<p>Prodigal son - I think you need to cut some of the Chicago posters a break. For schools that just haven’t “been there before,” you have to allow for some excitement for an institution that is really breaking new ground for itself.</p>
<p>As another example, this year, applications at Brown are up a lot, and for the first year ever, Brown may have a lower accept rate than Princeton or Yale. I’m sure there are people on the Brown forum who will be touting this achievement. </p>
<p>Schools by nature are in a type of pecking order, and when that pecking order changes, proponents of the school exclaim about it a bit. I think at times it could be a bit distasteful (i.e. Dean Boyer claiming Chicago is better than Columbia), but when something ground-breaking happens, you have to cut people some slack. </p>
<p>On another note, 7-8 years from now, if Chicago’s admit rate stabilizes at around 10%, and its firmly hovering around the HYPS level of selectivity, I’m sure comments like these will lessen in their frequency.</p>
<p>Some people seem to be assuming that UChicago has tried to boost its applications and yield to increase its national ranking. While that may be partial motive, Chicago is pretty high up there and has been for a long time. And it remains a fact that there can only be 10 schools in the top 10 of any ranking, so this is not a strategy that can be worked by just any college with a great PR program</p>
<p>There are ancillary benefits to being “in demand” by students and regarded as a desirable destination apart from the ranking. One of those is finance, specifically corporate and private donations, bequests, named professorships and buildings, and so forth. Not just from the U.S. but also from abroad.</p>
<p>It’s much easier for the development office to target donors when the university is in the news, getting very positive press, known as a house of science, and so on. And it’s also much easier for self-funded applicants to persuade their parents to pay for this education.</p>
<p>In short, the rankings – more generally a college or university’s reputation – carry more than just bragging rights. They bring resources.</p>
<p>In further good news for UChicago, Jonathan Cole in his well-received book, “The Great American University”, states that UChicago is our closest approximation to the idea of a great university. It is a meritocracy of ideas, a place where ideas flourish in an open way.</p>
<p>(Please note that the writer has no connection to UChicago.)</p>
<p>Prdigalson: I was not dissagreeing only commenting on the fact the Chicago lists SAT scores as only considered while many of it’s peers list them as very important, yet there is little difference. Looks like those essays are pretty highly correlated with good test taking skills.</p>
<p>Chicago, in the 1980s I believe was ranked higher at #6 and had a 60% + admit rate. Chicago is hardly a newcomer. Their “decline” was apparently do to reporting errors.</p>
<p>Who really cares if SAT scores are smidgen above or below someone else, especially given all we know regarding the limittions of the SATs? And how they track everything else?</p>
<p>If one thinks the “quality” of students could rise if the adcoms had more applicants to choose from, hardly a bold assumption, then it is inevitable that SAT scores would rise, whether or not UofC uses them as a factor in admissions because they are so highly correlated with other factors, particularly HS GPA. </p>
<p>In fact, the only way the reported aggregate scores could go down would be if UofC used them in reverse! I doubt anyone would do that. </p>
<p>Let’s get back to Div 1 sports and a return to the Big 10. Much more interesting. Now, where would their new football stadium go? Washington Park, as part of a southside park renewal?</p>
<p>UofC should just annex the park. The campus needs more space. And with the depopulation of the community just to the west, most of the space is wasted. Obama as president can do that, can’t he? I’m sure there’s a constitutional angle he can use.</p>
<p>Heck, once they get the park, why not take a page from a lot of other schools and put in a real fraternity/sorority row along the edge of the park? Payne road would be perfect.</p>
<p>Based on my source (College Board webpages of SAT ranges for all three institutions), WUSTL’s 75th percentile is at a 1540/1600, so it is likely to be slightly lower than Chicago’s 2320 (75th) if WUSTL included the Writing section. In fact, WUSTL’s M+CR scores are lower than those of Chicago’s at the 75th. Moreover, Pomona’s are slightly better at the both the 25th and 75th, but the difference is quite negligible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Stanford is the least meritocratic of the HYPS cluster.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, it is notable that Chicago’s academic talent exceeds that of many more reputable schools. (That is * not * an argument that academic talent is the only feature that measures the quality of its students body.)</p>
<p>As someone had correctly posted earlier, Chicago is not exactly as well-known among the public as HYPS. In fact, when individuals inquire into how my college process is faring, when I reply that I was accepted at the University of Chicago the blank look is about as pronounced as if I had stated that I was accepted at the University of North Dakota or the University of Fairbanks. The general public really does not view Chicago with the level of prestige that it truly deserves. The same scenario is true for WUSTL and Pomona College.</p>
<p>Thus, when institutions such as Chicago are more academically meritocratic than some of America’s top-five universities (Stanford, Penn), it is surprising since such universities are held in the world’s eye as the epitomes of academic achievement and meritocracy.</p>
<p>I do not think that idad agrees with your assertion that Pomona’s and WUSTL’s scores exceed those of Chicago. WUSTL’s do not and Pomona’s only to some extent.</p>
<p>@Cue7: Your post is insightful and well received! </p>
<p>Simply stated, Chicago is receiving more publicity regarding its academic ascent than at any other time in its history. When change occurs (especially the drastic change in the case of its application numbers), it is worth noting. With rising selectivity that is disproportional to that of its peers and the potential resources that this presitge increase may provide, comments extolling its great fortune are fully warranted.</p>
<p>lmao, so now it all makes sense. i was so confused with all the chicago recruitment crap my sister (hs senior) has been getting. when i applied to colleges, i dont remember receiving much from chicago - consequently, i didnt know its reputation and didnt apply- despite having higher test scores (i indicated wanting college stuff when taking standardized tests). i had a lot of stuff from the ivies, but nothing from schools like duke, chicago, even my alma mater etc. i had no idea chicago went to great lengths this year to beef up recruitment…</p>
<p>i flipped through some of the material. it’s clear chicago spent a lot of money on this campaign and it sure has paid off! i just hope the school isn’t giving up it’s quirky and respectable reputation to be be a rank-whore. </p>
<p>i personally would never go to chicago for schooling…but that’s just because i hate the cold, and i dont think i’d fit the mold in terms of student body quirkiness.</p>
<p>P.S. the true test of the success of this new strategy will be the strength of the incoming student body and not just yield/admissions rate. either way im sure all statistical categories will see marked improvements.</p>
<p>Your indignation is based on a change in the statistical information that describe the admission policy of the university. Note, that the admission office has never provided these statistics to prospective students, nor suggested that they should be used as guidance. The fact that people try to ‘game the system’ based on past performance should not affect school policy. </p>
<p>U Chicago encourages students to take the EA route. Those who did that, were rewarded with higher admission rate. The school admits people from RD as well, and a certain number of those will be accepted as well. There is nothing scandalous and irresponsible about the school policy.</p>