<p>johntonishi,</p>
<p>Do you have a copy of USN? I am “kinda” sure USN is using class of 2012 data. You can verify that by cross checking with collegeboard.com. If they match, then USN is using 2012 data.</p>
<p>And like I said earlier to you in another post, I got into Wash U. There is no comparison in my opinion when it comes to quality of academics between Chicago and WashU. Chicago is simply better. And if it makes you happy, yes I think Hopkins quality of academics is also better than WashU’s quality of academics. I do think WashU is overrated, but I don’t think Chicago is overrated.</p>
<p>johntonishi, You are asking the wrong question. it should be: why does a school have such high SATs while their admission rate is so high? The answer is simple: the kids who apply to UChicago don’t do it arbituarily. The kids themselves are being more selective. Unlike schools like HYMSP, Chicago isn’t on everyone “wish list”. As a result, only kids who have strong SATs apply.</p>
<p>ilovepeople:</p>
<p>stop putting words in my mouth. WHERE did I say Chicago “fudged” the numbers? I said IF it did, then it would show its true character ;)</p>
<p>Sam Lee - not anymore. I saw the copy yesterday, and I don’t think they used data for class of 2012. Anyway, I guess the class year doesn’t matter much. If they used a previous year’s, then the range should be at most 1340-1510 because we know for sure that UChicago could only have gotten better, not worse, in the past year.</p>
<p>I understand the whole school pride thing Ilovepeople, but there comes a point when it gets to be too much. I used to be like that at times, but it’s very necessary to take a deep breath and realize your school isn’t the only good school in the nation, nor is it the best or better than its peers :)</p>
<p>zweebopp - read the posts. the goal here is to understand the discrepancy between mid 50% range published by usnews (1370-1560) and the one published by UChicago itself (1340-1510, <a href=“https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/admissions/classprofile.shtml[/url]”>https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/admissions/classprofile.shtml</a>).</p>
<p>johntonishi,</p>
<p>It’s using data for class of 2012. USN shows the acceptance rates for free. They are for “fall 2008”, i.e. class of 2012. That’s why collegeboard.com provides another source to verify. USN <em>claimed</em> they would verify data but missed both here. In general, USN is a crappy magazine; so I don’t expect high quality here anyway.</p>
<p>Sam Lee - great. Thanks for the data. so now, we just need to figure out what’s wrong with the sat reported by usnews.</p>
<p>Yes, well… collegeboard’s numbers are different still (1310-1530):</p>
<p>Test Scores
Middle 50% of First-Year Students Percent Who Submitted Scores
SAT Critical Reading: 660 - 770 79%
SAT Math: 650 - 760 79%
SAT Writing: - -<br>
ACT Composite: 28 - 33 50% </p>
<p>So don’t get all obsessive about those numbers, because you won’t find a FINAL number. They are a range. And you know why there’s a range, don’t you? And so what if that range varies. That’s not the only thing that Chicago will be looking at.</p>
<p>Dickering over a score range says nothing about the University, reflecting negatively on those who center their lives around it. Sure the numbers may appear high, but Chicago is a great school, in any event, and almost ALL selective universities are rankings obsessed. Get over it.</p>
<p>^ It’s kind of sad how the students at these universities need to be so rankings obsessed as well.</p>
<p>Accept the fact that UChicago and all the schools that made it to the top 10 list are very difficult school to get in. In particular, UChicago is known for its self-selectiveness. Only smart and academically serious students will only dream to go there for the rigorous challenge and debate between students and scholars. I don’t doubt the reported SAT scores and the high caliber of the academically exceptional student body at UChicago.</p>
<p>^does uchicago’s self-selectiveness account for its poor yield?</p>
<p>no, it’s lower yield has more to do with it’s average/bad financial aid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Accusing Chicago of being rankings obsessed? That’s funny, because if you go to the Chicago forum, there will be zero threads on these rankings. Nobody really cares. I just find them interesting.</p>
<p>But really, people here need to take it down a notch. Even WashU has never mis-reported data, so what makes you think that a much more well-respected (and less rankings-obsessed) university would? Somebody made a mistake somewhere. It probably wasn’t Chicago.</p>
<p>Also, I still think it was a typo. Columbia and Chicago have been tied for the past four years, and Chicago’s selectivity increased last year with a 7% lower acceptance rate and 3% more in the top 10%. It makes sense that they’d still be tied, and if Chicago actually did have these SAT scores, they would probably move ahead of Columbia.</p>
<p>And yes, Chicago’s financial aid is truly bad, which is why its yield is so low. Upon matriculating, my parents made $20k/year, and Chicago’s tuition sticker? $20k/year. It was sickening, but this was before Odyssey scholarships.</p>
<p>^ I have read several posts by UChicago students and past alum either a) complaining about the rank b) saying how the top 10 ranking makes the students more confident/happy, or c) saying that they deserve a higher ranking and complaining/out-right-blowing-up when other schools like, say, UPenn, Duke, etc rank higher than them ;)</p>
<p>Have you ever realized how true that might be though? Seriously, ask anyone in academia. UChicago, not neccesarily in rankings, but in prestige is seriously underrated. Whereas a school like Duke is very overrated. </p>
<p>There’s plenty of discussion about different schools and their overrated/underrated-ness.</p>
<p>^ which proves how rankings obsessed some students are 
why exactly does it matter so much? Isn’t it what YOU think of your education that matters? Not what some random ppl walking on the street?</p>
<p>then what caused you to react so explosively after my very first post hours ago that said “chicago deserved to be ranked higher than duke and hopkins.” </p>
<p>you fired back with some weird rankings of yours. come on, please. you are totally acting ranking obsessed even if you’re not.</p>