"After losing interest in attending the University of Chicago, high school senior Sarah Schmoller didn’t bother to apply before the Jan. 1 deadline. The university, though, wouldn’t take no for an answer. Over winter break, the school offered to extend the deadline to Jan. 5 so that Schmoller could ‘sleep in, and eat cookie after delicious cookie’ and ‘take these extra days to relax a bit.’ When she didn’t respond, an e-mail signed by admissions director Daniel Follmer popped up in her inbox on Jan. 7, giving her two more days. ‘We’re Missing Your Application,’ the subject line read …
Chicago is an outstanding university; its legitimate prestige, stature, and intellectual accomplishments clearly place it among America’s finest institutions. Therefore, I question the University’s wisdom and judiciousness in engaging in “games” that seemingly are designed to increase admissions-oriented numbers and consequently rankings (especially, U S News’). In another active CC thread, Chicago is highlighted as a major “stalker” university. This thread indicates that Chicago extends specific individuals’ deadlines to encourage “twenty-third hour” applications. Both practices are intended to increase applications and thereby to decrease acceptance rates, which artificially creates an aura ever-greater selectivity.
The pity of this gamesmanship is it’s so obviously unnecessary. This isn’t some second, third, or fourth level institution trying to increase its reputation. Rather, this is the University of Chicago, which clearly does not require silliness to be highly esteemed. Just as bad, who does Chicago believe it is kidding? Perhaps many secondary school students, parents, and even counselors – or undergraduate raking pundits, who cannot deviate from their quantitative determinations – will be influenced by “the numbers.” However, Chicago’s “antics” have been so blatant and transparent that no serious observer will alter his opinion(s) based on these sorts of juvenile ploys. This self-inflicted ludicrousness degrades a great university.
Weird - when I was applying to college, UChicago was not that tough to get into. Imagine my surprise to hear that in 2015 it is so difficult to gain admission there and that it had zoomed up the rankings so quickly!
Whoever took over that admissions department deserves a big raise!
Anyway, if they are stalking just to get more applicants to reject for the purpose of pumping up their USNWR ranking, then that is just deplorable.
When my kids applied UChicago sent both of them just a ridiculous amount of mail, email etc. Neither one expressed any interest to the school and one of my kids did not have the stats to be considered for admission. Personally I think the school should tone down their marketing efforts.
Eh. It’s, I’m sure, a temporary measure. Two or three admissions cycles and we should be at the same level as everyone else with marketing. I seriously doubt Chicago got a large enough number of applications with the extension to make it worth it in future years.
Addendum: in my opinion, colleges also shouldn’t charge so much for the “privilege” of applying.
If you are falsely dangling hope of admission to someone who is stretched to afford the cost of applying, there will be some bad karma coming back to you. At least, in an ideal universe, there should be. :))
It should be noted that acceptance rate is a very small (1.5%, I think) part of the ranking as a whole. Yield isn’t even included. So Chicago, WUSTL, et. al. haven’t made significant rankings gains by stats alone.
And @Nerdyparent, since Nondorf took over the acceptance rate has gone from a high, if respectable 26 percent to the (predicted) 7% this year. He very much deserves a raise.
There must be a point of diminishing returns though. I mean, when my daughter was putting her list together, often someone would suggest a college and she would say something like, “I have enough colleges that are impossible to get into. I’d rather focus on finding schools that are actually likely to admit me.” And she’s academically qualified for any school. So the kids who look at college applications as more than just another opportunity to collect honors tend to limit the amount of sub 20% admit rate schools.
I don’t agree Nondorf “deserves a raise,” if he is intentionally and knowingly manipulating kids – who have no realistic chance of admission – only to increase Chicago’s application numbers and decrease its acceptance rates. By my standards, that’s immoral.
On Post#2, while I would not question the poster’s intelligence and critique on Chicago with sincerity and respect, I question his fairness towards Chicago. Why singled out Chicago on the extended deadline while relatively many other big names schools were mentioned who did the same for similar or other legit reasons.
As Kaarboer pointed out, I seriously doubt the extended deadline would create meaningful increase of applications that would move the needle. The “No Barrier” policy from Chicago is a new initiative this year and some of the details associated with the program may have caused some confusion to some potential applicants and therefore the deadline extension was totally justified.
The critique on strong marketing with mailings on Chicago may seem justified; but maybe not. Let’s look at this. HYPSM would need no introduction; a top tier university, say, Duke, has a strong name not only due to its academic excellence, but also its strong D1 sports programs. Massive mailings may not be necessary for them.
However, although Chicago has long been known nationally and globally as an intellectual powerhouse, it is only so to the people in the know, not to the public; unlike other top tier universities such as Duke which can always let the basketball do the talking to the public, or Notre Dame or Northwestern that can let their D1 football serve their publicity purpose.
U of Chicago does not have such luxury of D1 sports. Therefore, to step up to the game, Dean Boyer and Jim Nondorf simply expand the marketing efforts to draw more attention from all those bright kids around the nation and let them have another great option to consider when they are ready to apply for college; an effort to let more bright kids know about this seemingly unknown academic powerhouse be known to them as a great option for them to consider when these bright kids normally would only apply to the Harvards or the Stanfords of the world.
I see nothing wrong with effective marketing. It’s been working beautifully for Chicago.
@theluckystar: I appreciate your rebuttal (post #10) and especially your recognition that my critique of Chicago was (and is) founded on sincerity and true respect. There’s no sense in instituting a protracted debate; I appreciate your points and I am sure your understand mine. I will only offer four succinct comments:
I sense a fairly recent pattern where Chicago is diligently working to attract ever-increasing applications numbers, and thereby to achieve reduced acceptance rates. It really is not the extended application deadlines -- for specific individuals -- nor the ceaseless (some might suggest, almost shameless) marketing per se that I find rather inappropriate. Rather, these are elements of this larger strategy, which I believe is directly tied to perceived selectivity and to rankings. While there is nothing improper about striving to improve an institution's ratings, I really don't think this should be attempted -- or accomplished -- with marketing ploys, instead of with substantial, tangible, and germane enhancements/accomplishments.
You mention Division I sports several times, indicating that they have a strong influence on name recognition. I do not doubt that; however, lack of "big time intercollegiate athletics" certainly does not preclude institutions from national prominence (as substantiated by the Ivy League . . . Division I, certainly, but generally not athletically eminent).
I wonder if the massive undergraduate marketing campaign Chicago annually employs has any specific achievement criteria for an individual's inclusion? For example, would a high school student have to achieve a minimum PSAT score or be inducted into the National Honor Society to receive Chicago's extensive and unsolicited mail/e-mail marketing materials? My point in raising this question is simple; if every student solicited by Chicago had a reasonable opportunity to be admitted, I'd feel that rampant "hucksterism" wasn't in play. However, it is my understanding that many students, with essentially no chance of admission, receive unsolicited and particularly optimistic marketing materials from the University. My complaint with this -- and it honestly distresses me -- is Chicago's application numbers increase, perceived selectivity improves due to decreased acceptance rates, and rankings are enhanced, but kids are hurt because they erroneously believe they may be accepted by Chicago when, in reality, they don't have a viable opportunity.
Finally, you conclude by asserting,"It's been working beautifully for Chicago." Of course, that indicates there must be some quantitative goals that are annually being achieved/surpassed. What are they? Are they the cynical undergraduate marketing strategy of: (a) increased applications; (b) decreased admissions rates; (c) greater perceived selectivity; and (d) enhanced rankings? If not, what has "been working beautifully for Chicago?"
It’s not as if UChicago is lacking in applications. What I find deplorable about the school’s tactics is that they DO market to kids whose stats fall far below their freshman stats. My daughter was inundated with their mailings. While bright and, I think wonderful, she is a solid B student with no hooks. Her PSAT scores were unremarkable. What’s the point of sending brochure after postcard after email after letter to her?
Luckily we have friends and family with older kids so we knew what was happening. We just laughed and tossed the junk. I lost a lot of respect for the school from their excessive marketing. WUSTL is another such school. Again I lost a lot of respect for that school.
To be clear, D did not get mailings from any top 25 schools (research or LAC). That made Chicago’s mailings seem more strikingly misplaced.
Now I see why the perceived problem was there. The marketing company the university has hired seemingly did not just send school information to A students but aslo B students. But this is U of C and it is known for being quirky and doing things its own way; in a sense that if it sees someone who has the true potential with a good fit to the intellectual culture of the school, it should not be a surprise for Chicago to accept those B students. I grant you those numbrrs may not be as high as those A students; but you have to give them a chance to get to know the school first before they could apply and have a shot at it. It does not mean I don’t feel bad for those students who get rejected at the end, but regrettably, those are “collateral damage”, for lack of a better description. Frankly, I feel equally bad for those A students who get rejected as well. We all know how difficult for anyone to get admitted to those top tier schools, A students and otherwise. Why would you assume if a school sends you material, you would be accepted already. The material simply tells you that the school is there for you to consider.
Let’s face it, as good as other top ten schools, Chicago is not nearly as old as HYP and does not have big name varsity sports programs like Stanford, or engineering programs like MIT, so it chose to market the school the way it is to let those bright high school kids to get to know it, nothing less.
If the school were sending marketing information to C students or worse, I would question its marketing effort just like you. B students? Why not, as long as it shows true potential and good fit to the school. They deserve to know the school too.
@theluckystar: I respect the ways in which you’re defending Chicago and I appreciate your marketing-oriented arguments. I won’t repeat my points from previous posts to this thread, but I will only briefly emphasize:
Although this thread and CC (in aggregate) are not random samples, it’s clear that more than a few individuals likely resent Chicago’s marketing approach, many with personal experiences and many who have excellent CC reputations.
Chicago is a top-ten National Research University, it’s not P&G attempting to increase marketshare for toothpaste or laundry detergent. Yes, all schools engage in marketing to some degree; however, if excessive, this is understandably perceived as unseemly.
@TopTier, I respect the way you expressed your criticism on Chicago’s marketing effort and the way some parents felt about it. However, if you really looked at all those names got mentioned in another thread, Chicago clearly is not the only school who does arguably heavy marketing. I won’t repeat all reasons why Chicago do heavy marketing on this post again.
One point worth repeating is that every bit as strong a research powerhouse as Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Duke, Northwestern, Berkeley, etc, Chicago has never been a household name in the public eye other than those in academia. With some high school outliers exception, Chicago’s not even in the same zip code of top high school seniors’ selective college search until perhaps ten years ago. Now it is a “must” college to be included for top students among their college applications (*for those who do not necessarily go for engineering major per se.)
Ironically, the low acceptance rate and high yield of Chicago are not considerably affecting the ranking system because acceptance rate plays a role of only 1.25% in the USNWR college ranking methodology and they don’t even consider yield rate at all. For those who think the heavy marketing effort from Chicago is to lower the admit rate and improve the ranking are misguided.
Improved rankings don’t have to be the goal of heavy marketing. Product placement and name recognition will do. I think schools who operate this way hope the rest (popularity and selectivity) will follow. They have no reason to target kids whose chance of admission is small. To market to them using personalized recruiting materials is, in my opinion, particularly egregious. I can think of no good reason why a reputable school would do that.
yeah the amount of marketing convinced me not to apply.
and tbh, for someone not looking to go into academia, it really would be a TERRIBLE fit. I’d say it’s only really good for people who’re not at all pre-professional.
@TopTier Selectivity barely effects rankings. Acceptance rate is 1.5% of the USNWR total. So it barely changes the ranking (sure, maybe we’re 4 instead of 6 because of it. Big woop.) But the changes in ranking, at least, were made primarily by fixing a lot of the little problems that had dogged the College due to its red-headed stepchild status within the University.
I don’t argue with the fact that there is a little unseemliness about the level of marketing, but as our numbers have begun to stabilize (around 29-31k applications, 7-8% admit rate, 55-65% yield seems to be our area for the moment), I suspect that the marketing plan will become much more focused at the group most likely to apply and to attend. I do think that the outrage is overblown, as we are far from the only school to take this method. I believe Penn took the same steps in the 90s, and it certainly hasn’t tarnished their reputation.
And @theanaconda, as someone who is looking to either go into consulting, finance, or start up a company, I don’t think you could be much more wrong. There is a strong pre-professional culture at the university (less so than say, Penn, but strong) and any argument otherwise is probably based on old information, but to each their own.