<p>UChicago is arguably the “most intellectual” university in the nation, if not in the world. Stanford, however, seems to have found the happy medium as a successful athletic school and a tier 1 academic powerhouse. </p>
<p>I’d argue that top schools tend to be either hyper-focused on using sports to improve student life (e.g. Penn, Northwestern, Stanford, Cornell), take a balanced approach (HYP, Dartmouth), or pretty much eschew sports for other methods of improving student life (Chicago, Columbia, MIT). All three have their success stories, but it appears to me that having at least some strong focus on sports causes greater alumni participation and donations–thus increasing the available funds that can make student life better (if said donations are earmarked for the College).</p>
<p>IIRC, they got rid of the swim test b/c it was difficult to manage. It was also a bit antiquated. (However, I believe everyone needs to be a swimmer. At least for safety.) <a href=“Saul Bellow, dead at 89 – Chicago Maroon”>Saul Bellow, dead at 89 – Chicago Maroon;
<p>I don’t agree completely with Cal8876 and kaarboer. At Stanford, there’s no doubt the the athletics are successful. They have indeed won the director’s cup for many years. But I think if you look carefully at the admissions statistics and the majors of the athletes, you will see that even Stanford makes significant compromises in order to have its DI (semi professional) programs. </p>
<p>kaarboer I would not put Cornell and Penn with Northwestern and Stanford athletically. Penn and Cornell have some outstanding individual programs (e.g. Cornell wrestling) that compete at the very top, but so do HYP and Dartmouth (Harvard crew, Dartmouth sailing, Princeton lacrossea). What’s most different about Cornell and Penn from Stanford and Northwestern is the Ivy League strictures: no athletic scholarships, no spring practice for football, etc. </p>
<p>It’s a tough call for universities. There are pluses and minuses to each approach. One thing I believe though: the very top levels of the revenue sports (football, basketball) take too much time and energy from the students and they are therefore significantly deprived of the opportunity to do the best they can in the classroom.</p>
<p>@kaukauna I was simply speaking to how much the athletics have an effect on student life–it seems to me that Cornell and Penn are more akin to Northwestern and Stanford in that athletic events are important to the social life of their undergraduates, moreso than at HYP or UChicago.</p>
<p>
Ivy League allows 12 Spring practices.
<a href=“http://ivyserver.princeton.edu/ivy/downloads/rulesummary/ivysummary.pdf”>http://ivyserver.princeton.edu/ivy/downloads/rulesummary/ivysummary.pdf</a></p>
<p>The discussion about a move to D1 athletics for UChicago is silly. It’d require a tremendous investment in resources (maybe $100M-$150M at least for D1 level stadiums, practice facilities, etc.), and then, should UChicago give out athletic scholarships, significant investment in aid year after year. </p>
<p>In terms of how the school has changed, there are two important developments that have not yet been discussed:</p>
<p>1.) Increased engagement with the community - the school used to be a citadel, removed from the neighborhood, city, and greater world. Now, it’s engaging in all sorts of ways, be it with the Institute of Politics, Paulson Institute, Community Service programs, etc. The school is much more committed to partnerships with key community players, and it needs to maintain forward momentum on this.</p>
<p>2.) Emphasis on Student Life/D3 Athletics - no one has mentioned this yet, but the school’s making a push on the D3 front. It finished 16th in the rankings for D3 sports programs (see here: <a href=“UChicago finishes 16th in final Learfield Sports Directors' Cup standings - The University of Chicago Athletics Athletics”>http://athletics.uchicago.edu/sports/genrel/2013-14/directors-cup-final-2013-14</a>). That has to be one of the highest finishes for Chicago, ever. Similarly, it’s been finding/recruiting surprising talent - a women’s national team player will be an asst. coach for the women’s soccer team next year, the tennis teams have some of the best HS recruiting in the nation, the volleyball coach and football coach all have D1 coaching experience, etc. The new AD is also very active in promoting Chicago sports.</p>
<p>I imagine that, within the next 5 years, UChicago will be regularly be a top 10 or so D3 sports programs (so it would be in the same ballpark as Williams, Amherst, Emory, Wash U, etc.). The AD has discussed adding some D3 sports as well. Such an emphasis will change the feel of the student body a little bit (and has probably already done so). </p>
<p>Anybody know what the yield was for this cycle? </p>
<p>^Nobody knows for sure what the yield is for this cycle until Chicago makes an official announcement. That said, my bold guesstimate is that it will be between 62% and 66%.</p>
<p>Wow… That’s something. Assuming you’re right, that would put Chicago approximately on par with Penn (66%) and just barely behind Princeton (69%) and Yale (71%), while beating out Dartmouth (54.5%) and Brown (59.9%). </p>
<p>Source: <a href=“http://blog.■■■■■■■■■■■/blog-0/bid/182834/Class-of-2018-Yield-Rates”>http://blog.■■■■■■■■■■■/blog-0/bid/182834/Class-of-2018-Yield-Rates</a></p>
<p>That’s where UChicago belongs IMHO. Hopefully, the number will be confirmed by The University soon enough. </p>
<p>The bigger surprise, Kaarboer, is that UChicago would have such a high yield without employing an SCEA or ED policy (Penn has a particularly high yield amongst its peer group because, this year, it took 54% of its class early). </p>
<p>I’ve been glancing around–since Columbia would seem to be our closest competitor, anyone have any clue as to their yield rate? It seems that they haven’t released that info yet.</p>
<p>@Cue7 True, true. I wonder what a yield comparison would look like just RD to RD.</p>
<p>Actually, I’ll just do the math, assuming the oft-quoted statistic of Penn taking 50% of their class ED is correct. So, with a 66% overall rate and a 100% early rate, the RD rate should be the value for which (100+x)/2=66. In such a scenario, Penn would have a 32% yield rate RD. I suspect UChicago’s is higher.</p>
<p>UChicago won’t have such a high yield this year. If anything, it likely went down, which is why the University is biding their time by not announcing the result. I’m guessing in the 52%-ish range.</p>
<p>Columbia’s yield is usually in the low 60’s, but they have ED. UChicago’s yield target should be Princeton, since they have an SCEA policy and are therefore more comparable. Princeton’s yield is usually in the high 50’s.</p>
<p>
It’s been in the high 60’s since 2011.</p>
<p>I heard somebody on another post say that admissions has been telling people that it’s >60% this year. </p>
<p>The yield for last cycle was 55%. Going below that this year is not very plausible.</p>
<p>The Chicago Maroon posted this on 4/4/2014, “…University’s prediction of a higher yield rate than that of previous years. The yield rate is the number of students who choose to attend the University out of those who were accepted. (University Spokesperson Jeremy) Manier said that the University predicts the class size to be around 1420, which would require around a 62 percent yield rate…”</p>
<p>Given the track record of the admission office seemed to be always conservative on the yield over the last several years, I would bet that the 62% yield is still being on the conservative side. We have not seen abundant applicants get taken off of the wait-list this year, have we? </p>
<p>@theluckystar And a lot of the waitlist admittances were pushed to the class of 2019–something tells me that next year’s yield might be slightly higher because of that.</p>