<p>Yes, chicago has been there within top 10’ish last few years. But, U Chicago is still considered as “nouveau riche” if you know what I mean. You yourself remind us over and over again, that the acceptance rate was over 50% less than 10 years ago. Competitive kids look at this, and automatically think this is not a prestigious school! It’s been only last few years that the acceptance rate fell below 30%, and last year was, what, like 18% overall, right? And this is still very high for super elite schools. Again, we can snicker all we want about these mindless kids and their parents, but they are the customers and they vote with their feet. </p>
<p>Just like Penn had to be there for a while before its reputation got solidified, Chicago has to be there as a consistent presence for a few more years shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Stanford and MIT before it comes natural in the mind of these kids and their parents. </p>
<p>Top students here apply to the usual suspects of “near by” top elite schools like Penn, Columbia, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore etc in addition to other Ivy’s and Ivy likes. They will apply to these. When it becomes a flying distance, then they start thinking. Stanford? Yeah, worth it. Northwestern? Ummm… but I heard enough good things about them. Ok. Throw it in. Duke? Cool. I hear that they do very well in NYC…</p>
<p>U Chicago simply does NOT cross this threshold, YET. Have them stand shoulder to shoulder a few years with Stanford and MIT, I think that will do the trick.</p>
<p>PS. Regardless of all these, I can tell you that U Chicago is doing a very poor marketing job in this community. I can tell by the lack of enthusiasm among the guidance counselors. They just go “ughhhhh… dunno” attitude. I bet if you can just change GC’s attitude and up their enthusiasm, it will have an impact.</p>
<p>Ummm . . . The University of Chicago is where Harry met Sally, where Nichols met May, where Leopold met Loeb, where Black met Scholes, where South America met Liberal Economics, and where many women who wished they hadn’t met Tucker Max (an honor shared with Duke, to be sure). It’s where Indiana Jones taught archaeology, where Moses Herzog taught Humanities, where Leo Strauss taught World Domination, and where Barack Obama taught Constitutional Law. </p>
<p>Granted, that’s not Rory Gilmore, or Harold & Kumar, and Chicago doesn’t (unlike Stanford, Georgetown, Duke, and Northwestern) have a constant Division I sports presence. But if you’ve never heard a reference to the University of Chicago, you haven’t been listening.</p>
<p>By the way, I don’t live so far from Northern New Jersey, and the University of Chicago has a perfectly good profile here, honest it does. Not as good as Harvard or Stanford, but fine. Its problem, such as it is, is distance, neighborhood, and no-fun reputation.</p>
<p>I wonder if anybody has done business style marketing analysis on this whole thing. Who are the opinion leaders that influence the application decision? Parents, peers, and guidance counselors??? </p>
<p>For parents, the multi year approach is necessary. It takes a while to build U Chicago’s presence in their mind scape. If you have a 6 grade, and U Chicago image starts really building up, by the time s/he needs to apply, U Chicago will be up there. </p>
<p>Peers - probably much shorter span. U Chicago seems to be on it with large marketing drive with mass mail campaigns and what not.</p>
<p>I think the guidance counselors are a long hanging fruit. Again, I am just guessing. But, it should not be so difficult to have a nice cocktail event at key geographical locations and invite GCs from target communities. I bet it actually costs less than mass mailing and perhaps far more effective.</p>
<p>I emphasize here again. I want U Chicago to keep its character and value - very much. I wouldn’t have it any other way. What I am saying is, it’s vastly under performing its potential as a Life of The Mantra mecca that should attract far more kids of this ilk, and there by creating a more vibrant community.</p>
<p>Other issues (thinking about it some more):</p>
<p>– Lots of students don’t like the idea of the Core.
– Few parents who are alumni, and few of them want to send their kids there. (I know several alumni parents, but zero legacy kids. And Chicago was really at its low point in terms of size and pleasantness during our generation, so the number of alumni is small and the risk that they don’t think fondly of the university is high.)</p>
<p>you raise an interesting point (lack of legacy students). D2 is a full ride freshman at a top 30’ish school private school (small, ~ 1000 students per class). Their acceptance rate is something like mid 20’%. Their yield is well over 40%. I thought that was quite interesting, since their yield was much higher than that of its peer schools. And, location wise, it’s in the middle of nowhere - a small town far from any excitement. </p>
<p>Then, it dawned on me when I went to the parents orientation during the move in day, there was a VERY palpable legacy presence. People were talking about three generation legacies and what not. Plus siblings. School loyalty runs pretty strong in the family. Perhaps that’s part of how they keep their yield so high. Of course, I am just pulling this from my arse, but it sort of jibes in with JHS’s observation on the opposite direction for U Chicago. </p>
<p>The fact that U Chicago has not captured the mind share also shows in its low yield - comparably low for a school of its stature. Of course, the fact that they don’t do ED makes a difference, but I am still left wondering … Georgetown does not do ED, but its yield is still higher than U Chicago’s. </p>
<p>There is no doubt in my mind that U Chicago is seriously under performing when it comes to the brand equity, and there is A LOT of room for upward mobility WITHOUT sacrificing its core educational mission and treasured tradition and values. </p>
<p>I would never advocate U Chicago losing its unique persona to be like HYP. As such, I wouldn’t want Chicago to discard core to be more appealing. I think it can be what it is meant to be, and perhaps ever BETTER, and be considered on par with the likes of MIT, Stanford, Columbia, and Penn with a properly executed “out reach” programs (that sounds more politically correct, doesn’t it?)</p>
<p>It’s kind of misleading to suggest that Chicago has a low yield. Chicago’s yield is low only compared with a tiny handful of colleges – the Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Notre Dame. It is basically the same as Caltech, Duke, Amherst, Swarthmore, Georgetown, and meaningfully higher than Northwestern, Washington University in St. Louis, or Johns Hopkins. If you adjust for the effect of Early Decision, it’s higher than all of the prestigious LACs, and basically the same as that of Cornell, Dartmouth, and Brown.</p>
<p>So, sure, it would be nice to tack on another 10% of yield to get into MIT range. But Chicago’s yield is “low” only in very rarefied company. I agree that Chicago should be challenging itself by that company (but in substance, not in admissions stats). It’s probably going to take another generation, though, to make up for the couple of generations of inattention to nurturing the College that created the gap in the first place.</p>
<p>I’ll also say that perfectly appropriate kids can make rational decisions to go someplace other than Chicago, even if there isn’t anything like a “mindshare” problem. In the past few years, I have seen children of friends – all of whom had applied to and been accepted at Chicago, all of whom knew my kids and multiple other kids they liked there – choose WashU, Tufts, Princeton, Brown, and Carleton over Chicago. It’s not that they disliked Chicago at all – in each of those cases, it turned out to be the second choice. But those other colleges had something to say for themselves as well, and presented their special qualities effectively, too.</p>
<p>The pro arguments are simple. Students want it, it’s an important area of human endeavor, it complements research activities in physical science, biology, math, computer science.</p>
<p>The con argument, though, has so far been devastating. In order to have an accredited engineering program, Chicago would have to abandon the Core as a universal part of its undergraduate experience, and its commitment to the idea that undergraduates should get a thorough grounding in liberal arts and science before specializing. Both of those principles have been fundamental to the identity of the University of Chicago since at least the 1920s, and the people there tend to believe in them. </p>
<p>So notwithstanding the nibbling around the edges of some sort of bioengineering major in the foreseeable future (but not for kids applying now), as far as I can tell a real undergraduate engineering program is not anything the existing generation of Chicago leaders will ever consider seriously. It’s not that they don’t know it would be popular; it’s that they think it’s for institutions other than the University of Chicago to offer. Graduate engineering programs? That’s likely to happen.</p>
<p>JHS, I understand what you are saying in your second paragraph, and that’s why a state-U style or even MIT-style Engineering program would clearly not be a good fit at Chicago. </p>
<p>But other solidly liberal-arts colleges like Princeton (no Business School! no Law School! no Medical School!) and Columbia (the “other” institution with a Core, though Engineering students get an abbreviated version) manage to have respectable Engineering programs. And then there is Swarthmore. Even Smith! Smith! They, too, deeply embrace liberal arts values along with an aversion to vocational training at the undergraduate level. Have they “sold out”, or have they found a way to, if not incorporate Engineering into a liberal arts education, at least make them coexist peacefully?</p>
<p>It is a pet peeve of mine when people narrow-mindedly think that the liberal arts include only humanities, not the sciences, as in “my daughter is a liberal arts type, only likes French and theatre and can’t stand the sciences”. I myself, however, am not sure how Engineering, as an area of human endeavor, can be made to relate to the liberal arts. And I am also trying to figure out exactly by what mechanism some form of Engineering seems quite important to a top-tier institution (other than the empirical observation that, except for Chicago, all other tippy-top institutions have it).</p>
<p>Zimmer has made clear that Chicago will not embrace an undergraduate engineering program other than molecular engineering unless it is important to a basic science. Chicago does not have to be all things to all people to be popular or well known. I would also argue that CalTech is no better known. I was talking to a group of high performing kids not long ago and mentioned the school. Only one had heard of it. More were actually aware of Chicago, though knew relatively little about except that “it was the hardest school in America.” It has that reputation, rightly or wrongly, and is likely the single greatest factor limiting admissions growth. A friends’s D is nearing college age and I asked if his daughter and her friends (all ranked in the top 5 at their schools) were considering Chicago, and he reported all said no, “you have to be too smart and work too hard if you go there.” it was not the prestige, they knew it was ranked high and well respected, it was the perceived work once there that was causing them not to apply. My guess is that many kids use the prestige thing as an excuse so as not to admit the work thing is the real reason for not applying. If they apply and Chicago is the only top 10 they get in… Yikes!</p>
<p>That’s not to say Columbia’s Core, whose curriculum is much more similar to UChicago’s than any of the other schools you mentioned, isn’t compromised in their engineering program. Students there take a less comprehensive version of the Core.</p>
<p>And consider starting your own thread next time. It was irrelevant to the original topic.</p>
<p>In regards to that, whenever people bring up Chicago’s old 50% acceptance I always wonder whether that’s truly as terrible as it’s assumed to be. Do you think that the student body was of a lesser caliber than it is today? And if it wasn’t, then what’s the problem.</p>
<p>(Quality defined less by stats and more by character and mental ability. Since those aren’t quantifiable, I guess we’ll never know.)</p>
<p>I ask whether having some form of Engineering program is necessary for Chicago to establish itself, in the perception of applicants and peers worldwide, as being in the same league as Stanford and Harvard, and if so, by what mechanism that advancement takes place.</p>
<p>This is a more conceptual angle than that taken by some of the postings here (we are talking about Chicago, right?), but falls within the original topic nevertheless.</p>
<p>If I remember correctly, Cue7 mentioned in several posts in the past that yes indeed when the acceptance rate was so high, the overall quality of the student body was actually lower. One faculty we met during a move in day couple of years back mentioned that as the acceptance rate started to go down, and the quality of the students went up, the faculty started to RESPECT the students more and started to engage them more seriously.</p>
<p>I don’t think that there’s any question that when Chicago was admitting 50% of its applicants (more than a decade ago), it was taking more risks with the students it admitted. Or that lots of those risks paid off, but of course some didn’t – that’s the nature of risk.</p>
<p>I don’t have the sense that the teachers ever thought the students were dumb. But it may be easier now for them to assume that all of the students are really smart, as opposed to almost all of them.</p>
If a non-Chicago poster can interject an opinion, I was one of the students who applied to and was admitted to Chicago during that time period. At that time, Chicago was not part of the Common App and refused to notify applicants of their decision by any method other than snail mail, both fairly unique practices among top schools. </p>
<p>Chicago has always been more selective than it seems. The middle 50% range for SAT scores was extremely high (~1350-1500, if I recall correctly). Only about 80% were in the top 10% of their class, but that’s not an abysmal figure. The year I applied, when the admit rate was ~45%, there was an extremely qualified and passionate poster who was rejected by Chicago EA and was somewhat bitter about having to “settle” for Stanford. Though the quality of the classes have very slowly increased, I think the primary difference is that today Chicago turns away many qualified applicants, whereas in the past most qualified applicants were admitted. </p>
<p>The year I applied to college, Duke was ~#5 and Chicago ~#15. I applied to both and wasn’t particularly concerned with the ranking of either. Chicago was my first choice, and many other posters turned down Ivies and other top schools for Chicago. Chicago has long been recognized by employers and graduate/professional programs as an excellent school, and that’s something that will not change on the whims of a ranking. Yes, more students may be familiar with Chicago now - that’s great! My sister received more mail by far from Chicago than any other school a couple of years ago, something that surprised me, since I learned about Chicago independently and had to request mail. At the same time, I am not entirely convinced that moving up in the ranking by a few spots will result in a substantially improved university. I am admittedly not an alum, so I can understand that many would be happy with wider recognition of their degrees. That said, Hopkins has done quite well for itself, despite having a “low” rank, engaging in relatively little marketing, and not being in the vaunted Ivy League.</p>
<p>I think it’s worth noting that Chicago students seemed noticeably happier and more active when I visited for graduate admissions than when I visited in high school. It did seem a little less quirky - though my interaction with undergraduates on the second visit was rather limited - but I’d have to say any changes have definitely been for the better. This includes drastically improved financial aid (a pitiful FA offer was the reason I rejected Chicago in high school, by far my top choice at the time).</p>
<p>
I tend to agree. How difficult is it to get a copy of Fiske or the Insider’s Guide and read about colleges? I’d practically memorized the contents of both by the start of senior year. What about going to an information session? Requesting information? A college should not be blamed because its potential applicant pool is too lazy to do adequate research. In any case, getting a high rank, even consistently, isn’t enough to garner more respect – the absurd amount of bashing poor WUStL receives here is proof enough of that. I wasn’t impressed by Chicago because it did fairly well in US News – I was impressed because of the detailed descriptions of its excellent programs in its viewbook (with reference to the NRC rankings, naturally), the course offerings in the course catalogue they sent me, etc.</p>
<p>I don’t think there’s much to the “But X College would’ve been perfect for students, if only they’d known…” argument, unless it’s a VERY unique school like Deep Springs. Top colleges are extremely diverse places, with all sorts of religions, ethnicities, interests, quirks, hobbies, and approaches to academics. I think it may take a “typical Chicago kid” a little longer to find his/her place at certain schools, but I definitely believe it possible to do so.</p>
<p>I was a TA in the 1980s. The undergrads were very smart and well respected by the grad students and the faculty. All were considered to be the best and brightest the country offered, and if they weren’t when they arrived, they would be when they left. If one was admitted to The University, it was assumed one knew of the rigor and was eager for it. It was a fun place to be for that reason (and there was plenty of other fun as well ).</p>
<p>All this talk of increasing yield, would this work: Have Chicago offer both Early Action and Early Decision to applicants? The ED would increase yield for sure, and still having the EA option would not deter applicants who might not otherwise apply early.</p>
<p>Generally UChicago’s graduation rate has been rising about 1 percentage point every year. Based on the new freshman retention rate (98%) and the increased selectivity, I would expect to see UChicago’s graduation rate rise to 95-98% over the next few years. That would make UChicago comparable with the few other schools that have a 98%+ freshman retention rate. (It only takes one year to determine the freshman retention rate, but graduation rate takes six years so the figure now refers back to classes entering in 2004. Back then UChicago was accepting more than 40% of applications. I’m sure the class entering in 2011 will have a higher graduation rate!) UChicago’s retention rate and graduation rate increased more than any other top school’s over the past 5 years.</p>
).</p>