Oversubscribed Class of 2021!!

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
41

@Cue7

“don’t you think it’s better for prospective applicants to see acceptance rates, avg. incoming SAT scores, yield, etc. over the summer? NOT having the data might not put applicants into a “tailspin,” but isn’t it better for the process to have this info over the summer?”

Yes - and it’s even better if they disclosed admission rates, SAT/ACT etc. by demographic broken out further by gender. In the absence of any of that, most prospective applicants will need to make do with the Class of 2020 profile (admissions website) and College Navigator. The stats this year aren’t going to be all that different from prior year. Only yield will be significantly changed.

“Finally, I’m not sure why Chicago needed TWO rounds of early decision to “filter through the noise” - their yield last year was 65% - so they did a plenty good job of it last year. If you need two rounds of Early Decision to figure out who really wants to attend, that’s a pretty sad state of affairs.”

EDII definitely filtered through the Chicago deferred EA’s (my kid included - the only thing she added to her application was the EDII agreement and a short note to her admissions rep.). I’d be really curious to know just how many of those EDII accepts were deferred from UChicago vs. new applications. Would also love to know how many Uchi. deferreds were accepted RD.

"Do you remember the “Ted O’Neill is my Homeboy” t-shirt? Tell me, where’s the Nondorf swag and comparable rapport in Hyde Park? Lest you forget, Ted O’Neill was immensely popular at Chicago, and he had a productive two decades at the helm. "

College Core Sequence, Admissions 10100-10300 - Syllabus: Week 1: Swag is supposed to be about the university, NOT about the Admissions head.

And in fairness to Nondorf, he is popular where it counts: inside the university (the admissions department, including many students who have worked there) and outside the university, including pretty much everyone who meets him.

42

@marlowe1 -

I provided a fairly comprehensive game plan. Please look at post #510 in this thread: http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/1954996-u-of-chicago-is-university-strength-declining-p34.html

That’s my take on what Chicago should be doing, and some of the ideas are quite far from the standard mold.

UChicago has probably spent close to $2B for construction/new programs, and for what? To tread water. It hasn’t really tried anything out of the box or out of the ordinary.

Also, note, I have no problem with the spending, it’s just that everything has to be done so fast. Admissions needed to be overhauled in the span of 3-4 years. New dorms needed to be built over a decade, even if funding wasn’t in place.

Other universities slowed down during the recession and waited for adequate funding to come in before proceeding. (See even Yale, for example.)

Chicago is highly leveraged now because they didn’t stretch the growth out over 2 decades - they wanted to do it all in 8-10 years.

Why? What is the rush?!

43

@JBStillFlying - no doubt Nondorf has solidified his position at Chicago. But don’t forget what Ted O’Neill did - he was a good admissions leader for Chicago, and led the office with poise (and even with popularity!) for a long time.

Also, acceptance rate broken down by admissions plan is salient data - e.g. EA/ED1/ED2/RD acceptance rates. All other schools provide this data. Do you think Chicago will follow suit, or will it continue to be the maverick that provides applicants with LESS data?

44

@Cue7 Ted your disguise is not working anymore :slight_smile:

45

@Cue7 - Ted was the right choice for one time, Nondorf it seems for another. When Nondorf ceases to produce better outcomes he’ll leave and be replaced. That’s not a criticism of either one. Both are notable for doing some impressive things during their respective time.

46

Fair enough, @JBStillFlying

I just don’t see what the rush is now. Everything has to be done so fast. If you look at Chicago admissions now, it’s drastically different than it was even 3-4 years ago. This isn’t the case at other places.

Why is Chicago moving so fast? What is it running from, and why run at such speed?

47

“Also, acceptance rate broken down by admissions plan is salient data - e.g. EA/ED1/ED2/RD acceptance rates. All other schools provide this data. Do you think Chicago will follow suit, or will it continue to be the maverick that provides applicants with LESS data?”

@Cue7 I have no clue. UChicago didn’t break down the admissions data officially when there were just two options so I highly doubt they’ll change course for 4. Would be great but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Regardless of the dissatisfaction you feel about this process (and it’s shared by me in some regards, believe me), I think that most applicants who are trying to find this information out can do so. It’s not like it hasn’t been posted on forums such as CC or Reddit. But I wouldn’t worry so much about the impact of timing on a decision whether to apply. The news should be out well before Nov. 1st. Guessing it’ll be released when they update the website for the new admission cycle.

48

@Cue7 at #45. I don’t know, either but perhaps it feels the need to return to it’s rightful place as quickly as possible. Let’s just hope it stays there!

Update: Also, didn’t UChicago fall significantly out of the top between '96 and '06? Thought so based on that archived USNews data posted a few weeks ago. So I have no problem with a quick return to make up for that.

49
  1. I think even @marlowe1 would agree that it's a little more nuanced than he lets on. The Platonic admissions office would seek, not merely to identify those students who are "truly into the spirit of the place" when they apply, some of whom may turn out not to be so truly into the spirit of the place after an additional 9-10 months of late puberty, but rather to identify some cohort of students who both are likely to be truly into the spirit of the place at some point reasonably soon after they arrive and who are likely to contribute something to improve the overall experience of their peers and their teachers.

For a long time, certainly throughout the O’Neill era, the philosophy was clearly to admit the students who seemed best for the university, then convince as many as possible of them to come, rather than to admit the students who needed the least convincing to come. Both in theory and in practice, those are going to be separate groups, albeit with some overlap.

  1. @Cue7 is absolutely right that Chicago has consistently overadmitted, and it goes back a lot farther than 5 years. Starting around the (college) class of 2005, it implemented a plan to expand its entering classes from about 1,000 to 1,300. The target for my older child's class of 2009 was supposed to be 1,250, and it turned out to have 1,350. I don't think any subsequent class ever had that few kids, even though the professed class size goal stayed at 1,350 for several years. My second child, class of 2011, was initially assigned to a forced triple (three kids in a room formerly used as a double), but there was enough summer melt so that by September there were only two kids in the room. A few years ago, after 1,575 kids enrolled one year, they admitted that the target was realistically 1,500, but they suggested it would go down temporarily when Pierce was taken out of service. It didn't, and I don't think Chicago has failed to exceed 1.500 first-years since then.

Chicago’s peers somehow never get so ragged about how many kids enroll. It’s worth noticing, however, that this is completely inconsistent with producing the lowest possible admission rate – something people are always accusing Jim Nondorf of doing. If you don’t want to over-admit, you admit fewer people initially, and take more off the waitlist.

  1. That consistent over-admission highlights some interesting aspects of the Chicago experience:

– Chicago relies heavily on a category of faculty that its peers use more sparingly: recent PhDs that are employed full time and given nicer titles than “lecturer” or “adjunct,” but are not ladder faculty or members of any department. Much of Core Hum and Sosc is taught by such faculty, and that cohort can be expanded very easily on short notice.

– Chicago uses full-time, dedicated, non-PhD academic advisors for undergraduates, not faculty advisors. That pool, too, is very flexible – people can be added easily, and workloads can be expanded without too much complaint.

– For years, Chicago – especially Dean Boyer – have said that the college experience would be enhanced if a greater percentage of upperclass students lived on campus. But if you continuously enroll larger first-year classes, and retain almost all of them, and don’t expand the number of available dorm slots meaningfully – all of which has been true at Chicago – then you effectively make it impossible for the vast majority of upperclass students to live in university dorms. In the past 20 years, they have expanded the size of the college by 50%, 2,000+ students, and they have expanded the number of dorm slots by a few hundred. Personally, I don’t see that as so problematic – I think Hyde Park is a nice college town, and a great place for students to live connected to the university. But College officials say it’s a problem, and don’t do anything about it, which seems odd.

50

All good points and observations @JHS

A question for you - do you know why the changes have occurred so fast, and some so suddenly? Other schools are growing, and some are experimenting with different approaches, but what is Chicago’s rush?

51

@JHS Do you know of any articles or interviews of former or present U of C admissions personnel describing in a granular way the things that sway them to accept or reject? We do a lot of speculating on this board, but it would be good to have a frank first-hand account. I’m not thinking here so much of preferences for “hooked” applicants, which we know exists, but whether preferences are given for the “true Chicago believers” - as demonstrated through ED but also through conveying the Chicago spirit in essays or otherwise in the application. And, on the other hand, is there in fact and reality a preference being given to full payers? Those are two questions I would very much like to know the answers to before finally deciding in my own mind whether ED, whatever it may be for other schools, is a good thing for the University of Chicago.

I take your point that a 17-year-old cannot perfectly know his own nature nor that of any prospective educational institution. Some such Chicago true believers will be more or less disappointed by reality. Likewise many who come to Chicago without initial enthusiasm will start at some point to believe. But isn’t it highly likely that those who have some knowledge of what they are getting into, even if imperfect, and embrace the challenge of it from the get-go will more often be the ones you speak of - rewarding to their teachers and fellow students - than those who come with no special liking for the ethos of the place but only, as Cue was frank to admit in his own case, because it was the objectively best school they could get in to? That seems almost self-evident to me, but it would be interesting to do a survey of a past class or classes on that question.

Even in the 60’s there were talented untenured teachers in the College who belonged to no department but were highly regarded and even sought after by ambitious students. I had one of the best of these, Marvin Mirsky, for what was then called HUM II, very much a Great Books sort of course. RIP.

Assessing whether the building spree and expansion of the College are prudent or merely reckless is above my pay grade. However the history of both the city and the University is that of risk-taking and bold moves. “Dream no little dreams.” In my gut as a long lost alumnus I like the vibrancy I feel on campus these days. My worries are different ones - I don’t want to see Chicago’s uniqueness slowly drained away as if it were a disease we need to recover from. I don’t want Chicago to ape any other school, and I certainly do not accept any of HYPS as universal models for us.

52

“And, on the other hand, is there in fact and reality a preference being given to full payers?”

@marlowe1 - the admissions process is supposed to be need-blind; however, it’s understandable that full-pays would apply ED to a first choice in order to maximize their admission chance. Obviously, ED is a strong signal that the family isn’t (as) worried about finances impacting the ultimate decision and wouldn’t need merit aid so even if the school has no intention of preferring full-pay families, they may well end up doing so anyway. ED gives the school the bargaining power over your cost of attendance and you trade that in for a bump in admission chances. Many families don’t consider that an adequate trade so won’t go the ED route, whatever their financial situation may be (even rich families look at prices and choose accordingly).

We’ve also known families who wouldn’t apply for fin. aid. during admission to a HYPS because they didn’t want to hurt their chances. Perhaps they applied for years 2-4.

53

@marlowe1 - this article is old, BUT it’s quite detailed - and it describes the “old” Chicago admissions process quite well:

http://www.newsweek.com/inside-admissions-game-164802

That article goes into some depth - and the reporter followed the Chicago admissions team for a full cycle back in 1999. The report is interesting both for what it says AND for what it does not. In 1999, Chicago evaluated students on two axes - academics, and then the lump category of “activities, talents, and character.” (The best an applicant could score was a 1 on academics, and an A on “activities, talents, and character.”)

Interestingly, factors like sports, legacy status, wealth, and even diversity were not really in play. Further, the Admissions Dean Ted O’Neill was adamant that he did NOT look to “build a class,” with a certain number of these and a certain number of those. He rather looked to create an assembly of individuals. This strategy, then, was in opposition to the approach of Chicago’s major rivals.

The article points to some virtues and significant drawbacks to the past strategy. It explains why, in the 90s, Chicago had less diversity than its peers. Further, it demonstrates why incoming classes weren’t particularly athletic, and the wealth of incoming students was less than its peers. It also explains the wider range of SAT scores and grades - Chicago was clearly more willing to take risks on some students.

My guess is now, the strategy is much more risk averse, and more closely mirrors the approach of the top Ivies, Stanford, etc.

It’s a worthwhile read!

54

@JBStillFlying Certainly ED maximizes chances of admission, and that’s an advantage for any kid who really wants to get into a particular school, not just full-pays. It really comes down to the perceived loss in bargaining power under ED, which would on balance more adversely affect lower and mid-income families. I have to wonder whether this is more a perception than a reality. Statistics on aid packages offered to kids in the same category of family wealth but in different admission categories ought to tell us that. My suspicion is that there will be little or no difference. A New York Times piece published a month or so ago and referenced by me in another thread showed that there was actually very little difference among Chicago and its peers as to the average amount left to be funded from personal sources after all financial aid. Chicago of course has its Odyssey program, which is supposed to relieve students from having to work or borrow. I’m not sure how well all this is known. It certainly should be better publicized given the perception.

In the meantime I take your point and acknowledge that aspect of ED as a negative, though not one sufficient to override the positives as I see them.

55

@marlowe1 : I will be the first to admit that I view Chicago through the prism of my children, and some other kids I have known there. Almost all of them really loved it, but only one would have applied ED there – and he was a recruited athlete from the city of Chicago, with no desire (back then) to leave.

For my first child, when she applied, Chicago was essentially second-place Columbia. She wanted to be in a city (although she also applied to one rural LAC in case she woke up one morning and decided she wanted that), she liked the idea of a core curriculum, she really loved New York, and the culture around her told her Columbia was hot stuff. (That included a family for which she babysat on a regular basis, one member of whom was a former alumni trustee.) She was definitely aware of Chicago, had people she knew there, and one senior faculty member at her former school had told her it was the perfect place for her. She was accepted EA a week after Columbia deferred her ED application. Over the next few months, she paid a lot more attention to Chicago, talked to her friends there more, read up on it, and by spring she was very enthusiastic about going there (not that she actually decided before being rejected by Columbia).

Once she got there, she went through various stages of response. She pretty much hated the core. Her Sosc class grew on her over the course of the year as she got more interested in it, but she never liked her Hum section. She really hated being forced to take math. By the time she graduated, however, and certainly in life after college, she developed a deep appreciation for the core and what it meant to student intellectual culture. And she’s working in a very math-centric organization, and glad she has the math she has, and has even taught herself some more. Spending lots of time with people her age who went to Columbia, she’s very happy to have gone to Chicago instead. The only people she meets who seem to have had as intellectually rich a college education as she are the Yalies.

In part because of his older sister’s experience, my second child knew a lot about Chicago when he applied, and it was absolutely one of his top choices, but only one of them – Harvard and Yale were there, too. He was a stronger candidate on paper – somewhat higher test scores than his sister, and single-digit class rank. He was thrilled to go to Chicago (when he wasn’t accepted at H or Y). He went whole-hog on the Chicago experience: Scav, Kuvia, Latke-Hamentash, close relationships with faculty in his department, deep involvement with a large, mainstream on-campus EC, club sports. He’s never really left. He worked for another college for a couple of years, while living with Chicago grad students. Then he got an MA there, too, and effectively he works there. He’s marrying someone from his Sosc section, and shared an apartment for the past three years with someone else from the same Sosc section.

There was a fly-on-the-wall article about Chicago admissions that’s about 15 years old, now (EDIT: @Cue7 posted a link.). It documents an era that passed a long time ago, when the admissions office’s job was simply to accept everyone with great qualifications and then to decide who among the less-than-great applicants was really a “Chicago person.” They had around 8,000 applicants, and were accepting nearly half. It was a totally different task than anyone performs today. Today, they spend a great deal of time deciding which applicants to reject who would have been automatic admits 15 years ago, and maybe a lot more recently than that.

The old job was probably a lot more fun.

56

RPI and Harvard both have been noted as “oversubscribing” for the freshman class entering in September 2017.

Why should UChicago be any different?

57

@rhandco - because Chicago is the only school that oversubscribed for the past 6-7 years in a row (at least), and never adjusted incoming classes to be smaller than the oversubscribed classes.

58

Also, to add to what @JHS said about this old Chicago admissions article (http://www.newsweek.com/inside-admissions-game-164802 - it is a nice gem of a read):

Back in the day, since the universe of apps was so manageable, a lot of the job came down to sitting around a conference table, debating candidates. Recruiting was less intense, and the marketing was more subdued - Chicago only sent out materials to 45,000 students - a number that seems quaint, these days.

Now, Chicago has entered the fray full force. Its admissions counselors tend to be younger (recent college grads), counselors are on the road a ton, and the marketing budget is huge.

This isn’t a bad thing. In some ways - it’s a good thing. It’s good to build a class and think about the class composition. It’s good to have a diverse mix of students, and to have some wealthy students in the mix. It’s good to be selective and to be desired. But, in contrast to the ivies, who have simply been ratcheting up the intensity for years, the Chicago move is an about-face.

I will say, the article is a good description of what a fairly principled admissions office looked like, before the frenzy.

59

@marlowe1 #53 - I don’t disagree with a bit of your post and it would be interesting to know how many UChicago class of 2021 ED-admits were on Fin. Aid. In our case, my daughter received a need-based package that rivaled any merit aid we could expect from a top-tier elite school (would she have been given the same amount of need-based AND a merit package from her second choice CMU? Not sure and we’ll never know but we are a bit skeptical that she would have). While need-based isn’t guaranteed for four years the way that a merit scholarship would be, we are reasonably sure that she’ll receive something very similar for at least three years of her college. (if they cut her off in year 4, at least there is light at the end of the tunnel then!). Her situation is interesting because we were expecting more for her National Merit Scholarship and less for Fin. Aid. It turned out a bit differently but the overall amount is very reasonable.

We were definitely one of those “risk averse” families - a year ago, we would not have wanted our kid to apply ED. However, our takeaway from this experience is that for schools with generous amounts of need-based aid available, ED might be a great option if it’s your first-choice and you are comfortable with committing so early on. And you have contacted Fin. Aid. so you have an idea of what to expect. the Net Price Calculator might be based on old cost numbers and is generally not very accurate so don’t rely on that alone.

No one should make an uninformed decision but no one should be avoiding ED based solely on conventional wisdom or perception.

60

@Cue7 - are you sure UChicago isn’t deliberately “oversubscribing”? If it’s indeed a mistake every time, wouldn’t you start to see some undersubscribing now and then?