University of Chicago Class of 2014 Statistics

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
21

<p>cue and phuriku,</p>

<p>so, you don’t think it matters that while all the other schools have engineering schools and some have business, nursing, visual arts, etc program, Chicago is really arts and science school, when it comes to the potential size/pool of the applicants the schools draw?</p>

<p>My point was, it’s OVERLY optimistic to say that Chicago can easily match or come close to U Penn’s or Columbia’s or Stanford’s applicant number since the prestige factor can be made more or less equal with better marketing and name recognition. The total “addressable market” size is different (no engineering school, no business school, etc). It’s elementary math. Other factors being comparable, the smaller the total universe, the smaller the actual sample. </p>

<p>In order for U Chicago, which is actually just one college of U Penn or Stanford, to match or come close to U Penn’s or Stanford’s total application number, Chicago has to be SO MUCH BETTER KNOWN and considered that much more desirable by the students. I don’t think this is going to happen anytime soon.</p>

<p>I believe the increasing brand awareness for Chicago is going to help increase the yield which in turn will lower the acceptance rate. In a few years, I believe the acceptance rate of U Chicago can easily fall under 10%, NOT because, the total number of application went up by near 100% from last years number (meaning, if yield stays same, and application number goes up by 100%, the acceptance rate will fall by half). But because its prestige and desirability factor will shoot up, increase the yield, while the total application number will go up like 30-50% (not 100% as above). To me, this is a much more realistic scenario.</p>

22

<p>hyeonjlee - I don’t agree that Chicago needs to increase its brand awareness or prestige that much to gain more applications. For example, how do you explain that RPI now regularly gets nearly as many applications as MIT, or that Wash U used to get nearly as many applications as Harvard? </p>

<p>Getting applications is just that - recruiting and marketing effectively to drum up large numbers of applications. The “big numbers” admissions game sometimes has less to do with prestige and recognition and more to do with an office initiative to well, just get more applications.</p>

<p>I’m also of course not sure which way the cookie will crumble - whether Chicago will get a 100% increase in apps (although I see that as likely - Chicago only needs to get around 24000 applications - 5000 more than this year - to make it to an 100% increase), or whether the huge selectivity boost will come because of a big boost in yield, and not increase in apps. </p>

<p>Hyeonjlee, on another note, I think you’re focusing on yield a bit too heavily. Right now with an EA policy, Chicago’s overall yield is about 40%. Schools with ED policies, such as Duke or Dartmouth, still only have around a 50% yield. Schools that use ED even more heavily, like Penn, have around a 60% yield. All this data suggests that, on the open market, ALL top schools (outside of HYPS) probably have a true (i.e. not inflated by ED) yield of around 50%. Chicago right now is at 40%, so it’s not really that far behind, especially considering all the old negative baggage surrounding Chicago (i.e. where fun comes to die, etc.). </p>

<p>Finally, I think we have to parse the schools a bit more carefully. Hyeonjlee, I tend to group Chicago and Penn quite closely together, and I think their admissions numbers are really quite similar. Penn total gets around 17,000 applications for its College of Arts & Sciences, and that’s exactly around what Chicago would get if it had an ED policy. Columbia and Stanford have stronger brands than Chicago and Penn, but again, as the RPI or Wash U examples demonstrate, getting lots of applications does not mean needing to have an extremely strong brand.</p>

23

<p>Unfortunately, college students and the general public are mindlessly focused on how hard a school is to get into – social prestige – and really don’t give a damn (in general) how good the education is that the school offers. The harder Chicago is to get into, the more appealing it will become. And more people will apply and so on. With the amount of information available online these days (rankings and discussions on Facebook and CC) a school’s reputation can grow literally overnight; it doesn’t take generations anymore. Chicago has a few advantages–one is it smaller than the other top schools, which means it doesn’t need to have as many applications to be as hard to get into. And Chicago is absolutely unique in the sense that it is has traditionally been the most underrated by the public. That is being taken care of very quickly these days. And fortunately Chicago really doesn’t need to make improvements in its education of quality of faculty to become a top school, since it is already the best. But it will indeed experience a ‘halo effect’ from increased selectivity and will pull in more top faculty. (In the past year, Chicago hired faculty away from Stanford and Berkeley, for instance.) And it is not just the college rankings that affect prestige. The law school and business school rankings place Chicago in the Top 5, which can also sway undergrads. And Business Week ranks UChicago Business School #1 in the nation (above Stanford and Harvard obviously). And many of these rankings are self-fulfilling prophecies, especially in regard to social prestige. All bets are off. No one really knows what will happen. But Chicago is better positioned than any other school to make a major move up. No doubt this is among the reasons Harvard and Princeton changed their admissions policies this year, realizing they have competition from various fronts.</p>

24

<p>Truth123,</p>

<p>You raise some great points, but I hardly think that Harvard and Princeton changed their admissions policies this year because of any competition from Chicago. You are correct in saying that now, with the advent of social networking, the spread of the internet, etc., a school’s popularity can rise very quickly. That being said, in the cross-admit battle with Harvard, Princeton, and Yale, I believe Chicago has traditionally won about 3-4% of those battles. That number really hasn’t changed much. </p>

<p>Overall, though, I agree that with admissions, a snowball effect can certainly take hold. That being said, I’m still not sure - as hyeonjlee and others might attest - that admissions selectivity reflects the “prestige” of a school as much as it reflects the acuity of an admissions office to lure in applications. </p>

<p>There are many examples of schools that excel on this front - RPI, Wash U, etc. </p>

<p>On another note, I think we can all agree that Chicago has positioned itself to be much, much more competitive on the “big numbers” admissions front. Here’s hoping that Nondorf continues the push!</p>

25

<p>What are the “changes” in Harvard and Princeton’s admissions policies mentioned here?</p>

26

<p>I presume he means the return of Early Action at Harvard and Princeton.</p>