<p>I find this all somewhat amusing. It is the education one gets at Chicago, and some might argue unique, that is important. The rankings are as irrelevant now as they were when Chicago was ranked 15th. The nice growth in admissions began under Ted O’Neil and was continued by Jim Nondorf, but the most important thing that is occurring is that Chicago, unlike its peers, is hiring 100 new faculty members, adding new, exciting programs, and building great new facilities. And, it has appeared to remain true to its values.</p>
<p>idad - I don’t think the actual education offered at Chicago is significantly superior to the education I received at Chicago years ago. I do think, however, that the actual atmosphere and spirit of the school, along with “soft” factors (such as the impact of a perception that the school is on stronger footing based on rankings, a lessening of the inferiority issues many in the Chicago student body had when the college was weaker, etc.) is markedly healthier today than it was years ago. </p>
<p>I don’t think the actual education offered is that different at Chicago today. There have been certain key improvements - in the arts, new science bldgs, etc., that have enhanced the education, but the core principles and delivery of the education is pretty similar. The environment and “vibe” of the school (if you will) has, however, changed pretty significantly.</p>
<p>My point was that Chicago’s ability to add faculty and expand programs is what is more important to the potential experience than are the rankings. </p>
<p>S1, who began UofC in 2005, and took a course last quarter does not feel there has been much change in the student body since 2005. Chicago may be getting more selective, but is apparently admitting similar students.</p>
<p>“I’d put uchicago pretty much on par with northwestern”</p>
<p>Really, empirical? I just puked at the thought of this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not exactly the feeling my kids (ABs 2009 and 2011) have. They both thought the college was getting progressively more mainstream in its enrollment (which one of them thought was a good thing and the other – the more mainstream of the two – not).</p>
<p>While I understand the importance of the USNWR rankings to colleges as a means to boost their reputations, and in turn, their endowments, I was rather appalled when I read phuriku’s plan for UChicago’s upward movement.</p>
<p>Not only at UChicago, but at top colleges across the country, applicants are told that they will be reviewed in a “holistic” manner. To suggest that UChicago should start admitting more HS graduates from the top ten percent of their class simply to get ahead (in what can only be described as a game) is ridiculous.</p>
<p>Correlation does not equal causation. High GPAs and high SAT scores can mean that the applicant is actually an intelligent student capable of the high levels of critical thinking that will be demanded of them in college, or it can mean the applicant was a robot following a preprescribed regimen for getting into a top five school. Smart, sure, but does s/he deserve a spot at UChicago more than the kid who missed the top 10% by .04 points because instead of daily SAT prep classes, he was composing an original piece for the philharmonic? </p>
<p>USWNR rankings are a numbers game, and college admissions shouldn’t be. If it is, then schools need to stop feeding us this bull about a “holistic review process.”</p>
<p>coocoocachoo: Most people in the Chicago forums are overly optimistic about Chicago’s reputation. In all honesty, Chicago is probably not even considered a top 25 school in the lay perception, and barely top 15 in college-educated populations (probably barely top 20 a few years ago). This is something that we have to deal with and, yes, it’s something we need to give priority to.</p>
<p>Once again, I’m looking at this from the perspective of a business problem. If you don’t like that perspective, then you don’t have to accept it, but it’s the approach that both Zimmer and Nondorf are taking. My plans were most likely a mere reiteration of their thought process.</p>
<p>I don’t recall calling for Chicago to specifically start focusing on avoiding admitting students not in the top 10%. Rather, I think that will be a natural process once our yield rises from marketing. Honestly, I can’t understand how some people can claim that it is okay that over 10% of our class didn’t graduate even close to the top of their high school classes, when other top schools with holistic admissions processes like MIT and Harvard have only about 2% of their class satisfying that statistic. Such claims are the remnants of Chicago’s traditional foolish idealism, the very idealism that brought mass protests to our campus over moving to the Common Application.</p>
<p>(But perhaps you’re just confused as to what the word “holistic” means. It doesn’t mean that students who perform poorly in school can get in because they were too busy focusing on “more important” things. It means that the process is subjective and takes into account many factors, including data other than SATs and GPA. Even Caltech, which places great emphasis on test scores, is holistic.)</p>
<p>It’s also very easy to start admitting more applicants from the top 10%, since there are so many people wait-listed and rejected whom the admissions office claims could just as well have been admitted. I don’t like the idea of it, but the benefits may outweigh the negatives.</p>
<p>I think it’s a bit unfair to say that students who were not in the top ten percent of their class are “students who [performed] poorly in school.” In the warped world of College Confidential, I know that most posters consider anything below a 2100 on the SATs is tantamount to - gasp - mediocrity, but that is hardly the case.</p>
<p>I’m not that naive. I prefaced my post by stating that I understood the value of, as I believe you so aptly put it, popularity game of the rankings. Isn’t part of the reason HYP are so highly regarded is because of their reputations, which garners them the billion dollar endowments, which in turn allows for their plentiful resources, and results in the thousands of applications they receive annually? And these factors, of course, are what help them secure their top spots on the list in the first place. UChicago and its students will undoubtedly benefit from its higher level of perceived prestige. I’m sure graduates such as yourself wouldn’t mind prospective employers thinking more highly of your degree.</p>
<p>I understand that GPAs and test scores serve as important tools in the holistic (a term I do understand, in answer to your slightly patronizing parenthetical remark) evaluation process. But while this might be idealistic, I do not believe class rank serves as a good measuring stick for the quality of a student body, a thought echoed by secondary school admins as the trend to discontinue class rank and the awarding of valedictorian grows.</p>
<p>Class rank is an especially b.s. statistic, since only about half of each entering class HAS a class rank. At the fancy private school my kids attended for a long time – generally considered the top academic school in our area, and at least one of the top two or three – every year (back when I was paying attention) about 40% of the graduating class went to what I considered top-rank colleges (12-13 universities, 7-8 LACs). Obviously, most of them were NOT in the top 10% or their class, but no one could tell because the class was unranked and the grading culture compressed the range of grades and GPAs significantly. There are small, elite private schools in New York City that probably send three-quarters of their classes to those colleges (which include, of course, Chicago). Lots of those kids are really smart. It would be moronic to exclude them because they are not in the top 10% of their very strong classes – and no one does that. It’s hypocritical, however, to admit them and not to include them in the college’s admitted student class rank statistics.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the large public school from which my kids graduated ranked everybody, all the time. It sent almost the same raw number of kids to top colleges (actually, only about 7-8 colleges out of the 20), but that represented far less than 10% of its class. Basically, if you weren’t in the top 5% there, and weren’t a recruited athlete, you were out of luck as far as most highly selective colleges were concerned. The ranking system doubtless made kids at the tippy-top of the class stronger candidates, but at the cost of hurting the prospects of some very good students whose GPAs may have been only a few hundredth of a point lower. Nevertheless, there’s no question that the drop-off in student quality at that school between the 95th percentile and the 80th percentile was significant in most cases, whereas at the private school no one would be able to tell the difference.</p>
<p>When my daughter transferred in 11th grade from the snooty, grade-deflated, too-good-for-APs private school to the grade-inflated, AP-obsessed public school, she was assigned an initial class rank around the 70th percentile, and by the time she applied early to Chicago she was not quite in the top 20% by rank. She wound up in the top 10% (barely), but that was long after any college but the one she attended saw her transcript. Obviously, her circumstances were a little unusual, but she (and I) certainly appreciated that Chicago – which was a college her private school counselors had been hyping to her before she transferred – did not stop reading her application at her class rank. I hope that’s still the case.</p>
<p>Both of my kids were admitted to Chicago EA within the past four years; one was one person outside the top 10% (which cost him significant merit $$ at another school), and the other was around the top 25%. The high schools involved didn’t officially rank, but provided a chart of GPAs and the % of students who had that GPA. Both were in selective admit programs (top 1-2% out of a very large school system) that represented a small percentage of the total student body. Were they at the neighborhood HS, they would have been the extreme outliers. These GPA charts did not distinguish who was taking all IB, AP and/or post-AP courses vs. those who were taking regular level courses. </p>
<p>Fortunately, Chicago and some other fine schools (including MIT) <em>did</em> make that distinction.</p>
<p>Phuriku - JHS makes a point that I want to echo. The top 10% stat is a pretty ridiculous portion of the methodology. Being a slave to the statistic will hurt one key group: the smart but not top 10% kids at public high schools. Most top private schools don’t rank, and top colleges take loads of the top private hs kids, and simply don’t need to include them when computing the top 10% statistic since the snooty private schools don’t rank their kids anyway.</p>
<p>Phuriku, what I think is interesting about your argument is that, up until very recently, Chicago worried much less about the quality of the students it accepted, and much more about what it did with the students after they matriculated. As discussed extensively, in the past, Chicago just needed warm bodies in seats, and accepted weaker students. This oftentimes had the effect of presenting students who had no chance of admission into the other top colleges with an opportunity to receive an outstanding education. </p>
<p>On the one hand, this is an enviable process - providing opportunities to smart, intellectually curious kids who might not be classic overachievers, and then allowing these kids to flourish at the college. Not everyone can have perfect SAT scores and grades, and Chicago probably took more “chances” than its peer schools in the past.</p>
<p>This past approach, of course, does not jive with the methodology presented by US News. The ranking demands statistical excellence along all of the arbitrary criterion. As Chicago has flourished in the rankings, it probably has shed some of its past identity, good or bad. Dean Ted O’Neill stepped away a couple years ago, most likely because he was not in favor of “big numbers” admissions. </p>
<p>All this being said, I’m in favor of the direction that Chicago is heading because I believe it’s good for the institution’s overall health. I also believe, however, that Chicago needs to find the right balance, perhaps more than its peer schools, because Chicago’s identity has always been a bit different. Penn, like Harvard or Princeton, looked to produce leaders and had a pre-professional vibe 10 years ago, and this identity has remained consistent to today. </p>
<p>Chicago, though, had a different institutional mission for its college up until very recently. I’m absolutely fine with the institutional mission changing (i.e. from producing academics to being more general). </p>
<p>At the same time, Chicago needs to strike an appropriate BALANCE. If Chicago slavishly adheres to the methodology presented in US News, yes it could rise to #4 (but probably, not much higher than that). In doing so, the school may lose track of its institutional roots a little bit. On the other hand, avoiding the importance of the rankings and going back to the laissez-faire, head-in-sand approach of the 90s would certainly have adverse effects on the school. </p>
<p>Given all of this, Phuriku, I think you should relax a bit on just how much farther the U of C should or could move up in the rankings. I think it’s important that Chicago continues to be ranked roughly alongside these peers (Duke, Stanford, Columbia, Penn), but it’s not that big a deal if it finishes #4 or #7. The key will be to maintain a strong standing over many years, just as Penn has. </p>
<p>On top of that, Phuriku, you discussed the importance of improving the perception of Chicago. I agree that, just like Penn outside the Northeast, Chicago lacks the brand of some of its peers. That being said, the rankings are just one part of improving perception. Maintaining standing as a top half dozen or so university is certainly good, but Chicago also needs to commit itself to more outreach, engage more both with the city of Chicago and beyond (Chicago used to be quite aloof in its relations), and also, it comes down to Chicago students and alumni. The students and alumni need to be engaged in performing well and taking leadership roles, no matter the pursuit. </p>
<p>In short, rankings are just part of this process, and being ranked #4 or #7 won’t make a huge difference. Raising Chicago’s profile generally, however, will continue to help to raise the perception of the school, and that’s an effort that everyone associated with the school needs to make. </p>
<p>(On a related note, hiring higher profile names - like Richard Daley - to become lecturers or speakers at the U of C is a good step in the right direction. Rather than being an academic island - as Chicago used to be - engaging and raising its profile is useful. Good, consistent publicity is better than a couple of rankings points for any given year.)</p>
<p>I am EXTREMELY happy that my son is at U Chicago. I don’t think it’s just a retroactive rationalization that this was a good choice for him. I believe he would be doing well in other top schools too, but I am convinced that he would not have been as happy in other schools. What really made a difference is the prevailing culture of the pursuit of intellectual excellence, and the kind of friends and cohorts who are attuned to the same wave lengths. This made all the difference. </p>
<p>He has several friends from his HS at top several top 10’sh schools. One of them reportedly said, every time he wants to discuss something intellectual, it quickly become lewd jokes among other students, and he has yet to find a group with whom he feels comfortable pursuing intellectual matter for discussion. Reports from other schools were not necessarily much better. My son has NO such problem whatsoever at Chicago.</p>
<p>This kid would have been a perfect fit for U Chicago. So, why did he not even apply to U Chicago? This is a good question, isn’t it? </p>
<p>My son graduated from a top magnet school ranked within top 10 public schools in USA. Guess what, among his graduating senior class, there were only two kids (out of 60) who applied to U Chicago, while practically half of the class applied to the usual suspects of top 10 elite colleges (I heard that year 5 kids, out of the class of 60, were admitted to Princeton). This is a HS school that does not even have sports or drama clubs. They are all braniacs. Perfect breeding ground for U Chicago. Yet, how come hardly anybody applies to U Chicago?</p>
<p>The answer is, the lack of mind share. No marketing presence. U Chicago somehow is not, in their mind, an “it” school. In their mind, it is not as prestigious as the other top schools. The guidance counselors are not saying to these top kids “why not U Chicago while you are applying to HYPSM?” This is why, gasp, ranking is important. This is why “prestige factor” is important. No matter now good U Chicago truly is, unless you capture the imagination of the high school kids and their parents, you won’t capture them, even when they are actually the perfect fit for the life of the mind U Chicago culture. Yes, we can blame “the customer” for their lack of sophistication and discerning tastes. Guess what, I have never seen a business succeed by discounting the customers’ tastes and faulting them for the lack of market presence. </p>
<p>I keep hearing some folks saying U Chicago should not “bend” to enhance its profile at the risk of losing its unique value proposition, aka life of the mind. Non-sense. There are ENOUGH of life of the mind candidates all around. The problem is NOT that the universe lacks a large enough pool of HS kids U Chicago can pick their bet fit students from. The problem is, U Chicago is not letting its presence known well among these kids as a destination fit for the very best and the most gifted. These kids are not putting Chicago at the level of the other top schools in their mind. So, the would be perfect fit U Chicago kids are not applying as frequently as they should, and when admitted, go to other schools if a “better known” school accepted them. </p>
<p>I do believe overall mind share among the target population, the perceived prestige, and marketing presence are important for institutional health. Yes, as dirty as it may sound, brand equity is very important. If you don’t have it, you will continue to struggle. As an extremely satisfied parent, I sincerely hope that U Chicago does NOT lose the unique life of the mind mantra. At the same time, I do believe that U Chicago can capture the mind share and position itself as a prestigious destination for the very best in the world while maintaining and even strengthening its unique culture and value. </p>
<p>Nondorf gets 1000% of my support.</p>
<p>Sure, brand equity is important, but so is having something worth branding. Otherwise, you are just laundry detergent, a commodity with a meaningless brand.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t suggest that Chicago stop its (massive, ongoing) efforts to raise its profile. I just don’t think it ought to over-emphasize SAT scores and class rank in admissions in order to go up another notch in the USNWR rankings.</p>
<p>And, sorry, I have to laugh at “one of the top 10 public schools in the USA” where no one knows anything about the University of Chicago. You’re right, blaming the consumer is never a good idea, but they’re not MY consumer, so I can say what I think of them: not much. Where did that ranking come from? Newsweek-like? Having everyone take 7 APs every year? No sports or drama? That’s exactly what chasing rankings gets you.</p>
<p>According to the Chicago Maroon Twitter feed, Dean Boyer had the following to say Chicago in the rankings:</p>
<p>““We deserved, in a way to get five–we probably deserved to get higher, and we will.”-Dean Boyer”</p>
<p>Knowing Dean Boyer, I doubt he meant this in an argumentative fashion, but it has been really interesting to see his language change over the years. When I was at Chicago, he was dismissive of the rankings. Now, he addresses them as a necessary evil, but one where Chicago aspires to come out on top.</p>
<p>Overall, given what JHS said and Phuriku said, again, I just think striking the right balance is the key. Chicago should not be a slave to the ranking, and boost its top 10% class rank numbers just to move up in the us news report. At the same time, the College should never again stick its head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge these outside forces that are gaining momentum. </p>
<p>JHS, out of curiosity, do you think the U of C is now heading too far in the direction of being overly rankings conscious, at the sake of actually diluting the value of the education offered? I think Chicago has done a pretty good job (not perfect job, mind you) of keeping the somewhat distinct spirit of the school alive. Do you feel the school has lost its identity a bit?</p>
<p>I believe getting the word out on Chicago and its distinctive emphasis on the “life of the mind” is important. Ted O’Neil began this effort and I think Jim Nondorf has done a good job of continuing it. As long as Chicago is marketed as Chicago, and not some vanilla version of a “top college” all will be fine. There are enough students out there who would love to hear about the school as it is who have not to ensure continued growth. But if we are giving credit to Chicago’s “rise,” Dean Boyer perhaps deserves the most. He is the one that pushed for more and better College facilities, new dorms, and better student life. Admissions can sell, but there needs to be an attractive product (beyond simply academics) and Boyer has provided that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Come on, JHS. No need to snicker. It’s not like you. You are more thoughtful than that based on all the posts I have seen coming from you. Let’s say that this is a kind of school where out of 60, 5 got acceptance letters from Princeton, and 4 from MIT in one year (not overlapping). I believe something like 30% of the kids were also the national merit finalists (this, I am not 100% sure about exact number and %). In my son’s graduating year, there were two SAT 2400 and a few SAT 1600, all out of a graduating class of 60 something. So, enough said. </p>
<p>Of course, they know about U Chicago. The problem is, they don’t think it’s up there enough to apply given the distance from the familiar environment. It’s a HS within a drivable distance from all the Ivy’s. So, if it’s a “flying” distance, it makes them pause a little. Given so many good choices, why bother? Yet, here is the clincher, they would not think twice about applying to Duke though the transportation logistics is not as good as it is to fly to O’Hare. They sorta automatically do it. Driving to Cornell is b##$%^%, but they apply to Cornell in droves. This is why the brand equity is so important. Duke has a much better mind share among general public. And, the Ivy status of Cornell gives them an automatic lift.</p>
<p>We could sit here and blame the mindless teenagers and their equally clueless parents who fail to guide their kids properly for the true meaning of education and what not. But, you HAVE to capture their initial attention to get anywhere. It’s like a dating scene. You can blame all the harebrained people who can’t see beyond the appearance. But, even among the most intelligent people with the right, wholesome value system, looking fit and slim, rather than like a 500 pond gorilla, helps, right? </p>
<p>I am very much for keeping U Chicago’s character and educational mission. What I am saying is, they can maintain it and even strengthen it while significantly improving its brand equity by a sophisticated and successful marketing drive. If working with the USNWR folks is what’s needed, so be it. How about just going into the well thought out marketing drive for guidance counselors? Just that would help enormously! The GC at my son’s HS was rather blah about U Chicago. Again. you could ridicule her for lack of understanding, or you would work with her so that she can advocate U Chicago for all the excellent opportunities it offers to the students would be a GOOD FIT to begin with, not the animal house frat types.</p>
<p>Hyeonjlee - do the students at this HS feel the same way about Stanford and Cal tech?</p>
<p>All universities enjoy a sort of “home field” advantage. It’s why I think Chicago should worry first about improving its presence in the midwest. It’s always going to be tough to poach students from Harvard and Princeton and MIT’s backyard. </p>
<p>Also, do you feel that, at this HS, Chicago being ranked so highly (at #5) would help begin to change the attitude of students at this school? I’d imagine with a good outreach program, a high ranking, and an improving reputation, Chicago should be well served here.</p>
<p>Again, I think that, just like Penn, Chicago is still in the process of shedding its older reputation (for Penn, this was a school in a “bad” area that lacked the luster of its more brand-name peers, and for Chicago, this was a school in a “bad” area with a reputation of being no-fun). Shedding this rep takes time. Do you think, though, that the “no-fun” rep is beginning to lose hold amongst the younger folks?</p>
<p>Cue7,</p>
<p>yes. Ranking in #5 for a few years shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Stanford will DEFINITELY help. Note that the magnet school I mentioned has a lot of Asian students. Sorry to acknowledge, but their Asian parents are far less nuanced when it comes to recommending school choices to their kids. RANKING and prestige matter, and matter BIG TIME. </p>
<p>I don’t have stats for Stanford or Caltech, but I believe they do apply to those, though not in as high number as, say, MIT. By the way, in a town public high school (different form the magnet school D1 went to), kids apply to Stanford and Northwestern. For whatever reason, not so much U Chicago. this is the school my S2 went to, and I heard this from one of the GCs. Again, it’s all about brand equity and marketing presence. </p>
<p>Regarding “no fun” rep, the kids I am talking about probably are not bothered by these. These kids are serious students, so no problem. Besides, some of them are really competitive students, and they would go for U Chicago even if it’s no fun if it’s prestigious and on par with the likes of MIT, Penn, and Stanford. Well, Calthech has no fun reputation, right? They don’t have any problem grabbing mind share, do they? </p>
<p>This whole thing of “no fun” reputation being the major deal breaker is a myth among the students of the caliber of the nation’s top 10 schools. If the school’s other prestige factors are there, they will overcome the “non fun” reputation. Besides, I firmly believe, U Chicago does NOT have to appeal to “no fun, no way” kids. There are enough U Chicago fit kids who are currently not considering U Chicago seriously. Just better tapping that under-utilized pool will be enough to send U Chicago to a new level.</p>
<p>Why in the hell do most kids who apply to Northwestern from the East Coast skip U Chicago? Because they are all scared of the “life of the life”??? No, I think U Chicago simply is not in their mind scape as much as Northwestern. Most of them do not even know about the vaunted Life of the Mind tradition of U Chicago to be even scared of it. </p>
<p>Honestly, when we were working with our D1, we suggested U Chicago to him for the strength of its economics department. Truthfully, left to his own device, it would not have occurred to him to even apply since NONE of his friends were talking about it. They all compare notes, you know. Brand equity of U Chicago is very poor in this highly competitive, overachieving, upper middle class NJ county. </p>
<p>Only after he applied to Chicago, I started to do research and realized that it’s a perfect fit for my son. Now that he is there, my son is soooooooooooo happy. Joking that he should sent a big thank you note to Harvard for having rejected him. U Chicago could and should capture more kids like him, and they still are not doing a good job yet.</p>
<p>Let’s do some quick survey. I watch popular TV dramas while I exercise. It’s funny which colleges are mentioned in such dramas for casual reference when the show’s producers and writers want to convey the image of prestige, reputation, elite education, and excellence. Of course, they mention Ivys. Then they for go Duke, Northwestern, Georgetown, Stanford, etc. I have NEVER heard a single reference to U Chicago, NOT EVEN ONCE. Have you? So, there. This is where U Chicago stands. Again, you can blame all the mindless herd mentality public. But in doing so, you are missing a vast pool of 18 year olds who would have been a perfect fit for the school and will make the school and the ensuing alum network so much more vibrant.</p>
<p>Hyeonjlee,</p>
<p>I guess what’s strange in what you say is this - Chicago has been ranked solidly in the top 10 for the past six years or so. While this year Chicago enjoyed the bump up to equal standing with Stanford, MIT, etc., for many years, it’s been on equal footing with Duke, Columbia, etc. - schools that are not exactly slouches!</p>
<p>So this is what I don’t understand - if students from your nearby top public high school ignored Chicago when it was #8 and tied with Columbia, why would a sudden new tide of students consider Chicago now? </p>
<p>In other words, if students applied to all of the rest of the top 10 schools BUT Chicago, why would a move up in the rankings a few spots change this trend? It seems as if students and parents in your area are hyper-aware of the rankings and interested in having the kids attend a top college. So, when Chicago was #8 or #7 or whatever it was, why was there still no interest? </p>
<p>I guess it just seems strange to me that, in your community, everyone seems aware of the rankings and places importance on them. Chicago, though, has done well in the rankings for many, many years now, but the constituent parties continued to ignore the school. Why did this occur? It seems as if people in your community are relatively wealthy, are very aware of all the colleges out there, etc., and students were perfectly willing to apply to Northwestern, even though Chicago has been ranked higher for years and years.</p>
<p>I’m curious to know why you think think this trend has unfolded in this way. I guess what you say about tv shows may be correct, but Chicago received publicity during the Obama campaign, and there are several schools that I’m assuming are reasonably popular with your top hs crowd (places like Williams, Penn, and Amherst) that don’t get lots of recognition on tv shows and the like.</p>