<p>how many applications did chicago receive this year?</p>
<p>13,500. Roughly. (At least that's what I remember it rounded to. Maybe a few more.)</p>
<p>alright. so that's definitely an increase from last year....</p>
<p>i read somewhere in the years past it's been about 9,500-10,000</p>
<p>Last year is was about 12,500ish.</p>
<p>There's an article in the UC Chronicle that says 13,500 or so; confirming the above. =/</p>
<p>Only 13.5k? Wow... That's really surprising, especially compared to how amazing UChicago is!</p>
<p>uchicago has been known for quite some years as a college that receives less applications. while the ivy leagues receive around 20, 000 (brown received over 25,000 the highest), chicago has always received less. </p>
<p>although in the past few years, the competition has definitely gotten harder. </p>
<p>but despite the fewer applications, it is by no means a "worse" in fact, i think it's equal/if not better to the rest of the ivies besides hyp.</p>
<p>The new admissions dean should probably bump up admissions to around the 15k-20k range in the next few years...</p>
<p>If Brown received 25,000 applications, that's below Yale (26,000) and Harvard (29,000), as well as Stanford (over 30,000). And, of course, way below Berkeley and UCLA, which are probably around 60,000 each.</p>
<p>Just out of curiosity, what would be the benefit of bumping up the number of applicants? The only possible motivation I can think of would be to increase in selectivity and thus the rankings, which kinda seems like a ******** reason to me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
while the ivy leagues receive around 20, 000 (brown received over 25,000 the highest)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Cornell receives the most (30000). Why does everyone hate Cornell...?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just out of curiosity, what would be the benefit of bumping up the number of applicants? The only possible motivation I can think of would be to increase in selectivity and thus the rankings, which kinda seems like a ******** reason to me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Higher quality of the entering class.</p>
<p>Honestly, I don't think more selectivity = better quality. After all, as it stands U of C is pretty kick-ass, even compared to schools that are significantly more selective. If anything, a low admissions rate is a sign of good marketing and name recognition, not necessarily quality.</p>
<p>yea, when i meant brown received 25000, i meant that they had the largest increase this year. they went up 23 percent in applications in just one year. schools like brown and yale, however have significantly fewer spots than cornell. that's part of the reason cornell attracts so many applicants too.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Honestly, I don't think more selectivity = better quality. After all, as it stands U of C is pretty kick-ass, even compared to schools that are significantly more selective. If anything, a low admissions rate is a sign of good marketing and name recognition, not necessarily quality.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>When you go to a grocery store, if you have more choices, you will have a better chance of buying the best products. :D</p>
<p>^True, but you must remember that top tier schools often say they could have filled a class many times over with interesting, qualified candidates. After a certain number of people, the correlation between selectivity and quality levels off.</p>
<p>FB lala - more apps does not necessarily mean a better incoming class. If you read "Shakespeare, Einstein, and the Bottom Line: The Marketing of Higher Education" by David Kirp, (I believe it was in this work) admissions officers at high-profile schools such as Duke openly admit to just trying to drum up applications from students the school knows they will READILY DENY. Duke admissions reps were told to try and just get students to apply to boost perceived selectivity. By getting thousands of apps that serve just as fodder, you don't actually get a stronger incoming class.</p>
<p>That being said, I think there are still more qualified applicants out there who want to hear Chicago's story, and so I think that careful growth could perhaps lead to an increase in a class' strength (Chicago classes are already quite strong). This is the most important reasons - room for stronger classes still exists. That being said, there may be other reasons present as well. This may be unfortunate, but creating a "selective" college serves two practical purposes: 1.) as people mentioned, it can inflate a school's ranking, and 2.) selectivity may very well give current students an increased sense of status and connection to the college. </p>
<p>On point #2, if Chicago is continuously known as a "safety" school to the very top ivies (HYP and Columbia), and current students are aware of say, a consistent accept rate completely distinct from it closest competitors, this may adversely affect the student population at the school (however slightly). When I was at Chicago around ten years ago, many students had a bit of a grudge against, say, Harvard or Stanford. As Chicago has grown increasingly selective, I think this sort of mentality has fallen to the wayside a bit. </p>
<p>In say, 4-5 years when Chicago's accept rate will most likely drop to around 14-15% and Chicago gets close to 20k apps, there will probably be even less of that sort of adverse feeling on campus. Assuming that, to not appear completely exclusive, the top half dozen colleges will maintain around a 10% accept rate, Chicago holding around 15% would probably lead to a more content student body. At the end of the day, many many top studets - even Chicago students - care about status in one form or another. Many Chicago students are probably happy the school is getting more "selective" even though the incoming classes probably aren't immeasurably stronger. As this continutes, it will lead to a more content student body, which again is what Zimmer and the admin want. </p>
<p>Of course, #2 takes a backseat to the general idea that Chicago's story NEEDS TO BE TOLD more broadly, and that there are more great potential chicago talents out there. I don't think Chicago will drum up apps in the same way as Duke or Wash U, but at the same time, point #2 has some persuasiveness.</p>
<p>i've never liked duke. </p>
<p>the atmosphere is pretentious there also...</p>
<p>two girls who were accepted early to duke from my school NO WAY had the stats to get into Chicago or any of the ivies. I just didn't understand how Duke accepted BOTH of them.</p>
<p>duke is not what it's all made up to be. number 7 in the country? please us news and world report...</p>
<p>what were their stats?</p>
<p>@ ilovepeople</p>
<p>Have you ever visited Duke? I've been on campus at least a hundred times, and its reputation as a party/sports/southern white pretentious school is at least a little undeserved. Most people I met on campus were friendly, and all of them were intelligent.
Duke's has a high ED acceptance rate (as does UPenn).</p>
<p>yes, i've been to duke.
i didn't mean to say all the people on campus were like that, but i did get the pretentious vibe on campus. </p>
<p>yea, i understand early ed is high. but based on their stats, i was still completely shocked.</p>