My son thinks students seeking top schools today are pretty “standardized” in terms of their preparation and level of engagement with other activities. They might have diverse interests and goals, but they are all similarly “stand-out’ish” on the high-achievement/hard-work XY-graph. Perhaps this has been the case for decades. Over the years, UC has increasingly been attracting those applicants, and now their matriculants might, indeed, be less distinguishable upon casual acquaintance - or even genuine acquaintance - from other top schools than they used to be. In terms of that “stand-out’ish-ness.” What the applicant is actually looking for in a school might be the Z-axis that hasn’t always been considered in this conversation, and IMO it’s important.
Maybe @MohnGedachtnis just knows a different subset of kids than I do. This is anecdotal but I know for a fact that my kids’ cousins (of which there are many, and among whom there are a decent number of high-performers who shot and and landed at top schools) would NOT be very happy at UChi. They are/were very happy at their respective schools. They didn’t apply to Chicago for very specific reasons which, in a nutshell, have to do with the academic culture of the place coming in conflict with the specific goals that they have/had for their college experience. And I’m talking about an elite set of kids here. And we’ve known several others who didn’t like UChicago’s heavy liberal arts emphasis. Others still who were turned off by the thought of living in Chicago (or on its south side). Again - all top kids who got into top schools elsewhere. So these distinctions - even those that are at the meta level or perhaps even considered to be “trivial” by “wiser grownups” - do matter. Now, presumably every kid who applies ED is attracted to what UChicago offers even if they don’t think it’s particularly distinct (many of them do, from what I’ve observed, but not all). And - who knows? Those two Ivy-plus athletes (one of whom chose an honors major that accommodates the 30+ hours of athletic training, the other of whom majored in a STEM subject that simply isn’t offered at UChi) may have been “perfectly happy” at UChicago after all. But I suspect that they knew their own minds on this subject and that’s why they ended up and thrived elsewhere. They were certainly quite informed due, in part, to having parents who were educated at UChi or other great institutions themselves.
Those examples are by no means “the bulk” of applicants or admits, but then who exactly is “the bulk?” While applicants might overlap in terms of being “accomplished,” and families may well overlap in terms of interests and goals and even where the parents are directing their kids (that has to be considered as a driver for at least some families), aren’t each of these kids distinct from their peers? Surely at least some admissions departments actually admit as if that’s the case.
In perhaps a contrasting comment, this time about “stereotypes” - most of the parents and even som students who have commented on that subject claim that they DO match “the stereotype!” IMO, the “UChicago Type” is not just something that exists on CC. And Admissions certainly appeals to that “stereotype” a bit in their talks (from what I’ve observed). But “the stereotype” isn’t described using majors or professional interests or long term goals. They seem more interested in the internals, and these are characteristics that are likely revealed in the application, even if not always obvious to the applicant. Perhaps all top schools are similarly interested in the internals, and perhaps each is looking for a particular underlying set of characteristics that might not be as obviously apparent as all those impressive credentials that the adcom has to sift through every year are. As Diermeier mentioned, it can be hard to identify those applicants.