<p>Well played!</p>
<p>I was looking at USNWR rating methodology: Chicago with a rank of 8 had an overall score of 91 (shared with Columbia). Stanford, MIT, Caltech and Penn, had rank of 4 with a score of 93. Hence difference is just about 2 in the overall score.</p>
<p>As per criteria, student selectivity accounts for 15% of the total score, of which 10% is the acceptance rate (50% is for SAT/ACT range, 40% for the number of students in the top 10% of the HS class). So the acceptance ratio (27% for Chicago last year) accounts for only about 10% of 15% or 1.5% overall. Hence reducing acceptance rate from say 27% to even 20% is not going to improve the overall score significantly from the 91. It may move it at the best to 92. </p>
<p>Again, there are confounding factors (more applicants better pool and slightly better SAT/ACT range) and other dynamics that would affect the score. A lower acceptance rate has a psychological and marketing significance etc. Next year other schools may slip on some criteria and 92 may equal a 4th place position instead of 8th place position. </p>
<p>So it looks like to me that the everyone is trying to play at the margins as the actual numerical impact of lower acceptance rates may not be significant.</p>
<p>I am wondering how many of the increase in applicants at any of these schools is the result of people adding more “high reaches;” and accordingly, that the actual competitive pool may not be changing much at all. One school, USC, publishes the numbers of their applicant, their admitted, and their attending freshman students (it would be good if all would do this). </p>
<p>Applicants: GPA 3.5 SAT 1710 - 2070
Admitted: GPA 3.8 SAT 1990 - 2210
Attend: GPA 3.7 SAT 1930 - 2150</p>
<p>For a student in the admitted students range, the real admission rate is much higher than the published 24% admissions rate.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.usc.edu/admission/undergraduate/private/0910/FreshmanProfile2009.pdf[/url]”>http://www.usc.edu/admission/undergraduate/private/0910/FreshmanProfile2009.pdf</a></p>
<p>Isn’t that true of most schools? What percentage of applications to places like H, Y, and P are from kids who have a zero (or minimal) chance of getting in?</p>
<p>One would guess it would be, which is why it is difficult to conclude the schools are really getting more selective year-to-year for the pool of students who really have a shot.</p>
<p>Like Neonzues, I know at my home and some others I talked too, Univ. of Chicago sent what seemed like hundreds of emails and snailmail invitations to apply. I’m sure, whether some students were really competitive, they gave in and applied and that will up their number of applications.
My daughter also showed no interest in Univ. of Chicago and never replied to any of the invites or last minute emails.</p>
<p>Perhaps this NYT article about a new book by Mr. Jonathan Cole, “a prominent sociologist and Columbia’s former longtime provost and dean of faculties,” will spur even more interest:
[Chicago</a> News Cooperative - University of Chicago, a Bright Spot for the City - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/us/10cncwarren.html]Chicago”>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/us/10cncwarren.html)</p>
<p>I doubt that many students “gave in and applied”. My kid wasn’t going to fill in ANY extra applications! My kids both got tons of stuff from West Point, but neither decided they might as well apply. :)</p>
<p>How does Chicago reconcile mass marketing with its exclusive “life of the mind” branding? It seems to me they can’t. And how can they any longer claim with a straight face that the essays mean more to them than SAT scores? And when/if yield remains the same, how will they still be able to proclaim they are “self-selective?”</p>
<p>It seems quite possible to me that the whole thing might just blow up in their faces, if not make them a laughingstock.</p>
<p>Mummom- I don’t see the inconsistency between their marketing approach and their branding. I doubt it’s going to blow up in their face. What would that be? Every applicant in the world suddenly boycotts the place? Don’t hold your breath, even though that seems to be what you would like to see. God knows why.</p>
<p>^^Can I ever make a post without you personally addressing my motives? Please…just once? Thanks! I already knew what your answer was going to be, I was honestly looking for some other opinions on my thoughts. I sincerely don’t understand why some posters have to constantly justify their interest in the subject to you, and others don’t!</p>
<p>and i was going to apply to Chicago!!! Glad I didn’t now</p>
<p>Well, I’m sure you will get them, but I will also express my opinion which happens to not agree with yours. Sorry about that.</p>
<p>As long as you make an effort to stop questioning my personal motives, no problem, MOWC! I don’t understand why one should have to justify an interest in any subject here to anyone–or why you seem to feel you can demand it.</p>
<p>I don’t think Chicago describes itself as “self-selective” anymore; that was the explanation, back in the days of 40+% acceptance rates, as to why those acceptance rates didn’t signify that the school was easy to get into, or that its applicants weren’t highly qualified. It doesn’t necessarily apply anymore, and hasn’t in the last three years since the admissions rate fell below 30% and the selectivity is now exercised not only by the applicants, but by the admissions office.</p>
<p>The idea that this is all going to blow up in Chicago’s face and/or make it a laughingstock is far-fetched, to put it mildly. I’m not saying I know that this <em>is</em> the motive, but it certainly sounds like wishful thinking.</p>
<p>And, assuming that some reasonable percentage of the 42% additional applicants have roughly similar SAT scores to those who applied in previous years – meaning that there are <em>more</em> high-scoring applicants, not fewer – it makes no sense to argue that the school will no longer be able to say that the essays are of major importance in making admissions decisions.</p>
<p>Mummom, you’re under no obligation to explain your motives. But your persistent hostility towards a school with which you have no known connection certainly opens the door wide for people to wonder about the origin of that hostility.</p>
<p>You may choose to label my questioning as “hostility,” DonnaL, but I don’t see it that way. Btw, “questioning a poster’s motives, intelligence or other personal characteristics” is against the TOS.</p>
<p>Well, I will take your word for it that it isn’t hostility. Do I have your permission to ask you what it is?</p>
<p>Well to do that I’d have to agree that I have a “motive” of any sort, which I don’t. I simply find the Chicago conversations interesting for some reason. There are other schools I might take a similar interest in (Rochester and Hopkins, for example) but nobody starts threads about them!</p>
<p>I believe there is no inconsistency between Chicago’s ability to claim to be a place for the life of the mind and their hyperactive marketing drive.</p>
<p>Chicago’s problem has NOT been that there are not enough life of the mind type candidates in USA and the world who would fit well and thrive there. Their problem has been that its relative lack of name recognition in the wider cycle of potential target student population resulted in a situation where potentially perfect Chicago type students did not apply.</p>
<p>For instance, in S1’s high school friends in a top magnet school where 30-40% of the kids end up going to the top 10-15 schools, many would be perfect U Chicago candidates. Yet, he was only one of the two applied, while many applied to all the Ivies and Duke almost automatically. Chicago was simply not on their radar screen.</p>
<p>What Chicago has been doing is to address this problem. The marketing blitz is raising the awareness among the potential candidates.</p>
<p>So, let’s say, out of the 6000 more students who applied this year as opposed to last year, 4000 are non-chicago types who just got swayed by the marketing blitz. Still, if that netted additional 2000 Chicago type students, that’s a huge gain. Now, U Chicago has 2000 more “ELIGIBLE” students to choose from, and will end up with an overall more competitive and stronger student body. </p>
<p>The claim that this will blow up in their face and U Chicago will become a laughing stock is preposterous. U Chicago is not some kind of a flight by the night snake oil salesman. It’s an institution with tremendous heft where it matters and which is most difficult to duplicate (e.g., academic strength, faculty quality, world renowned research track record). If anything, they have been tremendously undersold and under marketed. </p>
<p>In this case, the quality of the marketing and sales tactic is finally catching up with the quality of the product. This is NOT the case that overdone and unethical marketing scheme is covering up shoddy product, running the risk of having it blowing up on its face when the marketing cover is blown and the shoddy product is revealed to all.</p>
<p>I believe Chicago’s ascension is going to accelerate. They have the assets that are hardest to replicate (described above) already down to pat. On the other hand, look at USC’s case. It’s also gaining momentum, but it took them a full generation to do so since they really needed to build up their academic strength. Just putting together a top faculty roster is a long term project. In Chicago’s case, what they need to do is to market and position itself better. This is a much easier problem to solve, and looks like they are on it now.</p>
<p>Chicago is a sleeping giant and it has awaken and you can hear the rumbling at a distance. Chicago has always been well known, not only in the US but in the world, but only on the upper echelon of academia. I am glad they now want to claim their rightful spot and deservly so. A new world order is in the works.</p>