Application Inflation and the U of C

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
1

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/education/edlife/07HOOVER-t.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/education/edlife/07HOOVER-t.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I think this is a superb article. Unlike the generally superficial spin an admissions office places on an application increase (e.g. "we just market more"), this article kind of breaks down the general trend more carefully, and identifies the agenda of an admissions office pretty well. </p>

<p>Also, the U of C is featured pretty heavily in this article, and I think a lot of the contentions, especially the U of C's supposed attempt to "reframe" its image, is pretty interesting.</p>

<p>Thoughts?</p>

2

<p>if Nodorf was looking for the right kind of notoriety for U Chicago :slight_smile: exactly at the right moment, he got it!</p>

<p>If I remember correctly, Cue, you have some insider connections with the admissions office. Any guess on what the EA application numbers will look like? I am glad that Chicago is not on my S2’s list. Would be a really nail biting admission season. As it stands now, his list consists of schools that are more predictable in their admissions outcomes, not such a crap shoot, not only because of the competitive profile that comes with a school with Chicago’s stature, but also because of the rapidly changing (read: getting rapidly more competitive) admissions landscape there.</p>

3

<p>“NEVER has the University of Chicago been more popular. It received a record 19,347 applications for this fall — a 43 percent increase over last year — for a freshman class of about 1,400 students.” -New York Times</p>

<p>As the night wanes, the dulcet chorus of the simultaneous heartbreak of potential UChicago students lulls me to sleep.</p>

4

<p>Should I be worried that the school I applied to is not the same as what I think it is?</p>

5

<p>What do you think it is?</p>

6

<p>

</p>

<p>Interesting question. Without doubt, the school you applied to is not the same as what you think it is. That is going to be true no matter what school(s) you applied to. None is the same as any one person thinks.</p>

<p>Is it perhaps the aggregate of what EVERYONE thinks? Hmmm. Probably not that, either. Fun doesn’t come to die, etc. Truth exists. Probably.</p>

<p>How worried about all this should you, or anyone else, be? Very worried if you think the gap between imagination and reality will destabilize the universe and end all life as we know it. Otherwise, take a deep breath and get used to it. That’s life.</p>

7

<p>Up 10% from last year. Inquiries up 72%.</p>

8

<p>With this surge in applications, will there be more students waitlisted?</p>

9

<p>actually, if a 10% increase is the correct number, this is way below what some of us were thinking. Especially given that there was a hug difference in the acceptance rates between EA and RD last year, I thought more students would apply early.</p>

<p>If the overall application number increase (including RD) stays at this level, this may mean that last year’s phenomenal increase is an one time correction of the application number deficit between U Chicago and its peers, and the Chicago’s application number is already approaching its upper bound… </p>

<p>Opinions? Thoughts? Disagreements?</p>

10

<p>Yeah, a 10% increase doesn’t sound that impressive to me.</p>

11

<p>The economy is still generally tanking. COA is still increasing w/o regard to economic situation. UChicago still not known for its generous FA/Merit scholarships. 10% increase in EA applications? Not bad at all.</p>

12

<p>Balto - where did you get the 10% increase figure from? </p>

<p>I don’t really have “inside” info, just a friend who is involved in alum interviewing and knows people in the admissions office. I’ve heard apps should be up by “several thousand” overall (that seems to be the preliminary expectation from the admissions office), so I’d assume something roughly in the ballpark of 10-20% for total gains for the year. Again, these are just rumors and predictions. I’m curious as to where Balto got his set statistic. </p>

<p>On another note, I don’t know if I found this article to be as helpful to the U of C as others have noticed. Instead, the NY Times writer seemed to state that Chicago was now leading the charge in this “application inflation” movement, where an admissions office looks to rake in as many applications as possible, and doesn’t focus as much on the actual quality of the recruits, to drive up the acceptance rate superficially. </p>

<p>Put another way, Harvard Stanford etc. could get just as superb a class with a 20,000 applicant pool as opposed to a 30,000 applicant pool. To drive down the acceptance rate, however, H & S will still pursue those extra 10K weak kids and try to entice them to apply so that the acceptance rate can plummet artificially by summarily rejecting them.</p>

<p>The author then pointed to Nondorf as a leader in this trend. I have some ambivalence about this strategy, if the U of C admissions office does indeed follow this approach. </p>

<p>On a related note, as the article implied that the U of C is “reframing” its image, I have questions about that too. One of my problems is that there seems to be a considerable amount of ambivalence over what Chicago’s “image” (read: purpose) should be. For most of the College’s history, the U of C existed to serve as an early training ground for scholars. I came to Chicago at the tail end of this, but the tacit goal of the college was to create future academics. Producing doctors, lawyers, etc. was kind of ancillary. Chicago was the incubator for future phds and thinkers. The ivies (and NU, Stanford etc.) had the goal of producing leaders across all fields, and served to prepare its graduates for power. </p>

<p>Now, with an emphasis on pre-professional program and more varied types of marketing, it seems as if Chicago’s goal is changing. I have no real problem with this. If Chicago wants to become more similar to its peers and prepare its graduates to be leaders across all fields, and not just academics, that’s fine. I wish, however, that there was more discourse about this, or that Chicago articulated its current goal more clearly. If you listen to the rhetoric of any ivy president, it’s pretty clear what the goals of that school are - they want to create leaders. Chicago’s head administrators have never talked in that way (they emphasize and laud “critical thinkers” more often), but is this goal changing?</p>

<p>Again, I don’t really have a problem with the change. I’d just prefer that the change is articulated coherently, preferably by a Chicago president or dean, rather than by the glossy cover of a brochure sent to some 16 yr old in Winnetka.</p>

13

<p>If I remember correctly, Duke saw more than 10% increase last year: in a much worse economic climate - at least this year, there is a serious talk of economic recovery though job numbers are still iffy. And, note that Duke has been playing this game (application number game) much longer, and as such, one would assume that there is less head room there. On the other hand, Chicago just started to catch up, and there should be a few more years of healthy growth and more headroom.</p>

<p>The FA explanation is not satisfactory to me: That is a valid explanation for the yield number but NOT the application number. A student interested in a school would APPLY, hoping that s/he will get an adequate FA.</p>

<p>Lastly, I do believe that the NYTIMES article will help drum up more applications for Chicago (whether that’s a desirable phenomenon or not is a separate question).</p>

<p>By the way, Cue, several thousand more this year will be at the minimum 30% EA number increase this year (last year it was a bit short of 6000, I believe, so “several” thousands meaning at least 2K, that’s over 30%). </p>

<p>Regarding where Chicago is going, that’s a very good subject matter for an independent thread. As a parent, this is something that is of uttermost interest to me. I can share a sample size of “1” data point with you: my son, the pre professional type, is nonetheless profoundly being affected by Chicago’s “life of the mind” education. Though his career goal did not change (Wall Street), his outlook and perception of the meaning and role of “wealth” are going through a profound change.</p>

14

<p>Hyeonjlee - when I said “several thousand” I meant that was the preliminary projection for the WHOLE cycle, not just EA. So total, Chicago would go from around 19,000 apps to 22,000-23,000 or so. </p>

<p>Also, again, what sort of disappointed me about the NY Times article is it indicated that, in some way or another, Chicago is re-framing or re-fashioning its image. Once again, I don’t have a problem with this, I just wish the change was articulated or presented more clearly.</p>

<p>Hyeonjlee, as your son is a Wall St hopeful yet also an adherent to the “Life of the Mind” mantra, I say that’s great. If Chicago’s new goal is “to prepare critical thinkers for positions of power,” that’s great too. In the past, the goal was to prepare critical thinkers to live fruitful lives full of thinking. If the new goal relates more to practical concerns, again, I have no problem with it, I just wish it was articulated more clearly. </p>

<p>All of these topics come back to my only real complaint with Chicago: the sometimes confusing maneuvers of the administration. Maybe I’m jaded from living through the Sonnenschein controversy, but it’s funny, for a school known for critical thought, the major changes always seem to be somewhat knee-jerk or opaque. To put all of this in perspective, I fully supported former U of C President Sonnenschein’s move to increase the size of the endowment and increase college recruitment practices in the mid-90s. These changes, however, needed to have been articulated more clearly and more transparently. Instead, Sonnenschein just executed all of these initiatives without much explanation. </p>

<p>Case in point, I’ve looked on a bit enviously as Yale College prepares to expand its class size. Such an increase seems to have been considered carefully, with the investment of considerable resources toward the excess students’ housing and other needs. I believe Yale is looking to increase the student body by a total of 10-15%. A great deal of care seems to have gone into this change. </p>

<p>On the other hand, when I attended Chicago, there were around 900 students in my class, and maybe around 3500-4000 students in the college total. In a little over ten years, the college has grown by about FIFTY percent (I believe there are around 5500 undergrads at Chicago now). The administration never seemed to express a carefully articulated desire to grow the college by 50% over 10 years, and the school certainly didn’t put up a website describing how this increase would change the nature of the university. </p>

<p>Again, I don’t think an expansion is bad, I just wish Chicago’s admins - in a nod to its peers - would be clearer about the direction the school is headed.</p>

15

<p>If I were a betting (wo)man, I would say, the total application number will be around 23000. that’s a bit more 20% increase. Not outrageous 40+% like last year, but more than Duke’s 10% last - since I believe Chicago still has quite a headroom left before the number stabilizes and moves more or less at the same pace with its peers’. </p>

<p>Regarding how Chicago works or does not work to clarify its goals and mission, I think you have a very valid point. </p>

<p>I am very much in support of Chicago expanding its mission of inculcating the life of the mind way of thinking not only on future thinkers (like academicians and whatnot), but also the future “DOERS” (like politicians, bankers, and yes, even generals). Especially, watching the sorry state of the national political scene, what wouldn’t I pay to listen to thoughtful, fact based discussion among intelligent, well informed, articulate, well educated men and women who claim to be our leaders, instead of “joe blow and jane doe whose sole virtue is that s/he is just like me” parading through the platform.</p>

16

<p>Wouldn’t be surprised if EA apps were up just 10%. Chicago is almost maxed out on EA apps.</p>

<p>Think about it. Last year, Chicago got 5855 EA apps. This is more than every other university in the United States except Georgetown, which got 6100. A 10% increase would put Chicago at 6440 early applications, i.e., more than any other university in the U.S. by quite a large margin.</p>

<p>The main gains need to be and will be at regular decision time. Chicago gets substantially fewer regular decision apps than its peers. If inquiries were truly up 72%, look for a big increase later this year. Also, this should balance out EA/RD acceptance rates a little.</p>

<p>I predicted earlier this year that Chicago will get 24-25k total apps. I abide by this prediction. (Though as usual, most people here will err on the conservative side, especially this year due to the lower-than-expected EA apps.)</p>

17

<p>phuriku,</p>

<p>among Chicago’s peers, none of them has unrestricted EA like Chicago. They are either ED, nothing early, or single choice EA (SCEA). There should be more EA applications for Chicago than its peers. MIT and CalTech also have unrestricted EA, but I don’t necessarily consider them to be Chicago’s peers due to the fact that they are premier tech institutions, while Chicago is a liberal arts university (of course, there is an overlap, but still…). </p>

<p>by the way, MIT’s EA number for the class of 2013 was a bit over 5000, and that was over 25% increase from the year previous. MIT has been a WELL KNOWN quantity (if you get my drift), so I don’t necessarily buy the “maxing out” explanation. The only applicants who are not in play for an unrestricted EA application are those who are applying to SCEA schools (Yale, Stanford, etc). Even those who apply ED can apply to Chicago’s EA. If Chicago has a mindshare among top, non engineering oriented, candidates, there shouldn’t be a max out point so close to last year’s number.</p>

<p>Note that Stanford’s SCEA number for the class of 2013 was about 5400, for Yale about 5600 - close enough to Chicago’s class of 2014 even with this severe restriction.</p>

<p>Anybody with last year’s numbers for these schools? (class of 2014)</p>

18

<p>You have to realize that the total EA apps to all universities are bounded above (increasing slightly each year). This is primarily because there is a large portion of the population that is not in-the-know about college admissions. Here on CC, everyone thinks that everyone else knows about EA/ED/whatever. Not true. When I graduated 4 years ago (from a semi-elite boarding school, I might add), hardly anyone used early applications. Basically, it’s the wealthy people who are in-the-know… and most of these people were already aware of UChicago last year.</p>

<p>The main outreach of Chicago occurred within the more normal segments of the population, and these are the people applying RD.</p>

19

<p>Cue7: I am surprised to hear you say that Chicago didn’t articulate the rationale for its 50% expansion, since I thought it had been articulated extremely well, and the rationale also directly relates to the other changes you are discussing.</p>

<p>I can’t find a copy now, but five years ago or so I read an extensive faculty committee report on the university that was based on a McKinsey (I think) study. The gist was that the main weakness of the university compared to its academic peers was the failure to have developed a more vibrant college with wealthier alumni who would support the university more enthusiastically, and there was a clear recommendation (a) to expand college entering class size from what was then about 1,000 to 1,300, and (b) to seek to attract more students whose ambitions included business or political leadership, not just academics or civil service. The step-up in class size happened relatively rapidly, and (I believe) corresponded with the opening of the Max Palevsky dorm complex. In any event, it was essentially complete by the college class of 2008. The numbers nudged up from there a bit when the university learned through experience that it could house 50-70 more first-years.</p>

<p>I believe the report was written circa 2002 primarily by John Boyer, and was a pretty good guide to the history of the college and the direction he and other reformers on the faculty (including Robert Zimmer before his round trip to Brown) wanted to take.</p>

<p>In terms of class size, I think that in the 60s Chicago’s college class size dipped down below 500, and the viability of the college was seriously in question. The college has expanded 200% in the past 40 years.</p>

20

<p>JHS:</p>

<p>I heard vague reports of a McKinsey study, but as far as I know, Boyer’s report did not seem to be distributed widely to alumni. I like to think that I’m a pretty informed alum - I read the Maroon occasionally, I make sure to read the monthly Chicago alum mag (which generally has some good stories, btw), I donate and participate in alum phone-a-thons, I read the general mailings Chicago sends me, I try to follow Chicago in the news, etc. </p>

<p>So, as a counter to the relative obscurity of the McKinsey report, Chicago seemed to trumpet it’s application increase quite heavily. I received a massive, glossy brochure detailing this change and including Chicago’s new admissions materials. Moreover, for the building of the new arts center, the new dorm, or the new gym, I received mailings and saw the websites dedicated to these projects. Oftentimes, these projects became the headline of the uchicago.edu web page.</p>

<p>Moreover, I think Yale’s proposed expansion (which I’m sure you know more about) seems to be addressed quite comprehensively here:</p>

<p>[Residential</a> Colleges | Yale Tomorrow](<a href=“http://newresidentialcolleges.yale.edu/]Residential”>http://newresidentialcolleges.yale.edu/)</p>

<p>I have relatives who attend Yale, and they say the Yale Daily News has been covering the expansion carefully as well. </p>

<p>I learned of Chicago’s expansion more through just checking the numbers for a certain incoming class and quirking my eyebrows. (“1300 incoming students? That seems high.”) There didn’t seem to be nearly the same alumni outreach to inform the community about the change in class size as there did to inform alums that the marketing brochure for the school had changed. </p>

<p>Again, maybe this is just excess baggage I’m carrying from the Sonnenschein years. At the same time, I feel like I’m very informed about certain changes on campus (a new dorm or gym, etc.), but the U of C doesn’t make other - perhaps more important - changes known as well.</p>