New Dean of College Admissions Announced

<p>This is interesting:</p>

<p>Jim</a> Nondorf appointed to top admissions post | The University of Chicago</p>

<p>Looks like Nondorf was a "pioneer" in the admissions field, being one of the first to use the web and technology to appeal to high school applicants. This seems to be a trend at Chicago now. When Behnke came in, he also pioneered a marketing effort by reaching out to high schoolers very early on - at times during the sophomore year of a student's hs career. </p>

<p>Nondorf was Director of Student Outreach at Yale, so I'm assuming he will fit in well with Zimmer's "Big Numbers" admission strategy. Yale apps boomed during Nondorf's time at Yale, and it seems as if the big push now for Chicago admissions is to get 15k-20k applications. Given Nondorf's success at Yale, this certainly seems to be within the realm of possibility at Chicago. Within the next several years, it's conceivable that Chicago's acceptance rate will fall to around 15%, which is just an incomprehensible number in comparison to when I applied and Chicago was accepting 60% of its applicants. </p>

<p>All in all, Nondorf seems like a good choice from what I can tell. He seems to appease Zimmer's "Big Numbers" goal while maintaining a personal touch, so I think thats good. Interesting that Dean Ted O'Neill had nothing to contribute to the article. Overall, though, Nondorf seems like a solid choice. Thoughts?</p>

<p>As a quick addendum, this article summarizes Nondorf's success at his most recent position, dean of admissions at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute:</p>

<p>RPInsider</a> » Nondorf Leaves the ‘Tute</p>

<p>Apparently, in three years, RPI's overall applications are up 117%, early decision applications are up 800% in three years, and general inquiries to the Admissions Office are up 20% in one year. These are pretty ridiculous numbers, and they would certainly appeal to President Zimmer. Seems like Nondorf does not have a problem drumming up applications... </p>

<p>Interestingly, Nondorf oversaw "recruitment and yield activities" during his time at Yale. These two areas - recruitment and yield - seem to be the areas that Zimmer most wants to focus on, so again, Nondorf seems like a sensible choice. </p>

<p>How "selective" does Chicago want to get here? It seems to be on track for a 15% accept rate, which would make it more selective than all but perhaps a half dozen universities. Is this the goal? Nondorf certainly seems like the man for the job. If he works similar "magic" at Chicago as he did at Yale or RPI, a 10-15% accept rate within 5-7 years is not unthinkable. Since he focuses on yield, I'd imagine Chicago's yield (which stands at around 40% now) would go up to the 45-50% range. These numbers seem impressive, but I wonder whether all of this is advisable?</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Nondorf is a good guy. (Both he and his older brother were football recruits to Yale, by the way.)</p></li>
<li><p>Note the change in title: Nondorf will be Vice President and Dean of College Admissions and Financial Aid. Behnke was Vice President and Dean of College Enrollment (whose portfolio clearly included financial aid); O'Neill was Dean of College Admissions. I suspect (as I said when O'Neill made his announcement) that there is no other shoe to drop, and that Nondorf is replacing both O'Neill and Behnke.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>I don't have a problem with the new approach to admissions they seem to be heading on as long as the purpose and individuality of the school is kept in tact. You have to wonder what they are going to be doing to get those few thousand students to apply in the coming years. </p>

<p>My guess is that they will try and attract more science/math-type students. The lack of an engineering program obviously deters some students from applying. So will they start an engineering program? Or will they try to emphasis how studies in physics will help them more and make them more well-rounded? My hope, knowing Chicago, is that they will find creative ways to reach out to the type of students they want to attract, even if the definition of that type of student changes a bit.</p>

<p>I also believe the reputation of Chicago as being the place "where fun comes to die" and its lack of a serious social scene deters students from applying. At many of the top Ivies, you will find a very distinct culture of "work hard, play harder" emanating from the campus. My guess Chicago's anti-fun reputation will have to be sacked for them to appeal to more students. Most smart kids aren't nerds who prefer scavenger hunts to dorm parties.</p>

<p>I think the Core will always ensure that Chicago is a somewhat self-selecting school.</p>

<p>Sunshowers - you make some good points and ask several relevant questions. </p>

<p>In terms of getting more applications, I think the answer is two-pronged: it will take considerable energy and a little bit of innovation. I've been doing alumni interviews for many years now, and just in the past couple years, I've seen the U of C admissions rep take more interest in my (major metropolitan) area. The U of C admissions office will need to concentrate on continuing to build strong relationships with high schools all over country, continue targeting and sending effective marketing materials to students from the get-go, and rely on Nondorf's well-connected presence to get more appropriate applications. As a directory of recruitment at Yale for quite a while, I'm sure Nondorf has great connections already with college counselors all over the country. By building on that, more of these counselors will suggest Chicago and speak about the school accurately, and we'll garner more applications that way. </p>

<p>A little innovation never hurts either - the clever mailings and postcards, keeping the "personalized" touch alive, and continuing to demonstrate that Chicago is just a bit different of a place are key goals. Moreover, there are specific regions to target that Chicago does not target enough, such as the South and Southwest (Chicago oftentimes concentrates its recruiting heavily in the east and west), and even with the big public high schools in the midwest. Nondorf seems to be a known commodity to counselors at places like New Trier High School, so this will again work in Chicago's favor. The key here again is building relationships all across the critical regions. </p>

<p>I don't think its necessary to build an engineering school or emphasize math/sciences more to get to this position. Chicago has not saturated its growth areas yet - it can definitely get its name out there more before considering this sort of drastic step.</p>

<p>In terms of the "fun comes to die" reputation, admissions is all about branding. Rather than emulating the "work hard party harder" atmosphere at a Princeton or Dartmouth, I think Chicago should focus on telling its own story better. The "fun comes to die" quote is perhaps the most misunderstood mantra in all of college life. As current Chicago students will confirm, Chicago now is a far cry from the dark, dreary, and financially unstable place of the 80s and early 90s. Chicago students now have a wealth of resources and opportunities to utilize, and the atmosphere around campus is changing. It'll be up to the admissions office to capture what the new essence of Chicago is, and then accurately convey this information to the interested public. It wouldn't be in Chicago's culture to have a vibrant frat row like at Dartmouth, but at the same time, applicants should be aware of events like Scav Hunt, the Lascivious Costume Ball, or Kangeiko that make the U of C culture distinctive.</p>

<p>What I really enjoyed about Chicago is that it was NOT a work hard/party harder school. Instead, I worked hard and then enjoyed my time relaxing and unwinding, with none of the social pressures found at the more social hierarchical schools such as Princeton or Columbia. Chicago should sell THIS, because I think it's a story that would appeal a lot to the nation's overworked academic top-class. </p>

<p>As Dean O'Neill has said time and time again, Chicago has a compelling story to tell, more and more people just need to hear about it. Nondorf seems to provide the clout and presence to really reach a broader swath of applicants. I'm excited about what the future holds in store for the U of C.</p>

<p>One way to increase applicants would be to drop the essays. I hope this does not happen, but it might. Another way is to water down the Core even more. I also hope that doesn't happen, and don't believe it will. I do think they will try to make the campus a bit more pre-professional friendly and perhaps add a molecular engineering program.</p>

<p>I did like this quote and reference to the faculty by Boyer:

[quote]
We are extremely fortunate to have identified an outstanding leader in the field to help the faculty continue to recruit very high-ability students with a strong commitment to the College’s educational and civic values. (emphasis added)

[/quote]
</p>

<ol>
<li><p>If Chicago's goal is to get to the 15,000 application level, and the recession doesn't turn into a long depression, I'm not sure it has to do anything more than it's doing now: marketing itself for what it is honestly and attractively, and reaping the benefits of long-term improvements in the quality of student life. </p></li>
<li><p>If Chicago really wants to have its application numbers reflect its academic standing relative to the big boys, I don't think that eliminating quirky essays or creating a new engineering program is the critical thing. Improving its financial aid policies and their implementation so that people believed that Chicago financial aid would be competitive with Brown or Dartmouth (or, better yet, HYP) across a wide range of family situations -- that's the most important thing.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Wait, are they going to remove their quirky essays? I always liked that about Chicago. I thought it really weeded out people, and only those who really loved Chicago would pursue the essays. While Chicago might have less applications than some of the ivys, I would argue that Chicago's average applicant is stronger than the ivy's average applicant. There is a point when the extra applications just become people who are applying to a school for the sake of applying.</p>

<p>They already have the right tone in their marketing: seriously intellectual but not self-important, individualistic and sometimes eccentric but not alienating or nerdy. Slightly self-mocking. Major city at your doorstep. That seems both honest and gives them a distinctive niche in the student market.</p>

<p>I would not drop the essays as they fit with the image. Instead, to enhance appeal, I'd emphasize the differences with the Ivies: a purer intellectual meritocracy with a diminished need to recruit for athletics and legacy. I'd try to maintain excellent needs-based aid and underscore the chance for merit aid, too, which the Ivies don't do. If they knew they were less apt to lose their spot to a lesser-qualified linebacker or alum kid and more apt to get a discount, well-qualified students would be even more enticed to apply.</p>

<p>This is fantastic for U of C. I have met him last year when he came to S's school to sell RPI. He is an incredible speaker and also very humorous. I was impressed with his speech. You can tell he loves Yale and eventhough he was recruiting for RPI, his speech was full of praise for Yale and how he want to make RPI a competitive school for strong students who enjoy learning. He was downright honest with questions that came from parents. I was impressed with his knowledge and experience. Congratulation to U of C.</p>

<p>I believe the financial aid issue is the single most important factor in improving yield. If yield increases, Chicago does not have to have a giant increase in applications. The discussion often centers around losing students to top Ivies, but Chicago loses its shares to lower ranked schools because of FA. This is the low hanging fruit that improved FA immediately harvests.</p>

<p>The difference between Yale and Chicago can be found in the statement "You were admitted to Yale, you must be smart." versus, "You attended to Chicago, you must be smart." Chicago is recognized as one of the few schools that have a real value added aspect to having attended. I believe the admissions department has been doing a good job of communicating this, and simply needs to continue.</p>

<p>or "You were admitted to Chicago, you really want to learn for the sake of learning."</p>

<p>As long as "Uncommon App" part remains in place and the school keeps its intellectual reputation, I'm fine with this.</p>

<p>If, however, I am admitted, attend, and discover two years in that the admit pool has made Chicago into just another high-end college, I'm going to be SERIOUSLY ****ed.</p>

<p>i am sure you will end up where you should..so don't sweat.</p>

<p>idad...you are so right about the FA. Chicago is not as generous as the top Ivies. Families who are neither rich nor poor, akin to no-man land, are pretty much at a disavantage. If you made between $75K to $125K, how can you afford to attend Chicago. If you made below $75K (this seems to be cut-off of most Ivies), you will have free ride. Chicago will never be comparable to the Ivies if they don't improve FA to the middle class families.</p>

<p>Regarding all the talk of Chicago needing to improve financial aid for undergraduates, I must say I'm a little confused. From what I can see, in terms of endowment per student, Chicago boasts more financial resources than: Columbia, Cornell, Duke, UPenn, Northwestern, and Brown. Chicago trails Dartmouth a bit, and everyone trails HYPS by a significant margin. </p>

<p>With this in mind, why are Chicago's financial aid offerings so subpar? The school seems to have the financial clout to match (or exceed) the resources of all but the very, very top schools. What is going on here?</p>

<p>cue7 -- UG subsizes the rest of the university? Agree with the FA aspects -- the reputation, rightly or wrongly, is that Chicago's FA office is penurious relative to its peers.</p>

<p>Cue - Most of the time when people talk about "the Ivies" in relation to FA, they're basing it off of impressions taken from Harvard and Princeton specifically. Even if you take all the others into account, the policies those two use bring up the average significantly...so yeah. >.></p>

<p>I suppose if we talk about Harvard or Princeton, then sure, Chicago falls off the pace. I would hope, however, that Chicago is more competitive with some of its more "immediate" peers (Columbia, Duke, Brown, etc.). Chicago simply does not have the financial resources at this time to compete with HYP. I was under the impression from this thread, however, that Chicago was losing out to Cornell, UPenn, Brown, etc. </p>

<p>I don't really have a problem with Chicago losing the FA battle to Harvard or Yale. That's not really a battle Chicago can win at this point, with all the finances in mind. If Chicago readily loses out to schools with significantly less financial resournces, such as Brown, Cornell, or Penn, then it becomes worrying.</p>