<p>Why</a> the U. of Chicago?s Story Matters - Head Count - The Chronicle of Higher Education</p>
<p>Seems like Chicago's changing admissions policy is gaining a lot of publicity.</p>
<p>Any thoughts on this article? Again, I think it's pretty well-written and addresses the various perspectives pretty well.</p>
<p>This is a little bit of a feedback loop. This article is by the same person who wrote the NYT article being commented on elsewhere, and it’s like the bonus disc in a special-edition CD release: the stuff that was dropped from the main article when they tightened it up.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, I think it does a really good job of explaining exactly were the University of Chicago is these days with admissions, although for some stuff you have to read between the lines:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Admissions isn’t just admissions; it’s also one of the main PR channels to the world. People pay attention to universities when they or their children/grandchildren are applying to college, and going after applicants is also promoting the brand. It’s not just a question of trying to ratchet up a USNWR ranking; it’s much more getting the story out there.</p></li>
<li><p>Chicago IS somewhat unique compared to HYP (or Columbia, probably the better reference point). But it’s not THAT unique. The vast majority of students who “fit” at Columbia or Yale would also “fit” just fine at Chicago.</p></li>
<li><p>Self-selection by quirky intellectuals, and finding more and more quirky intellectuals who might self-select themselves, was a great strategy for coaxing the college back from the brink, but long-term it’s self-limiting and a surrender. Chicago will not be considered the equal of HYP or Columbia until it is competing straight up for the same students and winning some of the head-to-heads. For better or worse, Zimmer – I think it’s his decision, with the trustees of course – has decided it’s time to start acting, at least, like Chicago is competing for the same students. It may not be winning a lot of head-to-heads now, but it won’t ever win them if it isn’t competing, and now it is competing. That’s the difference between the O’Neill Era and now.</p></li>
<li><p>The administration HAS to say that the former undergraduates were great. It wouldn’t exactly advance the university’s goal of repairing and building alumni relationships if it were trashing its alumni. But everyone knows that one of the consequences of having a weak and problematic college was that the students were not as strong as those at (otherwise) peer institutions. And that part of what’s happening now is that the college is upgrading its student corps. And that of course that’s a little hurtful to alums who are essentially being told that it’s not going to be their special club anymore. Hence all the vitriol and O’Neill worship in the comments.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Amen.</p>
<p>JHS is a wise guy on this forum, and this was one of his best: no non-sense and to the point.</p>
<p>Non profit or not, a higher educational institution is a business in that it has a product, customers, and a market.</p>
<p>I have yet to see a business that survives when its core customer group self selects itself into extinction. </p>
<p>The whole brouhaha about the self selected applicant pool of U Chicago in the past has always sounded like a justification for poorly run admissions practice and a misguided policy. </p>
<p>I strongly believe that you can keep that life of the mind mantra when you have a broader appeal and much larger applicant pool. If anything, not only you can put together the student body who are the right fit for the school, but you can also have much stronger body of the right fit students when you can afford select 10 out of 100, instead of 50 out of 100.</p>
<p>The trend to increased marketing and even the common app came while Mr. O’Neill was Dean. He did a great deal to grow the college and the current Dean is continuing and amplifying that effort. What made, and hopefully makes, Chicago special was it’s unique atmosphere as a school where the primary concern was/is inquiry and ideas first and formost. Many colleagues who have spent time at Chicago who were on the faculties of Yale and Harvard never failed to recount stories of being challenged by Chicago students as they never were at their home institutions. Such an experience was recounted by Harvard psychologist B. F. Skinner in his autobiography (his wife was a U of C grad). For those who have through the years taught at Chicago and the top Ivies, the claim of a historically weaker Chicago student body woud not square with their experience.</p>
<p>At the end of the day though, wouldn’t geography play a major role in Chicago inferiority complex with the Ivy Leagues? About 43% of Harvard’s students come from the eastern seaboard, and it is even greater of a number for Columbia. Only about 10% are from the Midwest at both schools. Let’s face it, Chicago will have a lot of trouble with demographics. These are teenagers applying. If they are choosing between a school in Chicago or an equally great school an hour from friends and family, they are going to choose the Northeastern school. Chicago has not been competing with the Ivy Leagues for the same demographic, if they are truly ready to begin, they are going to have to really step up the game. Hey, Stanford did it, and this is a great start.</p>
<p>About the demographics, I wonder how many kids are like mine who wanted to experience living away from the Northeast? (We’re in NY.) Come to think of it, Chicago may self-select for Northeasterners looking for a college away from the area with which they are already familiar. A more adventurous group, perhaps? I found this to be the case when I compare my S with some of his HS classmates.</p>
<p>I imagine that an experience for many New Yorkers getting out of New York is Providence or Cambridge. That is far enough and different enough to be an adventure, but still close enough that other friends and family will be a drive a way.</p>
<p>Yup, Anon1993, I found that going a few hours away was adventure enough for most of S’s classmates. The Midwest and other points even more distant would just be too much for most.</p>
<p>Stanford was able to overcome that geographic barrier it seems. I am not well-versed in Stanford history, but I wonder what steps Stanford took to gain recognition at the level of the Ivy League schools. Chicago clearly has the quality of education that the Ivy League schools have, but they will have to work to get equal recognition. I really think that they are on their way though.</p>
<p>I think people tend to forget how, despite the international stature of these universities, in terms of student enrollment, colleges still tend to be pretty regional. I believe a professor recently talked about how a huge chunk of students at top colleges come from close by. The student profiles of various schools provides evidence for this:</p>
<p>[The</a> Undergraduate Program: Stanford University Facts](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/about/facts/undergraduate.html]The”>http://www.stanford.edu/about/facts/undergraduate.html)</p>
<p>43% of Stanford students come from California ALONE.</p>
<p>[Harvard</a> College Admissions § Applying: Statistics](<a href=“http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/apply/statistics.html]Harvard”>http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/apply/statistics.html)</p>
<p>40% of Harvard students come from the Northeast.</p>
<p>[:</a> Northwestern University Newscenter](<a href=“http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2007/10/admission.html]:”>Freshman Class Profile: Record Applicants, Highest SAT Scores: Northwestern University News)</p>
<p>43% of Northwestern students come from the Midwest.</p>
<p>[Penn</a> Admissions: Incoming Class Profile](<a href=“http://www.admissionsug.upenn.edu/profile/]Penn”>http://www.admissionsug.upenn.edu/profile/)</p>
<p>More than 50% of UPenn students come from the Northeast.</p>
<p>In contrast to all of this, only 32% of Chicago students hail from the Midwest:</p>
<p><a href=“https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/apply/classprofile.shtml[/url]”>https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/apply/classprofile.shtml</a></p>
<p>So, really, I think Chicago’s first goal should be to firm up its standing in the midwest. There are too many great students in the midwest that wind up going to other schools. Harvard, Stanford, etc. seem to have some “home field advantage,” and Chicago needs to develop that. For too long, not enough people even in the city of Chicago knew about the U of C, or had a favorable impression of the school. That needs to change first before we look to win those tougher battles on the East and West coasts.</p>
<p>A quick look at SAT scores suggests Chicago’s student body to be on par with the schools mentioned here. They are slightly below Harvard and Yale, and slightly better than Stanford. And this from a school where test scores are not weighted so greatly as at other places. This is not an effort to provide a better student body, but primarily to gain a better popular image so as to improve giving. Not a bad thing. The emphasis on the essays, the Core, and Chicago fit, will hopefully continue sending the message that Chicago is different, even if they have a football team.</p>
<p>JHS - good post!</p>
<p>…and heaven forbid, there may even be football players who want a “life of the mind” :)</p>
<p>Does anyone else wonder if the quarter schedule will be next to go? I wonder how much self-selection involves kids wanting to be home when their friends are also home? I’m curious if Stanford, Northwestern, Carleton, and other quarter schools have ever measure the impact the calendar has on yields.</p>
<p>yes, the quarter system. this is one SERIOUS gripe I have against Chicago. I believe even for quarter system schools, Chicago is the worst in terms of calendar misalignment - almost a month off. </p>
<p>It plays havoc with S1’s summer internship schedule, and for almost entire month of Sept, he is the only one around while all of friends left town. Now, S2, in all likelihood will go to a school with a semester system next fall. It makes it very difficult for us to coordinate anything as a family (believe it or not, we are still planning on going on a family vacation once a year until S1 graduates from college).</p>
<p>What role does the quarter system play in terms of the educational excellence and the “life of the mind” philosophy?</p>
<p>Puh-leeze! I think my kids ultimately liked the quarter system. Not at first, for the reasons given by hyeonjlee. But they ultimately appreciated the faster pace of courses, taking fewer courses at a time but more courses overall, and the sense that every class really mattered and represented a meaningful percentage of a course’s total class time. That’s a sense I never had with my 15-week semesters in college.</p>
<p>The internship thing worked itself out fine. And apart from Wall St. internships, a college student can make nice money in late August/early September if he or she doesn’t have to go back to class yet.</p>
<p>The thing that is going to make it nigh impossible to do away with the quarter system is the particular mix of Core requirements. The two clusters Hum/Civ/Arts and Bio/PhySci/Math would have to be completely restructured. Right now, those two clusters represent 12 quarter-courses, averaging two quarters per subject, but giving students the option to take three quarters of some and only one quarter of others. Cramming each cluster into four semester-courses would do a lot of damage and reduce flexibility; expanding them to five would crowd out other options and still not be as flexible as things are today.</p>
<p>I love the quarter system, so I hope they never get rid of that. With the core, we never have homework or studying to do during a break. Also, if you hate a class, it’ll be over as soon as it started. If you really like a class, you can continue to take that professor the next quarter.
It would be nicer if they could shift the entire calender a little bit, so that we start school and end school the same time as everyone else. Our breaks will probably never match up though.
Perhaps if they lessened core requirements a little. Instead of 15, maybe have 10, or even 8, mandatory classes, and give people the option of continuing whatever class sequence they’re in. The core is probably my least favorite part of the curriculum here. Maybe Chicago could increase yield by lessening the core requirements. That might improve its reputation amongst laymen.</p>