We were also very disappointed with housing - still am, however, my being angry wasn’t going to fix anything. My son did what he could to let his perspective be heard and then started to focus on what he could do. He talked with his dorm-mate and even though he’d prefer a single, it sounds as though he was matched with the best possible person. It will be difficult, I’m sure, for most of the freshmen regardless of what dorm or room they were placed in.
If things are not great at week 3 (or whatever the week is), the kids can request a room/house change. I’m sure it will be difficult to get moved to North, but you never know. I have done my best to be excited for my son - this will be a wonderful year of learning (both academically and socially). I would hate to leave him next week full of anger and possibly cause his first few weeks to be more difficult than they will be.
And yes, as milee30 stated, the people on CC are not the ones that made the housing decisions…they are students, parents, and alumni here to support one another. I wish the best for both you and your daughter this first quarter.
By the way, since it hasn’t been mentioned much – there are several frequent, free shuttle loops that include I-House, Cathey, the Reg, and the Quads. Whenever a kid doesn’t feel like walking the .5 or .7 miles involved, she doesn’t have to. https://d3qi0qp55mx5f5.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/safety-security/uploads/files/2018_Trans_Brochure_03.14.18.pdf?mtime=1521055614 The two nighttime shuttles run every 15 minutes and 30 minutes respectively, which means an average of one every 10 minutes, which is really not too shabby. There are also cool phone apps that show you exactly where all of the shuttles and other buses are at any time, so you don’t even have to wait outside for them, and you know exactly when they will be coming.
Does that make I-House perfect? Of course not. But it’s nothing like the hardship/danger @coldbrew22 imagines.
Fwiw “good for you” means good for you. If you’re taking that as a passive aggressive “attack” you need to examine your own touchiness and reflect on why you’re seeing things that don’t exist. Speaking of misinterpreting things, my previous Harvard comment in this thread seemed to trigger so many people. Here’s what I said:
Read: “who applied.” If you or your child didn’t apply to Harvard, why is that triggering you? If there’s no Ivy reject undercurrent on campus, it’s interesting how that comment netted such a passionate response.
@marlowe1 Cold brew is coffee, but classy to flirt with the idea I must be a drunk mom to post like this. God forbid anyone here have a critique of the college or be ticked off as a consumer paying over 70 grand a year. I’ll see myself out. Have fun cyber-bullying the next mom or dad to peruse the forum. Good day!
ok, you are just being provocative. If you are genuinely a parent who is upset at her daughter ending up at i-house, may i suggest you focus the remaining few days (as we all are) in making sure the child is best prepared, mentally, emotionally and materially for autumn quarter. At this point Harvard etc is a non-sequitor, let alone other people’s supposed feelings about it.
Let me get this straight. “Good for you!” is supposed to be a sincere and unironic expression of congratulation even when it is immediately followed by “Perhaps if Chicago was the only elite university recruiting my daughter, our standards would lower and we would put up with anything too.” Anyone who can claim with a straight face that that was the meaning of her words has very little self-awareness, not to mention courtesy, humor, wit or logic, all of which lacks are amply demonstrated with every new posting.
I’m still waiting to know which other elite universities “recruited” @coldbrew22’s daughter and - inadvertently - contributed to a full-blown case of “Buyer’s Remorse” with UChicago. An RD admit paying full COA means no merit. Where else was she admitted and why did she choose UChicago over her other choices? Sadly, we might never know as she apparently just saw herself out (probably slamming the door in the process).
BTW, I too now think this might have been a student. And a very unhappy one. These same complaints were repeated on reddit and it sounds like the same poster - she was conflicted and considering a gap year to begin with. The I-House assignment didn’t seem to help (but maybe it should?). Hopefully she’ll find some peace with whatever decision she makes.
This is how you sound like after reading so many of your posts:
Its like you know, I mean y’all are Harvard rejects, you just don’t want to admit it. Either that or y’all are at UChicago because you had no better options. And how can anyone in their right mind be qualified for #2, but only apply to #3? That is just impossible. If you believe that, then y’all are lying… you were never #2 material in the first place. And bee tee dubs, we could have gone to #5 (which is now also #3) but we chose to go to #3. We know for sure #5 would have given us the best house in the lot, because you know, we were waitlisted at #2. That has got to mean something to them. We are just that special, unlike you bunch.
And #3 had the gall to not thank us for us stooping this low to accept their invitation to enroll, (which bee tee dubs again, is so beneath us!) by giving us an I-house space? For our money as customers, #3 could have made up for its comparative mediocrity by offering us the house we want, pronto! I don’t care that we waited too long in #2’s waitlist to commit to #3. I don’t care that #3 actually provides an education that is also valued by the market as 70k like an education from #2 is. (please forget that that we really got rejected and had no choice… we demand that you match our expectaions from #2 as if we were admitted!)
I house is just the straw that broke the camel’s back y’awl. And I am not standing for it.
And yes, I think that saying “most get into their top 3 house choice” should mean “ALL get into their top 3” - at least for us. We are that special, unlike you bunch of rejects and unqualifieds.
While I absolutely agree the major complaint in this thread has absolutely no merit, it does dawn on me that nowadays a college student has to pay the same whatever dorm the university assigns him/her. Campus North is the same price as BJ or Stony. In my days in my college there WAS a difference in price. If you wanted to stay in a brand new dorm with a nice suite, it cost significantly more than the zoo dorm that I stayed in.
I am not against the one price policy these days. But that inevitably will generate discontent from some parents/students who somehow feel the pastures are greener on the other side.
Sure, 85, but what about the poster who said their kid is disappointed to be in North? Should they still pay more? Do you see how difficult it is, practically speaking, to implement a price differential among the dorms? Especially now that kids are not even getting their top three. What if you chose the three least expensive because that’s what you coud afford, but ended up in South at a premium? The problem doesn’t go away - it just morphs into something different.
I was struck by what might be another “grain of truth” in the recent exchange - the repeated use of the word “recruit” to describe the process by which these RD admittees are supposedly wooed by the University. Is this all in the mind of coldbrew (who I am now convinced is a student, not a parent)? Or are the admissions people running too vigorously after these kids, even using the new dorms as bait, and thereby generating the sense of entitlement and buyer’s remorse we see on display here? If this is so, it is deplorable. It is distracting these kids from the essence of the UChicago experience: they may really feel that what they have purchased here is the optimal level of prestige and comfort, a new dorm, the safety of a suburb and/or not having to walk very far to class. Kids with that sort of perspective would never have previously been attracted to Chicago. The mailings and rankings have played their part in this process, but I wonder whether the admissions people may be at fault in insufficiently (a) screening out those kids, and (b) validating their skewed values in the course of “recruitment”.
I would be interested in comments of any kids or parents who experienced “recruitment”. Is that word even used, except by this poster (or for athletes)?
My son is part of the same incoming class and went through the same process. There was no “recruitment”. Neither tours, mailings (although I confess I throw 99% of all mailings away so can’t say I reviewed many of them), nor discussions with admissions staff or students ever used new dorms as bait or indicated students were guaranteed to get their top choice. If anything, our tours and discussions seemed to lean towards how much fun Snell-Hitchcock is (much older and less well maintained than IHouse, also no AC) and how hard it is to snag a room there.
People often hear what they want to hear. In the general forums, it’s common to hear from parents who misinterpret the general politeness of admissions staff and the mass marketing mailings.
Parent: My child is being recruited by several Ivy League colleges! She receives personal letters begging her to apply.
Response: No, your child checked a box on the PSAT form allowing colleges to send her information and she’s now receiving mass marketing materials. They’re designed to look personal, but they’re no more personal than any other piece of junk mail you receive.
All that being said, as a businessperson I think UChicago had some unforced errors here in how they handled housing. The college had to know in advance housing would be tight. Had they just publicized that during the admissions process, people would have understood the issue and had the chance to decide for themselves how important it is. It could have even been a marketing tool - “we are just so darn popular we are struggling to make space for everybody. While we will be able to find everyone a bed, we’re going to need to be creative.” Had they just gone with that message instead of - you’ll get one of your 3 choices - people would have mentally been prepared for unusual housing assignments and even a little grateful to get a bed at all instead of feeling the admin wasn’t honest with them. While we didn’t have this particular issue - housing isn’t a primary consideration in our selection process - this is an issue that was well within the admin’s ability to control and they could have handled it much better.
What is said. “Most get one of their top three choices.”
What is heard. “I’ll get one of my top three choices.”
I would suspect the top three requested dorms: North, South, Max P. Sure Snitchcock and BJ probably had some in the top three. But, with the three largest dorms being North, South, and Max P., There is no way that most didn’t get their top three. I’d suspect that at least 75% probably got one of their three.
It does certainly sound like people screwed up the process this year, in multiple ways: not adjusting the script when the underlying facts had clearly changed, accepting too many people at every stage, not to mention thinking you could fit a double into I-House, which seems impossible unless some of the floors in I-House are configured differently from the ones where I used to stay. (The ones full of small, claustrophobic singles, where two people couldn’t pass between the bed and the dresser.)
There are only seven dorms now. Two of them are so small that they probably house fewer than 100 first-years between them, so whether they are popular (Snitchcock) or vilified (Stony Island) they don’t affect that many people’s lives. That leaves five, of which only four are likely to be in anyone’s top three, and one of those (BJ) is much smaller than the others. So, yeah, the bottom line is that about 25% of entering first-years are going to be in I-House or Stony, dorms few if any students would affirmatively choose. The admissions and housing people should be more transparent about that.
They should also do more to improve the quality of life in those dorms. For example, I-House and Stony would feel very different if there were a dining hall in I-House. Maybe even only for breakfast. Or if they created an after-hours cafe there. The infrastructure exists. It might not be efficient, but it would be a real improvement.
What’s more, given their system – first deposit, first choice – the burden is going to fall precisely on those students who had other options, and thus took longer to decide and are most prone to buyer’s remorse. The system may have created a toxic dorm, one where a large majority of residents feel cheated and misused. That can’t be healthy; it’s something that should make them reconsider the system.
@BrianBoiler - the problem here is that at the Admitted Student Open Houses in late April (just before kids needed to commit), the Housing Director was not saying "Most get one of their top three choices.” He said “Sometimes students don’t get one of their three choices, but it doesn’t happen often.”
I’m sorry, but that’s a distinct difference in semantics. Especially for a kid who is deciding to commit and has seen three dorms they’d be excited to live in.
I haven’t been following this thread since shortly after assignments came out, and I’m not going to go back and read the aforementioned saga, or try to quantify to “what level of angry” is reasonable. My incoming student loves the school and would never consider not attending just because he didn’t get his choice housing assignment.
BUT… by April, the school knew what their number of admits was, and they had enough info to be a little more cautious about their language and making false promises. It’s a fair criticism.
@booklady123 I don’t disagree with you. And you are being very reasonable, unlike only one other poster.
I do also agree that the follow-up statement shouldn’t have been “but it doesn’t happen often.” but rather “North, South, Max P., Snitchcock, and BJ are filling up based on the number of EDs we’ve had, so please check out IHouse and Stony and if ending up there is going to make you hate UChicago, you should really think twice about coming here.”
I can’t imagine that this is new this year. IHouse and Stony haven’t set empty for the last two-three years. People got put in there in the past. They should have represented it better.
It just feels very bait-and-switchy when they make those false promises, and that’s not a great way to feel about a school before you even arrive. There is NO reason they shouldn’t be saying “Most students get their top three, but please know that we can’t guarantee it.”
DONE. Then kids would know what they are signing up for. But they definitely bungled this.
My optimistic nature tends to point more towards incompetency and poor communication over collusion and unethical behavior.
My son, received a likely letter in November, put his deposit down when the likely letter was received and we were worried about not getting his top choice based on the number of gap years and other athletes/non-athletes that also received likely letters prior to him. If he would have been accepted RD, and not accepted but weighed all the other RD acceptances for a couple week prior to making the decision, I’m pretty sure his top 3 choices would have been different.
I take from the substantive discussion of the various dorms that there are pros and cons to each and not really big differences among them. Yet when there is a choice (or the illusion of choice) among products, one of them will always be least favored. Anyone who gets it will feel cheated, deprived, outraged, etc far beyond any real deficiency in it. I-House happens to be the loser of this popularity contest, fifth in a race of five, even if only by a whisker or two. Thus to wind up there becomes absurdly magnified as a disappointment and deprivation. That’s basic human nature, and not much can be done about it. Even improvements to I-House - a good idea, the place used to offer meals - likely will not elevate it above fifth place. And even if that somehow happened another dorm would become the unloved one. I say, communicate frankly with students and improve deficiencies, but also de-emphasize the matter of the physical dorm you get and emphasize the continuity of dorm life and the most important fact of all - that you will be with other U of C students whatever the physical premises.
I don’t know to what extent RD-admitted kids and ED-admitted ones are conscious of having separate status, but that’s not a good thing if it exists to any degree and if I-House is seen as the penalty box for RD’s. I agree with JHS that it makes sense to avoid fuelling those resentments through the preferential assignment of housing to ED’s. What is wrong with offering everyone choices but giving no one a preference?