"The Chosen" and Chicago's Admissions Policies

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
1

<p>Hey all,</p>

<p>For the past few days, I've been reading Jerome Karabel's "The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton," and it's proven to be a fascinating read. What struck me most was Karabel's assertion that the elite schools follow what he terms an "iron law" of admissions. Namely, "a university will retain a particular admissions policy only so long as it produces outcomes that correspond to perceived institutional interests." Put another way, schools will readily change admissions POLICIES to make sure they achieve the appropriate RESULTS. </p>

<p>Karabel goes on to argue that the desired results of the "Big Three" go well beyond a need for top academic talent. Indeed, for most of the 20th century, the Big Three's institutional interests featured some mix of anti-semitism, a desire to honor their traditional constituents (the WASP elite), and a strong desire to produce business and political leaders rather than professors and scholars. </p>

<p>Interestingly, in the book, Karabel oftentimes contends that Harvard etc. constructed their admissions policies with an eye to doing the exact opposite of whatever Chicago was doing. For example, Karabel states: "The concrete embodiment of what could happen if Harvard went too far down the wrong path was the University of Chicago." Moreover, "By creating a campus tilted toward excessive intellectualism... Chicago appealed neither to the children of the social elite nor to the overlapping group of young men destined to run America's major institutions." </p>

<p>Overall, Karabel reviews any significant changes in admissions policies and statements with some suspicion. For instance, Harvard Deans sudden rants about the need for a meritocracy in the 1930s masked the careful anti-semitic quotas that characterized their policies. </p>

<p>All of this brings me to my central point. As recently as 1999, Chicago had an accept rate of around 60%. Now, not even a decade removed, Chicago's acceptance rate has plummeted to around 25%. This is easily the biggest change in admissions over this short period of time. Harvard, Brown, Princeton, etc. have not seen close to the changes Chicago has seen in the past 8-9 years. </p>

<p>Accordingly, while this question may be a bit cynical, what result is the U of C trying to achieve? As Karabel states, admissions offices will alter policies willingly in an attempt to achieve a desired RESULT. Moreover, the result is often quite different from what admissions officers will say publicly. Again, at Harvard, the desired result for much of the century was blocking Jews and continuing to produce "men of action," over academics and scholarship. </p>

<p>Any ideas about what institutional directives drove Chicago's massive admissions re-haul forward? While on first blush I might say, "Chicago just wants better students," as Karabel astutely reveals, admissions offices operate on a much more calculated and complicated plane. There is usually more going on than just wanting "a better class." I wonder: what is the institutional result that justifies such a drastic change in admissions policies at the University of Chicago?</p>

2

<p>That's a great question, but I think the answer is found outside the admissions office.</p>

<p>I've spoken to a lot of pre-1999 alumni who seem to all agree on a few things: Chicago has always been a marvelous and somewhat unusual school, but it wasn't always appealing to the ideal crowd. </p>

<p>Who is the ideal Chicago student? I would say it's somebody who is fiercely intellectual (to maintain the University's image), who is intellectually capable enough to able to balance work and play (and able to contribute to a sense of social life, student life, school spirit), somebody who can make waves and a name for themselves and for the prestige of the school (future Rhodes Scholars, Supreme Court justices, Tucker Max-- have you ever noticed that besides its endowment, the most impressive thing about Harvard is its list of alumni?) and, somebody who was happy with the experience (or is just generally a happy person) and will want to donate to the alma mater.</p>

<p>Who is not to say that the ideal Chicago student is not also the idea Columbia student, ideal Brown student, etc? What's going to bring the ideal Chicago student into Chicago if Columbia and Brown seem to offer better package deals? I can think of a few people I know who were thinking about Chicago but persuaded to matriculate elsewhere. </p>

<p>So the University started changing things. I believe that's how VP of Enrollment Michael Behnke got his job, of overseeing admissions and financial aid, in 1997. They also made the Common Core more manageable (or watered it down, depending on whom you ask) around 1999, built Max Palevsky dorm, to replace decrepit Woodward, built Ratner gym, remodeled Reynolds Club (which is still kinda sub-par for a student union) opened Bart Mart. I'm sure these investments, which were targeted distinctly towards undergraduate life and activity were reflected in admissions promotional material and highlighted on campus visits. </p>

<p>Or, you can think of the "If you build it, they will come" model. If you put 700 first-years in Max who are concerned about not being able to meet people, they'll all meet each other. If you give them Ratner, they'll have a reminder that the University would like them to shoot hoops and go swimming from time to time as well. So student life became better, as did positive student testimonials, and I have a very distinct sense that the majority of the students who end up applying to Chicago apply because they already know somebody who attends or has attended, and their positive testimony is persuasive. So part of the increase in applications could be attributable to the word of mouth phenomenon.</p>

<p>I don't know enough about the admissions office promotional materials and things like when the postcard series started, but it's clear now-- maybe it wasn't back then-- that Chicago is drawing in some students not just because the institution is so remarkably different then and now, but rather that the right students are responding to the right marketing. Sometimes students here on CC will talk about the fact that Chicago sent them neat postcards when other schools had blunt attempts at seduction.</p>

<p>Anyway, I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but I can only imagine that the University as an institution is looking for students who can help promote its longevity in a variety of ways.</p>

3

<p>Consider also that the sheer number of applications has skyrocketed due to the college admissions craze and perception of U-C as "prestigious." It doesn't require any new trend from admissions to cause that great a change in acceptance rates if the number of applications goes up and the number of spaces remains the same.</p>

4

<p>You understand, don't you, that two factors drive the change in Chicago's admission rate: many, many more students are applying, and somewhat more students who are accepted decide to enroll? There's a third factor, too, that has cut the other way: Chicago has expanded its undergraduate enrollment by about 30% since 2003, causing it to accept more applicants than it would have if its classes had remained under 1,000. A decade ago, Chicago got about 5,000 applications and accepted about 3,000 of them; this year, it will get at least 12,000 applications, and accept about 3,400.</p>

<p>A number of changes sit behind that. In the period following WWII, Chicago had some disasterous policies regarding its college, and it had difficulty attracting enough qualified students to keep it viable. At one point, it was down around 500 students/class, and serious thought was given to abandoning undergraduate education altogether. The urban unrest of the late 60s and horrible urban redevelopment policies had a terrible effect on the South Side and Hyde Park, making it an unattractive place for younger students. The University's endowment was low. The then-rigid core curriculum was not in tune with the times. Students tended to be a little miserable. Simply put, Chicago was not popular, although by all accounts the quality of the actual education it offered was always pretty stellar.</p>

<p>What's happening now is the result of decades of work to change things, much of it led by current college Dean John Boyer, who was recently re-appointed by his fourth university president. Boyer, and others, recognized several things: (1) the university was not likely to survive without a vibrant college (as it happens, college alumni support their alma maters at a much, much higher rate than graduate school alumni), (2) the college would not be vibrant without more students, and a greater variety of students, (3) the quality of student life was not up to the standards of peer institutions, and (4) public awareness of the benefits of the college was much lower than at peer institutions. They have been working steadily for two decades now to change those things. They have reformed the curriculum to make it more flexible and appealing, they have built new dormitories and dining halls and instituted the house system, they have increased security, they have paid attention to creating a positive social environment for undergraduates. They have also, as I am sure you know, undertaken an intelligent and extensive marketing program to attract more, better applicants, and to convince more of them to enroll if accepted.</p>

<p>Chicago has also had some luck. The city of Chicago has largely recovered from its low points of a few decades ago, and is a more attractive place. Gentrification in the South Side has improved the university environment, and the university has made fewer gross errors in managing its relationship with the surrounding community. The long economic expansion of the 80s through 2007 was good to the university's finances. Urban research universities are more popular now, relative to other choices, than they have ever been. And its academic peer institutions have gotten so popular, and thus so difficult to get into, that there are lots more high-quality students looking for a high-quality, demanding undergraduate education than the Ivy League and others are capable of admitting, something that was not so true 10 or 15 years ago. (In general, suburban high school education has improved a lot in quality, more students are going to college, and more students are interested in the benefits of elite, national institutions. And people overseas have gotten richer, too, while their universities have generally declined in quality, creating more demand for places in the U.S.)</p>

<p>At the fancy private school my kids used to attend, over the ten years from 1996-2005 Chicago was the second most-popular destination for graduates, after Penn (which is local, and for which the school is a definite feeder). I haven't seen the numbers, but I would bet that a decade earlier, 1986-1995, the second place would have been Harvard or Yale. When Chicago was admitting 50% of applicants, it frankly became a safety school of choice for sophisticated kids who were not getting into Harvard and Yale at the rate they used to. A school that in 1995 was sendng 7-8 kids a year to HYPS by 2005 was sending 4-5 to HYPS and 3 to Chicago. For a while, that was like an insider secret, but over the past few years Chicago has done a great job of getting the word out so that even kids whose families don't know anything about the University of Chicago think of it as an option to check out.</p>

<p>I don't think there's any question, either, that as the applicant pool has changed, and gotten more competitive, admissions criteria have changed, too. Intellectualism used to be the only important factor. It remains critical, but many more applicants with leadership qualities as well as intellectual ones and outgoing, do-er personalities are showing up in the pool, and more of them are being accepted and enrolling. That contributes to the vibrancy of college life, something that even quite recent alumni notice all the time. I have two cousins in their early 30s who graduated from Chicago a decade ago, and it's clear that the college my children attend is very, very different from the one they attended -- more social, more engagement with extracurricular activities, and much, much happier. To some extent, that's luck and being in the right place at the right time, but it's also at least in part the result of social engineering by the admissions staff and the university.</p>

<p>I don't see that as sinister in the least. Chicago is probably less different today compared to Yale than it was 20 or 30 years ago, but the Chicago of 20 or 30 years ago pretty much had to change or die. Changing in the direction of fabulously successful institutions isn't such a bad idea. And I think Chicago has done an excellent job of preserving quite a bit of its special, hyperintellectual character, its comparative modesty and lack of preprofessionalism. It still has more quirky, brilliant, but awkward students per square foot than the Ivies. The more socially adept students who enroll there are enrolling because they want to attend the University of Chicago, not because the frat scene makes them think they are at Northwestern. It may not have quite the boot camp atmosphere it once had, but it's still about the most challenging, hardest-working liberal arts educational experience available.</p>

5

<p>Thanks for all of the great, thoughtful replies! JHS, you do a good job of putting the historical context behind Chicago's changes in better perspective, and I appreciate that.</p>

<p>I have to admit, I attended Chicago during the height of the Sonnenschein controversy, and any hint of "changing in the direction of fabulously successful institutions" raised significant campus furor. Yet pretty much all of the positive changes associated with the College's rise remain embedded in Sonnenschein's policies (a better endowment, the ratner center, new dormitories and a larger student body, "less" of a core, etc.). </p>

<p>What is also interesting to note is that, in a footnote, Karabel contends that "there may have been considerable truth to (Harvard's) analysis of the cost to a major university of moving too far toward the pole of intellectualism. Whereas in 1930 the U of C endowment was 56 percent of Harvard's... it stands at 18 percent today." Chicago lagged behind in production of CEOs, in post-war rankings of social status of American universities, and in general financial strength. As Karabel goes on to note, the "issues [Harvard] raised about the University of Chicago in 1952 resurfaced more than 40 years later during the presidency of Hugo Sonnenschein..."</p>

<p>This is perhaps overly cynical of me (and perhaps this is a result of having attended Chicago when it was not the more congenial institution that it is today), but I see Chicago's changes as a concession to (more or less) the Harvard model of admissions, and the failure of the hyperintellectual model (outside of a few small liberal arts colleges).</p>

<p>In short, while I would like to read a book specifically on the history of Chicago's admissions (and I plan on reading "Stagg's University: The Rise, Decline, and Fall of Big-Time Football at Chicago"), Karabel's book hints at - and these posts point to it more strongly here - the traditional model of admissions at Chicago has failed, and Chicago has now adopted - with minor modulations - the "Big Three" model that became the benchmark by the 1970s. </p>

<p>Now, don't get me wrong - I think Chicago is a better place today because of Sonnenschein's policies. The admissions office is certainly not transparent about its role as essentially the caretaker of the Sonnenschein plan. Nevertheless, in reading Karabel's book and in thinking about Chicago's current policies, I tend to think this is the institutional "result" Chicago would like to see (an intellectual but generally more well-adjusted student body, one that can more comfortably fit all the other needs Chicago now has - fundraising, elevating its own status, etc.). </p>

<p>JHS, just to make another point clear, I don't think this is "sinister." Rather, it's a logical step that Chicago needed to make to survive, and one where even the resignation of a president and consistent alumni protest could not stop. The Harvard model bestows considerable material success onto a university, and Chicago has done well in taking that model and modulating it to fit its own institutional needs.</p>

6

<p>Cue, I forgot you weren't a prospective student! Tough to keep these screen names straight!</p>

<p>I think you are right that the strategy was essentially put in place under Sonnenschein (and probably much discussed during Gray's presidency). Really, in retrospect there wasn't much choice, but I think the various administrations have done a fine job of putting the college on much more favorable ground while preserving a lot of unique character. </p>

<p>Karabel is always pulling a "shocked! shocked!" at any departure from public values. My perspective is a little different -- during all that period where he sees veiled anti-Semitism (and he's not so terribly wrong), Harvard was educating my grandmother and her siblings/spouses, and then my parents and their siblings/spouses, all of them quite Jewish, together with all sorts of key figures who were the vanguard of the integration of the Jewish community into the American establishment. And I believe it continues to do that today with African- and Asian-Americans and Hispanics. If you look across a few generations, Harvard and its ilk (including Chicago) have done an incredible job of reshaping the American elite and its values, and bringing both progressively more in line with democratic ideals, while preserving and indeed increasing exponentially the strength of the institutions. Karabel seems to mind terribly that it didn't happen all at once, and he loses sight of how thoroughly it did happen, and how in the process the elite American private universities became the best (and richest) educational institutions the world has ever seen. The President and Fellows of Harvard University have managed to be good revolutionaries and good stewards at the same time.</p>

7

<p>Cue7, if you want to read a very good history of the curriculum at "The University" (I began my tenure at Chicago while Hanna Gray was president; she told us to always refer to Chicago as "The University."), I would recommend picking up a copy of former Dean of the College, Donald Levine's book Powers of the Mind. </p>

<p>Also by Levine with commentary is this treatment of the "idea" of The University: The</a> Idea of the University Colloquium: Donald N. Levine </p>

<p>Dean Boyer in a meeting with a group of students that included S1 told them the main criterion for admitting students was, Did they get a sense that the faculty would enjoy them in their classroom? The group was told that they were not admitted to become leaders or successful businessmen, but were admitted for the faculty and they should know that their success at Chicago was largely determined by how they succeeded in that role. This was only a couple of years ago. Perhaps Chicago has changed from years gone by, but I doubt this would be openly said to a group of first year students at many schools.</p>

<p>I understand that Dean Boyer is working on a comprehensive history of the University as well. I look forward to reading it. </p>

<p>John Boyer does indeed deserve a great deal of credit for improving college life at Chicago. Coming up on his list is the replacement of Pierce Hall, but in these economic times, it probably won't be soon.</p>

<p>A little historical aside. It was quite the struggle to get Ratner built. A friend whose name appears inside the building as a significant seven figure donor, worked for years to get it built. It was continually bumped down the priority list, and many alumni questioned if such a facility was right for the University.</p>

8

<p>Thanks for all this background. I'm contributing here because in the printed promotional information, the wonderful uncommon blog entries, & the comments here I think changes in Chicago's image are for the better & hopefully will take on campus & in the eyes of those searching for a solid undergraduate education & experience. Although historically the campus probably had students that would be described as vibrant or vital, as opposed to intense & intellectual, those are not the adjectives that first come to mind when thinking of Chicago. I think the entire campus benefits from a wider range of students.</p>

9

<p>Boyer has been publishing a monograph a year, roughly, on some aspect of the history of the University of Chicago. They're each about 150 pages long (i.e., pretty substantial). There are probably 7 or 8 of them. Some of them cover a defined period, and some trace a theme (e.g., academic freedom, or fundraising) over several decades. I imagine they will wind up as chapters of a comprehensive history, although they are so focused that the comprehensive history they imply would have to be thousands of pages long.</p>

10

<p>JHS, Cue7, Idad,</p>

<p>Thank you all for fascinating insights and some good suggestions for future reading.</p>

<p>I've been planning to get Karabel's book for months. I'm heading to the library tomorrow!</p>

<p>The only thing I can add to the discussion is that part of the reason for increasing the undergraduate enrollment was financial - I'm told the U makes money on undergrads, even net of financial aid. </p>

<p>And an interesting off topic note: NYT today had an interesting article regarding need blind/need aware admissions and average debt load. Among need blind peers, average chicago grad debt is quite a bit higher. I know the U argues that it enrolls more (in number) needy students, but I don't think all stats support this. Anyone have any data?</p>

11

<p>Karabel's book is excellent. Here are a couple of other bits of light reading if you are so inclined.</p>

<p>The second chapter of David Kirp's Shakespeare, Einstein and the Bottom Line-The Marketing of Higher Education addresses Cue's question of how Chicago got the joke and what they did about it.</p>

<p>William Bowen, the former president of a certain New Jersey based community college and a respected advocate of affirmative action, discusses at some length and praises Chicago's approach to its athletic program in Reclaiming the Game-College Sports and Educational Values.</p>

<p>As an aside, having among other things watched him armtwist potential employers for Metcalf Internships, I can testify Dean Boyer is also most emphatically focused on placing students in jobs.</p>

12

<p>Kirp's chapter can be read here: Shakespeare</a>, Einstein, and the ... - Google Book Search</p>

<p>I have heard it argued that his depiction, while not too far off the mark, is not quite accurate, particularly in describing the current conditions of the University, its teaching, and faculty. But , who can be totally "on the mark?"</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
William Bowen, the former president of a certain New Jersey based community college

[/quote]
Well done...</p>