Any suggestions for better name recongnition?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
1

<p>I know this topic has been beaten to death, and then some, but instead of talking about the prestige of the university, lets think of some ways we can improve it among the less educated end of society. In my view, prestige is not just something to brag about, it's needed to draw more applicants (that actually apply to go to the school, not just for name) and give a general sense of respect from others, even if the respect is not in awe (like HYP). </p>

<p>Here is Stockton, California, valedictorians and other top students usually apply to Stanford, Berkeley, and Ivy League schools. It’s not that they wish to attend those schools solely based on name, but our rural area just doesn’t know any better. Of the few juniors I talked to in detail about UChicago, they seemed greatly interested and promised to apply next year, even though they never heard of it before. Sure we are ranked #9, but that ranking has no use among areas like mine which rarely looks up US News. Thus, great talents are wasted away to lower UCs and Cal States because they are not varied in their applications. </p>

<p>I suggested a few things to the admissions in their student survey. I’m wondering what you guys think can help improve the name recognition of this great school without compromising too much of what it stands for.</p>

2

<p>their postcards worked well with me, and bribing never hurts.</p>

<p>personally i couldnt care less. i think applicants are, well some are, smart enough to know what to look for, which is not in the reputation, so i dont see how name recognition would help in that area. the people who matter know chicago, not the awe struck ivy worshipers, and they dont matter that much anyway.</p>

3

<p>Top business leaders and influential academia do know Chicago an insurmountable amount, however, I really doubt high-achieving rural students, who have limited college resources and advice know us just as well. Increasing name recognition doesn't mean Chicago has to be worshipped, but just known.</p>

4

<p>But from what i know, they activly try to recruit kids in rural areas, and have said that in some ways they favor them.</p>

<p>By "known" do you mean respected for what it is? I think theres a big difference between that and name recognition...maybe i'm not reading well...either way aside from the few people that think its UIC I still dont see how it make a difference to the education itself.</p>

5

<p>I hadn't a clue about Chicago before my mailings after the PLAN test. I live in a very rural area and literally no one knows about UChicago. But, through their mailings I found out about them and fell in love. I don't think they need to do much else.</p>

6

<p>I get the wanting of prestige, but think about it. If Chicago, for some God-forsaken reason, gets famous, what would happen to the quality? I hear current students saying how much more "normal" each incoming class gets (albeit in an exaggerated way). If Chicago got prestigious, they would get thousands of applicants in it for the prestige, not the distinctive education.</p>

<p>I think.</p>

7

<p>I think if Chicago gains more popularity among the general public, it will become overrun by your usual prestige-whores, careerists and pre-professional Wharton rejects.</p>

8

<p>^ It'll be like what happens when indie goes mainstream. And we all know how purists go nuts over stuff like that.</p>

<p>The people who need to know Chicago know about it. My thinking is, ok, so I get a little annoyed when the makeup expert at Macy's nods in utter confusion when I tell her where I'm going to college, but do I really want to impress her? I don't need to show off. People who care about what I looked for in choosing a college are impressed. I don't necessarily covet universal attention.</p>

9

<p>metonymy, badman89, snoopyiscool,davanasca and hahahapa:</p>

<p>As future Chicago students, you may need to reconsider your positions on this topic, because the University of Chicago recognized several years ago that INDEED the school has a problem with name recognition which INDEED needed to be addressed. I quote:</p>

<p>"To support the process of student recruitment and further the success of alumni, we must be more aggressive in raising nationally the name recognition of the University and in communicating to the public the high standards and remarkable accomplishments of its students and faculty. It is not sufficient to rely on the strength of our reputation among the cognoscenti, particularly as other institutions become more aggressive in recruiting and as more students look to careers outside academia."</p>

<p>The University has clearly indicated that indeed this attitude of:</p>

<p>
[quote]
i think applicants are, well some are, smart enough to know what to look for,

[/quote]

[quote]
I don't think they need to do much else.

[/quote]

[quote]
The people who need to know Chicago know about it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>..is way wrong. The UChicago has recognized that this name recognition problem is detrimental to the university and their students and is doing something about it .....in no subtle ways.</p>

10

<p>I think Serchingon is right. It seems there is an underlying general fear of becoming "like another ivy league university" if name recongnition increases, but I disagree. Increased name recongnition doesn't mean the end of self-selection, and I trust the admissions office will be able to pick out those "prestige-whores".</p>

11

<p>Thank you searchingon. I agree entirely.</p>

<p>First off, the fear of U of C losing it's character and quirkiness is very valid. The fear of increasing pre-professionalism and "prestige-whores" is also very valid. However, I still have not seen any data or solid arguing that this would happen AT ALL with increased name recognition.</p>

<p>In fact, I see ignorance in the arguments of those who cite the reasons above as reasons why U of C should remain relatively unknown. They say things like "It will just become another Ivy." Yeah, like all the Ivies are just the same, and the majority of students who go there only care about their careers and the prestige of their school. Nothing could be further from the truth.</p>

<p>Of course those undesirable students exist, perhaps in greater number at Ivy League schools, but please, c'mon. Any day I would trade in a few a-holes and undesirables for better opportunities as an alum, and the respect Chicago deserves across America and the world (and not just for econ).</p>

<p>To finish my post, to paraphrase Ted O'Neill from an article I think iDad posted recently, "We're UChicago, we can do whatever we damn well please." Meaning, O'Neill is still the one who admits kids, and as a top 10 admissions officer I am sure he is very capable of maintaining the character that U of C cherishes.</p>

12

<p>Increased recruitment and selectivity are not the causes of increased prestige. They are the byproducts. Most kids that get the non-glossy, unassuming letter from… University of Chicago…!? will just throw it out with the volumes of other mail from “University of…” schools. Sending more mail would do nothing but waste money and kill trees. Increased selectivity is also not the answer. Look as Deep Springs and Caltech both have comparable selective with the most elite Ivies, but I would hazard a guess that less than 5% of Americans have any idea about them, and the bulk of that 5% are people in niche areas like education or research.</p>

<p>The fundamental issue at hand is the ivy-complex America has. For some reason, age is correlated with prestige. Even the media jumps in on this. Harvard is perceived as a better university because of the pounding of its name into our heads since we were literally infants. I can’t even remember the first time I heard “Harvard”, but have no problem recalling my first contact with University of Chicago last year.</p>

<p>Let’s face it; Harvard is not the University of Chicago. Harvard is over 200 years older than the University of Chicago. Early blue-blood families went to Harvard, and then their kids, and then their kids, ad nauseam. Granted Harvard is trying to change this perception of a rich people’s haven, but if you ask the average American the best University they will reply “Harvard” if you ask who goes to Harvard they will say “rich, white people with powerful families and WASPy last names”. HYP are thought of as “the best” universities because of their history of taking rich, white sons of presidents and business magnets, ect and producing presidents, business magnets, and other rich, white people who make the media of them. University of Chicago is lucky if its latest Nobel recipient makes it on the ticker of the morning news. </p>

<p>Like nearly every other aspect of our lives, the media controls perceived prestige. If we are told Barack Obama is too inexperienced, it must be true. If we are told there are WMDs in Iraq on TV, must be true. If we are told by FOX that Bush beat Gore, hey it was on TV, so it must be the facts. If we hear Harvard more than we hear the name of any other University, it must be the best.</p>

<p>If Chicago wants increased prestige, they either need to start what amounts to a political campaign (with TV ads, ect.), do something REDICULOUS that will make it into the media (ie. completely deny admissions to minorities, raise a private army bent on rebellion, ect) or wait another 200 years and produce a few presidents.</p>

13

<p>davnasca: Here is an interesting article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on this topic. I can't say how accurate it is, but it make for interesting reading on this topic: <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110006623%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110006623&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>A list of Presidents show that in the 20th Century Presidents came from a wide range of undergraduate schools, with the most from Harvard (2) in the first half of the century and the Century and from Yale (2) in the second half. I particularly like Truman's school.</p>

<p>GWB: Yale
Clinton: Georgetown
GHB: Yale
Reagan: Eureka college
Carter: US Naval Academy
Ford: U of Michigan
Nixon: Whittier College
Johnson: Southwest Texas State Teachers College
Kennedy: Harvard
Eisenhower: West Point
Truman: Spalding's Commercial College (one semester)
F Roosevelt: Harvard
H Hoover: Stanford (pioneering class, 1891)
Wilson: the College of New Jersey (now Princeton)
Taft: Yale
T. Roosevelt: Harvard</p>

14

<p>Serchingon, Smirkus and JM8879,</p>

<p>I respectfully disagree with your points of view.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Why does The University need to aggressively support the process of student recruitment? How does this help further the success of alumni?
Would it be wise to implement aggressive student recruitment policies which include bombarding every possible applicant to The University with unwanted mail, selecting freshman by a process of 'class engineering' as opposed to selection on the basis of merit, personality and fit, and generally screaming out loud that The University is as good as any other and should be given more consideration by college-bound students.</p>

<p>Instead of that, if it is an observed fact that The University consistently churns out quality students, reputation will come automatically in a much subtler manner.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Like I said above, it all depends on the manner in which The University wishes to pursue this reputation hike. If they choose to follow policies that are solely aimed at attracting a larger number of students and a more diverse student body (for example - if they trade in the uncommon app for the common app) it will definitely follow that most of the things you said will happen. Students will apply to The University simply because it has jacked up its popularity and not because they really want to attend.</p>

15

<p>I agree with badman. I see that The University wants to become more well-known, but why? That's where I disagree with its policies. I understand that they might want more prestige, but that in turn would only atttract more prestige-whores and the like.</p>

16

<p>badman89 and snoopyscool,</p>

<p>Well, I do not think that anyone has suggested that the solution is "bombarding every possible applicant to the University with unwanted mail...". I have merely stated that after careful analysis, the name recognition issue, has been given some priority.</p>

<p>Public recognition is fundamental to the morale of current students, the satisfaction of alumni, and the successful recruitment of outstanding students. Wider recognition of the University and the standards of academic achievement for which it stands will not only assist students in their lives after graduation and further the efforts to continue to attract the best students in the country, but will also bolster students’ sense of pride in their association with the University and in their accomplishments while at the University as students.</p>

17

<p>Fantastic article Idad!</p>

<p>And I reiterate my point increased recruitment and selectivity will not beget increased prestige! It will be a byproduct of increased prestige. I too believe that Chicago could use some more name recognition, but recruiting, and thus turning down more, applicants will not do jack****. University of Chicago's "prestige issue" is a combination of unfortunate circumstances: </p>

<p>-It's a "University of" school</p>

<p>-It's located in the Midwest far outside of the "cradle of education" on the east coast</p>

<p>-There is a lack of uber-rich, white kids from political familes</p>

<p>-It's not part of fancy-schmancy athletic league</p>

<p>-It's athletics garner zero attention- even on campus</p>

<p>-It's not very old</p>

<p>Chicago could however remedy this by:</p>

<p>-Changing its name to Chicvard</p>

<p>-Opening a second campus at some pre-colonial city</p>

<p>-Grant honorary doctorates toe the Bush twins!</p>

<p>-try to join the Ivy League because, lets face it, there is an assload of ivy on Chicago's campus </p>

<p>-Win the Rose Bowl (LAMO)</p>

<p>-Use the brilliant physicists on campus to use Einstein's theories and turn back time.</p>

18

<p>No, please I feel people are twisting things around to suite their arguments.</p>

<p>No one is suggesting running TV ads (which I am 100% sure would have a detrimental effect on the University's image) or bombard kids with more mail. What he have in that department is fine.</p>

<p>The acceptance rate we currently have looks to people not in the know like this University Of school is just that, another U of school. It is too easy to disregard U of C. Especially because after looking more into it, they find out it is the place where fun comes to die, so why go there anyways?</p>

<p>The counter argument is: Well, we don't want people like that here. </p>

<p>I counter that by saying how do you know that those people would not fit here, add to it, and become great students and alumni dedicated to the school? Why must you have to go on an in depth college search to find U of C when it is one of the best institutions in the world?</p>

<p>I don't think anyone here wants the U of "sell out" and "join the Ivy League," I think they just want it to have the respect it deserves, therefore giving the school more pride, and basically everything else Searchingon said in post #16.</p>

<p>More prestige, and competition for the U can only be good. It means more money from pleased alumni, better students at the U, etc. etc. The thing is, it should be pretty easy to get there, because we are already amazing, we just need to change our PR campaign.</p>

<p>How to do that, I don't really know. For starters, it's educating more people about the school (which means more name recognition and more applicants).</p>

<p>From there, it is getting the name out in the media more. If anyone read or have heard about Al Gore's new book *The Assault on Reason<a href="I%20went%20to%20an%20interview%20he%20was%20having%20last%20night">/i</a>, he talks exactly about the role the media has on America. The media loves Harvard (it's run by many Harvard grads), but UChi needs to be written about more.</p>

19

<p>I believe the University is quite satisfied with its academic and business reputation and prestige. The goal of increasing general awareness may be a part of an overall strategy to attract more donated dollars, particularly from those who are not alumni. Recent donations have been substantial and the more people hear and read about the University, the more people would like to have an affiliation. Another reason is to attract more applicants who would be a good fit, but who may not have previously considered Chicago, not simply to attract more applicants. President Zimmer has made it very clear while visiting with Alumni, there will be no abandonment of the school's essential values on his watch. Rigorous debate and inquiry will be the fundamental values, not career, not leadership, and not social mobility, though all of those are of importance.</p>

20

<p>Brilliant debate so far! I do agree that if any effort is to be made to increase prestige, it should be by a change of PR instead of a change of University philosophy.</p>