U. of Chicago: Is University Strength Declining?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
421

I wouldn’t rule out “social engineering” on the part of UChicago in this new admissions plan. They are as eager as anyone else to get demographic, income, sexual, and unique talent diversity. It’s quite possible that this new plan will result in MORE rather than LESS diversity, because the AO now knows which accepted kids need the heavy recruitment and incentive to come to UChicago and can target/throw resources that way more effectively. There is a lot of good in revealing just how much to wish to come to the school, if the school thinks that is a #1 factor in whether you should be admitted.

Rest assured that if every hooked candidate happened to have applied ED, the number of EA accepts would likely have been “0”. Colleges love to publish the percentage of low income/first generation/URM/special talent enrollees. They also would have bragged that they were able to achieve this exclusively with the ED pool.

The biggest complaint that everyone has about ED is that it tends to “discriminate” against low or middle income families due to perceived lack of decent aid. However, if UChicago has increased its need-based aid to generous levels (which it claims to have done and, at least in our case, surpassed expectations), then where is the “discrimination”? At some level, finances simply aren’t the primary decider, even for those with modest budgets. And admissions at this level are becoming harder for everyone, not just the rich.

One final thought: I have a young relative who announced a public intent to commit to a HYP athletic program in SOPHOMORE YEAR OF HIGH SCHOOL - 18 months before a likely letter could be expected. That’s the way it’s done in this particular sport. There was a press release etc. A very big deal. Thing is - it’s a very one-sided process. The athlete publicly “commits” but the school is effectively noncommittal till fall of senior year. The family is aware of at least two others who found that the school in question didn’t need them after all (despite private assurances on the part of the coach). One landed at a lower Ivy, one did not (and missed out on other programs offering serious merit aid for athletes). Please tell me, all of you who claim that ED robs young people of choice, how you would view this situation. And it’s best not to assume that all three families have/had scads of money to be able to shoot for Ivy’s under these circumstances. A) that’s not true and B) what does wealth matter when the school that’s been stringing you along and requires a public intent to commit drops you like a hot potato (after 95% of team selections nationwide have already taken place).

422

@DeepBlue86 I hope you find some cute puppies to cuddle in your safe space. Stop ascribing motives to people you don’t know. It s quite offensive and not conducive to a rational discussion

423

LOLS… Funny to hear posters complaining about U of Chicago when HYP are the biggest abusers of EA… .all admit over half their class SCEA to boost their yield!!

424

If you don’t think Chicago is risk-averse (read: playing to their institutional self-interest at the risk of bolder moves - like what Amherst and Vassar are doing in the economic diversity space), read this:

https://www.chicagomaroon.com/2006/08/18/how-uchicago-went-from-15th-to-9th-in-one-year/

You’ll find examples in there, @marlowe1 - high-ranking Chicago officials literally met with US News reps to discuss how to improve Chicago’s ranking. Soon after that, they started doing this like capping classes at 19 rather than 20 (to have less classes that were 20+ students).

This isn’t maverick behavior - it’s extreme self-interest.

A maverick means a rebel, a cowboy, a free spirit (per meriam webster) - Chicago is exhibiting none of these characteristics here.

Also @sbballer - why does HYP only accept 50% of their class SCEA? That makes no sense - wouldn’t they be better served taking 70% at least? That’s what Chicago took thru early decision this year. 50% is for losers - go hard with 70% - amirite?? It’s like hyp isn’t even trying to win like uchicago!

425

HYP have long been outliers in admitting such a large percentage SCEA to game yield.

now Chicago is one upping them and everyone goes bonkers. anyone surprised? I’m not.

426

Aren’t you surprised that hyp hasn’t responded yet? It’s like they don’t even look at Chicago as a competitor. If no other school responds, maybe it’s because they’re not even on the same playing field!

427

I have a feeling Chicago is going to be a much bigger competitor for top students then you realize. very data driven marketing… and I’m sure their admissions is too. I give Chicago props.

428

The true test, @sbballer will be what other schools change their policies, no? That’s the big litmus test.





If no other schools change, that means Chicago isn’t making much of a dent, and isn’t that big a threat.





Wouldn’t the best result be for other schools to get more applicant unfriendly? That would show that Chicago is threatening the big fish!





If other schools don’t change, then it just looks kind of desperate. Hehe it’s trying so hard and no one cares…

429

U of Chicago is a school on the rise… The admissions office has a sophisticated big data team that drives their marketing process and I strongly suspect their admissions process too. The world is getting more competitive and the days of the HYP as the only game in town are long gone. Stanford has eclipsed these schools in admission rates and selectivity the past 5 years (although I suspect H yield is higher this year. - Stanford only admits 35% SCEA whereas H admits > 50% SCEA so they are going to get an artificial yield boost from admitting such a large percentage SCEA… . Stanford stopped reporting these numbers for some odd reason).

U of Chicago is using its big data advantage to strengthen its position and is embracing change. I think it would be a big mistake to underestimate U of Chicago. they are a very viable threat…and we will start seeing the fruits of their big data advantage in the next several years… . and I’m sure not too long ago the ivies were scoffing at Stanford. big mistake.

430

The top ivies weren’t scoffing at Stanford @sbballer - they were helpless as Stanford benefited from being next to one of the biggest concentrated wealth booms in recent human history… As silicon valley rose in the early 00s, Stanford was at the epicenter. Not much anyone but maybe Harvard could do…

431

Stanford created Silicon Valley… no Stanford no Silicon Valley and yes that helped immensely… fund raising… industry partnerships… patents etc.

432

look… U of Chicago is scrappy… pushing the envelope. it would be a mistake to underestimate them. to ignore their big data operation is a huge mistake imo. I think we’ll start seeing the effects of U of Chicago on the admission process at other schools including SHYP in the next couple of years.

433

@sbballer: Nonsense. Silicon Valley was created by Fairchild, and all those guys came from the East Coast.



In any case, I see a bunch of people here focusing on the very short-term; recent admit rates and rankings and stuff like that. I look at endowment growth. HYPS(M) are in a league of their own (though even there, it’s astounding how much difference there is in different endowment growth over the past decade), but look at the next level down. See what schools have grown their endowment more and who less. More gunpowder means you can do more.

434

Stanford’s rise preceded Silicon Valley. Fact is, the school had been steadily increasing in reputation and prestige for a couple decades prior to really taking off. Wouldn’t say one created the other - both have benefited from the presence of the other.

@Cue7 the definition of “Maverick” (n) is “an unorthodox or independent-minded person.” (also, "unbranded calf "but we won’t worry about that one. . ). As an adjective, “unorthodox”. Don’t think either is inconsistent with the approach that UChicago has taken regarding increasing selectivity. And, by the way, ALL colleges act in their own self-interest. Don’t confuse “self-interest” with “risk-averse”. The latter means unwilling to take any action to cause an uncertain outcome. Don’t think anyone can really accuse UChicago of such hesitation.

435

nonsense… Stanford created Silicon Valley… Frederick Terman “the father of silicon valley” Stanford professor was a driving force in creating the Stanford industrial park in 1951 that comprises 800 acres on the Stanford campus that currently houses Tesla headquarters… along with over 150 companies and over 23,000 employees.

Sand Hill Road, the wall street of VC is located on the north side of Stanford campus… as I said… no Stanford no Silicon Valley.

U of Chicago has already seen a marked improvement in SATS… and I wouldn’t be surprised to see a halo effect on other aspects of the school including fund raising.

btw… Y and P have had outstanding endowment performance… but their fund raising has been relatively poor.

436

@sbballer: From 2007-2016, only 5 privates grew their endowment by more than $3B: Stanford, Princeton, MIT, UPenn, and Northwestern.



Frankly, Stanford and Princeton should be expected to do so considering that they both started with more than $15B (MIT started with about $10B; UPenn and NU started with around $6.5B). That Harvard and Yale did not join that group despite starting with almost $35B and 22.5B, respectively, shows how badly they have performed. In fact, considering that Harvard’s endowment actually shrunk over that period, their performance is shockingly awful.

437

No doubt stuff like good fit and success upon graduation are highly correlated with alumni gifting down the road. One of the many reasons UChicago is focusing on yield.

Zimmer has been an outstanding fundraiser for the university (relatively speaking, that is). That’s a big reason why his contract was just renewed for another 5 years.

438

I think Yale has the best performance over the past 2 decades… it is the benchmark in terms of risk adjusted returns.

Stanford’s growth is actually worse when you consider Stanford has been the top fund raising school the past 10 of 12 years… so while they gain in fund raising… they lose with their investments. while Princeton which has not been doing nearly as well fund raising but has done a terrific job with endowment performance. and Harvard had some outstanding performance… eye popping returns in the early 2000s I believe… but they fired their managers because they got paid too much… if you can believe that.

in any event… money counts I agree… let’s see if U of Chicago can improve its fund raising in addition to its selectivity and rankings.

439

@Cue7 Re your post 422. The Maroon article from 11 years ago reports that the University finally woke up to the fact that the rankings exist and that Chicago was not doing well in them. There was a simple fix for this: correctly report the relevant data. Someone finally started paying attention to doing that. Admittedly, such attention doesn’t constitute obliviousness of the rankings (as the prior practice certainly did) but it hardly qualifies as obsessiveness about them or justifies your ascribing their every move to that motivation, or, in the case we have been discussing, the move to ED. The article is about reporting, not policy.

Inasmuch as you are suddenly on this pretend kick of ridiculing the University for not being maverick enough for your taste, you must have wanted the previous negligent reporting to have continued. But of course you don’t want that at all. You just want another polemical stick with which to beat your old alma mater. If Chicago has risen in the rankings - indeed, if there have been any improvements at all in the place - it can only ever in your mind have come about through scheming. That’s not quite fair, I admit. I am being polemical.

440

@marlowe1 - as discussed earlier, to have Chicago education and Harvard brand (my goal) requires vacillation and ambivalence. I show that on this board. This being said, I’m happy with chicagos high ranking and (generally, until this year) good selectivity.

I’m not happy with how this has been characterized on this board. At best, chicagos decisions have been pragmatic and cynical. @JBStillFlying said Chicago has stayed true to its maverick spirit (marlowe1 you said this too I think) but this couldn’t be farther from the truth.

Jbstillflying notes that a maverick is a free spirit, an independent minded person. Chicagos recent actions are the epitome of group think - NOT independent thought - lets engage in the beauty pageant of the rankings, increase our selectivity optics, and add more of a pre professional element to the school. It shows a school that pays careful attention to which way the wind is blowing,

Being a maverick in this climate would look like this: we’re not going to pay attention to arbitrary rankings, and we’re going to focus on offering the very best liberal arts education, even while clamoring for practical, pre professional education has increased. We do this because we believe in the constancy of our approach, and will not sway to capricious metrics like rankings.

Instead, here’s what they did - they dove into the optics of admissions (they inflate their numbers), scrutinized the rankings, established more linkages with professional schools/industries, etc.

@marlowe1 - as the article I posted to mentions, Chicago also did NOT divulge what other areas it modulated to improve in the rankings - read the last bit. This happened at the start of the zimmer presidency - what do you think has happened to the focus on the rankings since Chicago made those public (and some secret) changes?

Finally, how maverick-like can a school be when 40% of the class goes to finance/consulting, the top employers are Goldman and jp Morgan, and the school proudly trumpets this fact? I mean really?

(note, I like all these changes - it makes us look more like Harvard, remember? I just don’t like when they are characterized as the moves of a free spirit.)

Oh and also, this is all going to come down to the green. I’d be much happier if Chicago was #11 in the rankings but had $12 billion in the bank, and was closing a $7B capital campaign… Rankings can be manipulated, financial wealth cannot. The fact this has been raised so late in this thread is a testament to the wool Chicago is able to pull over its promoters eyes.