University of Chicago Sees 42% Increase in Applications

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
61

<p>danas - thats true, I didn’t even think of the Public Policy school or the SSA. I guess I was thinking of a “pre-professional” very narrowly - meaning what I suppose are the most entrenched professional schools, those in law, business, medicine, engineering, etc. </p>

<p>When I was an undergrad, I guess having a large Public Policy school or whatever wouldn’t really influence my view of seeing Chicago as a “pre-professional” place. I dunno why, but I consider a school of public policy (and perhaps the SSA too) as being distinct from what I would imagine are the more narrowly focused schools of business, law, medicine, journalism, engineering, etc. </p>

<p>Also, regarding D1 sports, nah, I don’t think it’d be a drastic change to start a couple D1 programs at Chicago. Being in the UAA, Chicago already travels a ton and spends a lot on its travel budget, and, just like with the ivies and little ivies, being D1 doesn’t necessarily mean Chicago needs to give out athletic scholarships. </p>

<p>The big question is whether the admin thinks there is a NEED for some D1 sports on campus. This is a point where the administration and I would differ. The actual COST to go D1 in a sport or two really wouldn’t be that drastic though. (I think the enhancement to student life would justify the elevation in cost, but the admin wouldn’t agree… yet.)</p>

62

<p>uofcapplicant - it is regrettable from an applicant’s point of view, but, unfortunately, being a “unique, self-selective” school is NOT good from an institutional perspective. For the health of the institution, it’s probably better if Chicago’s admissions strategies fell more in line with its peers.</p>

63

<p>Chicago could actually compete on the level of the D-I Horizon League in men’s and women’s swimming, and the conference is very suitable geographically…</p>

64

<p>Cue7 - Uniqueness and self-selectivity are frequently cited, and valued, by UChicago officials when it comes to admissions questions. This was what drew me to apply. Being in line with peers in terms of acceptance rates is good and healthy for an education institution? Being in the crowd is good and healthy?</p>

65

<p>Let’s not get carried away. If one listens to the University spokespeople and the Dean of Students, the Core is not changing, the professors are not changing, and only those who really want to go will go. They do not have to change their emphasis on HS curriculum and Essays just because there is (perhaps a one time) increase in admits. If the faculty find the admitted students not to their liking, the policy will change. As Dean Boyer has recently reiterated, the College admits for the faculty. The faculty has enormous influence at Chicago, perhaps more than most schools. They will get what they want.</p>

66

<p>42% increase what the hell? UChicago has insane academic demands and somehow this year 42% more people just decided that they’ll go for it?</p>

67

<p>Things to keep in mind:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The adcoms now must read all these applications. You think they staffed for a 42% increase? So expect a decreased emphasis on the essays, not that they’d ever admit it. </p></li>
<li><p>We’ll really know what is going on (i.e. how many of those that applied this year really know what to expect of UofC) when we see the yield next May. If they truly hold to the same number of admits, they’re taking a real gamble that they need to reach into the waitlist pool. Of course overenrolling is no fun either, so they probably made the right decision. </p></li>
<li><p>Historically, UofC has been perceived to be less generous with fin aid. This year, with the better endowed elites hurting badly financially, the playing field may be a bit more level, not that a Yale would ever admit to tinkering with its fin aid practices. what will happen this year? Again, we’ll see in May. </p></li>
<li><p>If UofC continues this rise, it will be one of the all time amazing feats. After all, it is still in the Midwest, in what is perceived to be a not so great area. Not to mention the weather. (Maybe weather explains why Cornell and Dartmouth are not ranked higher? Anyone care to correlate mean January temperature with academic ranking? Never mind…)</p></li>
</ol>

68

<p>newmassdad, I sure haven’t done the work, but one hypothesis I would love to test is that major urban location or proximity is an increasing factor in academic ranking, with places like Chicago, Columbia, USC rising, and Cornell and Dartmouth (and others) falling. Both because of preferences and substance. People like major cities, and are less scared of them than 20-30 years ago. And, when you are doing faculty recruitment, it is (a) necessary to solve the second-job problem (SOs expect to work), and (b) much, much easier to do that in a major urban area. Over time, that has really been hurting Cornell and Dartmouth.</p>

69

<p>^JHS, you may be right, but what about Princeton? Williams?</p>

70

<p>I know next-to-nothing about admissions, but I’d expect them to be very careful about the yield - it may even increase, and I think that if that does turn out to be the case, it would be due to their advertising. I suspect, though, that they’ve already run their calculations and probably know what they’re doing.</p>

71

<p>Princeton is only about 45 minute train ride to Manhattan and about the same to Philadelphia. I dunno about Williams. Cold weather is not a reason not to attend good school. Harvard is pretty cold and gray too yet nobody mine. I can see people choosing between urban or country setting though.</p>

72

<p>Did anyone see this in the Maroon article (which I think was updated recently)?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Especially that last quote… wow. That’s bold.</p>

73

<p>He’s right, though. Chicago and Columbia DO have lots of similarities, and in every relevant category other than location I think Chicago is the superior institution. (Which of course does NOT mean that Columbia is “bad” in any way. Or that, especially in the case of Columbia, location isn’t a huge deal.)</p>

<p>PaperChaser: Yes, Princeton (and Stanford, its West Coast counterpart) is in a special category – close enough to the big city for entertainment and employment purposes, and in the middle of its own economically (and even culturally) vibrant mini-urb. As for Williams – if you compare now to 30 years ago, I think all of the top LACs have lost prestige compared to the top private universities, and I think location has something to do with that. And some of the ones that seem to have had the biggest gains relative to their peers over that time are semi-urban – I’m thinking of Swarthmore and Pomona. (But then there’s Middlebury, too . . .)</p>

74

<p>Come to think of it, this 19,306 figure also probably doesn’t include the people who didn’t complete their supplements on time. Chicago gave these students a deadline - January 19, which hasn’t passed. I don’t know how many more students would be using extension, though, and how many of them would be intimidated by the 42% growth in applications.</p>

75

<p>phuriku and JHS - wait, do either of you find it a little extraordinary that a Dean of a College actually (albeit lightly) derides another a school? I have to admit, I’ve never heard the dean of a school call his institution “better” than another one of his peers.</p>

<p>Maybe Boyer was taken out of context? Maybe it’s true that Chicago is better than Columbia, but I can’t remember the last time a Dean made such a direct, head-on comparison. </p>

<p>Personally, I find the attempt at establishing a pecking order a little distasteful. I think considering schools in bands, with a wide range of peer schools, is a better way to go. I’d say Chicago’s closest peers are places like Columbia, Penn, etc. but I don’t think it’s productive to try and decide which school is “better” than the other.</p>

<p>Btw did anyone else think the Maroon article had moments of unleashing a bit of pent-up frustration? For decades, either inwardly or outwardly, Chicago has also considered itself to be better than most of its peers out there. I feel like Boyer made his statement because, well, he FINALLY could. There’s now some satisfaction in the sense where Boyer can say, “yeah well look, we’re better than Columbia and Brown and Duke and UPenn, it’s high time our admissions reflected that.” I liked the tone in some ways - for probably 10 years now, the U of C has been in the process of improving itself on the “vanity fronts” (selectivity, shiny dorms, etc.), and this year seems to be the watershed moment where Chicago’s efforts bloom. Nevertheless, I’m not really one to call out schools in that way, but I’m sure Boyer has been waiting a while to make a statement like this.</p>

<p>(Btw, if any of you have ever met Dean Boyer, who is among the more reserved, scholarly men I know, you can’t imagine that he’s one to ever say 'dem fighting words)</p>

<p>Imagine if Chicago won the Olympic Bid, and the city was beginning preparation for the 2016 Olympics? All of a sudden, even more worldwide exposure for the school. The mind reels…</p>

<p>One final note, any idea what the final goal is for admissions now? The College isn’t really expanding any more, so what’s the target app pool? Zimmer targeted a pool of about 15,000, but that number’s been readily beaten just this year. I think a key goal should be improving yield. As enthusiasm spreads for Chicago, a yield goal of around 40-42% overall would be good if Chicago sticks with EA. (If Nondorf decides to go with ED, which is doubtful, then yield becomes a much more manipulable number). I think if Chicago can one day win roughly 40-45% of the cross admits with its peer schools (which are primarily located on the more attractive coasts), that’d be a solid situation for admissions. Thoughts?</p>

76

<p>I wonder if the 42% number includes those given the extended deadline? They may simply be counting common app submissions. S1 said that if students attend Chicago thinking there has been a change in the workload/fun ratio, they will be sadly disappointed.</p>

77

<p>I thought that Boyer’s comments were extreme and inappropriate if indeed, he wasn’t quoted out of context. The appropriate way of stating one’s opinion of superiority over another school isn’t by outright saying it - rather, it’s by making comparisons to peer schools and by not including the relevant school (in this case, Columbia) within this supposed group of peers. In the past, Boyer did this by stating that Chicago has always been seen as the top 5 in the country in terms of academics and that Chicago has historically been on par with the likes of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Columbia also didn’t include Chicago in its group of peers upon making a report on its endowment last year. But never such a solid and bold statement by either schools. Even with respect to schools that are obviously inferior (and at least in my view, Columbia and Chicago are very close in quality), such statements are inappropriate and damaging to necessary inter-university relationships.</p>

<p>Since Chicago is now attempting to get more applications than Columbia, I imagine that the new target is in the 22-23k range. With a 36% yield, this equates to a 16-17% acceptance rate. If yield is boosted to the 40-42% range, this puts the acceptance rate at about 14%. This would be a good goal for the next few years, as it appears attainable if not rather difficult. But I can’t imagine that Nondorf doesn’t have even higher plans, perhaps in even getting Chicago’s selectivity to HYPMS level over the next decade.</p>

78

<p>Well, you have to make allowances for Boyer, I guess. He’s such a hyper-macho, chest-thumping trash-talker that sometimes he’s going to cross the line inadvertently.</p>

<p>[Note: That was sarcastic. Boyer has done a fabulous job as Dean of the College, but he is a mousy, dry-as-dust academic droner. I’m surprised he said something that direct, too. Probably he didn’t mean to.]</p>

79

<p>If Boyer, of all people, is not a proponent of UofC supremacy, who would be? Who should be? </p>

<p>Of course he can say UofC is great. And he should, or he should get a new job. </p>

<p>The more nuanced among us, especially the more nuanced that were educated at UofC, would ask him “how are we better?” Or maybe in more UofC fashion, “Define better…” then engage in a discussion of the dimensions of betterness. But this may be beyond the scope of this thread…</p>

80

<p>newmassdad: You are so right. I had to laugh, it reminded me of a conversation I overheard between S1 and a friend (not from UofC). The friend said something about “falling outside this boundary of understanding…” S1 looked startled, and immediately replied, “How does one define a boundary for an understanding?” “Is he (the original speaker) referring to what is understood or to understanding itself?” etc. It was hilarious to listen in. (I asked him about this and said he didn’t think about it as a challenge, but as an inquiry into what the speaker was actually talking about. He said it went on at Chicago all the time, and it would be unlikely for someone to say something like that without having thought it through pretty thoroughly beforehand.) He quickly dropped his line of questioning when he saw his friend was not used to this type of discussion.</p>