University of Chicago Admit Rate and SAT relative to Ivy/Competitive Set

Colleges & Universities University of Chicago
181

^ Based on #177 above, UChicago seems to be the same school that it used to be. It now has a significantly better career advancement program, better plant, better food, way more EC’s, etc. But in the essentials (ie a rigorous place where students go primarily for the academic education), it hasn’t changed. And the description of purpose to getting an education described in #176 - that is, because it’s a good in and of itself - is something you hear from students and their families a LOT at UChicago. I wonder how many who want to matriculate at other Ivy+ schools cite that as their reason for wanting to attend?

When I showed up at Booth (then the GSB) pretty much all of my classmates had same reason for being there: the faculty, the rigorous theoretical coursework, and the chance to be exposed to top research. No one said “because I’ll get to work for Goldman or McKinsey.” It was a given that right-fit employers would come calling (and they did). The outcomes were a given or perhaps even expected, but they weren’t the primary reason for attending. There were several schools that offered top employers. The primary reason for choosing Chicago for their business education was just that - the education. And, it was well known that these employers had the same understanding of the value of that education. A good number of the recruiters were Booth grads.

Anecdotally, I see the same phenomenon happening at the College. @FStratford is correct about the importance of alumni in the recruiting process and UC has been aggressively building that network for only 20 years. Compare to 200 years at Harvard! So the College has some work to do. But it’s getting there . . . and that “deficit” doesn’t seem to be impacting the admit or yield rate.

182

@JBStillFlying but the milieu matters for the education received! If the academic rigor/interest is the same, why does that mean Chicago is “the same school it used to be”? There’s more to it than that.

I’ve linked to this before: https://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/March-2011/College-Comeback-The-University-of-Chicago-Finds-Its-Groove/

There is a fundamental difference - in kind - between feeling supported vs. feeling discouraged. It’s not just because the students weren’t up to snuff in the past - it’s the climate a school tries to create.

Now, Chicago seems to try and create an environment where students feel supported, feel cared for. When I speak to current Chicago students now, their description about the academics is similar, but their description of the experience is not.

Again, I fundamentally feel that the sensation of support is the difference in kind. If this was still intellectual sparta, the retention rate would not be 99%.

Side note: why is everyone so bullish about Chicago’s placement once Trott, business econ, etc. come into place? It’s strange on this thread - we forget that most platinum-brands are not expanding their ranks, and they have more applicants than they know what to do with from other super elite schools. Newsflash: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Amherst, etc. have exceptional pools of talent, too! They have talent these platinum brands already love, and these brands aren’t expanding their ranks any time soon. It’s not like the Rhodes trust is increasing the yearly number of winners to 50 a year, or Yale Law is expanding its class size. I doubt these enhancements will move the needle so significantly that Chicago’s numbers will jump off the page so much more.

Back in 2011 or 12, when Chicago seemed to enjoy a “meteoric” rise (huge jumps in selectivity, huge jumps in ranking to top 5, etc.), I was also bullish about the improving exit options. Zoom forward to 2020, when I see the placement at Yale or whatever, my response is “meh.” The tidal wave hasn’t happened after the biggest influx of talent and rise in Chicago’s history. I’m not going to hold my breadth in the future.

@Zoom10 upthread point to Chicago producing a top ten number of billionaires. That number includes Booth grads. (Just like Booth places great at McKinsey, it mints lots of billionaires.)

At the college level, it’s very different: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/college-most-billionaires/

I don’t think Chicago is in the top 20 there.

@marlowe1 I’ll frame it this way: a chicago education beats you up (in mostly a good way) such that you look less appealing to a small slice of grad schools and employers. It’s not that you won’t have opportunities in whatever field you choose - it’s just that for certain uber-picky places, they can go elsewhere for the types they seek.

To frame it yet another way, this is less about what Chicago produces, and more about what these “establishment” exit options value and seek.

It’s not that Chicago’s education beats you up so you no longer feel like seeking the brass rings. It looks like Chicago undergrads seek law, consulting, finance, etc. in numbers pretty similar to its peers. Rather, those brass rings are seeking and valuing outputs Chicago doesn’t produce as much of here.

A thought experiment: If law schools and medical schools all of a sudden made acceptance decisions like PhD programs, what do you think would happen with Chicago’s placement, Marlowe? What if McKinsey did the same?

We know law is as popular an option at Chicago as it is at Columbia and Princeton, and finance/consulting is as popular at Chicago as most of its peers. If these elite employers made decisions like PhD programs, would Chicago still be middle of the road here?

183

Also @JBStillFlying - here’s a thought experiment for you:

If you took the 1990 Chicago student body and gave them the 2020 resources (tutors, advisers, career support, extra currics, etc.), what would the 1990 retention rate look like? I think those metrics you site before (low retention, for instance), would go way up - and the experience/satisfaction levels would go way up. It would look, per all those metrics you’ve sited before, like an entirely different school in kind.

People would talk about “pain and suffering” (as noted in the “college u-turn” article above), much less. Professors wouldn’t talk about students “suffering” into learning. It would be a vastly distinct experience.

184

Cue, the more important statistics - though I doubt they exist - are the numbers of Chicago applicants to these blue-chip institutions. If you could show me that Chicago grads apply to them in equal numbers with ivy grads, then we would have something to talk about. If that was so, then we would have to consider the reasons why Chicago grads are being disproportionately shut out: it could have something to do with the old-boy ivy thumb on the scales suggested by @Zoom10 . It could be due simply to the inability of prestigious employers and professional schools to resist the allure of the ivy pedigree. Or it could be that Chicago grads are just not good enough.

But before going there we ought to see the numbers for Chicago applicants. If rates of acceptance are proportional as between Chicago and the peer schools, then I see two necessary conclusions to be drawn, one for each of us: (a) I will be forced to curb my paranoia with respect to the ivy thumb and prestige-mongering, and (b) you will have to admit that Chicago kids don’t have the same infatuation with those places you do. Until then I maintain my position that a lust to work for or get into these institutions isn’t part of the Chicago gestalt. Some want to do it, but fewer than their peers at the ivies. You are never willing to consider that possibility, perhaps because you can’t imagine any kid thinking that way. If you did, you might, as @FStratford says, have to revise your frequent and dogmatic announcements of the end of Chicago exceptionalism.

I despair of ever getting you to accept a distinction between substance and accident. I’ll try one more time: A pleasant nurturing unstressful experience at school is not what being there is all about. It is an adjunct to an education, not an education. The former is more necessary for some kids than for others. That’s fine in my book. But it’s not what matters and not what lasts the test of time.

185

@marlowe1 - for law at least, we actually have some decent data. See here:
https://issuu.com/accessgroup10/docs/law_school_applicants_by_degrees_pe

Per the ABA, law school is a fairly popular option for Chicago grads - it’s in the top 10, per capita.

Also, per the ABA, here’s the avg GPA and LSATs for the top feeder colleges:
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/May2018CouncilOpenSession/18_may_2015_2017_top_240_feeder_schools_for_aba_applicants.authcheckdam.pdf

As seen there, it looks like a fairly talented set of Chicago undergrads apply to law school (the avg. LSAT score is 166 within this group - quite high). Also, about 150 Chicago undergrads apply to law school, similar in number to Brown, Columbia, Princeton, Duke, but less (by about 30-40%) than Harvard and Yale. (As an aside, note how anemic the Stanford numbers are - only about 100 from S apply to law school.)

The Chicago students are leading the pack in terms of LSAT score (avg. about 166 - right near Princeton), as we’d expect, given the talent (and exam proficiency) of incoming students. It really does look like a talented and capable Chicago cohort apply to law school.

The discrepancy between Chicago and it’s tippy top peers, however, appears to be in GPA. The avg. Harvard GPA is 3.7, Yale about 3.75, Brown 3.75, Stanford 3.7. Meanwhile, Chicago is around 3.58.

Again, per the LSAT indicator, Chicago is getting a strong group applying to law school - it’s avg. LSAT is above Stanford’s, and Brown’s, meaning the inputs Chicago is getting can achieve some stratospheric scores. It’s not like only the weak Chicago students are applying to law school. It’s what we’d expect, given the inputs.

Again, Chicago’s performance here is good, but we have near-market leading LSAT scores coupled with “meh” GPAs (for its peer group). Contrast that to Harvard or Yale, who have market-leading LSAT scores AND top GPAs.

This isn’t a surprise, a Chicago education can beat you up more than Yale or Brown. But, that has consequences.

186
  • Not so sure about that last one, Cue. UChicago - intellectually - is quite a demanding workout that requires a lot of dedication and focus. What it is NOT is an experience deprived of the basic comforts that top-ranked 21st century students and their families have come to expect - and, really, that even mid-20th-century students were expecting (given the back and forth debate among the leadership on this issue). Even non-university communities (neighborhood, workplace, etc.) now offer gyms, decent eating, and lots of counseling.
  • Love that article! It's very good. But as Boyer said, they didn't tamper with the core of what they do. That's why the school hasn't changed in the essentials which has been my point. It's the essentials that matter to me and my family.
  • In order to truly change an institution, you have to change its identity and mission. As @surelyhuman indicates, for UChicago that would involve watering down the curriculum and making it less rigorous so that everyone gets A's in order to compete better with Harvard for top slots in banking and consulting. If UChicago now exists primarily in order to launch its graduates into the positions of power and privilege, then I'd have to agree with you. But it doesn't. And while no doubt there are some who view the education there as a stepping-stone to such a life, by and large the students I've noticed (not just my own kids) don't seem to make that their primary reason for applying.
187
  • There are a couple ways to look at this. The admit rate was pretty "unselective" back in 1990. We can look today at other schools for some insight. I can think of a few and my college senior happens to be at one - a BFA program where the amount of work outside the classroom is 3X the amount inside. And her school, oddly enough, resembles UC in several other ways, including requiring a foundation year similar in intensity to the UC Core Curriculum, requiring a third of your credits be taken in liberal ed, and using the faster-paced quarter system. Unlike UC, they exist primarily in order to get their graduates top jobs (it's a professional degree program). The school is awash in resources, IMO. Academic and professional advising seem to be excellent, EC's, professional development and internships a-plenty, and they are ranked high if not #1 in practically every field they compete in athletically (not a wide set there - it's an art school - but they do tend to dominate their conference or division or whatever it's called). Shiny new freshman dorms that surround a fitness center and pool. Her major is particularly competitive and "weedy." The admit rate is quite high as many "self-select" into the school, and SAT scores are well below more selective programs like Pratt and RISD. (NB: SAT/ACT scores do, in fact, matter in art school as they are highly correlated with all those attributes prized in undergraduate programs everywhere.) The attrition rate is fairly high - about a third of matriculants overall - and a good portion of that happens after freshman year when it's obvious that the place is not a good fit. The lesson is clear: in a tough curriculum environment, selectivity matters a lot more than available resources.
  • Conversely, had the student body in 1990 been selected from a significantly larger pool with an admit rate similar to other top schools in the day, you'd have seen different retention and graduation rates.

Edit to add: “Pain and suffering” are no stranger to art college :wink:

188

As a small point here: Yale Law School is not admitting students based on their undergraduate GPAs. Admission there is incredibly competitive, and the people admitted may well be the kind of people with high undergraduate GPAs, but they are not being admitted largely based on that, with or without LSATs.

Way back when, the class that would have been my class at Yale Law School had I gone there may have had lots of Yalies in it, but only a handful of them were coming straight from college. They were Rhodes and Marshall Scholars, PhDs and ABDs, people who had done substantial things.

Harvard Law School, which is about four times as large, may be different.

189

Or, looked at another way, it’s possible that Chicago just hasn’t inflated grades as fast as H & Y & Stanford/Pomona/Brown (due to the latter’s unique course system). LS admission is first and foremost about two numbers, and a lower average GPA is gonna hurt many more. So perhaps its not the education beating people up per se, but the same education work effort that yields low A- at Yale College earns a high B+ at UChicago.

Top Grad schools don’t care about such marginal differences. Professional schools do (as it impacts their rankings).

190

^ How odd that @Cue7 is worried about grade deflation. A few months ago he was worried that the new Dean’s List and Latin Honors system would cause grades to go sky-high.

191

That chart doesn’t tell us how many of those Chicago undergrads applied to the elite law schools. I don’t think we can assume the same distribution for them as for HYSP undergrads, in part because these elite law schools are coastal both geographically and perhaps culturally (except for Chicago Law itself) and in part because the prestige factor may not be the same motivator for Chicago undergrads. These are just surmises, we don’t have that information. But let’s suppose there’s some level of under-representation of Chicago at the top schools. Do you attribute this entirely to the lower gpa? That seems implausible, given that these elite law schools will know the spreads in gpa among the major colleges. They are capable of taking account of this if they want to. Perhaps they don’t - perhaps the Yale Dean’s gaffe gives the game away.

But l have a more impressionistic thought about this, based on the one quintessential aspiring lawyer I ever knew at Chicago. Call him J. He was a very uncharacteristic Chicago student in many ways: one of them was his fixation from day one on becoming a lawyer and his lack of interest in almost everything academic that could not get him in to law school, and not just any school but an elite school in the east, preferably HLS (he was from Boston). His lack of interest in his studies had led to his flunking out at the end of his first year. However, he managed to come back to Chicago after time in the penalty box at B.U. And the second time around he refined his strategy: he would do as little course-work as possible (work he generally despised) consistent with getting good marks. On one occasion he pulled this off as follows: Having done none of the readings and not having gone to class even once, he prepared himself for the final exam (in Soc II) by going for instruction to M., a guy intending to concentrate in sociology and who had read everything and attended all the classes. Together they pulled an all-nighter: M. stuffed J. bit by bit with knowledge. The next morning J., running on pure adrenalin, threw Hail Mary pass after pass, scribbling manically in his blue books. He got an A in that course. That was the more impressive because M., his faithful pedagogue and the true scholar and hero of this piece, was perhaps just a bit too clogged with real knowledge to be able to get it out in entirely cogent form in the course of an exam. He ended up with a B-plus!

Life ain’t fair, but that’s not my point: though J. was brilliant he was not the U of C type. He may have been the lawtype, however, and he did get himself to an elite law school - Penn, not Harvard. There he flourished, had a very good career in the law thereafter (including teaching as an adjunct at Harvard Law!) and has recently retired. M., the true Chicago type, must have gone on to a good life as well, but it was not to be in the law. The lawtype just might not naturally meld with the Chicago type.

192

@bluebayou - exactly. Which is why Chicago excels at PhD placement, and is middle-of-the-road with law school placement. Whereas the inputs at Yale, Princeton, Chicago are extremely similar, it appears similar work product yields (slightly less) high grades at Chicago. As you put it, it could be an A- vs. a B+. In the razor-thin margin world of elite professional school admissions, that makes a difference.

Put another way, if Chicago kept its LSAT avg, and the GPA went up to 3.75 (like Harvard or Brown), it’d enjoy markedly more success with law school placement. BUT - and this is important - there is something to “earning” that B+, as Marlowe would contend. It’s an important life lesson - one that few elite schools teach any more. Alas, it also has tradeoffs.

@MohnGedachtnis - yes, a high GPA and LSAT may just be a floor at Yale Law School. Unfortunately, the other metrics Yale likes (Rhodes and Marshall Scholars, for instance), aren’t produced in spades at Chicago. If only they valued quiz bowl champions as highly!

https://bowl.uchicago.edu/ (Chicago literally has the best quiz bowl team in the world. Unfortunately, Yale Law or McKinsey value olympians and Rhodes Scholars more.)

Again, this is simply an assessment of what elite prof schools and employers value. If they valued what PhD programs do, the placement would look very different.

(This was even true in my day, btw. Everyone - literally everyone - I knew going to a PhD program went to an elite program - Princeton, Stanford, Berkeley, Columbia, MIT, etc. But professional schools looked for different things.)

@JBStillFlying - what a fascinating perspective! I don’t mean to pry, but since I know nothing about BFA programs, how the heck does a BFA program with a 1/3 dropout rate stay afloat? Doesn’t it get killed in the rankings, and by its competitors?

193

Sure, there are some geographic preferences*. Stanford/Berkeley for those that want to be in the west, UTexas for those who could never leave…but Yale Law is special. If you get into Yale, you go (highest yield by far), unless, which is highly likely, you receive a full ride offer from one of T4-10. For example, for YLS numbers, Chicago Law offers a Ruby, Columbia Law offers a Hamilton, NYU has… All law schools other than HYS offer merit aid, while HYS offers only need-based aid. (Obviously, another reason to reject Yale is one has an SO who can’t move to New Haven for 3 years.)

But assuming prelaw students at Chicago would choose to ignore YLS if they had the numbers just defies logic. (Don’t forget that Chicago does have a lot of east coast students.)

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/the-short-list-grad-school/articles/2017-03-28/10-law-schools-where-the-most-accepted-students-enroll

https://www.law.uchicago.edu/financialaid/scholarships

*also true of Med schools, which is why I’m not as persuaded by Cue’s numbers about Chicago students at WashU Med. UChicago College receives a lot of students from all over the country, and in many cases, the instate med school is a whole lot cheaper than WashU. And unless one wants to go into research, a top tier med school is not necessary.

194

@Cue7 at #191 it’s ok to go off-topic a bit but if you have any follow up questions just PM me directly. Even the nationally-known schools of art and design can look pretty unstable compared to “regular college,” to say nothing about parental worries about lack of employability or some of the stuff portrayed in the hilarious “Art School Confidential.”

The school I referenced upthread has a reported transfer-out rate that is twice RISD’s (RISD is considered the “gold standard” and is the most selective). However, all the nationally-known schools (including this one) tend to have pretty high placement stats, regardless of attrition rates. Reputation and quality of the portfolio will speak for themselves.

For rankings, YMMV by specialty field. For instance, in my daughter’s major her school is currently ranked well within the top five but has also been out of the top five before. Rankings go up and down and these schools play to the rankings no differently from regular ol’ college :wink:

You’d probably be shocked to find that these places give merit as well! (well, RISD less than the others). Those who are given merit needn’t worry about high attrition rates because the school thinks they have what it takes to make it through.

195

The Dean of the Business School has announced he wants to increase the number of UChicago undergrads at Booth. He pointed out that at Stanford, where he used to teach, 20% of the Stanford GSB students went to Stanford undergrad, and he wants to see the same thing at Booth.

These numbers have been rising anyway with the increase In the size of the College and increased selectivity, but this will accelerate that. It goes beyond the Trott program and Business Econ.

The Business School announced the Chicago Business Scholars program allowing undergrads to start their MBA while undergrads and then continue at Booth after working one or two years:

https://www.chicagobooth.edu/mba/early-career-programs/chicago-booth-scholars/accelerated-mba?sc_lang=en

Similarly the Law School has announced special programs just to ensnare UChicago undergrads. These days UChicago is the top feeder school for the Law School.

Yes, UChicago is top ten in billionaires–perhaps more because of Booth than the College. This is because in the past, College students were less interested in business. These days the College is doing very well in Econ and Finance placements on Wall Street and elsewhere, and over time the number of wealthy undergraduate alums will rise.

196

@JBStillFlying - so in all the data I can see, Chicago is “middle-of-the-road” in its peer group for elite prof school/employer placement. This probably comes down to grade deflation and student choice (Chicago students may be more apt to try harder classes). This is also because of the high bars set at top schools/employers. There just aren’t that many 4.0s walking around Chicago, and Yale Law or McKinsey go elsewhere to meet their needs.

Note also, per all the research I’ve done, Chicago places… fine. Nothing to write home about - fine.

I go back and forth on whether Chicago should grade inflate, to the extent its peers do. At times, like you, I decry the thought of it b/c it’s a distinctive part of a Chicago education to be hard. On the other hand, just as Chicago students pursue elite PhD options, I don’t think their ambitions are that different from their peers on the law/med/biz side. And grade inflation there definitely helps.

From everything I can see, no elite exit option disses Chicago - but it seems like there are just fewer 4.0 types at Chicago.

@CrescatScientia - Chicago is #2 in incoming class talent input, but I’m not holding my breath to see if it’ll overtake Harvard or Yale in outputs at places like McKinsey or Yale Law. Again, Chicago’s educational system is not built to produce as many mini-McKinseyites. The numbers will improve, as they have over the past decade, but I’m not expecting a tidal wave any time soon. McKinsey and Yale Law ain’t growing, and they ain’t hurting for exceptional applicants.

Honestly, what are people expecting here? That in 5 years we’ll be sending 20 students a year to Yale Law and HBS will be banging on our door?

@marlowe1 - I’m thoroughly unconvinced that Chicago undergrads are seeking different types of law school options (read: more regional schools, more aid at lower ranked schools) than their peers. The avg. GPA and LSAT data we have show that Chicago should place in the middle of its peer group, and that’s exactly what it does. It’s placement numbers are as you’d expect at Yale Law, Chicago Law, Michigan Law (and probably elsewhere).

Chicago students seek top options for grad placement (PhD programs, masters programs, etc.), so I have no idea why they’d be different on the law/biz/med side. Especially as the class is less regional (and more coastal) than ever before, your explanation seems unlikely.

As I said above, Chicago’s PhD placement is market-leading in the peer group, and it’s prof school/employer placement seems to be middle-of-the-road for the peer group.

197

You may find it hard to believe, Cue, but not every kid who comes to the great university of the Midwest lusts after the elite schools of the coasts. All those Texas kids? I doubt it. The kids from the small towns of the hinterland? Some but not all. You’re an eastern guy, so you can’t understand that, but try to think a bit outside your bubble of eastern dominance and prestige.

198

But @marlowe1 - why do our exiting phd types then lust after schools on the coasts?

On the phd front, all of my peers went to the “best” programs, which generally happened to be on the coasts. But it didn’t really matter where the programs were - my peers were attracted to the “best” ones. I think this is the same now. Why would the pre law types be any different than the pre phds?

199

@marlowe1 - while my memory is hazy, here are where the pre-PhDs (from non-coastal areas) I can recollect in my circle went, after Chicago:

  • 2 midwesterners from Michigan went to Berkeley (for anthropology)
  • A girl from Indiana went to Columbia (for history)
  • A guy from rural Illinois went to Princeton (for compsci, actually)
  • A texan (yes, a texan!) went to MIT for physics
  • A Missourian (sp?) went to Stanford (for history)

The pre-PhDs typically gravitated to the best programs, no matter where they were.

Again, my memory is hazy, but virtually everyone I knew who sought a PhD went off to premier programs. I remember thinking that it seemed like PhD programs coveted (and perhaps even had a bias for) Chicago grads.

It was not like that on the law and medicine front.

200

I dunno, Cue, I love easterners, but not everyone wants to be one. I knew plenty of hinterlanders in my day at Chicago who were not interested in living on either of the coasts. Yes, work and love can take one anywhere, but why is it so hard for easterners to imagine that a smart person could want to live in any region than their own? The famous Saul Steinberg cartoon perhaps tells us.