<p>If you look at the University of Chicago, it is one of the best schools in the world. 78 nobel prize winners, 4:1 student:faculty ratio, etc.
But why is it that the acceptance rate is so high and that enrollment rate is so low? Why? I don't get it.</p>
<p>Because most students have jppsnumber mentalities.</p>
<p>1) It is a serious academic school. If you want to be in Chicago and have a decent private school education, and you want the sports emphasis and the 'fun' atmosphere, you go to Northwestern.</p>
<p>2) UChicago has a lot of cross-admits with schools that have more 'prestige', and it loses a lot of admits to these schools.</p>
<p>3) The financial aid is hit-or-miss.</p>
<p>And what exactly is that? I mean, I threw out NYU and Vanderbilt's acceptance letter like it is nothing and both of them have lower acceptance rate and higher enrollment rate. What do people see in universities like Boston College and Rice over Chicago?</p>
<p>It is not a reflection on Chicago--it is a reflection on the applicant.</p>
<p>An article of interest... Clearly Chicago is said to be one of the "Gotta-Get-Ins" elite university. </p>
<p>COLLEGE ADMISSIONS 2004 </p>
<p>WHO NEEDS HARVARD? </p>
<p>The pressure on smart kids to get into top schools has never been higher. But the differences between these schools and the next tier down have never been smaller
BY GREGG EASTERBROOK
Today almost everyone seems to assume that the critical moment in young people's lives is finding out which colleges have accepted them. Winning admission to an elite school is imagined to be a golden passport to success; for bright students, failing to do so is seen as a major life setback. As a result, the fixation on getting into a super-selective college or university has never been greater. Parents' expectations that their children will attend top schools have "risen substantially" in the past decade, says Jim Conroy, the head of college counseling at New Trier High School, in Winnetka, Illinois. He adds, "Parents regularly tell me, 'I want whatever is highest-ranked.'" Shirley Levin, of Rockville, Maryland, who has worked as a college-admissions consultant for twenty-three years, concurs: "Never have stress levels for high school students been so high about where they get in, or about the idea that if you don't get into a glamour college, your life is somehow ruined."
Admissions mania focuses most intensely on what might be called the Gotta-Get-Ins, the colleges with maximum allure. The twenty-five Gotta-Get-Ins of the moment, according to admissions officers, are the Ivies (Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Penn, Princeton, and Yale), plus Amherst, Berkeley, Caltech, Chicago, Duke, Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, MIT, Northwestern, Pomona, Smith, Stanford, Swarthmore, Vassar, Washington University in St. Louis, Wellesley, and Williams. Some students and their parents have always been obsessed with getting into the best colleges, of course. But as a result of rising population, rising affluence, and rising awareness of the value of education, millions of families are now in a state of nervous collapse regarding college admissions. Moreover, although the total number of college applicants keeps increasing, the number of freshman slots at the elite colleges has changed little. Thus competition for elite-college admission has grown ever more cutthroat. Each year more and more bright, qualified high school seniors don't receive the coveted thick envelope from a Gotta-Get-In.
But what if the basis for all this stress and disappointmentthe idea that getting into an elite college makes a big difference in lifeis wrong? What if it turns out that going to the "highest ranked" school hardly matters at all?
The researchers Alan Krueger and Stacy Berg Dale began investigating this question, and in 1999 produced a study that dropped a bomb on the notion of elite-college attendance as essential to success later in life. Krueger, a Princeton economist, and Dale, affiliated with the Andrew Mellon Foundation, began by comparing students who entered Ivy League and similar schools in 1976 with students who entered less prestigious colleges the same year. They found, for instance, that by 1995 Yale graduates were earning 30 percent more than Tulane graduates, which seemed to support the assumption that attending an elite college smoothes one's path in life.
But maybe the kids who got into Yale were simply more talented or hardworking than those who got into Tulane. To adjust for this, Krueger and Dale studied what happened to students who were accepted at an Ivy or a similar institution, but chose instead to attend a less sexy, "moderately selective" school. It turned out that such students had, on average, the same income twenty years later as graduates of the elite colleges. Krueger and Dale found that for students bright enough to win admission to a top school, later income "varied little, no matter which type of college they attended." In other words, the student, not the school, was responsible for the success.</p>
<p>to finnish reading...
<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200410/easterbrook%5B/url%5D">http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200410/easterbrook</a></p>
<p>Poignant observation, Sarahbara.</p>
<p>jnumbers, don't you realize that BC and Rice are more well-known than Chicago is? At least that's how it is in my town. There are the Ivies, only half of which the local dolts even recognize; then there are the places where the neighbors' son and daughter went to school like BC and Lehigh; then there are the extremely local universities. Chicago isn't in any of these plateaus, and thus kids are pressured into picking a college which da local townfolk reckon's a good one. I've already suffered so much ignorance because people around here don't know a thing about Chicago--these people are affluent businessmen and lawyers. Only ones who pay Chicago its deserved deference are the doctors. Not surprising on account of the medical journal.</p>
<p>In recapitulation, many kids and parents are scared that nobody recognizes Chicago for what it is: one of America's most elite and unique colleges.</p>
<p>Nearly every adult I know heard of Chicago and congratulated me into getting accepted. All my teacher, expect for one, heard of Chicago. So, nope, I don't realize that Chicago isn't as famous as Rice or Boston (only one international heard of Rice and none of them hard of Boston). I always though Chicago was a world famous university (and it is). Every single international student I know, which is about 20, heard of Chicago.</p>
<p>Same thing happened to me, and I'm Canadian. Most people I told knew what UChicago was, and even a few adults immediately associated it with Milton Friedman/economics.</p>
<p>Really, Chicago doesn't do a great job of publicizing themselves (like WUStL)...then again, maybe they don't care to, as adcoms look to admit a certain type of student.</p>
<p>The ignorant American stereotype is true. Chicago is much more famous outside of America than in, thats how I see it.</p>
<p>I remember seeing that atlantic monthly article in print last fall. It was a great article, great feature ( I believe that there was more than one article in their feature)
The article should be required reading for all the nervous wrecks on this board who are stressing so much over whether they will succeed or not. All the Ivy vs (something else) boards would be much alleved by one line from the article "Krueger and Dale found that for students bright enough to win admission to a top school, later income "varied little, no matter which type of college they attended." In other words, the student, not the school, was responsible for the success."</p>
<p>gah, that is a huge weight off of my shoulders. And a huge weight on to the shoulders of all the people who are afraid that tehy are impostors and now will really freak out at the idea that they could go to harvard and still be a failure. </p>
<p>Everyone read the article, please. Thank jnumbers later</p>
<p>One nice thing about the article: Chicago is NOT one of the top schools that tends to be outperformed by its less-esteemed peers.</p>
<p>Why doesn't Chicago have a higher yield? Because many kids are afraid of the workload, with some justification. Because many college kids could really care less about the education, viewing college as a chance to have a good time, develop qualifications for a job, brag about how great they are because they got into ivy tower U, and so forth, they tend to look elsewhere. (Flamers, fire away.)</p>
<p>Part of this is shown by the trend among some schools, Brown for example, to junk anything remotely resembling a common core. After all, forcing a kid to take a serious lit course when they want to be a physicist could pose a problem, I suppose.</p>
<p>The common core at Chicago leads to some complaints. For instance, the humanities types can be put off by being required to take calculus. </p>
<p>So, one can view Chicago as more of a specialty school than some others. Keep in mind that the track record of its grads speaks for itself.</p>
<p>Chicago is constantly ranked at the top all over the world...maybe we don't need lazy rich people after all (except for donations).</p>
<p>I like the message of the article--which is basically not to buy into the ridiculous aspects of college admissions ("get me into Harvard and step on it!"). As for how much Chicago advertises itself, or attempts to acquire the elusive quality of "hotness" (Wash. U. and Middlebury come to mind), really doesn't interest me. I don't mind if only a few people apply, or if some rubes happen to never have heard of it (these are the same people who think when you say the name "Lenin," you're talking about the Beatles). These aren't features of schools that concern me--frankly, I like schools that focus more on, well, school, than all this other stuff. I think a lot of people on this board share that sentiment, which is cool. Thanks for that article again...a good read.</p>
<p>newmassdad: you should take a look at a book called "Shakespeare, Einstein, and The Bottom Line" about marketing higher education. It has chapters on all aspects of money in higher education, but the one about undergrad focuses entirely on Chicago. The debate about the common core, and the total lack of integrity at Brown, are recorded and analyzed in a very clear manner. You'll learn a lot about how much Chicago alums love the common core, how incredibly unparalleled Chicago is in higher education for the strength of its academic program. </p>
<p>For those of you who don't know... 30 and 40 years ago, Brown was considered the bastard child of the ivy league. Nobody wanted to go there (well, in saying this, I mean nobody would EVER choose it over HYP or even dartmouth.) To solve this, businness-accounting type people took over the regency of the university, and lightened up teh curriculum entirely. Against the suggestoins of the faculty, they dismantled the GE core program almost entirely. As a result, Brown is now ridiculously hard to get in to because its popular with lazier/party types who still feel entitled to an ivy education (entitled because they're rich white, went to Exeter, or their daddies went there). As applications soared from these numbers, people who were considering HYPS considered Brown more, because its an easier option, and because with lower admission rate, it shot up in rankings and gained more "prestige."</p>
<p>around 1998, Chicago got a new president who tried to do a similar thing because the University was losing the endowment race. He wanted to expand the number of undergrads, raise student-teacher ratio, and take away the most of what makes up the core requirement. He resigned 3 years later, a week before graduation, amidst alumni jubilation.</p>
<p>For all of you who have asked "can Chicago do more to compete with ivy league" ... yes, it could, there is a formula, it worked for brown. The question is SHOULD chicago do more to compete with the ivy league, in teh way brown did.
If you answer yes, chicago will not be the place for you</p>
<p>Chicago can market itself better without compromising its educational principles. I don't think Wash. U (and say what you want about its quality) has compromised itself by initiating massive marketing blitzes. Sure, Chicago is "out there," but when kids get five fat envelopes from a few ivies, Wash U., and Chicago, they will forget about Chicago after the flashy marketing of the others. And I'm sure Chicago does lose many serious, hardworking students in this way.</p>
<p>Marketing bothers me. Marketing involves shining up the "good" parts of the school and playing down the "bad" parts of the school. From a marketing stand-point, the "bad" part of the school is that it has a very serious reputation as the place where fun goes to die. </p>
<p>What would it do to the school if it accepted and enrolled people who were more interested in the flashy package they received than in the serious commitment to higher education? It is not something the students or the alumni want. They may worry about their endowment -- and who in this capitalist society doesn't? -- but I am glad they are not willing to compromise their values in favor of money. To me, that is what makes Chicago such a great place.</p>
<p>chicago's problem is not that prospective students dont know about it. We all know about it, but one could make a strong case that ten years ago, we wouldnt have known about WashU. Chicago's problem is that students often choose harvard, yale, and princeton over it because the core curriculum is so dificult, and because it has a reputaiton of being no fun. Theres nothing in Markething that Chicago could do to chnage this. And, as i mentioned earlier, to change this in any other way would be to compromise the educational quality of teh school.</p>
<p>"What would it do to the school if it accepted and enrolled people who were more interested in the flashy package they received than in the serious commitment to higher education?"</p>
<p>I don't think you're getting my point that just because a package is flashy, it won't necessarily attract the wrong type of student to Chicago (and those who do apply and shouldn't will be weeded-out by the adcoms anyways). However, I'm sure that many brilliant students forgot, or at least de-prioritized Chicago in the wave of better-marketed colleges.</p>
<p>And personally, about the core curriculum--you seriously have to have your head screwed on wrong if you don't want to attempt to broaden your intellectual horizons.</p>