I don’t think you’d be right on that supposition, @PlayTag . The pronouncements that have filtered down to us hoi polloi from the Trustees all indicate a lively awareness of the peculiar characteristics of UChicago. They recently chose a grad of the College to be the next President, who himself enunciated those characteristics lovingly.
You are making the error of assuming that rich and materially successful people care only about riches and material accomplishments and that they measure success at an educational institution only in the crude terms we are presently throwing around in this discussion. What you appear to be saying really amounts to a tautology: Harvard and Columbia, etc are more popular and more prestigious than Chicago; ergo they get more apps (marginally) and are more selective (marginally); ergo they are more popular and more prestigious.
Of course no one would argue that popularity and prestige are irrelevant. The real questions - the ones Aristotle would ask - are what sort of popularity? and what sort of prestige? Some nuance is required in the discussion. A famous T-shirt at the U of C used to urge nuance. I recommend it.
UChicago received a bump. It could be due to Covid since there was still a great deal of uncertainty as to re-opening/remote/return to normal at the time that apps were due which contributed to a wider distribution of schools of interest this year. It could be due to more believing that UChicago means it with TO this year. But Columbia has always seen more apps than UChicago; that relative gap might have increased this year due to TO and other factors on Columbia’s side but it doesn’t change the basic differences between the two schools or the type of student who would thrive at either place. @hebegebe explains it well.
I think UChicago’s board is pretty happy with the current number. The trustees might have deeper goals than just maximizing the number of applications.
The idea that UChicago’s numbers are “soft” is laugable. UChicago got 15k applications in the early round which has been pretty typical of late. They obviously got another 23k for ED2 and RD; most of that - and very likely the bump - is going to be RD. Those are going to be made up of a whole lot of students that, given any other year, wouldn’t have applied to UChicago, and their apps will read as such. UChicago has had a decent increase in applications over the years but not anything like the Ivy+. And last year, when so many of the latter actually declined, UChicago’s application numbers remained steady. It’s just perceived as a different school and the application numbers behave accordingly.
This is true and we have an example to demonstrate. When UChicago first introduced ED1 and ED2, application numbers actually fell that year, from about 30,000 for the Class of 2020 to 27,000 for the Class of '21. The university couldn’t have been happier because the quality of admit spiked. The ED rounds allowed those applicants to self-identify as good fits for UChicago and were accepted right away. The reason we know this is that we have faculty connections who were thrilled with the incoming class. Numbers are important, but they have to be the right numbers. Admissions would much rather read through 10,000 fewer applications of higher-quality/higher-fit candidates than get a “kitchen sink” huge number of junky apps. The former just makes the job a lot nicer (though certainly not easier).
One big difference might be that UChicago undergrads actually have a chance to meet the trustees, as they are relatively visible in the admissions process and throughout your time at UChicago. The reason that most didn’t attend undergrad there isn’t surprising in the least: the College is a significantly larger entity on campus today than it was 35-40 years ago, and UChicago’s graduate programs are renowned for sending out influencers into the world (even if a good number of them happen to be “corporate.” Incidentally, the university has had “corporate” types on its board of trustees since pretty much the beginning).
@simplyhuman started a thread last year on the differences between UChicago’s board and governing articles relative to a few other schools. Worth a read.
UChicago has a lot to offer for those interested. Application numbers won’t be among them. My advice would be to change your metric and look into things like the philosophy and educational mission of each of your schools of interest. You’ll be a lot happier with your eventual choices and will increase your chances of being accepted to at least one of them.
Selectivity doesn’t matter, prestige does. Columbia can be more selective than Yale or Princeton, but will most likely not take away the best students from Yale or Princeton—that is the power of prestige. It’s about getting the best students, not rejecting a ton of students who have no chance of getting in. Penn Law has a 14% acceptance rate, which is similar to Harvard Law’s 13%, but Penn Law is in no way regarded as highly as Harvard law in the eyes of the applicants. Similarly, Berkeley Haas has an 18% acceptance rate for its MBA program, while Wharton has a 23% acceptance rate. I bet over 90% of cross admits will choose Wharton. At the end of the day, acceptance rates don’t mean much, especially if they are all in single digits. It’s about getting the best students.
I’m getting a little confused - @hongkongbanker you talk about the “power of prestige” and say it’s not all about the selectivity. @JBStillFlying and others say UChicago is “different” and that explains why their applications numbers are softer than Columbia or Harvard. (38k apps vs. 60k apps sure looks like softer interest to me.)
So, is UChicago just different, or is it less prestigious than ivies like Columbia and Harvard?
U Florida isn’t prestigious on my opinion. But it is to people who say we are #6 right after UNC.
To some the Ivies are prestigious. To others, Rice and Chicago are. But ask 100 people about Rice…where it is, it’s pedigree and academics and 50 won’t know.
Pick the right school, for for you. To those who know Chicago is ver prestigious. Yet I read earlier in the chat some think it’s UIC…all these schools are great. Find the right fit.
Again, you miss the point. I’m simply saying “presitge” is in the eye of the beholder.
Most “consumers” use US News. Yes, they have national, liberal arts, and regional broken out in categories.
Few people are using Kiplinger, Forbest or Times Higher Education.
I am not here telling you UF is prestigious or not. I don’t believe it is and said so in my initial note. I would certainly place W&M higher and as a prestigious public.
But that’s not relevant. My note simply said and you are missing this point - prestige is in the eye of the beholder.
If the reader feels, as many will, that Chicago is as prestigious as an Ivy, then it is. Some will feel Bowdoin is or Swarthmore is as well. Others will not believe so.
I’m not debating Florida’s prestige. I’m just pointing out that to many Florida is - so to them it is.
Sorry if I misunderstood you @JBStillFlying - what did you mean by “yes”?
If I’m reading this correctly, it sounds like UChicago is a different and less prestigious alternative to ivies like Columbia and Harvard. But I want to make sure I’m not misunderstanding this.
PlayTag - again, prestige is in the eye of the beholder. That’s why he said yes. It is different than Columbia and Harvard by nature that it’s not Ivy. And yes it’s a different and prestigious alternative - at least to those who deem it prestigious. There will be others that don’t.