The Chicago Maroon has asked incoming first-years to participate in a survey on topics ranging from family background to political identity to expectations for the future. This year, 544 out of the 1,740 first-year students, or just under a third of the class, provided responses. Over the past two years, the University has altered its admissions policies by accepting a larger class size and introducing two Early Decision rounds on top of the existing Early Action round. But how, if at all, have these changes altered the composition of the class?
The demographic result for “White” isn’t even close to matching the university’s profile for Class of 2021. Even if you assume that 100% of “Internationals” from the profile page are white (and that’s a stretch), it still adds up to well under 50% vs. the 57% that the Maroon survey reports. Perhaps this survey is over-sampling Whites (or, more accurately, a disproportionate number of whites are voluntarily responding). That’s going to impact the representational value of some of the other survey responses.
Last year’s survey saw the same thing, and Asians seemed to be a tad “over-represented” as well. College Navigator as well as the UChicago Class of 2020 Profile can be compared against the Maroon survey to conclude this.
Interestingly, about 140 fewer responded to the survey this year than last year, despite the increase in class size. Similar to last year, the female response rate was disproportionally larger than their representation in the class. That, too, will impact the ability of other survey responses to be representative of the class.
However, if the survey consistently over-represents women, Whites and Asians, then year-to-year comparisons on the other questions probably do provide some meaningful insight. While the snapshot might not be totally representative, the trend may be.
The incoming class looks to be quite wealthy - about 14% of respondents said they came from families making $500k or more. That’s got to be an increase from years passed.
Also, a really low number of ED applicants in the poll expressed need for any financial aid.
It’s safe to say the class overall is quite wealthy, and that the ED class is especially wealthy - and less in need of financial aid.
@Cue7 15% last year so about the same. And 48% of last year’s respondents received fin. aid. (obviously very difficult to figure out which of those would have been ED had it been offered).
This is encouraging:
“When asked whether it is more important for the University to maintain a positive learning environment by prohibiting certain speech or viewpoints, or to create an open learning environment by exposing students to all types of speech and viewpoints, even those considered offensive and biased, 76.8 percent of students consider the open environment to be more important. Of those who identified as strongly liberal, 58.8 percent found the open environment to be more important, 79.7 percent of moderate liberals, 84.1 percent of moderates, 89.1 percent of moderate conservatives, and 100 percent of strong conservatives.”
@JBStillFlying While I think it’s certainly an important percentage to look at, the way the Maroon phrased the options left a fair amount of students conflicted because more people arguably want to prohibit certain kinds of speech in limited contexts than those who want to prohibit them in all contexts, but the question implies the latter. Had there been a third option taking limited context into account, the numbers would probably be lower.
@mylhu1011 the question as described on the survey - and as posted above - asks the student to choose between limiting certain speech and viewpoints vs. essentially limiting no speech or viewpoints. There was no third choice of limiting all speech. Are you saying that the survey results misstated the actual survey question? If so, can you please post what the actual question was?
“Had there been a third option taking limited context into account, the numbers would probably be lower.”
Want to make sure my above answer address this specific point. Isn’t your third option, in fact, an example of “limiting certain speech or viewpoints?” If not, how is it different?
Interesting factoids:
14% are observant Jews > more than Catholics or Protestants.
EA admits had 2x better chance of getting a merit scholarship than ED admits
EA admits had 1.5x better chance of getting a merit scholarship than RD admits
So if you want merit aid, apply EA not RD or ED. Makes sense.
The way the article reports it, the choice was between complete laissez faire openness and “prohibiting” certain speech or viewpoints. If that was the case, a student who might be in favor of restricting certain speech in some contexts, but not “prohibiting” it, would have a hard time answering. I agree that if that’s the way the survey was phrased, it’s not a well-framed question and the response is probably misleading.
Something that makes me chuckle a bit is that all of a sudden people who identify themselves as hard-core conservatives are all in favor of free speech. That certainly wasn’t the case in the past, and it won’t be the case in the future, either. It probably isn’t the case now if, for instance, you are calling for a boycott of Israel or supporting Islamic State.
What’s the difference between “restricting” and “prohibiting”? Examples please.
@FStratford UChicago had very visible community of observant Jews when I was there 30 years ago. And remember, it was one of the few prominent institutions that welcomed Jewish faculty back when other comparable elites were opening discriminating against them. I had the impression that there were prominent Jewish famiies living in Hyde Park/Kenwood throughout the first part of of the 20th century - perhaps someone can fill us in on the details.
Interesting that rural students lean liberal. Would have expected more Johnson supporters than Kasich supporters.
Amusing that 1 in 25 students have used marijuana but plan not to use it in college.
On the free speech issue, I’d love to see the same question posed at other schools. The choices are stark, but it’s not total noise; 42% of strong liberals did choose the prohibition option after all.
I wonder though, what percent of kids really know. As we are full pay, I never discussed finances with my D.
Full pay families have the privilege of not having to address this issue with their kids. Their kids would be oblivious to Thais issue. That’s not the case for most families. Most families would have to have a talk with their kid about what is financially feasible for them.