2016 EA Admit Rate 17.6%

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
61

<p>Rlmmail:</p>

<p>I apologize, my original question regarding the split between Early and Regular was sort of the “entry point” into a discussion about why Chicago generally gets significantly fewer applications than some of its peer schools. I don’t particularly care if the majority of apps come in the EA or RD rounds. Rather, it’d be good for Chicago’s total apps to be more in the ballpark of its immediate peers. </p>

<p>Now, I’m the first to acknowledge that Chicago is playing catch up here, as it’s only been ~4 years since UChicago really focused on admissions.</p>

<p>At the same time, I’m actually a bit surprised that the “market” is taking this long to correct itself. I think 2 years after Chicago’s move to the common app, it experienced a 42% increase in applications. As ease of access to information has exploded and the good word about Chicago has spread, I sort of expected that this year Chicago would see big big growth (i.e. a 35% app increase?) to get it right in line with its peers.</p>

<p>In terms of Chicago’s application numbers for the past four years (since it started playing the “big numbers” admissions game):</p>

<p>2009: ~13k apps
2010: ~19k apps
2011: ~21k apps
2012: ~25k apps (expected)</p>

<p>The slight stalling on this front has confused me a bit. I fully expected the jump between 2010 to 2011 to be more significant, and then the jump from 2011 to 2012 to bring Chicago completely in line with its peers.</p>

<p>Instead, Chicago still looks about 20% off from where it should be in terms of being with the pack. I was thinking that, by now, Chicago would have about 28-30k applications.</p>

<p>Finally, I understand that different schools have different cache - such as Stanford or Duke having appealing student cultures. At the same time, again, the good word about Chicago has spread considerably, combined with adherence to all the normal influential markers of success (rankings, etc.). When will Chicago make the final leap to being in line?</p>

62

<p>Cue, in your post #53 you report Duke had 25,000 RD apps. Then in your post #56 you post that it’s more like 29,000. The former wouldput their ED + RD in line overall with Chicago; that’s what I commented on. The latter doesn’t. Thanks for updating your numbers; I guess I should have looked them up for myself.</p>

63

<p>(Yup, Mutti, sorry - I was incorrect in post #53. Duke received around 29k apps RD this year, not 25k, as I mistakenly said before going back to review the Duke Chronicle article.)</p>

64

<p>Cue7, if it turns out to be an approximately 15% overall increase for Chicago this year, I’m not sure I’d call that much of a stall, especially when many peer institutions are getting either decreases or low single-digit increases. I think the term “peers” may be hiding some basic differences that either can’t or won’t be changed (e.g. Chicago’s challenging weather, its lack of Ivy League affiliation, and its non-participation in D1 sports). My son, for example, chose Chicago <em>in spite</em> of the weather there and the D3 sports, not particularly because of these things. On the other hand, he also loves a serious, intellectual environment, and perhaps the lack of D1 sports is part of what promotes this at Chicago. But my guess is that no matter how much correction the market has left, Chicago’s weather, lack of D1 sports, or lack of Ivy League affiliation will still pose barriers for some prospective applicants. That’s OK in my book; it’s a big part of what gives Chicago its special identity.</p>

65

<p>Reposting an earlier link from another post.</p>

<p>[Applications</a> at Elite Colleges Slow - Bloomberg](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?)</p>

<p>The totals for Duke seem to be around 31,000.</p>

<p>Columbia went down by 8.9% - 31,818</p>

<p>MIT +1% 18,084 (with an admit rate of 10% because their yield is close to 70%).</p>

<p>Penn down 1.7% - 31,127</p>

66

<p>I think both reputation and class size of an institution will mainly affect the application number, here is my reason.

  1. Reputation
    Historically Duke is a more or less bigger name than Columbia, Upenn, UChicago and some other peers. Duke has an overall rating at 6.3 (average U.S. News & World Report rankings during 1983 to 2007), while UChicago has a 10.6. (FYI: Harvard at 1.7, Princeton at 2.1, Yale at 2.4, Stanford at 4.3, MIT at 5.5, Columbia at 10.4, Upenn at 10.1). Duke is so-called Southern Harvard, even though UChicago is catching up in last 4 years, with #5, and top 9 in last year’s U.S. News & World Report list, Duke is #10 and top 10 in that list.
  2. Class size
    Duke has an anticipated class size: 1700, while UChicago has an anticipated 1350. Class size is playing an important role attracting applications. For example, Northwestern University has an anticipated class size 2025, for almost every year, NWU received larger number of applications than UChicago did.</p>
67

<p>Rlmmail - I actually don’t think that the drumming up of applications indicates much more than the strength of an admissions offices marketing efforts. So, put another way, the real differences between schools (Brown’s ivy league affiliation, Duke’s pleasant climate, etc.) doesn’t mean much in terms of comparing actual numbers of applications received.</p>

<p>As a case in point, last year, Wash U received ~29k applications - more apps than Yale or Princeton, although I don’t think Wash U has the same level of cache.</p>

<p>Similarly, last year, Wesleyan received 10k applications - about 30% more apps than Williams or Amherst - two schools that probably are seen as a bit more alluring. </p>

<p>Given that Chicago has decided to play the “big numbers” admissions game, I would expect the apps to increase quite rapidly - at a pace of ~20% a year, until the school has caught up to Duke, Brown, Wash U, etc.</p>

68

<p>

I disagree. USC received over 37,000 applications last year and wasn’t even a member of the Common App. NYU received over 42,000 applications. Both of them are quite large for private universities, true, but they are extremely popular by any measure. As perhaps a better example, compare Syracuse and Boston U, which are comparable in rankings and size – yet Boston receives 150% (10,000) more applications than Syracuse. I don’t think it’s glossy brochures getting people to apply to BU instead of Syracuse!</p>

<p>Yes, aggressive marketing increases applications; no university knows that better than Chicago. Still, attractive elements play a role in drawing applicants. Take the phrases “open curriculum” from Brown, “life of the mind” from Chicago, and “Ivy League” and “first university” from Penn, and their viewbooks would lose three or four pages. </p>

<p>

It is this mode of thinking that I find mildly surprising in Chicago admissions. Chicago is an excellent university that has always attracted strong students. Comparing itself to Brown or Duke or feeling that it has to “catch up” somewhat strikes me as extremely strange and out of character. Where is the university I applied to that refused to join the Common App and took sadistic glee in refusing to release decisions by any method other than snail mail?</p>

<p>I think the only people who take pleasure in increasingly low admit rates are students or alums worried about the prestige of their alma maters. Once a college dips below a certain percentage - 15% seems to be the magic number - things begin to become a bit random, and it is quite possible to be admitted at Harvard but not Cornell or Stanford but not Chicago (I’ve seen both of these cases on CC). When a college truthfully says it could fill its class two or three times over with equally qualified applicants they rejected, the only point to attracting still more applications is for bragging rights and name recognition. I may be bitter because only 2 of my 17 ED interviewees for Duke have been admitted over the past two years; most of them were bright, well-adjusted people who would’ve done well there. I would not be unhappy if the admit rate at Duke held steady or increased a bit. </p>

<p>To respond to your statement, Chicago has at least one major handicap: a lack of an engineering school. As long as Chicago lacks an engineering school, it will be overlooked by top high school students interested in engineering. The only other top 25 universities that lack engineering are Emory and Georgetown; each of them has other schools to attract students, including Oxford and business at Emory and business, SFS, and nursing at Georgetown.</p>

<p>At Duke, Pratt accounts for more than 5000 applications each year. Cornell received 6600 engineering applications last year. Columbia Fu received 5700 applications last year. Other top privates likely have comparable numbers.</p>

69

<p>

</p>

<p>It isn’t clear to me why UChicago’s marketing activities should lead one to expect a 20% increase/year rather than 15%, or 18%, or 23%, or …</p>

<p>warblersrule is right about the lack of engineering.</p>

70

<p>Warblersrule:</p>

<p>Of course, the “real” factors play a role in the number of applications a school receives, especially when looking at schools that are quite different, at least geographically (such as your example of Syracuse U vs. Boston U).</p>

<p>At the same time, between schools that are more similarly situated, advertising can have more of an effect. Even amongst the top schools, you can see the differences present between schools that have many more similarities than differences. Look at, for example, Wash U and Rice. Both are great schools located in prominent cities, both have a range of strong academic programs, etc.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, Wash U received 28k apps last year, and Rice received around 13k apps. </p>

<p>Similarly, if you compare Tufts and Vanderbilt - both great schools located in areas that are quite popular for students, Tufts received 17k apps, and Vandy received 25k apps.</p>

<p>On another note, when current U of C admissions dean Jim Nondorf was at Renssellaer Polytechnic Institute, RPI received as many applications as MIT.</p>

<p>These examples demonstrate that, while real differences such as location and course offerings certainly matter, in terms of drumming up applications and analyzing similar schools, advertising and admissions efforts can lead to real differences. So Vandy can receive 8k more apps than Tufts, or Wash U gets nearly 100% more apps than Rice. </p>

<p>Warblersrule, you also mentioned that you are surprised by Chicago alums’ newfound attention to admissions details as “out of character” for the school. As I’ve said many times before, the “old” Chicago approach - the more cerebral, aloof ivory tower approach - has failed. When Chicago took that path, the school nearly decided to axe the College entirely. </p>

<p>Accordingly, as the administration has made the relatively recent decision to “play the game,” and engage more in the competitive big numbers admissions scene, of course Alums will begin to monitor this. As I’ve said before, minor differences in admissions numbers isn’t a big deal, but, if Chicago is playing the big numbers game but still getting 25% less apps than Duke or Brown, that difference requires some analysis.</p>

<p>Motherbear322 - my use of the 20% figure was just an estimate. What I really meant was, as Chicago’s decided to play the game, I expected its numbers to match its peers relatively quickly. My bigger point was that, if Chicago’s peers receive ~30k apps a year, and Chicago wants to play the big numbers admissions game, it should achieve the ~30k threshold relatively quickly. </p>

<p>Finally, please note, I’m not equating “big numbers” admissions to actual differences in the quality of a class. Yale, for example, has stated that it isn’t playing the “big numbers” game as much as Harvard or Stanford, and Yale receives 5-8k less apps than these two other schools. The classes at Yale Harvard and Stanford, though, are largely interchangeable anyway. </p>

<p>Chicago, however, has decided to make a full-blooded effort to enter the fray of the big numbers admissions game. Accordingly, if this is the decision the administration has made, I of course want Chicago to be on par with its immediate peers.</p>