UChicago's name recognition...

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
41

<p>tennisdude:</p>

<p>The data are the data. If Reed doesn't want to play, that's up to them.</p>

<p>idad:</p>

<p>I'll take your word for the motives. You seem to have an inside look, there. However, student credentials count for 15% of the ranking. IIRC, it's 7.5% for SAT scores, 6% for number in the top 10%, and 1.5% for percentage accepted. Yield is not longer an explicit factor, but it's implicit in the number of applicants a school must take from the total pool to fill its entering class.</p>

<p>I don't think 15% is all that minor when point totals among the top schools are relatively close.</p>

42

<p>I actually don't understand what the fuss is about. To me, this is not a huge factor that will destroy what people love about the U. Chicago still gets the final say in who they accept--even today they turn down very well qualified applicants who they feel won't fit in and don't care about learning. Why would that change if all your info is written in a different format, on a piece of paper that says "Common App"?</p>

<p>Also, the good it can do for the U outweighs the bad of UChicago being added to "Lists of 28 schools" (which btw I think is very rare, as no one can possibly like that many schools, and applying to them all would cost a fortune and require a LOT of extra work with supplements... though I'm sure people do it). It will get out the name more (hehe, the original point of my thread), it will allow for even more people who belong at the U to apply and fall in love with it, classes will be even more qualified which only means more future success and noteriety for the U, and everything else that has been said thus far.</p>

<p>As far as the "Ivy back-up" comment, I think Chicago is fine with that. I sure did it with Penn, my cousin did it with Columbia. If the U had a problem with that, they wouldn't have EA non restrictive--they would have ED or EA restrictive. Also, why do people here seem to hate the idea of the Ivy League--they're good schools too! I don't see UChi as an Ivy alternative, I see it as another excellent school to look at.</p>

43

<p>I was referring to the % admitted. Chicago's student numbers have always been good, even when their acceptance rate was nearly 70%. For example, Libby mentioned that Chicago had the third highest verbal SAT scores in the country even though the school does not emphasize scores in its admission decisions. There is no evidence that the numbers for admitted students would improve with greater selectivity, and has little room in which to improve. If that were the motivation, they could simply admit those with high SAT/ACT scores, and they decidedly do not. What we are talking about is the 1.5% percentage accepted. Chicago is not at zero in that category so any improvement is probably less than .5%.</p>

44

<p>the uncommon application (by that name) did not exist until 1998. was it still unofficially uncommon before that?</p>

45

<p>Reed may be an exception, but their fortunes (financial and otherwise) have increased since (and perhaps because of) their decision not to participate in the one-size-fits-all ranking nonsense.</p>

46

<p>I guess I see the motives that idad layed out, but if they want to attract more applicants from lower socioeconomic classes, why not drop the application fee?</p>

47

<p>There are fee waivers through the schools for applicants who meet certain requirements.</p>

48

<p>And thats supposed to be easier for 1st gen 'less experienced' college applicants, trying to figure out a fee waiver?</p>

49

<p>I didn't read the post about wanting to attract lower-income students. I don't know the specifics since I didn't use a fee waiver (I'm a legacy and had my fee waived), but I don't think there's a lot to figure out besides requesting one and providing any other information if the GC asks. I mean, these are applicants to the University of Chicago--they're poor, not stupid. I don't think someone needs to be an experienced college applicant to figure out a fee waiver.</p>

50

<p>Its a difficult question. Personally, I like the idea of having the application itself screen out the faint of heart. The official party line is that it also screens out lower income / educational level students ... and I am sure that this is true to some extent, also.</p>

51

<p>One of the VP's at Chicago returned my call regarding the issues of the common app and whether Chicago will retain its own identity. He provide me with some of the details regarding the technical details of how the application process will be handled, as well plans for the future in other areas. I don't feel at liberty to provide these details on a public forum - but they will be available from the unversity itself as they are implemented.</p>

<p>What I can say - and you will have to decide what credibility I rate on these boards - is that this gentleman, who so graciously returned my call, provided fair and open answers to my inquiries. He stressed President Zimmer's long association with - and love of the University. He suggested that I read his inaugeration speech (damned if I can find it on the site - maybe idad or corranged or somebody else clever can). </p>

<p>It is quite likely that I won't agree with every policy decision the University will make. But - I think that they are giving an honest and well-reasoned shot. My 'bogusity alarm' did NOT go off during the conversation (and its pretty sensitive).</p>

<p>In as much as MY alma mater has NEVER bothered to return my calls or e-mails, I am pretty impressed. I have also had courteous replies from Ted O'Neil and the academic head of the presidential search committee.</p>

52

<p><a href="http://www.uchicago.edu/docs/education/record/pdfs/41-2.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.uchicago.edu/docs/education/record/pdfs/41-2.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

53

<p>Back on the subject of name recognition, I was daydreaming in calc. the other day, and I thought what would really jump-start public concious of the University is if it traveled with Harvard, Stanford, UPenn, Duke, and Georgetown in their "group" admissions seminar. They came to the central valley in California, and almost 300 people showed up (and we aren't that overachiving). This way no part of UChicago's soul is compromised and the people who usually never look into a school like Chicago might be drawn in by its different outlook on admissions. Then, as knowledge goes up, word-of-mouth information will spread and the University will draw more applicants. I believe people will take notice immediately when they see it in the same league with Stanford + Harvard (Note: these are people who never heard of the univ. we all know it is anyway). Please tell me what you think?</p>

54

<p>^
Chicago travels with Cornell, Rice, Columbia, and Brown.</p>

55

<p>JM -
In your area of the country, do you think that Havard or Stanford is the bigger draw?</p>

56

<p>Also back to the original topic, I found this article on slate.com, and thought it was relevant. Also, it was written in 1999, so I'm wondering what the response to it now would be (so any current students who read it, posting a reply would be awesome). <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/21210/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.slate.com/id/21210/&lt;/a> its basically about chicago "selling out" to become an "easier" school that is more competitive with the Ivy's in selectivity and fun. One interesting quote was "Chicago will never be fun... That is like marketing spinach as a tasty desert." The article also compares Chicago to Columbia, Brown, and Harvard. Just curious what people think about it, and if what the article dreads/predicts has come true in the 8 years since it was written.</p>

57

<p>ohio_mom, my situation is pretty different from the average competitive high school environment most elite university students come from, so I apologize if this turns into a rant...</p>

<p>I live in Stockton, California; a central valley city and home of the University of the Pacific (UoP). But, I used to live in Fremont, Cali where the first 16 years of life is all about getting into a good college, so I had a taste of both worlds. Here in Stockton, people are, dare I say it, clueless about the college process! I go to a Ghetto school with fights every day, but with the IB program inserted as a way to add diversity. Thus, bright students are drawn into a trap of lack of ambition. Of course, that's not say, we don't have overachiving students, our valedictorian (I'm ranked 4 before this semester, hope I go up a bit) has a gpa of 4.92 since we take honors, and IB/AP classes freshmen year, and all the core classes have to be IB in our junior and senior year. Outside of GPA, people love doing extra-curriculars here, but just the top 1 percent, that's why our club still lack die-hard members; nonetheless, the top one percent can compare in quality, but not quantity to the prep schools in NY or the Bay area. The one thing that gets us though is the SAT/ACT, everyone is just so uninformed about it, moreover, they don't hae the do-or-die feeling about taking it, so they think a 1800 on the new SAT is good enough (our valedictorian has a score of about 1700). I have a 31 on the ACT and that the HIGHest score in the whole school, and the people in the past who had great scores had Ds and Fs on their grades! Thus, the best way to describe our students is GPA, Extracurriclur, and Test, pick 2. </p>

<p>Now, how does this relate to colleges and more specifically UChicago? Like everything else, they are uninformed about the college process, which is why I had to hire a part-time counselor to help me end many myths circulating inside the school. The biggest flaw is their college target; like every other californian, the top 1 percent applies to the UCs with the top 5 applying to Stanford, and maybe HYP. That's it, they barely know what Columbia is, and I was shocked when our Valedictorian actually named a lesser-known elite (JHU, and Washington University in St. Louis). What's funny is they don't even know WHAT Dartmouth is lol. Thus, I think Harvard and stanford is a much, much bigger draw here in the central valley, because everyone's dream is to get to Stanford here, and to see UChicago going along and earning the respect of Stanford will cause them to research Chicago. </p>

<p>That said, most Asian families in my experience hold Stanford in a higher regard than Harvard! Thus, the key to travelling together is not Harvard, but Stanford (in california). Brown, Cornell, and Columbia are great schools, but does not hold the attracting power or cause the attention of the superpowers in high school. Only with Harvard and Stanford can you do that.</p>

58

<p>Your post is a tedious, homogenised, chameleon-esque scribble which amounts to nothing more than the demented cacophonous racket of a drugged lunatic banging loudly on kitchen pots and pans. Your ineffective imitation of good posting style only serves to illuminate your lack of substance, good taste, and decency.</p>

59

<p>Goodness dendankin, calm down a bit.</p>

60

<p>JM,
thank-you for the information. The schools that chicago travels are likely better-known within their regions (outside of CC, anyway). As far as a shirt-tails effect, Yale or Princeton would be interesting traveling partners that whose names transcend their regions</p>

<p>My son's HS presented it own set of challenges. Its a very good school (although way too whitebread), but extremely provincial as far as sending students out of state. We get local schools coming to visit, but that's about it. I think however, the counselors are acquiring more knowledge from having to deal with moms like me and students like my son. In his year, he was the only one to attend an elite. The following year we had two: one to MIT and another to Brown. We should have a couple this year.</p>

<p>Its not easy being a GC in our school. Most parents do not understand the point of a world class education. They also don't understand the point of giving up a full ride at Ohio State to have to (heaven forbid) pay money somewhere else. I'm still mad at one set of parents who forbade their son to even apply to Stanford. I know I'm being politically incorrect in doing so - but there's things more important in life than redecorating the kitchen. You want a rant ... don't get me going on this.</p>