<p>I think the US News logic is a bit more nuanced. Its not really about moving up any more on paper (since there is a clear barrier) as it is about building broader recognition for the college / university. Many of those kids who rub shoulders with UChicago but never matriculate for whatever reason are going to form the next generation of recruiters, donors, and corporate leaders who are vital to maintaining institutional influence. Just think about the impact on Duke for a decade or so of students to come of age regarding it as an elite school, versus the many well educated baby boomers who still remember it as a regional institution (and that is being generous). Conversely, the decline of second tier LACs has been just as marked as they have had a harder time articulating a value proposition to prospective students. Internally, the GSB does a much better job in this regard as it treats every applicant even those it is certain to reject as someone who needs to be fully sold on the merits of its offerings. The dividends this policy has paid out have been absolutely immense for its alumni.</p>
<p>UCA,</p>
<p>You got rejected by GSB? :)</p>
<p>Tuppence has articulated the biggest problem UofC has in increasing its yield rate: It is not willing to spend the $ to match what is being offered the "next tier up". i.e. it can't compete with HYPS and the others who have announced favorable no loan policies to the middle class (or better). Notice, BTW, that the only improvement in college aid came from a large donation targeted at improving college aid. You did NOT hear Yale, Princeton or Harvard say they improved financial aid because they got a large donation to do so. No, they use institutional funds, but Zimmer chooses not to. He'd rather invest in graduate education.</p>
<p>So what we're all too likely to see is a dilution in the brand (watch the quirky essay questions go soon!) in pursuit of who knows what. </p>
<p>Chicago is not coastal.</p>
<p>Hyde Park is not a lot of things. </p>
<p>Chicago has a big hill to climb.</p>
<p>I read a report recently of a survey of why students chose other schools, and financial aid was the number one reason listed. S1's very close childhood friend wanted to attend Chicago, but received over $10,000 more in aid and no loans from a top Ivy, who wanted her badly. They initially offered about the same as Chicago, and when when asked if they could do better, they did in a big way, Chicago would not match it. Chicago lost a real talent as a result. With FA such a big concern this year, look for more wait list use than in the past as students take the money.</p>
<p>Chicago has always been predominately a graduate institution and Zimmer must appeal to the constituency as well. There was a time that Chicago considered dumping the College altogether. It is now a money maker, if it crosses the line past break even, that might occasion some big changes. </p>
<p>I am also wondering if we are not reading more into these admissions' personnel changes than is really there. Perhaps Ted just thought that with the change in VP it was a good time to step down rather than learn to work with someone else. Admissions has got to be a tough job. I have heard Zimmer praise admissions over the past two years and it sounded sincere, but again, who knows?</p>
<p>You know, it's interesting, ever since Sonnenschein started instituting his practical but wildly controversial changes in the mid-1990s, alums, students, parents of students, and a host of other people decried Sonnenschein's initiatives. Newmassdad summarized the fear when he stated: "So what we're all too likely to see is a dilution in the brand (watch the quirky essay questions go soon!) in pursuit of who knows what."</p>
<p>We are now more than a decade into the much-maligned Sonnenschein initiatives. Has there been any dilution in the Chicago brand? Is the university weaker? Is the commitment to careful intellectual inquiry more tepid now than it was in the mid-1990s? </p>
<p>I think the answer to each of these questions is a resounding NO. The only way we'll know if the College is deviating from its mission is when the faculty announce their discontentment with the students they teach. If anything, faculty have grown happier with the stronger students at the U of C, and I doubt Zimmer's directive to make a more selective college will really frustrate the faculty in any tangible way. Again, Chicago selects students that the faculty would enjoy teaching, and I don't think Zimmer's strategies will hamper faculty contentment in this front. In the end, that's all that really matters - the faculty and their satisfaction and production are what make Chicago truly special. The college is nice, but its not the integral cog to the Chicago machine. </p>
<p>Also, I think Chicago has targeted finishined in the top half-dozen or so schools in US News (right around where the blatantly overrated UPenn is now). Increasing selectivity might push Chicago into the #6-#7 range, and I think most interested parties would be perfectly content with this as a consistent finish. As other posters have mentioned, however, US News is not really the reason Zimmer wants to make these quantitative improvements to the college. Having a more selective, elite atmosphere along the lines of a Yale or Williams leads to a more loyal and committed alumni base. </p>
<p>Even now, senior giving at U of C greatly outpaces my cohort classes from the early 2000s. I think my year, maybe 35% of seniors gave back to the school. Now, that number is around 80%. For better or worse, alums from Yale, Williams, Dartmouth, and the like express a higher level of satisfaction with their alma maters than their colleagues at Chicago. There are people (like me) who love Chicago and what it stands for, but we all acknowledge there's a lot that could be improved on the college front. If by instituting some changes Zimmer can ensure decades of loyalty in the future, it's a worthwhile expenditure to undertake.</p>
<p>On the note of financial aid, I don't know if Chicago has the financial clout to compete with Princeton, Williams, etc. It is more likely that the U of C will continue what it's doing now - make sure it's financial assistance remains competitive with schools such as Columbia, Duke, Brown, Penn, etc. Since Chicago now has better financial resources than pretty much all of these institutions, this is also a manageable goal.</p>
<p>As a UC alum who has participated on and off over the last 25 years in interviewing prospective students, I have been very disappointed in the last couple of years with the UC's use of the SAT as it's main criterion. My sense is that their main objective has been to take advantage of the increased numbers of applications and booming economy through last year, to raise it's average SAT scores. Last year and the year before I saw only lip service to intellectual curiousity as a factor. It seems to be consistent with its retreat from the Common Core curriculum, which is a real loss for the students, in my opinion. I don't know who has been responsible for the shift, whether it's Boyer, or Zimmer, or Behnke or O'Neill or some trustees who are hedge fund operators and give huge amounts to the university. Very disappointing to me - I had a great education there.</p>
<p>Bobbi - that's interesting. I've been a U of C alum interviewer for nearly a decade now, and I haven't seen the same trend. I've been busier interviewing more students, but they all seem like pretty bright, capable students. I especially like that the more recent students are more adept at holding a conversation, and have a bit more social acumen. I never saw academic brilliance and a level of charisma as being mutually exclusive. </p>
<p>What I have seen when decisions time rolls around, however, is the U of C being less likely to take chances on the very intellectually curious but maybe not brilliant student. When I was at U of C, there was a sizable contingent of students that loved to learn, but did not have the intellectual horsepower of the students at the top of the class. Now, the playing field in terms of ability for admitted students seems to be more even through and through.</p>
<p>Note - I will say in the past few years, I have interviewed a few more students who just want to go to a top 10 school and are throwing an application at Chicago. These students, however, just seem to serve as fodder for Zimmer's increasingly selective admissions machine - these kids are NOT getting into the U of C. If we keep the same core of bright, capable, and curious kids, and just reject the fodder to appeal to US News, so what?</p>
<p>NMD:</p>
<p>Never went to B-School. Would love to become a U of C adjunct someday, so rejection may still be in the works.</p>
<p>Some of you might want re-evaluate your attitudes about Sonnenschein and Zimmer. They've both instituted policies which drastically strengthened the student body and preserved the intellectual "sanctity" of the school. Before their reforms (and after the 1970's), the University's students generally consisted of people who liked the idea of thinking but lacked the IQ to do so (I see Cue7 agrees with me..?). The refocusing of admissions undoubtedly attracted more science-oriented kids with measurable analytical skills. Regardless of what Zimmer's stated "goals" are, there's no evidence that the current student body is less able or willing to think, and the University's image has only improved, since he took office.</p>
<p>newmassdad, I've met Zimmer, and I know Sonnenschein well. IMHO they care more about the undergraduate student body than 99% of professors anywhere. If you ever get a chance to sit in on any of Sonnenschein's classes, you'll be able to see this firsthand. </p>
<p>I'm sure it was disappointing to see that Zimmer didn't attend some events and know Rhodes Scholars by name, but he has better things to do. It's far from evidence that he "doesn't care" about the undergraduate body. You're bordering on ridiculousness.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've met Zimmer, and I know Sonnenschein well....I'm sure it was disappointing to see that Zimmer didn't attend some events and know Rhodes Scholars by name, but he has better things to do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You must be one of the lucky few. </p>
<p>I can tell you tha during my D's tenure there, he was COMPLETELY invisible to the undergrad community. The fact that he may care more than "99% of professors anywhere" is funny. He's not a professor anywhere. He's the head of UofC for goodness sake. </p>
<p>I don't know what kind of insider knowleged you have, or whether you're his paid publicist or what, but I can tell you that calling someone's observations "bordering on ridiculousness" is pretty sophomoric. No one is asking you to agree, but your disagreement gives you no right to put down someone else's observations, especially when you can't give one example other than your own opinion, of how Zimmer does care about undergrads. </p>
<p>So ball's in your court. Let's see your "evidence" that he does care.</p>
<p>I had a chat with Zimmer about a problem faced by undergrads and their parents that was oft raised in this forum. Within two days Behnke called me and then called back about what was done. Zimmer is also meeting regularly with undergrads to listen and respond to them. He is not mister congenial the way other Presidents have been, and will challenge them if he disagrees with them, which may add a little to his apparent remoteness.</p>
<p>As a TA at Chicago some years ago and having been currently involved with students at top Ivy's and shortly after my TA stint, I can tell you that the Chicago students were just as academically capable (IQ power) as any from the top Ivies in early 1980's to early 1990's. On the whole, perhaps more so, little legacy, a fewer developmental admits, and the Chicago students were definitely more engaged. There may be an improvement in student "quality", but if so, it is likely across the board, not just at UofC.</p>
<p>What has he done for undergraduates? The increase in financial aid comes to mind. Speaking from personal experience - as the math department chair years back, he was one of the biggest proponents of undergraduate research programs.</p>
<p>My opinion is that, at the very least, he hasn't hurt the College.</p>
<p>Zimmer has only been around for 2 1/2 years. I don't know how much your daughter really expected to see of him (in her ENTIRE tenure, especially because he wasn't at the school for her first 2 years), but he's probably swamped with administrative duties. Whether or not he attends graduation is inconsequential. He could probably afford to be more social and approachable, but who cares? That's not his job. His attitude towards the undergraduate community is reflected in his policies, not the frequency of his handshakes with students.</p>
<p>After some interaction with Zimmer, I would say he is indeed interested in undergrads, but he has more on his plate than the College. This is more Boyer's job. Boyer is largely responsible for the improvements in student life. He is not without his critics, both on and off campus. Some feel he has not looked critically enough at the Core and has let it become a little less demanding and more gameable (if that's a word?). This is not in referrence to the changes in number of courses, but to their quality control. I happen to think overall he has done an admirable job re: student life, but could have a little more focus on life of the mind. Still, I don't know if anyone could do a better job.</p>
<p>I think that Zimmer does not spend much time pondering what to do to improve the College, and he gives the impression of listening to and meeting with undergraduates out of duty, not interest. Nevertheless, every indication is that he agrees with the basic ideas that have governed university policy toward the college for the past two decades: the university cannot be healthy without a healthy college, a healthy college requires an undergraduate student body that is generally happy, diverse in various ways, and ambitious to take its place in society in a wide variety of capacities, the Hutchinson Core remains a viable and important educational principle but was never meant to be eternally fixed, and the true heart of the college is a commitment to intellectual rigor, critical thinking, and civil dialogue based on shared principles.</p>
<p>I also think the Chicago administration has done a super job -- not a flawless one, but pretty darn great -- of keeping its eye on the prize and moving forward on those ideals. There is plenty of continuity with the past.</p>