UChicago Early Apps Rise 25% for 2016

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
21

<p>As for peer assessment of university presidents, I think a large problem is that Chicago’s influence in engineering isn’t that broad, and therefore engineering majors, etc. won’t be as aware of Chicago’s reputation as other fields. So presidents who are in such fields, and they certainly aren’t rare, will give Chicago a 4 instead of a 5 and lead to a lower PA ranking.</p>

<p>Caltech has the same problem. Caltech is just as good of a school in the sciences as MIT is, but whereas MIT’s reputation is known everywhere, Caltech’s reputation is only spread among the engineering crowd. Liberal arts-focused presidents would probably give them a 4 out of 5 and leave it out that.</p>

<p>So if Chicago really wants a better peer assessment, it will likely have to spread into engineering at least a little bit. And that will take a long time.</p>

<p>However, I agree that Chicago is still rising in the rankings and will probably get to 4 before too long. But it’ll be a long time before it gets into the top 3. That being said, I don’t think it’s that important, really. I mean, are Stanford and MIT really worse name brands than Harvard and Yale? No. US News is useful for creating a name brand, and Chicago should employ its great ranking for that purpose. However, it’s not a necessary measure for creating or maintaining a reputation. Marketing is probably a better method, and Chicago is getting much better with that.</p>

22

<p>Cue7:</p>

<p>Thank you for that in-depth summary. That actually explains a lot.</p>

23

<p>Phuriku:</p>

<p>The Class of 2015 stats are from a piece of U of C Admissions marketing I came across. According to this brochure, the SAT mid 50% for the Class of '15 is: 1420-1530, although I can’t find the % of the class hailing from the top 10% of their HS class. I would imagine, however, as the Class of 2014 has 89% in the top 10% of their HS class, the Class of '15 probably has at least ~92% or so of the class from the top 10% of their HS class. All the numbers seem to increase by a few points each year of late, so this would be a sensible conjecture.</p>

<p>Also, regarding U of C’s academic rep, I actually disagree with your statements. You mention that U of C needs a stronger engineering focus to gain a bit of a boost for this part of the ranking. How, though, do you explain that both Columbia and Chicago used to have academic rep scores of 4.7, and these schools (in the past 5 years or so) have dropped to 4.6? </p>

<p>The academic rep score is ambiguous, and I think it reflects that, for the most part, University Presidents see Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. as the standard bearers in the U.S., and give these schools 4.9s accordingly. No other private school has really come within a sniff of a 4.9 academic rep score. Not surprisingly, no other school save for the usual suspects has gotten close to breaking into the top 3 (save one year where Cal Tech did it unexpectedly). </p>

<p>Consequently, I don’t think there’s much the U of C can do on this front. In terms of rep, H, Y, P etc. have the edge in public perception, and the academic rep scores reflect that. </p>

<p>Of related interest, the only other school to see much of a change on the academic rep front has been Penn, which improved from a historical 4.4 ranking to 4.5 relatively recently. Unsurprisingly, in the past decade, Chicago and Penn have been the best performers (i.e. “punching above their weight”) in the rankings - as both schools have gotten drastically more selective and emphasized the rankings in various initiatives on campus.</p>

24

<p>Hey I wanted to congratulate all of you on the 25% increase in Early applications and also point out that there is a minor error in the table provided by truth123 on the first page of this thread it should read :-</p>

<p>UChicago:- 25% EA
Duke:- 23% ED
NU:- 15.8% ED
Brown:- 4% ED
Dartmouth:- 3% ED
Georgetown:- 1.4% ED
Penn:- -1.3% (declined) ED</p>

25

<p>Georgetown U has kind of limited EA, not ED.</p>

<p><a href=“http://uadmissions.georgetown.edu/firstyear/earlyaction/[/url]”>http://uadmissions.georgetown.edu/firstyear/earlyaction/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>“…In keeping with this principle, students applying under the Early Action program may not apply to any binding Early Decision programs since they then would not be free to choose Georgetown if admitted. Students are welcome to apply to other Early Action programs or other Regular Decision programs while at the same time applying to Georgetown’s Early Action program…”</p>

26

<p>Sorry about that.</p>

27

<p>Will be interesting to see how it all plays out… personally I think UChicago has gained more from the rankings game than any other school…</p>

<p>MIT is reporting there early apps (non-binding) are down -4.72%</p>

<p>Stanford (SCEA) down -.83%</p>

28

<p>I guess from the reputation, UChicago is a rising star, while Stanford and MIT are still very very shining, are going up and have a little bit better reputation. This year Harvard and Princeton re-introduced EA programs, a single choice EA after 4 years of hiatus. These two schools will draw some students from MIT and Stanford. Last year UChicago had an admit rate at 15.8%, much higher than the 5-way tied #5s—MIT and Stanford, so for Class 2016 more students will bet on UChicago, resulting in a 25% EA increasing. My prediction is UChicago will beat Columbia, UPenn, and Caltech in next a few years, but a long way to go to beat Stanford and MIT.</p>

29

<p>If the current trend of UChicago dropping 3 points a year in admit rate continued, it would be something like:

  1. 12.8% (if not lower) this year
  2. 9.8% next year
  3. 6.8% following year</p>

<p>MIT has a 9.6 admit rate. Stanford 7.1. Stanford and MIT appear flat or dropping in admissions this year.</p>

<p>This is all speculative, I agree. But if you look at the trend, it’s in UChicago’s favor.</p>

30

<p>truth123: Numbers obviously don’t work that way. The admissions rate will get lower each year, but not at that level. Once you get down to a smaller admissions rate, it’s harder to push it further down.</p>

<p>There’s a limit for how many applications are feasible each year. Chicago is reaching that limit. After this year, there will be a substantial decrease in admissions rate change over each year. You can expect this year to have a general admissions rate of 11-12%, due not only to the increase in applications, but a smaller class size (since the dorms can no longer hold large classes to a mis-communication between admissions and housing) and a higher yield rate. A particularly optimistic person might say that it could be slightly lower than 10% this year, although this is difficult to imagine.</p>

<p>In any case, it will be extremely hard to have a lower acceptance rate than Stanford. Ever. Same with Harvard and Columbia, of course. I think Chicago will eventually pull even with MIT, though, maybe even this year.</p>

31

<p>phuriku is dead on. The Class of 2016 will be smaller than the Class of 2015. The College is overenrolled right now. Expect the acceptance rate to dip to about 12%.</p>

32

<p>UChicago has a smaller undergraduate class than Stanford and Harvard and the yield rate is rising. It’s a 20 year+ trend toward decreasing admit rate. You are forgetting the affect that the lower admit rate will have on the rankings and the increasing interest it will cause among applicants.
If what you are saying is true, then one could say, “Oh, UChicago’s applicants must fall this year since Stanford’s and MIT’s and Penn’s are dropping. Sorry, ain’t happening. UChicago is gaining while they are droppping.”
Whether it takes 2 years or 5 years, it will happen.</p>

33

<p>UChicago hasn’t maxed out on possible applications. Stanford and Harvard got about 35,000 last year. UChicago may have about 25,000 this year. There are other colleges that get 30,000. There is no reason UChicago can’t joint the 30,000+ club more than any other.</p>

34

<p>Chicago just barely has fewer undergrads than Stanford and Harvard. It’s the difference between a class size of 1500 and a class size of 1600-1700. Not that significant.</p>

<p>To beat Stanford/Harvard, you would have to have more applications than they do (i.e., 30k+) AND have a higher yield. Although Chicago might reach the 30k app mark, Chicago’s not going to go from a 35% yield to a 70% yield in 5 years, as much as you would like to think it. It’d be lucky to get in the 50-55% range.</p>

35

<p>last few years, Duke’s number has been growing leaps and bounds. Same with Columbia (perhaps not at the same % level - but given where it started - meaning already so high, it’s quite impressive that it keeps going up. </p>

<p>Granted Duke has sports teams, and Columbia is in NYC. that said, if non HYP schools can still grow at that level when they already started with a pretty high baseline, there is no reason why U Chicago cannot emulate their growth pattern. After all, Duke and Columbia are much better “socialized” if you know what I mean compared with U Chicago, so if U Chicago keeps up the trend with “perceived prestige index” and mind share, there is a lot of head room still left.</p>

<p>That said, the acceptance rate of 12% vs. 7% is not going to make one school that much better for that reason mostly, and at certain point (say 10-11%), the number game should no long be so important. I would rather see U Chicago be U chicago. </p>

<p>PS. U Chicago undergrade is a bit over 1300 per class - it’s not just tiny little bit smaller than say, Stanford at 1700. Stanford is close to 30% larger than U Chicago. That’s not a tiny difference.</p>

36

<p>Actually, there were over 1400 students enrolled in the class of 2014. Considering the trend of recent increases, I would say that there were about 1500 enrolled in the class of 2015, which is what the University is likely aiming for.</p>

<p>What you don’t seem to understand is the effort required to go from an admissions rate of 12% to 6-7%. If Chicago gets 27k apps this year and has a 12% acceptance rate, and its yield remains around the 45% marker, do you know how many apps it would take to get the admit rate to 6%? Over 50k! Obviously, this is ridiculous. And if you think that yield can just magically rise 5-10 points a year, then you know nothing about college admissions.</p>

<p>Sure, Chicago’s admit rate will continue to decrease - but incrementally. The point I’m trying to make is that, mathematically, it takes a lot more effort and time to go from an acceptance rate of 12% to 6% than it takes to go from 19% to 12%, because you have to keep pushing against an upper limit. Also, by the time that Chicago actually reaches 6%, you really think that Harvard and Stanford won’t have already reached it?</p>

37

<p>phuriku,</p>

<p>I am agreeing with you. I think you misunderstood me. I think the realistic ceiling for U Chicago is 10-11% acceptance rate in any foreseeable future. And, I think at that point, the obsession with the acceptance rate becomes silly. And, evening going to that level from a current figure is a radical increase in the application numbers, but that, I believe, is doable in light of what Duke managed to do and improvement in continuing mindshare U Chicago can have with the recent upswing trend.</p>

38

<p>truth123 - Phuriku hit on the key point - it’s not inconceivable that Chicago receives roughly the same number of applications as Harvard or Stanford, but the gap in yield is huge. For Harvard to fill its class with its ~75% yield rate, it only really needs to accept around 2000 students. For Chicago to fill its comparably sized class, it needs to accept about 3500 students.</p>

<p>So, while Harvard can have a ~6% yield rate with an applicant pool of 35,000 students, Chicago would need to have about 60,000 students in its applicant pool to have the same 6% accept rate. </p>

<p>Now, perhaps U of C could go to an Early Decision model to increase its yield to the ~55-60% range, but it’s doubtful Chicago’s yield would ever be much higher than that. Perhaps if Chicago really gamed the system (i.e. took care to reject students that were probably going to Harvard anyway), they could increase yield and drive down accept rate even more, but these games run against the health and mission of a school. Consequently, getting a Harvard-like accept rate would be quite difficult. </p>

<p>Overall, I think focusing on “catching up” to Harvard or Stanford is counter productive. A better goal would be for Chicago, like UPenn before it, to really solidify its position where it is now. If Chicago can roughly maintain its stature in the US News for the next 5-7 years, continue to enjoy healthy retention and acceptance rates, continue to balance these goals with its institutional mission well, etc., the school will be in good shape. </p>

<p>An unfortunate development would be if, say 2 years from now, Chicago drops down to #11 in the rankings, and the retention rates also dip. As something of a newcomer to the status party, if Chicago’s going to continue playing, it needs to be consistent in the rankings, etc. for the years coming up.</p>

39

<p>I am a parent of a 1st year - and I can report (not that it is relevant to USNEWS) that the fellow classmates of my DS2 WANT to be at Chicago, are thrilled to be at Chicago, talk about their love of Chicago, and, IMHO, are going to be the type of alum who are intensely passionate about their experiences. That’s the best recruiting tool.</p>

40

<p>anothermom,</p>

<p>same here. My son is a third year. He is deliriously happy at Chicago. He became far more social, well grounded, and multi faceted at Chicago. And, he learned to emerge a leader in a field he is passionate about. </p>

<p>He is the happiest, and most well adjusted person I know. So much for “weird” people at Chicago, as some people seem to be concerned about… I am sure there are those too, but this stereotype is really getting old.</p>

<p>What he seems to cherish most is the fact that at Chicago, you can be social and gregarious and have that grounded on thoughtful exchange of ideas, philosophy, culture, etc. That, the whole atmosphere encourages it and values it. As opposed to in some other places where social and gregarious means partying as a default. Oh he parties too, I am sure, but in a different way.</p>

<p>U Chicago is not for everyone - especially if one’s idea of college excitement is mega sports or dominating Greek scenes. But for a lot of well rounded thoughtful kids looking for a challenging and stimulating environment where they can grow emotionally, intellectually, socially, and professionally, it’s an ideal place.</p>