University of Chicago Sees 42% Increase in Applications

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
221

<p>@NEWMASSDAD. I’m not dead set against UofC getting seriously into D1 sports. My statement was more predictive than normative.</p>

<p>That said, I think there is a certain minimum number of sports that a university has to field to join the conference. I think it’s 9 or 10 each for women’s and men’s. It costs a ton of money to support this. Only two sports are likely to be money makers (football and basketball), though at some Big Ten schools others do make money (e.g., hockey). It would take UofC many years to build to supporting 18 squads at a level that would allow them to be admitted to the Big Ten.</p>

<p>If UofC wanted to start in D1, then it might start in minor sports but ones that are popular in the Midwest. That would rule out lacrosse. But it could have soccer (M&W), crew (M&W), tennis (M&W), softball (W), wrestling (M), volleyball (W), or gymnastics (W). </p>

<p>And it could build a hockey program (mens) and have all kinds of team in the neighborhood including ND, UWis, UMinn, MSU, UMich, OSU. But hockey is not currently a Big 10 sport and though I’ve heard rumors of it, I don’t know it’s likely to happen. There are ongoing realignments in the WCHA and CCHA, and always some space (including close-to-Chicago teams from Western Mich, Ferris State, Bowling Green, Miami of Ohio, etc. – UIC canceled their program about 10 years ago, I think).</p>

<p>But building toward competitive basketball (M+W) and especially football – the only likely moneymakers – takes a huge investment. I have no way to estimate how much. Before they would get into the Big Ten, they’d probably compete in a Mid-American Conference or something akin to that. Probably 10-15 years minimum to start from nothing and have any kind of competitive program in football. Basketball (M+W) would be a whole lot cheaper a program to build.</p>

222

<p>Chicago could not compete with the Big Ten in anything athletic. They’d be better off working their way up through the Horizon League.</p>

223

<p>Prodigalson said:</p>

<p>“But as usual, your projections re: Chicago are overly optimistic and you tend to underestimate Chicago’s peers.”</p>

<p>Nah, if you go back and look at my previous posts, you’ll see that if anything, my speculation on the topic of admissions has been too conservative. I initially thought Chicago would receive around 16K-17K apps this year, with maybe a 22% accept rate or so. Instead, there was the boom in applications and probably a 18-19% accept rate for this year. </p>

<p>Keep in mind, Wash U has been recruiting hard for a decade or more. Chicago really just started, so I’m assuming the new dean (who is quite the whiz when it comes to recruitment - and did great at Yale and RPI) can enjoy maybe 3-4 more years of modest growth (say around 6% a year or so) before the growth stagnates. </p>

<p>If you look back at my previous posts, my projections for Chicago are rarely overly optimistic, and in fact, I’m a bit too cynical at times in my analysis. </p>

<p>Either way, prodigalson: </p>

<p>1.) Why all the hate toward Wash U?</p>

<p>and</p>

<p>2.) Why all the emphasis on admissions? </p>

<ul>
<li><p>With regard to admissions, once schools are all roughly in the same ball park, other factors become more important - such as strength of academics offered, resources available, etc. Thats why, while Brown may be more selective that say, Penn or Chicago, I really don’t think Brown has any tangible strengths over these other schools. </p></li>
<li><p>With regard to Wash U - It’s a really good school - and probably more comparable to a lower ivy than most would think. The reason Chicago’s distinct from Wash U though, is because Chicago has a very rich academic tradition that few schools (Brown, Duke etc included) can match. Admissions is actually the most manipulable factor in Chicago strengthening its college. Everything else - world class academics, great facilities, superb professors etc - is already there. Wash U doesn’t quite have the academic heritage (although who knows, in the future, it very well may.)</p></li>
</ul>

224

<p>i think that chicago has turned into a more generic, high-caliber school
which is kind of a strange comment, but:
chicago used to be a bastion of intellectuality; a place where students went to acquire knowledge for the sake of knowledge, rather than to become prestigious leaders. now, it’s becoming like the ivy league and other schools like gtown and WUSTL. i think that it’s focusing too much on being ‘pretty’ and ‘popular,’ like HYP, and might leave some of the intellectuality it used to be known for behind. as for me, i’m somewhat sad, not that chicago has a rise in applications, but that it has had such an aggressive marketing campaign to attract more students. also, if you look on their website, there’s a lot of talk about changing chicago to a D1 school or having more athletics. again, chicago seems to be on the path to becoming a more traditional elite school. which i think is a shame…</p>

225

<p>I have the same feel. Chicago was my dream and I had a special feeling about it when I applied RD. Not anymore…there seems to be too much talks officially and unoffically about it being better than anybody else on so many many fronts…and the mass mailings have made it into something else. Somehow I have lost a great deal of my passion in just over a month…</p>

<p>In stark contrast to prior the deadline, the used-to-be exceptional Uncommon Blog has not talked anything about admissions at all after Jan 4…not even the application numbers (we got it from the news)…as if it only cares about getting the applications up and nothing else.</p>

226

<p>Oh, please. Someone explain to me the direct correlation between “aggressive marketing” and “becoming ‘just another’ one of those schools.”</p>

<p>Yeah. Thought so.</p>

<p>Let me tell you something. I had absolutely no idea UChicago even existed until the middle of my junior year, when a friend graduating from high school told me that he’d been accepted to UChicago. When I heard that, my main reaction was: “University of Chicago? What? Is that a good school?”</p>

<p>I live in the South. I got absolutely no marketing materials. At all. The only way I even learned about UChicago was through that friend. And it’s a great school, and it’s a great fit for me, but the marketing sucked last year, and I would never have applied if my friend hadn’t made that off-the-wall comment to me.</p>

<p>This year, UChicago’s been marketing more aggressively in the South. And you know what? That’s fantastic. It would be a shame to see qualified students who fit this school’s profile fall through the cracks just because UChicago can’t get its name out there. And so what if more people decide to apply? It’s not like they’ll necessarily be accepting different kinds of students; they just have a bigger pool to pick from, and if you don’t belong, you’re not going to be accepted. If you belong, you will. That’s it.</p>

<p>Nondorf isn’t necessarily trying to get the admissions rate down. He’s trying to increase the yield, which means he has to market so that people know UChicago’s a good school. The dropping admissions rate is just a side-effect of this goal, but it’s not his main goal. There is nothing sinister about it. Really.</p>

<p>If UChicago honestly wanted to become pretty and popular, jeez, all it’d have to do is build an engineering school. We have an awesome math and physics department already, and an engineering school would boost us up so much it’s not even funny.</p>

227

<p>I was led to believe from a Chicago counselor in the past September that Chicago is in the process of setting up things related to “engineering.”</p>

228

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/579488-uchicago-engineering.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/579488-uchicago-engineering.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>According to this thread, molecular engineering, probably without an undergrad component, and primarily as a research facility. So, going by that, no - still not truly an engineering school in the true sense of the word.</p>

229

<p>

</p>

<p>I was referring to your most recent posts (AFTER Chicago’s application #'s came out). I can’t comment on your previous posts in other threads because I only joined THIS thread when it became a “Featured Discussion.”</p>

<p>The fact of the matter is: Brown, Columbia and Dartmouth are at or near 8-10% acceptance rate, but Chicago is nowhere near 12-14%. The former is reality; the latter is pure speculation and projection.</p>

<p>And to answer your question: “Why all the emphasis on admissions?”</p>

<p>Because this is an admissions-related thread…</p>

230

<p>Why does it matter what percentage of applications U of C accepts? Why does that make it a better or worse school than any other? It doesn’t… I mean, come on, the U of C applicant pool is still and always will be self-selecting. I know a lot of students at my high school in 2007 who were scared away from the U of C application because of the crazy essay questions. Only students with serious intellectual intent had a go at them. The students who are scared away from those questions would rather go to other schools that don’t challenge them as much in their application process.</p>

231

<p>

</p>

<p>This is an urban legend. If the U of C applicant pool were truly “self-selecting,” its historical yield rates wouldn’t have been so (relatively) low…</p>

232

<p>Maybe. What kinds of stats do you have to back that up?</p>

233

<p>Cosmos:
[Admissions</a> yield for 2012 hits 39percent - The Chicago Maroon](<a href=“From Lance to Laundromats, band fad clasps campus wrists – Chicago Maroon”>From Lance to Laundromats, band fad clasps campus wrists – Chicago Maroon)</p>

<p>In 2012, according to the Chicago Maroon, UofC had a 39% yield, faaaaaar below the average of other top notch schools. I think a fact many people have been loath to face is: Chicago is the backup for ivy-league students. Chicago applicants are DEFF not self-selecting.</p>

234

<p>Yield and self-selectivity of the applicant pool are not necessarily linked. The #1 reason for students selecting a different school once admitted to U of C is FA. Which is why there has been such a push to improve it. The one area Chicago has lagged its peers and many high quality LACs is in FA. As noted before, in the 1980s Chicago was ranked as high as 6th in the USNWR and had an admit rate of over 60%. It lost interest in those rankings and became careless in reporting its data. A few years ago it reported the data in the same way as its peers, hence the return to the top ten. No magic, no campaign, just careful reporting of its data. There have been vast improvements in student life and a new marketing campaign, so applications are up and students are happier, but this has had, at least until now, little discernible affect on its so-called rank.</p>

235

<p>The admissions folks must have some data can the lend support to idad’s post above. So are we saying that if Chicago’s FA is on par with Princeton or Yale that’s it’s yield would rise from 40% to 60%?</p>

236

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m willing to believe this for HYP, but Cornell and Dartmouth?</p>

237

<p>

</p>

<p>Very doubtful. The much more likely #1 reason why students choose other schools over U of C is (at least social) prestige. While Chicago has first-rate academics, a Chicago degree does not confer one as much social status as an ivy (or other equivalent) degree. </p>

<p>Take, for example, another Midwestern university with lousy FA compared to the Ivy League: Notre Dame. Still, this school historically has had yields from 50-60%. ND’s applicant pool is truly self-selecting (albeit probably due as much to its religious affiliation as its academics).</p>

238

<p>

</p>

<p>Last I checked, historically doesn’t mean 2012. That’s why I asked for stats! Anyone can be handy with Google-search. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It depends on the crowd you’re talking to! If you only talk to people who have heard of 2 schools (with Chicago not being one of them), then, yes, that’s probably true! But if you’re talking to academics and other people who know what schools in the US give a top-notch education, then of course they’ll have not only heard of Chicago but consider it to be absolutely on par with Ivy League schools. </p>

<p>Example: If you ask most people - What is the best school in the US to study music? A lot of people would probably say Juilliard. But if you ask people who know about studying music - professionals in the field and the like - they’ll answer with a list of schools, like Colburn, Curtis, CIM, Rice, MSM, BU… (of course it depends on the instruments/area of music you’re talking about, but that’s not the point here). </p>

<p>Some of you just like to argue, and go around in circles with no end in sight. U of C is an amazing school. We wouldn’t have educated or staffed 85 Nobel laureates if that wasn’t true. Whoever doesn’t accept an invitation to attend U of C has his or her reason – but lack of academic rigor and quality of education isn’t among those reasons.</p>

239

<p>Haha wait prodigalson, if all you’re reading are the posts on this board, I only made one projection - that Chicago’s accept rate will drop to 12-14% in the next few years. I don’t see where you’re getting the “as usual, your projections…” line from then.</p>

<p>I guess the one isolated projection you’ve seen from me could be a bit too optimistic. I guess it might be more realistic to say Chicago’s accept rate could be in the 12-14% range in say, 4-5 years rather than 3 years. Either way, I’m looking for about a 1.5% decrease in accept rate per year, which means the applicant pool would have to grow about 6% per year, and the yield would have to increase by maybe 0.3% or so per year to drop the admit rate 1.5% per year. </p>

<p>I still dunno if this is overly optimistic - it seems reasonable. Chicago’s really just started marketing now, so I don’t see why the growth would shrivel after just one year of this. </p>

<p>With regard to Brown and Columbia, yeah they will continue to see gains as well. Brown saw a big gain this year. With admissions though, I think getting into the right ballpark is key. As Malcolm Gladwell discussed in outliers, you only need to be “smart enough” to succeed - at a certain point, it’s just diminishing returns. So, in the days where Chicago had a 65% accept rate, and Brown had a 23% accept rate, Chicago wasn’t really in the same ball park, let alone really even playing the same sport.</p>

<p>Now, 4 years from now, if Chicago has, say, a 13% accept rate, and Brown and Columbia have, say, a 6.5% accept rate, the gap is present, but not nearly as glaring as the difference between 23% and 65%. Chicago would be roughly in the ballpark, where all the other factors (resources, strength of academics etc.) matter. I think the key is for Chicago to get to be “competitive enough,” to the point where admissions selectivity isnt as much of a lightning rod talking point.</p>

240

<p>Sorry if this was asked already. Is the increase coming mainly from students who otherwise would not apply to any elite schools or from students who are also applying to other tippy-tops? If it’s the former, than an increase in yield is likely, but if it’s the latter than I don’t think we are going to see much change in yield (perhaps even going down slightly if the average cross admit percentage is worse than last year’s yield).</p>