Admit Rates, Standardized Test Averages, Cross Admit Results

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
481

“The History/Economics comparison at Chicago is a little misleading, though. There are Economics professors stashed at Booth and even some at NORC, I believe.”

  • Booth profs tend to be tied up with both PhD's (both at the b-school and the dept) and MBA's when I was there. The occasional undergrad would take a course or two and even work with a prof. but those kids were headed for PhD-ville themselves.

NORC - now that’s an interesting one. Guessing there are undergrad internships there? One doesn’t have to do economics - there are a variety of social scientists over there. While NORC researchers don’t teach in the college, they also don’t have the same commitments that full time faculty members are going to have with the grad program.

482

I thought some NORC researchers did teach in the College. At one of my kids’ Class Days (or whatever they call it), the speaker in the favorite-faculty-member slot was a guy whose main gig was at NORC but who taught some wildly popular Econ class. He had a deadly, dry wit – fun to listen to, very classy. He was definitely an economist, even allowing for some of the blurred lines between economics and other social sciences at Chicago and everywhere else these days, and he was someone lots of kids in the room obviously knew.

Yes, there are undergraduates working at NORC doing a variety of social-science type stuff. I don’t know if they are “interns” or just working part-time research-assistant gigs.

483

^ Helpful to know that the affiliation with NORC can work for the undergrads as well. Those part-time gigs can be quite valuable for those interested in an exposure to the experimental/resarch’y side of the social sciences.

484

Coming back to a point re what sort of transparency would be helpful – here’s a good article that goes into a lot of depth about how Chicago used to make its decisions:

https://www.newsweek.com/inside-admissions-game-164802

The article (and, as I remember, Chicago admissions brochures), offers info on avg. SAT scores for early and RD accepts, numbers of apps in each pool and the accept rate, the process the admissions office used, what they value and don’t value, etc.

It points to an ad comm that used to focus a lot on potential - and understandably had a wide range of test scores, a lower number of top 10% HS students, etc.

The admissions officers also noted how athletics played into it (it was more about demonstrating time management skills than proficiency in the sport - which totally relates to the level of athletic talent I saw in my day at Chicago).

I wonder what all the stats/info looks like now?

485

^ I remember reading this article! On its face it sounds wonderful and Ted O’Neill the kind of admissions guy who is thoughtful, articulate, and has the right touch.

Reality tells a different story.

First of all, the Newsweek’s 1-in-7 number actually refers to matriculants vs. applicants. Unravelling that ratio reveals that nearly 50% of the applicants were admitted, and about 30% of those matriculated. Of those 30%, a good number never finished.

Many on CC like to site UChicago’s ongoing financial struggles, but a clear one shorly before the year 2000 was that the College was a significantly underutilized asset. This mismanagement was not only hurting the university financially, it was also seriously jeopardizing its ability to remain a top institution.

Boyer, in his history of the University of Chicago, describes the “intervention” of hiring Michael Behnke in '97 to help turn around the College’s fortunes. Nondorf now has the dual role of Admissions and Enrollment head honcho. But in 1997 it was Behnke who was put in charge of Enrollment while O’Neill, apparently, continued in his position at Admissions. What followed, according to Boyer, account, was interesting:

  • It was Behnke - and not O'Neill - who bluntly told the university the ugly truth that the College was considered a third or fourth choice for a good number of applicants who, ultimately, were not happy about their admission or matriculation and who, in large numbers, would leave.
  • It was Behnke - and not O'Neill - who was responsible for the increasing application numbers by about 124% (from 5,500 in '97 to to about 12,400 in '09).
  • It was Behnke - and not O'Neill - who who first turned around admissions and yields in the face of the expanding college size, from about 61% in '97 to about 28% in '09.

It’s almost as if Behnke was doing O’Neill’s job. In fact, in this particular chapter of Boyer’s History, O’Neill doesn’t appear to be mentioned at all.

O’Neill’s announced retirement (conveniently timed with Behnke’s, it appears) was appropriate laudatory with a shout out to the improved application numbers. But O’Neill apparently had little - if anything - to do with it. Why would Boyer neglect to mention O’Neill if he was contributing to the solution? One is really left with the impression that O’Neill was part of the problem with the only solution being a “run around” the position to bring in someone more competent.

It bears pointing out that a good number of the kids who O’Neill was admitting prior to the Behnke intervention did NOT represent that core of self-selected scholars the faculty felt were out there. O’Neill, for all his thoughtfulness and pursuit of “potential,” wasn’t finding them.

We have to be realistic about the College’s past and not romanticize it. “‘But we are the University of Chicago,’ O’Neill reminds his colleagues. ‘We can do what we damn well please, so long as we have good reasons.’ Moments later, Rebecca is admitted.” So reports the Newsweek article.

I truly wonder how long “Rebecca” lasted there.

486

@JBStillFlying asserts that, for the Chicago Class of 2003, “a good number never finished.”

Really? What makes you say that? If I recall, by 2003 (or shortly thereafter) Chicago’s 6 yr graduation rate was around 85%. The vast majority finished. (Now, I believe the 6 yr grad rate is around 92%.) The “bad” years were really more in the 60s-80s and early 90s.

As you can see in the link below, O’Neill’s goal was to keep admissions a “human and small-scale” enterprise.

http://talk.qa.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/339112-ted-oneill-listed-as-one-of-10-admissions-deans-who-are-shaping-their-field.html

There’s no reason to think, by the way, that small-scale admissions (coupled with positive structural/environmental changes in the College) couldn’t work today. Great small colleges keep that sort of admissions structure (receiving less than 10k apps, and accepting 1/3-1/4 of them), and their classes have great graduation rates and exit outcomes.

Chicago now has a massive admissions machine sucking in 35k+ apps - but for what? All we have to show, apparently, is a 7 point increase in the grad rate, and an SAT percentile that went from the 98th percentile to the 99th percentile.

Don’t get me wrong, Nondorf is great for optics, and the better fin aid has led to more diverse classes, but O’Neill’s final classes at Chicago were very strong.

Also, re O’Neill and Behnke - as I understand it, they complemented each other very nicely. Behnke’s job was to recruit and bring suitable applicants to the door (which he did, with good incremental increases each year, going from around 5k apps when they started, to about 12k apps 11 years later). Year over year, that was steady - but not crazy - growth. O’Neill’s job was to use his “Chicago-style” approach to decide who to admit.

(Btw, in about nine years, Nondorf has increased the app pool by ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY percent - the growth has been much more frenzied under his watch.)

O’Neill and Behnke both exited at a similar time because, I believe, after many years together, they saw the writing on the wall - the admin was looking to take the admissions numbers into hyperdrive. Neither really wanted to be part of the frenzy. As I recall, it was much more symbiotic than you present - otherwise, it wouldn’t have lasted more than a decade…

(Also, for those interested, here’s a great speech O’Neill gave to his last incoming class: http://talk.qa.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/662082-ted-oneill-to-leave-uchicago-admissions.html - he didn’t need to be as buttoned-up as Nondorf needs to be in today’s climate.)

487

“Really? What makes you say that? If I recall, by 2003 (or shortly thereafter) Chicago’s 6 yr graduation rate was around 85%. The vast majority finished. (Now, I believe the 6 yr grad rate is around 92%.) The “bad” years were really more in the 60s-80s and early 90s.”

  • You believe that a grad rate of 85% (over six years) makes sense for a world-class undergraduate institution? BTW, I believe that the current grad rate might be as high as 94%; however, it will likely increase with the Class of '21.
  • Freshman retention has been 99% since 2013 and when you google "happiest undergrads" you now get UChicago's name popping up LOL. Second only to Yale. Very different from 20 years ago. It was 90% in 1994.

In 1996 a special study was commissioned in order to determine how to address the problems that contributed to relatively high attrition. They found that 35% of the students at one point considered leaving. This study was the basis of some of the significant changes that occurred shortly thereafter to stem the outflow of students.

“As you can see in the link below, O’Neill’s goal was to keep admissions a “human and small-scale” enterprise.”

  • Yep. Which was in direct conflict with Behnke's directive. Hence, we see why the latter was hired.

“There’s no reason to think, by the way, that small-scale admissions (coupled with positive structural/environmental changes in the College) couldn’t work today. Great small colleges keep that sort of admissions structure (receiving less than 10k apps, and accepting 1/3-1/4 of them), and their classes have great graduation rates and exit outcomes.”

  • UChicago isn't a "great small college" - it's a major research university. The College is a source of funds and future grad students. Prior to the Behnke era, College tuition revenue wasn't even covering faculty salaries. You can't sustain a large Arts and Sciences faculty or grad program w/o the College reaching a critical size. They knew that already - it had been mentioned to them decades beforehand (I think around the Gray era or even a bit before that). They just had trouble convinining a bunch of faculty about that reality. Hey - it's UChicago. Controversy is the norm.

“Chicago now has a massive admissions machine sucking in 35k+ apps - but for what? All we have to show, apparently, is a 7 point increase in the grad rate, and an SAT percentile that went from the 98th percentile to the 99th percentile.”

-And fewer demoralized alums, @Cue7, among other things.

“Also, re O’Neill and Behnke - as I understand it, they complemented each other very nicely. Behnke’s job was to recruit and bring suitable applicants to the door (which he did, with good incremental increases each year, going from around 5k apps when they started, to about 12k apps 11 years later). Year over year, that was steady - but not crazy - growth. O’Neill’s job was to use his “Chicago-style” approach to decide who to admit.”

  • Behnke had the real admissions job; Nondorf succeeded him, as this press release states "Nondorf will succeed Vice President and Dean of College Enrollment Michael Behnke, who previously announced that he would retire in June, after 11 years at the University. Longtime Dean of College Admissions Ted O'Neill recently announced that he would move full-time into teaching, research and writing. 'Jim brings just the right experience to build on the success we have experienced in recent years,' Behnke said. 'He has accomplished a huge amount in two very different institutions as well as in the private sector, and I think he will appreciate and be an effective spokesperson for Chicago's distinctive culture.'. https://news.uchicago.edu/story/jim-nondorf-appointed-top-admissions-post
  • Funny, they didn't ask O'Neill for his comments.

“(Btw, in about nine years, Nondorf has increased the app pool by ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY percent - the growth has been much more frenzied under his watch.)”

  • In part due to the Common Ap., which was instituted about 2006 or so (?) You do see the admissions number really start to climb at that point.Behnke increased apps. from about 5k in '97 to 10k in 2007 - so doubled in 10 years which is nice - but then it increased another 1,000 per year for the next couple of years till he retired. That's a growth rate of about double what had been going on before. But Nondorf's communication strategy contributed to an explosion: from about 12k in 2009 to 30k in 2013. So at least 150%.
  • You seem to be suggesting that having application numbers consistent with other top undergraduate programs of world-class research universities is somehow inappropriate for UChicago. Can you explain your viewpoint further? Is it connected with your view that UChicago is really more like a "great small college?"

“O’Neill and Behnke both exited at a similar time because, I believe, after many years together, they saw the writing on the wall - the admin was looking to take the admissions numbers into hyperdrive. Neither really wanted to be part of the frenzy. As I recall, it was much more symbiotic than you present - otherwise, it wouldn’t have lasted more than a decade…”

  • Behnke actually retired. O'Neill went back to an academic position.

Behnke was hired specially to increase enrollment, as the link below specifies. The role of Assoicate Dean of Enrollment was at the equivalent level of VP and was created for him specifically. Furthermore, O’Neill reported to him. The “writing on the wall” was that someone was put in place to help Sonneschein implement his enrollment strategy because O’Neill wasn’t able to do so.

http://tech.mit.edu/V117/N2/behnke.2n.html

No doubt there was some placating of senior faculty on this one as well. But I see it as a difference in viewpoints with Behnke’s prevailing. He “got” that the College needed a larger student body. O’Neill did not.

“(Also, for those interested, here’s a great speech O’Neill gave to his last incoming class: http://talk.qa.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/662082-ted-oneill-to-leave-uchicago-admissions.html - he didn’t need to be as buttoned-up as Nondorf needs to be in today’s climate.)”

  • I guess there was a cult of personality surrounding Ted O'Neill as well. What is it with that Admissions position?
488

@JBStillFlying asks: - You seem to be suggesting that having application numbers consistent with other top undergraduate programs of world-class research universities is somehow inappropriate for UChicago. Can you explain your viewpoint further?

My response: I think the application numbers at virtually ALL world-class research universities are unnecessary. To admit a class of ~1500, there’s no need to seek 35k or 40k or 45k applications. The game right now, is crazy. World-class research Us can build tremendous classes, with lots of talent, without conducting the widespread, expensive, and exhausting practice of making sure they get around 40k apps for 1500 spots.

Many admissions counselors are exhausted by the grind and the workload. But, say, is Harvard’s incoming class now so much better because they receive (and review!) 45,000 applications now, as opposed to 18,000 applications 20 years ago? It takes tremendous work, energy, and effort to get 45k apps a year, and for what? Is the class really orders of magnitude better now than before?

I think Chicago could take a small college’s human, small-ball approach and scale it up for a class size of 1500, rather than, say, 500. Haverford, for instance, gets a great class of 500 from around 6,000 apps a year. The students are bright, most finish on time, and are happy. Why couldn’t Chicago get a great class of 1500 from 18,000 apps a year?

Also, you assert that Chicago has fewer “demoralized” alums now than before. That has little to do with admissions - and much more to do with the support and investment made to the structure of the College itself. The support systems in place now are FAR from perfect, but they are a heck of a lot better than anything that existed 20 years ago. There are more centers and institutes, more ways to enjoy life outside of the classroom, more support and advising now than ever before. Those changes make alums happier - not the effort to get 5k applications more a year.

I don’t know how changing an admissions schema can make for happier alums. If you put Nondorf in the 1980s Chicago milieu, you’d still have plenty of demoralized alums.

489

Lowering admission rates just for the sake of looking more selective was not only anathema to Ted O’Neill, it was against Behnke’s stated goals and philosophy as well. Totally agree that this is not what UChicago - or any university - should promote. There is also the issue of diminishing marginal returns in the admissions office. Implementing Early Decision takes care of both issues. The group of prospective candidates is much smaller than the general pool – maybe as many as 15,000 in both ED rounds but likely fewer - and is self-selecting (which is something very important to both faculty and those of us worried about the place losing its niche identity). It seems to be a no-brainer solution to the problem of overwhelming application numbers.

However, application numbers might be “overwhelming” because prospective admits are learning about what UChicago can offer them for an intellectual liberal arts experience and they love what they’re hearing. That’s kind of what’s been happening even despite adding ED to the mix. In this case, it would be dumb to discourage those numbers as long as you have a good way to manage them. Higher volume, after all, leads to more selection at the top of the distribution and elsewhere. This, apparently, is what Behnke found (and, by the way, what he expected to find). This fact is borne out across the country at selective institutions. It’s further seen in stuff the National Merit competition (to name just one related example), as those states mandating the PSAT simply have a higher National Merit cut score. Compare CA or TX to UT, for example. Settling for lower volume could potentially result in restricting quality; after all, once upon a time lower application volume was associated with a preference for “certain types of applicants” at some elite schools in the US. There doesn’t seem to be much of a mystery on how to manage huge application numbers, since admissions offices at all the top schools do so year after year. It might come down to something as simple as hiring the right people and paying them appropriately.

According to the Boyer historical account, the challenge of improving alumnae relations (and, relatedly, bolstering the endowment) was two-fold. First you have to admit people who consider the College to be a first choice. That wasn’t happening under Ted O’Neill’s watch, as Behnke pointed out the the university top brass. (NB: it didn’t happen under Neill’s predecessor in Admissions either). Second, you have to make sure those choosing the College as first choice don’t regret that decision. Hence, the large investment in student support services, Career Advancement, and so forth. Revising the Core - a huge controversy at the time - most likely helped as well. As Boyer pointed out, the old 1980’s version wouldn’t have allowed for things like Study Abroad or the freedom to pursue other subjects of interest, and many Core subjects were already covering two semesters’ worth of material in two quarters anyway. That third quarter might have been overkill. Boyer reports that 95% of continuing students who were allowed to choose which version of the Core to pursue actually chose the revised, so the undergraduate community clearly believed that a change was beneficial. I believe that change was implemented in 1999 or so.

490

“Chicago now has a massive admissions machine sucking in 35k+ apps - but for what? All we have to show, apparently, is a 7 point increase in the grad rate, and an SAT percentile that went from the 98th percentile to the 99th percentile.”

7% means that theres:
100-125 people every year dont end up with a job at Macdonalds.
100-125 less people every year who are in danger of severe depression.
100-125 less every year who dislike their university experience so much that they market the university negatively wherever they go.

100-125 more alumni created every year who are comparatively more employable, happier, love the school more, and are better ambassadors of university’s brand

491

^ It’s more than just those 100 - 125 every year (although over time that starts to add up). It’s also all those other students who now don’t even think of transferring. They will also graduate happier, love the school more, and will be better ambassadors for the university’s brand.

@Cue7 knows this, as comments on CC back in 2012 demonstrate. The reference to “15 years ago” would place the College in 1997, pretty much around the time they decided to hire Behnke:

"Truth123 - 15 years ago, UChicago’s retention rate (maybe not freshman retention rate but overall retention rate) was about 80%. This certainly held true for me, and it was a bit sad - of my ~10 closest friends at UChicago, 2 transferred, and, on top of that, 2 attempted unsuccessfully to transfer to Columbia.

The problem with a low retention rate is it doesn’t capture the ~10-15% more students who either THINK actively about transferring or actively attempt to transfer. So, I’d say of my cohorts back in the 90s, ~20% left, and probably another 10-15% attempted to leave. That’s a lot."

http://talk.qa.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/13898402/#Comment_13898402

That CC thread conversation was about the College’s announced freshman retention rate, which had just hit 99% for the first time ever. Worth a read.

@Cue7’s observational experience was spot on. Boyer mentions that around 1996, 35% of the student body considered transferring at some point. I guess that means about 20% get around to it, and another 15% either try or wish they had.

That additional 15% translates into 200 - 250 every year, not 100 - 125. Now that will REALLY start to add up quickly!

492

In terms of Net Promoter Score, that is Promoters less Detractors, the 7% swing in graduation rate to me means a net NPS gain of 14% or using @JBStillFlying’s reckoning, a 44% NPS swing for all new alumni classes… every year… every time.

This is a strong driver in UChicago’s newfound popularity. It’s not just due to paid marketing/mass mailing/mass emails, or a result of the school getting eyeballs through traditional news media; a high NPS implies native, viral marketing that is being fed, at the root, by UChicago alumni