<p>What Chicago needs are more top students who <em>want</em> to be there, rather than so many who are there only because they didn't get into their first choice school. The RD yield rate is very low.</p>
<p>The result will be higher morale, a happier campus - one more appealing to future applicants.</p>
<p>Look at Penn, a chronic "second choice school" for years, which decided to flog ED to the max, increasing the fraction of matriculants for whom, if only strategically, Penn was their first choice.</p>
<p>The result has been a rise in apparent selectivity, and a leap to #4 in the USNews rankings, ahead of both Stanford and Duke, no less!</p>
<p>This kind of success builds on itself.</p>
<p>IMHO, the admissions operation at Chicago has been grossly mishandled by the incumbent. With some canny maneuvering, Chicago could become a top 5 school. Move from EA to ED; triple the money for "merit aid" to steal a few kids from the Ivies; recruit a few jocks to help the winning percentage strategically, here and there; drop the tedious and ideosyncratic application forms, and moce to the common app.</p>
<p>Yes they do. You can't sit still. To do so ensures permanent second class status, where the most desirable people you admit continue, as at present, to decline your invitation and matriculate elsewhere.</p>
<p>I think the whole point of Chicago is that it doesn't have that Ivy ranking gimmick. If it did, it wouldn't be Chicago. I think this has been discussed on these boards quite often.</p>
<p>I mean you post great advice, but if anyone attempts to make UChicago into that kind of school, I would buy a pitchfork and take it up. Egh.. especially if it ever went Common App... its just so... common.</p>
<p>Again, you are rationalizing. There is no earthly reason why it wouldn't be better if:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>More talented kids applied, strengthening the applicant pool, and</p></li>
<li><p>Most of the top choices said "yes!" rather than "no thanks" - as at present.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>As I understand your argument, "Chicago wouldn't be Chicago" if it weren't full of morose kids who are only there because they didn't get into their first choice school. There's gotta be a better vision than that!</p>
<p>It strike me as criminal negligence that the admissions office has allowed Chicago to slip to #15 in the rankings, behind such schools as Penn, Northwestern, JHU, Dartmouth, WUStL and Brown - which it should, by rights, exceed in reputation and selectivity.</p>
<p>Not necessarily... I think the objections are not to your goals, but to the means that you suggested in reaching them. Sure, it would certainly be wonderful if more top kids chose Chicago - being someone who applied EA and already accepted my place, it is certainly frustrating to have so many friends of mine say that they will still wait for decisions from other schools - but changing to ED decisions and the common app aren't things which make the school better! Rather, they are superficial ways to give the school a ratings boost. Matter of fact, if you look at Chicago's rankings in US News, its faculty ranks 3rd (I'm using 1999 figures because I don't have a subscription to the current year), and the numbers which kill the school are alumni giving , retention rates, and selectivity. So, the point is: Yes, UofC accepts a lot of students, but many can't make it past the first year, so I don't have an issue with that - at the very least, it demonstrates the school is a challenge. And, even if it became more selective, that certainly would not reflect on their teaching, which is what concerns me most. In my view, I find it fascinating that being the 28th school in selectivity, Chicago is still able to take its 3rd ranked faculty and become the 1st in nobel prize winners in the country, second only to Cambridge in the world. As a prospective econ major, in my view, UofC is fine as is.</p>
<p>There are definitely a lot of people who want to be there, and it is globally one of the most well-respected schools. Ranking does not determine the quality of the school. It's just a stupid number.</p>
<p>Yes, absolutely!!!
Take Harvard, for example. A fine institution indeed, which has the ability to choose from almost 30,000 applicants!!! Needless to say, the people who go there are more often than not very talented. However, in talking to friends who go there, they are indeed disappointed by the experience. Loads of TAs, a school which has little to offer in terms of new social activities for students, and a rampant grade inflation to keep students happy amidst all of this. And, as we have seen not too long ago, when someone is brought in to question these practices, to ask tough questions of a school which has fallen into complacency, they are met with criticism and forced to step out. </p>
<p>Superficial rankings boosts are easy to come by, but in no way would they inherently improve the university. Further, to characterize the University of Chicago as a school filled with students who had other schools as their top choice is also very unfair. Like I had mentioned previously, students planning on majoring in fields like Economics and Physics, often times choose the University of Chicago over any other school in the country</p>
<p>-uofc has the uncommon app in order to attract students who really want to attend and discourage students who don't really want to attend. as one of the presidents of uofc said (i can't remember which one), the college application process is becoming too easy. at uofc, the uncommon essays are supposed to portray how much a student wants to go there.
in addition, uofc does not support the idea that students should have a word limit for their essays. who can say how long an essay should be? hence, the common application is somewhat flawed. uofc wants the whole picture of a student, not merely 500 words.
they could just add three essays onto the common app. but if they did, the switch would be frivolous considering applicants would have to do the exact same thing. hence, there may not be an increase in the applicant pool. </p>
<p>-switching from ea to ed sounds like a good idea, in my opinion (because it would increase the chances of students who really want to attend). however, uofc is a unique place. one must think very hard about committing themselves to an extremely academically rigorous college; students mature and grow during their senior year. if an ambivalent student commits themselves to go, they may be unhappy once they realize how hard it actually is. thus moral could actually drop. in this way, i support uofc's decision. </p>
<p>-more merit money would be a definite plus. however, i don't know very much more about chicago economics, than the chicago school of economics. </p>
<p>-uofc heavily recruits athletes. however, they must have high academic standards as well, or else they will fail horribly at uofc.</p>
<p>Unkind, perhaps, but hardly "unfair" or incorrect. The great majority of RD admits who have a choice go elsewhere.</p>
<p>The situation can be fixed, however, if the new president wants to do it. Trouble is, however, he probably doesn't have the stomach for it. He'll probably focus on the capital campaign, avoid boat-rocking, and retire at 65.</p>
<p>Byerly, I definitely agree with you in thinking that UofC is underappreciated nationally in terms of ranking, and I also agree with all of the other posters that UofC is a unique place, as indicated by its uncommonapplication. </p>
<p>I think that top applicants realize UofC's uniqueness, though, only when for some reason they look deeply into what UofC has to offer. Unfortunately, though, many don't spend as much time researching UofC's offerings and unique opportunities. </p>
<p>I don't think the best way to combat this problem is to change what (at least radically) UofC stands for, rather, I think a detailed but meaningful PR campaign would do the trick, and more merit scholarships can only help. You're right, UofC has the teachers, resources, and reputation to attract the top students, so why isn't it?!</p>
<p>Though some Chicago applicants attend as a result of not being admitted elsewhere, most who decide not to attend more often than not attend a lesser ranked school, not a higher ranked school. It is also the first choice of a growing number of students. My S reports he knows few morose students and has a very good time at Chicago, and most of those he knows love the school and are quite glad they are there. As far as student quality is concerned, in terms of numbers such as SAT scores etc. Chicago's students have greater numbers than 4 of the Ivy's and is only a few points below the fourth (and not that many points separate it from the top 3). In regard to the intangibles that the common app tries to identify, the student body is generally acknowledged as the most intellectual in the country. (An unscientific poll found in CC thread asking which university was the most intellectual found U of C mentioned more than any other school the last time i looked at it.) </p>
<p>Chicago has led the way on EA vs. ED and is not likely to abandon its principles to increase yield as others have done. Chicago in recent years has done much to improve the campus climate, but it will not change the one thing that keeps the yield lower than it might otherwise be, that is, it will not make any further changes in its Core.</p>
<p>Again, with all due respect, this strikes me as a lot of rationalizing and wishful thinking, rather than facing up to the hard issues that must be dealt with if Chicago is to attract the students it most wants to attract, rather than those it must settle for.</p>
<p>It should not be acceptable that barely more than one-third of admits choose to enroll, even as 44% of the class is filled from the early pool.</p>
<p>In conversations with Ted O'Neill, he maintains he and most importantly, the faculty, are quite happy with the student body they do attract. It is hard to see how the student body could be much better.</p>
<p>Typical head in the sand response from O'Neill. </p>
<p>Until they brought in an "enrollment management" consultant to needle him a few years back, the admit rate was an attrocious 60% rather than the current, merely mediocre 40%.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The great majority of RD admits who have a choice go elsewhere.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This statement is true of most students who attend any but HYPS. So what? What really matters is how many students still want to attend somewhere else after their first year. It is here that U of C stumbles. </p>
<p>IMHO, U of C could never break the top 10 because of the following:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>its location. There is still a lot of coastal bias among prospective college kids, especially at the top. The midwest, and Chicago, is flyover country. Wash U. has to go to great lengths to combat this problem.</p></li>
<li><p>its location. Hyde Park and the S. side of Chicago is not, and never will be, anyone's idea of an idyllic location for spending college years. (note that I'm not saying it is bad. It is just not a Palo Alto, not a Cambridge, not an Ithaca or even Providence.)</p></li>
<li><p>grading. Its reputation for hard work is justified and celebrated by the faculty. I was speaking with an anthro prof just yesterday who said that, yes, when she teaches undergrads, she is sparing with A grades. </p></li>
<li><p>the core. many prospects fear the (apparent) lack of flexibility.</p></li>
<li><p>sports. This is a big issue for a lot of kids. NO big name teams for which to root and drink.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>As others have pointed out - so what?</p>
<p>I think the issue of ranking mostly concerns prestige junkies - folks who want bragging rights. Otherwise, why care? No one has ever shown a correlation between USNW rankings and any measure of later success, be it grad/prof school admissions, income, jobs, etc. </p>
<p>I suspect the only thing correlated with USNWR rankings is window decal sales.</p>