would love to believe that by drinking the sacred milk of Chicago they will become great, it’s simply not the case, for it is the people that make the university, not the university that makes the people.</p>

<p>Okay, now to get to the main point: it really doesn’t matter what university you end up going to. There is this idea that if you get into University of Chicago, you will suddenly become the type of person who would be an intellectual at heart, the kind who has a shot at a Nobel prize. If you go to Yale, you will be a leader. If you go to your local community college, you will end up as a store manager living a miserable existence, hated by all those under him, and disrespected by all those above him, peerless, lonely, until one day he finds true love in a place so unexpected: the dry cleaners. Finding Beatrice changes him: she is a devout catholic and he soon finds God pulsing through his veins - veins of vengeance, for there was corruption in the company, and now he is finally going to clean it up. With guns, lots of guns. But it’s not like that at all.</p>

<p>All college professors are horrible teachers. This is true across the board. They are very knowledgeable, yes, but teachers they are not. They will profess to you what they know, but you have to put it together yourself and make what you can of it. At the end of four years, the changed person you are will not be the result of the University shaping you, but from you using the University to shape yourself. While some tools may be more refined and others more crude, the chisel used by Michelangelo is no better a tool to use than any other.</p>

<p>Now, we can explore yet another facet of “the people make the university.” What appeals to you about Chicago? Sure, the architecture is sexy, and the core curriculum is a balanced way to pursue your education, but when it comes down to it, it is all the great people associated with the University that gives it its appeal. These great people draw more great people into the university with time, and the whole thing builds upon itself until the university seemingly becomes greater than the sum of the Nobel prize winners - it becomes a Nobel prize-winner factory in the minds of applicants. But it is not, and this is the other half of the leeching coin. The University has no desire to pick you up off the street and shape you into a great person. Not only would that be incredibly difficult, but it would be incredibly, incredibly, incredibly difficult. They are looking for people who have the drive already to become great themselves, and then all they must do is provide the tools - the buildings, the libraries, the professors, and the scalpels for brain modifications. They are looking to admit people who will draw more people to the university.</p>

<p>I think this should make it incredibly clear what is and isn’t important to admissions officers. Community service, while commendable, is not important if you are doing it begrudgingly. Let’s put it this way: would you want to be around people who do community service for many hours for an ulterior purpose? Well, kind of - you’d like the cleaner parks and contented homeless people, but wouldn’t you much rather have people who will talk to you about philosophy at 2am? Who will be enthusiastic about the things you are interested in? Who will be as dedicated to a club as you are? Who will love you unconditionally? Who will do something amazing? Who are absorbing knowledge like a sponge and then using it to form their own ideas about the world, ideas that may change it? Or would you rather be with the people who want to get a degree from a prestigious university so they can make more money?</p>

<p>That being said, the process of forming yourself can start a little late for some people. Perhaps you didn’t fully realize your love of knowledge until senior year of high school, so your GPA does not reflect the level of dedication you truly have. Perhaps you are incredibly stupid, and hence your SAT scores are not quite what you would have hoped. Well, you may want to get an idea of how appealing your new-found self is in the context of the self that is portrayed by your grades and scores. So, what do you look to? The statistics, of course!!!</p>

<p>Here we are: [University</a> of Chicago College Admissions | Incoming Class Profile](<a href=“http://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/admissions/classprofile.shtml]University”>http://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/admissions/classprofile.shtml)</p>

<p>Okay, so I am male: 49% were male.
I went to a public school: 66% went to a public school
I have a 1560 (out of 1600) SAT: 37% had 1500-1600
I am white: 42% were white</p>

<p>What do we do with these numbers? Well, we are trying to find the probability that they all occur concurrently. 0.49 x 0.66 x 0.37 x 0.42 = 0.05025636 = 5%. Wow, that’s pretty bad compared to the average admission rate of 28%. I shouldn’t even bother apply, right? Right?!??!</p>

<p>Well, no, because the number I came up with is not even close to my actual probability of being admitted, but this is the type of thing most people do when they look at statistics like this. No, they don’t actually calculate anything like this, but they see a statistic like “Only 8% weren’t in the top 15% of their high school class.” and then assume that that means their chance of admission based on that statistic is 8%. Unfortunately, most people don’t understand the statistics enough to draw any reasonable conclusions about their actual chances of being admitted. So, how would we actually calculate it?</p>

<p>Well, you need more statistics than University of Chicago provides on their website. First, you need statistics not only for those admitted, but for those who applied. (Actually Chicago’s website has neither - only the statistics for the incoming class). Let’s do a theoretical example:</p>

<p>Fake Statistics:
1/4 of applicants had an SAT from 1500-1600
1/3 of those admitted had an SAT from 1500-1600
1/3 of applicants were in the top 15% of their class
2/3 of those admitted were in the top 15% of their class
1/3 of applicants were admitted
1/1 of those admitted were admitted</p>

<p>Now, what we can form are ratios of admitted to applied. For example, if 1/2 of all the applicants were human, but 1/1 of those admitted were human, then the admitted-applied ratio for humans would be (1/1)/(1/2) or 2. This means by being human, you are two times more likely to be admitted than the typical applicant. The ratio for non-humans would be (0/1)/(1/2) or 0, which would mean by being non-human you are 0 times as likely to be admitted. Sorry! So, the ratios for our fake statistics are:</p>

<p>SAT 1500-1600: (1/3)/(1/4) = 4/3
Top 15% of Class: (2/3)/(1/3) = 2
Admission in General: (1/3)/(1/1) = 1/3</p>

<p>So, by having an SAT from 1500-1600 and being in the top 15% of your class, you would be 8/3 as likely as the typical applicant to be admitted. You simply multiply all the ratios together. Since the admission rate in general is 1/3, your overall chance would be 8/9, or about 88%. This is about as close as you could get for a good predictor of your chances with easy math and no actual data. Or is it?</p>

<p>What is the problem with the method? Well, this calculation assumes that the factors are independent. In other words, it assumes that your SAT scores are your ranking are completely unrelated. In truth those with a higher SAT score are also likely to be ranked higher in their class. What does this mean? Well, it means that this 88% is a high number. For example, say there were 100 different tests exactly like the SAT that everyone had to take for college admission. For SAT-1, the admitted-applied ratio would be 4/3, and same with SAT-2, SAT-3, SAT-4, etc. so the combined ratio for all of these would end up being (4/3)^100, or about 3,117,982,410,208. In reality, you wouldn’t have THAT much more of a chance of being admitted than the average applicant. :slight_smile: </p>

<p>So, either you do some really awful math, get the actual data and compile your own statistics, or you change the simple calculations a little bit to give a more accurate probability. To compile the statistics on your own, you would just look at the ratio of those in the applicant pool to those admitted pool who shared all your characteristics, of course, we don’t have the data, unfortunately. So…</p>

<p>You should only look at one factor at a time.</p>

<p>The SAT ratio is 4/3, so then according to that, 44% chance of being admitted.
The Rank ratio is 2, so according to that, I have a 66% chance of being admitted.</p>

<p>Now I have 2 numbers: 44% and 66%</p>

<p>I can’t say for sure which number is closer to the actual probability, but I can be certain that it lies somewhere around those numbers. If you wish, you can take the average, so I’d say 55%. So, if you want a quick number that is more accurate than looking at the numbers without understanding them at all:</p>

<p>(Total Admission Rate) * (Number of Admitted with Characteristic) / (Number of Applicants with Characteristic)</p>

<p>So, for that person worried about not being in the top 15%, while only 8% of those admitted weren’t in the top 15%, if only 4% who applied weren’t in the top 15% of their class, then with an overall admission rate of 28%, an applicant not in the top 15% of the class would have a 56% chance of getting in! Pretty good, eh? Well, it would be. Unfortunately, University of Chicago doesn’t provide statistics for the applicants, so there is really no way to get a meaningful number after all.</p>

<p>What was the point of all this talk of statistics then? Well, do you want to think about the statistics of college admission after reading all of that? I didn’t think so. That it my point - the statistics will not help you at all. As long as you are true to yourself in your application and work to shape yourself with whatever tools you have, you will do well in life, no matter what happens. The best thing you can do is stop worrying about college in this senior year and start enjoying it, because this is the last time you’ll see many of your friends. It is not the admissions officers deciding your future, believe me, it is yourself.</p>

<p>Stop trying to use numbers to measure yourself, because if you go for the numbers, you’ll miss the bigger picture. When you are 60 years old and realize that you have done nothing for the world but used it, you will look upon your SAT scores, your GPA in high school and college, and your salary with contempt, for they will have taken away true self-actualization.</p>

<p>Now, I need to go to my school with two large lenses and do something awesome to help out the performance of Macbeth. What are you going to do?</p>

<p>I LOVE YOU LET’S GET MARRIED.</p>

<p>=D</p>

<p>I’m seriously sick of hearing everyone on this site talk about SAT scores and GPAs, as if that’s all that matters. >/</p>

<p>this is fantastic. pure and simple.</p>

<p>was this your application essay? =P</p>

<p>Beautiful.</p>

<p>i try telling this to my parents everday.</p>

<p>Nice, very nice. I like reading posts like this from somebody other than me (or JHS, who has two kids who have gone through this process and are both at Chicago).</p>

<p>I think about how, if at all, Chicago has changed me all the time, and whether I could be changed if I went a different route (say I didn’t feel like I was able to pay for tuition or I didn’t get in). I’ve come to the conclusion that I could pretty easily find other experiences that would be equally influential (anything from working in retail to Peace Corps to going to community college), but probably few that are influential in the particular way that Chicago has been influential to me.</p>

<p>In other words, it’s not easy to find a forum for combining lots of smart, capable, intellectually supercharged and good-looking 18-22 year olds and setting them in the oven to bake for four years :slight_smile: I did my best to provide a list of schools that also do that on the intellectual level in this link:</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/612879-if-not-chicago-then.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/612879-if-not-chicago-then.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The only thing I’d disagree with the OP on is the assertion that quality in teaching is nil at research universities. One of the best teachers I ever had has taught at both LAC’s and universities (prefers u’s) and some of my best teachers were-- gasp!-- graduate students who are working on their dissertations and teaching classes in their field of expertise. In most ways, the teaching quality here has been superior to the teaching quality at my high school.</p>

<p>I think part of the reason Chicago tends to have excellent teachers is that teaching and learning is very much a two-way street here. If you’re the kind of student who wants to sit in the back of a lecture hall and escape the moment the class is over, you probably won’t come to Chicago. If you as a prof want nothing to do with undergraduates, let alone teach them in a small class, there are a lot of better places to work than here.</p>

<p>My feeling is that because Chicago produces such a high number of graduates who go on to pursue the academic life, that teaching and sharing that passion is an essential core value of the place. I think it’s no accident that merit scholarships at Chicago are awarded by faculty recommendation to students they would like to have in the classroom.</p>

<p>If you ask my S, he would tell you without hesitation that he batted three for three this past quarter in the prof/grad student department. As a parent who has heard (more than I expected!) about S’s courses, I’ll say that while S is a math major, he relished his HBC class the most – because he felt he FINALLY got a humanities course with an excellent instructor, and that person brought a depth and richness to the material S never imagined. </p>

<p>Yeah, S had the numbers for admission, as most of you prospies do. What proved to be decisive was the desire for intellectual pursuit. Chicago has been a fabulous fit and S has truly made the place his home. And, if you’re happy, you’re a lot more likely to succeed. Good luck to all of you, wherever you land.</p>

<p>Excellent.</p>

<p>This point is definitely one of the reasons Chicago is my top RD choice.</p>

<p>So guys, I got deferred. </p>

<p>I’ll have to start on my other apps.</p>

<p>Noooo… I wanted to scroll to the bottom and see the good news. I really hope you in in RD, or anywhere else you are passionate about going to.</p>

<p>beautifully and hilariously said. </p>

<p>i actually just got through having a long conversation with a friend of mine trying desperately to get into vanderbilt who is now convinced that his SAT scores aren’t high enough, his GPA isn’t high enough, he’s gonna be rejected, go to the state college, live a horrible life, and die lonely and miserable in a dilapitated apartment building, crushed by the weight of his stupidity and inadequacy. </p>

<p>i think i’ll just link him to this post, and tell him to stop worrying and just BREATHE.</p>

<p>Hey all - nice to see a thread about general philosophy of admissions (and how to look at it) going around.</p>

<p>I laud the OP’s view that the student, not the university, is the ultimate. </p>

<p>One thing I like to mention is that I believe scores end up being a bad measure of ability because in part of a watered down AP and Collegeboard curriculum, which could be improved. My views, to those interested and not already involved, are expounded upon in the Stanford forum, under a thread about the “mystery” of private school admissions. </p>

<p>As a note, don’t expect to go find me expressing radical views that our admissions system has it all wrong and stuff. It’s a pretty balanced view, but has one consistent message, which is that the notion that high scorers “are all the same beyond a point” is fed by existence of a substandard overall curriculum level in many high schools, unreflective of many rigors of college.</p>

<p>Update!</p>

<p>I was rejected after being deferred, which crushed me tremendously for a period of time. My two best alternate schools were University of Warwick (in the UK) and NYU (New York University). I chose NYU. (I’ll go over the process of decision in a bit).</p>

<p>I’m in my freshman year right now, just finishing up my second semester. I have a 3.925 GPA, which is pretty nifty. I’m double majoring in Mathematics and Philosophy. Next year, I am going to start taking graduate courses in math. Because of AP coursework, I was able to place out of a huge number of core requirements.</p>

<p>Now, how did I make my decision to go to NYU, and how did I come to terms with not being at UChicago? To put it shortly, I didn’t! I refuted everything I said in my original post up there. I was extremely upset at the unfairness of it all, especially when people less intelligent than me were getting in over me. More importantly, I was perfect for UChicago! So much more than those other fools! To put it succinctly, it really sucks not to be admitted.</p>

<p>Moreover, it has a profound affect on your future. It will end up being one of the most influential moments of my life. Honestly, I belong at UChicago. UChicago is filled with people like me: people as intelligent as I am, who have the same intellectual spirit as me, who are as academically interested as I am. I simply belong there more than anywhere else. I certainly don’t belong here at NYU.</p>

<p>However, what I didn’t realize is that “belongingness” is only one way in which a college can affect your life. While UChicago would have provided belongingness and the prestige associated with a top-ten school, it certainly wouldn’t have provided the things NYU offers. Here’s how NYU is having a positive affect on my life in a way UChicago couldn’t:</p>

<p>1) I have huge amount of academic freedom. I only had five core requirements after AP exemptions, and only four after deciding to major in philosophy. UChicago isn’t so kind.
2) I can learn philosophy from professors in the #1 ranked department in the country. This just makes me feel good to be here. I am, in effect, taking advantage of as much prestige as I can get my hands on, which counteracts not getting into UChicago - at least psychologically.
3) I can learn math in the #8 ranked department in the country, without any competition from other students. This is incredibly important. The department is very open to allowing advanced students to take full advantage of graduate courses. Since there aren’t that many dedicated math majors, there is immense freedom for those who are. UChicago, on the other hand, has a much more structured math program for undergraduates, as a huge percentage are math majors.
4) I can be in the honors program. They flew us to Florence for a week, which was pretty nice. They hold special lectures and events and such for the honors program. It’s nice to be recognized. At UChicago, I would have been another in the crowd (as much as that would have made me “belong”).
5) I learned REALLY quickly that I am responsible for myself. The rejection process certainly helped to this end. Also, NYU is one of the most individualistic colleges, ever. There is little to no sense of a “community”, and it became abundantly clear to me that without figuring things out for myself, there was no predefined path for me to follow. NYU especially operates on a “resource” model, which is essentially: “we provide resources, you use them”. And it has a lot of great resources, but you walk in completely unaware of how to use them, or what they even are. No one guides you, and there aren’t even rules to follow on how to go about things. Lacking any sort of structure, it becomes necessary to form a structure for yourself. Hence, personal responsibility.
6) I was introduced to real diversity, not manufactured diversity. NYU is a weird bunch. There are intelligent people who want to stay up late talking about philosophy (as at UChicago). However, there are also kids in business school. There are kids in Tisch for acting or directing. There are kids in the nursing school. There are morons, and hardcore druggies, and interesting experiences on the weekends. It’s honestly nice to be around people who care about other things more than academics, even if I personally care more about academics.
7) I have nothing to fall back on as an excuse for failure. I’m in a relatively easy school, with little academic competition. With this at the back of my mind, I am forced to define for myself what achievement is. It’s not the university I go to, or how I am doing relative to those around me, but what I do. This is incredibly important to develop at some point in your life.</p>

<p>Notice how these all begin with “I”? This is because college is a selfish act. When you are looking for qualities of a college, you should always list them in terms of their relation to yourself. For example, this is a bad way to phrase a quality: “NYU has an extensive study-abroad system, with satellite campuses across the world.” It’s true, but it’s misleading. I don’t want to study abroad! You don’t go to a college because that college has great qualities, but because it offers you great opportunities.</p>

<p>It comes down to this. There are a number of ways I could objectively say, “Uchicago is better than NYU”. But I’d have a hard time saying that NYU provides me fewer opportunities. If anything, I am being offered more opportunities, in exchange for a bit less prestige and a bit less belongingness. This is why, despite having a nice GPA and some good potential recommendations, I decided against applying to transfer. I even started writing the supplementary essay, but it wasn’t even worth the cost of the application to try. I couldn’t lose the academic freedom.</p>

<p>Thank you for the update, greeniguana. You really have a mature and intelligent outlook, and it’s quite timely as I got into Chicago but don’t know if I can even afford to attend.</p>

<p>I agree the students make the college. But the students also help make each other. An environment of intellectuals is more likely to mold an intellectual than one that’s less oriented that way.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Your sarcastic argument would work if it made sense from a statistical point of view. There’s a reason statistical tests test values equal to or more extreme than a certain cut-off… The probability of picking a random real number between 0 and 1 and having it be 0.6 is zero. But the probability of picking it as 0.6 or greater is 40%.</p>

<p>Also, your entire statistical demonstration seems pointless. Not many people have ever assigned real concretely calculated percentages (however flawed), not even in all those worthless “chance me” topics. Seeing where you lie in certain measurable areas like SAT is always important though, even though it should not be the final word on whether you get in or not or whether you should even apply in the first place.</p>

<p>Also, if you did want to do real calculations with them, you could adjust them by assuming estimated values for the covariances.</p>

<p>If they played by SAT alone, I would be lucky to get into a UC. I’m not a standardized testing person, without a doubt.</p>