<p>Calmom and Idad</p>
<p>Ok, now I get it. A lower selectivity is better and schools strive to report a higher number. My bad!</p>
<p>I am perplexed, isn't the job of the admissions office to provide the college/faculty with students who will thrive in its environment and best represent the values of the institution? If this is accomplished with a 36% admission rate rather than 10%, I fail to see the problem. In Chicago's case, this is accomplished by a somewhat unique approach to admissions, and as has been said before, it appears to be quite successful.</p>
<p>xiggi,</p>
<p>Apology accepted. As for assembling a list, are you sure you've not confused me with another poster? I've only asked two things from you, directly, neither of which you have provided. Unlike you, I will be charitable and repost them. Here 'tis.</p>
<ol>
<li>"Frankly, it seems like the prompts did their job: they elicited a very strong reaction from both you and your sister. What more should they do?"</li>
<li>"Why would an increased application rate be better for Chicago?"</li>
</ol>
<p>Feel free to answer or, as the case has been so far, not answer at your discretion.</p>
<p>I think I have a pretty good idea what Chicago is looking for and by all accounts the admissions people seem to be doing their job quite well. You seem to think they're doing precisely the opposite, but all you talk about is selectivity. Yet, the admissions staff has made it clear that they're completely uninterested in artificially "improving" their selectivity statistic by "competing" with other schools for applicants. </p>
<p>One of the most important aspects of a person's application is their ability to articulate why they want to come to Chicago. Chicago prides itself on the character of its student body and the general atmosphere around campus. What good is drawing a bunch of applications from students who would really prefer Ivy League schools instead? Chicago would run the risk of fundamentally changing what makes itself Chicago. That is counterproductive.</p>
<p>
[quote]
NW - US News 2006
15,600 Applications
4,684 admitted
22% Admission Rate
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...Sorry, but how is that a 22% acceptance rate? It comes out to 30% when I calculate it.</p>
<p>xiggi,</p>
<p>Normally I welcome your erudite, data based contribution to discussions here. But for this thread, I'm puzzled as to what you're trying to accomplish. Your original post was OK.</p>
<p>Since then, though, it appears you are flogging a position. I think most of us understand you don't like this year's essay prompts. I think we understand you are no fan of UofC (please no need to argue either way. Behaviour has spoken!). Fine. You need not apply and are beyond that point anyway. </p>
<p>Why engage in a pointless debate regarding admissions practices, stats and so forth? </p>
<p>The fact is, we don't know what the university's intent is, nor can we. </p>
<p>Isn't it enough that we recognize that UofC is a school that is not for everyone (just like every other college, I might add..)?</p>
<p>And move on...</p>
<p>NMD, I am not trying to accomplish anything. </p>
<p>You are correct that I don't like this year's essay prompts, but you are not correct, that I am no fan of UofC in general. I am not a fan of the school's admission office, especially since, in my opinion, they offer the wrong impression of what the school is. </p>
<p>As far as data, the admission rate is indeed 30% at Northwestern, and that changes the comparison with Chicago a bit. However, what does not change is the fact that Chicago does not receive as many applicants as its reputation should dictate. If that is by design or by inablity to secure more applicants via better marketing, better positioning, or simply by changing its "uncommoness" is something we can speculate and debate ad nauseam. </p>
<p>I have taken the position that the message sent by the admission office, especially through this year's choices of prompts, DOES contribute to applicants deciding NOT to apply. The fact that the schools in Chicago's peers' group secure a larger number of applications is undeniable. Feel free to dismiss the correlation for lack of causation, I'll stick to my OPINION. </p>
<p>In this discussion, I did not attempt to judge or evaluate the quality of education at Chicago--except in positive terms. I started this thread to discuss the prompts and the role of the prompts in admissions. When I did compare schools, i only did it based on the simplest published data on applications and admissions ... items that are relevant to the role of the admissions' office. </p>
<p>I understand that my position might annoy people who love everything about Chicago, and that the temptation to dismiss my opinion by mischaracterizing my posts is simply too hard to resist. So be it!</p>
<p>"I am not a fan of the school's admission office, especially since, in my opinion, they offer the wrong impression of what the school is."</p>
<p>To the contrary, the admissions office, in my opinion, provides a clear impression of Chicago. It does so not only through the Uncommon Application, but in its tours, publications, postcards, and very successful admissions blog. Though I won't get into it here, my S has had the opportunity most who argue about this or that school have not, he has attended both Chicago and another top school. Though the school numbers are comparable, the edge going to the other school, he found the school culture, both in class and out to be quite different. One was focused on inquiry and extension beyond the subject matter, more theory oriented, and the other with a more practical orientation in its coursework, with the students less concerned with theory and more career focused. Communicating that difference to prospective students should be an admissions office job, as much as, or more than, bumping up the number of applicants.</p>
<p>Ah, I think I've found Xiggi's point, and the problem:</p>
<p>"the fact that Chicago does not receive as many applicants as its reputation should dictate."</p>
<p>xiggi, think about what you imply with this statement:</p>
<ul>
<li> that reputation should drive applicantions</li>
<li> that somehow, we can measure reputation.</li>
</ul>
<p>Many of us have spent a good deal of time arguing on these boards that reputation should not drive applications, that an application should be based on "more relevant" factors like fit, quality of education etc.</p>
<p>I also think most of us would agree that reputation means different things to different people.</p>
<p>OK. At least we know some reasons for the differing views.</p>
<p>Thanks, this helps (seriously!)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I understand that my position might annoy people who love everything about Chicago, and that the temptation to dismiss my opinion by mischaracterizing my posts is simply too hard to resist.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Haha. Help, help, I'm being oppressed!</p>
<p>In truth, there are plenty of things about Chicago that kinda suck. The Registrar, for example, constantly amazed me with their stupidity and recklessness (see, e.g., here</a>). The Maroon often publishes factually incorrect articles and never issues a retraction. I could go on.</p>
<p>But the facts speak differently about Admissions. You say the job of admissions is to get more applicants, but the fact is that the number of applicants have been increasing steadily for years under the current leadership and the Class of 2010 is bound to have the lowest acceptance rate of any class in recent memory. The only thing I can conclude is that you just don't like the essays and want to blame Admissions for the Downfall of Chicago(tm).</p>
<p>Diocletian, please realize that your sarcasm and your charititable disposition are entirely wasted on me. I do not know you, and you do not know me, and I rather leave it at that. Go ahead and debate the issues raised in this thread, but do not expect any further acknowledgment of your posts. I have ignored your remarks, but I wanted to make sure you were aware it wasn't a mere oversight.</p>
<p>Haha, yes, the ostrich debating method. I know it all too well! I'm going to requote James Chandler's convocation speech:
[quote]
It [Chicago] is a place where one is always in principle allowed to pose the hardest question possible — of a student, a teacher, or a colleague — and feel entitled to expect gratitude rather than resentment for one’s effort. This trait is frequently noted (not always approvingly) by scholars from other institutions who visit us.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hmm, yep. </p>
<p>My questions have been perfectly straightforward and there's no reason they shouldn't get an honest answer. I've only been ribbing you because you haven't been answering them honestly. Oh well, consider our discussion closed, you fuddy duddy.</p>
<p>DC, here's one for you: "Il n'y pas de pire sourd que celui qui ne veut pas entendre" or loosely translated for you "There are none so blind as those who will not see".</p>
<p>Diocletian: don't be too surprised. My S found that the faculty and students at the non-Chicago school he attended didn't respond approvingly either. Hopefully the Chicago essays help discern the ones who like Chicago's "interrogative mode" from the ones who don't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am not a fan of the school's admission office, especially since, in my opinion, they offer the wrong impression of what the school is.
[/quote]
On the contrary, they do such an excellent job of defining the college that they discourage a significant number of non-Chicago types from applying at the outset.</p>
<p>Chicago is engaging in niche marketing. And of course they know exactly what they are doing, since they are able to successfully fill their classes each year with students who preserve the character of their institution, and they have maintained their distinctive character for decades. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive - college decisions on marketing and the design of application procedures is not something that is taken lightly or done on an ad hoc basis. Even the choice of color for the paper in the viewbook is done with the input of a marketing consultant... as is the case with every other major college or university. There is a reason -- and a good one-- why the brochures arrive emblazoned with the words "The life of the mind" and the words:
[quote]
WARNING: Study in this university is known to cause thinking, occasionally deep thinking. Typical side effect include mild temporary anxiety followed by profound long-term satisfaction.
[/quote]
[Online, downloadable version of Student Prospectus available here: <a href="http://phoenix.uchicago.edu/Viewbook/#%5D%5B/url">http://phoenix.uchicago.edu/Viewbook/#][/url</a>]</p>
<p>Apparently Xiggi would like to see Chicago follow the lead of NYU and WUSTL and increase their popularity. Perhaps brighter colors in the brochures, (more reds & blues, less browns) more frequent mailings, less of an emphasis on academics, more photos of playful students frolicking on sun-drenched lawns? I mean face it, all those pictures of gargoyles and gothic buildings are gloomy.... Chicago just doesn't seem like a fun place at all. (And definitely the admissions office should do something about those t-shirts that say "Where fun comes to die") </p>
<p>I guess some people don't get it. The whole point is that Chicago is the one in the group that is NOT like the others....</p>
<p>these are awful. what do they tell U of C about the student except that they can BS like crazy or are extremely creative...both of which can and cannot be a good thing. I think the cartesian one is hilarious</p>
<p>I believe on the Chicago forum the cartesian prompt is the most popular closely followed by the Alice in Wonderland dinner.</p>
<p>Actually, "Where Fun Goes To Die" is one of the more benign UChicago T-shirt slogans.</p>
<p>"Apparently Xiggi would like to see Chicago follow the lead of NYU and WUSTL and increase their popularity. </p>
<p>I guess some people don't get it. The whole point is that Chicago is the one in the group that is NOT like the others...."</p>
<p>Calmom, where in the world do you get that from? Did I ever write about WUSTL in this context, or any other for that matter? Do YOU know what I think about NYU? </p>
<p>Why can't you express your opinion as it is without having to frame it by loosely interpreting the statements of others or simply inventing some as you please? </p>
<p>I am glad you get IT! However, apparently, you have the greatest difficulty focusing on what otherd write as you constantly have to put words in their mouth.</p>
<p>
[quote]
DC, here's one for you: "Il n'y pas de pire sourd que celui qui ne veut pas entendre" or loosely translated for you "There are none so blind as those who will not see".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, there are a few things I can see. You say we don't know each other, but the discussion so far has been pretty revealing.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>You do not always mean what you say.
Evidence: You say you're ignoring me, but then respond anyhow. You can't claim the moral highground by saying you're backing out, only to respond.</p></li>
<li><p>You hold opinions in the face of contradictory evidence.
Evidence: You claim that Chicago's admissions office is responsible for a steady decline in applicant numbers when in fact the exact opposite is occuring. Each class for the past several years has had more applicants than the last, and the "selectivity" statistic has been steadily increasing. Prima facie this contradicts your claim.</p></li>
<li><p>You hold opinions without sufficient evidence.
Evidence: You claim that Chicago's essays result directly in lower application numbers, yet provide no direct evidence beyond the fact that other schools of Chicago's supposed caliber secure more applicants. You say that the increase in applicants is occurring in spite of the essays, not because of them. Do you have any evidence besides the anecdote which you included in your original post?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Since we're all in a quoting mood, here's some Machiavelli: "And in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, which it is not prudent to challenge, one judges by the result."</p>
<p>The fact is, we don't know the minds of President Zimmer, Dean Boyer, the Board of Trustees, and the Admissions staff, so the only reliable guide to the success or failure or their plans with respect to admissions is the results. You seem reasoned, most of the time, xiggi, so I ask you: what is it about the results of this admissions staff that you don't like? Please back up your opinion with sufficient evidence, i.e., more than anecdotes, at least.</p>
<p>Now, I'm willing to change my mind about all of this, but you're really not helping your case by avoiding my questions. That's all I'm asking. You, on the other hand, seem to be going out of your way to avoid answering them.</p>
<p>I don't know how arguments are conducted whatever school you attended, but this wouldn't have even held up in my HS debate league. It's pretty amateur. So, please, I invite you to surprise me.</p>
<p>Of course, you're also free to not respond. In that case I'll just pretend that you were being forthright when you originally claimed you were ignoring me and my posts.</p>
<p>P.S., don't take my tone as being overtly hostile. I'm really having a lot of fun! :D</p>
<p>My favorite U of C t-shirt is: </p>
<p>That's fine in practice, but how does it work in theory? </p>
<p>It too is on the benign side, but reflective of the approach taken in the essay prompts.</p>