2019-2020 University of Chicago

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Don’t want to come across as a hater or anything. It seems a lot of high stats got the R. Looked up their MSAR, it looks like they almost lose all their top high stats admit...
 
Don’t want to come across as a hater or anything. It seems a lot of high stats got the R. Looked up their MSAR, it looks like they almost lose all their top high stats admit...
I am a high stats and got an II back in first week of July...I wonder what exactly they are looking for?
 
But I have been working with African American LGBT individuals for over a decade at the ACLU for their HIV treatment...
Maybe they like great applicants who are not TOO great. Like, people who are likely to get an acceptance from UChicago but not from Harvard, thus they are more likely to go to UChicago.
 
Maybe they like great applicants who are not TOO great. Like, people who are likely to get an acceptance from UChicago but not from Harvard, thus they are more likely to go to UChicago.

I mean, location-wise, Chicago really isn’t high on my list, given that I live in New York. So it’s ok. I don’t have to make a trip. Still I don’t like the R lol
 
Don’t want to come across as a hater or anything. It seems a lot of high stats got the R. Looked up their MSAR, it looks like they almost lose all their top high stats admit...

How can you tell who they lose and what regions they take many people from?
 
Then why the hell they interview you lol!
Literally if you removed the Army from my application, I would have TAing, research, medical lab tech, and peer tutoring. And at that, I wouldn't even have the MLT without the Army...
 
How can you tell who they lose and what regions they take many people from?
Well if you look at their MSAR for accepted vs matriculants, quite dramatic, it looks like the entire top 50 got chopped off. In terms of location, I am only guessing
 
Well if you look at their MSAR for accepted vs matriculants, quite dramatic, it looks like the entire top 50 got chopped off. In terms of location, I am only guessing

This is probably true for many top tier schools. Those applicants have multiple acceptances at similar tier schools.
 
This is probably true for many top tier schools. Those applicants have multiple acceptances at similar tier schools.
Yeah, but pritzker has a very very different look. I am on my phone can’t take a screen shot. But if you have a chance, take a look.
 
Yeah, but pritzker has a very very different look. I am on my phone can’t take a screen shot. But if you have a chance, take a look.
I already did. The leftward skew that tends to happen from accepted students to matriculants is nothing novel.
 
Maybe they like great applicants who are not TOO great. Like, people who are likely to get an acceptance from UChicago but not from Harvard, thus they are more likely to go to UChicago.

I doubt it. I got a II here and virtually every other top school I applied to. I put a ton of work into my secondaries and I think for a school like uchicago that is super important
 
I doubt it. I got a II here and virtually every other top school I applied to. I put a ton of work into my secondaries and I think for a school like uchicago that is super important

Lol yes.... compared to other schools where the secondary is not THAT important I guess :laugh:
 
UChicago has a small af class size so I wouldn't be surprised if that factors into things. They can't take everyone and they also seem to value class cohesion, so they are likely looking at other factors that probably don't seem as obvious to us.
 
I doubt it. I got a II here and virtually every other top school I applied to. I put a ton of work into my secondaries and I think for a school like uchicago that is super important
I put about 45 minutes of work in to this secondary and it was just a mishmash of my different secondaries and surfing their website....

Unless my mishmashing skills are above and beyond, secondary quality hasgot to be not a large component.....Or my half-assing is justpretty good lol
 
I put about 45 minutes of work in to this secondary and it was just a mishmash of my different secondaries and surfing their website....

Unless my mishmashing skills are above and beyond, secondary quality hasgot to be not a large component.....Or my half-assing is justpretty good lol

Most people are not great writers, so as long as you are relatively coherent and thoughtful, I think you're likely ahead of the pack in general, lol.
 
I put about 45 minutes of work in to this secondary and it was just a mishmash of my different secondaries and surfing their website....

Unless my mishmashing skills are above and beyond, secondary quality hasgot to be not a large component.....Or my half-assing is justpretty good lol
Isn't UChicago the school where someone said they wished they could fill the entire class with veterans? For you the secondary may not have mattered, but not all of us here are veterans. 😉
 
Isn't UChicago the school where someone said they wished they could fill the entire class with veterans? For you the secondary may not have mattered, but not all of us here are veterans. 😉
I am technically not a veteran either. The VA considers a veteran anyone who was on Active Duty for longer than 30 days outside of training. All of my Active Duty time was "As part of training" or less than 30 days. So, despite doing 6 months work as a lab tech I was still "a student" (it was all OJT with very little of the T part lol), and 2 humanitarian missions, all the trainings and experiences, etc. I am not a veteran by VA standards.


That doesn't seem to matter to all of these schools and civilians just seem to think prior service is prior service so I don't even know why I am debating the point.....But yah, technically, I am not a veteran. And any of these combat guys (@FISTMCLARGEHUGE or @Matthew9Thirtyfive) have done far more in just one month of deployment then I ever did in 18 months of AD and 4.5 years of reserves.
 
Yeah whatever happened to the big diversity push

Not even the diversity side of it (the Army has a massive range of demographics).
Its mostly the idea of the people themselves. Picture the dumbest person you have ever met and the smartest. Toss an exponent on those traits and that sums up the range of people. The US romanticies the military so I think it carries a lot of people post service. Also, no idea why signing a contract at 18 is such a positive. "Oh, it shows commitment to service and leadership." No, it does not. It shows commitment to not being thrown in jail for going awol and most people who were in for a short time never hit a leadership rank.

southie is kind of like a combat zone, tbh.

Love Chicago, but Chiraq is no joke
 
Top