40% acceptance rate?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
21

<ol>
<li> phuriku, are you sure that Chicago had a yield of 39-40% two years ago? Ever since I have been interested in it, my impression is that its yield has been pretty constant in the 35-37% zone.<br></li>
</ol>

<p>One of the interesting things about yield is that it seems very slow to change. For any particular institution, the number of applications is very volatile, but it’s rare to see yield change as much as 2% year to year.</p>

<ol>
<li> I’m not sure I WANT Chicago to have a 20% admission rate. One of the things I like about it is that its higher admission rate lets it take a chance on some applicants who are not tied up in a completely shiny package. Like, um, some of the people who post on this board from time to time. I am really happy they are there. I fear there are real differences in the class you end up with if you are choosing 3,300 applicants from a pool of 16,000, vs. 3,600/12,000.</li>
</ol>

22

<p>S2 just got his first letter from the “new guy.” He was disappointed. It follows the same format of the letters he got from the Ivy league schools. While it did mention the word think, it made no mention of the life of the mind, rigorous, or inquiry. Instead, it talked about preparing leaders, preprofessional education, etc. Looks like they will be trying to change the Chicago image and culture. The full color promotional booklet they sent along was similarly focused. The last mailing is making S2 reconsider even applying. Too bad. The application rate will likely increase, but the University may have to sell its soul to do so.</p>

23

<p>This is seriously concerning. The main reason I’m applying to the UChicago is because it’s different from other schools. I’m looking for a more intellectually intensive college experience, not just a school that’s going to be a mere stepping stone to to a high paying job. </p>

<p>I still plan on applying, but I’m disappointed as well. What good is the application rate if it deters students who are seriously jazzed about what the school offers from even applying?</p>

24

<p>Hmmm. Maybe that deserves its own thread, so that people can cluck about it and say how horrible it is.</p>

25

<p>

</p>

<p>The year I matriculated, I think the yield was about 36%. The year after that, when Odyssey scholarships first started, it went up to 39%, which makes sense. Then this year, it went back down to 36%. I imagine that it went down this year due to the state of the economy, since a similar yield decrease occurred at many other universities at Chicago’s level of financial aid.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I suppose it depends on who’s running the admissions office. Last year when we switched to the Common App, Ted O’Neill stated that there was a steady increase in the number of applications, but some apps were odd in that they weren’t as enthusiastic, but these applicants generally did not get in. If you can artificially boost the number of apps while simultaneously using a nearly foolproof detection of lack of academic enthusiasm (e.g., the essay questions), then I don’t see how the admitted class would necessarily change. Under Nondorf, however, who knows?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, let’s face it. Despite what he says, Zimmer wants the University to have more of a pre-professional feel. The admissions process isn’t the only thing getting a makeover - it’s the whole College. The extent of this makeover is the true mystery. By the way, would you mind writing up or scanning his letter?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The University of Chicago still has the highest acceptance rate among elite universities in the nation, so I don’t think you should be so disappointed. It has also not artificially increased the number of applications in previous years (that is, by trying to encourage apps from students who don’t belong here). The comments on this thread are only speculation. However, the admissions process and the College in general are going through an evolution at the moment, and nobody knows where we’re going to end up.</p>

26

<p>Re Class of 2012 yield, this story makes it a little ambiguous between 39% and 37%: [Admissions</a> yield for 2012 hits 39percent - The Chicago Maroon](<a href=“From Lance to Laundromats, band fad clasps campus wrists – Chicago Maroon”>From Lance to Laundromats, band fad clasps campus wrists – Chicago Maroon). But you’re right – I remember that they admitted about 200 fewer people, hoping to get a slightly smaller class, and wound up with more kids accepting than ever (by a small margin). I couldn’t find what the actual enrollment was, though.</p>

27

<p>The Zimmer situation is truly ironic - the guy pays little attention to the college (barely even showed up at Convocation June 08, and split as soon as he could), yet wants to give the place a makeover in his image. </p>

<p>What were the trustees thinking? What are they thinking?</p>

<p>If these trends keep up, I predict Boyer retiring soon, the whole dean of students office being canned (after all, if the place looks and feels like the ivies, who needs professional advisers? Do like Harvard: Anyone can advise, even a groundskeeper), then the core gets diluted even more.</p>

28

<p>I’ve seen Zimmer and Boyer together plenty of times, and I don’t sense a whole lot of tension. Zimmer’s general lack of attention to the College seems to reflect a general delegation of most things College to Boyer, and confidence that Boyer is doing a good job. Lord knows, there has been some turnover in senior administrative positions since the beginning of the Zimmer era – as one would expect – but Boyer is on his fourth president. </p>

<p>My understanding – based on what, I don’t remember, but someone must have told me this sometime – is that Zimmer was a clear ally of Boyer’s before his departure for Brown. </p>

<p>As for the advising, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I know it worked wonderfully for your child. For mine, it has been clearly inferior to the anyone-can-advise system I experienced. My initial advisor was an Episcopal chaplain, who had nothing much to offer me, but was a great guy and introduced me to all sorts of neat things, including my first taste of real Chinese cooking. When I got my bearings, I asked a favorite professor to be my advisor, and he said sure, and presto I had a relationship that was really important to me. Later on, my advisor was determined by my major, and he was superb, too.</p>

<p>I don’t think my kids’ advisors at Chicago have contributed anything beyond a rubber stamp.</p>

29

<p>I heard it was around 40% for EA. I dunno though.</p>

30

<p>Last year (class of 2013), EA was about 1,150/3,800, or 30%.</p>

31

<p>

</p>

<p>This is quite silly for three reasons. </p>

<p>(1) Even if they decide to be just like other top schools from now on, it will take years to completely change the school’s culture. After all, the current tenured faculties with certain predilection will not suddenly quit in protest and be replaced by their evil twins who value entirely different things. The student body’s character is not going to be the mirror image of its current version over night. Your son’s next four years will be quite similar to that of the kids who are starting this year (my son).</p>

<p>(2) even with this more “professional focus”, Chicago is will still be the best bet if your son is seriously interested in the intellectual rigor and life of the mind. What, do you think suddenly Chicago will be more like U Penn, and then U Penn will decide be more like Chicago over night? Even with the “pollution” by professionalism, Chicago will still be far LESS pre-professional than its peers for some time at the minimum.</p>

<p>(3) I believe the current admission team is simply trying to NOT scare away too many prospects who may, upon close examination, buy into what Chicago has to offer. The number one rule in the marketing game is to engage the potential customer, even if they decide not to buy later. </p>

<p>There are sentiments expressed earlier that Chicago’s decreasing acceptance rate will result in a dilution of the “life of a mind” quality as more “prestige seekers” take the place of “life of the mind acolytes”. I don’t agree. I believe that far too many students who would have loved that life of the mind thing are not applying to Chicago because it’s simply not on the radar in many cases. S1’s top magnet school is a case in point. A perfect ground for Chicago type kids (I know these kids), but only three including my son even bothered to apply since for most of them, Chicago was simply not on the list for whatever reason. While almost everybody applied to Duke, Penn, and Columbia (Chicago’s peers) almost as a reflex, very few even thought about Chicago.</p>

32

<p>I may have mentioned this in other posts, but I think Chicago’s decision to be more pre-professional at the undergraduate level may spring from a pretty sensisble concern: making a decision in the best interest of the institution. As I’ve said before, for the past 100 years, Harvard, Yale, etc. focused first on protecting and serving the elite (however you define them) and preparing the next generation of leaders, across all fields. Education was (and I believe still continues to be) a bit more of a secondary pursuit at the UG level. Chicago, on the other hand, focused first on creating as pure an intellectual meritocracy as possible, and not really worrying about the rest. Keep in mind as well, 100 years ago Chicago and all of its rivals were operating under similar financial circumstances. If anything in the 1920s or so, Chicago was in stronger shape financially than some of its now so-called superiors. </p>

<p>If you compare the health of Harvard et al. to Chicago by say, the mid-1990s, the result was clear: the Chicago approach had failed. Simply put, having a more pre-professional college aimed at producing leaders generally leads to a healthier institution. Chicago may just be more pragmatic in its approach now. </p>

<p>Also, for all those saying that this is a disaster for the college, even when I went to Chicago during the height of the “self-selective” and true “life of the mind” years, one key point continually made its impact for me: we are a school that is truly led and driven by the faculty. Yes, the alums are an important constituent group, and yes the college matters, buts its the (generally younger and hungry) faculty that spurs the school forward. </p>

<p>Don’t forget, it’s not just the students coming in that shape a school, it’s how those students are shaped and molded and challenged over the next four years that creates the culture of a college. The Chicago faculty are some of the most invested and driven scholars in the world. That fact will impact students whether or not young johnny has more of a predilection for law school or business school 7 years from now. </p>

<p>Assembling a group of students that are more pre-professional (however horrible that may be) now might not mean a ton after four years of experiencing the Chicago take on education. At the same time, it might not be bad or students to make their impact in other fields besides academia.</p>

33

<p>

</p>

<p>This sounds much like the reasons HYP used to justify their admissions policies that were designed largely to discriminate against Jews. The same policies, BTW, still exist largely intact. </p>

<p>Read Karabel’s book for more details. He quotes an official of one of the HYP making the Chicago comparison - but the context and import is a bit different.</p>

34

<p>I see a great need to have at least one university dedicated to the prusuit of knowledge and inquiry as its primary mission and students recruited accordingly. While of course this goes on elsewhere, it is not typically the stated mission as it has been at The University.</p>

35

<p>Newmassdad - I was actually referring to Karabel’s work in my post above yours. My apologies, I should have referenced it above (if you look at some of my old posts, I quote from Karabel often). </p>

<p>In many ways, HYP formed their policies both out of anti-semitism and from a strong desire to do basically the exact OPPOSITE of what Chicago was doing so, basically, they wound not end up like Chicago. </p>

<p>From about the 1970s or so onward, the anti-semitic stance taken by some of the elites had lessened considerably. For example, if you look at Yale today, it’s UG population is probably about 30% jewish, so it’s a far cry from the 1930s outlook of the school.</p>

<p>At the same time, what sprouted from anti-semitism - a desire to look beyond academics in the student body and look for leaders - continues at all the other top schools today. My point is that, for the health (read: financial health) of a college, it’s generally the better way to go. Alums tend to be more generous in giving to a school that they have more than an intellectual connection to overall. </p>

<p>Chicago seems to be adopting that mold because again, the purely meritocratic model just did not work well for the school. For better or worse, while Chicago, Harvard, Yale etc. all were in a similar financial position 100 years ago (if anything, Chicago and Harvard were ahead of everyone else), they certainly are not now, and most would argue that Chicago has fallen behind its peer group from the 1910s or 1920s. </p>

<p>Making a move to adopt the more successful approach taken by its competitors seems to make sense for the U of C.</p>

36

<p>idad - I agree it’s unfortunate to not have a university dedicated solely to the pursuit of knowledge, but the problem is, at least from Chicago’s experience, this leaves the college in very, very bad shape. In terms of financial resources, strength of faculty, position of the school, etc. Chicago and Harvard were in the same position a hundred years ago. Since that time, Chicago’s probably had a bit more of an impact in academia than Harvard (although Harvard’s certainly made contributions as well), and Harvard’s had the upper hand in other areas. </p>

<p>Moreover, the great recession aside, Harvard’s college has generally seen more success and reaped more financial wealth than Chicago. I don’t mean this to say that Chicago should follow Harvard’s model merely to become richer, I mean that in the 1980s and 1990s, Chicago’s college was in BAD SHAPE. I say this because I was there. You had a small core of vibrant, passionate students, but the admissions office was just struggling to fill seats, and I believe there was a time (maybe in the 1970s?) when the U of C considered jetissoning its college entirely because it was in such disrepair.</p>

<p>In short, at least in America and with our unique view of education (where academics generally take a backseat to grooming the next gen elite), the intellectual meritocracy idea just doesn’t float. There are a few specialized places that do this well, MIT and Caltech, for example, but liberal arts colleges have a very different history in the states. </p>

<p>Now, again, I don’t think Chicago’s going to end up being a carbon copy of Harvard or a pre-professional beehive like UPenn. It’s going to retain its own flavor, but at the same time, it will move in this direction simply because its the most practical decision for the institution. </p>

<p>I guess the other side of the argument is Chicago could look to revolutionize the idea of a college - to create a place where intellectual pursuit is held aloft above all else, and yet the college somehow still maintains strong, enviable financial growth that rivals all of its peers. Schools now tend to be risk averse administratively, and with the last three presidents in a row having ivy league credentials (all from Princeton, I believe), the dean of admissions hailing from Yale, and Dean Boyer on the tail end of his career, I don’t really see this happening.</p>

37

<p>Universities are business organizations - non profit or not. Their product is education - certainly a “refined, high-minded” product, not like fast food and consumer electronics. That does not mean that the institution as a business can survive on hot air like some mythical creatures living on morning dews and mist in the air.</p>

<p>I have seen countless examples of what organizations tell themselves as a way of rationalizing their loss and defending their position when they start losing ground in the market and losing market share to the competitors. </p>

<p>… "In order to focus on our core competency and core mission, we decided to focus on the market segment that is the best strategic fit…</p>

<p>In other words, “we voluntarily scaled down the size of our addressable market”.</p>

<p>You do this long enough, you will boot yourself out of the market, since in the end you will reduce your own addressable market to the point that it ceases to exist. </p>

<p>Education for the sake of education is all good and well, but if this insistence results in an ever decreasing addressable market size (enthusiastic students who want to come to U Chicago), soon you will not be around to live up to that lofty goal. </p>

<p>Number one mission of any organization is pure and simple “survival and prosperity”, without which no further good can be accomplished.</p>

<p>Chicago’s move in the direction of making it a vibrant, competitive educational institutions that can compete with the very best to attract stellar students is imperative, and I don’t think it will dilute its core strength at all. If Chicago is recognized at the national level as THE PLACE TO BE on par with HYPSM, it will have no problem of picking 1300 kids who are not only extremely talented and competitive but also VERY ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT LIFE OF THE MIND MANTRA.</p>

38

<p>Well said ^^^</p>

39

<p>Chicago has no real reason to lower its standards to that of HYPSM (well maybe not M). The make up of a school is the interaction between students and faculty. I have no objection to attempting to increase the number of students applying, but I would like to see that in the context of knowledge exploration rather than career. I would not like to see happen at Chicago what my son experienced in a Harvard chemistry course, where the students in his discussion group turned to him and said, “Why do you care about that [question], it won’t be on the MCAT?” Attracting and selecting those students who value the life of the mind over all else has in the past been the objective, not always successfully or course. There are many alumni who would prefer to have the acceptance rate at 60% if it meant the school would remain true to its historic mission.</p>

40

<p>idad,</p>

<p>I too don’t want to see U chicago’s distinction diluted. What I don’t agree is that lowering acceptance rate will make Chicago student body to be just as “souless” :slight_smile: as that of Harvard.</p>

<p>I believe not enough promising candidates that would be a perfect fit for the life of mind culture in Chicago are applying and therefore not given a change/encouragement to consider Chicago as their top choice. I believe there are way more than 1300 kids in this whole world who would be very talented, very competitive, and very much interested in this chicago culture. But currently, they are not applying and considering it because Chicago has a relatively poor name recognition and perceived as not as prestigious as the other top schools in spite of the world class education it is providing.</p>