The College is expanding

According to the newest enrollment data from

https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/page/profile-class-2019

The college enrolled 1,537 students last year. The number was much higher than the traditional 1,425ish. Considering there was a long waitlist last year it looks like the college has intentionally enrolled that many number. Also I believe the class of 2016 was over enrolled that year - over 1,500. The over enrollment that year was a big headache due to physical constraints. While the class of 2016 is still in college the class of 2019 has not caused much problem so far. Somehow the college has fixed the housing issue and aims to expand its student body to 1,500 per class.

Thoughts?

Campus North might have something to do with it.

But the North will not be opening until this fall. Where are they putting both class of 16 and 19 (also 17, 18) now?

Class of 17 and 18 are smaller - about 1,425ish each. If the college wants to have 1,500 per class from now on there will be 200 more students at the college. (North - several small dorms) may do it. I have not calculated the numbers yet.

At the start of the new millennium, there was a decision to expand the college from 1,000 to 1,300 – basically when they brought the Max Palevsky dorms online. That coincided with the beginning of the surge in Chicago’s popularity, though, and for a number of years they consistently overshot whatever target they had announced at the outset of the admission season. There were a number of classes with 1,500+ students enrolled; three years ago, I would have said the size of a typical class was 1,550. They cut back below 1,500 the past two years because of demolishing Pierce and simply not having places they could put more first-years, especially since they were trying to convince more upperclassmen to remain in the dorms. But I think the steady-state class size is expected to be 1,500+.

I have done some calculations.

Currently there are about 5900 students at the college and there are about 2979 beds. So the capacity is 2979/5900 ~= 50% of total student body.

Removing 5 existing satellite dorms and adding the North there are about 3102 beds. Applying the current capacity ratio it can accommodate about 6140 students.

So it is doable to have 1500 per class housing-wise. Anyway they can always redeploy the New Grad and Breckin in case. LOL.

New Grad is going to be gutted and turned into the Harris School, it can’t turn back. Breck though…

I wonder if this news has anything to with the expansion:

http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2015/03/31/university-sell-select-residential-real-estate-properties

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20151230/hyde-park/u-of-c-made-701-million-on-sale-of-21-properties-hyde-park

As noted above, this isn’t an expansion. It’s a return to what they were doing from the time they opened South Campus to when they had to demolish Pierce. Placing North in service gives them a few more beds than they had last time they enrolled a class with more than 1,500 students, so they’re returning to that level.

15 years ago, before Max Palevsky, before South Campus, and before North, Chicago had a lot of dorms scattered around Hyde Park, small and large. They have been systematically closing and selling the off-campus dorms and building larger on-campus dorms, as well as converting on-campus International House to an undergraduate dorm, at least for now. Long term, they plan to build at least a couple more new dorms of the size of South and North. None of this is remotely news; it’s a plan that has been more or less in place for years.

Selling the off-campus dorms makes enormous sense. They were generally unpopular with students (although each of them had their fans). They were really expensive to maintain, and most of them were small – too small to support a resident faculty member efficiently, for instance. Given the housing market in Hyde Park, they are extremely attractive properties to rehab and turn into condos. So it’s really a no-brainer to sell them and to reinvest the money in the kind of housing that undergraduates actually want. (Or, more precisely, that prospective undergraduates think they want.)

If they want to build a couple more new dorms of the size of North, say 2, the 5 dorms can hold about 4000 which account for 2/3 student body. That may be their long term goal.

I wonder where they can find places on campus to do that. Last time they had to relocate the north soccer field to the south side to make room for the North (in addition to the old Pierce). They also need to have more dinning halls with big dorms.

Also is it a trend to have several big dorms on campus inside an urban U? Does Yale or Penn have the similar housing system?

@JHS - The key part of the press release was that UC “the real estate market for faculty and students in Hyde Park had become stable enough that the buildings could be sold and the money reinvested in teaching and research.”

Years ago when they purchased these buildings, they did so because the housing stock in Hyde Park was terrible, and UC had to stabilize the local housing market in order maintain some non-campus housing available for students. Now with the Hyde Park housing market becoming self-reliant, they do not feel the need to directly own these properties, and they can increase the college’s enrollment without necessarily worrying about fitting as many of their students on campus.

Yale and Penn have housing systems that are both similar and dissimilar (of course!),

All three nominally have a residential college / house system that Chicago actually pioneered. At Yale, especially, it’s seen as wildly successful, the envy of all other elite colleges. (It’s also very successful at Harvard and Rice, and increasingly so at Princeton, which has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to create a similar system where none existed historically. Vassar, too, I believe, although the scale there is very different.) At Penn and Chicago, it’s nowhere near as successful, although Chicago seems dedicated to improving it. I’m not so sure about Penn – its penultimate president, who spent her career at Yale before her Penn appointment, tried to create a house system without spending any money, and my impression is it didn’t take and the current administration doesn’t care.

Anyway, at Yale, every student is associated with one of 12 (soon to be 14) residential colleges from the day of enrollment to graduation. About 75% of the freshmen live in all-freshmen dorms on one big block, but grouped by their college membership, and then move into their separate colleges as sophomores. The others live in their separate colleges from Day 1. The colleges average about 105 per class, with a range of 80-125. Each college has its own dining hall and a variety of other goodies – they are beautiful and elaborate, modeled after the Oxbridge colleges, with lots of interior courtyards and unique distinguishing features. Most were built in the 20s and 30s, and renovated recently at the cost of hundreds of millions per.

Each college has a resident faculty “Master,” a few apartments where other faculty and their families live, and all faculty members are formally associated with one or another of the colleges. Each college also has a separate Dean, and most academic advising and discipline is handled at the college level.

Most rooms are suites for multiple students with a common living area and multiple bedrooms. Almost all freshmen and most sophomores share bedrooms; juniors and seniors generally have a private bedroom. 90%+ of students live on-campus for their entire college career (unless they do study abroad). It is possible to switch colleges, but only a handful of people ever do that. People feel very tied to their colleges – witness, on CC, the number of people whose avatars are Yale residential college coats of arms – even if they didn’t live there (my wife, who lived in her college for only one semester before moving off campus, has her college’s decal on her car).

At Chicago, every student is initially associated with the “House” in which he or she lives, dating back to about 15 years before Yale instituted its system. In the past (but as of next fall, only vestigially), that House could be a whole building, but increasingly (and soon almost exclusively) it would be a floor or other separate area of a larger dorm, comprising up to eight different Houses. In theory, a student could live in that House all four years. In practice, the vast majority live on campus their first two years then move into nearby apartments in Hyde Park. (As noted often in this thread, the University does not have dorm space for much more than half its students, but that tends not to be a problem, because students are usually enthusiastic about moving off campus after a couple of years.) There is a fair amount of House-shifting by upperclassmen who stay on campus. Only two Houses, Snell and Hitchcock, which share a single dorm, have a strong tradition of four-year residency. (“Snitchcock”, with about 160 people in it, should be footnoted as an exception to most of what I say about UChicago housing.)

The Houses are much smaller than Yale colleges – I think the range is 60-100 people, total. Each House is assigned to one of three dining facilities for its meals, and has its own table there, although no one is required to eat at his or her House table. Each dining hall serves a population of about 1,300 people (including people who live off campus but still have a whole or partial meal plan). Houses tend to be very important social centers for first-years, but declining rapidly in that regard over time. Once people move off campus, they tend to have little to do with their former House. To some extent, activities are grouped by dorm rather than by House, and people may have more emotional engagement with their dorm than their House . . .although with the larger dorms, it’s completely possible to know very few people who aren’t in your house. The dorms other than the newest ones tend to have rooms that are uniform, or close to uniform. The newest dorms have a mixture of singles, doubles, and apartment-like suites. There are a fair number of small single rooms for first-year students who want them. Amenities like practice rooms and art studios are dorm-based, not allocated to the Houses.

Each larger dorm has a resident faculty member; each House an RA. Academic advising is handled by a central staff and departmental faculty; there’s no House affiliation

Penn: A motley variety of dorms, different in size and room configuration, but with mostly uniform rooms within a dorm. There are four large highrises with apartment-style suites, including small kitchens. Other than that, there are limited dining facilities in the dorms. A couple have small, limited-menu cafes, and there is one large dining commons. Penn’s meal plans basically force kids out into the community for lots of their meals anyway (which is not a terrible thing when you look at what’s available in the immediate surroundings as a result), and the on-campus eating options increasingly resemble off-campus ones (e.g., cafes where you can spend your meal account on a la carte items). A little more than a decade ago, each of the buildings was labeled a “College House.” They each got a Faculty Director and Dean (who generally don’t live there). Academic advising for residents is handled through the College Houses.

I believe only the highrises have any significant number of upperclassmen living there (but that’s meaningful, since the high rises represent a big chunk of total housing slots). Some of the College Houses are exclusively for freshmen; others exclusively for upperclassmen, so there’s a lot of movement between College Houses for students who live on campus. And Penn, like Chicago, only has dorm space for half its students. Unlike Chicago, it has not done much new dorm building (except it is building a new 350-bed dorm right now). Instead, it has induced private developers to build private dorms adjacent to the campus. As far as I can tell, students who move off campus generally maintain no connection to their former College House.

@Zinhead : What you say makes little or no sense to me. Chicago bought those buildings because it needed dorm space to meet student demand, the dorms it had were awful (and were located in places where they wanted to put, say, a palatial new business school), and it was a lot cheaper to buy these relatively nice buildings and convert them to dorms than to build new dorms. There was never any real shortage of off-campus housing in Hyde Park, although the quality range has probably improved over time. And Chicago has said time and time again that it wants to bring more students on campus, not have more students living nearby in the neighborhood. The dorms it is selling were all off-campus dorms.

The importance of the stabilization of the Hyde Park housing market is that developers were clamoring to get their hands on the buildings Chicago owned.

Yes, that seems to be a mutual issue.

JHS, interesting observations on housing at different schools. I think some of this comes down to money, though differing traditions etc also play a role . . . the endowments per student are so much higher at HYP that it’s hard for other schools to put the same resources into housing.

@bluewater2015 , the endowment issue is something of a double-edged sword. Most of the Yale colleges and Harvard houses were built during the 20s and 30s, when building things was a lot cheaper. No one in his right mind would try to build things like that today (although Princeton came close with its Whitman College). They are really expensive to maintain. It cost Yale well over $1 billion to renovate them over the past decade or so, and another $600 million to build two new colleges that could reasonably be seen as equals to the old ones. That comes to something like $400,000 per bed. Does that really make sense? Are the benefits of the residential college system so amazing that it’s worth spending that kind of money on it?

By contrast, Chicago built its South Campus dorm, that students seem to like, for about $200,000 per bed, before taking into account whatever it got for selling the old dorm that replaced. Penn is spending more than that on its new (smallish) dorm, but it has spent $0 on new student housing in the past couple of decades prior to this, instead letting the private market satisfy demand.

A couple of other points: The focus on endowments actually understates the wealth of universities considerably. The value of their physical plant is not included in endowment figures. Yale doesn’t have great residential colleges because it has a huge endowment. It has great residential colleges and a huge endowment. Also, it largely raised the money for its renovations and new colleges without drawing down endowment for that. Chicago’s and Penn’s campuses are also extraordinarily valuable. Having that kind of space and those buildings in the middle of vibrant large cities is a huge part of what makes them great universities. (Their endowments are pretty considerable, too – the only way they could be described as less than sensational is by comparison with Harvard and Yale.)

From your descriptions the closest dorm to Yale’s is BJ. It has Gothic architecture and courtyards in the middle and is not a high-rise. But most of its rooms are singles and it is very close to one dining hall even technically the dining hall does not belong to BJ.

While the South (Renee) is similar to Penn’s dorms. Interestingly BJ and South are very close to each other (and to the same dinning hall) so no location difference. Students in either BJ and South look happy to be in their respective dorms. However BJ feels old (elegant?) compared to South but lacks modern amenities?

It may not be probable for an urban U like Chicago to build new BJ-like dorms due to cost and real estate constraints. Chicago occupies about 215 acres while Yale occupies a few times more. One disadvantage for a big dorm like South is there are too many houses inside one building. The intimacy inside a house is somehow diluted by the big building which it belongs to.

@eddi137 Spot on response but I have one tiny thing to add: the main “problem” with South (and Max P) is not the number of houses but the fact that the houses blend together with no sense of distinction. First years nominally know which house they belong to but since they might be closer to another lounge or next to rooms with people in a different house, it ends up mattering little and people make friends more from classes and RSOs. North has very distinct houses (every three floors is a different house with a lounge going up the middle) and it will hopefully mitigate some of these problems. BJ has 6 houses, which is a lot.

JHS that’s an interesting point about the value of physical plant not being included in endowments. I can see the logic of that since the land and buildings aren’t producing income unless the school sells or leases them out. It seems roughly analogous to why some financial advisors don’t include primary residence when calculating a family’s net worth.

IIRC Chicago owns some apartments leased to the general public, shopping centers etc. as do some other schools (e.g. Stanford leases out the land for a shopping mall, office buildings, apartments etc.) I wonder how income producing property like this is factored in to the endowments?

I believe real estate investments are generally included in endowment numbers. Actually, my understanding is that nothing is considered “endowment” unless the university trustees designate it as endowment (or accept a gift earmarked for endowment). So there are always investments – usually short-term cash – that are not part of endowment numbers. But property that is in fact being used for the university’s “business” cannot be treated as part of the endowment. And, say, a former dorm being held for sale would not be considered endowment, but the trustees might designate the proceeds of the sale to increase endowment. Also, real estate purchased to permit future expansion probably can’t be included in endowment, even if it’s income-producing now.

Re:space at Chicago and elsewhere. Chicago may be unique, or nearly so, among major American universities by essentially having little or no land constraints. Or at least that’s what I have heard Dean Boyer say. The University controls a great deal of real estate it is not currently using, some in Hyde Park, but lots in Woodlawn and west of Washington Park, not to mention as a practical matter the likely ability to develop some of the Midway and Washington Park if an appropriate project came to mind. The university’s core is crowded, but it has doubled its footprint south of the Midway in the past decade, and could probably double it again with little trouble.

That is one of the benefits of being located in what has been described as a “warzone”. More than 30 years ago, vacant lots and dilapidated houses were available to the north, west and south of Hyde Park for price of the unpaid taxes, and UC was a major buyer. In many cases, they were the only buyer.

That changed in the 1990’s, and while property values in these areas are still below their 2008 peak, UC has significant landholdings in the area, although some of it is scattered lots.