<p>Have they been released yet? Haven't seen anything. Looking for number of applicants and number of acceptances. Thx</p>
<p>Good question. Pretty much every other school has reported their initial numbers by now–even schools that won’t release their decisions until tomorrow; nothing from UChicago yet though decisions were released March 23rd. Maybe the Maroon will have something tomorrow.</p>
<p>It is around 13%.
Last night we attended the program in D. C. “A Conversation with President Zimmer”. Zimmer mentioned it is 13%, but he didn’t give any decimals. Zimmer spent 10~15 minutes on UChicago’s ongoing molecular engineering program, 10 minutes on the achievement/improvement of UChicago’s undergraduate college, including the fast increase of the application numbers, and 10 plus minutes on UChicago center in Beijing China.</p>
<p>I hope that’s an estimate for final admit rate and not the pre-waitlist figure. Even if the final admit rate is 13%, Chicago’s going to have big problems with housing. Why does Chicago insist on over-admitting the class every single year?</p>
<p>You know what would’ve been smart? Pierce’s population is less than 300. Decrease the size of the class by 150 for this year and next (so that each of the next years’ class sizes are 1250), abandon Pierce, build a new dorm in its place. Housing problem solved. Yes, there would be temporary administrative and financial complications with this move, but it would be worth it due to the future problems it would solve.</p>
<p>I don’t believe that’s the pre-waitlist figure. As UChicago has a set financial aid budget each year, I imagine over-admitting could lead to getting a bit more revenue from the additional students (if there’s a set fin. aid budget and you admit more students, that means there are more students footing more of the bill). </p>
<p>Phuriku, your plan would call for less tuition revenue for 2-3 years (decreasing class size to 1250 from 1400), and call for another expenditure - constructing a new dorm. That’s an expensive enterprise without any alumni gifts directed toward the goal of a new dorm. Why would the school move in favor of an added expense as opposed to additional revenue? </p>
<p>I think Pierce has got to go, along with a few other UChicago dorms (maclean for example, has always just been kind of out there). Other dorms, such as Snell Hitchcock, could probably use some renovation. </p>
<p>None of these needs, however, are pressing for the university. These dorms can stay as they are for 4-5 more years, and I doubt UChicago would face any negative consequences from this. The ranking probably won’t decrease, kids will still be happy to attend a top college, etc. with or without one new dorm. </p>
<p>So, since there won’t be any negative effects of not building a new dorm, I doubt the school would vote for a smaller class size for a few years to accommodate a new dorm, which would just be another expense.</p>
<p>Cue7: The University is literally out of space for students. Last year, they had undergrads moving into buildings that aren’t even dorms. We’ve moved students into the dorms until they’re overflowing, to the point where we’ve had to put incoming students into i-House and non-dorms. </p>
<p>As I understand it, the University wants to tear down Pierce and put a new dorm in its place, which sounds like a good idea. But the only way this actually gets done is to find another place for the current Pierce residents to stay. Whether it’s now or 5 years in the future, the University is going to have to find a way to do this. And from what I see, the constant over-admission is only going to exacerbate any potential solutions to this problem. Yes, having a large class size is a good source of revenue. Yes, decreasing the number of students would be a temporary financial burden. But at the same time, this is a problem that will have to be dealt with sooner or later, and I’d rather have it be sooner than later. (Also, if you do the calculations with rough estimates, the decreased class size would cost the University about $20m and a new dorm would likely cost about $50m for a total loss of less than $100m. I don’t see why we can’t dig into our endowment for such a relatively small amount.)</p>
<p>Another observation: Despite the fact that Chicago had a much larger application increase than others, its admit rate decrease is among the smallest of private universities. It seems that most universities are expecting a much higher yield due to the return of HP’s EA, whereas Chicago seems to not have planned for any such increase in yield. In the end, this lack of planning will prove to be a pretty dumb move, since I still think the yield will likely increase to 45%-ish. Very few waitlist admittances and an unanticipated class size of around 1450-1500 is my prediction.</p>
<p>Phuriku:</p>
<p>All your points are good and valid, and maybe I’m being a stick in the mud, but UChicago doesn’t have a great track record of addressing College needs promptly and quickly. Think about it:</p>
<p>The Ratner Center should have been built ~10 years before it actually was - the UChicago gyms were always pretty bad, but Ratner wasn’t constructed until like 2004.</p>
<p>The old Shoreland dorm was a mess and getting to be pretty run down, and South Campus probably should have been built a bit before it actually was.</p>
<p>UChicago’s old arts “center” Midway Studios, was pretty poor, and the Logan Arts Center probably should have been constructed years ago.</p>
<p>To prompt even renovations in Pierce, sewage LITERALLY needed to explode in the bathrooms. Honestly, Pierce needed to be renovated/reconstructed when I was at UChicago, but the dorm kept getting more and more run down for years.</p>
<p>Given this track record, I don’t know why you think significant change (drop class sizes now for the next 2-3 years, build a $50M dorm) will happen anytime soon. Given how UChicago has addressed issues in the past, I would be pleased to see a new dorm in Pierce’s place by around 2018-2020. </p>
<p>Finally, I really wish a donor would step up so the new Pierce dorms will be really good. All the new modern architecture is nice, but what about building a more gothic style dorm? That’s the heart of UChicago architecture. Check out the new Yale residential colleges as a reference:</p>
<p>[Residential</a> Colleges | Giving to Yale](<a href=“http://newresidentialcolleges.yale.edu/]Residential”>http://newresidentialcolleges.yale.edu/)</p>
<p>How cool would it be for the new Pierce to look like THAT? </p>
<p>(Sadly, UChicago doesn’t invest nearly as much in its college as Yale does for its undergrads.)</p>
<p>Oh finally on yield - Phuriku, I think the admissions committee uses an algorithm to predict matriculations fairly well. Think about it, last year’s yield (after waitlist accepts) was 39.8%. See here:</p>
<p><a href=“https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/apply/classprofile.shtml[/url]”>https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/apply/classprofile.shtml</a></p>
<p>As the yield wasn’t outrageous or crazily unexpected last year, I don’t think last year’s oversized class was a big surprise. If it was, why did UChicago accept waitlisted applicants last year, even when they already knew they had a pretty big class coming in? </p>
<p>Put another way, I think UChicago is purposely looking to keep its class sizes a little big. </p>
<p>Finally, as yield last year was 39.8%, I’d be really surprised if it jumps to 45% this year. Last year everyone thought yield would be 41-42%, but it didn’t hit that mark. This year, I think 41-42% would be obtainable.</p>
<p>“Given this track record, I don’t know why you think significant change (drop class sizes now for the next 2-3 years, build a $50M dorm) will happen anytime soon. Given how UChicago has addressed issues in the past, I would be pleased to see a new dorm in Pierce’s place by around 2018-2020.”</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I’m going to have to agree with you here; Chicago doesn’t have a great track record for these kinds of issues. I thought Zimmer would be a little better with these issues, especially with his renewed emphasis on the College. That being said, we did just open South a few years ago, and we never did have a significant donor to name the building after. Perhaps the University wants to solidify support from a significant donor before it launches a major dorm this time. If that is indeed what they’re doing, it might not be a bad move, but I hope the University doesn’t take too long.</p>
<p>A gothic dorm would certainly be interesting. I also think it would excite alumni and enhance donations. The recent glass structures are nice, but they’re missing a certain feeling present in other University architecture.</p>
<p>I think yield has the potential for a big jump this year due to increased visibility from rankings, but also from Harvard and Princeton’s return to EA. Harvard has stated that they’re predicting a 92-97% yield for SCEA (!), and Yale and Princeton have similar estimates. Now that HP have SCEA, Chicago doesn’t have to share applicants whose first choices were H and P. Although I don’t think it’ll have the same effect on yield that it’ll have on say, Yale or Stanford, I think there’ll be a noticeable one. I’ve stated elsewhere that I think yield will be 43-44%, and I think I’m going to stick with that estimate for now. In any case, we won’t find out for another year or so since Chicago is so secretive with its data.</p>
<p>Eight ivies published their admit numbers. I could not find UChicago’s yet.</p>
<p>[TheDartmouth.com:</a> Dartmouth admits 9.4 percent of applicants](<a href=“http://thedartmouth.com/2012/03/30/news/admissions]TheDartmouth.com:”>http://thedartmouth.com/2012/03/30/news/admissions)</p>
<p>“…….All eight Ivy League institutions released admissions figures on Thursday. Harvard University accepted 5.9 percent of applicants, while Yale University accepted 6.8 percent, according to The Harvard Crimson and the Yale Daily News. Princeton University admitted 7.9 percent of applicants, and Brown University, Columbia University and Cornell University accepted 9.6 percent, 7.4 percent and 16.2 percent, respectively, the schools’ daily newspapers reported. The University of Pennsylvania admitted 12.3 percent of applicants for the Class of 2016, according to The Daily Pennsylvanian……”</p>
<p>Phuriku:</p>
<p>In terms of architecture, you hit on an important point. Frankly, I’ve been a bit disappointed with UChicago’s architectural direction in the past decade or so. Every single building has been shiny and “modern” in one way or another - Max Palevsky dorms, Ratner, Mansueto Library, the new B-school building, South Campus Dorms, Logan Arts Center, etc. </p>
<p>All these new buildings are certainly nice, but nothing about them particularly says “university of chicago” to me. Gothic architecture is at the heart of campus, and I believe UChicago erred in making every single one of its new buildings shiny and modern.</p>
<p>A new dorm that stays true to gothic architecture (like Yale’s) is long overdue. Generally, I think more UChicago buildings should adhere to the gothic look of the main quads.</p>
<p>
Gothic looks lovely, but it is also exorbitantly expensive. Unless a college has lots of money (Yale…) or is pretty small (e.g. Rhodes), you’ll find that many Gothic universities like Duke, Chicago, UW, etc. have quietly and gradually filled in parts of campus with other style of architecture. Slate roofs alone are extremely expensive, let alone wood panelling, the paneled windows, etc. The colleges that have stuck with Gothic architecture have sought to minimize costs by building less elaborate buildings, using brick rather than stone, etc.</p>
<p>There was a rather good article in the COHE that addressed precisely this.
[Chronicle</a> of Higher Education | Should Your New Buildings Look Old?](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/article/Should-Your-New-Buildings-Look/65488/]Chronicle”>http://chronicle.com/article/Should-Your-New-Buildings-Look/65488/)</p>
<p>wonder if it’d be worth living in Snell-Hitchcock just to be able to live in an older, gothic dorm like the ones at some ivy league schools, haha.</p>
<p>Seahawks506: Outside of Yale and Princeton, the other ivies don’t really have great gothic dorms. Brown, Dartmouth, and Columbia don’t have any gothic dorms, neither does Harvard, and Penn has the freshman quads, but they are a lot dingier and just not as nice as Yale’s dorms. Duke has some nice gothic dorms too, but obviously it’s not in the ivy league. </p>
<p>Actually, if you want gothic, Snell-Hitchock or Burton Judson do a pretty good job of it. I just wish UChicago had more gothic dorms. As warblersrule said, it’s expensive. It’s still disappointing UChicago didn’t build more gothic dorms, but apparently the new Yale dorms cost a LOT - like ~$300M.</p>
<p>At a lunch with Dean Boyer back in 2005 he mentioned that one of his goals after the new South Campus dorms were opened was to replace Pierce. I believe it will happen and relatively soon.</p>
<p>Last year’s admission rate was published in the Maroon on April 5th. This likely means we will learn what it is next week.</p>
<p>Zimmer did make it clear at the alumni event in Beverly Hills a couple of weeks ago that the University was planning to replace Pierce for the longer run. The question was how to make it through this year and perhaps another year or two before something was done. No exact timeline but he did suggest they were looking at replacing it with a big new dorm along the lines of South Campus or Max P (and the University official in quote in the Maroon spoke of plans for a $200 million dorm.)</p>
<p>$200M would be great, truth123, but I’m sure administrators wished they had a little more donor support for the (still unnamed) south campus dorm. UChicago isn’t exactly fast-moving when it comes to these sorts of matters, so I’ll believe it after more concrete plans are released.</p>
<p>13% admit rate</p>
<p>[Who</a> Got Into the Country?s Top Colleges? - The Daily Beast](<a href=“Who Got Into the Country’s Top Colleges?”>Who Got Into the Country’s Top Colleges?)</p>
<p>13.2%</p>
<p>Stanford’s number is not right, is it a typo? Over 36000 applications.</p>