<p>1370-1560 does seem high for UChicago. There could be a mistake by USN or by UChicago.</p>
<p>johntonishi - 1370-1560 does seem oddly high. I know U of C places a lot of emphasis on SATs, but such an increase over just a year seems high. </p>
<p>To put this matter to rest, maybe call US News and see what the deal is? </p>
<p>Re: Chicago being very concerned with the rankings, I think ALL schools are, Chicago was just a bit late to the party when it comes to rankings. When I graduated from Chicago in the early 2000s, the school really did NOT care about selectivity, rankings, etc. We were still accepting 50% of applicants.</p>
<p>On the other hand, other schools targeted rankings as a way to signal their improvement. For example, the President of UPenn looked to achieve a top-ten finish in US News in the mid-1990s. Penn got to be more savvy with the rankings and has done very well ever since. Duke used to try and drum up as many apps as possible to keep its selectivity ranking competitive. </p>
<p>In 2004 or so, with a new administration, Chicago decided to get on board. Of late, the U of C administration has conceded that rankings MATTER, selectivity/exclusivity matters, and to remain one of the best, the U of C needs to play the game. Apparently, when the U of C deans went to DC to meet with US News to review the numbers, the Chicago crew realized they were actually mis-reporting numbers for years (about the % of classes over 100), and this was hurting the U of C in the rankings considerably. </p>
<p>In the eyes of the new Chicago president and deans, Chicago always had a sterling reputation - and this seems to be backed up by peer assessment scores. Chicago always seems to be in the top six or so in terms of rep. The President, etc. decided to get all the more manipulable scores (acceptance rate, etc.) in line. </p>
<p>ALL colleges now, from Penn to Chicago to Cornell to Notre Dame, pay attention to and care about these rankings. I have no doubt that colleges fudge numbers on this part, but it seems silly to fudge SAT scores - everyone notices them. Jontosh, call US News and see whats up.</p>
<p>The College Board website, I think for the same year (admissions rate 28%), shows a range of 1310-1530.
I don’t think the U of C publicly posts its Common Data Set.</p>
<p>Johnstonshi// Ever since the other thread named “USNEWS RANKINGS 2010: OFFICIAL” you’ve been accusing Chicago s of reporting the wrong, higher numbers purposefully–mentioning even the rumor back in 1997 or something. I’m not assuming anything. </p>
<p>And I’ve heard (also on the other thread) that the College Board website is outdated… They discuss it on page 13 or 14 of the other thread.</p>
<p>pnb2002 - I stand by what I believe: even the best of schools may have high level administrators who lack integrity (don’t take this the wrong way, I’m not targeting UChicago). If you truly believe UChicago’s students sat mid-50% is 1370-1560 and care to find the truth, then find sources (whether it be calling usnews) to back it up. Because most people on this forum don’t believe that range for UChicago. If you don’t care, stop posting empty statements and assumptions with no support.</p>
<p>pnb2002, let’s not make assumptions on CC. johntonishi is right to peruse this; I hope whatever is going on here gets resolved. UChicago’s range on USN is definitely high. Someone should call USN.</p>
<p>^ OMG! Chicago shouldn’t be ranked 8, it should be 10 or 12. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>johntonishi’s posts on the other thread does insinuate that UChicago may be reporting wrong, but he didn’t explicitly target UChicago when he imply colleges may purposefully manipulate data. The way he words makes it easy for readers to assume, but try not to make assumptions. Putting words in someone else’s mouth is despised here on CC, so please refrain from doing it.</p>
<p>wow people on CC argue over the most pointless ****…</p>
<p>I have tried to contact usnews twice this morning, but I couldn’t get a real person to talk to me. Someone else care to try?</p>
<p>Cacciato - I agree. I started this thread wanting to know what’s going on with UChicago’s high sat mid-50% range. Then pnb2002 who has connection to UChicago, started to put words in my mouth.</p>
<p>No one should put words in another’s mouth. This thread is getting old. Let’s not ■■■■■ it. If someone has concrete evidence, post it. If not, leave this thread.</p>
<p>I have concrete evidence in the sense that I’ll be attending UChicago next year. I got a 1480/1600. I was also accepted to Columbia, but ended up choosing Chicago. </p>
<p>All the kids I know who were accepted to Chicago last year had upper 1400 or 1500 scores and phenomonal essays, no one had anything in the 1300s. While many of you might be thinking that UChicago is a lesser known school, it has received much more publicity and awareness in just the past year or two. The school has a bit more respect and because it’s a VERY self-selective school like Caltech or MIT–most of the kids who choose to apply already are quite smart and have higher SAT scores. Chicago turns away the average college-bound seeker who would apply to WashU, Vandy, Rice, Cornell, or even Penn etc because it doesn’t offer that typical college experience. Most of the kids who apply to Chicago are “intellectual seekers” and have overlapped applications with Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and Brown. </p>
<p>Just my two cents. Feel free to continue debating, though.</p>
<p>ilovepeople712 - no one’s saying UChicago’s not a good school. It’s an excellent school on par with Columbia, Brown, etc. What we need here is solid evidence to sort out the confusion. All the kids you know doesn’t represent the whole class. For instance, 37% got above 1500, and 21% got below 1300 (<a href=“https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/admissions/classprofile.shtml[/url]”>https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/admissions/classprofile.shtml</a>), which are numbers comparable to UChicago’s peer schools.</p>
<p>What we are trying to do here is to understand the discrepancy between mid-50% range reported to usnews and reported on UChicago’s own website. The numbers are very confusing. Although I don’t wish to make assumption, you are insinuating (I may be wrong) that UChicago has improved (along with its student body) over the past two or three years. I agree that it has, especially with regards to admissions rate. However, the mid-50% range usnews uses (1370-1560) is from class of 2010 or 2011. UChicago’s own website reports the range to be 1340-1510 for class of 2012. 1340-1510 for class of 2012 is actually much lower than the 1370-1560 reported by usnews for an earlier UChicago class. The sat mid-50% range couldn’t have decreased by that much; it should increase considering the progress UChicago definitely made in the past years. You see, this is the problem we are trying to understand.</p>
<p>Oh, I completely understand what you’re trying to figure out. </p>
<p>Is the data on their website for just the newest class entering Chicago, or all the students at Chicago?</p>
<p>Because US News & World report only collects data from one applicant pool (2008 in this case), whereas Chicago’s website might be providing data for freshman, sophomores, juniors, and seniors. </p>
<p>I would think that since the school has gotten harder to be accepted into that it’s newest set of students have slightly higher SAT scores as well. </p>
<p>But I could be wrong. Just speculating.</p>
<p>^USN used last year’s stats (class of 2012). Collegeboard.com shows 2012 stats also. Chicago website has the 2012 profile as well. They are all different as far as SAT goes. But ACT matches between collegeboard and chicago website.</p>
<p>If you look at the ACT score on their website, it’s 28-33. The two normally match pretty well. 1370-1560 would be equivalent to 31-35. It’s not a proof but a strong sign that the range shown on USN is probably incorrect. </p>
<p>That said, I seriously doubt UChicago would intentionally misreport since their data are readily available on one of the main pages of the admission site. On the other hand, the fact that 1370-1560 doesn’t match what’s on their website (1340-1510) or collegeboard.com (1310-1530) shows that USN either does not check or simply does a poor job checking. My guess is that either USN had a typo/misprint or someone just carelessly sent them the admitted stats instead of the enrolled one.</p>
<p>ilovepeople712 - UChicago’s website claim 1340-1510 for class of 2012, which is the newest data for the newest available class. The range for class of 2012 should be higher than any previous year’s class and higher than the range for all four class because UChicago has improved over the past years. usnews uses a class before 2012, yet the score is 1370-1560, much higher than the one for class of 2012. This is what doesn’t make sense, because I’m sure UChicago’s sat scores are getting higher, not lower.</p>
<p>Sam Lee - are you sure usnews used the profile for class of 2012? I always thought it used sat profile of a class two years prior, class of 2011. I do agree usnews or someone in UChicago carelessly published or sent wrong info.</p>
<p>ilovepeople712, UChicago is a great school. I think the only thing people would have trouble with it would be IF it really fudged these numbers and played-the-game to up their rankings.
We all know rankings don’t matter much, but it speaks to a character of a school if it is willing to distort, cheat, and lie in a meaningful way just for something so trivial as USNWR rankings.</p>
<p>It’s the same reason why a lot of people dislike and distrust WUSTL.</p>
<p>I actually think US News and World report messed up the SAT reports, not Chicago. Check out Chicago’s website. It’s pretty evident that they’re not lying on there.</p>
<p>So, no, I don’t agree with you that Chicago is trying to “fudge” or “distort” it’s perception in the academic world.</p>