Rx for Chicago: an action plan for the new president

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
21

<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"</p>

<p>Although I have no data, my personal experience with DS supports this conclusion. He's thinking pre-med, so UC academic standards may scare him off. If he could only go to learn and not worry about the grades necessary for med school, UC would win hands down.</p>

22

<p>Group self-delusion, IMHO.</p>

23

<p>This is a horrible solution to Chicago's ostensible "problems", as it belies their entire personality. Colleges should not be slaves to rankings, because that diminishes the value of the rankings themselves, as the colleges are not being genuine with what they are really about. If you know anything about Chicago, they pride themselves on ensuring a remarkable quality of education and campus life rather than succumbing to rankings to improve their reputation. In fact, Chicago absolutely loathes rankings; O'neill is constantly making incisive comments on rankings, especially the heavily flawed rankings of U.S. news. I don't disagree entirely with implementing ED, but going to the common app would simply be wrong. Yes, maybe they will have a stronger applicant pool, but their applicant pool as it is is already incredible, so they do not need to add more qualified people to the pile. In addition, I would doubt it if Chicago even wants to be ranked high on U.S. News, as they would then attract undesirable prestige whores as do many other top 10 colleges. </p>

<p>And again, using subtle admissions tactics like ED and commonapp does nothing to improve the quality of the school itself, and that is all-important at Chicago.</p>

24

<p>I don't know why people even bother defending U of C to outsiders that have nothing better to do than criticize the school and characterize the students as "ivy rejects". Even though that term was not specifically used, the point comes across.</p>

<p>With almost 20,000 applicants and an acceptance rate of 10%, there are approximately 18,000 Harvard rejects. Assuming that around 75% of the rejects would attend if accepted, that leaves 13,500 students that have to attend a lesser ranked school and have to suffer through life without the almighty Harvard degree.</p>

<p>Byerly, who are you to give advice to the new U of C president. I suspect you are Harvard connected with a screen name Byerly. You guys had Summers.</p>

25

<p>As for fundraising, this year has been quite good for The University with several multimillion dollar donations, often above the $20 million level. </p>

<p>for example:
<a href="http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/060125.comer.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/060125.comer.shtml&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/060210.knapp.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/060210.knapp.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Here is a graph of the steady contributions to the Chicago Initiative and of the Trustee Challenge (in this one the seasonality of the approach of the end of the year is quite evident).</p>

<p><a href="http://chicagoinitiative.uchicago.edu/learn/progress/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://chicagoinitiative.uchicago.edu/learn/progress/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The issue is types of fund raising. Alumni giving is good, but many large donors have restrictions on their donations, even some of us smaller donors do (mine has to be used to support students). This is not unusual for any college, but may cause a shortage for a projected area of need in any given year even though overall fund raising is greater than in the past. </p>

<p>This is one area I support, a divisional graduate fund is another.</p>

<p><a href="http://chicagoinitiative.uchicago.edu/learn/priorities/scholarship.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://chicagoinitiative.uchicago.edu/learn/priorities/scholarship.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>As for rankings, the Univ. of Texas ranking system which uses, faculty, student quality, and access to faculty to evaluate colleges (the areas Chicago cares most about) has the following rankings (listed alphabetically within peer group):</p>

<p>Peer Group 1 (1-7)
California Institute of Technology
Harvard University
Massachussetts Institute of Technology
Princeton University
Stanford University
University of Chicago
Yale University </p>

<p>Peer Group 2 (8-9)
Columbia University
University of Pennsylvania </p>

<p>Peer Group 3 (10-19)
Brown University
Carnegie-Mellon University
Cornell University
Duke University
Emory University<br>
Johns Hopkins University
Northwestern University
Rice University
University of California, Berkeley
Washington University, St. Louis</p>

<p>Top 5 schools primarily science & engineering schools (some surprises):</p>

<ol>
<li>California Institute of Technology </li>
<li>Massachussetts Institute of Technology </li>
<li>Carnegie-Mellon University </li>
<li>Case Western Reserve University </li>
<li>Georgia Institute of Technology </li>
</ol>

<p>Top 20 schools not primarily science & engineering schools (listed alphabetically where tied):</p>

<ol>
<li>Harvard University </li>
<li>Princeton University </li>
<li>Stanford University </li>
<li>University of Chicago </li>
<li>Yale University </li>
<li>Columbia University </li>
<li>University of Pennsylvania </li>
<li>Brown University </li>
<li>Cornell University </li>
<li>Duke University </li>
<li>Emory University </li>
<li>Johns Hopkins University </li>
<li>Northwestern University </li>
<li>Rice University </li>
<li>University of California, Berkeley </li>
<li>Washington University, St. Louis </li>
<li>Brandeis University </li>
<li>Dartmouth College </li>
<li>University of California, Los Angeles </li>
<li>University of Michigan, Ann Arbor</li>
<li>University of Wisconsin, Madison</li>
</ol>

26

<p>
[quote]
Group self-delusion, IMHO.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What were you expecting?</p>

27

<p>I see no reason why, as students (prospective or current), we should care where the UofC lies on the USNWR. As it stands, the quality of education is amongst the best in the world. The schools quirky, intellectual atmosphere is unique. The opportunities open to UofC grads are endless. </p>

<p>I fail to see how its USNWR ranking detracts from any of these qualities.</p>

28

<p>I agree that it's important for UChicago to keep its personality. </p>

<p>Correct me if I'm wrong Byerly, but I don't think he/she said any thing against the actual quality of education in the school. He is merely suggesting methods to attract 'better' students that would also be happier at UChicago, which would lead to a better campus environment. </p>

<p>The flaw I see there is that a 'better' applicant is supposedly defined by a 2400 SAT and 4.XX GPA. If you go to the thread where everyone posted their stats and whether or not they were accepted/deferred/rejected, you would see a lot of students that got 1350-1450's and not perfect GPAs get accepted whereas students with 1500+SAts and 4.XX GPAs are sometimes deferred or even rejected. This is becasue UChicago doesn't believe in having a simple formula for admission, especially one that values such stuff too much. UChicago looks at the essays/recs/ec's to evaluate the students personality and possibly their compatability with the university. While almost every college advertizes such a practice, I think UChicago is the best example that actually implements it. I'm not saying that a perfect SAT/GPA student would be a shoe in at Harvard, but UChicago values other factors more. So basically they think a student with a meaningful essay might be a better student in the long run than one that has amazing scores. However, like it was mentioned earlier, it's not like UChicago's admission 'criteria' or the new classes profile is low/bad.
Can they admit more students with 1600/2400's and 4.0's? Yes, but at the expense of giving up the uniqueness of UChicago. </p>

<p>I'm not sure how ED would work, but I think UChicago views it as trapping the student, and I agree. The way I look at it, a student that really wants to go to UChicago can apply EA and then choose to go. Let's say there was ED and he applies and gets in that way, no problem right? But what if you have a student that applies ED and gets in, but he later changes his mind. He can't back out now, and he would be sadder at school. If there was ED, the students that would apply there are the same students that would apply as EA students, are they not? With EA, you would get more applicants becasue there are more students that arent 100% sure that they want to go to UChicago that would apply EA and wouldn't apply ED. You would always have students that end up changing their minds or hoping they didn't apply ED, and although its their responsibility, the result would be students that really don't want to go to UChicago but are forced to do so. </p>

<p>Although I don't believe that the USNWR are accurate and am against them and those who believe that a school ranked 7 is definiately better than a school ranked 8, I think real rankings are important. idad, how old are those rankings? I remember seeing something similar a while back, but I think it was from 2001. I may be wrong though. I think if there was such an annual ranking, or even one done every 2-3 years with meaningful criteria, it would be great. </p>

<p>It's interesting to see that in America the actual college ranking has more importance when discussing a college rather than the ranking of a department. In Turkey, you always say, ie, i go to UChicago and study Economics. I think that makes more sense that the actual ranking of the college as a whole, but I see why thats important (most students are undecided of their majors). I also think rankings for undergrad majors is important, and only then can we have a genuinely meaninful general rank. </p>

<p>Sorry for babbling on and repeating. Time to work on an application essay :(</p>

29

<p>
[quote]
I think if there was such an annual ranking, or even one done every 2-3 years with meaningful criteria, it would be great.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You gotta be kidding. Do you really think the qualities that make a school great will change that rapidly? These things change over decades, not years. That's a big part of the objection to USNWR rankings. They contstantly tinker with the formula in order to shift rankings from year to year. This sells magazines. It does not measure the change in quality of an institution, whatever that means.</p>

<p>Truth is, it is very hard to even define what higher ed quality is. There are many measures, the relative importance of which will vary (OK, SHOULD vary...) from student to student. That's why some of us think it stupid to even put together lists.</p>

30

<p>You betray great ignorance both about the USNews rankings and the USNews methodology. </p>

<p>They do not, as you oddly claim, "constantly tinker with the formula in order to shift rankiings from year to year."</p>

<p>The formula has changed very little, and where it has, there is no evidence, as you proclaim, the the purpose was to "shift rankings."</p>

<p>Study up before you say such things.</p>

<p>The FACT is, the rankings have been remarkably stable over the years. Changes have been gradual, with schools seldom shifting by a place or two from year to year.</p>

<p>Stop mouthing that snotty crap about changes to "sell magazines" and do your homework.</p>

<p>To paraphrase Winston Churchill, USNews is the worst ranking system ever devised ... except for all the others. Before USNews started publishing relevant data - and forcing schools to disclose it - this information was hidden to applicants, who were kept as ignorant as possible about comparative numbers of any kind.</p>

<p>Shockingly, in the bad old days before USNews, you didn't know how many applied, how many were admitted, how many graduated, or what the qualifications of the applicants, admits, matriculants or graduates were at many colleges. They wanted to totally control the message.</p>

<p>Thank God for USNews.</p>

<p><a href="http://thecenter.ufl.edu/usnewsranking.xls%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://thecenter.ufl.edu/usnewsranking.xls&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

31

<p>"Stop mouthing that snotty crap about changes to "sell magazines" and do your homework."</p>

<p>A little civility would serve your argument better.</p>

32

<p>The only reason I suggested that it should happen every 2-3 years or whatever is becasue I would rather there be a very complete and accurate ranking methodology that has meaningful criteria, and if it's done right, there wouldn't be too much of a difference every year. What the hell, lets have it every year! We'll sell more mags that way, wouldnt we? But thats not my point, Im referring more about the way that the rankings is made, and if its accurate, you dont need one that often, but i dont really care. Your right, change doent happen that often, which is why I wouldnt care if they were ranking everyyear...</p>

33

<p>Byerley, wow, you sound quite angry at criticisms directed towards USNWR. I don't doubt that the rankings have helped applicants in their search for colleges, but for some it seems to be everything that there is. And actually, they do tinker quite a bit. For example, the first experiments with rankings had a few different formulas and many led to some crazy schools such as case western or tufts being at the top. Instead, the people who devised the rankings wanted to have HYP at the top to always stay there, regardless of what happened otherwise. So, they tinkered until they first got harvard at the top. It has seemed to stay that way ever since. </p>

<p>The only anomaly occured in 1999 when caltech was at the top and the magazine recieved wuite a bit of flak for that. This was due to a tinkering with the reankings that placed more emphasis on professor quality and over academic environment, which caltech is very good at. Then, with some retooling, the rankings reverted back to having HYP at the top. </p>

<p>Also, there is quite a bit of change every year with tha rankings. Furthermore, even a change of one place is quite a bit in some poepl's eyes. It affects outsiders' perceptions of the quality of the school when in reality the difference between scores of the schools may be less than a point, which is insignificant. Thus, when Dartmouth goes from 6th ones year down to 10th the next, has the school changed something drastically? Msot likely not, but instead, since the rankings factors in such things as what the school estimates the number of students to graduate and the number of students that do graduate, it might affect the rankign that little bit. How important some of teh factors are int eh rankings is questionable, since most of the factors are based on outsiders' perceptions and SAT scores, which have absolutely no determination of the overall quality of the school. </p>

<p>And yes, of course USNWR makes the rankings to sell magazines. The department for the rankigns is totally seperate from the rest of the magazine and most of the normal writers ahve no idea what goes on with the rankings. Also, isn't it odd that the magazine doesn't retain an archive of old rankings? Wouldn't a ranking system that doesn't change much over the years just keep one ranking for every 5 years since nothing would change too much? Since as you say, change is gradual in the rankings, why do they have to publish a new one every year? </p>

<p>Oh, of course, it's to sell magazines, the magazine wasn't half as profitable as before it started its rankings. It's one of the msot highly anticipated events every year for the magazine, and I'm pretty sure that they would lose a lot of their revenues if they didn't publish a new ranking every year.</p>

34

<p>With a bit more programming on the online version, you could specify your own ranking system, at least based on the columns of data that they provide. The ability to sort the columns in the current version is very useful, and I am glad we had it as a resource.</p>

35

<p>Idad,</p>

<p>Where did you find those University of Texas rankings?</p>

36

<p><a href="http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/bleiter/Undergra2001.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/bleiter/Undergra2001.html&lt;/a> </p>

<p>Unhappy students because they did not get their first choice school is of course nonsense. Most students end up happy with the school they do get into. Check out threads on this and similar topics on the parents forum. Further, a Harvard provost mentioned in an interview that 3 of 4 students accepted to both Harvard and Yale choose Harvard. Therefore, if one extrapolates that number, 3 of 4 students who applied to both, but were accepted only at Yale, are unhappy, morose students. From the Yale students I know, this does not seem to be the case. they seem just as happy as the Chicago students I know.</p>

37

<p>
[quote]
Stop mouthing that snotty crap about changes to "sell magazines" and do your homework.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh. USNWR is providing a public service? </p>

<p>Give me a break. Of course they do the rankings to sell magazines. And, if the rankings were the same every year, who would buy? Sorry, byerly, but we live in a rather crass commercial world where the bottom line drives all. This is, BTW, also true in higher ed, which leads me to U. Chi. I think U of C recognizes that it cannot compete head to head with other elite schools, due to resource issues, among others. (and maybe some alum and faculty factors, too.) So, U of C has differentiated its product. Hence its distinctive approach to admissions and image building. And personally, I think this differentiation makes sense, is successful, and most importantly, doing a service to some kids who actually like its intense, quirky environment. I happen to have one of those kids. </p>

<p>So, to get back to the OP's question - for Chicago to do as suggested would be a real loss, not just to Chicago, but to the students who actually fit in the current culture.</p>

<p>BTW, Byerly, snotty crap or not, there was much truth in my earlier post. We can argue about their intent all day. The fact is that the rankings are quite fluid, with significant shifts every year. A more honest, realistic ranking system would not show such fluidity as the qualities of the underlying universities do not shift with such rapidity. I won't bore you with any more technical arguments as I suspect you don't care.</p>

38

<p>Byerly-</p>

<p>I think the beautiful thing about the U. of C. is its distinctness. There is no need for it to compete with the Ivy League (You might have heard of the protests against former UC president Hugo Sonnenshein, who was trying to limit core requirements and make Chicago look "fun" so as to attract more prospective students.). Chicago does not try to attract jocks so as to boost its application pool.</p>

<p>The U. of C. is attracting kids who are brilliant and quirky and will flourish in the kind of environment the U. of C., and the U. of C. alone, offers. As a resident of Hyde Park and someone who walks the Quads daily, I know many students here and their thoughts on the UChicago and the education they are receiving. Everyone I know loves it here, though at times they do complain a bit about the unending homework, and most had UChicago as their first choice. One student I know grew up in New Haven and on Yale University's campus, yet she did not apply there and opted for an education at the Univeristy of Chicago instead.</p>

<p>And if kids do reject the U. of C. for another school, many times it is to go to an easier school, an Ivy League or other, where they don't have to work as hard and still earn a college degree.</p>

<p>Chicago's applicant pool is incredibly strong as is. Kids who want this kind of education and not a "Harvard" stamped on their diploma have to be.</p>

<p>I don't know why you are defending the rankings so much, as, personally, I believe they are a bunch of trash. A school really can't be ranked; different schools suit differents types of kids well, and a Harvard might be great for one student but the last thing another student wants. </p>

<p>I wonder if you are personally affiliated with the U. of C. or have ever visited the school. It is best to thouroughly know the school when passing such judgments. Or maybe you are just going from what you have heard from some rankings . . . .</p>

39

<p>It's time for everyone who likes the the U of C the way it is to ignore Byerly, who is known to longtime readers of CC be nothing more than a Harvard promoter. He defends USNWR because it DOES rank Harvard as #1. What he is doing on the U of C forums, besides pontificating, is beyond understanding, but is unfortunately typical of his modus operendi[ sorry for the spelling].</p>

40

<p>Although I disagree with some of his/her comments, I don't think it's right to completely ignore someone just because they have a different opinion. I don't think his primary concern was to talk trash about UChicago and promote Harvard, but to actually suggest ways to have UChicago, a school that is already well known for its academic quality, to attract 'better' students and get higher up on the USNWR. </p>

<p>Most of us call USNWR rankings trash, but I wonder how 'our' rankings would end up. Maybe there should be a thread about that, analyzing USNWR's mistakes and limitations.</p>