<p>Being more active and accomplished doesn't mean that they're less quirky ;)</p>
<p>More Americans living abroad applied early...that's an interesting statistic. I'm in that group so I hope it doesn't hurt my chances lol.</p>
<p>Nope, still pretty quirky, with all its positive and negative connotations.</p>
<p>I am not surprised by the Midwestern bleed at all in the early numbers. I don't mean this derisively, but UChicago has always been a more middle class school than most elites, and it would be unreasonable not to expect a downturn in the economy to knock out a lot of kids who parents are in the sub 100K household income range.</p>
<p>Maybe it has something to do with aid concerns.</p>
<p>There may be no really rational explanation. Last year was really the aberration -- Chicago got 10% more EA apps than MIT, and 20%+ fewer RD apps. That didn't make any sense at all. It completely didn't make sense last year that Stanford was flat on SCEA apps, but it was; this year, predictably, it's way up. Wacky stuff happens.</p>
<p>Any statistics on how State Flagships are doing application wise this year?</p>
<p>I think JHS has hit it. </p>
<p>There's no reason for EA applications to suffer because of concerns that financial aid will be too low. It's more likely to me that last year's big surge and subsequent deferrals and denials to students who thought of UChicago as their "safety," prompted high school admissions counselors to recommend it less for that purpose. But a lot of the swings across all the schools this year, up and down, seem inexplicable to me. Kind of like the financial markets.</p>
<p>I agree with JHS about last year's aberation and I think the reason is straightforward. The leadup to that admissions cycle had a lot of good press for Chicago. </p>
<p>Contrast that with the past year. Financial aid improvements at a number of elite colleges dominated the newscycle. Chicago was conspicuously silent. Northwestern was too, but, as I have said many a time, Chicago and NWU are so different that it is futile to compare the two. All they share is geography (in a limited way - Hyde Park is no Evanston and vice versa) and academic prestige. </p>
<p>You can bet that admissions is probing the data and doing follow up research on this issue. Whether we will ever hear publicly what is really going on is doubtful. Most of you should know by now that the real stories behind admissions are closely guarded trade secrets (and I am not joking - admissions is a high stakes business and run like one.)</p>
<p>I think all in all what the College really wants is a monotonic increase in selectivity. A bubble does not really look good. A few more years in the top ten on USNews and a decent media cycle will really help the College out a lot with the 18 year old crowd and nervous, striver parents.</p>
<p>I'm not sure I buy newmassdad's argument. Financial aid improvements at competitors dominated LAST fall's newscycle, as Harvard announced its new policies just before the start of the application season, and many other colleges (including Chicago) made adjustments in response over the next few months. I haven't noticed so many flashy new initiatives this year. Perhaps that's because the news cycle has been dominated by (a) a Presidential election, and (b) the threat of a second Great Depression. In connection with both overwhelming news stories, the University of Chicago got mentioned roughly every ten minutes, for Obama, Michelle Obama, Rachid Khalidi, Milton Friedman, David Axelrod, Austan Goolsbee, etc. Not all the publicity was favorable, but there certainly was plenty of publicity, and I would sure be happy with it if I were the University.</p>
<p>I don't think the College actually much cares about a monotonic increase in selectivity. I do believes it wants a shot at more great candidates, especially including "leadership" types who will make the undergraduate experience more lively, and would like to land a slightly higher percentage of the kids like that whom it accepts.</p>
<p>JHS and I must have been listening to different radio stations. I heard "Chicago" mentioned frequently, not "University of Chicago". Most people outside this part of the board think one refers to a city, the other to a University. :)</p>
<p>Besides, truth is, a lot of the news is like this quote: "As Barack Obama puts together his administration, more than 20 Harvard Law School classmates dot the ranks of his transition team — solidifying the Crimson connection as his most enduring, yet least-known, personal network."</p>
<p>Regarding Fin Aid improvements as "LAST fall's newscycle", all I can say is "Really"? Not from what I read. But heck, I only read things like WSJ, NYT and Washington Post...Maybe the Philly papers did indeed stop covering the topic.</p>
<p>I dunno. I saw a lot of references to the University of Chicago, and to the Hyde Park community. As for financial aid, I must have missed what was new this fall, because nothing much registered. The big push to limit loans seemed to have been last year, at least at the top of the food chain.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As for financial aid, I must have missed what was new this fall, because nothing much registered. The big push to limit loans seemed to have been last year, at least at the top of the food chain.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Vanderbilt University announced this fall that loans will no longer be part of their financial aid packages, and current students with loans will have the loans replaced with grants. </p>
<p>This news was mentioned on CC but I don't think it got much attention.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I saw a lot of references to the University of Chicago, and to the Hyde Park community.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hydge Park? Yes... Chicago (city)? Yes! University of Chicago? Not so much. He was just a part-time lecturer. Perhaps that's why? I also think Obama team wanted to emphasize his past experience as a community organizer, a civil rights attorney, and Illinois Senater, not LS professor. I am in Los Angeles.</p>