Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.

Just in : UChicago acceptance rate for class of 2022


Replies to: Just in : UChicago acceptance rate for class of 2022

  • JBStillFlyingJBStillFlying Registered User Posts: 4,972 Senior Member
    edited March 16
    "What your analysis does not do and where it gets its erroneous conclusion is that it does not recognize the fact that number of international admits is pretty much fixed, so even though they drive down the overall acceptance rate and the acceptance rate for internationals, they do not have an effect on the acceptance rate of domestic applicants. It is a totally separate pool. (This also works somewhat on a country by country basis... where there is an informal quota for China, India, etc)"

    "I think @FStratford is right that the number of international slots is determined by university policy, not the admissions office, and that international applicants are not really competing against domestic applicants. The 8.5% international representation at Caltech seems to confirm that -- it's the one metric at Caltech that's completely in line with what happens at its holistic-admissions peers."

    Yes, I've heard the same regarding what part of a university sets the policy for admission of internationals and they are separate pools. Also, the number of slots are variable in the long run (or, perhaps, the not-so-long run for those universities that "happily" oversubscribe each year) - as universities have increased the number of international applicants, they've also made more slots available overall (generally - ymmv depending on the school). But technically speaking, the fewer slots available for internationals, the more slots available for US residents and vice versa. So saying there's no competition isn't quite accurate. The university might also have a commitment to double the number of Questbridge admits - those kids aren't competing against the majority regular-pay kids (because the latter aren't Questbridge) but that does mean fewer slots for the regular pay in the short run.

    It's important to understand the big picture in all of this admissions stuff - what's happening over time, what's happening globally, etc. - before we start worrying about one group or another pushing us or our kids out of the running. Barring a violation of US discrimination laws, universities here can pretty much admit whoever they please (state flagships will have additional restrictions favoring their state residents, of course). When it comes to internationals, most universities in the US are balancing the perceived need for diversity with that of money - that's the main competition on the teeter-totter.
  • FStratfordFStratford Registered User Posts: 411 Member
    edited March 16
    Here's some facts:

    Harvard College

    Students (All Years) 6,700
    Domestic Students (All Years) 5,946
    International (All Years) 754 11.3%
    China (All Years) 63 0.9%
    India (All Years) 22 0.3%
    UK (All Years) 83 1.2%
    Germany (All Years) 26 0.4%

    Using the latest stats as proxy for all four years

    Acceptance Rate (Class of 2021) 5.2%
    Yield (Class of 2021) 82.80%
    Implied Accepted(All Years) 8,092
    Implied Applications(All Years) 155,611

    Adjusted Acceptance Rate with 0 Internationals accepted 5.9%
    (Conservatively assuming current yield and acceptance rate of Internationals are not differentiated from Domestic applicants and no change in Yield for Domestic Applicants.)

    In this rough estimate, removing all International students only improves acceptance rate by 0.7%. While it would definitely help 189 kids per year, this solution does not eliminate the problem that domestic applicants may be emotionally and psychologically bruised by the application process. 5.9% acceptance rate is still pretty horrible to >35k+ Domestic applicants each year.

    Now the opinion:

    Based on the enrollment numbers above, one can say that there is already a preference for European Internationals over Asian Internationals, if you consider the number of applicants from these representative countries (or the proxies of total population or high school aged population). International intake is not making Harvard more Asian.

    Now as to the implied action that college acceptance of second generation Asians - who are Americans - should also suppressed, that is also already happening - hence the lawsuit against Harvard. (And somehow supported by how CalTech and Berkeley's student demographics are.)

    So really, how much more should anyone in their right mind advocate for preferential treatment of ethnic Europeans over ethnic Asians, both domestic and international, so that we can feel like we will have a "less competitive" and "more European" college demographic?

    His analysis is severely flawed, and hence his proposed cure will not work. (Not to mention the many negative externalities it will cause)

    This leads me to believe that he is blaming internationals for the recent phenomenon of steep reductions in acceptance rate at all top schools, not because he is an "MIT" grad who did an unbiased analysis - but precisely because he has a bias that he wanted to confirm by ignoring the numbers. (I'm surprised how shallow a supposed MIT grad does his analysis.)


  • PurpleTitanPurpleTitan Registered User Posts: 11,755 Senior Member
    edited March 16
    Y'all would be interested to know (or already do) that 100 years ago, upper-class (racist anti-Semitic) WASPs were horrified by what an influx of Jews was doing to the composition and culture of their beloved Ivies. They felt strongly that Jews had certain characteristics (Google up some historical stereotypes if you are interested) and they were not fans, let's just say. So they instituted the Jewish quota*.

    *They also developed the SAT in an attempt to keep out Jews but that didn't achieve their objective so well so then they switched to using holistic admissions so that they could discriminate, to put it baldly; then they just put in a quota on Jews (also southern European Catholics and other folks deemed undesirable).

    The more things change. . . .
  • bronze2bronze2 Registered User Posts: 137 Junior Member
    International students...

    I re-read a story of an English woman attending Harvard back in 2000 (it was newsworthy in England), and I imagine she is typical of the very well-qualified students who are admitted - and this is confirmed by what she has since done, although just a sample of one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Spence_Affair I mention this because the quote here is notable.

    'Spence completed her studies at Harvard in 2004, and planned to return to the UK to pursue a medical career. She also encouraged more British students to study in the US, citing the "broader, more balanced curriculum" of a liberal arts education and the availability of scholarships and need-based financial aid..'

    What is unique about American universities is not just the liberal arts (e.g., not having to declare a major until the end of sophomore year) but the focus on so many other things - athletics, facilities, aid, student health and support, diversity and inclusion, extracurricular opportunities - made possible by an explicit mission / focus, and by huge endowments (even lesser endowed schools have tens and hundreds of millions). By athletics, I mean how many universities in the world can boast of programs, coaches and stadiums like American universities have, the institutional pride and attachment to their teams, and the games being broadcast nationwide?

    I was not an undergraduate here in the US. I got a fine education in England, but it was an academic education, with much less of the other things. My children attended school and colleges here and I see a huge contrast in our experiences. Many students may well be very satisfied with the universities in England, Germany, China, Korea, Russia, India or Taiwan - they all have excellent academic institutions - but as an undergraduate experience beyond academics, American universities offer something unique and worthwhile to the world. And we should welcome that, and welcome the 10-20% of foreign students who enroll here.
  • JBStillFlyingJBStillFlying Registered User Posts: 4,972 Senior Member
    @PurpleTitan at #93 - Yep. And UChicago bucked the trend - it admitted both Jews and women from the beginning.
  • FStratfordFStratford Registered User Posts: 411 Member
    edited March 17
    @bronze2 you hit on one positive externality that internationals bring to the US - there is a likelihood that we would not have "All-American" science/tech companies like Intel (Andy Groff/Grove, Berkeley undergrad) or Google (Sergei Brin, Maryland undergrad) and Facebook (Eduardo Saverin, Harvard undergrad) and webmail/Hotmail (Sabir Bhatia, Caltech undergrad) . and many tiny but up and coming messaging tech, gaming tech and finance tech companies without them.

    In theory, we would still get some of these benefits by banning international undergrads and only allowing postgrads, I suppose... but to what end?

    I suppose Stanford and Silicon Valley would have less impact on America, which has its pros and cons... UChicago would be higher in the college rankings, for one... but that is not reason enough for me, personally.

    In many ways, I like that 10% of my classmates were internationals, it gave me that extra push to prove that Americans are better (cant help it, love the US - we're number 1, dang it!).

    I think that domestic UChicago students, even if they do not consciously do so, get better in school because of the extra competition brought on by the highly selective international admissions process.
  • SuperpulsarSuperpulsar Registered User Posts: 11 New Member
    Does anybody actually have a link/source for the stats?
  • FStratfordFStratford Registered User Posts: 411 Member
    @Superpulsar No it is unofficial. Just a whispered number.

  • f77a9b82f77a9b82 Registered User Posts: 60 Junior Member
    Hi - I went to an admitted students reception this past weekend. The transcript of Nondorf's remarks are included in my comment below:


    In summary, the numbers posted by @Chrchill were confirmed by Nondorf.
  • uocparentuocparent Registered User Posts: 218 Junior Member
    Thanks for the info!
  • JBStillFlyingJBStillFlying Registered User Posts: 4,972 Senior Member
    Yeah, read that transcript. If that wasn't Nondorf, I'll eat my shoe. Yield will be finalized after Summer Melt but so far nothing to revise a 75% or so prediction. Well done, UChicago!
  • ChrchillChrchill Registered User Posts: 1,024 Senior Member
    In summa; All the naysayers predicting chaos and disaster were wrong. Looks like NOndorf and co. know what they are doing,
  • bookworm130bookworm130 Registered User Posts: 5 New Member
    edited May 4
    My daughter got in as ED December, she was at open house for acceptance students uchicago last month , dean of admission said this year ED was 4% and regular 7% acceptance rate !!!!
  • JBStillFlyingJBStillFlying Registered User Posts: 4,972 Senior Member
    @bookworm130 those accept rates don't make any sense, and Nondorf was definitely recorded as saying that RD applications saw an admit rate of 4%. Do you think that your numbers might be reversed?
  • Isabellla25Isabellla25 Registered User Posts: 26 Junior Member
    What would be an accurate estimate for the acceptance rates for ED1 and ED2?
Sign In or Register to comment.