<p>Ahhh I see. That’s good, but it’s still funny how they built it under the stadium.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here’s my take in very broad strokes: Ivy League (plus Williams, MIT, and a few others)= Northeast. Northeast= wealthy people, high population density, and residents of states that don’t have public schools that appeal to high-achieving students.</p>
<p>Midwest= fewer people, less money, less population density, excellent public schools that appeal to high-achieving students. A top student in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, or Illinois would probably be pretty complacent in going to that public school, and indeed many of my U of C friends from the midwest considered their public school very seriously. </p>
<p>OTOH, you don’t see many top students in New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, or New Jersey who think of their state schools as anything other than last resort.</p>
<p>Add in the tendency to stay within driving distance from home, and I think you’re beginning to develop an answer. </p>
<p>For example, I’ve always been interested in the fact that I know many students in my neck of the woods who consider Johns Hopkins, Wesleyan, and Tufts (three elite east coast non-ivies) very seriously, but overlook both Chicago, Northwestern, Oberlin, and Macalester, which are all comparable midwest schools. </p>
<p>This is all conjectural and I’m too lazy to find data to back up my assertion, which means it’s on weak grounds. I’m willing to put some money on this theory, though, if somebody wants to do the dirty work ;-)</p>
<p>Cue7, I think you are right about being slightly elitist. When I was looking at the ranking (unfortunately), before the admissions process began, immediately I had a negative impression of UChicago because it didn’t look that selective to me. I ignorantly thought “oh this is such an easy school to get in; how hard can it possibly be”.</p>
<p>I do think that significantly increase the applicant pool will make UChicago look more selective. The only concern remains - can UChicago successfully retain students who harbor true enthusiasm for the school and weed out those who do not.</p>
<p>And to answer question #3-- as a research institution, Chicago has achieved a lot of fame across the disciplines. The small undergraduate college within the research setting means that classes are relatively small.</p>
<p>I also like that Chicago students as a whole tend not to be “shallow” when it comes to clothing, socializing, etc. I also like that my peers are very open about their academic and non-academic interests. Those are two big differences I noted from my high school experience.</p>
<p>
That’s interesting…I had the exact opposite experience way back in high school (about 5 years ago). I first came across Chicago after noticing that my favorite author/scholar was a graduate. Looking it up in the College Board book that I had at the time, I was impressed by its selectivity and decided to investigate it further.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha, I had the exact same experience as you, except my author was a faculty member, rather than an alum.</p>
<p>IBClass - what do you mean when you say you were “impressed” about Chicago selectivity? When I was applying to college in the mid-90s, like many high schoolers at the time, I saw acceptance rate as a rough proxy for difficulty to get in and general status of the school. So Harvard, Yale, etc. all had acceptance rates in the teens, Duke, Brown, etc. were around 25%, and when I saw that Chicago’s accept rate was about 60%, I don’t know if I’d say I was “impressed” with that… Instead, I saw Chicago as one of the more feasible options to gain a world-class education. </p>
<p>Unalove, I agree, there’s a lot of east-coast centrism that leads to top high schoolers in NYC, Phila, Boston, etc. to center their college searches on the east coast. What I think is disappointing, however, is that Chicago still loses a lot of regional talent to schools on both the east and west coasts. Yes, the midwest is more hs public school country, but the top students at high-powered midwestern public schools (from what I’ve seen), either look to east coast schools, to Northwestern, or to their flagship public schools. The U of C needs to make sure that it’s more of a destination for top-flight midwestern kids. Duke retains a lot of top talent in the Southeast, Stanford on the west coast, etc. Again, a big problem here is that Chicago doesn’t have enough of a footprint in its own city. Heck, Michelle Obama grew up minutes away from the U of C, and eschewed the College for Princeton. </p>
<p>While I know President Zimmer wants Chicago to be “the best university, anywhere,” various publications (Forbes, Businessweek too I believe) have begun to refer to Chicago as the “Midwestern Powerhouse.” I don’t think it’s bad for the school to embrace this sort of mentality.</p>
<p>Aren’t we looking into this a little too much?</p>
<p>In this forum, how many times have we all said that UofC is a “self-selecting school?” And isn’t being “self selecting” what makes UofC great? It makes it a place where getting to college isn’t the goal, but rather a place to really expand your learning in a way that you never had before. </p>
<p>So if UofC tries to bring in a different breed of students than Harvard, Yale, Princeton, UPenn, Stanford, and Duke, what’s the use in comparing them? WE all know that UofC has outstanding departments: economics, sociology, anthropology, physics, biology, chemistry, english, history… the list goes on and on. And what’s even better is that the brightest people in the world know that too. If you talk to almost anyone with a college education (barring most party schools (WVU, Texas, Florida)) then they’ll tell you that UofC has a GREAT academic reputation. </p>
<p>So what’s the big deal if we’re not attracting the Harvard and Yale crowd? We don’t really want them anyways. They aren’t the kind of people who would really fit in at UofC. So why compare?</p>
<p>Last year US News and World Report ranked UChicago tied for #8 with Duke and Columbia. Honestly, the top 10 Universities each year get scrambled the next year, so what is really the difference between them? Not much except for the fact that UofC tries to bring in a different kind of student. And that is what makes us special.</p>
<p>Neogop - Those are fair points, but I think you’re describing the U of C of a few years ago. From all the statements made by Zimmer, the hiring of a new dean of admissions, and the initiatives taken by the school in the past 4-5 years, Chicago very much looks to be headed in a direction that conforms more to the approaches taken by Duke, UPenn, etc. </p>
<p>In the past, yes, Chicago was certainly self-selecting, and they looked for a different type of student. Now, with Zimmer hoping to attract 15000-20000 applicants, and with an acceptance rate that will soon (if it doesn’t already) mirror all the other schools anywhere, is Chicago really going to be as distinct?</p>
<p>Certainly, the new admissions dean will continue to look for the top minds and the top academic talent, but the self-selectivity certainly won’t be as noticeable as it was when, during my day, Chicago had a 60% acceptance rate in comparison to Harvard’s 15% rate. When Harvard will maintain around a 10% rate, and Chicago’s rate drops to around 15% with 15k-20k applications, I don’t think Chicago will be as distinct as you state in its approach.</p>
<p>Yes, Cue7, you are right about Zimmer, but hopefully he will soon realize that a school doesn’t need a low acceptance rate and a high yield rate to be one of the best universities in the country and the world. I reiterate: UChicago was ranked 8th. 8th out of approximately 3,000. That is nothing to sneeze at considering that the top 3 have roots that trace back to the 17th century. Honestly, I don’t see where Zimmer wants to go with the school. It will be very very difficult to climb higher considering who all is there and the connotations that go with their names: Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, Stanford, CalTech, UPenn, Columbia (tied with UofC), Duke (tied with UofC). Those are some pretty big names, and even if UofC is a better school (and I believe it is for a variety of reasons), it is going to be a herculean task to topple them. Especially considering that two of them are engineering schools. And if you do look at that list, 7 are on the east coast, two are on the west coast, and UofC is the only school in the middle of the country. That’s nothing to sneeze at either, I guess that really does prove that UofC is the mid-western powerhouse (even though Northwestern pulls in close at #12). Hopefully Zimmer will realize this: that accomplishing what he wants to accomplish (overcoming 5 Ivies with terribly impressive reputations and enormous endowments and 3 of the best engineering schools in the country) will take more than increasing the number of applicants, decreasing the number accepted, and increasing the already fabulous yield rate.</p>
<p>Neogop - the evidence you provide for Chicago’s standing actually reinforce my points about Zimmer. You do realize, don’t you, that Chicago climbed the rankings precisely BECAUSE of Zimmer’s initiatives and his emphasis on making Chicago look better? </p>
<p>Around 4 years ago, Zimmer sent his admissions staff to meet with US News to figure out why Chicago was ranked so low (in my day, it’d always been around #14). This sort of move would be unheard of by past U of C presidents, who never really acknowledged these rankings. Moreover, dropping accept rate, increasing yield, etc. all go to a better ranking. Chicago now is high up in the rankings precisely because Zimmer acknowledges and plays the US News game, just like Duke and UPenn and Dartmouth do. </p>
<p>Moreover, I disagree with your point that Chicago has gotten about as high as it can go. Duke, UPenn, and Columbia all are comparable to Chicago (in terms of finances, etc.), and what you have to realize is, for most of Chicago’s history, its academic clout far exceeded anything offered in Durham or West Philly. I don’t think Zimmer would admit it publicly, but I think he’d realistically like Chicago to be in the top half-dozen or so schools. Don’t forget, rising in the rankings is a very superficial task, but it can lead to tangibly good results.</p>
<p>I don’t know if many Chicago students would admit this, but most very much like the fact that Chicago is now firmly entrenched in the top ten. When we were #15 back when I was at Chicago, I think there was some disappointment about this. Zimmer’s policies are very much to thank for Chicago’s buoying sense of morale. As unfortunate as it may be, after a school goes through a weak spell (such as Penn or Chicago in the early 90s), high ranking becomes an easy way to validate status. Penn’s President Judith Rodin targeted a high ranking back when she was in charge in West Philly, and it led to beneficial results around the school. Don’t forget, a school you mark as “steeped in tradition” was struggling quite a bit a couple decades ago, and I think was ranked as low as #20. Now, with the initiatives taken at Penn - that mirror the initiatives Zimmer is taking - Penn is a better place. In many ways, I think Chicago is following suit.</p>
<p>I think a happy medium isn’t impossible. It’s clear – and probably the right choice – that Chicago doesn’t want, institutionally, to be quite as unique or as self-selecting as it was in the past. But it’s not an either/or question: Bastion of Quirky Intellectuals vs. Stover At Yale.* There is a huge overlap between Chicago’s core applicants and the students who make up the Ivy League applicant pool, at least the part of it with more than a snowball’s chance in hell of success. Chicago can continue to market its particular virtues and character – something I think it has been doing very effectively – and thus continue to attract students who want an institution like that. And, at the same time, it can try to make certain that as many students who might want an institution like that know about it and want to apply, and that they are not turned off by the absence of a satisfying extra-curricular environment.</p>
<p>Cue7: I think Chicago’s Great Leap Forward in the USNWR rankings came under Don Randel and had nothing to do with anything other than conforming the way Chicago reported some information about class size, graduate student instructors, and research support to what other institutions were doing. Specifically (and I may be wrong about this, or some part of it), I think they used to report each of the Core Hum and Sosc courses as a single huge course with a bunch of sections, and the writing course attached to each Hum course as a separate course (with grad student instructors). With the result that average class size as reported by USNWR was too high (everyone in Human Being and Citizen or Self Culture & Society was in the same 500-person course), and every first year was taking at least one course taught by a graduate student (writing). Now, HBC would be reported as a whole bunch of 20-person seminars (some taught by faculty, some by grad students), with a separate discussion section for writing. That seems more accurate to me. Anyway, that change alone was responsible for half or more of the USNWR improvement.</p>
<p>For all Chicago’s increased applications and decreased admission rate, it STILL stands out like a sore thumb among the USNWR top 20 in that regard. But the change came when the admission rate was around 40%, so it had to be based on something else. And there’s really not much room for USNWR ranking improvement now. If Chicago doubled its application base and its yield, so that it looked like Princeton, it would STILL have an endowment that was only a third the size of Princeton’s, and that would limit how high its ranking could go.</p>
<p>So I don’t really think the ranking game is driving anything at Chicago. I’ll take it back if they introduce ED.</p>
<p>Maybe you guys are right, but is this necessarily good? Doesn’t this kinda reverse everything that Ted O’Neill worked for?</p>
<p>JHS - Yes I should have qualified my post above. Zimmer’s policies - broadly - retain all the initiatives more or less started by Hugo Sonnenschein and continued by Don Michael Randel. Under Sonnenschiein in the late 90s, Chicago began becoming increasingly conscious of its status, finances, etc. While he was controversial, I think Hugo led the school in the right direction.</p>
<p>I also think you’re right - Randel sent down the admissions reps to meet with US News during the tail end of his time at Chicago. Nevertheless, that move would’ve been unheard of in the recent past. I can’t imagine someone like Hanna Gray ever bother to pay even lip service to the rankings. Sending reps down to DC to go over the numbers would’ve been ridiculous under her Presidency. The change in reporting was a big factor in the rankings jump, but increasing retention rate (which went from about 75% when I was at Chicago to around 95% in 6-7 years), dropping the acceptance rate (by around 40% and counting now) can’t have hurt. </p>
<p>Also, I think and hope Chicago will continue to retain its character. The “rankings game” might not be driving Chicago forward in its decision, but I think Chicago has gotten to be much more status conscious and invested in keeping up with the Joneses. When I was at Chicago, the admissions office seemed very laissez faire about everything. Now, that’s changed. Even just stating a definite goal in admissions numbers (Zimmer’s 15-20k goal) is a vast departure from how everything worked about a decade ago. </p>
<p>Overall, I think Zimmer wants Chicago to retain its scholarly character and heritage, but I think he wants to give the Chicago brand added luster and a coat of polish. All the moves he’s making seem to try and enhance the perceived “eliteness” of the school - something someone like Hanna Gray wouldn’t care as much about in her day. A low acceptance rate gives off the perception of exclusiveness and prestige. So does a very high US News ranking. Zimmer seems more than mildly interested in making all this happen.</p>
<p>Finally, in terms of actual rank, I agree, overtaking a Princeton or Stanford would be a daunting task. Would it really be that hard for Chicago to break its tie with Duke and Columbia or overtake Penn? I don’t see any of these schools as head-over-heels better than Chicago in any particular category. Columbia would be Chicago’s closest chief rival, I think, and the schools are comparable in many ways. Again, ending up in the top half-dozen (albeit at the bottom of that top half-dozen) seems like a forseeable goal. (Personally, that’s about where I perceive Chicago to be in the pecking order, but that’s for another thread entirely ;-)</p>
<p>Neogop - in many ways, yes, what Zimmer is doing reverses the “personalized” approach Ted O’Neill took to admissions. It’s still up in the air whether this is a good move or not. Only time will tell… </p>
<p>(I will say, I do think making Chicago more “elite” has improved morale a little bit around campus. When I was at Chicago, there was a bit of gloominess to the place - kids were still a little resentful of their more illustrious peers on the east or west coasts. Enhancing the perception of prestige, the bump in the rankings, etc. lessens that a bit I think.)</p>
<p>Yeah, I have nothing wrong with enhancing the prestige of the university. I guess my concern is the way in which it is being handled. Maybe the problem I have (purposefully negotiating with USNWR and lowering acceptance rates) is more a problem with USNWR than with UofC. Because honestly, they shouldn’t be ranking the universities based on what percentage they admit or what the retention rate is. They SHOULD be ranking based on average student matriculated scores, strength of departments, and current student test scores and acceptances to law school, medical school, and the like. That seems like a much better way to rank schools than just how many kids they admit, no? </p>
<p>To tell the truth, part of me does want to go to a prestigious institution. And that does reflect the list of colleges which I am applying to (but UChicago is still my number 1, no worries). If I am admitted to Chicago, and assuming the finances are in order, I would have no qualms about it. I know Chicago has fabulous programs in the regions of knowledge that interest me (which are vast) and I know that I would be comfortable there for 4 years. So it doesn’t really bother me how high it is ranked, although it is very nice to have a high ranking. If Chicago was ranked 25th, I would probably feel the same way. </p>
<p>For example, look to Georgetown. Very competitive school, slightly larger than UofC, ~19% acceptance rate, high retention rate (~45%), great academics (granted in different fields than UofC), etc. But their USNWR ranking is somewhere in the low-mid 20s. It is even preceded by some schools which, at least in my mind, are far less noteworthy (UCLA and Vanderbilt primarily). Personally, I think Georgetown deserves a much higher ranking, at least in the mid teens. So what makes the ranking so important? Shouldn’t we be putting more stress on the actual academics of the universities and what kind of students they churn out?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, the endowment isn’t terribly important in the calculation of rankings, and admit rates and yield aren’t significant.</p>
<p>[Undergraduate</a> Ranking Criteria and Weights - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-colleges/2008/08/21/undergraduate-ranking-criteria-and-weights.html]Undergraduate”>http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-colleges/2008/08/21/undergraduate-ranking-criteria-and-weights.html)</p>
<p>Chicago’s faculty resources are already top-notch, and its professorial pay is in the top 5 nationally. I’m not sure about how the financial resources part of the ranking is calculated, but since the University of Chicago still is in the top 10 nationally in terms of endowment, I assume that it doesn’t hurt it terribly bad, especially when you compare it to, say, MIT, Caltech, or Penn.</p>
<p>The primary thing that Chicago could do to boost its ranking is in selectivity. If you look at the % of students at the top-ranked Ivy Leagues who graduated in the top 10% of their high school class, it’ll be in the mid-upper 90s. Now, for Chicago’s figures: Class of 2010 - 80%, Class of 2011 - 83%, Class of 2012 - 86%, and you better bet that for the Class of 2013, this’ll be about 89%. This measure ALONE is .40*15% = 6%(!) of the total ranking. Chicago’s current ranking uses the 83% statistic, and since its peers have 90% and higher statistics, this serves as a useful measure on which to improve its ranking, as long as the college improves on a few other statistics steadily, such as alumni giving and average SAT scores.</p>
<p>Ultimately, I wouldn’t be surprised if Chicago were in the top 6 nationally by 2012. I think it will break its tie with Columbia and Duke next (not this) autumn.</p>
<p>neogop – The problem with Georgetown is that it isn’t really a university. It barely has any non-professional graduate programs, and doesn’t grant PhDs in most academic areas (maybe not at all). That, in turn, limits the quality of its faculty. Georgetown College is essentially a big LAC. Similar statements get made about Dartmouth, Princeton, even Harvard, Yale, Chicago, but it’s considerably more true about Georgetown.</p>
<p>Georgetown has a great reputation among students because (a) it’s pretty, (b) it’s in a great location, especially if you are interested in law, government, international relations, etc., (c) it has a great basketball tradition, and (d) it is seen as the most or second-most desirable Catholic university (most of which have a similar lack of academic graduate programs). But it isn’t hard at all to understand why it gets ranked below a lot of other universities – it isn’t in their league. It may be one of the most overrated colleges around, except that if you look at it like an LAC, it’s not half bad at all.</p>
<p>Cue7 – Sure, Chicago could overtake Penn, although there’s a gigantic endowment gap between them, too, and I don’t think Chicago is going to build an undergraduate business program (or D-I sports) to do it. And, really, how much would you spend to move up from 8 or 9 to 7 or 6 in any ranking system?</p>
<p>EDIT: Aw, geez, phuriku! What are you doing wrecking a perfectly good speculative discussion with facts and data? </p>
<p>Actually, financial resources and alumni giving are 15% of the ranking, and in those areas Chicago is a pretty long way behind everyone ahead of it and a lot of people behind it in the rankings.</p>
<p>That could be it too. I think its a shame however that that is weighted so heavily. I’m not in the top 10% of my graduating class. There are about 105 in my class and it is very competitive. Out of the Ivies, here’s how my school fared for the class of 2009:</p>
<p>Harvard: 1 admit, 0 enroll
Princeton: 0 admit, 0 enroll
Yale: 1 admit, 1 enroll
Dartmouth: 3 admit, 3 enroll
Brown: 1 admit, 1 enroll
Cornell: 2 admit, 1 enroll
Columbia: 0 admit, 0 enroll
UPenn: 4 admit, 4 enroll.</p>
<p>There you go. That’s 10 kids from class of 2009 who enrolled at Ivies. (I’m not saying Ivies are better than UofC, what I’m saying is they are preposterously difficult to get into.) So if 10 kids got into Ivies out of ~100, there’s your top 10% right there! Now consider that that is a usual year for us! And I would put my money on it that those kids aren’t even the top 10 (also top 10%) at our school. That’s not including kids who want to go to a small liberal arts college. Or kids whose parents can’t afford the education so they end up going to our flagship state university. Which means that plenty of the 20th percentile and maybe even 30th percentile students at my school are going to top notch universities. I’m not trying to brag, but I’m just trying to give an example of how being in the top 10% isn’t everything, and it probably shouldn’t be used so heavily in ranking just like acceptance rate and yield rate. And personally, if UChicago, or any other school for that matter, denied me or anyone else like me because I am the 15th-20th percentile, then I would be ridiculously ****ed off. Each school is different, and I know that at my school I feel extremely lucky and proud that I am even in the top 20%.</p>
<p>@JHS, maybe you’re right about Georgetown, but it is still undeniable that it maintains a great undergraduate college, the best or second best undergraduate and graduate foreign relations school in the country, a very well perceived law school, a notable medical school and nursing school, and a great business school. Yes, these are for the most part professional schools, but I don’t think their seemingly lackluster graduate school of arts and sciences is completely to blame. The variety of PhD’s and Masters that the university offers is still quite broad (though not as broad as Chicago’s). And I think the reason for this is that Georgetown has really branded itself as a social sciences/law/international kind of school. And what’s wrong with that? Look to MIT or Caltech. They lack for the most part any kind noteworthy department other than in engineering and the sciences. (The only anomaly I have found at MIT is their Econ department.)</p>