30,369 people apply to UChicago 2017

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
101

<p>Wheaty, my apologies. My comment came off as snarky/critical and, believe it or not, I didn’t intend it that way (although how else could one read it?). It reflected my concerns about the college admissions “game” in general, one that all elite universities play, one that Chicago (oops, UChicago) is playing very well, indeed.</p>

<p>UChicago, as you know, refused to play for a very, very long time. The result: The most amazing college education available to anyone, at any price, was available to just about anyone who applied.</p>

<p>Think I’m exaggerating? The year I applied UChicago (then it was just “Chicago”) admitted nearly 70% of its applicants (they called it “self-selection.”) Imagine, an admit rate that bordered on open admission. And consider this: In my four years there, my average class size was about 17. I had five Nobel Laureate professors (two in physics, three in economics) including one who supervised by BA thesis. I was never taught by a graduate student. My classmates included individuals who went on to fascinating and consequential careers and, in a couple of cases, great public renown.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, UChicago didn’t–wouldn’t–play the game. Their ranking suffered for it (which tells you something about rankings). And, perception being destiny, its peculiar position at the top of the educational food chain was endangered.</p>

<p>Here’s the primary reason UChicago experienced such white-hot success since it decided to “get with the program”: The institution was ludicrously underestimated by the public and once marketing alchemy got the word out, the public’s estimation was destined for radical revision. UChicago’s current USNews ranking reflects the institution’s genuine strengths (in fact, it probably should rise another notch of two.)</p>

<p>So, I don’t fault UChicago for marketing itself. It had no choice. Or, rather, the choice was “market or die.” And they have a top quality product to plug: UChicago has something pretty special to offer.</p>

<p>But…</p>

<p>Marketing is one thing. Exploiting the status insecurities of high school kids is another. And that’s what happens as these top tier schools race to entice the greatest number of applicants…to reject. I think it’s unnecessary, unfair and, possibly, mean. </p>

<p>It’s also why I’m no longer donating to my alma mater. Call me a spoilsport, but I don’t want my tax deductible charitable dollars used to manipulate high school kids to do things that serve primarily the dictates of institutional one-upmanship. </p>

<p>Punching this out on an iPhone so my apologies for the stream-of-consciousness discourse. But hopefully, this time, my meaning is clear.</p>

102

<p>Tortoise, I’m having trouble seeing UChicago’s strategy as quite guilty of something so terrible-sounding as “exploiting the status insecurities of high school kids.” For one thing, that charge is so vague that it could literally apply to <em>all</em> advertising, and you say that you have no problem with advertising per se. Anytime someone extolls the virtues of some product, service, college, etc. they are probably in some sense playing on “status insecurities.” And the greater the prestige of the product, then the greater the status leverage of the advertising. So from this point of view, simply advertising a desirable school would almost inevitably “exploit the status insecurities” of those who are targeted by the ads (but in an extremely trivial sense of the ominous-sounding phrase).</p>

<p>It seems to me that in order for this to be as awful as you suggest, there would need to be something deceptive or manipulative about the advertising. But I’ve seen these “Life of the Mind” mailings, and I’m having a really difficult time figuring out what is so twisted about them. Do they focus narrowly on the school’s status? Not really. Do they refer to the school’s status? Sure, just like EVERY college marketing piece. Do they promise that admission is easy? Of course not, and the admission stats are a matter of public record–available from UChicago and any number of websites and college guidebooks. Where’s the scam? Is it that they end up getting sent to too many kids who have shown no interest in the school, or that might on the surface appear to be a poor match? Well, maybe, but after having three kids go through this process (and two more to go), UChicago doesn’t seem like nearly as big an offender in this regard as the schools closert to home that blindly blanket every student in the entire area with mailings. (It’s kind of like putting pizza joint fliers under people’s windshield wipers in parking lots.) Of the four of our kids who have received college mailings, one and only one (the one who is there and it is a good match), has received them from UChicago, and they only started after we had visited the school AND he subsequently signed up to be on their mailing list. </p>

<p>So I’m not positive you’re wrong, but I’m hoping you can give me more detail on how exactly you think UChicago is actually “exploiting” teens in some pernicious way. That strikes me as a gigantic stretch unless there is some evidence of deception or manipulation that I’m not aware of.</p>

103

<p>Rimmail, good points. I don’t think UChicago is uniquely guilty of anything. I think the entire higher educational-industrial complex is guilty of peddling hype to those who are least well-equipped to see through it.</p>

104

<p>So, Tortoise, what exactly is the “hype”? And if the “entire higher educational industrial complex” is guilty of it, then it seems like the more mediocre and lower quality schools would be the most guilty of all, because they are saying how great their schools are when in actuality they probably are not. Consequently, the really superb schools, like UChicago, would at least be the lesser offenders. If you’re not opposed to advertising, and you can’t give a single specific example of how UChicago (or any other school) is “exploting the status insecurities” of high school students, then is it possible that your claim itself is a matter of “peddling hype”?</p>

105

<p>"@Wheaty</p>

<p>Thanks for supporting my future education "</p>

<p>I highly doubt it. Chicago is spending an enormous amount in marketing that they won’t get keep any collected in fees. I am certain they are the only school who are spending as much money in marketing as they collect in application fees. :D</p>

<p>Looks like they have tacked on more goods this year. My daughter got a measly t-shirt last year but post cards every other day. I am not happy! OTOH, I still use a UChicago pen that I picked up at some local presentation!</p>

106

<p>rimmail, I think you make a fair point. And, as I said, UChicago does deliver the goods. It is every bit as great as it says it is. I did not mean to imply that there’s a scintilla of false advertising here. UChicago is the real deal.</p>

<p>However, yeah, I have a problem with these institutions–all of them–when they create a demand that would not otherwise exist. Now I did stress that UChicago was late to this party, and that it only started playing this game–the game played by all of its peer institutions–out of necessity. But while I have no problem with marketing per se, I do think some forms of marketing can be exploitative, and those I do oppose.</p>

<p>I think the very elite institutions deserve special opprobrium when they solicit applications from students who stand no reasonable chance of admission. There’s only one reason to do that: To remain competitive in the rankings arms race. </p>

<p>It’s pernicious and it’s wrong.</p>

107

<p>^Oh crap, I guess only the “very elite institutions” deserve this “special opprobrium” when they market to student who stand no chance. Because somehow them being more elite should make them more deserving of such punishment.</p>

108

<p>Sorta, yes.</p>

109

<p>Nothing wrong with casting a wider net. They are plantings seeds in a lot of places where UChicago was basically unknown. 5 years ago when S1 was applying you got a blank look most of the time when you mentioned the school. Now more and more I get a look of recognition and a “that’s a very good school” comment.</p>

110

<p>Interesting that you are all so focused on UChicago’s marketing. Three years ago, when my son was applying to schools, he received mail WEEKLY about “science and engineering at Yale”. Expensive, thick brochures. I assume because of his high math scores and interest in engineering. We had heard that Yale was trying to raise its profile in Engineering. My son had absolutely no interest in Yale, so it did nothing for him.</p>

<p>Last year, a younger friend had the same experience. He, though, thought Yale was interested in him, so he applied, was deferred, then waitlisted, then eventually rejected. What’s the difference?</p>

<p>My daughter will be attending UC next year… her first choice… receiving tshirt had nothing to do with it… she loved the school immediately. The tour and info session just clicked with her.</p>

<p>Other schools that give out tshirts: Hopkins, CMU, URoch, probably more that we didn’t visit.</p>

111

<p>They’re all doing it. All of them. Again, UChicago was the last to play this game. But now that it’s playing, it’s winning.</p>

112

<p>Tortoise - unlike other elite colleges, UChicago is still unknown to general public in many part of the country, sometimes, even people from Chicago. UChicago’s marketing is necessary for the institution’s health. How would a potentially good fit student apply if he and his parents dont even know the existence of UChicago?</p>

<p>My very recent two conversations (within the past 6 months)
Conversation 1:
Woman: “So where your daughter will be going college?”
Me: “She will go the University of Chicago.”
Woman: “Good for her! But has she tried XXX (in state public)? If she can get 28 on ACT, she get a full ride.”
Me: “ummm, she wants to be far away from home.”</p>

<p>Conversation 2:
Man: “I am from Chicago.”
Me: “I love Chicago! My daughter goes college there.”
Man: “really? Which school? UIC or Northwestern?”
Me: “No, she goes to the university of Chicago.”
Man: “oh, is it in Urbana?”
Me: “I think that one is UIUC. UChicago is in Chicago, in Hyde Park.”
Man: “ohh, I know Hyde Park, but have never been there.”</p>

113

<p>@happyfit. I know what you are talking about. I am originally from Chicago. Grew up and attended Chicago. I got in early action and never looked back…</p>

<p>…what is interesting to note is that Chicago is widely known and respected throughout the world…in Europe, Asia, and South america…but it is not known in its own back yard which is quite astounding…</p>

<p>…this is why they have been advertising recently…especially in Chicago, Illinois, Midwest, and the rest of the country…</p>

114

<p>Yes, Gravitas, it is astounding that people think Uchicago is a school in line with a 28-ACT-fullride school or perhaps a community college in a shabby neighborhood. I must say these two people are both college educated professionals.</p>

115

<p>And I agree with tortoise and others that Chicago was the LAST to play the game…which they needed to do…and they are winning at it. After all, education is a “business” and if you don’t play with the big boys in their games you will be left behind…theory without practice can be detrimental…even the famed Chicago School of Economics and Chicago Business School (Booth) knows that…</p>

116

<p>@Wheaty</p>

<p>UChicago didnt send your daughter materials because they were interested in her, it’s because she went to the local info session. Actually it’s quite funny that the “creativity” of the marketing is what made you and your daughter change your minds about the school - either you’re easily persuaded or your initial perception of the school as a “stuffy-boring-egghead” was faulty.</p>

<p>I know far too many people (under-qualified applicants) who decided to apply because they thought UChicago was interested in them. I feel bad for them. They should’ve known better. </p>

<p>Obviously you think your daughter has a competitive shot, so that doesn’t apply for her. It just surprises me how effective advertising is to some people.</p>

117

<p>Yep, happfit. As I said, it was “play or die” for UChicago. So it played. And, being UChicago, it’s been outplaying everybody else.</p>

118

<p>Exactly, tortoise, “play or die”. Why uchicago outplay? What has uchicago done differently that it is winning big time? Nothing! Uchicago has the quality. Like you said, it was the last to play and now that it is playing, it gets where it supposed to be. As general public still do not know about UChicago as well as its peers, I am all in for the school’s marketing campaign. Yes , “play or die”.</p>

119

<p>^ I could not agree more. Marketing can be powerful and effective, but at the end, you have to have the product to back it up, otherwise it will fizzle naturally. UChicago is and has always been one of the top research universities in the world from the very beginning. </p>

<p>As I said before, I find it amusing that the effective marketing of UChicago has ruffled so many feathers. The fact is that Chicago is playing and is winning.</p>

120

<p>

I’m with you on this one, tortoise. On the one hand, I’m very happy to see Chicago gets the recognition it deserves. Chicago, along with many other excellent colleges like Dartmouth, Rice, and Swarthmore, has long been little known among the general public. When I was applying to colleges, I stumbled across it because I noticed in the back of a book that my favorite author had attended. Out of curiosity, I looked it up in the big College Board book and was surprised to find it so selective. </p>

<p>On the other hand, I think there is a point where you reach a critical level of selectivity, beyond which you’re not improving your freshmen class; you’re simply driving down the admit rate. I know many people crow with delight as admit rates spiral ever downward, but personally, I would like as many capable students as possible to attend the colleges I like. A lot of the Ivies and similar colleges (Brown, Dartmouth, Chicago, Duke, etc.) are about as selective now as Harvard and Yale were only a few years ago, and yet admit rates continue to plummet! Each year I interview wonderfully talented, highly intelligent young people that I would LOVE to have attend my alma mater, and each year most of them get rejected. (The ED rejects in particular break my heart.) It’s comforting to know that they’ll surely get in somewhere and get a great education, however.</p>