University of Chicago Drops SAT, ACT Requirement for Admissions

[ZiggysFryBoy]

What face to face meetings are you doing in undergrad?

smoochin' with the ladiez, aina?

[MU82]

What face to face meetings are you doing in undergrad?

Back in 2004-05, when my daughter was going around looking at small midwest colleges like Carleton, Grinnell, Lawrence and Dennison, she met with admission people at several schools, and even a couple of deans and university presidents.

A few weeks after her Carleton visit, she received a personal call from the head of admissions inviting her to go there even though she had "only" scored 30 on her ACT. And it wasn't because her daddy was rich or because she was a minority. She made an impression on people there. Ended up not going there because it was too expensive and Lawrence offered a lot more aid, but Carleton often is rated in the top-5 in most of those U.S. News ratings.

But I dunno ... maybe they don't do those kinds of things any more, though. I've been out of the game for quite some time, so others would know better than I do.

[#UnleashSean]

Back in 2004-05, when my daughter was going around looking at small midwest colleges like Carleton, Grinnell, Lawrence and Dennison, she met with admission people at several schools, and even a couple of deans and university presidents.

A few weeks after her Carleton visit, she received a personal call from the head of admissions inviting her to go there even though she had "only" scored 30 on her ACT. And it wasn't because her daddy was rich or because she was a minority. She made an impression on people there. Ended up not going there because it was too expensive and Lawrence offered a lot more aid, but Carleton often is rated in the top-5 in most of those U.S. News ratings.

But I dunno ... maybe they don't do those kinds of things anymore, though. I've been out of the game for quite some time, so others would know better than I do.

I applied at Marquette, Madison, Purdue, Notre Dame, and Embry-Riddle. I got into all of them and never set foot on campus before an acceptance letter. This was 2012. I could see face to face interviews dying as there would be a large portion of students who wouldn't be able to have the means to do all these interviews.

[MU82]

I applied at Marquette, Madison, Purdue, Notre Dame, and Embry-Riddle. I got into all of them and never set foot on campus before an acceptance letter. This was 2012. I could see face to face interviews dying as there would be a large portion of students who wouldn't be able to have the means to do all these interviews.

I didn't do any in 1978, either. Just saying my daughter did. Maybe they are more common with smaller schools, or maybe they aren't done anymore. I fully allow that the latter could be true.

[GGGG]

I applied at Marquette, Madison, Purdue, Notre Dame, and Embry-Riddle. I got into all of them and never set foot on campus before an acceptance letter. This was 2012. I could see face to face interviews dying as there would be a large portion of students who wouldn't be able to have the means to do all these interviews.

Just so you know, your experience isn't very common.  The visit almost always comes before the application at most schools, with the possible exception of the regional publics.

[dgies9156]

What's happening with the college admission criteria is similar to what's happening at companies and governments across the country. We're trying as hard as we can to take an inherently subjective issue -- accepting students for enrollment into a selective or elite university -- and turning it into a so-called objective set of criteria.

We eliminate the SAT/ACT because they are culturally biased. We replace them with an essay, a personal interview or self-disclosures that give an admissions director the capability to evaluate and quantify a candidate based on a subjective set of criteria that has been reduced to numbers.  Whether it works or not depends on whether the system being used to evaluate candidates is tilted toward or away from a candidate's specific characteristics.

The success or failure depends less on whether an institution hits its goals and more on whether it avoids a lawsuit.

[GOO]

I think it will work out well. More kids will apply now, as many self select out do to perception of high test score requirements.  Spaces available will stay the same so acceptance rate will be even lower.

Bingo.  It will not make much of a difference on who gets in... but it will result in more applications from some students who have the GPA but not the high test score.  Kids with high test scores will still submit their test scores.  Kids that don't submit their test scores, are not playing on an even field - it is simply known that they got bad test scores - but maybe they would have gotten in anyway due to other factors.

Kid A with a 4.0 from a great school, great AP record, all the extras and a high test score, versus, the kid B without a test score, kid A gets in unless there is some other factor as work.  No different than if kid B had submitted his/her test score and gotten rejected.  But in this case kid b thinks he/she has a shot so applies anyway despite the lower test score.

So the results are higher potential rankings by US News:

1.  More Applications and more rejections: Means higher selectivity rating, more rejections.  All good for the school's rating.

2.  Those who would have gotten in anyway with lower test scores, but now don't submit their test scores:  Means higher overall accepted test scores for those accepted because a few that got in that would have anyway that now did not submit their test scores.  Higher rating.

I see no down side for the school.  99% of those admitted will still have submitted test scores.  Those that don't submit test scores are pretty much only getting in if they meet the criteria for those with lower test scores.  So, the actual composition of the class changes very, very little. 

Marquette should be paying attention.  Marquette or UC, could always have an internal test for those who are accepted without test scores, requiring some to take a proficiency or placement test to qualify.  And selecting from a pool or offering admittance based upon this alternative test geared to not have the bias of the ACT/SAT multiple choice format, etc.   The result, more applications and higher test scores for those admitted.  For those who say ranking shouldn't matter - well they do, that is simply reality.  We are not competing in an "ought to be world" but in the real world where US News ranking matter.

Hopefully the board of trustees is paying attention now that even the highest ranking schools are playing the US News game.

[Disco Hippie]

Bingo.  It will not make much of a difference on who gets in... but it will result in more applications from some students who have the GPA but not the high test score.  Kids with high test scores will still submit their test scores.  Kids that don't submit their test scores, are not playing on an even field - it is simply known that they got bad test scores - but maybe they would have gotten in anyway due to other factors.

Kid A with a 4.0 from a great school, great AP record, all the extras and a high test score, versus, the kid B without a test score, kid A gets in unless there is some other factor as work.  No different than if kid B had submitted his/her test score and gotten rejected.  But in this case kid b thinks he/she has a shot so applies anyway despite the lower test score.

So the results are higher potential rankings by US News:

1.  More Applications and more rejections: Means higher selectivity rating, more rejections.  All good for the school's rating.

2.  Those who would have gotten in anyway with lower test scores, but now don't submit their test scores:  Means higher overall accepted test scores for those accepted because a few that got in that would have anyway that now did not submit their test scores.  Higher rating.

I see no down side for the school.  99% of those admitted will still have submitted test scores.  Those that don't submit test scores are pretty much only getting in if they meet the criteria for those with lower test scores.  So, the actual composition of the class changes very, very little. 

Marquette should be paying attention.  Marquette or UC, could always have an internal test for those who are accepted without test scores, requiring some to take a proficiency or placement test to qualify.  And selecting from a pool or offering admittance based upon this alternative test geared to not have the bias of the ACT/SAT multiple choice format, etc.   The result, more applications and higher test scores for those admitted.  For those who say ranking shouldn't matter - well they do, that is simply reality.  We are not competing in an "ought to be world" but in the real world where US News ranking matter.

Hopefully the board of trustees is paying attention now that even the highest ranking schools are playing the US News game.

Amen!   Unfortunately they won't listen and these days seem to be far more concerned with saving the world and implementing a social agenda then managing their own reputation.   Until the alums fight back, withhold donations and make clear to the powers that be on the BOT that an 89% admit rate which is what it was last year is unacceptable and will significantly damage MU's reputation over time, nothing is going to change.

[StillAWarrior]

Just so you know, your experience isn't very common.  The visit almost always comes before the application at most schools, with the possible exception of the regional publics.

Between my two oldest kids, they applied to probably 12-15 colleges in the past few years.  I only recall one that had an interview as part of the application process.  We did visit a couple campuses, and took tours, but never had any interaction with anyone in admissions that was unique from an entire group taking a tour -- nothing that could have been used to base an admissions decision on.

[StillAWarrior]

What's happening with the college admission criteria is similar to what's happening at companies and governments across the country. We're trying as hard as we can to take an inherently subjective issue -- accepting students for enrollment into a selective or elite university -- and turning it into a so-called objective set of criteria.

We eliminate the SAT/ACT because they are culturally biased. We replace them with an essay, a personal interview or self-disclosures that give an admissions director the capability to evaluate and quantify a candidate based on a subjective set of criteria that has been reduced to numbers.  Whether it works or not depends on whether the system being used to evaluate candidates is tilted toward or away from a candidate's specific characteristics.

The success or failure depends less on whether an institution hits its goals and more on whether it avoids a lawsuit.

You may be right, but that is an extremely curious way to look at it.  In an apparent attempt to move to a more "objective set of criteria" they are moving away from arguably the most objective (albeit culturally biased) criteria in favor of far more subjective criteria.

I'm not criticizing the goal or even the methods.  I'm just pointing out that standardized tests are far more objective than essays, interviews etc.  I agree that they are flawed and culturally biased.  But, they are more objective that essays and interviews.  In my opinion, they are trying to do the exact opposite.  They believe that the objective criteria are flawed, so they are seeking to move away from the objective criteria and to allow their own subjective opinions on who should be admitted.  And again, I am not criticizing that decision.

[#UnleashSean]

Amen!   Unfortunately they won't listen and these days seem to be far more concerned with saving the world and implementing a social agenda then managing their own reputation.   Until the alums fight back, withhold donations and make clear to the powers that be on the BOT that an 89% admit rate which is what it was last year is unacceptable and will significantly damage MU's reputation over time, nothing is going to change.

But why does an acceptance rate matter? If 89 percent of applicants have the requirements and Marquette has the space, why should we reject 20 percent of them to artificially increase the rejection rate?


Ps can someone explain to me how anything but the English portion are biased? I mean math and science don't change based on where/how I grew up

[GGGG]

But why does an acceptance rate matter? If 89 percent of applicants have the requirements and Marquette has the space, why should we reject 20 percent of them to artificially increase the rejection rate?

It doesn't matter.  It's a dumb statistic meant to convey some sort of exclusivity.  The only thing dumber are people who actually think it means something.  Hopefully Marquette will continue to ignore the dumb calls from dumb people wanting them to manipulate that dumb stat.

[GooooMarquette]

Between my two oldest kids, they applied to probably 12-15 colleges in the past few years.  I only recall one that had an interview as part of the application process.  We did visit a couple campuses, and took tours, but never had any interaction with anyone in admissions that was unique from an entire group taking a tour -- nothing that could have been used to base an admissions decision on.

Same here. Collectively 15 apps between my two daughters, I believe 4 mostly generic campus visits. Some of the visits were better than others (Mizzou's was WAY more organized and impressive than ASU's), but ultimately the decisions came down to costs, school reputations and gut feel.

[GGGG]

Huh.

Kid one:  4 applications and acceptances.  Visited all schools before applying.
Kid two:  2 applications and acceptances.  Ditto.

[GOO]

It doesn't matter.  It's a dumb statistic meant to convey some sort of exclusivity.  The only thing dumber are people who actually think it means something.  Hopefully Marquette will continue to ignore the dumb calls from dumb people wanting them to manipulate that dumb stat.

Call me dumb all you want, but reality is reality.  People look at rankings for most purchases now, and that is simply the reality. People look at US News for college decisions - to think or act otherwise is silly.  I wouldn't buy a car without looking into reliability, cost of ownership, etc.

I look at Yelp when finding a new restaurant when traveling.  I also look at other sources.  I know Yelp is not perfect, but it is there and generally works. I'm sure a lot of restaurant people could tell me how dumb that is, to rely on crowd sourced rankings/reviews or non-restaurant regular people. But the owner better be paying attention to his/her Yelp reviews - to act otherwise is silly given the way the system works in reality versus ideals.

A guy from Chrysler/Fiat/Jeep could tell me why those reliability ranking stats don't matter and why...  and I'm dumb for looking at them, but the reality is that people use these as a significant factor to judge quality/purchase decisions.  I know I do and often wonder who is buying these low reliability high cost of ownership Chrysler products and why...

Most of us dump people don't know how to fully understand the quality of a school without looking at things like rankings.  That may be wrong, but I bet there is some merit to the quality of a highly ranked school and ultimate connections/jobs, etc.  Ya, we can rely on the brochures and a campus visit, but really that is in addition to rankings.

BTW, I normally don't use the word "dumb" and I'm only do so in this context since it is in your post to reply to your post.

[GGGG]

Call me dumb all you want, but reality is reality.  People look at rankings for most purchases now, and that is simply the reality. People look at US News for college decisions - to think or act otherwise is silly.  I wouldn't buy a car without looking into reliability, cost of ownership, etc.

Well of course those are two completely different things.  USN&WR college "ratings" are based largely on specious and irrelevant criteria while car ratings actually have their roots in objective data. 

The fact that you are equating the two shows the massive problem.

Most of us dump people don't know how to fully understand the quality of a school without looking at things like rankings.  That may be wrong, but I bet there is some merit to the quality of a highly ranked school and ultimate connections/jobs, etc.  Ya, we can rely on the brochures and a campus visit, but really that is in addition to rankings.

Yeah you've bought into the hype.  But in reality, "rankings" aren't going to make your children successful. 

[StillAWarrior]

Huh.

Kid one:  4 applications and acceptances.  Visited all schools before applying.
Kid two:  2 applications and acceptances.  Ditto.

Are you talking about a campus visit?  Or are you talking about a face-to-face interview/interaction with someone in admissions that would form the basis of an admission decision.  As I mentioned, we "visited" several of the schools my son applied to, but none of those involved any sort of interaction that could have reasonably been the basis for a decision.  We sat through the group presentation and went on a tour that was invariably led by a student.  If that's what you're talking about when you refer to "visits", well then yes, my son did visit a couple campuses.  But the context of the conversation was the use of "face-to-face" conversations as a criteria for selecting students for admissions.  Nothing happened on these visits that shed any light whatsoever on my son as an applicant for these schools aside from showing enough interest in the school to actually visit.

That said, the University of Dayton is very open about the fact that you need a documented campus visit.  Nothing happens at that visit that singles you out as an applicant, but they take that very seriously.  They want to see proof of your interest in the school.

Georgetown required an in-person interview with a local alum.  That's the only one I recall that required something face-to-face as part of the application process.  Which, in our case, was kind of ironic...

[Its DJOver]

Shouldn't the only ranking that matters be the job placement within the desired major?  I really don't care how great of an engineering program a school has if I'm not looking to be an engineer.  If you're looking at a major that is offered at fewer schools your list of possibilities will be smaller.  I had a buddy in high school that was smarter than I was (both grades and ACT) but he ended up going to UWM because they were the only school in the state that offered architecture.  Is UWM a worse school overall that MU? Yea, but for him it was the right choice because he could study what he wanted and pay in state tuition.  You should be picking a school based on its ability to put you on a successful career path, not the percentage of people that it lets in.

[#UnleashSean]

Call me dumb all you want, but reality is reality.  People look at rankings for most purchases now, and that is simply the reality. People look at US News for college decisions - to think or act otherwise is silly.  I wouldn't buy a car without looking into reliability, cost of ownership, etc.

I look at Yelp when finding a new restaurant when traveling.  I also look at other sources.  I know Yelp is not perfect, but it is there and generally works. I'm sure a lot of restaurant people could tell me how dumb that is, to rely on crowd sourced rankings/reviews or non-restaurant regular people. But the owner better be paying attention to his/her Yelp reviews - to act otherwise is silly given the way the system works in reality versus ideals.

A guy from Chrysler/Fiat/Jeep could tell me why those reliability ranking stats don't matter and why...  and I'm dumb for looking at them, but the reality is that people use these as a significant factor to judge quality/purchase decisions.  I know I do and often wonder who is buying these low reliability high cost of ownership Chrysler products and why...

Most of us dump people don't know how to fully understand the quality of a school without looking at things like rankings.  That may be wrong, but I bet there is some merit to the quality of a highly ranked school and ultimate connections/jobs, etc.  Ya, we can rely on the brochures and a campus visit, but really that is in addition to rankings.

BTW, I normally don't use the word "dumb" and I'm only do so in this context since it is in your post to reply to your post.

Reviews on cars/resturants are largely different than college acceptance rates. Lol

[GGGG]

Shouldn't the only ranking that matters be the job placement within the desired major?  I really don't care how great of an engineering program a school has if I'm not looking to be an engineer.  If you're looking at a major that is offered at fewer schools your list of possibilities will be smaller.  I had a buddy in high school that was smarter than I was (both grades and ACT) but he ended up going to UWM because they were the only school in the state that offered architecture.  Is UWM a worse school overall that MU? Yea, but for him it was the right choice because he could study what he wanted and pay in state tuition.  You should be picking a school based on its ability to put you on a successful career path, not the percentage of people that it lets in.

Yes.  Outcomes based ratings are much more important.  Can students find internships?  Who recruits on campus?  Can students get into graduate or professional schools?

But that data is hard to find and to objectify. 

[GGGG]

Are you talking about a campus visit?  Or are you talking about a face-to-face interview/interaction with someone in admissions that would form the basis of an admission decision.  As I mentioned, we "visited" several of the schools my son applied to, but none of those involved any sort of interaction that could have reasonably been the basis for a decision.  We sat through the group presentation and went on a tour that was invariably led by a student.  If that's what you're talking about when you refer to "visits", well then yes, my son did visit a couple campuses.  But the context of the conversation was the use of "face-to-face" conversations as a criteria for selecting students for admissions.  Nothing happened on these visits that shed any light whatsoever on my son as an applicant for these schools aside from showing enough interest in the school to actually visit.

#LaxBros said he never set foot on campus.  Sorry if I was speaking about a different context.  I was simply meaning generic campus visit.

[StillAWarrior]

#LaxBros said he never set foot on campus.  Sorry if I was speaking about a different context.  I was simply meaning generic campus visit.

Gotcha.  Yeah...we were talking about different things.  My kids visited most of the schools where they applied (and then some).  Ironically, my son ended up at one of the schools he never visited before applying.

The first time I ever set foot on Marquette's campus was when I stepped out of a cab in front of McCormick my freshman year.

[#UnleashSean]

#LaxBros said he never set foot on campus.  Sorry if I was speaking about a different context.  I was simply meaning generic campus visit.

Ahh that's where we all got confused. Generic campus visits are pretty standard, and while I didn't do any before I was accepted I did do them after.

I forgot who it was but someone was talking about face to face interviews which is what I was trying to say very rarely happens.

[Its DJOver]

Ahh that's where we all got confused. Generic campus visits are pretty standard, and while I didn't do any before I was accepted I did do them after.

I forgot who it was but someone was talking about face to face interviews which is what I was trying to say very rarely happens.

That depends on who you have a face to face with.  If you're still referencing deans/admissions personnel I agree, but when I was on some of my visits (2012) I was able to break off from my generic group tour when we got to the school I was interested in and get a private tour from a student.  Getting info directly from someone who has taken the classes that you will be taking is a lot different than someone who most likely just sees you as another potential tuition paying student.  Current student don't care where you end up and since they have next to nothing invested in your decision, you can skip through all the BS.  That info is the valuable stuff.

[MU82]

The first time I ever set foot on Marquette's campus was when I stepped out of a cab in front of McCormick my freshman year.

I had never been west of Lancaster, PA until my parents drove me from Connecticut to Milwaukee for freshman orientation, which back then took place 2-3 days before classes began.

I forgot who it was but someone was talking about face to face interviews which is what I was trying to say very rarely happens.

I absolutely will defer to those who have been part of the process more recently and/or dealt with larger schools. I'm wondering if the small liberal-arts colleges like those my daughter applied to in the mid-00s still commonly have face-to-face meetings with applicants.

As I said earlier in this thread, her school, Lawrence, was one of the first to stop requiring prospective students take the ACT or SAT.