<p>@Igor: I used to think exactly as you did and lambast the admissions for all this pandering, that they’re becoming more “mainstream”, alteast admissions wise. And yes, through their marketing them “seem” to have.
…BUT, once they admit students, the process becomes self selective. UChicago will ultimately attract the typical student body, irrespective of anything else. I know people who are amazing fits for UChicago (you know, quirky, intellectual etc.) who have turned down Stanford to attend, and I know people who aren’t that good fits for UChicago, who are more lets say “mainstream” (and all of the others things you’ve described) who have turned down UChicago for UToronto. In this respect, Columbia is a genius… their student body too has a particular personality to it, which may sway off potential applicants, but they don’t advertise openly to everyone, only to the accepted student body, which makes it again self selective. Win-win situation. UChicago is now simply using a much smarter admissions model… that’s all.
…On the point of the administration “dumbing everything down” to attract more students: 1) They’ll lose more students than gain; UChicago fills a particular niche that is absent in large universities (but present in LACs like Swarthmore). 2) You don’t have to, look at how frikkin popular Columbia is! Some 7% acceptance rate! They haven’t resorted to any such means have they?</p>
<p>@Calvin: Actually, UChicago does admit quite a few of those students. It’s very easy to show you’re a typical UChicago student on an application, and be the opposite IRL. Frankly speaking, from what i’ve noticed, it’s one of the easiet applications to ‘crack’. However, like I said before, those people who do “seep through the cracks” are much more likely to not end up attending the university. </p>
<p>Btw, i’m a 15’er. [Got in EA, committed. It was my co-first choice, the other one (Swarthmore) rejected me and made things simple :)]</p>