I don't get it...

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
21

<p>jpps, something can be said for your point there. I never even got a viewbook from chicago (to this point, im not sure that they have one.. do they?).. so it barely made the list of colleges I applied to. I narrowly chose it over JHU. A couple days before I applied, I was so certain that I wouldn't like it there (probably because I had never seen the photos of the campus or heard any students talk about it, I had just been left to imagine what a super-hard university in an urban jungle would feel like) that I told my college counselor a few days before the deadline that I didnt even feel like submitting the app. He told me flippantly (oh, just send it, you already wrote the essay).
very easily, it could have gone the other way. And now, somebody who is sort of likely to go there (havent decided yet) might not have ever applied, all due to marketing. </p>

<p>However, with that said, the reason why i did not apply to WashU was very specifically because I couldnt stand the thought of my school being the whore of the top 25 colleges.
Well, that, and its in St. Louis...</p>

22

<p>I got an excellent viewbook from Chicago. It was thick and glossy and much better and more comprehensive than anything I got from any other college (Harvard's was just fluffy "we're so great, look how great we are?"). It talked a lot about Chicago, and about the school... and now it's completely available on the web.</p>

<p>My point about the anti-marketing take is that, for the most part, UChi has a pretty 'bad' reputation that it likes. What you're suggesting, as I read it, is that people don't like it when compared to the admit packages from the Ivies, and that if they spent more time on marketing then they would be able to woo students. <em>My</em> point is that if you have to see a pretty package to choose a school, UChi might not be your top choice.</p>

<p>I see TheCity's point, though. There isn't a whole lot about UChi available. I tend to think this helps the school keep itself the way it wants to be, no compromises, and others may see it a different way, as in that it might not be doing enough to advertise itself. It could probably benefit from a little more exposure, but I can't see that the way it operates now is affecting it very much.</p>

23

<p>There's probably a point of maximum exposure after which any more marketing would be detrimental to Chicago's reputation, by both embarrassing itself and attracting too many of the wrong students...but I don't think they've reached that point yet.</p>

24

<p>jpps: they're nowhere near that point.</p>

<p>you got a viewbook? Man, I never got no stinkin' viewbook. Maybe I'll ask for one when I go to visit. </p>

<p>Yeah, the viewbooks I got from Harvard and Brown were definitely just like they put em together to go though the motions. Almost like "hey, we're so great, we dont have to advertise, we can be total dickheads, and people will still beg and beg to come here"</p>

<p>undecided: I agree, I think where Chicago is at now is entirely perfect. Keep in mind, this is not where they were 6 years ago, when these problems were so big that their endowment was suffering and admission rate was much higher. They've added about 500 undergraduate slots (increase from 4000 to 4500), and taken away the requirement of having to take a language course (replaced it with competency test). </p>

<p>The wonderful thing about chicago is that it doesnt make any excuses. It doest have to be everything to everyone. Can you imagine if all the top 50 schools each were as student-type specific as chicago. If they marketed themselves as "we're just plain serious students" or "we're really smart but we party a lot" or "we study hard because our goal in life is to make money" or whatever instead of being like Harvard and Yale and whatever are now, where they're so watered down and vanilla that anybody would be mildly happy there. </p>

<p>Chicago is a perfect being unto itself. It doesnt have to be perfect for anybody else.
We all have a lot to learn from it, not just in terms of college, but in a personal sense.</p>

25

<p>That was beautiful, TheCity. :D</p>

26

<p>Sarahbara and others: Okay, I don't know what compels me to jump in here--perhaps the arrogance displayed? A "reflection on the applicants," Sarahbara? Perhaps that's true, but not in the way I suspect you mean. I think one way Chicago could "improve," is by giving out more merit money to serious and outstanding applicants. While I know there are some accepted students who could, quite honestly, find a way to afford a $180,000 tuition (at minimum-- over 4 years), many of those same highly qualified students do not care to pay full freight, when other students (perhaps far less stellar academically, but who offer something else the school finds attractive?) are given merit money. Some students simply don't want to pay full freight, knowing that by doing so, they are also paying (in part) someone else's tuition. Think about it. Also, for many students, the undergraduate education is only the beginning of a longer haul. Students and their parents have to consider long-term finances. Perhaps you and others who post here do not have to do so. </p>

<p>But I definitely think Chicago could 'improve' by beefing up endowments for more merit aid. Perhaps, instead of increased marketing to prospective applicants, Chicago should concentrate on strongly encouraging all those successful and financially well-off (because they graduated from Chicago) alumni to set up tuition endowments.</p>

27

<p>As a parent, all I know is that I was very proud that Chicago stayed on my son's application list.....to me, it was proof that he was serious in getting educated while in college.....ultimately his acceptance at Yale (his #1 choice) took precedence, but we were very pleased to know that Chicago was a serious option for him....especially if Yale had fallen thru. I do know that their mailings to our house got all of our attention, they used post cards very effectively is my recollection. </p>

<p>I also agree that merit aid might quickly turnaround their yield... but, apparently this is an endowment issue...maybe even include a windbreaker in each acceptance package? Ha Ha....</p>

28

<p>How is it arrogant to say that the students who choose not to go to Chicago for reasons such as prestige or advertising aren't commenting on Chicago, but on their own preferences? While I understand the viewpoint of someone who wants prestige or Harvard because it's Harvard--and these people are often quite intelligent, I don't deny this--I simply don't think that their wishes should be taken into account for the sake of, say, lowering admit rates. If someone chooses another school instead of Chicago because the other school advertised more and the advertising appealed to them, fine. But why should this viewpoint hold true for all schools? I didn't choose Chicago because of their viewbook (which was, incidentally, the most intriguing, interesting and insightful one I received). </p>

<p>The book TheCity brought up is an excellent one (Shakespeare, bottom line etc.), and really details Chicago's past ten years of making themselves better known while still appealing to the sorts of students they hope to attract and are known to attract. Chicago has transformed already, in many ways, and they have meaningful statitistics to prove it. What really pleases me is that the alumns I know and admire who attended Chicago way before these changes talk about programs and classes that still exist, and remind me of the students I know at Chicago right now, people I'd like to emulate. Chicago has managed to appeal to more and more applicants, in an honest way, but still managed to retain its spirit, in my humble opinion.</p>

29

<p>maineparent,</p>

<p>Chicago's endowment is not that bad, especially on a per student basis. But the problem with raising yield with merit aid is that you then find it tough to have need blind admissions meeting full need. Keep in mind, for instance, that it was only a few years ago that Brown was able to begin need blind admissions without gapping.</p>

30

<p>Sarahbara: Your earlier single sentence posting, "It is not a reflection on Chicago--it is a reflection on the applicant," was in answer (I can only assume) to the previous poster's question. And that single sentence was somewhat arrogant. You are suggesting that students turn down Chicago (or don't look at it in the first place) because of some perceived prestige factor, and as I pointed out..that's simply not necessarily the case. And that's why I pointed out another reason many students might turn down Chicago. I suspect only those who have never had to worry about finances in their lives (money is no object), are the same ones who can't imagine that could ever be a factor in choosing a school.</p>

<p>newmassdad: As far as "raising yield with merit aid," I was merely pointing out that being less generous with aid, relative to other schools (whether financial or merit), would--perhaps-- encourage (force?) a student to look or attend elsewhere. Doing so may have nothing whatsoever to do with wanting a 'prestige' name, or wanting to go to what some people on these boards refer to as a 'slacker' school. That's a rather narrow view of things, isn't it? I have noted that on the thread listing schools with good merit aid, UChicago doesn't seem to be on the list.</p>

<p>Also, there's this idea posted here again and again that only brilliant and dedicated students attend Chicago. Well, that may be so, but remember that those same brilliant and equally dedicated (and perhaps more so) students that Chicago accepted (and who choose--for whatever reasons--to attend another university) are, indeed, at another university. So, some other university has the benefit of having these equally brilliant and dedicated students on their campus now. Don't delude yourself ..the best and the brightest are not all going to be at UChicago.</p>

31

<p>Jack,
"Don't delude yourself ..the best and the brightest are not all going to be at UChicago."
No one is saying that. I think that the kids that choose UChicago do so because it concentrates those qualities that are important to them.</p>

32

<p>This is a very controversial issue in the UC leadership.</p>

<p>My parents met in statistics class as UC undergrads in 1960. They've stayed in Hyde Park all their lives, given money, alumni association, etc. They and other old-school alums are very upset and have stopped donating because of what they see as the watering down of the UC for marketing's sake.</p>

<p>UC flat-out does not offer the kind of campus life that HYPS do. That's partly because of the workload, but principally because those schools have the luxury of enrolling mostly students who are Renaissance people -- great scholars AND stellar artists/athletes/politicians/what have you. But UC always has, and still does, manage to attract kids who are real academic devotees and who thrive in and contribute to an intellectual culture. My parents think, and I agree, that this is what makes the place special. If UC dilutes the Core, starts relaxing academics so that students have more time for activities, the result is going to be Wash U. (OK across the board, but nothing extraordinary), not Yale. Those brilliant physicist/ballerinas are not going to be lured away from Yale. It just isn't going to happen. And the supply of them is finite.</p>

<p>In the end, I'm with the old-school Hyde Parkers who'd rather see this university retain its true greatness in one area than watch it spread itself too thin and end up just-OK in all areas.</p>

33

<p>Jack,</p>

<p>why do you consistently interpret a comment about Chicago being for love of learning types to be a diss of other schools? I don't think anyone on these boards thinks for one minute that kids that opt for other schools, be they Harvard, Stanford, or your D's UNC don't have a love of learning. We just don't know. What we do know is that such love of learning is really key to happiness at Chicago, whereas it may not be at some other schools. So we're not saying it does not exist at other schools, just saying it must exist at Chicago.</p>

<p>One other comment. I would prefer that you keep judgements to yourself. Criticizing posters for "arrogent" postings and so forth, as you did with Sarabarra above and with me in other postings adds nothing to the discussion IMHO. I think discussion of, and criticism of personal motives and actions, is best left to talk radio.</p>

34

<p>Thanks newmassdad. I also wanted to add that I wasn't commenting about aid packages...I was commenting based on personal experience. Most of the people I know who didn't choose Chicago had reasons quite far from finances (though these individuals did, in fact, have enough aid). Reasons such as "getting into Harvard," or "they have no fun there" or "I hate core curriculums" were the most oft sighted. I think I'm beginning to beat this topic to death, so I suppose I'll stop posting on this thread.</p>

35

<p>Love of learning. It can be found everywhere to be sure. It's just that it seems to be in a very concentrated form at UofC. Just my opinion, my experience. </p>

<p>I remember one of my classmates from the 70's. He loved learning. I mean, he really loved learning. He went to UofC as a 16 year old. He said he did not have a high school diploma because the teachers at his public high school went on strike at the end of his senior year and he and some of his friends had better things to do than go to school and sit in useless classes taught by substitutes, so they never got diplomas. Pretty arrogant attitude, huh? He would say things like "I love learning. I love getting up in the morning. I wish the day was longer so I could learn more. There aren't enough minutes in the day. You know, there are some people here that don't love learning. I don't understand that. How could anyone not LOVE LEARNING!" </p>

<p>I was absolutely fascinated. I grew up in a small town in rural South Dakota and had simply never encountered anyone quite like this before. Yes, I had met good students, people who loved ideas, loved reading, writing, and studying, but nothing to this degree. </p>

<p>He was kind of "out there," even for a UofC student, but you know, in my mind, he is the UofChicago poster student! He had a total unabashed and outspoken enthusiasm for learning! And he was one of those odd ducks that chose Chicago over Harvard.</p>

<p>I remember when he was applying for a Rhodes Scholarship he said things like "When I go to England . . ." That was kind of arrogant, wasn't it? I mean, he just assumed he would win one. And you know what was kind of annoying, he did! But I remember him fondly. One of his professors said that he was staying up into the wee hours again (as he had in his younger days) contemplating and writing about the ideas that were being brought up in class because of this particular student. This kid, for me, represents what UofC is all about. </p>

<p>He's not a kid anymore, of course, but I haven't seen him since the 70's, so in my mind, he is still that kid who really really loved learning at UofChicago.</p>

36

<p>Wow, I hope he is successful now. </p>

<p>"You are suggesting that students turn down Chicago (or don't look at it in the first place) because of some perceived prestige factor, and as I pointed out..that's simply not necessarily the case. "</p>

<p>haha, if you don't think prestige is a factor, lol, then you have your head stuck somewhere else and it ain't pretty. Most people apply to Harvard because it is Harvard, not because it will offer them a better education. Just read the article I offered here and use some common sense. Prestige matters more than anything to most people. </p>

<p>Anyways, I am a man of action. As a Chicago student, it is my responsibility, as much as it is the professors' and administers' responsibility, to bring glory to the MY university. It is our duty to work hard and be exemplary human beings so when a child points at you and says, "I want to be just like that man/woman when I grow up", you have made your point. Chicago doesn't need arrogant people who think that an university is just their second country club and we, as students, don't need to be diluted like that either. Chicago is already an elite, world renowned, top university but we could all concede that there is room for improvement.</p>

<p>I pledge, as a University of Chicago student, that I will work hard and be as good of a man as my potential allows; that I am willing to sacrifice the present for a glorious future; and that I am willing to support this great university. </p>

<p>Lets get more pledges.</p>

37

<p>I have to admit, some of you who say that "love of learning" exists at other places, sure, but is definitely found in a more "concentrated form" at UChicago..well, yes...maybe, quite possibly. That said, watch out for anything presented to you in concentrated form, which can often prove toxic.</p>

<p>newmassdad: Please re-read some of these posts here with an open mind. You, for one, are so blinded to anything that is not Chicago, that it's almost laughable. I did not interpret the above posts to be a "diss of other schools;" however, I did interpret at least one statement to be an inaccurate (and, yes, rather arrogant) take on/view of other students. Even your comment here, agreeing that those who have a "love of learning" do go to schools like Harvard, et al--you choose to follow up with "We just don't know." Geez Louise. </p>

<p>Sarahbara clarified her singular statement, but again...some people may actually choose Princeton or some Ivy League over Chicago for the same reason I suggest (more financial aid; more recognition in the form of merit aid; an early offer of research internships, whatever)-- not to mention that those schools, too, are pretty outstanding in their own right.</p>

<p>And I find it sad (and, yes, a little amusing) that you felt you needed to ride in on your white horse and verbally defend Sarahbara. I think she does okay for herself and, in fact, is quite articulate. To attempt to shut me down (because I disagreed with you once), and to tell me to "keep my judgements to myself," is, well...rather controlling, to say the least. Furthermore, I never volced "a criticism of personal motives and actions;" however, what I did do was point out that there may be many, many reasons that a student would not look at, or after being accepted, would choose not to attend UChicago. To view that choice as a "reflection on the student," implying that the student isn't solely interested in a love of learning, and heaven forbid, might actually have other interests other than straight academics (and let's hope one would).. is simplistic at best. I also believe if one does not see finances, in particular, as probable/possible issue, then I suspect he or she has never had to worry about such mundane aspects of life.</p>

<p>Lastly, I expect I'll keep posting newmassdad, especially now that I now you don't want me to..:)</p>

38

<p>j10cpc5000: Congratulations to you. And when you graduate, and all those little children are pointing to you (for what I surely hope will be all the 'right' reasons), you will turn around and give back to this great University that is currently giving you so much. You obviously will be successful (I know that because you pretty much told me so)...please give back, and make a large endowment.</p>

39

<p>This discussion has gotten off topic...</p>