Carleton, at 62% White, is a -16 (54% highest quint, 38% lowest).
More precisely for my speculation – Chicago’s racial mixture for students from the lowest income quintile has fewer URMs. Note that I don’t know that to be the case; I am guessing.
Chicago has the same percentage of “white” students as HYP now, but a somewhat lower percentage of URMs (16% vs. 17-20%) and the lowest percentage of African-Americans (who have an ultra-low marriage rate) (5% vs. 7-8%). And, yes, I believe Chicago had meaningfully fewer URMs, and especially African-Americans, in the early 2000s. But not necessarily lower than Carleton now – so that’s a good counter-example for my theory.
A Brookings researcher looking at the same data set said that 77% of the difference in marriage rates for alumni who were born 1981-1983 (roughly the same group as in this study) is attributable to differences in the individual demographic characteristics of the students, not to any differences between colleges. He was looking broadly at college types (private non-religious, public, religious, etc.), not individual colleges.
Let’s explore that theory of underlying demographics:
What’s interesting about the marriage gap for these schools is that, with the exception of UChicago, the overall marriage rate skews toward the highest quintile. That tells me that relatively fewer students are reported to be in that lowest quint for these peer schools. So it’s theoretically possible that, say, a small number of students concentrated in one particular demographic can push down those rates. Now, it’s also quite possible that UChicago, similar to having relative equal representation among the two quints, also had diverse ethnic and racial groups spread evenly as well. So yes - it skews white in the lowest and highest quint, but in equal proportions. The peers, on the other hand, would skew very White in the highest and very Non-white in the lowest.
The counterpoint is that among the lowest quintile currently, per Questbridge, Black is less than 20% of the total. White, Asian and Hispanic, all with traditionally higher rates of marriage, dominate the demographic makeup. Now, perhaps there are higher numbers of these groups who are “low income” currently than a couple decades ago? Not sure. Speculating that the proportions haven’t changed much as schools were pretty good at culling talented low-income youth from the general population back then as well as now.
“What that also means is that the highest-income quintile population in the data base is not comprehensive, since I don’t think anyone who failed to apply for loans is in the data set.”
interesting! that would certainly skew the results.
“The highest-income quintile has a low marriage rate compared with peers because Chicago’s affluent students were less adept at getting the highest-paid jobs and tend(ed) to make somewhat less than alumni of peer colleges.”
I still think that part of the explanation is that a higher % of U of C grads went on to PhD programs than their peers. Going to grad school means one is a poor college student for 4-6 more years. Before 2008, and the Common App, Chicago was know as the college for those interested in a career in academia, and attracted a higher % of students students with that intent than its peers.
That may be true, although I think that by age 34 a lot of PhD students have gotten married.
One demographic truism is somewhat belied by these statistics: Midwesterners tend to marry earlier than people on the coasts. That may explain why Chicago’s overall marriage rate is at the bottom of the range of its closest peers, but it doesn’t much explain why Carleton is near the top of the range, or why Chicago’s least affluent students marry significantly more than Carleton’s, and its most affluent significantly less.
Did you guys ever consider that UChicago college alums are just uglier than the average college student?
jk
You think Swarthmore students are better looking?
The two colleges has almost the same overall marriage rate. But low-income Chicago students married at 150% the rate of comparable Swarthmore students. It’s a puzzlement.
This instance of Chicago exceptionalism impresses me far more than all your USNews rankings. Too bad we can’t blame Nondorf for gaming this thing, but I reckon he was prancing around at Skull and Bones at the relevant time with nary a thought about the glorious stats he would some day achieve at Chicago.
Say it ain’t so about Swarthmore grads. The only ones I have ever known were a husband and wife team who were in residence as house heads at BJ one year. They were both tall, blond and highly photogenic, and they oozed wealth and social assurance. I thought that was how they made them at that school.
Nope.
@marlowe1 - do you think the spread (which was -2) has increased or stayed the same over time? What do you think the spread will be for this cohort?
I find it hard to believe there isn’t more wealth and status (and less egalitarian intellectual espirit de corps) now than before. How do you think the change has manifested itself?
The uglee ones marry each other.
@JHS , there you go again puncturing my balloon. Must I now give up the picture I had of a bucolic campus overflowing with beauteous undergrads? I cling to the proposition, however, that the subset of Swatties that marry each other and attend grad school at Chicago are tall, blonde, etc.
@Cue7 , the jury is out as to whether the changes at Chicago will have the effect of undermining the egalitarian ethos which I see as having produced that exceptional -2 differential. I do not see that effect as a necessary consequence, firstly, because I’m not convinced that the student body itself has become significantly wealthier than it was in the early 2000’s. But to the extent that there has been some uptick (to use your word) of wealth, I’m convinced that these kids, like their precursors in all previous years, have selected Chicago for its well-known culture and that that culture will in turn put its stamp on them. The reports of parents, prospective students and current students on this board seem to bear out that hope. Culture is a sticky thing. The existence of a business major and the greater presence of pre-professional kids on campus shouldn’t in itself undermine the egalitarian ideal (whatever it might do to the ivory tower ideal). Those courses will be demanding, mathy and theory-driven in a way that is made-in-Chicago.
We’ll have see about all that, of course. We’ll talk again in a decade. However, as an older alumnus, I confess that I’m having a little fun with these stats from the not so distant Chicago past. They and their import seem unexpected to some on this board, but not to me. I feel almost in the position of saying “I told you so” to a disbelieving world.
“I cling to the proposition, however, that the subset of Swatties that marry each other and attend grad school at Chicago are tall, blonde, etc.”
- um, as of 30 years ago . . . . No.
There are good-looking people at Swarthmore, as there are everywhere, including the University of Chicago. And, of course, most everyone there is young and basically healthy, which means that they are fundamentally attractive as long as you aren’t trying to cast a Hollywood movie or a Fashion Week runway show. Nevertheless, many students are drawn to both Swarthmore and Chicago, and I think it’s not an accident that their respective student bodies more or less resemble one another.
@marlowe1 said: " I’m convinced that these kids, like their precursors in all previous years, have selected Chicago for its well-known culture and that that culture will in turn put its stamp on them. The reports of parents, prospective students and current students on this board seem to bear out that hope. Culture is a sticky thing."
I certainly hope that’s not the case, @marlowe1 . If Chicago’s culture has not changed - if the College is still essentially an incubator for future academics and a wonky place, the College flirts with irrelevance - as it did in the 70s and early 80s (when the University thought seriously about shuttering the College).
I hope the move to ED, the intensified recruitment of preppies, the pre-professionalism advising, the grade inflation, the rise of greek life, and everything else has indeed changed the culture somewhat. Chicago’s College needs to be more connected to pathways of power and wealth. I hope the changes over the past 12 years have laid the groundwork for that. I hope the next titans of industry and finance and politics are at Chicago right now - and I hope, 10-20 years from now, I read about Chicago College grads on the front page of the news - and not just in the science section or in the book reviews.
Because if the culture is indeed sticky - if the environment does indeed resemble what we saw in the 70s and early 80s - then the College’s project may well be nearing an end.
(And I doubt that’s the case.)
That’s a succinct statement of your vision, Cue. However, I ask whether the stats that have generated this discussion give you pause. Suppose your vision prevailed and another Harvard or quasi-Harvard was born at Chicago. Would you lament the loss of the egalitarian ideal? Does America really need another institution which pulls us apart on the basis of all these tropes of privilege and power? The stats are telling us a story about something at Chicago that I would assert is unique - its democratic culture based on intellectual achievement. Is that a value you acknowledge?
@marlowe1 - I absolutely acknowledge that value, and recognize its importance. I also recognize my competing interest in, as an alum, having Chicago be as impactful, as prestigious, and as powerful as possible. These in some ways are competing interests. (Perhaps akin to someone who supports Bernie Sanders, but sends their child to a snobby private school!)
In short, I’d be happy with other schools pursuing the egalitarian, democratic process you outline, and Chicago going back to being the bona fide #1 or #2 U. in the country - as it was at the start of the 20th century. Let the scions of wealth and power go to Chicago, and let’s re-energize our broader array of universities to meet the egalitarian ideal you espouse.
Again - I think the key for the U. in the next few decades is to cultivate the Chicago education, and burnish a Harvard-like brand.
@marlowe1 I’m sorry, it’s just bonkers to pretend that Harvard and others like it aren’t also “democratic culture(s) based on intellectual achievement.” Or, for that matter, that wealth and privilege are unknown at Chicago. If anything, Chicago’s “pure” intellectual ideal does more to reify class differences. In effect, Harvard and Yale offer low-SES kids a great deal: “Come here, and we’ll plug you into the global elite, where you will be able to be successful based on your intellectual talents.” Chicago’s implicit deal, historically, has been “Come here and refine your intellectual abilities so that you could compete effectively, if you wanted, for jobs whose pay is so bad that only the independently wealthy can afford to take them.”
Current students will have to speak to how it is today, but I deny that the Chicago of the past (and as recently as the early 2000’s if these statistics have any meaning) was a place that reified class differences. The wealthy lacked all their little ways of dominating an institution through prestige-markers like exclusive clubs, fraternities and being decoratively unserious. Nobody would have been impressed by their tales of high life had they thought it wise to tell them. Smartness was all. There are other forms of democracy than that one, but you can’t be serious in suggesting that this Chicago ethos had the effect of attracting the independent wealthy in greater numbers than did Harvard’s brand and its various allures. But my point here is not that there weren’t wealthy kids at Chicago. It’s more that the unwealthy and the wealthy swam together in the same waters - indeed, there was hardly any sense of who was who. That was because of the single standard that we measured each other by. Perhaps you will tell me that it was no different at Harvard. Pardon me if I say that I’d like to hear what a working-class kid at Harvard would have to say about that. We know what these stats say, and we know the common perception of Harvard culture. Are these all wrong?
Over the years we’ve known a few families in Chi-Town from the more “working class” sections or who have modest civil servant jobs - by no means “wealthy” - who sent their kids to UChicago. It sort of had this rep. for attracting those who were kinda nerdy in that strata.
I have a close relative who attended H around the same time and have met his extended set of friends - all of them from very UI backgrounds (even the Lumbee). Harvard was just distinct that way and no one gave it a second thought.
Now, perhaps, the two schools might be more similar. Just wondering if something like the following article will ever be written about UChicago. If not, I doubt it’s for lack of low-income students: