We cannot say that a thing both is and is not. See Aristotle, the Posterior Analytics, for proof of this, which some would say is foundational for our civilization and goes by the name of “the doctrine of the excluded middle”. We all love Cue, but as Aristotle himself said about Plato, “I love him, but I love truth more.”
My wife and I, O Duke of East and West Cambridge!
cool!
in all seriousness. With world university rankings placing UChicago in top 5-6 in the US (even without engineering in a rankings that are STEM biased) and USNWR yet again placing it in third, it’s time for even the doubters, critics and haters to wake up and smell the Humus.
He will go on to the end. He will fight on College Confidential, he will fight on the message boards and chatrooms, he shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength on the internet, he will defend Hyde Park, whatever the cost may be.
He shall fight on the College Search and Selection forum, he shall fight on the What Are My Chances threads, he shall fight in the Parents Cafe, he shall fight in the UChicago forum; he will never surrender!!
@zinhead only if he ever figures out how posting actually works here …
"He will go on to the end. He will fight on College Confidential, he will fight on the message boards and chatrooms, he shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength on the internet, he will defend Hyde Park, whatever the cost may be.
He shall fight on the College Search and Selection forum, he shall fight on the What Are My Chances threads, he shall fight in the Parents Cafe, he shall fight in the UChicago forum; he will never surrender!!"
And Cue7 will be right there behind him, the Dr. Moriarity to Chrchill’s Sherlock Holmes, no matter the subject at issue, no mater the forum, he shall ever seek to undermine and find fault. Let no gift horse’s mouth remain unexamined, let no parade be denied its rightful rainstorm.
“With world university rankings placing UChicago in top 5-6 in the US…and USNWR yet again placing it in third, it’s time for even the doubters, critics and haters to wake up and smell the Humus.” -UChicago booster, 2017
“If I’m the third most envied man in America, the small group of haters and losers must be nauseas.” - Donald Trump, 2013.
I think both UChicago and President Trump have better things to worry about than showing “doubters, critics, and haters” who’s boss.
There’s a lot to like about the University, which is why I’m here in the first place. There are also many things about the University that could change for the better, and I think some of the Zimmer Administration’s choices - past and present - fall in the latter category. A fair number of the choices I find concerning seem motivated by a desire to boost our US News ranking.
I see this as the tail wagging the dog, particularly when US News criteria actively discourage efficient spending and admissions policies that are fair to low-income applicants. This article, which I posted a few days ago, spells out the dynamics at play in considerable detail: http://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/top-college-rankings-list-2017-us-news-investigation/
I think affordability and access for low-income students are particularly valid concerns at UChicago, even by comparison with peer institutions. I also have concerns that have nothing to do with the College’s ranking, such as the fact all our spending hasn’t brought the turnaround time for a document I requested from College Aid below two and a half months (to date).
If this makes me, and the students, parents, and alums who share these concerns, haters, Dean Ellison will fiercely defend our right to be haters, safe spaces be damned. I prefer to think of these neverending debates as examples of rigorous inquiry. We like that here - right?
Being ranked #3 is nicer than being ranked #4, but less nice than being ranked #2, for those who care about such things. We’re still #1 at being confused with UIC, so I take comfort in the certainty that UChicago will always dominate at least one ranking.
Not to detract from your concerns, @DunBoyer , but my reading of the stats referenced in the article indicate to me that at least as of 2011 UChicago was significantly different from its peers in having a relatively low percentage (10 per cent) of its class come from the wealthiest 1 percent, along with a relatively high percentage (25 percent) coming from the least wealthy 60 percent. These percentages fluctuated slightly from year to year over the previous ten years, though there appeared to be a trend in the previous three years of an increase of the proportion coming from the lowest 60 (after that figure had previously declined slightly). By contrast the ivies all had considerably higher proportions (ranging from 15 to 20 percent) coming from the top 1 percent and lower percentages (15 to 20 percent) from the lowest 60. It would also be interesting to compare Chicago’s stats with other private universities, including those not in any sense Chicago’s peers academically. My random sampling suggested that almost all of them showed much higher percentages at the top 1 percent and much lower ones at the lower 60 percent. Even a public university like Michigan had approximately the same percentage as Chicago from the top 1 percent but a significantly lower percentage (17 percent) from the bottom 60.
Have things turned around drastically in the years since 2011 and will they do so ever more in years to come? I hope that is not the case. The University has been on a long march for the past 20 years as described many times in this forum. That march has involved making the improvements that have led to a rise in the rankings. I am not crazy about all those improvements and, like you, I don’t put much stock in the rankings. However, if any part of the plan was meant to “Princetonize” the student body we would surely have begun to see that effect prior to 2011. It bears watching in future.
@marlowe1 I suspect the numbers have changed quite a bit in recent years, driven by an increase in the population of well-heeled students and a stagnating share of low-income students. I’ve reached this conclusion on the basis of (in order of reliability) published numbers, unofficial statistics, and changes in admissions policy and the University’s appeal among elites.
First, there are the published numbers. In 2014, the New York Times ran a piece about the U of C’s efforts to attract more low-income students. At the time, the share of UChicago students receiving Pell Grants in the classes of 2015 and 2016 was 11.5%, the lowest in a group of 12 colleges (the Ivy League, Stanford, MIT, Duke, and UChicago) included in the analysis. Department of Education figures on the class of 2019, analyzed by U.S. News, put that percentage at 11%, the third-lowest share among the U.S. News top 25.
Link to the NY Times piece: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/upshot/the-university-of-chicago-tries-to-catch-up-on-economic-diversity.html?mcubz=0
Link to the U.S. News chart: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/economic-diversity-among-top-ranked-schools
Estimating the share of current students in the 1% and the lower 60% is harder, because the Equality of Opportunity project covered students born from 1980 to 1991. The most recent cohort in that group was the class of 2013, so even eight-years in that group (if there are any) have graduated or gone elsewhere by now. This makes the project a data point, but offers few clues as to the 1%'s share of the classes of 2018-2021.
We do have some unofficial data points on one of these cohorts. The Maroon profiled the class of 2020 through a detailed online survey, with 682 participants (a response rate of 43%; for context, many pollsters are happy when they get a double-digit response rate).* The median household income was just under $200,000 a year, while the share of students earning more than $60,000 (with a few rare exceptions, none of these students qualify for a Pell Grant) is 13.01%.
*Under most circumstances, I wouldn’t trust household data self-reported by students, but considering members of my class had just filled out the FAFSA (which includes parental information) using their own Federal Student Aid account, submitted the CSS profile, and filled out an institutional aid application, family financial information would have been fairly fresh in most students’ minds. As a result, this isn’t the worst substitute for DOE data.
The share of actual Pell Grant recipients was likely lower than 13%, as eligibility is highly fact-dependent among households earning $30,000-$60,000; among families earning below $30,000, by contrast, eligibility is near-universal. This means the share earning below $60,000 was likely higher than the share of Pell Grant recipients in the classes of 2015-2016, but also that there was no statistically meaningful difference in the share of Pell Grant recipients in those classes and the share in the class of 2020.
Maroon survey: https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2016/9/14/class-2020-survey/
The most recent income percentiles (based on Census Bureau figures from 2014), analyzed by Sentier Research, put this 13% of the class of 2020 somewhere in the lower 53% of households by income, and put any household earning $69,000 or less in the bottom 60%. Exact figures on the 60%'s share of the class of 2020 are hard to extrapolate from the Maroon’s analysis, but if we place half the $60,000-$100,000 range in the bottom 60% (which may be generous, given the overall distribution this survey reveals, but helps correct for two years of inflation and wage growth) this suggests about 18.2% of students would fall in the bottom 60% by income.
On the other hand, 15.65% of students reported household incomes of $500,000 or more, and another 15.16% reported household incomes between $300,000 and $500,000. The cutoff for the 1% according to Sentier’s figures was approximately $430,000, which would place every household earning $500,000 or more and some in the $300,000-$500,000 bucket (a conservative estimate is 2.5%) in the 1%, for a total of at least 17.5% of students from the 1% in the class of 2020.
CNN interactive built using Sentier’s data: http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/income-rank/index.html
Intuitively, this trend makes sense, given recent and ongoing changes in admissions policies including:
- Increased outreach to wealthy schools and districts
- An emphasis on international admits (international admissions are need-aware)
- An uptick in development admits
- An emphasis on high test scores (correlated with income) and a relative deemphasis on GPA, as evidenced by our highest-in-the-nation SAT scores (two spots ahead of STEM-only Harvey Mudd.
SAT score ranking: https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/slideshows/10-colleges-with-the-highest-sat-scores?slide=11
I’m sure UChicago’s rise in the rankings and perceived selectivity (in 2011, U.S. News ranked the College 9th along with Duke and Dartmouth, and the acceptance rate was twice what it is now) also had an effect, creating a feedback loop as rankings that reward a wealthier student body helped attract wealthier applicants.
Other changes, such as an influx of trendy (read: pricey) businesses in Hyde Park, an increased fraternity presence, and more recruiting for upper-crust sports like lacrosse, may also have affected enrollment among this demographic.
In short, the data shows that about 10% of the class of 2013 hailed from the top 1%, while 25% had household incomes in the lower 60%. The Maroon’s survey of the class of 2020 suggests the 1%'s share is rising, while the number of Pell Grant recipients has stagnated and the share of middle-class students (who don’t contribute to the College’s total of Pell Grant recipients) has declined. Both figures were in the neighborhood of 17-18% for the class of 2020, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the 1%'s share surpassed that of the lower 60% when the Class of 2021 figures are published. The introduction of Early Decision options is the biggest change to admissions policies in years, and clearly favors the wealthy. From the Politico article:
The data right now suggests the class of 2020 looked much like Harvard/Yale/Stanford Class of 2013, according to the Equality of Opportunity project, with a roughly equal balance between the 1% and the lower 60% and both figures in the 15-20% range (Princeton stood out for its low share of working-class students even among the HYPS schools). It’s hard to know if this trend will continue, but the introduction of ED suggests that’s likely. It remains to be seen when, and at what levels, the share of well-heeled students will level off. I have some thoughts on this trend, but this post is long enough as it is, so I’ll save those for another day.
@f2000sa , These average rankings are now updated with new U.S. News (2018) data.
Much food for thought there, @Dunboyer.
Chicago’s student demographic has historically been different from that of its peers and even the lesser privates and some public universities (such as Michigan) because of the uniquely challenging qualities of its education and student culture and its relative lack of a more general public prestige. These factors lessened its appeal to the really well-off (and many of those who did arrive at Chicago came as disappointed ivy rejects) but enhanced its appeal to a certain subset (the smart and hungry, the intellectually ambitious, the strivers) of working class kids. You are describing and to some extent speculating about a very abrupt departure from those many decades of history. That’s fair enough, and you may be right. In the 1960’s we entertained almost the very same suspicions of administration strategy. I’m glad to see that that tradition is alive and well! However, I will reserve my judgment until the final figures begin to appear for the post-2011 student body.
The very wealthy are O.K. in my book, especially if they truly sign on to an echt-Chicago education. If they are doing that in greater numbers today than in previous years, that’s not a bad thing - unless, as you suggest, Chicago’s enhanced snob appeal is at the root of it. Human motives are mixed. It is probably both these things (with apologies to Aristotle).
I am a great believer in the mission of education as a social ameliorator. That too has to be one of the goals of admissions policy. However, as with the super-rich, the less rich and the poor ought to be sifted and evaluated for their fitness and longing for a Chicago-style education. That’s not inconsistent with giving the poor some breaks, but a preferred demographic outcome ought not to be the principal way we judge a college education ( as if it were Aristotle’s final cause).
If, as I hope, the true royal jelly still exists in some bright high school kids, perhaps a minority, then it will continue to be the dominant factor that draws them to Chicago. I want Chicago to be able to recognize those kids above all the noise created by the swamping effect of the many applications produced by its sudden rise in popularity. I believe - we will see if this proves to be true - that that’s the goal and will be the effect of ED, but let’s not get started again on that debate!
Is that “right on cue” or “Right On, Cue!” ?
No, we would not have, not necessarily. I believe the first class admitted under the current admissions czar, Jim Nondorf, was the class of 2014, which didn’t show up on campus until Fall 2010. Not all of the changes people have been talking about were implemented immediately, either. You probably wouldn’t have seen a fully Nondorf-ized student body until 2014-2015 at the earliest. It’s still very early days for most of this stuff.
Last year (2016-17 academic year) the school that tops off Philips Andover matriculation list is U of Chicago (15):
https://www.andover.edu/Academics/CollegeCounseling/Documents/CCOProfile2016.pdf
For 2015-17 U of Chicago is the number 6 destination for Philips Exeter:
https://www.exeter.edu/sites/default/files/documents/college_matriculation.pdf
It has been extensively debated before:
U of C is certainly much higher on public high school and prep school seniors target list. I do expect the income profile of college class of 2019 and beyond to contrast significantly with ,say, class of 1995.
Nonetheless, this is my hope and belief. As long as the college curriculum does not change to tailor to the 1% kids and the admission office still has a huge pool of eligible of candidates to choose from, I think the essence of U of C will stay the same. Not all Exeter and Andover (or any other HADES kids) are necessarily spoiled brats of billionaire and powerful politicians.
The verdict is of course still out there for the perceived expansion of the more well off kids at the College. As @JHS shrewdly observes: “It’s still very early days for most of this stuff.”.
By the time we can detect the true impact of the USNWR ranking on the College, my guess is most of the participants of this forum would have moved on as their kids have all graduated and started new career and families 
BTW, I estimate 1,724 first years. Anyone have a different number?
Wow! care to elaborate? That seems like a huge class!
We know the College overenrolled the class of 2021 by more than a little, because Housing didn’t lease luxury apartments for a new house out of the goodness of their hearts. This was in addition to moving RAs into singles so they could turn RA suites into doubles. These moves added somewhere in the vicinity of 100 new beds.
Not sure we can just add 100 to last year’s cohort size (~1600), though. The number of students who stay on campus after their first year fluctuates, and this year’s overenrollment was in addition to a (smaller) planned increase in enrollment. So 1721 sounds like a plausible figure.