<p>GoBluejays. Well said…applicants have become numbers and tools, not people.</p>
<p>This has already been covered. Nondorf’s main purpose is to increase yield. How do you increase yield? You market yourself so people know you’re a good school so they’ll accept you when you accept them.*</p>
<p>Nondorf isn’t trying to lower the acceptance rate, and he certainly isn’t taking pleasure in sending out more rejections. He’s marketing the school so more people apply, so that the admissions office can pick and choose those students whom they believe will most likely matriculate. The side-effect of trying to increase yield is a lower acceptance rate, but it’s not his main goal.</p>
<p>*Let me put this into other terms. You propose marriage to Person A. Person A says, “Okay.” Then you run off and court other people and decide you like them better, and you eventually go back to Person A and say, “Welllllll…” How would you, as Person A, feel? Yeah, not good, to say the least.</p>
<p>ETA: Good God, people. What do you want? UChicago to stay in the shadows indefinitely? Is that the only course of action that’ll satisfy you? If you’re so put off by what Nondorf is doing - easy, don’t apply and, if you’re one of the accepted applicants, don’t matriculate. Think about it this way: If you don’t matriculate, you’re throwing mud in Nondorf’s face! “Ha, screw your yield protection!” What great revenge. :)</p>
<p>monydad - the best response possible I suppose is, from an institutional perspective, all schools spin their initiatives and motives, and Chicago is unfortunately no different. It’s lamentable that students are turned away and frustrated by this change in Chicago’s directives, but it’s probably a necessary move Chicago made to ensure its own institutional health. </p>
<p>You ask, “at what price, prestige?” and the general answer to your inquiry is, “what you have is NEVER enough.” Schools by nature are greedy and self-serving institutions - what do elite schools want? These schools want MORE - MORE of everything - more top students, more endowment dollars, more funding, more facilities, more growth. Structurally, this is just how elite schools are set up. Harvard is the wealthiest academic institution in human history, but the departments and constituencies associated with the school still CRAVE for more. </p>
<p>All the rhetoric about Chicago being self-selective was misleading - Chicago was most self-selective when it was struggling as an institution - the endowment was down, interest in the college was flagging, etc. </p>
<p>As I’ve said before, the Chicago approach to academics - that research and academics matter above ALL ELSE - has FAILED. To continue competing on all fronts with its peers, Chicago must reconcile its old view with the social status-oriented colleges that have enjoyed so much more traditional institutional success. Decades ago, Harvard and Yale made the decision that a school is about MUCH MORE than academics. At around the same time, Chicago decided to take an academics-or nothing approach. Which schools are healthier now? </p>
<p>This year especially will be difficult for applicants because Chicago is in the most convulsive stage of its transformation. Chicago will most likely never have another year of 42% growth in its applicant pool, nor will students ever again be as blinded by the remnants of Chicago’s old “self-selective” rhetoric. Just as right now, students are realistic about their chances at a Harvard or Yale or Columbia or Brown, in the future, students will approach Chicago with a similar degree of practicality.</p>
<p>There was some discussion a couple pages back about test scores, with data that didn’t seem quite accurate. This is official data from IPEDS. I decided to compare the top 20 private colleges (excluding MIT and CIT), for the most recent year available - 2008.</p>
<p>Rank College SAT 75%tile.<br>
1 Yale University 1590
2 Harvard University 1580
2 Princeton University 1580
3 Dartmouth College 1550
4 Stanford University 1540
4 Columbia University 1540
4 Brown University 1540
4 Duke University 1540
4 Washington University in St Louis 1540
5 Rice University 1530
5 University of Chicago 1530
6 University of Pennsylvania 1520
6 Northwestern University 1520
7 Johns Hopkins University 1510
8 Cornell University 1500
8 Carnegie Mellon University 1500
8 Tufts University 1500
8 Vanderbilt University 1500
9 Emory University 1470
10 Georgetown University 1460
(*note: I also ran the numbers for 25%tile, and the rankings are more-or-less in the same positions). </p>
<p>Here’s why I really wanted to contribute to the discussion, though: </p>
<p>Application totals</p>
<p>Rank College Applications
1 Cornell University 33073
2 Harvard University 27380
3 Stanford University 25299
4 University of Pennsylvania 22935
5 Carnegie Mellon University 22023
6 Washington University in St Louis 22005
7 Northwestern University 21930
8 Princeton University 21370
9 Columbia University 21343
10 Brown University 20633
11 Yale University 19323
12 Georgetown University 18697
13 Duke University 17748
14 Vanderbilt University 16944
15 Johns Hopkins University 16739
16 Tufts University 15565
17 Emory University 15366
18 Dartmouth College 14176
19 University of Chicago 12376
20 Rice University 9812</p>
<p>Compare the Application totals to SAT ranges. Schools with the highest SAT ranges are those that are seen as “most attractive” to the 17 year olds who exist in the market for finding the most-preferred college. The most preferred college is, usually, the school that attracts the most of the same type of kid on academic metrics (high rank in class, high test scores, etc). The school becomes more popular as simply another check-box on the Common Application for kids to apply to. IMHO, it’s honestly sad how generic this all is. I’m a firm believer of attending a school that YOU can change, not go to a school that you expect should change you. Contribute to a community and help that community move forward, don’t expect for a community to contribute to your well-being by coasting off reputations. Go to an off-the-beaten-path smart-kid school… like the UChicagos, the Rices, the Wash Us, the Emorys. Whenever you start looking at top-tier schools like the ones listed above, you’re not going to notice any material difference in the quality of your undergraduate education. There’s only so many ways you’re going to learn Biology or Poli Sci or English or Math or Physics in undergrad. Look at other variables that determine why you should go to a certain school. I digress…</p>
<p>The next school due for an application bump? Look at the schools that are ranked highly on the SAT chart but comparatively low on the application total chart. Clearly, student body size has something to do with this, but honestly I’m too lazy to take that all into account.</p>
<p>The answer is Rice. It really should be receiving substantially more applications than they are. </p>
<p>Keep in mind that popularity for a school amongst 17-year-olds is NO indication of their quality. Schools like UChicago, Wash U, and Rice are extreme victims of academic prestige =/= social prestige. If you remove “Peer Assessment” from the US News rankings (there is a link floating around the CC forums for this) and rank schools purely on quantifiable metrics — faculty resources, financial resources, graduation rates, test scores, etc — you get a different picture. Wash U, Duke, and Brown go WAY up, while other schools (namely Cornell, Stanford and Hopkins) experience a couple of points drop. </p>
<p>This can be debated endlessly, and I do not want to start any sort of discussion on the validity of removing peer assessment or even the validity of US News rankings themselves. I’m sure we can all agree that some of the things US News measures (faculty resources, financial resources graduation rates, test scores, etc) are at least somewhat important measures in determining school quality to some degree. Debate comes in into the WEIGHTS they put on certain metrics, including weights for peer assessment. </p>
<p>My point is that it is completely reasonable to state (really, it’s an un-refutable point) the fact that social popularity has a significant effect in the way schools are ranked, talked about on the CC forums, considered as viable alternatives to the Ivies, and the quality of a school’s applicant pool. It doesn’t really affect the quality of a school itself. </p>
<p>Eventually, I believe Rice will experience a measurable bump in their applicant volumes in the same way the UChicago has been due for this increase for a long time, the way that Wash U experienced in the late 90’s, the way that Penn experienced most likely in the mid-90’s or so. As popularity increases, cross-admit battles are more easily won, which means lower acceptance rates and higher yields, and breaking through the mold of the “old boys club” (aka the Ivy League). Rice has the quality student body, the resources, the academics, to warrant it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>CUE7, if you’re referring to holistic admissions, all the BS about forming a class and so forth, you are a bit clueless. This stuff of “academics plus non-academic factors” was designed for other reasons, including limiting the number of jewish students, protecting alumni kids, continuing to provide preference to prep school grads and so forth. This is well documented elsewhere. No need to go into it here. </p>
<p>So please, spare me the rhetoric about a failed approach. What failed at Chicago was a historic lack of interest in the college, in other words, a leadership issue. Add a few external factors, like the period of decline on the south side of Chicago, and one can easily understand what happened. </p>
<p>If you were referring to something else, my apology for the rant. </p>
<p>Keepitcoolidge, Rice’s problem is, in one word, Houston. Not exactly the ultimate college town in anyone’s book. At least UofC has, cough, cough, Chicago, which in itself is a draw for some kids.</p>
<p>newmassdad, I think Cue7 was referring to things like sports, arts, journalism, career networks, alumni support, and just generally making a splash in the world – all things that Harvard and Yale have done much, much better than Chicago at the college level over the past generation, and all things that Chicago has explicitly been trying to improve recently.</p>
<p>But in the department of sparing the the same old rhetoric, I am tired of seeing Karabell’s thesis dragged out for the zillionth time. Let’s posit that everything Karabell said, and the spin he put on it, is true. What were the results? Did HYP weaken or strengthen themselves relative to other educational institutions over the past 70 years? Did maintaining the social cachet of the colleges make them more or less attractive, and more or less useful, to talented outsiders? Have they advanced or ■■■■■■■■ the emergence of a more egalitarian society?</p>
<p>I think if you compare the approach taken by HYP, with all its nuances, compromises, and juggling of multiple agendas, with a hypothetical “pure” one-factor approach (for which the University of Chicago serves to some extent as a proxy), the evidence of experience and history is solidly on the side of HYP.</p>
<p>Perhaps this wasn’t intended, but I think Newmassdad’s reference to “a historic lack of interest in the college” might be pointed at the College in the sense of the undergraduate program at the expense of the graduate and professional programs. I believe the idea of general education and the “core curricumum” has gradually been whittled away just about everywhere in the country, as undergraduate education increasingly has become specialized somewhat on a graduate program model. Since Chicago’s curriculum long stood as the model general education program, the falling out of favor of this entire approach has been a drawback to recruiting prospective students. It has been viewed by high school senios as something like having to each spinach or broccoli: distasteful, and I’ll have it if I must; but maybe I don’t have to have it at all.</p>
<p>It wasn’t just the complicated application but the core that has turned many potential applicants off. In contrast, Brown’s curriculum came to be extoled by many as allowing the kind of flexibility that students wanted.</p>
<p>I don’t see the big-time athletics, the “Greek scene,” and so forth as particularly salient to what has made HYPS a big attractor or has limited Chicago’s attractiveness to potential students.</p>
<p>In this sense, I am more persuaded by Newmassdad’s reference to the neighborhood (Hyde Park) and even by the idea that the faculty at UofC itself doesn’t particularly respect the idea of the core. </p>
<p>In the meantime, however, student interests and expectations generally are changing. They want to have some overseas experience, for example; and putting a bit more flexibility into the core curriculum at Chicago in recent years has made it easier for students to do this. (Ten years ago my son managed to take a year abroad at LSE with no problem at all, but not that large a percentage of Chicago students study abroad as compared to, um, Michigan State!). At the same time, the UofC admin’s paying more attention to the quality of student life, and paying more attention to the economic “payoff” of a Chicago education – not only promoting the “life of the mind” meme – helps to make Chicago a more attractive option. Even if they still have to eat some broccoli in order to graduate, and even if the core intellectual culture is intensive.</p>
<p>Then making the application process less daunting – and perhaps easing up a bit on that oh-so-self-important set of essays – means that a lot more high school seniors are going to take a serious look, or at least a chance, by applying to Chicago. And by the way, it IS in Chicago, which beats the hell out of the location of most of the Ivies. And one trend that I think Chicago may be riding on a bit is the increasing desire of the younger generation to live in a real city.</p>
<p>ok, now how many of you have heard of Rolls Royce but not Bentley?</p>
<p>How about Jaguar, what is the company that takes exactly the same body, changes the grille a tad, and re-badges it ? Daimler.</p>
<p>Does Maybach imply luxury to you more than Mercedes Benz?</p>
<p>Everyone wants to take advil, but wouldn’t touch ibuprofen,</p>
<p>see my point?</p>
<p>Chicago is a great school ( recent admissions follies and last Nobel laureate notwithstanding ) but is relatively unheard of. If you apply to grad school with Chicago on your CV, it’s as good as if it were HYP.But the general public doesn’t know the school…but what does that matter?</p>
<p>Do you think the general public will eventually know that Bentley is a Rolls, or that Daimler is a Jag? Not any time soon, so why even try ? All the chest thumping and preening going on on this thread of parents and students is not going to change that perception. not even if the applicants rise to 30,000 Heck, Stanford doesn’t even have equal footing with the term " ivy league" …it’s a reach to get the gen. public to even cough up the fourth in HYPS…sorry, it will be a long time before it’s HYPSC …( unless the C stands for Columbia ).reality bites , get used to it and move on…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nice try, but in all the time I have been on cc, I have NEVER put down Chicago. Try to find one post of mine that does so…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How do you know that I “have nothing to do with the school”? And, last time I checked, cc was an open forum, with no rules on who could post on which threads. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>PS. This thread is featured under Hot Topics on cc’s main page. Not too hard to find. But if you have a problem of non-Chicago adults posting on the Chicago thread, you might ask the mods to move it off of the Main Stage.</p>
<p>mackinaw, I agree completely with some of what you say, and find some of the rest completely puzzling.</p>
<p>As for Chicago (and a core curriculum) vs. Brown (and open curriculum), I find that about the same number of qualified students is drawn to one as is drawn to the other, and of course many recognize that they can achieve their personal educational goals under either set of rules. If anything, I think smart high school students have a tendency, which I find misguided, to overvalue core curriculum requirements, and to be suspicious of Brown’s no-requirements system. Many of them seem to feel that they “need discipline” and that they will somehow run off the rails if no one tells them to take certain courses.</p>
<p>I don’t see much evidence of gen ed requirements falling out of favor at elite institutions. During my adulthood, the trend has generally been towards more, not less of them. I also have no idea what you mean when you say that the Chicago faculty doesn’t particularly respect the idea of the core. I’m sure some don’t, but I’m also sure that has probably been the case for 50 years at least. As a faculty, they have given no indication that the core is going anywhere. If anything, the fact that the core offerings continue to be updated shows that people are always thinking about it and care about improving it.</p>
<p>I certainly didn’t mention a “Greek scene” as one of the attractions of HYP, since none of them has a meaningful Greek scene at all. One can quibble about “big-time athletics”, but there’s no question that there is significantly more sports culture – spectator and participant – at HYP than at Chicago. In any event, the other things I mentioned matter a lot more.</p>
<p>Newmassdad is certainly right that Hyde Park has been an issue, but so have Morningside Heights, West Philadelphia, downtown New Haven, etc. And (for the reasons you give), none of them is as much an issue these days as Hanover NH or Ithaca NY.</p>
<p>Speaking of Hyde park, When I visited Chicago, I stepped off campus right near the U Chicago sign ( surprisingly downmarket for a top institution, you should see the one Hopkins has )…it was a street the size of a highway, punctuated by slum building upon slum building and the supposedly nearby museum was quite a hike…I can’t imagine what that’s like in the Chicago winter …and no cabs around, and none I could call either…now that doesn’t happen over at Morningside heights…walk in any direction for 1 block, and you will run into transportation, a restaurant, a deli…human life forms,…central park is a half mile away…there’s a subway right at Columbia’s gate. …there’s no comparison.</p>
<p>And I still feel that Chicago is being disingenuous by luring top HS applicants with 3x more than the usual advertising emails, and "personalized "letters for those with specialty interests, and propogating the image that they’re outside the usual IVY, the “just-as-good-not-as-well-known-and-therefore-more-within-reach-especially EA” type of atmosphere.</p>
<p>Now all the chicagoans are celebrating this pyrrhic achievement?</p>
<p>JHS - I keep reciting Karabel’s thesis mainly because, well, parents or students keep reacting with outrage to Chicago’s admissions jump and decision to eschew the “self-selective” process. What I enjoyed about Karabel’s work is it breaks down the ways schools are self-serving, and it makes the entire admissions process much more understandable. Quite simply, most students and parents have the idea that there should be some degree of fairness and meritocracy in the admissions process, and to a great extent, that still just isn’t true. So, finally, I think the word needs to be spread as much as possible on this point.</p>
<p>Newmassdad - as JHS clarified, I was speaking more about all the other factors and fields where Chicago has lagged behind. It was the continued single-mindedness (i.e. singular focus on academics) of the college (started with Hutchins but then certainly continued with leaders such as Hanna Gray), more than location or sound leadership defects or anything of that sort that made Chicago stumble. by the tail end of the 20th century. </p>
<p>Now, I foresee Chicago changing from being a “teacher of teacher” (i.e. primarily a producer of academics) to taking the approach of “creating rigorous thinkers who will lead in all endeavors.” Put another way, if Chicago can keep its dedication to sound, critical analysis alive, but can also encourage and support its graduates to use these crucial skills to assume leadership positions, well, then, Chicago will have quite a thing going. Quite simply, and why schools like Rice and Wash U still stumble a bit (as keepitcoolidge noted in an insightful post), schools are about: academics and power. Chicago’s always had an embarrassment of riches on the academics side, and a dearth on the “connections to power” side. </p>
<p>Once Chicago starts picking up savvier students with a wider range of interests, and the institution starts supporting them more, you’ll really see tangible gains for the school.</p>
<p>GoBlueJays - just by being in NYC and manhattan specifically, of course cabs are everywhere and there are subway stops all over the place. Go to West Philly or Baltimore or New Haven and see if any of those places are more bustling. You might get more cabs in those areas, but that’s about it.</p>
<p>Cue7, yes, that’s true. Only saying one can’t compare Morningside heights to Hyde park. I was really let down when I visited Chicago. For being a cultural mecca, there just weren’t any places someone could access without a car ( or snowcat ).</p>
<p>GoBlueJays - I think that’s just more the nature of Chicago as a city - it’s still much more of a spread out, car-focused midwestern city. Public transportation isn’t nearly as developed as what you have in NYC. Also, yes, the winters are much more brutal and snow-heavy than anything you see in the mid-atlantic. It’s just a difference between NYC and Chicago. </p>
<p>I think having NYC be so accessible is a bit of a double-edged sword for Columbia. Chicago probably features a more “intimate” environment, mainly because students stay rooted in Hyde Park more, and they can go and access the city as readily. It all depends what you want out of a college environment.</p>
<p>That’s really not true, GoBlueJays. Well, it’s true that Columbia is a lot more convenient to what’s exciting in New York than the University of Chicago is to what’s exciting in Chicago. But it’s not hard to access the cultural riches of Chicago from the University by public transportation. The 55 bus, for instance, traverses the campus on 55th St., and goes to Midway Airport and the Museum of Science and Industry (depending on which direction), as well as the Green and Red el lines. The Green Line is very accessible from the south part of the campus, and the 6 Bus and Metra go up to the Loop. The summer when my daughter worked just north of the Chicago River, she had a 20-minute door-to-door commute from her apartment in Hyde Park. (No car, either, just to be clear.)</p>
<p>West Philly, by the way, where I lived for 10 years, is significantly more bustling than Hyde Park, especially in the area around Penn. Chicago could learn a lot from Penn in terms of fostering development that improves the quality of student life, and Penn is criss-crossed by public transportation – five trolley lines, a subway, and multiple bus lines. Plus, if the weather’s OK it’s an easy walk from Penn to Center City. But Penn is much closer, physically, to the main business areas of Philadelphia than the University of Chicago is to those areas in Chicago, and the really cool parts of Chicago are much more dispersed in the city – mainly, unfortunately, in the northern half of the city – than is the case with Philadelphia.</p>
<p>JHS - yeah with Chicago just being so much more spread out, it’s just harder to access everything. Also, when your daughter had only a 20 minute commute to downtown Chicago, I’m assuming she lived very close to the Metra line? </p>
<p>I remember taking the 55 to the Red line, and especially during the winter, man it was not a comfortable trip. The worst part was coming back later at night and waiting for the bus by the red line stop in the freezing cold with all the cars rushing by. It’s just not as convenient an experience as getting around in NYC and Philly. Also, to get to the north side just took FOREVER. I wish the Metra line ran further north - that’d be great. If I ever had billions of dollars to give back to my alma mater, I’d love for a high speed subway line (or maybe an extension to the red line) to stop right in the middle of Hyde Park. That’d be great. </p>
<p>When I lived in Philly, yep, Penn was much closer to center city, but, coming from Chicago, I didn’t find downtown Philly to even remotely match the “big city feel” of Chicago. At Penn, you’re closer to downtown, but for me, the downtown isn’t remotely as cool. Also, in reference to what GoBlueJays was saying, I was more mentioning how, if you walks just a couple short blocks west of UPenn’s campus, the feel of the neighborhood can change markedly. (Although, to be fair, West Philly is a strange beast now, with some very run down areas and then other parts with beautiful houses and cool cafes). Also, since Philly is so compact, lots of grad students walk from Center City to campus. Man that walk around 30th St is pretty barren too - it reminded me of parts of Hyde Park. (Of course, both UPenn and Chicago are planning to improve their respective areas, Penn with an ambitious plan for the 30th&Walnut area, but one that will take years to complete).</p>
<p>Penn has been talking about upgrading the area towards Center City for decades (certainly in the 80s when I was a West Philly resident and would walk from 15th St. home to 46th on nice days). 30th St. Station and the Schuylkill make that redevelopment difficult; it’s just not a pedestrian-friendly area. Does Drexel even care about these kinds of improvements?</p>
<p>There are three reasons why Philadelphia doesn’t match the big city feel of downtown Chicago. First, it’s smaller and poorer. Second, until the mid-80s there was a rule that kept the height of buildings to about 24 floors, and only 10-12 buildings have gone up since it was lifted, and the buildings built before that tended to be boxes that did nothing but enclose as much leasable space as was available under the height limit. Third, our streets are much narrower and blocks shorter. It’s just a different sort of city. It’s much cheaper, though.</p>
<p>Counting Down – as Cue7 knows, the redevelopment of the area between the river and Penn is much farther along than when it was a pipe dream. The Postal Service has sold the old main post office to Penn. One glitzy, very successful new office building has gone up next to 30th St. Station, and there are plans by the same developer to put a whole complex of office, retail, and residential buildings on the post office site. The bridges over the river all have lovely lighting now, and are much more pedestrian-friendly, and they are totally rebuilding the Spruce St. bridge. Drexel cares, of course, but it does not have anything like Penn’s resources, and it has been using what it has to build up its medical school and law school.</p>
<p>Point well taken, Cue7 and JHS. I have 2 daughters who applied to U of C, and one got rejected, the second one was deferred, but she got into her first choice early, so it was a no-brainer…she withdrew her app from Uo C.</p>
<p>I had bad experiences with both. The first, they didn’t even have an interview scheduled for her after we had traveled to the Windy City…an administrative glitch, but one I feel they should have accomodated for, given that they are a world class institution. After the tour, we were dumped unceremoniously on campus, and yes, those buses JHS mentioned were there, we were just bereft of any directions or available maps of the routes. I had spent about $1K to do this trip,which was completely unecessary. My daughter had no more insight of the place by visiting the physical campus, and seeing a brief tour. Then , come April , a classmate,a "URM "…actually a Korean masquerading as a Latino with C’s and 600s on her SATS and no ECs to speak of got the fat envelope, to add insult to injury. I realize one can’t blame Affiermative Action for this, but you see, it all adds up to a very negative impression. </p>
<p>As if that were not enough, U of C schmoozed my 2d daughter. She went up there. This time, she was interviewed by an admissions officer who was very young, and didn’t care about her. One good thing the trip did for her,…showed her she * didn’t * want U o C. I again realize this might have just been chance, but U of C could have chosen a better interviewer for someone who has come this far, and to great expense. </p>
<p>You see, there’s a “disconnect” ( I eschew these new age words , but in this case, it fits )between Chicago’s attitude *** before*** the student gets to the interview, and after. Again, it adds up to treating applicants ( and, BTW their families) as purely someone to help push up their stats, where the other colleges don’t do that.</p>
<p>That’s not to say U o C doesn’t produce gifted graduates, I can see from both of these responses ( Cue and JHS )that you do think carefully, and can communicate without rancor on this anonymous internet thread, I feel this speaks well of your institution.</p>