<p>All you are missing is how over-precious some Chicago people can be at times.</p>
<p>Everyone liked the slogan “the Uncommon Application”. “Uncommon Supplement” is nowhere near as catchy. Lots of people liked the idea that Chicago was a pain in the butt to apply to, and therefore the only people who applied were people who really loved it. It was like a little cult. The people who got all upset about changing to the Common App are pretty much the same people who don’t like it when Disney dubs Miyazake anime in English using recognizable star voices.</p>
<p>Also, everyone knew that moving to the Common App would increase applications by a meaningful amount (and thus make admission more competitive, and the applicant pool more generic), because several peer colleges had recently gone through the same drill. But I don’t think anyone foresaw just how fast and high the app count would grow. Fourth years would look and say, “There’s no way I could get in if I applied this year.” Fourth-years would look at first-years and think “I came to Chicago to get away from people like you,” and the first years would implicitly be saying to the fourth-years “Get out of here, loser, you’re mucking up the New World Order.”</p>
<p>Thanks, JHS. It will be interesting to see if anyone else who was more opposed to the Common App. than you appear to be provides other reasons. I suspect you would agree, but I’m not sure why making it unecessary to re-enter demographic data is such a consequential thing, let alone a bad thing. Maybe this contributes to a more “generic” applicant pool, but that also seems to reflect the banality that “generic” people don’t enjoy doing extra busy work. If UChicago merely weeded out a few people who have better things to do with their time than duplicate data entry (like focus on their essays and grades), that alone might improve the applicant pool!</p>
<p>I can’t help but wonder if the Common App. didn’t become a somewhat arbitrary scapegoat that represented a lot of other changes in the way the school was beginning to market itself at the time.</p>
<p>S1 entered UChicago in 2005 and now returns to campus from time-to-time as part of his current position and talks to students old and new. He says he sees little difference in the student body. He believes the school has not changed in intensity and the culture shapes most who attend rather than the other way around.</p>
<p>When my daughter applied to college seven years ago, Yale and Stanford admitted about 18% of their SCEA applicants, Harvard admitted 21% of its SCEA applicants, and Chicago admitted 49% of its EA applicants.</p>
<p>This year Stanford was around 13%, Yale will be around 16%, and Harvard and Chicago will both be around 18%.</p>
<p>Yeah, Chicago kids tend to have an over-inflated sense of our own uniqueness. I mean, can you really blame us when it’s been hammered into our identity?</p>
<p>I remember speaking to John Boyer, the Dean of the College, last year. He had a story about when we built Ratner (the new gymnasium/swimming pool) alumni would go up to him and ask, now that we have a swimming pool, does that mean we’re getting rid of the Core?</p>
<p>You’re right. 18% admission rate would put them back at the high water mark ever for number of early admits. They should be below that.</p>
<p>Anyway, the pools aren’t exactly the same, but they aren’t THAT different. It’s amazing that EA at Chicago could be more competitive than at Harvard.</p>
<p>Hi everyone! I was just admitted to UChicago EA and this thread has made me even more excited about the school. I was wondering if anyone has any insight as to how the culture of the school has changed recently, if it has changed at all. Is it, perhaps, less intensely intellectual and more balanced towards the extracurricular end of things? I know, of course, that it is still very challenging academically.</p>