<p>unalove, I find your post problematic.</p>
<p>“1. Chicago is an elite, highly-ranked school, and elite, highly-ranked schools don’t get that way without some kind of strategic decision-making. Libby has emphasized the high school transcript as the most important component in one’s application. The idea that you can get into Chicago despite not having tippy-top credentials is somewhat apocryphal and doesn’t seem to have any truth to it besides speculation by well-meaning posters here on CC.”</p>
<p>fair enough; Chicago is an elite school. Fact. The difficulty I have is, admittedly, a sort of implicit claim that pervades your post, namely, that Chicago SHOULD model itself and compete with the likes of Harvard and Yale. At least in my conception of the university, Chicago is a radically (emphasis: Radically) different school than the 8 universities above it on the US news rankings, and it shouldn’t try to make itself out to be a little Harvard or a place for ivy rejects (there’s already Cornell for that!). And, I would disagree with the people who say that “90% of students” at Harvard or anywhere would be “happy” at Chicago. Sure, and vice-versa; but it’s nota bout being happy, it’s about really thriving. The students taht I know who are not really loving uchicago (but are still “happy”) are one of the following: 1) unqualified legacy admits, 2) people who describe most of their peers as “weird” and 3) people who really had their hearts set on another university. I understand your #3 about how there are other schools that will sacrifice their rankings for the “better fit” candidate, but I am saying that 1) this is alreayd the case with Chicago and 2) if it is not, it SHOULD be (hence my uneasiness in my previous post).</p>
<p>In any event, I doubt the institutions that are currently in place (like the Economics dept.) won’t be changing drastically as a result of this “shift” in demographics of admits, and after all, I want to attend for the institutions first and the people second.</p>