@exacademic No, UChicago drums up auto-reject applications with mailings deliberately aimed at driving up application numbers instead of just letting prestige do it for them.
Then so does Columbia – we probably got even more mailings from them than from U of C. Colleges market themselves. Those that are already well-known/coveted rely less on direct mail and do other kinds of outreach. Bottom line is all these schools have kids applying to them who have zero chance of getting in. The volume of mailings doesn’t indicate anything about the quality of the applicant pool.
To me, what was distinctive about UofC’s direct mail was that it presented a consistent message and was, essentially, whistling on a frequency only dogs could hear. Actually, maybe that’s a bad analogy – it was more like those anti-loitering sound systems that broadcast on a frequency that drives normal teens away! (See http://www.movingsoundtech.com) Basically, UofC nerdcasts and, frankly, their marketing probably alienates more kids than it attracts. Among the kids it does attract will be kids that would love to go to the school but can’t get in. OTOH, the school doesn’t know who those kids are until it sees transcripts, essays, and recs. So, yes, outreach (which is probably based on expressions of interest and College Board-generated mailing lists of relatively high scorers) will be overbroad.
Personally, I’d bet that the stunning change in UofC’s acceptance rate has a lot more to do with the Common App and USNWR than with the school’s own marketing efforts. But I don’t fault UofC for self-promotion – unlike Harvard, it’s a school that lots of very smart college-bound students don’t know much about. And there’s nothing inherently pure about “prestige” – especially when we’re talking about what people who know very little about universities perceive the most prestigious ones to be.
While UChicago has gotten more attention lately, it is still way under the radar of a lot of the students who really are the prestige hounds. No one at my D’s school even cares that she was accepted ED and with a merit scholarship. All the top kids are talking about the kids that applied to the Ivies, Stanford or to top conservatories. And that’s OK, because I think that is what UChicago cares about- the fit. My D noticed the buzz around others and one girl even mentioned to her that she could get an almost as good of an education at UChigaco as she could at Ivies or prestigious universities. It doesn’t bother her or us. My D was intrigued by Brown but decided not to apply. Her other top choice is an LAC.
I think it has also shot up because of Obama. I know at least one girl that suddenly decided she had to apply because she found out Obama taught there and had lived in the vicinity. Her other top choices were UPenn and Columbia and Princeton. It’s only going to get more attention with the presidential library being sited there. And that’s when the prestige hounds will care.
In my case, I received more marketing materials from the Ivys than I did from the U of C (-0-)… they will regret it one day : )
This is an interesting thread. I can definitely agree that UChicago is looking for a specific kind of student. I know someone who was accepted EA and everything about that student screams UChicago: witty, playful, intellectually curious, and above all, extraordinarily charismatic. That being said, I applied for the RD round and would personally choose UChicago over an Ivy League school should I have the honor of getting in, of course. I also received the most mail from UChicago aside from LAC’s and local colleges.
I would not say one of UChicago students’s defining traits is extraordinarily charismatic. We’re kinda awkward, mostly…
@exacademic Columbia and University of Chicago are famously engaged in a battle to see who gets the most applications. It has been written about in the press. So it isn’t surprising that both are doing a lot of “profile raising”.
@goingnutsmom I wouldn’t give any credence to what your D’s friends think. High school students spew nonsense and the Ivies are popular because they are famous. Intellectually and academically, Chicago is easily a match of any of the Ivies and superior to a number of them. And if you should visit the Ivies, you’ll find that they highly respect Chicago. Your D is to be congratulated–Chicago is an impressive achievement.
@Classof2017 I think you’ll find that the acceptance rates at all the Ivies are artificially low because of the huge number of less than competitive students that apply. There are two reasons for this besides mail shots: (1) the Common App, which makes it very easy to apply to universities; and (2) a belief that because of ‘holistic’ admissions they may still have a chance. I guess that the reasoning is, the most they have to lose is an application fee.
I would say that no more than 20% of an applicant pool to an Ivy League school, or Ivy League level school, is uncompetitive. In fact, at schools like Chicago, Stanford, Columbia, Brown (the schools with multiple essays that make you ‘think’) no more than 10-15% of the pool is probably uncompetitive.
It is very easy for schools to be transparent here. They deliberately choose not to do it. Its not just UChicago, but many other schools. They have enough data to tell applicants the profile of successful candidates. Look at how Cambridge and Oxford do it. They are very transparent. Their criteria may be different, but you know well in advance that your chances are either good, bad of iffy.
The problem is that our standardized tests don’t discriminate well at the upper end of the spectrum and that our secondary schooling varies so dramatically. So global stats won’t be predictive of who gets in and who doesn’t. (HS-specific stats, like Naviance provides, may be more useful.) And applicants aren’t typically able to evaluate the (absolute or relative) quality of their essays and recs. That’s before we get to annual variations in the demographics of the applicant pool or in institutional objectives (e.g. populate a new major).
Secondarily, since variations in secondary schooling are rooted in all sorts of inequalities (economic, geographic, racial), increasing the difficulty of standardized tests (and the range of material covered) would just perpetuate/exacerbate those inequalities. Larger class sizes would be another approach, but when highly selective universities are private and independent of one another, that can be a slow and very expensive proposition (e.g. building new dorms). Chicago’s been expanding the College for years. Princeton has recently announced a plan to increase its undergrad population by about 500 students (125 per class). But it’s a competitive market and parents/applicants tend to identify elite with exclusive so too much expansion risks devaluation of the brand.
@darth1289 You are missing the entire point. American universities, especially those like UC and the Ivies, are the antithesis of Oxbridge. Look at the distribution of grades and test scores and compare this with Oxbridge. I’d say that the American universities are transparent but that students like you do not want to hear what they are saying: that grades and test scores can provide some guidance but do not determine admission. I’m a case in point. I was admitted to more than one Ivy as well as UC but have a 1950 on my SAT and a 3.64 UW GPA from a highly rated international school. And many of my classmates did too.
@waddups I think the problem is that you are defining ‘competitive’ on the basis of grades and test scores. I wonder how many students with spectacular stats must post their rejections before people will understand that these alone do not make you highly competitive. You need something else, something that makes you stand out. Test scores and grades do not, at least not at highly selective universities. When UC visited my school they said that what they were looking for is the candidate they would remember at the end of the day.
@klingon97 Here is what universities could do. Make the proceedings of their admissions meetings public. Very easy to protect the privacy of applicants but truly show how they make their decisions, but I’m not holding my breath. They will never do it, because there is a lot of downright unethical and questionable conversations going on behind those closed doors at the expense of some deserving students. Just because your ended up on the winning side doesn’t mean the process was clean or even fair. For every student like you, these schools are turning down scores of students and I am willing to bet that they would be embarrassed if their private conversations were made public. They are just being disingenuous and that is my biggest complaint. They are saying one thing to applicants and then behind closed doors where there is no accountability are doing something completely different.
Very easy to settle this. Live stream your admissions meetings. I am sure applicants would even sign a consent form if universities demanded or requested it. Transparency is what I’m asking for, not nonsensical platitudes from adcoms when they visit schools
any hint as to what the acceptance rate is?
@darth1289 Sorry, this sounds preposterous. And sour grapes. University are under no obligation to admit all “deserving” students but rather those that they feel will best contribute to their institutions. It’s no different in Britain (where I live). Hundreds of students with A* results on their A-levels are rejected every year by Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial etc.
As for being embarrassed by what they are discussing, what are you implying? That subjective factors aren’t important? Applicants have a right not to have their cases discussed in public, even if their identities are masked. Rejection is part of life and you must learn to live with it.
It is really quite simple. If a person isn’t admitted, they didn’t make the cut. That’s about as transparent as it gets.
Nobody is arguing otherwise. They can admit whoever they want, provided they don’t break the law. I am not arguing that “All deserving students” get admitted. I am demanding that Universities be more transparent about “how they really determine” who is “deserving of a seat” and makes the cut and why one deserving student makes it and one doesn’t
They can pick on any subjective factor they want. Let me restate that, because you don’t seem to be getting the point. They can pick on any subjective factor they want. I really don’t care. And you don’t seem to have read my earlier post. Applicants can choose to sign a waiver. I think many will if the admission discussions are anonymized. What I want Admissions committees to face is public scrutiny for their “secret” and often “biased” decisions.
Disclosure is what I am after.
If they are being fair, let everybody watch. Shine the light on this process. That is all I am asking. Then we can see whether you are really being fair or this entire process is just BS. Again, I don’t think they will do this, because once you see on the news how Chicago, Harvard, Yale, Stanford really make their decisions, they will be subject to public shaming and they don’t want to go there.
Now that is the most nonsensical thing you said in your post. It is not that simple. The real question is "Why did they not make the cut? and was the same criteria applied fairly to all candidates. Right now the Universities are doing a lot of hand waving and saying “Trust us, we are being fair”, but sorry, we can’t let you see how we make these decisions. Well guess what. Increasingly folks are refusing to buy that nonsense. Harvard for instance is being sued and asked to release its admission files so that they can be scrutinized to determine just this issue.
You don’t like public disclosure? Here is another idea. You know how Universities say “We had a lot of qualified candidates. We struggled to pick the right ones and it was really hard. Unfortunately we couldn’t pick you, but this is not an indication of your merit or your qualifications” in their rejection letters? (What an insulting and condescending platitude BTW)
Well how about putting all those “so called” qualified candidates in a large lotto and picking students at random. They are all qualified right? I can live with a rejection letter that states “You are qualified to attend this University. Unfortunately we have only 1,500 slots and cannot admit everyone. You were put into a lotto system and unfortunately you were not picked” I would have no issue with that kind of system. You can create a lotto system that is fair and representative and still maintain the quality and diversity of the student body.
I am not holding my breath on that idea being implemented either unless the universities are forced to by the courts after they are sued several times.
Here is what a fair admissions process would look like
- Broadly Publish the criteria on what qualifies as a well-qualified applicant for your university so that applicants can easily see what you value
- When the applications come in, Remove all Personally identifiable information about the applicant and anonymize the application
- Engage a professional firm to go through the anonymous application files based on your criteria and pick “qualified” vs. “non qualified”. The firm can use the same process that Universities now use to make admit decisions. Different people read the file. Each makes an independent decision. When there is no agreement, a Committee decides on whether a random anonymized application is “Qualified”
- use a lotto system to pick admits from the qualified pile.
Out of curiosity, how do you think schools like U of C are making admissions decisions? What would you expect to hear if you could bug the admissions office?
FWIW, I think Canadian universities do a good job wrt your first criterion – at least that was my impression based on McGill’s application.
I have no evidence of this, but based on the leaks from former admissions officers at other universities, books written about the admissions process and just watching who is getting in and who isn’t at UChicago and other Universities. I would expect to find biases, prejudices, unfair judgments and even borderline questionable decisions being made behind closed doors. Once all the ugly conversations take place and decisions are made, they put a pretty face on it, sanitize the way the decisions are communicated and appear all professional and sincere.
Could I be wrong? Yes. I am inclined to believe that the probability is low though. The only way to know is to do as you say “bug the admissions office” and really listen in as they have their dicussions. Then once the truth is out, all of us conspiracy theorists can just move on 
Till then I refuse to believe a word coming out of the UChicago admissions office. The Admissions Offices at these Universities have become experiments in social engineering based on their own biases and the only way to change it is to randomize and/or anonymize the process for the applicants.