<p>Uchicago was 18.4% last year and 15.83% this year so it is almost a negligible difference between the two right now.</p>
<p>3% is not ânegligibleâ when it comes to the number of students rejected. That difference will only become larger and larger since applications to UChicago have jumped so much and show no sign of slowing down. Therefore, Northwestern is easier to get into.</p>
<p>Itâs not 3% but barely above 2% (2.17) and NUâs acceptances have been going steadily down as well (over 8% the last 3 years). I think each one is equally difficult and unlike you have no skin in the game.</p>
<p>1) Northwestern is a larger school than Chicago. It is only fair to compare the number of applicants accepted or rejected based on percentages. If you want to look at the number of students rejected, it will only make Northwestern look harder to get into, which clearly isnât your agenda.
2) It very revealing that you donât feel that a 3% difference is a negligible number, yet you are comfortable rounding the actual difference of 2.57% up to 3%.</p>
<p>Based other negative comments that you have made, others have questioned whether you were really admitted to NU or intend to enroll. I donât know the answer, but on the chance that you arenât just â â â â â â â â and really will be attending, your negative attitude wonât serve you well. Unlike you, students who actually attend NU by and large love it. However, it is possible to have a miserable time anywhere. If you in fact attend and continue to put a negative slant on everything, it will be a self-fullfilling prophesy.</p>
<p>@averby wrote:
ââŠsince applications to UChicago have jumped so much and show no sign of slowing downâŠâ</p>
<p>One piece of the argument is missing here: UChicago has an Early Action admissions policy whereas Northwestern does not. At my daughterâs high school, a lot of students applied to UChicago early because they knew that the decision was not binding if they got accepted. The only students who applied to Northwestern early were ones that knew they absolutely wanted to go there. UChicago got to reject more applicants that way. It would be interesting to see what the admissions rate is if you take early decisions out of the equation. Harvard and Princeton have both re-instated their Early Action programs, which they abandoned after the class of 2011. It will be interesting to see if this has an effect on the rise of EA applicants to UChicago.</p>
<p>It doesnât really matter, though, which one is harder to get into when the profile of the accepted students is so similar academically. It seems to me that the student bodies are different because the schools have different temperaments. From what I understand, UChicago is more cerebral and Northwestern is more action oriented. My daughter goes to Northwestern and did not apply to UChicago because it didnât have what she wanted. Her best friend goes to UChicago, they both enjoy visiting each otherâs campuses, and they donât spend any time worrying about who goes to the better school. Both schools are amazing institutions of higher education.</p>
<p>Averby, 3% certainly is negligible. Do you respond differently to a 15% chance of rain vs an 18% chance of rain?</p>
<p>I dunno about you Pizzagirl, but I personally bring 3% more umbrella.</p>
<p>I would bring 20% more umbrella if weâre talking relative differences.</p>
<p>Both are incredibly hard to get into, have increasing numbers of applicants, and are incredibly good schools. Chicago is tied with two schools for the US News ranking and NU is #12, thatâs how close they are. And just because you get into/denied by one doesnât mean anything in relation to the other.</p>
<p>^
I think sylbub93 meant to write âChicago is tied with two schools for the US News ranking at #9â. Yeah, then Northwestern is the next on the list. I just looked it up.</p>
<p>I think that the USNWR âselectivityâ index has NU slightly ahead of Chicago, but the difference is meaningless for all practical purposes.</p>
<p>As a Chicago alumnus, allow me to argue for a less safe position.</p>
<p>I think Chicago is a more selective institution than Northwestern, and I think the difference is significant.</p>
<p>As we have seen, Chicagoâs acceptance is 15%, compared to NUâs 18%. I think this is an insignificant difference. But acceptance rate is not the only measure of an institutionâs selectivity - one must only look at US Newsâ surprising list of schools with the smallest acceptance rates (in which many unknown and un-prestigious colleges make an appearance) to understand this.</p>
<p>The difference lies in the quality of admitted students. Alice Lloyd College might have had a lower acceptance rate than Columbia as of last year, but SAT scores indicate that the admitted students of the former college quite obviously do not measure up to those of the latter. So even with a lower acceptance rate, Columbia is the more selective university. I think a less drastic comparison between Chicago and NU proves that Chicago is the more selective university.</p>
<p>Let us first compare SAT scores.</p>
<p>Chicago:
SAT CR: 700-780
SAT M: 700-780</p>
<p>Northwestern:
SAT CR: 660-740
SAT M: 680-770</p>
<p>Chicago has a full 40 points up on Northwestern on CR, and 20 points up on Northwestern on M. This is approximately the difference between the SAT scores of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania. Both are extremely selective, true; but one is significantly more selective than the other.</p>
<p>My argument doesnât just apply to SAT scores, though. In the past few years, Northwestern has been increasingly rigging its admissions to reflect a lower admissions rate by admitting more students ED. NU is now accepting hundreds more students ED each year that goes by, forcing its admit rate down artificially. In contrast, Chicago has been lowering its admit rate by attracting more applicants. In terms of admitting higher quality students, this latter approach by Chicago is the more sound.</p>
<p>What is extremely telling, in my opinion, is how the two institutionsâ SAT scores have been changing as their admit rates have been decreasing. If one takes the last year, for instance, Chicagoâs SAT scores went considerably up (demonstrating an increase in student quality), while Northwesternâs went considerably down (here are last yearâs scores for NU: [Northwestern</a> University Profile - SAT Scores and Admissions Data for Northwestern University](<a href=âhttp://collegeapps.about.com/od/collegeprofiles/p/Northwestern_pf.htm]Northwesternâ>Northwestern University: Acceptance Rate, SAT/ACT Scores)). I think this makes it clear that NU is not attracting quality students with its new policies of admitting more students ED: they are just artificially lowering the admissions rate, even at the cost of lowering student quality. I think this is a sad state of affairs for NU, one that I wonât deeply criticize as a U of C graduate, but one that I think NU alumni need to rigorously examine and criticize.</p>
<p>When I applied to Chicago four and a half years ago, NUâs SATs were much higher than Chicagoâs. Now, over just a few years, Chicagoâs rises and Northwesternâs decreases have made a reverse situation wherein Chicagoâs SATs (and percentage of class that are top 10% in their high schools) are considerably higher. Time will tell how this trend changes in the future and if NU picks itself up. For the moment, however, I am convinced that Chicago has become a more selective institution than Northwestern, and I am convinced that this trend of institutional separation will continue in the coming years.</p>
<p>Obviously, Iâm in the NU forum, so Iâll probably be criticized. But I think the points I have made are fair enough, and ones that external observers would agree with. I hope my assessment is taken as a necessary and important criticism of the NU admissions process, and not one that is simply understood as an us vs. them mentality.</p>
<p>Interesting post.</p>
<p>Iâm not sure that I agree with all the facts â for example, NU has been reporting a large increase in overall applicants (as has Chicago). Also, for at least the last two years, NU has had its freshman class over subscribed â suggesting that they could have a lower admit rate still.</p>
<p>However, to the point â Weâre arguing about selectivity, but I donât think that we even know what the term means (at least when considering schools whose statistics are relatively close).</p>
<p>We really donât know what the admissions criteria for these schools are. For example, how important is the weighting of SAT/ACT scores for each school. How important are other factors â ECs, Essays, Recomendations, etc.</p>
<p>If a school (and Iâm not suggesting that either NU or UC do this) admitted exclusively on metrics such as Class Rank and SATs, relatively speaking, its enrolled students will be higher in these metrics. If a school takes a more holistic approach it will have relatively lower Class Rank/SATs, and we will see more and more cases where âthe Valedictorian gets rejected while students with lesser stats get acceptedâ. This is a common complaint on the NU boards.</p>
<p>So, which school is more selective the one that admits on a statistical model, or the one that admits a holistic model? Even if two schools are close, are they generally looking for the same things in a student As there is a perceived difference in the typical UC student and the typical NU student, judging relative selectivity of the institutions is difficult.</p>
<p>All of this says little about UC and NU, since none of us have any idea as to what goes on in the admissions rooms, or what the real criteria are of each. </p>
<p>We do know that they are relatively close in statistics. We also know that each has had a large increase in apps over the past several years, which probably has more to do with the Common App (a real paradigm shift) than the merits of either school. We also see that at many schools either over-enrolling or under-enrolling based on RD acceptances, which suggests that the admissions offices are struggling with the new paradigm.</p>
<p>Each year, there are a number of students who are accepted at UC and rejected by NU. Likewise, there are a number who are accepted by NU and rejected by UC. We could make an argument for selectivity if we knew the numbers in each category (though even that wouldnât be definitive).</p>
<p>Overall, I feel that the schools are close enough that the question canât be definitively answered. If a student more closely fits the NU student profile, I suspect that itâs easier to gain admittance than to UC. If a student more closely fits the UC profile the reverse would be true. (This is a good thing, btw.)</p>
<p>Further â though I suppose there is some amusement ivalue in reading (and responding to a thread such as this), other than for 'bragging rights, itâs a rather silly question isnât it? </p>
<p>Given the academic excellence of each school, even if we had an answer, Iâm not sure that I see how it would make a difference to a student in either deciding whether to apply, or to attend.</p>
<p>phuriku-
NUâs ED admit rate is not unusually high; in fact, itâs pretty standard at 35%. THatâs comparable to (or lower than) Amherst (32.5%), Duke (38%), Middlebury (38%), and significantly lower than Penn (49%), Columbia (45%), Dartmouth (40%), Haverford (40%), Johns Hopkins (42%), and Williams (42%). It would seem that it is this latter group that is ârigging [their] admissions to reflect a lower admission rate.â
Moreover, contrary to your suggestion, NUâs applicant pool has grown enormously over the last few years - in both number and the quality of the applicants, so your suggestion that the reason for Chicagoâs increase in âselectivityâ (i.e., drop in percent admitted) is somehow more reflective of true quality than NUâs is probably incorrect.</p>
<p>A few thoughts.</p>
<p>Comparing selectivity is really only relevant if someone is applying to both schools. Of all the people we know who applied to NU, none applied to University of Chicago as it doesnât offer the programs or environment they we looking for.</p>
<p>Also, U Chicago is significantly smaller than NU. In comparing schools on College Board we noticed smaller schools always admit a smaller % of applicants than larger schools with equivalent stats, which makes perfect sense if you assume there are a finite # of qualified students who might apply to any school. The fact is that NU rejects more students every year than U Chicago⊠and also accepts more.</p>
<p>Both are great schools, and those of you who are from the area should be thrilled to live near such strong school choices!</p>
<p>I was the only one from my school to be accepted to Northwestern - I believe 15 people applied. I was also accepted to Chicago and happily so, but I chose NU. 3 people were accepted to Chicago (including myself), and I was the only one who was admitted into NU. With schools so similar in quality, who can judge which is more selective? My anecdote aside, Iâm sure there are others to corroborate and others that veer in the opposite direction. To say that one is a clear cut tougher school to get into is being ignorant to the fact that there is no formula for acceptance to either school. I wouldnât say one is harder to get into than the other - Iâd say that one is different to get into than the other.</p>
<p>Lower scores trending with lower acceptance rates imply to me that NU is just using s more holistic approach to admissions whereas UC is utilizing a more linear model with numbers. It would make sense since the respective business schools are known for doing the same (Kellogg requiring face to face interviews as a key component to admissions whereas Booth boasts some of the highest admit criterion of all b-schools). </p>
<p>And I tend to agree that a lot of people who apply to one donât really apply to the otherâas long as they did their research on the environment surrounding their education. What draws people to NU is not necessarily the same as what draws people to UC. I didnât apply to UC (though Iâm going to be taking some classes their as a traveling doctoral scholar) because of its reputation for being so cerebral, both in the undergraduate and graduate levels. I had a chance to visit each schoolâs marketing department and the differences were obvious. I much enjoyed NUâs academic environment and could see myself being happier and subsequently more productive there for the next 5 years. </p>
<p>Anyway, NU isnât my alma mater, so I couldnât care less where it stands in undergraduate rankings. This, to me, is just a matter of perspective taken at what makes a âcompetitive applicantâ competitive.</p>
<p>Number of Rhodes Scholars from the Top Schools since 2000:</p>
<p>Harvard 38
Yale 26
Stanford 18
UChicago 15
Princeton 15
MIT 11
Duke 10
Columbia 7
Brown 7
Dartmouth 5
Cornell 3
Northwestern 3
Penn 2
Berkeley 2
Caltech 2</p>
<p>^ </p>
<p>End of discussion right there. Those stats found a way to answer everythingâŠ</p>
<p>U of Chicago definitely.</p>