<p>Hey all,</p>
<p>So I just finished reading the chapter on the University of Chicago in Professor David Kirp's book, "Shakespeare, Einstein, and the Bottom Line: The Marketing of Higher Education." This portion of Kirp's work really drove home one major point: just HOW MUCH Chicago has changed in the past 8-9 years. Overall, it is MUCH STRONGER now than it was in the late 90s. Here are some points about the "OLD" Chicago:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>For the Class of 2000, the U of C was admitting more than 60% of its applicants, the school lagged behind its peers in minority enrollment, and only around 900 students graduated in this class (the graduating classes at Chicago today are about 35% bigger). </p></li>
<li><p>While Chicago prided itself on being "self-selective," even with a lacking applicant pool, only about 29% of the accepted students actually came. </p></li>
<li><p>Chicago had the lowest graduation rate among the leading private universities (about 1 in 5 did not finish)</p></li>
<li><p>The Endowment stood at a modest $2 billion. At the time, this was about a sixth the size of Yale's endowment.</p></li>
<li><p>While undergrads always talked about receiving the best education in the land, the school dropped to around #14 or #15 in the US News Rankings. While sure, the rankings are flawed, at a school that lacked the Ivy League brand or recognition for top-flight sports and academics (read: Stanford or Duke), this drop behind schools such as Wash U. certainly didn't help the already flagging morale. </p></li>
<li><p>As recently as 6 years ago, there was a crumbling gym, and the undergraduate community lacked the centralization seen today because the Palevsky dorms were just starting, and Shoreland still held an extremely high number of undergraduates. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>This is why, when students ask about stereotypes at Chicago, prospective applicants NEED TO KNOW how much Chicago has changed in such a short span of time (at least in the world of higher education). I graduated about 8 years ago, when, frankly, Chicago was an institution very much hanging in the balance. Now, as the school has righted itself, regained solid financial footing, and modulated some of its institutional interests, I think it's appropriate to address the stereotypes with a historical framework in mind. Here goes...</p>
<p>1.) "Where Fun Comes to Die"</p>
<p>Then (circa 1998): What do you think happens when you take a class with some academic superstars, but also featured a lot of inquisitive but lackluster students, and present them with the challenge of America's most rigorous liberal arts curriculum? Students studied a lot, they studied hard, and MANY were in completely over their heads. Couple that with a school that prided itself on its rigor, lacked grade inflation, and provided little administrative support for students, and what's the result? Add to all of this a generally disjointed student body - one that featured a solid proportion of quirky, studious types, but also featured a lot of Columbia or Stanford wanna bes that clearly used Chicago as a safety school and wanted to be elsewhere. </p>
<p>As seen here, student morale in the late 90s was not - to put it lightly - at an all time high. Fun might not have been dying during the waning days of the Clinton administration, but it was on life support. </p>
<p>Now: I'd like current students to fill in the blanks here, but I'd imagine the school - especially with the most recent classes - is a markedly different place. While I think Chicago has done a good job of keeping its "soul" (read: recruiting intellectually curious, studious, and quirky students and presenting them with a faculty and course offerings that rivals anything offered anywhere), the College's institutional character is MARKEDLY different. With an accept rate of about 25%, a yield rate of about 40% (without even using yield-boosting early decision), more students hailing from the top 10% of their HS class (around 90%, as opposed to maybe 70% in the late 90s), and, at least for the past four years or so (enough time to become part of the collegian's memory), a #9 or #8 finish in US News, I would imagine that morale is MUCH HIGHER. </p>
<p>Higher morale, coupled with a more cohesive AND capable class, and a better undergrad scene (world-class gym right on campus, buzz around Obama, Shoreland closing and the campus becoming more centralized) leads me to think that Chicago students are MUCH better equipped to deal with the rigors of the curriculum, and have more resources at their disposal for socializing or enjoying their time at the U of C. While I can't comment on whether fun is finally off life support and thriving, I think it's safe to say that the phrase: "The U of C: Where Contentment Comes to Roost." could hold water. </p>
<p>When I was at the U of C, there were certainly students who were deeply dissatisfied and embittered by their time at Chicago. In short, they were in over their heads, and they were resentful. I don't think that's the case at Chicago any more. </p>
<p>2.) Grade "Deflation" Kills</p>
<p>THEN: Rumor was, for the class of 1996 or 1997, the average GPA was around a 2.9 or 3.0. Sure, you had the academic superstars going on to MD/PhD programs at Harvard and winning Rhodes Scholarships (there were 3 my year), but lots of kids just could not hack it when faced with a faculty that first, believed in enforcing the fabled Chicago rigor and, second, generally had exposure to the higher overall level of academic talent found at Harvard, Yale, MIT, etc. Yes, Chicago students struggled.</p>
<p>NOW: I think this needs to be empasized: I believe that now, CHICAGO DOES NOT HAVE GRADE "DEFLATION". Do they do this to the extent of a Brown or Dartmouth? (See my previous threads for links to the rampant grade inflation at these schools.) NO. Everyone is not getting As, and 90% of the U of C student body is not graduating with honors. At the same time, as seen above, my sense is that grades have crept up as the incoming classes have increased in strength, and now, again, students are more content with the result of their labor at Chicago. While 8 years ago, the average GPA might have been around a 3.0, now, I'd imagine it's around a 3.3-3.4 (behind the 3.5 or so average at Chicago's peer schools, but not by much at all). </p>
<p>3.) Chicago Kills your chances at Professional Grad Schools</p>
<p>THEN: Remember those inquisitive but in-over-their-heads students I talked about at the beginning of this missive? Take that group, put them in an environment that disdains anything pre-professional, and does not provide them with many administrative resources that offer a sophisticated slant on the admissions process at top prof grad schools, and what do you think happens? When the Chicago kid "majoring" in "Big Problems" decides that he needs to do something after graduation, take a guess at where his 3.1 GPA and hurriedly earned 161 LSAT score will get him? Or take the Chicago student with a low 1300s SAT score who struggles mightily to earn Bs in the science courses, and then earns a 30 on the MCAT. The student already is a bit quirky and doesn't interview all that well, so what happens to her when she goes through the med school admissions game? Johns Hopkins might not be banging on her door. </p>
<p>In the late 90s/early 2000s, most other schools were on board with a decidedly more pre-professional student body. As opposed to even a couple decades ago, humanities majors begin thinking about law school by the end of their freshman years of college (or even before). Chicago was behind the curve on this front.</p>
<p>NOW: Chicago students, as a group, are more talented now. They do better on standardized tests (the SAT avg. at Chicago when I was there was maybe in the mid-high 1300s or so - very good, but well behind the 1450-1460 pace set by the newest classes), are more equipped to deal with Chicago's academic requirements, and, true to the times, are probably at least a bit more pre-professional than my cohort 8 years ago. I would imagine current Chicago students fare MUCH BETTER in the professional grad school admissions process.</p>
<p>Quick note here: unalove or uchicago12 or any other current chicago students: could one of you perhaps meet with the Chicago pre-law advisor in Ida Noyes and ask to see Chicago applicant Data? We NEED some hard facts here, and I'd be interested in seeing Chicago's MOST RECENT performance. (I'm especially interested in seeing how the Class of 2012 and 2013 will do in the years ahead, because they outpace my peers by a considerable degree.)</p>
<p>As a point of reference, around 2000, I think the avg. GPA for Chicago students applying to law school was around 3.3 or so, and the avg. LSAT was about a 161. I would expect these numbers to be higher. Also, placement at top schools lagged a bit: maybe 3 to Harvard, 2-3 to Columbia, 2-3 to NYU, maybe 2-3 to UPenn and Duke, maybe 4-5 to Northwestern, etc. Put that in comparison to the numbers at Penn and Yale...</p>
<p>Penn: Career</a> Services, University of Pennsylvania</p>
<p>One more time - NOW, I would imagine the numbers would be BETTERt, and will CONTINUE TO IMPROVE with each exiting class. I would expect the class of 2011 or 2012 to send 6-7 each to Harvard, Columbia, etc. Then, maybe 4-5 to UPenn, Duke, etc. </p>
<p>Again, if someone can go to Ida Noyes Hall and take a quick look at the data, that would be VERY helpful to our discussion. We need some hard numbers here. Here's the address and contact info for Chicago's pre-law advisor:</p>
<p>The</a> University of Chicago Graduate & Professional Studies Program</p>
<p>Finally, this missive should recharge the discussion a bit, but also serves as a reminder that Chicago, unlike most of its peers, has overseen tremendous change over a very short period of time. Hearing about the experiences of even recent alums may not correspond to what awaits prospective students in the near future. </p>
<p>I think, through all this, Chicago has done a good job of keeping its classic institutional character. The U of C now is probably not swarming with the politicos found at Georgetown or the narrowly striving pre-professionals found at UPenn. Chicago still boasts a more erudite, academic feel than its immediate peers, but I feel that - through SIGNIFICANT administrative endeavors - the U of C has really modulated its institutional interests to fit the times better. As Kirp states in his book, given the rampant change at Chicago, the administration and controversial ex-presidents from my era "may have saved an institution by dragging it into modern times." </p>
<p>When I was at Chicago, these proposed changes (revamping the core, building a sparkling new gym, increasing the class size) was met with considerable venom from students and faculty. Now, 8 years later, most of these changes have come to pass, and they have changed the University in indelible ways. Students are more capable, probably more socially well-adjusted, more content, and surrounded by more varied and better resources. At the same time, Chicago has kept its committment to serious thought and inquiry alive, at all levels of the University. All I can think of through this is the famous oft-used phrase of ascension: "The King is Dead. Long Live the King!"</p>