<p>They also have engineering and architecture, and in the case of NW and Penn some specialized schools (communications, business, nursing) that draw applications from people who don’t (and shouldn’t) even consider applying to Chicago.</p>
<p>JHS,</p>
<p>I’m not sure I buy the “some schools are larger and with more specialized divisions [e.g. engineering], so they’ll draw more apps” argument either. UPenn, NU, and UChicago were all the same size with the same structure last year, but last year, the schools also received roughly the same number of apps (31283 for Penn, 32772 for NU, 30396 for UChicago). Similarly, Columbia is about the same size as UChicago, and received many more apps this year. Also, heck, more than ever, UChicago could at least tout the molecular engineering institute - something it could never do earlier. </p>
<p>I do think there is some sort of correction going on, but it’s curious the dip was so substantial. Make no mistake, UChicago has one of the best financed and largest admissions offices in the country, with an admissions dean who has openly stated that a big part of his job is bringing in apps. If the numbers last year put it in line with larger schools (like NU and Penn), a reversal in fortune this year is a bad result for the office. </p>
<p>I do wonder whether word has spread a bit - that UChicago isn’t as good a combination of “great school/‘easier’ to get into” and whether, well, the school actually can be all things to all people in the way Penn or NU or Duke can. Student life at UChicago still has a ways to go before it becomes anything like what one finds at other schools. The administration has a rep for not being as student friendly, the range of extra-curricular offerings (while better) is probably not as entrenched or as expansive as elsewhere, and the school, at the end of the day, is still a bit of a citadel with a grueling (albeit less grade deflated) academic environment. Also, at least of the “top five” schools, UChicago easily has the “softest” reputation, which probably doesn’t help matters.</p>
<p>To sum, there are multiple reasons for this, but it appears as if the market may be correcting a bit to reflect what’s probably indicative of the truth - UChicago’s a great school, but it’s not for everyone (at least not in the way that Duke, Columbia, NU, etc. can offer a lot for a very wide range of students).</p>
<p>All this being said, I imagine Nondorf will be having some interesting conversations with his staff and higher-ups in the coming weeks. </p>
<p>Put another way, I’ve said this before, but I think UChicago is still not the best choice for those “Great student AND…” applicants. (By that I mean, Great student AND great soccer player, Great student AND big-time a cappella singer, Great student AND serious dancer, Great student AND serious journalist, etc.)</p>
<p>UChicago’s primary driver is its academics, but many students focus on the “AND” part quite a bit. Many other schools cultivate the “AND” part much more carefully (be it through higher level athletics, more specialized schools, more entrenched or intense student groups, etc.). UChicago is a great fit for those who are serious about academics with a good interest in something else (documentary films, pretty good high school athlete, etc.), but it doesn’t play to the “AND” part as much.</p>
<p>Case in point, and I imagine this hasn’t changed much today - when I was at UChicago, I knew lots of people on the sports teams, and they mentioned that, all in all, UChicago sports resembled a fairly good high school program, and the level of competition was around what you’d see when good HS teams play each other. Similarly, I had a friend who was in a marching band in HS, and she didn’t even have an outlet for that at UChicago. Another friend was a dancer, and noted that NU easily had more options in this arena than UChicago. (In fact, NU had better options in all three arenas - higher level sports, dance, marching band, etc.).</p>
<p>I think this makes a difference when you attempt to draw in applications. Couple that with no real rallying point (no Duke basketball, no cachet of an ivy league school, no great California weather, no engineering/dance/theater/journalism/DI Big Ten program like NU) and it’s difficult to push up application numbers, especially once the word is out that it’s super tough to gain admission. Heck, some smart kids want a great school AND a traditional college party life (this isn’t an unreasonable request) but UChicago can’t provide that. There’s an improving social scene on campus, but no one is comparing it to Duke or NU or Penn just yet, and it doesn’t have the glamour of NYC or the student-vibe of Boston. </p>
<p>To sum: UChicago is still a hard(er) sell, and all the marketing in the world can’t change that. I wonder if we’ll now see a few years of very good app numbers (based on all the sustained marketing), but somewhat lower numbers than Columbia, NU, Duke, etc. </p>
<p>I think self-selection is still a factor with UChicago. I have friends this year who wanted to apply to UChicago, but just couldn’t come up with a good response to the essays and in the end just didn’t. And plus, the yield this year is probably going to be pretty high. The early yield has already exceeded expectations, and almost all kids haven’t even gotten RD decisions yet. The acceptance rate will probably be around the same as last year, making this whole thing not that big of a deal. </p>
<p>I think most of what Cue7 has said here is off-base. I think eddi137 has a much better sense of what’s going on.</p>
<p>Has anybody else realized that this year, there’s pretty much no discussion whatsoever about yield inflation? Looking at Chicago’s stats, it was an absurd discussion anyway, but the reason it was brought up year after year is simple: UChicago was seen as “that great University that isn’t quite as hard to get into as the Ivy Leagues”. And along with that reputation came students who would throw apps at Chicago because it was USNWR top 5 but supposedly not as selective as Harvard or Columbia; these same students would consequently take offense upon being rejected, blaming their rejection on so-called yield inflation. </p>
<p>Now that UChicago has a publicly-known 8.8% admit rate (that even displays on Google when you search for the University), there are no misunderstandings: if you can’t get into HYPSM, you’re probably not going to get into UChicago. And this is obviously going to deter potential applicants.</p>
<p>This isn’t a bad thing; actually, I think it’s quite healthy. UChicago’s applicant field is changing to a more mature one that can no longer rely on a false image to drum up numbers. There will always be schools like Duke, WashU, or NU that get massive amounts of apps, but most applicants to these schools are desperate, and these schools’ low yields and huge number of ED applicants serve as strong evidence of that. Better to be like Princeton with its 26,500 apps than like NU with its 33,000.</p>
<p>That doesn’t mean that UChicago can’t grow its app field. It certainly can, and I think it will. The University has indeed experienced “hiccup years” in the past. One can take Ted O’Neill’s final year or Nondorf’s 2nd year as examples. These years didn’t start a new trend in deceleration; the acceleration in apps continued, and at an even faster rate, after the blown year. The question now is, can Nondorf keep up Chicago’s rise in admissions despite a changing applicant field? This will depend on if Chicago can actually convince applicants (not just USNWR editors) that it naturally belongs with HYPSM. In the next few years, we’ll see just how much of an admissions wizard Nondorf is.</p>
<p>To add on to my previous post, even better than being like Princeton with its 26,500 apps and like NU with its 33,000 apps is to be like Harvard with its 35,000 apps.</p>
<p>There’s a qualitative difference between getting 35,000 apps at Harvard and getting 35,000 apps at WashU. Like I mentioned previously, Harvard has much more of a mature applicant field. It can’t send e-mails to random people with 1800 SATs expecting them to apply, because applicants with 1800 SATs know they won’t get into Harvard. WashU can work that strategy though (and does it pretty well, although it results in a very low yield). Up to now, UChicago could rely on that strategy as well. But with UChicago’s expanding reputation, the University can no longer count on that as a feasible method for attaining future application growth.</p>
<p>To attain applicant growth in a more mature applicant field, Chicago will have to convince applicants that it can reasonably compete with HYPSM at the name-brand level, and that it offers something different and better. This will require re-molding UChicago’s marketing identity, which Nondorf will have to dedicate himself to over the next few years. Cue7 is right when he says that UChicago is seen as the “soft” school in the USNWR top 5; and if this doesn’t change, the University can expect to see applications in the 26,000 to 28,000 range over the next 5 years. Personally, I would like to see application numbers rise to 35,000, and I think this is only possible with a sound marketing strategy that not only gets UChicago’s name out there like before, but convinces applicants that Chicago’s name brand can compete with the likes of Harvard, MIT, and Stanford.</p>
<p>Mr. Nondorf can start by cleaning up the admissions web site. It’s a bit of a mess right now.</p>
<p>Let’s see class 2018’s number from a different point of view by breaking it down into EA and RD.</p>
<p>class 2018 EA (11,143) jump %6.7 from class 2017 EA (10,316) - net increase of 827.
class 2018 RD (16,356) drop %18.5 from class 2017 RD (20,080) - net decrease of 3,724.</p>
<p>I think students who most likely apply to EA are:</p>
<ol>
<li>Chicago is the top choice.</li>
<li>Chicago is one of the top choices (alongside SCEA schools) but she wants to bet on Chicago instead of SCEA.</li>
<li>Chicago is one of the top choices (alongside ED schools) so she can bet on Chicago and one ED.</li>
<li>Chicago is one of the top choices (alongside EA schools) so she can bet on Chicago and other EAs.</li>
<li>No preferred schools but Chicago is an EA school so she can bet on higher admit rate while keeping options open.</li>
</ol>
<p>One can see Chicago is a great bargain here so EA number is still excellent (+%6.7).</p>
<p>For RD students:</p>
<ol>
<li>Chicago is the top choice but she has not applied during EA (time, awareness, etc.).</li>
<li>Chicago is one of the top choices (alongside SCEA). She has applied to SCEA but not been accepted. </li>
<li>Chicago is one of the top choices (alongside RD). She has applied to RD but not been accepted. </li>
<li>Chicago is one of the top choices (alongside EA schools). She has not had time to apply multiple EAs so she can make it up during RD.</li>
<li>No preferred schools but Chicago is one of the options so she can hope to get in.</li>
</ol>
<p>IMO the RD results look like:</p>
<p>For #1 the number should not drop a lot.
For #2 the number has dropped to some extent - considering SCEA schools have increased the EA admits (Harvard, etc.).
For #3 the number has dropped even more - considering ED schools have increased the ED admits (NW, Duke, etc.) and there are many ED schools.
For #4 the number should not drop a lot.
For #5 the number should have dropped a lot - considering the sub 10% admit rate for class 2017, which has discouraged many bargain hunters.</p>
<p>I have noticed some bargaining does exist in this admission cycle - Duke and NW have had big increases of ED numbers but are flat in overall numbers (implying big decreases of RD numbers).</p>
<p>Maybe Chicago’s class 2017 was a banner year and class 2018 is a more typical year (with potential gradually growth - less 10%) ?</p>
<p>Cue7,</p>
<p>Your statement of “Great student AND…” makes some sense to me. Indeed some exceptional multi-talented students may have passed on Chicago. But I wonder how many those students Chicago has missed this year.</p>
<p>Class 2018 has had a net decrease of applicants of 30,369 - 27,449 = 2,920. IMO those supposed not applied students represent a small portion of 2,920.</p>
<p>I do not have hard numbers right now but I think those exceptional multi-talented students are minorities even in the schools you have mentioned. So the supposed missed exceptional mufti-talented students would be minorities in the class 2018 application pool.</p>
<p>Duke, NW, Penn had 11.5%, 13.9%, 12.1% admit rate for class 2017 - due to their larger class size. I think they are still viewed as bargains, sort of. Make no mistake they are great schools but are considered easier to get into when compared to others. Many applicants are not savvy enough to know all pros and cons of many great schools. Admit rate is one easy and obvious factor to consider beginning with.</p>
<p>Indeed all of those schools have increased numbers most of the recent years. They were on par with Chicago last year. I think Chicago might have hit a road bump this year and it has slowed down while others have kept going on.</p>
<p>It is hard to compare an EA school with an ED school in general though Columbia is an interesting case considering its similar class size and sub 10% admit rate for several years.</p>
<p>Columbia has had 3,296 ED applicants while Chicago has 11,143 EA - a net negative of 7,847.
Columbia has had 29,656 RD applicants while Chicago has 16,356 RD - a net positive of 13,300. </p>
<p>I often wonder why RD numbers are very high for ED schools even they have already filled a large portion of its incoming class (54% in Penn’s case) - students’ unawareness? Cast a wide net?</p>
<p>How is Chicago doing with job placement of its graduates relative to its peers? Students are concerned with after life. I am from East coast and I do not run into that many Chicago graduates.</p>
<p>I have twins that applied to every other top school they visited EXCEPT Chicago. We visited, & liked the campus and academics. Reminded us of Columbia but in Chicago. However, the esoteric essay questions were a big deterrent. They could be answered but my girls thought, if this is Chicago, it’ might not be a good fit. As their parents, we may have encouraged them to push thru the quirky essay ?s but then the crime rate news was a bit unsettling. Why push when there are so many other options of similar calibur. </p>
<p>My daughter initially planned to apply. She actually liked the quirky essay prompts. But the crime news in Chicago scared her. Her word: I don’t want to get killed while in college. </p>
<p>It will take time to build long term brand name of anything, let alone a national research university that has kept a low profile in the public eyes for so long. I believe the fear about crime in the vicinity is overblown. I have walked around the campus area, alongside S. Cottage Grove Ave. and E. 60th St and did not feel any fear at all, albeit it’s during the day. Overall, the campus area is very safe and as long as you don’t wander off too much beyond South of 61st or 62 nd St. </p>
<p>To be honest, there are only a handful of universities that can rival UChicago in the academic arena. If the fear of potential crime in the immediate campus area deters someone from applying, it’d be unfortunate. </p>
<p>As a Chicago alum, class of 1989, I would like to comment. Unlike some of our more erudite posters (Cue7 and phuriku come to mind) I have no intellectually “coherent,” global argument to advance as an explanation for the 9.5% drop in RD applications. </p>
<p>First of all I am stunned, to be frank. This may well be a blip, not the beginning of a trend. Certainly, to borrow from Cole Porter, Chicago was “too hot, not to cool down.” As an observer of CC, it struck me last year that – seemingly out of nowhere – Chicago had become the “hot” school of 2013. So many threads begging for UChicago “chances,” so many applications last year, such a precipitous drop in admission percentage. Clearly the admissions office had been highly successful in marketing the NAME to the public (different from the BRAND, which remains nebulous, as I will suggest below). </p>
<p>I am struck by what should NOT be an equivalence between EA and RD applications. Let’s not be fooled, the Chicago admissions office kept that RD deadline “fluid” because it saw the RD application trend and was running scared. No long-term Common App. glitch, but rather a ■■■, why aren’t we getting RD applications? Keep the pipeline open. Why the huge numbers for EA? Well, common wisdom on CC is that getting into a top school EA is “easier” than getting in RD. Is that true, I don’t know. But that is the common wisdom offered the high school posters: “apply EA or ED, it’s easier to get in.” Whether or not Chicago was EA applicants first choice, you have that common wisdom allied with the non-binding nature of a Chicago EA acceptance. You get into Chicago EA and you have the security of a guaranteed top school acceptance, but you don’t have to go if you get into to more desirable schools in the RD round. I noted many of those accepted in the Chicago EA round, posting on CC, expressing gratitude for the acceptance, but not necessarily certainty of accepting the acceptance. So, EA acceptance could be an “ace-in-the-hole.” Not that it wasn’t the first choice of some applicants who WILL attend, but yield will be the key. How many who WERE accepted will actually attend? That will be a huge key. </p>
<p>The RD equivalence is fascinating to me. How many other schools’ application cycles reveal relatively equal numbers of EA/ED and RD numbers? The real key to any problems Chicago may have long-term are suggested by that low RD number. Does it reveal how many students really WANT Chicago, ultimately? Does it suggest how many kids have pinned real hopes and dreams on an acceptance? If it is still a highly sought after acceptance, one would expect RD application numbers comparable to NU, WashU, and all the Ivys. Especially with all the Ivys (except maybe Dartmouth, but we won’t get into that), kids are still dreaming of those schools and applying in huge numbers in the RD round. If Chicago remains a sought-after acceptance, shouldn’t students be flooding the admissions office with RD applications? Really, what do they have to lose? The equivalence suggests a lot of hedge-your-bets, one-in-the-hand applicants who got what they needed, or didn’t, from Chicago in the EA round. Come RD time, does Chicago get a giant “meh” from student applicants this year? </p>
<p>I mentioned above that the admissions office had been brilliant at marketing the name of the school. Not so good with the brand. As phuriku wisely points out, the admissions office will need to work on “re-molding UChicago’s marketing identity.” It will need to, as he expands, "convince applicants that Chicago’s name brand can compete with the likes of Harvard, M.I.T., and Stanford. We know its name. What is it’s brand? </p>
<p>As a graduate, and observer, I have been faintly horrified by Chicago’s marketing technique. Chicago wants to be considered a reputational equivalent to the Ivys and Stanford, however it behaves as though MERELY boosting application numbers makes you a reputational equivalent. </p>
<p>One reason I have been horrified by Chicago’s marketing is that it is SO indiscriminate. How many posts have we seen here from kids shocked to be solicited when they THEMSELVES know, based upon the admit statistics, that they are totally unqualified to be students at Chicago and therefore won’t be admitted? Parents have posted somewhat at a loss to understand why their sons and daughters are being solicited as applicants to Chicago when they know their own kids to be unqualified. Has Chicago hurt its brand by indiscriminately marketing its name? Do you hurt your brand with the discriminating applicant – your top kids – with the indiscriminate sales pitch to every average Tom, Dick, and Mary? Chicago may think getting as many apps as the Ivys makes it seem Ivy equivalent in the public’s mind, but the Ivys don’t solicit every Tom, Dick, or Mary to apply. Their greater discrimination in soliciting applicants maintains the brands of exclusivity and prestige that fuels desire for the Ivy acceptance, EA/ED/RD rounds. I don’t say this is a cause of the RD drop, I am only suggesting that as an observer, the relentless, obnoxious solicitation of applicants has probably hurt the Chicago brand in the mind of top high schoolers. Or maybe not. Maybe I am the only one offended. But offended I am. </p>
<p>How does UChicago re-mold the brand? Better yet, why does it KEEP re-molding the brand? Does it have a core identity to which it will remain true? When I was at Chicago much of the student population was self-selected. Chicago’s appeal was its “nerd chic.” I went there knowing that. I went there BECAUSE of that. Despite what other posters have alleged over the forum, I don’t remember many Ivy-rejects in my Chicago days. Maybe they were there, but I did not know them. Clearly if the college was to grow, it had to make its brand more palatable to a wider range of students. I remember that we heard, in the late 80s, that the admissions office was making a conscious effort to “attract better looking students.” Clearly it has had a larger agenda in mind.</p>
<p>But what image is it selling? Is it one of prestige and Ivy equivalence if it indiscriminately solicits ANY applicant who will pay the fee? Is it a more typical college experience being marketed? Or, more typical than the old days? What does that mean? If it is an Ivy equivalent, prestige-wise, what does it offer that you cannot get at one of the real Ivys? Say what one will about the eight Ivy League schools, but EACH has its own unique identity that remains pretty consistent, that is why no one student will fit at every single Ivy. None of the Ivys markets itself as another version of its Ivy peers. So, what does Chicago offer at Ivy-level prestige that none of the other real Ivys offers? What is unique about Chicago today? Is it merely a prestigious school that can be seen as a mere proxy for other prestigious schools if you don’t get into one of those? Or is it a prestigious school with its own unique, non-transferable brand that is its core identity? Is it merely the Columbia of the mid-west? The Harvard, Princeton, or Yale of Illinois? Or is it the school that will do anything to get ANYONE to apply, on the assumption that application parity equals reputational parity in the minds of the potential applicants? The oft-made comparisons to Columbia just don’t cut it for me. I have insider experience and knowledge of Chicago, Harvard, and Columbia. Columbia KNOWS what it is and what its unique brand is. It doesn’t aspire to be the same as Harvard or Princeton. It markets the hell out of its restrictive core curriculum and curricularly distinguishes itself from the seven other Ivys. You don’t like the core, about which Columbia is not silent, you may want to reconsider Columbia. Unlike Chicago at present, Columbia has a defined identity that is stable and secure. What is Chicago’s and is this brand confusion part of its problem?</p>
<p>The “tell” will be yield.</p>
<p>Let me also add, re: the above two posters. The current image of the city of Chicago DOES NOT HELP.</p>
<p>OK, I see that it was 9.5% drop in TOTAL applications (EA and RD combined). But looking elsewhere, it appears that there was quite a jump in EA applications, with quite a drop in RD applications, which combine to make the 9.5%. Someone in this thread has calculated that the drop in RD applications was 18% from 2017. So…my comments above still stand and I see no need to amend them. The real problem remains the relatively low RD numbers.</p>
<p>Interestingly enough, the Brand for UChicago has always been clear; it has always been known for being intellectual among academia. That is THE brand. Is it having an identity crisis now? I don’t know but I don’t think so. I do believe it is going through some changes that if done successfully, the name will be mentioned within the same breath as HYPSM without second thought in the public mind. It is hard though without D1 sports. It’s hard without sunny California weather. It is hard without comprehensive engineering schools. Actually, as it stands, it is amazing that UChicago has been able to garner so much respect and attention from high schoolers and college counselors in recent years without the aforementioned three things, D1 sports, the Palo Alto weather and the engineering schools.</p>
<p>At the end, as a previous poster stated, perhaps Chicago is still a self selected school after all. </p>
<p>In my thought CCers in this post are too serious, and trying to conclude too big things based on only one year result. Up-and-downs are usual thing! </p>
<p>UChicago is on the upward trend without question in spite of cold weather and without D1 sports. Time is on the UChicago’s side in the long term: (1) the “research” factor at college education becomes important more and more, and the university’s top grad (& professional) programs strongly support that; (2) potential applicants’ preference to location towards big city is increasing; (3) student body is changing (more diversified), and the willingness to attend of BROADER range of HS students is increasing after the “New Chicago” policy. </p>
<p>This phenomenon is easily explainable - simply put, UChicago does not have the same prestige or image as other top schools, e.g. the Ivy League. It’s been working hard to put itself up there - through both legitimate and non-legitimate methods - but people don’t really have the same perception of the school as they do of, say, Harvard. That image is extremely difficult to develop, and while UChicago is getting relatively close, it’s not there. </p>
<p>The reason for the high EA apps is that nonrestrictive EA is very attractive for students who don’t want to bet everything on a single school. Make UChicago’s EA single-choice, and I guarantee you the number of EA applications will halve at the very least.</p>