Where do they get the money to cover all these financial aid?
If the application is test optional, the applicant pool may go up but will the Class of 2023 still get the high SAT/ACT?
My biggest question is whether The College will increase in size. I walked by Woodlawn and 60th Street a couple of weeks ago. There was absolutely NO sign or hint of activity of construction. How can the Administration finish the big dorm in 18 months? How can The College accommodate all the potential increase in the size of The College?
Actually it might go up because those with lower scores may not submit them (provided they get accepted). I think its a great initiative to get some of those unique applicants (with an otherwise solid chance of admission) that don’t have great scores to apply.
All the headlines about the UChicago Empower Initiative are about test score optional. What people largely miss until they read UChicago News is that now U of C is giving full ride to admitted students with family making less than $60,000 per year and full tuition to family making less than $120,000. I think that is pretty generous. My question is if this is a new policy or it has been actually that way for last few years. If that is a new policy, where does Zimmer find the money to finance this generous offer?
Its not much different from what the policy is today and at other “meet full need” schools. Nondorf is just doing an excellent job with the buzz he is creating from couching it this way. Front page article in the USA Today is priceless advertising.
Again off the headlines are “initiatives” for URM, especially African Americans. There is also full tuition offer for children of fireman and policeman. The cynical side of me is saying that The College is now taking 50 more full pay kids from HADES and so they can afford to finance 5 more kids from those who serve our country and communities ;).
I think UChicago’s SAT score average might shoot all the way up to 1550 or so because of this.
I have a mix of reactions to this.
It’s a way to game the rankings, but that’s nothing new. And you’d think whatever bump in scores it produces would be outweighed by the US News penalty for test-optional schools.
Maybe a way to take some development admits/athletes/etc. with very low stats for UChicago? I.e. competing for a group that other (non test-optional) elite schools would rule out without tanking our numbers completely.
I pity the admissions officers who have to watch these.
Not sure it’s the best way to evaluate applicants - methinks the net effect would be to attract more people who look “right” to admissions officers. You know, the way the tallest and/or more attractive candidate wins a ridiculous share of elections. We’re susceptible to bias on stuff like this, bad at correcting for it even if we know the bias exists, and likely to favor people with a certain background, mannerisms, etc.
At least alums submit a report, which has little to no effect on the admissions process, and is easier to weigh against other information because the AO doesn’t actually see the interview themselves.
Of course, if the goal is to increase people with certain mannerisms born of a certain background (read: people with $$$), it makes a lot of sense.
Guess Nondorf can stop telling athletes “don’t send us your tapes.”
I think I’m going to send in a spoof application and mail admissions a Juul. And maybe a copy of Paul Blart: Mall Cop for good measure.
We’ve had this for a year or two already. For some reason, the platform is convinced I’m an alum and keeps sending me e-mails about signing up to mentor folks. It’s a nice idea, but could use some work.
Here are my thoughts:
1> UChicago wants to claim the “innovative” title and with this, being the first top 10 research university to drop mandatory tests they can claim such (on top of the ED1, ED2, EA, RD pathways which are somewhat unique, and the world famous Uncommon Essay).
2> I really don’t think they are shooting to raise in the rankings. It is understood that a non-HYP school will not displace the HYP schools in USN&WR. HYP is how they calibrate the algorithm. If they would have done this 5 years ago, I might buy this as a ranking game but not from a #3 position and holding most likely in the next cycle. This is a way to change-up the admission process at all High Level universities. The question isn’t will the rest follow, but when and who.
3> Tied with the other parts of the initiative, I see this as a totally holistic strategy to change the definition of holistic admissions.
4> I suspect this has been in the works for a while. Hence the dropping of school sponsored NMS and other merit awards. I also suspect they’ll pay for it on the backs of those of us who can pay higher tuition/fees/housing. Another first for UChicago might end up being the first school to charge $100k/year for an undergraduate degree you might see the sponsored internships reduced as well.
5> I really think from a “Brand” standpoint they are taking the lead in higher education. Between Zimmer and Purdue’s Daniels, I don’t see anyone else changing the education game like they are.
Agree on the first point; disagree on the second, for a few reasons.
First of all, the donation that funds the Metcalf program is pretty specific IIRC - they can spend it on internships or not at all.
Second, the College has every reason to subsidize student internships; these do a lot to help recent grads land better jobs, and the first or second job out of college is correlated with a person’s income 20 or 30 years down the road to a surprising degree. This helps the university because A. we’ll move up all those rankings of job outcomes, and the same metrics will ultimately have some effect on the College’s ranking in general, and B. richer alums can give more to the university.
If someone works a Metcalf every summer for four years, they’ll cost the College $16,000, or up to $20,000 if all four internships are outside the U.S. Next to the cost of attendance over four years (about $320,000 right now, if the College keeps raising tuition and other charges each year), that’s peanuts, and spending on these programs boosts career outcomes about as much as anything in the budget. As a newly-declared business econ major might say, the return on investment is high.
If the College wanted to save money on something, they’d just underfund student health/mental health counseling services or cram six students into apartments built for four. Oh wait…
My question is that with all these hoopla, will there be a change of student body from Class of 2023 onward? I have been hearing from this forum that there are many more private school kids (though still smart and intellectual) nowadays as compared to say, a couple of decades ago. Will this move reverse the upward trend of the socioeconomic strata of the incoming freshman class?
I’m one of the incoming class of 2022 via one of those fancy private schools. Along with me, there will be about 10 other students in my school who will be attending. Looking at past matriculations, this is slightly higher than in years past, but not by much.
But if you look at the mix of students that were accepted from my HS: one low income URM, two internationals needing partial FA, one athlete. The rest of the students I assume will not need financial aid. But whats wrong with that? Having a few extra full payers so that less fortunate students can afford to attend?
My kids classes a decade ago were loaded with private school and boarding school kids. There were plenty of kids from affluent Midwestern suburbs who had gone to affluent Midwestern suburban high schools, including but not limited to places like New Trier, there were kids from public schools in college towns, and there were certainly kids who had gone to big-city academic magnet publics like Stuyvesant. I thought the private schools were so dominant because they understood the University of Chicago value proposition, which required more sophistication than most public school GCs had. If anything, I would think that the massively increased popularity of UChicago over the past ten years would mean more competitive applications from public school students.
This is just a rant.
When I read (and yes I know I shouldn’t) the comment section in all the major (non Chicago) news coverage of the UChicago Empower Initiative, the general theme is this Initiative will enable the dumbing down of American higher education. Most commentators seem to have no idea how rigorous an U of C education is. In fact, many commentators just blend U of C with Chicago notorious murder rate and typecast U of C as place where students can get murdered everyday. My God, how stupid and ignorant are these people!
We live in Chicago suburbs and of course everyone knows U of C and Northwestern as elite schools in US. And for boarding schools like HADES or super elite day schools like Horace Mann or Harvard-Westlake, U of C reputation is secure. But I wonder whether this initiative will entice an URM kid in rural Mississippi or Idaho to apply.
Observations:
Discernment challenges in admissions
Without SAT/ACT, subject test scores, or class rank, they will need to rely heavily on GPA and essays. With the essays so dependent on how much editing help students receive, I am interested in how effective that will be. I suspect that it will be difficult to maintain the overall quality of the class if the percent of students who do not submit test scores becomes significant.
Perception by applicants
As @85bears46 pointed out, there is some thought that this may be an intentional “dumbing down.” I don’t think so, but a perception that it is could cause some student with top scores to be less likely to apply. Time will tell.
It may also cause confusion about how “optional” it really is. If students really aren’t disadvantaged if they don’t submit test scores, then why not stop accepting test scores all together? To me the fact that they still accept them, implies that a good test score can help your chances, and given that the class size is fixed, that means it hurts someone else chances.
Gaming the ratings
Potentially, this is another way to game the ratings. If the middle 50 percent based on test scores excludes students not submitting test scores and the non-submitters are at the bottom, it could improve their range. The simple solution for US News would be to change the question to, "What percent of your class has an ACT of 35-36, 33-34, 31-32, 29-30, …did not submit.
Love to hear others thoughts about these issues.
Gaming the ratings:
In this respect I completely agree with @BrianBoiler #8. For USNWR this is as high as U of C ever will go. Doing this initiative will not raise U of C rating but the reaction of USNWR in adjusting for non test score reporting school may actually drop U of C a couple of notch. So I don’t think that is a rating ploy. On the other hand, the Empower Initiative would definitely raise the profile of U of C and attract even more applicants. In terms of overall marketing score, that absolutely is a plus.
As an alumnus, I always think U of C is an acquired taste and should only entice/welcome the ones who truly value an intellectual and rigorous education. But the big down side of being intellectually snobbish is that there will be far less donation from megarich alumni and the endowment would not be sufficient to keep U of C at the forth front of research. I see Zimmer, Boyer and Nondorf doing a devil’s bargain: making the school much more marketable and attracting a whole lot more funding and hopefully not diluting/wrecking the underlying soul of the university. This is a long term play and there is no way we can tell whether it will succeed or fail within a couple of years. In 8 or 10 years we can look back and then evaluate whether this is a stroke of genius or a colossal sellout.
With affirmative action facing an uncertain future, this move opens up an alternative avenue for schools to continue admitting URM candidates. Without such a subjective instrument in hand, top schools would become even more handcuffed in terms of increasing diversity. You can bet that other selective schools will soon follow.
I actually think UChicago’s ranking still has substantial room to grow because its graduation rate hasn’t plateaued (it still reflects the class that matriculated a few years back). However, I too don’t think UChicago is doing this for ranking purposes, considering how little weight is given to selectivity to begin with.
In a way, U of C is in a no lose situation. If the benefits they expect don’t show up, they can change the policy back. I have to give them credit for taking a shot at it.
i think lot of people doesn’t know what kind of college U of Chicago is like. The social life there is the least. No grade inflation. No of graduate students surpass no of undergraduate students. if you like to experience the graduate student life in the 4 year of UG, this is the place for you. I want to say if you are top N% that they would accept as past, it is fine. but if you think a student by pass ACT/SAT and means easier to get in U of Chicago, this may not be a wise decision.