<p>Chicago has been a (some would argue the) leader in higher education innovation since its founding. (I have always fond it interesting that Chicago invented the “major,” though, I believe it was Columbia that invented the “elective.”) A little marketing will not change what they are looking for in a student or the academic rigor of “The University,” though the course requirements may change as Chicago has been actively experimenting with the Core for over 100 years. Donald Levine (former Dean of the College) has recently published a book, Powers of the Mind outlining what future changes may entail. The first part of the book details the struggle at Chicago, and to some degree elsewhere, to define what an ideal curriculum should be, and what and who should constitute the College. I have no doubt, in the finest Chicago tradition, this will continue to be a hotly debated subject. What has not changed from its inception is its mission of ideas and inquiry, even into its own role and purpose.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, of course – my son is there! They should get 10 extra points just for that.</p>
<p>I also see no inconsistency between Chicago’s new mass marketing strategy and its “life of mind” branding. The school is what it is, and the “life of mind” brand comes pretty close to capturing it. For years they were content to let that word creep out slowly to the handful who cared to search it out. Now they’re spreading the word more broadly and drawing more applicants. But they can continue to select for the type of student they want; indeed, their ability to select for the traits they seek is only enhanced by having a larger applicant pool. Not a thing wrong with that, and certainly no inconsistency.</p>
<p>I say this, by the way, as someone who has no affiliation with the University of Chicago of any kind, except that I once applied to a graduate program there and was accepted but in the end opted for the program at another institution which was a marginally better fit or me. But I’ve long admired Chicago from a distance, regarding it as one of the very best schools in the nation and quite possibly the most underappreciated. I’m glad to see that public perception is now changing to catch up to the reality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There ain’t much room at the top. For UoC to ascend, some other college would have to descend! Currently tied with Columbia at #8, Penn seems like the only possibility to be passed, but Penn has leveraged ED to a new (admissions) art form.</p>
<p>btw: am I the only reader who found it interesting that the two schools you mentioned – Duke and USC – both have big time, D1 sports? And, fwiw, 'SC helped its rankings climb by throwing money at high test scorers. WashU has done the same. But, UofC (at least under O’Neill) places less weight on tests.</p>
<p>They are building (new dorm, Art Center, Mansueto Library Annex), they are hiring (100 new teachers), they have redoubled their marketing (54% more EA applications, 42% more ED applications), somebody donates $100 million one year and somebody else donates $300 million 2 years later: With one of the top Schools of Economics in the world do you think they know a thing or two we don’t know? Is their $6 billion endowment on better footing than most other institutions’ savings and investments? Have they found it fit to pull clout?</p>
<p>Both of you are right. There isn’t a whole lot of room at the top, and it’s hard to see Chicago whizzing past Princeton or Stanford any time soon. On the other hand, Chicago’s endowment is in better shape than Brown’s, or Penn’s, or Columbia’s, and it’s far from obvious that any of those truly excellent universities provides a better undergraduate experience than Chicago. So – and forget USNWR – why shouldn’t Chicago want the general public to be aware of it and to perceive it as at least the equal, and arguably the superior, of those colleges?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem with Chicago is that in spite of a spot in top 10 USNWR ranking, it has not gotten the equivalent mind shame among students and parents. So, even if it does not rise any higher on the rankings, if it just gets the “EQUIVALENT” recognition that it deserves, that’s a “remarkable ascension” in and of itself. Currently, it does not even get the same recognition as those schools below its rank like lower Ivies and such. OK. Ranking is not everything, but since the post above referred to the USNWR ranking, I am just using it as a reference point.</p>
<p>Every once in a while, we hear/read pleas from students who beg for ideas to convince their parents to let them apply to Chicago, because their parents tell them “we won’t waste money for you to apply to that no-name school” which should be no better than Univ of “the local state”. </p>
<p>I personally had to intervene on behalf of a student who was admitted this year during EA, and is intent on attending Chicago comes fall. The student was attending high school in USA. His wealthy parents overseas think Chicago is not good enough for their outstanding son, and told him they won’t let him be wasted in a no name school. I talked to his father for an hour, and all is well.</p>
<p>The marketing drive is necessary. Simple as that. </p>
<p>By the way, I don’t see any reason why Chicago can’t emerge in time to be liberal art equivalent of MIT. It has all the basic ingredients. Its lacking mind share, and U Chicago now seems to working on it. Yes, I do see Chicago moving up even on the rankings although it is already at a pretty high place.</p>
<p>^It shouldn’t have been #8 last year. It’s possible the inflated range (and hence the ranking) is one of the (many) factors contributing to its admission surge. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>SAT range reported to USN and collegeboard.com:
1370 - 1560 (higher than everyone except HYP/CalTech)</p>
<p>SAT range according to University website:
1340 - 1510</p>
<p>Actually, Sam Lee, it was #8 the year before without the inflated range, and by the “Selectivity Rankings”, it doesn’t appear that this was the data point USNWR used to calculate the rankings (it’s still tied with Northwestern in the Selectivity Rankings, of which I’m sure you took note). It was just a typo after the rankings had already been calculated. If this were the number that had actually been used, Chicago would have probably jumped into the top 4.</p>
<p>But frankly, no one knows what’s up with that number anyway, and the same number is reported by College Board, so no one actually knows which number is correct.</p>
<p>However, the inflated SAT range had nothing to do with the USNWR ranking, or else we would’ve seen the boost before. Remember, Chicago has been in the top 10 for 4 straight years now. It had to do mainly with 1) the move to the Common App and 2) increased and smarter marketing by Nondorf, the new admissions head. There were a variety of other factors, but I think these 2 were the most influential.</p>
<p>Actually the fact that it’s tied with Northwestern in selectivity ranking means the range was indeed used in the calculation, as expected. Northwestern got slightly lower range (should have been higher) but slightly lower admit rate. That’s why they are tied in the selectivity ranking (% of HS in the top-tenth is about the same for both). </p>
<p>It’s not just where it’s placed; that range makes Chicago student body look “smarter” than everyone other than HYP and that could make quite an impression to HS students.</p>
<p>Well, SAT range is valued much higher (50%) than admit rate (10%) in terms of selectivity, so I still don’t think it makes much sense. Chicago also had a slightly higher ‘top 10%’ percentage last year, which makes up 40% of the selectivity ranking.</p>
<p>Personally, I don’t think the USNWR affects high school students that much, especially the SAT range. You can’t even see the SAT range on the online version unless you buy the premium package. I think it probably figures into parents encouraging their kids to apply to places, but even then only minimally. Three years ago, Chicago got about 10k apps, and it was ranked #9. This year, it got >19k apps and it’s ranked #8. I honestly think that it took a lot of high-quality marketing to produce that result (not just by Nondorf, but by his predecessor, O’Neill).</p>
<p>^that’s why i said it’s one of the <em>many</em> factors. 
i don’t like the misstatement but don’t get me wrong, i think it’s kinda cool more schools outside the NE are gaining ground and becoming more popular than ever</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very little in your post makes much sense to me. With its lofty PA rating, Chicago is already known for its academic prowess, by those in that world (and by employers). Without a football team, Chicago will never surpass Northwestern for top of mind “recognition”. (WashU has the same problem.) But as important, without D1 sports, Chicago (and WashU and Emory and…) will never receive much interest from kids who want to spend Saturday afternoons at the stadium. Thus, Stanford and Duke wins those applicants easily. The vast majority of kids attend college close to home, so a four hour drive on the east coast covers a certain athletic league, as well as several LACs. Like real estate, college is location, location, location. </p>
<p>Liberal arts are not coveted, science is (particularly with internationals). Unless Chicago wants to become a LAC, it just doesn’t make sense to think of it as a the “liberal arts equivalent” of MIT. </p>
<p>IMO, for Chicago to make any further upward move on the student and parent horizon scale, it’ll have to dump big money into merit scholarships. It worked for 'SC, it worked for WashU, it worked for Emory, it worked for… Adding a guarantee to med school admission (7/8 year program), would yield instant recognition, particularly with internationals…</p>
<p>I doubt Chicago will put any more into merit scholarships. Any money to support students will go to improving FA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>you are overrating the importance of football and such. Not everybody equates meaningful college experience with football spectacles. There are ENOUGH students and their parents who couldn’t care less about football and such and care much more about academics and related stuff. Currently, U Chicago is not capturing attention of enough of these folks and the current marketing blitz hopefully addresses this problem. If U Chicago succeeds in gaining the mind share of the potential chicago types commensurate with its rankings and academic prestige, that’s good enough to raise its profile tremendously. It won’t have to attract the football type to emerge as a pristine academic jewel it truly is. In fact, personally, I would have tried to steer my son clear away from any university where the football coaches make more money than the president. No judgment. Just personal preference. </p>
<p>In my S1’s magnet school, there was NO sports team (too small a school to form any team). None of my son’s friends (who all ended up at top 10 schools) cared a bit about athletics teams and such when they were choosing where to apply to. They would have been perfect U Chicago candidates. Yet, none of them applied to Chicago other than my son. It was simply not on their radar screen. If U Chicago captures through these new marketing initiatives these kids’ attention, that’s good enough. </p>
<p>By the way, over the winter break, I overheard one of my son’s friends who is attending a top 10 school with big time D1 sports teams complaining that he is already sick and tired of the school atmosphere dominated by the athletic events. He is having a hard time finding a group of kids with whom he could have a thoughtful discussion on economics, history, and politics. He would have been a perfect Chicago type, but he did not apply to Chicago. I am sure at that school, there must be other students who are into thought discussions also. Just matter of which group is default and which group is an exception. At Chicago, it appears my son is encountering the “discussion type” as a default. That’s the difference between the two schools. Again, no judgment. Just tastes and preference. </p>
<p>Note that CalTech is very much on the radar screen of a lot of really brainy tech/engineering types. CalTech is not exactly known for its athletic prowess either. U Chicago is no different in its own domain (liberal arts) from CalTech in its speciality. There is no reason why Chicago can’t emerge as the liberal arts version of MIT with world renowned departments of economics, sociology, math etc.</p>
<p>^ problem is, bluebayou, that there are a bunch of Ivies that, while very good schools, are not demonstrably better than Chicago, and many knowledgeable people would argue are not as good. Yet they routinely draw many more applicants than Chicago. Why? Well, it’s the cachet of the Ivy League—a SPORTS conference, for Pete’s sake. In short, they’re drawing on their institutional ties to HYP. Not to say that these aren’t great schools. But if they can mass market themselves through their Ivy League status, I see absolutely nothing wrong with Chicago marketing itself just as broadly on the basis of pure academics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Umm, yeah there is ONE good reason…that’s what LACs are for. But there happens to be about ~20 or so other great reasons: Unis from Cambridge to Durham, to Berkeley to Palo Alto also have world-renowned departments in those subjects. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not really. For some kids, sports are important. For those kids, Chicago is wasting its marketing money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What does that mean? How does Chicago measure it? (Based on applications from your son’s high school?) And, don’t forget that the “mindshare” of the non-HYP Ivies is nto great outside of the NE. Isn’t Penn the college where JoPa coaches? :D</p>
<p>btw: it’s Caltech (with a lower case t).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps not, but it will have to spend a LOT on need-based aid to attract enough high scoring kids to make a move in the rankings. For example, Vandy’s applications (and test scores) jumped quite a bit this past year when they went no-loan. Of course, no-loans for everyone may be more expensive than offering NMSF discounts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would argue location, location, location. The Ivies happen to exist in states with low ranked publics. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see a problem with marketing, either. The members of Chicago’s own sports league market heavily. But marketing won’t move the rankings, IMO. Big money thrown at students’ families can and will, however.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Chicago is not competing with LACs. Using the lack of engineering school as a basis to equate U Chicago to a LAC is very simplistic. </p>
<p>U Chicago is a very different institution than a typical top LAC. For one thing, it has top rated graduate and professional schools (law, medicine, business) where S can take courses if he wanted to. He has access to the departments known throughout the world as top research power houses in their field. Just the fact that there are 10,000 graduate students for 5000 undergrads makes Chicago a very different place from the LACs: it creates a different atmosphere and attracts different faculty members.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I can easily see why some students will definitely prefer Amherst, Swarthmore, and Williams over Chicago, and they would be perfectly right in doing so. Again, each to his own. Chicago is not for everyone, just like CalTech or MIT is not for everyone. </p>
<p>Chicago is simply trying to cast their net wide so that they have a better chance of catching “their types” that up to now they missed out on. AND, i think they are doing the right thing. I don’t believe they have any ambition to compete with other schools on account of D1 sports and other such things or woo the students who just simply couldn’t live without exciting sport scenes as part of their college experience. At least, I hope they don’t.</p>
<p>Why don’t Chicago offer undergraduate business, I think this will open another avenue to attract more pre-professional student. The combination of an undergraduate finance and economic major are very compelling, no? I also think Chicago should have a specialize computer science and engineering school. This is what MIT has done on a reverse way. MIT was known for science and engineering but they are also now known for their humanities as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not sure I ever mentioned posted ANYthing about engineering. My point was that LACs by their very name, specialize in liberal arts, and that is what you claim Chicago should be: the MIT of liberal arts. But how can the become the MIT of liberal arts when a whole class of colleges already specialize in liberal arts? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unless Chicago recently changed its policies, it requires special permission for an undergrad to take courses at a Grad B school. But more importantly, why would your S want to take classes at a professional school? (I thought your interest was in Chicago becoming the MIT of liberal arts – which, by definition, precludes professional schools…</p>
<p>btw: Swat has an engineering program.</p>