A new study of the causes and effects of wealth in admission to ivy-plus colleges (the ivies, Stanford, Duke, MIT and Chicago) has been the subject of an elephantine thread elsewhere on cc. My interest here is not in that discussion or in the general conclusions reached in the study but rather to a couple of charts in it that tell us specifically something about Chicago. These can be found in the appendix at pages 102-103, charts A.4 (Attendance Rates by Parental Income and College, Controlling for Test Score) and A.6 (Application Rates by Parental Income and College, Controlling for Test Score). The study itself can be found at: opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Paper.pdf .
The takeaways that most interest me are these:
The wealth of Chicago students is pretty much in the middle of the pack until the very tippy-toppest level is reached (top tenth of top 1 percent). At that point all the other schools explode upward and Chicago falls precipitously. Thus at Dartmouth the superwealthy are 4.4 times more highly represented than they would be under a norm based on test scores; at Stanford 3.4x; at Penn 3.2x; at Yale 2.9x. And so on through all the other schools in the list, all of which rise steeply (except MIT, which rises only slightly). Chicago by contrast falls to 1.0x. That is, the superwealthy there are in precise proportion to what would be expected without reference to any of the non-academic factors that favor them at most other schools.
It was also interesting to see the figures for the “second-tier” group of some twelve private colleges. There you have a high of 4.0x for USC descending down through Vanderbilt (3.0), Georgetown (2.9), Northwestern (2.6), WashU (2.6) and so on. Only Rice (.7) and Caltech (.5) are lower in this group than Chicago was in the ivy-plus group.
Not surprisingly, the chart depicting application rates (A.6) shows similar divergences, though the rises are a little less steep and there are even some slight falls (though none as steep as Chicago’s) at the tippy top.
All this was most interesting to a Chicago-watcher and one who had wondered whether changed admissions strategies and the amelioration of academic intensity at the old school would bring changes in the student body. Not so much, it seems.
I have nothing against the super-rich, especially those who value intellectual intensity. Presumably they are the ones who are coming to this school, where they will join those of a kindred spirit in all other demographics. However, it was gratifying to know that most of them want to flock with their kind to other schools, just as in the days of Scott Fitzgerald.
F Scott Fitzgerald notwithstanding…what is the role of the guidance counselor in steering kids towards and away from Chicago and MIT? How relevant is it that Chicago does not have a preprofessional track vis-a-vis wealthy families? Is geography a factor and does Chicago attract more St Louis, Minneapolis, Milwaukee families and not Chappaqua, Dover, Greenwich?
I’d be hard pressed to endorse your conclusions without more information…
Chicago is not only an outlier among the ivy-plus group but the twelve other private schools in the next category, which includes other midwestern schools like Northwestern and Wustl and schools on both coasts. Doesn’t this quite striking anomaly call for an explanation beyond geography? I grant that the culture of Chicago does not favor pre-professionalism, but I question whether the super-rich are that focussed on becoming professionals.
I can see some commonalities there, @NiceUnparticularMan . These are all heartland schools that are distinguished in their respective regions from peer schoos for being (a) unglamorous, and (b) academically demanding. That’s not a formula for attracting the tippy-top wealthy, who will tend to favour places that convey prestige without stress.
Do you have any data on mean GPA to support your pov that Chicago is more demanding than the IvyPlus group? I realize it’s a closely-held secret, but a few years ago, ~60% of students reportedly made Dean’s List which was a 3.25+.
fwiw: back when my S applied. (2006), Chicago’s mean GPA was only two hundredths less than the (less demanding?) Northwestern’s, both with a B+ at graduation.
GPA doesn’t tell the story of just how demanding a school is. Schools of very different levels of academic intensity have very similar grade distributions. Yes, there’s a general belief that Chicago is grade-deflationary, though, as you say, that’s not actually true if you look only at averages. But people believe it for a reason - they compare notes with kids at other schools and see that you have to work a lot harder to get the same grade at Chicago as elsewhere. That’s also the truth that lies behind the misleading and boring old saw that Chicago is where fun comes to die: Yes, you do have to be a glutton for work to enjoy the place. That’s a culture that permeates everything; you either hate it or you love it. You can add to this the absence of significant sports, little in the way of fraternity life, the unremitting treadmill of the quarter system, the Core, bad weather, the gritty dangerous city of Chicago, and a much higher proportion of grad students setting the serious tone of the place. All this is anecdotal, but the anecdotes are legion, and experience matters. Everyone with knowledge of both Chicago and any ivy league school will tell you this. The difference is not in brain power but in attitude - both what the profs demand of students and what the students demand of themselves. If Steven Pinker was a prof at Chicago rather than Harvard he wouldn’t be complaining of bored students and half-full classes. In short I can’t prove that that’s why the super-rich don’t want to come to Chicago, but it sure is suggestive given all I know of the species.
To me these plots just appear to show that the super rich have more choice about where they go, and there are certain schools that they have less interest in attending.
I imagine that the various “types” in the top 0.1% view UChicago as deficient in something they value:
“Old Money” knows the value of social networks. UChicago comes up short in this. This is especially true because the parents of today’s applicants largely attended college in the 1990s when UChicago had a lot of trouble attracting students --if you had options (and the rich do) you went elsewhere. So the “Old Money” pipeline is only a trickle.
“Tech Millionaires” know the value of an amazing CS department with connections to Silicon Valley. They know that there are better options than UChicago.
“Business and Banking Billionaires” know that UChicago doesn’t position undergrads for IB, Wall Street, Consulting etc. as well as other Ivy+ schools (or even schools in lower tiers.)
“Flyover Entrepreneurs” are the guys who own businesses, often non-glamorous, that pull in an amount of money that would surprise people on the coasts. These guys attended local state schools. Either they don’t care about fancy labels and are glad to send their kids to local publics, or if they do want bragging rights they are going to choose a name people have heard of (Harvard, Yale etc. or maybe Northwestern, not UChicago.)
“Media Moguls”. UChicago is pretty weak in anything to do with theater, entertainment etc.
I dunno, these are just the types I can think of. In each case it’s not that they are scared of UChicago’s academics, it’s more that UChicago is lacking in something.
Rice is considered unglamorous? That’s interesting (I don’t really know differently since that is outside my normal “jurisdiction”, but that had not been my vague impression).
I’m pretty much in agreement with those observations, @fiftyfifty1 . They come to much the same as my own, differently phrased. Subtract those lacks and failings and what is left? Books and classrooms and labs. Mere knowledge of the best that has been thought and said. Paltry, I know, but there are those who love it.
The things an institution refuses to do define it as much as what it chooses to do. That was an insight of Aristotle, an author a kid will read in the Core. Acquaintance with the Stagyrite, it must be admitted, won’t make a kid a tech or a business or a banking billionaire. Or get him a gig in Hollywood or an invitation to Martha’s Vineyard. If these are your badges of honor, it’s not the place for you. In a big world with much in it to do and be, Chicago’s way has never appealed to those en route to their banks, their trust funds and their yachts. I was happy to see that that old tradition is still intact.
I also see many similarities between Rice and NU. And for what it’s worth, SMU is not for coupon cutters (although they do give some students some good merit)…it attracts many full pay/affluent families, at least from Chicagoland. SMU, and TCU, are some of the hottest (in terms of popularity) for Chicagoland HSers.
Ah, but the difference between Rice and NU is that Rice doesn’t have a UChicago down the street from it. Rice functions more as a Texas version of the latter. If a kid in Texas wants NU touches they’re going to head off to SMU.
@Mwfan1921 , by “coupon cutters” I mean cutters of interest coupons from gilt-edged bonds, a metaphorical activity nowadays and an ancient expression. I wasn’t referring to green stamps. I agree that SMU is very much a destination of the Texas affluent, especially those without much interest in burning the midnight oil (the oil is in their dads’ portfolios).
Well, @fiftyfifty1 , if false prestige is what they’re chasing the chase hasn’t impressed the super-rich, who, you seem to believe, are the arbiters of value.
Neither do Vanderbilt, Georgetown, WUSTL, Notre Dame, or Emory (I’m not including USC or NYU, in case UCLA or Columbia might count as a “Chicago down the street”).
I am not trying to be nitpicky, but I actually think this is a real puzzle! If you had asked me before looking at this chart, I would have thought Rice would be more similar to those other schools. Indeed, if you had asked me whether Rice would be more similar to, say, Emory or Chicago, I would have thought the answer was extremely obvious . . . and not Chicago.
Of course I am open to learning differently, I am just not sure we have reached a compelling answer yet as to what put just Rice, and not Emory and such, into the same group with Chicago.
And MIT, CMU, and CalTech for that matter. I kinda get why Chicago would be in a group with those three. But Rice? Seems like an obvious answer to the “one of these is not like the others” game . . . .
I like it when people lay their cards on the table, @fiftyfifty1 . Why so reluctant? You weren’t similarly reluctant when you confidently asserted that Chicago is gaming admissions, a subject of much debate in previous threads. This is not the place to start it up again. I will only say that what to some can only be explained as an illegitimate attempt to juice the numbers looks very much to others like an attempt to find Chicago types in an age of unexpected popularity and a sudden plethora of apps that include many who don’t truly belong at the school. The very rich seem to get this, but others may not. The pushback against it has often come from people claiming to be offended as purists arguing on behalf of the old school, even though it’s one they would clearly never have wanted to attend. I have never believed their protestations.