<p>Beginning with the incoming Class of 2019, we are pleased to announce a new approach to student financial aid and support. Features of this program include:</p>
<p>No application fee for any college applicant applying for need-based aid
No loans included in student financial aid packages
Easier aid application relying mainly on FAFSA-- CSS Profile no longer required
Additional support for low-income students through an expanded Odyssey Scholarship program</p>
<p>For more information, please see here: </p>
<p>nobarriers.uchicago.edu</p>
<p><a href="http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2014/10/01/college-launches-pioneering-commitment-end-student-loans-support-student-success">http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2014/10/01/college-launches-pioneering-commitment-end-student-loans-support-student-success</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/01/education/university-of-chicago-acts-to-improve-access-for-lower-income-students-.html?_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/01/education/university-of-chicago-acts-to-improve-access-for-lower-income-students-.html?_r=0</a></p>
<p>This is pretty dramatic. No application fee for anyone applying for need based aid? That’s about 60 - 70% of applicants. No loans. Help in pulling together all the confusing requirements. This an aggressive initiative by the University in my opinion.</p>
<p>I have read the new initiative and think it should have positive impact on the potential students, applicants and the college itself.</p>
<p>The non-loan financial commit is finally closing the gap between Chicago’s financial aid and others’, say Princeton, which is the first to do it. That definitely will boost the yield rate. Of course it will benefit the eventual students greatly.</p>
<p>The increase of National Merit Scholar awards from $2,000 to $4,000 per year for four years is specifically good for those who do not qualify need-based financial aid.I think Chicago should further enhance the merit-based scholarships if possible. It is one of top schools which still offer merit-based scholarships.</p>
<p>Interestingly it has some vague criterion regarding application fee. Dose it mean that anyone who applies (claims) to need-based financial aid does not have to pay the application fee?</p>
<p>I would think the new initiative will increase the intrinsic value of the college from the applicant’s point of view and really benefits the students themselves.</p>
<p>This is awesome news. No doubt I’ll be increasing my annual donation accordingly. Undergrad financial aid is one thing that Chicago had considerably lagged behind its peers on up to a few years ago. That it now has one of the most progressive financial aid policies in the country is greatly impressive, and indicates just how far the University has come in the Zimmer/Nondorf era.</p>
<p>Wow… just Wow</p>
<p>Anyone care to comment how this will impact on US News Ranking?
Admission Rate?
Yield Rate?</p>
<p>Ranking - very little if at all. Any effect will be slight positive.
Admission Rate - possible slight positive or cause the current rate, which is very low already, to be constant.
Yield Rate - possible slight improvement or hold the line. The yield rate is already very, very high for schools outside of HYPSM.</p>
<p>I think people who are forecasting bigger improvements in yield and lowering of acceptance rate (By the way, I view low acceptance rate as a mixed thing: it’s nice that a lot of people want to go to your school, but it seems somehow bad that 90%+ are being rejected.) ignore the burst balloon effect that we started to see last year in applications. That’s why I don’t see a sharp increase in app’s, only a maintenace of 2014 levels. Also, other schools will be quick to emulate or surpass what UChicago has done, although I must say that the timing of their announcement is very good because it will have a salubrious effect on 2015 for UChicago but others will not be able to implement their own programs in time for the 2015 admissions cycle.</p>
<p>my daughter is in Class of 2018 and she has the national merit scholar award. Does the increase of the scholarship apply to her?</p>
<p>kaukauna: I think you’re missing the point with your statement that Chicago’s stats are “already high for non-HYPSM schools”.</p>
<p>As Zimmer stated when he became president, the University is no longer content with being the best school in the Midwest. It should be our goal to be the best university in the world. Yes, that means surpassing Harvard, et al.</p>
<p>Chicago already has higher SATs than each of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and MIT. And despite statistically-inept comments to the contrary, recent data indicate that Chicago is winning a good portion (40% or higher) of its cross-admits against HYPSM.</p>
<p>Just as Chicago’s SATs have risen to a point higher than Harvard’s, there’s no reason why Chicago shouldn’t be able to be increase its desirability beyond Harvard’s. Unfortunately, there’s still this mentality among Chicago undergraduates that Chicago isn’t in the same league as HYPSM, despite its higher SATs, higher rankings, more Rhodes/Fulbright scholars, and more Nobel laureates than most of those universities. Admittedly, a lot of this comes from the upperclassmen (who were admitted in less selective years), who in turn gained their pessimism from their upperclassmen when they were first-years.</p>
<p>What Chicago is doing now in the admissions landscape is completely unique and unprecedented. The administration under Zimmer is undoubtedly more talented and capable than that of any of the Ivies. Why Chicago wouldn’t be able to boost its yield to (and beyond) the level of HYPSM just because “it’s already very high for a non-HYPSM school” is horribly defeatist and contrary to the goals of the University.</p>
<p>Phuriku: You think rankings will go way up, yield will go way up, and the admit rate will go down, at least more than I do. I guess we’ll see. We can disagree on that.</p>
<p>Some of your statements are a little fantastic and / or unsupported by facts, though.
Examples:
“There’s no reason why UChicago shouldn’t be able to increase its desirability beyond Harvard’s”. Well, of course there are reasons. Start with the $32 billion reasons in the Harvard endowment and go from there.
“The administration under Zimmer is undoubtedly more talented and capable than of any of the the Ivies.” I am a Zimmer admirer, but undoubtedly? Really? </p>
<p>I think it’s good for a great university to try and be the best. But, as has been written so often on CC, beyond a certain point, there’s no way to define let alone determine “best”. </p>
<p>I do think this latest initiative is very exciting though. It really is pretty bold, in my opinion.</p>
<p>Great news in my opinion - just received the email. I had previously talked son into taking UChicago off his list due to stories of their financial aid not being consistent. This change will definitely put the university back on.</p>
<p>^Great news indeed. That’s precisely the reason why applications will go up due to this thoughtful No Barriers program and why the admit rate will go down and yield will go up. I am not sure if it would move the needle on ranking since admit rate and yield bear little on the methodology.</p>
<p>I agree with kaukauna that low admit rate is a double-edge sword. Low acceptance rate seems to elevate the selectivity of the school but having to reject 90%+ of applicants is never an easy thing to do.</p>
<p>There is nothing wrong to aspire to be the best IMO. It is often said to shoot for the moon you may land on the stars, etc.</p>
<p>Of course there are not concrete definitions of the best of anything unless it is associated with numbers such as 100 meter track race. Many people think Harvard is arguably the best for now and many schools aspire to become it secretly or openly.</p>
<p>Chicago was there with Harvard a century ago and may be there again (not sure how long). Princeton was an also-run and Stanford was still a regional school (using its president’s remark) that time. See where they are now. If they had been satisfied with their status they might not have gotten their current status. Things can change and always change. Where are the mighty German schools?</p>
<p>Chicago should have a long way to go, starting with the relatively smaller endowment. I hope it can sustain the new initiative and expand it in the future.</p>
<p>BTW Harvard does not have 3 times as many Nobel laureates as Chicago. That would result in one-third laureates ever lived.</p>
<p><a href=“List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation</a></p>
<p>These increases apply only to students in the Class of 2019 and beyond. Unfortunately we are not able to extend the national merit increases to students already on campus. </p>