<p>What surprises me the most is the targeted class size for this year - 1350?! Even just last year, the targeted class size was around 1250-1300, right? The number surprises me because I think when I attended the U of C not terribly long ago, we had around 950 students in my class. That's a big difference from 1350. </p>
<p>Anyone know how large Chicago is aiming to get? Is the target to get to around 1400 students per class? 1500? This would sure change how I look at my alma mater. I always thought of Chicago as a place with around 900 or so in a graduating class. </p>
<p>Hmmm I'm not sure how I feel about this. When I was at Chicago, there were rumors of increasing the class size, but the increase was supposed to be capped at 1200 per class.</p>
<p>Quick Addendum - This year Chicago admitted around 3650 students, and if the yield is similar to last year (about 40%), it looks as if Chicago will have a very, very large class for next year - around 1450 students. That’s is REALLY big for U of C…</p>
<p>The admitted classes for the past three years, at least, have been well above 1300. They would say that they were targeting 1250, but they were admitting up to 100 more. It may be that with the new dorm, which has about 50 more beds than the Shoreland, they felt comfortable admitting to the larger number.</p>
<p>It IS news that Chicago admitted 3,650 students. I think that is more than last year, when they were under 3,600. I thought that the number would be closer to 3,400 (assuming a 1,250 target). They must be really worried about losing kids because of financial aid. (I don’t think yield has ever been as high as 40%, though. More like 37% – which would produce a class of 1350 if it holds.)</p>
<p>Chicago expanded its entering class deliberately starting 7-8 years ago from a target of about 1,000 to 1,300. That was one of the recommendations of the consulting study that got done a decade ago – it needed to build a bigger base of alumni, and to improve the vitality of undergraduate life, and having more undergraduates was a way to do that. Princeton has done the same thing.</p>
<p>Why would you think the yield would be as high this year as last year? It is pretty clear that admissions thinks the yield will drop, no doubt due to (1) the economy and (2) financial aid competition from the upper ivies, who promised to offer much more generous aid to the middle class than Chicago is willing to. </p>
<p>If you note the 14% drop in early admission applications, I think you’ll realize that the folks know what they’re doing.</p>
<p>The growth in class size is no surprise. It has been in the works for years, and tied into the construction of new housing, if I recall correctly. </p>
<p>This is not your father’s UofC. It is a new place, and changing even more. Better or worse? Who knows.</p>
<p>EDIT: UofC makes money on undergrads. That is one more reason for having more of them.</p>
<p>JHS and Newmassdad - Yeah when I was at U of C, I kept hearing the number 1200 as the targeted class size. In any case, wouldn’t a better strategy be to admit fewer students this year, and then use the waitlist? So for example, admit, say, 3500 students, and then if yield is only around 36-37%, admit more from the waitlist? I would think it would be best to be conservative in admits, so you don’t over-admit.</p>
<p>By not being conservative, this implicitly shows that Chicago does just want a BIG class. What surprises me here is, What exactly is the target for the college size? It doesn’t seem to be 1300, because the class is on track to 1350 or even more this year. </p>
<p>I guess this frustrates me a little bit because the administration seems to be making the change a little secretively. They would say a target size is 1250, and then be “pleasantly” surprised when the yield goes up, or use the waitlist a bit to get the actual class size at 1350. Is the goal really 1400? 1500? What is the real target here? </p>
<p>At the same time, are faculty hires being made in a commensurate way? I don’t like the idea of having bigger core classes, science classes that are 150+ students, and the like. From current students, does the school feel overcrowded? What I liked about my time at the U of C was the very small class size. Most of my core hum and social science classes had around 15 people, and I never had that many large lecture classes. </p>
<p>I just wonder whether the U of C is getting too big for its own britches, so to speak.</p>
<p>The Maroon reported the University is trying to cap Core class size at 19. If this is maintained, it will require either more faculty, or current faculty teaching a little more (some only teach one or two undergrad courses a year), or result in more grad student teaching.</p>
<p>ab2013 - The common app did boost number significantly (by about 10%), but the U of C just accepted a LOT of students this year. Looks like the school really wants to increase class size, so obviously they need to accept more students to make this happen…</p>
<p>Some say the student body quality has improved, but I TA’d during the high admit years and the student body was extraordinary. I personally see little difference between them and S1’s peers who are attending now. I would prefer a 61% rate composed of students who really want to be at Chicago, then a 20% rate who want to be at a top 10 school.</p>
<p>It is a little weird how the administration is being so shifty about the targets for the incoming class. Two years ago, when the university had a higher than expected yield (I believe they did not admit any off the waitlist) and housing was overfilled the administration was adamant that it was an underestimate of yield and that future class sizes would return to the baseline from the immediately preceding years. Then it happened again, more or less. And this year they admitted even more. These new, larger, classes seem to coincide with the arrival of President Zimmer. As does the implementation of the Common Application (which out-going admissions Dean Ted O’Neill had publicly and vigorously opposed in the past), which the administration insisted had nothing to do with decreasing the admission rate… </p>
<p>I feel like the administration isn’t being terribly straightforward about its admissions and enrollment plans. From the outset of his presidency, it was obvious that President Zimmer had a rather difference approach to admissions and the composition of the student body than the traditional model embodied by Ted O’Neill’s admissions department. O’Neill has been pretty public about the wholistic process, wanting students who truly want to be at UChicago, and hating the Common Application. Zimmer has spoken of trying to reach students “who wouldn’t necesarily have applied.” The switch to the Common Application was suddenly announced soon after Zimmer arrived (and he more or less avoided answering questions about it). Now Ted O’Neill is leaving admissions after 20+ years. I find it somewhat hard to believe that it’s just a coincidence that this follows the first year of using the Common Application.</p>
<p>I suppose the shiftiness could be because they know how touchy alumni can be about the uniqueness of the admissions process (Ted O’Neill is probably one of the more popular figures on campus), and they are afraid if they just flat out said “We want as many applicants as possible and we want to expand the college” they would freak out too many alumni and current students? So instead they do it incrementally and pretend it’s a series of miscalculations? (Or that no one will remember that Ted O’Neill hates standardized tests and the Common Application, and will believe that it’s just a coincidence that he chose to leave the admissions office, after 20+ years, in the midst of this transformation?)</p>
<p>I really do think they expect yield to drop this year. </p>
<p>As for faculty and core classes – I don’t think either of my kids ever had a tenured or tenure track faculty member for Hum or Sosc. It was all grad students or recent PhDs hired just for the core – some great, some not so. I know some regular faculty teach the core, but I suspect they are fewer than is generally advertised.</p>
<p>JHS - That’s very disappointing to hear. While I’m sure grad students or adjuncts at Chicago are extremely capable, there is a difference between a grad student and even an assistant professor at the U of C. As a first year in the late 90s, I had pretty much all tenure-track professors. I really enjoyed this because, even if I had no interest in, say, Physics or Bio, I still had some exposure to some of the top minds in the field as a first year.</p>
<p>Generally, grad students or young PhDs taught some of the seminars in specific majors. A great number of core classes, however, featured some good (albeit not full-flight) professors. I’m sorry to hear this is not still occurring. One of my best memories of my first year was just the sheer level of exposure to the top minds out there.</p>
<p>Maybe Chicago is quite different than it was even 8 years ago. This is surprising because I feel, while change is bound to occur, Chicago’s peers have not changed as drastically in one of their educational missions. Columbia, for example, probably has a similar feel now to what it had 7-8 years ago. I now have much more of a mixed feeling about the pace of Chicago’s changes, simply because I don’t know the exact REASON or rationale for it.</p>
<p>S1 has had the opposite experience as well. Most of his Core profs were associate or full professors. For example, his first quarter of Greek Thought and Literature was taught by the Humanities Dean (now on leave to Princeton). His physics, one civ, and most of sosc were taught by distinguished profs as well. The only grad students or new Ph.Ds were for one civ course, calculus, and lab sections.</p>
<p>My D (a second year) has had a mix of associate or full professors (some well-known and 60ish in age), Harper fellows (recent post-docs), and late-career grad students for her core classes. Getting to know some of the older profs in that setting has been invaluable, but she’s also liked some of the people in the other two categories as well. Mixing it up has seemed to be a strength, not a weakness, of the overall core experience.</p>
<p>Seashore - as long as its a mix, that’s fine. I was worried that the fabled core was now taught by an army of grad students and adjuncts, which just wouldn’t be the U of C way…</p>
<p>I’m more than aware of that … it just doesn’t sound right IMO. </p>
<p>^IHateUofC
Sadly, in the academic world, it’s all about the rankings, and lower admit rates mean higher rankings. That’s why they ditched the Uncommon App for the Common App. And by the way, why are you on the U of C board when you hate U of C so much?</p>
<p>Maroon8 - You hit it right on the head in your post. What confuses me the most is the shiftiness of the administration. I think just last year, we had an all-time high in yield (39 or 40%?), but I think there was a bit of movement from the waitlist as well. Accordingly, this year, I thought the school was going to admit a slightly SMALLER class to adjust for the BIG class of 2012. This certainly doesn’t seem to be the case. </p>
<p>I am a bit confused by the reasons behind this increase, and why the college is being so shifty about it. Plenty of other schools are increasing their class size - Yale, Princeton, etc. have been very public about their goals on this front. </p>
<p>What puzzles me specifically is that Chicago has SAID they are planning on increasing the size of the school, so why not just say to what number? Being forthright would actually ease relations with alumni. In the past, Chicago said they wanted 1200 students per class. If we end up with 1500 per class, the alumni would just become distrustful, rather than being a little hesitant at first, but then going along with the plan if the admin could give a feasible reason for increasing the size of the class.</p>
<p>Right now, I have no naive ambitions about what the U of C is trying to do. They can now make money off the undergrad college, and the Uof C has traditionally been a cash-strapped university. I think alums would get on board if the administration raised these concerns openly. I don’t get what all the shiftiness is about - it risks healthy alumni relations down the road. </p>
<p>I would rather have a straightforward administration willing to make the hard decisions necessary to keep UofC on track with its wealthier peers, rather than a shifty administration that lacks transparency in its decisions.</p>