<p>I just got an email from Duke saying I was added to their mailing list…I don’t remember registering to be on it…</p>
<p>alopez14,</p>
<p>You observation was consistent with what I have found from general public. Only a small subset of so-called educated general public (at least in my area) has known UChicago well. The people who know from my sample set consist of Doctor, High tech company manager, former PhD student working for High tech, UChicago affiliated, and others.</p>
<p>I think building or rebuilding brand takes a very long time. UChicago did not or could not care too much its brand among general public before and has been catching up for a decade or so. It may take another generation to get there (when the current high school students, college students become older).</p>
<p>Hi everybody:</p>
<p>The best article on this topic was written by Bloomberg News. Highly recommend you all read this.</p>
<p>[Ivy</a> League Colleges Solicit Students Rejected for Stake of Selectivity - Bloomberg](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?)</p>
<p>They do a bunch of stuff to solidfy their place in the rankings, like waitlisting people that they would normally accept to increase yield.</p>
<p>But at least it’s obvious.</p>
<p>Petersuu,</p>
<p>Your statement could read: “all schools do a bunch of stuff to solidify their place in the rankings, like using ED heavily, or waitlisting qualified candidates to increase yield.”</p>
<p>This being said, it’s still hard to find any evidence that UChicago engages in such “yield protection.” Avg. SATs for the class continue to rise. On the other hand, schools like Cornell, Penn, and NU certainly make strong use of ED to yield protect. </p>
<p>Anyway, all schools protect their place in the rankings, be it through heavy use of ED or otherwise. UChicago isn’t anything special on this front, although its means (such as heavy marketing) may be more public.</p>
<p>Yes, my son does not have your stats, and he conitinually gets mail and emails from U Chicago. I think perhaps a PSAT Math above 700 is enough for them to send out info.</p>
<p>I didn’t look at it as a way to simply PROTECT its current ranking. Good point. I just naturally assumed most of these measures are taken to IMPROVE the ranking, but if you’re #5 like Chicago, there’s really no place to go but down–especially with your lower ranked competitors doing anything they can to take your spot.</p>
<p>My kid’s PSAT math score wasn’t that high and none of her PSAT subscores were impressive. She only took the ACT twice, last May (not Chicago level!) and two weeks ago (we can hope!), and never took the SAT. She did take 2 APs in sophomore year (no 5’s) and goes to a very selective test-in public school. She has been getting a ton of mail from U. of Chicago (books! nerd glasses!) starting the spring of sophomore year through last week.</p>
<p>I did not see massive marketing (from any school) to have a meaningful direct impact on improving or protecting USNEWS ranking to which several posts were referring. For meaningful impact I mean the total factors are greater than 1%.</p>
<p>Lets get to some basics. The 2014 edition of USNEWS has changed its criteria a bit:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Undergraduate academic reputation (22.5 percent): academic peer assessment (15%), high school counselors’ rating (7.5%).</p></li>
<li><p>Retention (22.5 percent): six year graduation rate (18%), freshman retention (4.5%).</p></li>
<li><p>Faculty resources (20 percent): classes with fewer than 20 students (6%), classes
with 50 or more students (2%), Faculty salary (7%), professors with the highest degree in their fields (3%), student-faculty ratio (1%), faculty who are full time (1%).</p></li>
<li><p>Student selectivity (12.5 percent): SAT and the Composite ACT score (8.125%), top 10 percent of their high school classes (3.125%), acceptance rate (1.25%).</p></li>
<li><p>Financial resources (10 percent): average spending per student on instruction, research, student services and related educational expenditures (10%).</p></li>
<li><p>Graduation rate performance (7.5 percent): effect of the college’s programs and policies on the graduation rate of students after controlling for spending and student characteristics such as test scores and the proportion receiving Pell Grants (7.5%).</p></li>
<li><p>Alumni giving rate (5 percent): reflects the average percentage of living alumni with bachelor’s degrees who gave to their school (5%).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>From the above USNEWS criteria one can see massive marketing cannot have direct impact on 1), 2), 3), 5), 6), and 7). It can only directly affect acceptance rate which only accounts for 1.25%. 8.8% vs 13.2% does not move the needle much maybe 0.0x%.</p>
<p>Of course, the more applications the more flexibility to pick top 10 percent class rank and test score. But isnt a goal for most universities? So one cannot simply say the massive marketing tries to gun the USNEWS ranking.</p>
<p>I believe UChicagos recent rise in the USNEWS has a lot to do with the attitude, efforts and money the university has been putting for a decade or so to improve or maintain its overall teaching environment (small class size), student life (student services), faculty salaries, etc.</p>
<p>The massive marketing strategy primarily serves the long-term goal of improving its branding among general public that does not know UChicago very well as today, IMO.</p>
<p>The two questions I have regarding massive marketing (from any school) are:</p>
<ol>
<li> Provide an easy way to opt-out.</li>
<li> Enforce the opt-out policy effectively and quickly.</li>
</ol>
<p>According to this thread there are only two responses so far to indicate that people have opted out via email link. But I do not know how long they still have been receiving marketing materials since opting out, and if the opt-out only affects email marketing.</p>
<p>Another complain in this thread is related to targeting low stats students. I do not know how low is low according to some marketing algorithms. I do not have an explanation yet.</p>
<p>Excellent analysis Eddi, in my opinion.</p>
<p>@alopez14-</p>
<p>Apply to the U of Chicago. You probably have a very good chance.
The mistake you and most others make is to assume the averages are the minimum.</p>
<p>Most likely, half the accepted applicants had test scores and GPA BELOW the average.</p>
<p>Nwcrazy. Good point on averages. To the OP check the full range and the quartiles, not jut averages. You maybe selling yourself short.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>O.K., you want to send me seventy five bucks for the application fee?</p>
<p>
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Don’t confuse “average” with “median”. No one actually uses “average” scores as a meaningful statistic. Medians are somewhat more meaningful here. What schools publish is their 75th and 25th percentile numbers, and people assume that the median is halfway between the two. And they are almost certainly right on that within 10-20 points (for SATs).</p></li>
<li><p>But what most colleges publish is the middle 50% range of their enrolled students. That’s not the same as their accepted students. And what many kids would like to know is the accepted student data.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Not many colleges publish that. Chicago doesn’t. Brown and a few others do. If you look at their numbers, you will see that – not very surprisingly – the percentage of accepted students who enroll (the yield) goes up as the stats of the accepted students go down. The students with better stats tend to have more choices, and more really attractive choices, so there’s more of a chance they will decide to go someplace else. </p>
<p>The net is that the median for accepted students is probably somewhere 20-30 points north of the midpoint between the 75th and 25th percentiles for enrolled students.</p>
<p>Many schools announce the admitted students profiles when they announce the admissions but what we can search for is common data set which paints a totally different picture of attending students, especially for schools with yields lower than 50%. I see a huge difference each year for Rice for admitted vs attending where admitted show 32-35 for ACT but attending show 30-34.</p>
<p>Same thing happened to me. I’ve been receiving several of those letters since sophomore year.</p>
<p>Chicago in unrelenting and creative. It works. You can bet that every piece of mail you receive and return (and they always have a postcard for you to return something!!) gets scanned and goes into a file. If you apply, all that stuff comes up in your folder. So: if you want UChicago on your radar as a possiblity, respond to each piece of mail and think about what you say. It may make the difference whether you get in or not. Reply to everything, answer everything, fake enthusiam. It’s what for dinner.</p>
<p>Back when I was in h.s., I recall getting a LOT of mail from any number of colleges after taking the ACT/SAT’s. I assume many colleges would tap into that information as part of their marketing campaign. As with any junk mail, if it doesn’t interest you, then toss in the trash. I am not sure how one could be ‘offended’ by getting ads from potential colleges.</p>
<p>So glad we saw this thread! My D gets tons of mail from UChicago and was going to make an attempt to get herself removed from their mailing list but after reading this, she’s gonna stick around hoping to get the nerdy glasses and the pizza cutter. (-;</p>
<p>Socalmom,</p>
<p>Their marketing stuff is really cute according to my daughter. I believe UChicago has one of the most creative campaigns among all schools.</p>
<p>Please let us know how the opt-out process works if you or your daughter is annoyed by the amounts of materials sent your way.</p>