What do you dislike about UChicago?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
21

<p>^^

</p>

<p>I’m not so sure that’s true. This is absolutely anecdotal, but looking at the applicant outcomes of my own high school and another local high school, I think the admissions office has done a remarkably good job at separating what I consider the “Chicago type” from the “Ivy League type” (not that there isn’t significant overlap between these two groups anyway). Some applicants clearly stronger than me didn’t get in, probably because they didn’t “fit”. On the other hand, relatively weak applicants (by the standards of a top-ten university) who I thought would be perfect fits, got in. This probably also helps explain how Chicago’s yield rate actually went up this year rather than go down as many expected because of the increased overlap with Ivy league applicants; nearly everyone that was accepted, matriculated (the ones who didn’t had ED’d somewhere else).</p>

22

<p>

</p>

<p>Or more likely, the non-matriculants had chosen institutions of higher prestige and/or better FA, etc.</p>

23

<p>^ Once again, this is a tiny sample, so it obviously can’t be taken to represent the whole very accurately, but only one person chose a different college (Princeton), and trust me, nobody at either of the two high schools needed FA. That’s why we now all think that the U of C’s admissions office is psychic. ;)</p>

<p>Considering that Chicago’s yield in this sample was 78.5% (11/14), this can’t be taken as representative of Chicago’s admissions as a whole, with their overall yield being just under 40%, but my point is that if Chicago is careful, application rates can be increased but the composition of the student body can stay relatively the same (as I understand it, every generation has been lamenting the loss of the “quirkiness” of the incoming class).</p>

<p>As someone else pointed out in another thread, Chicago’s admissions model had “failed”. I wouldn’t put it in such harsh terms, but it was clear that despite Chicago’s excellent academics, some of the students it was attracting weren’t quite up to snuff, despite their love of learning.</p>

24

<p>

</p>

<p>I cannot speak about Chicago’s motives, and objobs is certainly entitled to his opinion, but knowing quite a bit about Tulane I will say that I think he is very off base here. I posted this some time back on another thread, so I will cut and paste it here, with minor changes for clarity of references in the other thread.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>So in fact the last 3 classes have been the strongest in Tulane’s history, this incoming class being the strongest. Isn’t that what most universities are trying to achieve? It just mystifies me the way schools, companies, etc. are castigated for doing well. Kind of like the free app. How can not charging anyone, which means financially strapped families also, be something to deride a school about? I know other schools waive the fee and all, but that requires having to ask. It is one thing to admit you cannot afford $50,000 and quite another to say you cannot afford $50. In any case, I usually like it when people let me apply to anything for free, in fact I am usually shocked when someone wants to charge me. Does seem a bit backwards, doesn’t it? Partly kidding, I realize that many other schools have to have some barrier to every Tom, Dick and Poindexter applying.</p>

<p>Also, for those that think it is about USNWR rankings, the admission rate factor counted for 1.5% of the total scoring, and they change the formula quite often so it might just disappear since so many schools do market aggressively. So it wouldn’t make sense for that to be the motive.</p>

<p>I will also add that since posting that I have had at least a dozen, probably more like 15-18 responses that said some version of “That is EXACTLY what happened with me. Tulane wasn’t even on my radar and now I am going.” That’s pretty strong affirmation of my theory I would say.</p>

<p>Sorry for the length, but this comes up from time to time and I wanted to set it right. This is a Chicago thread, so back to regular programming.</p>

25

<p>

</p>

<p>I got plenty of mail from Harvard, including an application in the mail. Publicity mail is ■■■■■■■■ and makes one ‘just like Tulane’ whatever that means.</p>

<p>Therefore, Harvard is just like Tulane.</p>

<p>EDIT: But since this is a Chicago thread, I’ll add my few cents. There’s only A/C in a few of the dorms. The city’s public transportation is not always the best/most convenient. Oh, and the later start date makes for a pretty lame month or so when all my friends go back to school and I’m stuck in Suburbia.</p>

26

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s academia; perhaps mass marketing campaigns look too corporate?</p>

<p>I don’t know if it’s Katrina, the marketing campaign, or simply the ever-increasing competitiveness of college admissions, but Tulane HAS become more popular in my area so something’s working.</p>

27

<p>There’s nothing wrong with more advertising… It’s no use sitting about being a fantastic college like UChicago if no one knows about it. Many probably still don’t. It’s good to get the attention of students. :)</p>

28

<p>

Yes, I think that is a big part of it, and as I also said in another thread somewhere, these schools all teach business and give business degrees, including in marketing. How absolutely hysterical is it that these people then think the universities should completely ignore what they are teaching their students? It cracks me up.</p>

29

<p>If Harvard or any of the Ivy Leagues had the current name-brand of Chicago (i.e., fairly poor outside of the education and upper class), then they would be marketing like all hell as well. They already have the name recognition, so they don’t need to do much more, as long as their app numbers increase by at least 2 to 5 percent every year. And even with their name brand, they still do a fair amount of marketing… and seeing as how I’m not seeing you criticize those schools, I’m calling hypocrisy on objobs.</p>

<p>Now, there is certainly a good argument that Chicago shouldn’t be marketing itself, esp. in terms of retaining the self-selective nature of its students (the truth of which is fairly obvious to me, who has seen students come and leave through the years). It could be argued that “prestige” makes a school more shallow and less intellectual, since students seeking prestige over education often don’t have the best intentions. And I am in complete agreement with this point. That being said, however, there are a number of problems that arise when there is no marketing. Alumni satisfaction for one. And considering that the alumni are the ones who contribute to the endowment and allow the university to have decent financial aid, good marketing (and hence increasing name brand) will lead to significant progress in terms of financial aid, not to mention the funding of research opportunities. And it doesn’t matter how intellectual a school is, if you don’t have the resources to pay for it, you won’t go, so Chicago wouldn’t be recruiting the top students (besides the 10 or so students who get full rides each year).</p>

<p>I’m something of a pure intellectual, and I would very much enjoy Chicago to keep its intellectual atmosphere. However, this is impossible without alumni satisfaction, and in fact, the intellectual atmosphere was almost destroyed in the 90s when our endowment was extremely low, there was very little financial aid, and the acceptance rate had gone up to nearly 80%. Unfortunately, to keep Chicago alive, marketing is a necessity. With increased name-brand, I’m sure Chicago’s students will be less involved academically and intellectually, but I don’t see why Chicago can’t keep its level of intellectual fervor higher than its peer colleges.</p>

30

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s like a physically unattractive person saying that the supermodels would get plastic surgery too if they were in his or her situation.</p>

31

<p>

</p>

<p>Awkward analogy, but I’ll take it.</p>

<p>By this very analogy, you would be the one criticizing a physically unattractive person who underwent plastic surgery. You might say that it’s “too fake”, but you would have just ignored them and regarded them as unattractive if they hadn’t received the surgery anyway, instead praising the naturally beautiful person. So why should aforementioned unattractive person regard your opinion with any seriousness? </p>

<p>When there’s a problem, you fix it. It may not please everyone, but at this point, it seems that many of the people (especially non-alums!) dissatisfied with the College’s moves are the same people who didn’t regard it too highly in the first place due to lack of prestige. I know there’s a small subset of the population with genuine feelings toward this issue, but I don’t think logic is on their side. I had a great talk about this with one of my professors during my first year, and although he was probably the most Chicago-esque professor of any I’ve had such far, he was in support of the university’s plans as laid out by Zimmer.</p>

<p>As a sidenote, I think that if your respect for an institution hinges on its admissions process (which is an extremely, extremely small aspect of an institution), then you probably aren’t in a position to judge the merits of a university anyway. Just my point of view.</p>

32

<p>^^ The analogy also doesn’t work because supermodels are one of the segments of population with the highest rates of plastic surgery. Or is that the point of your analogy?? I don’t really get it.</p>

33

<p>

</p>

<p>No, I don’t treat people (differently) based on their looks, but their behavior and personality. You missed the main point of the analogy because you projected.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It wasn’t meant to be taken sooo literally… :)</p>

34

<p>Objobs, sorry if I seem dull, but I’m still not entirely sure I understand your analogy. Isn’t it rather self-evident that a supermodel, or one aspiring to be a supermodel, would attempt to increase his or her own physical attractiveness, and by extension marketability? A University would work towards increasing its publicity and social cachet, which then attracts a better student body, better professors, and more research money.</p>

<p>Surely, you cannot object to too many beautiful supermodels, eh?</p>

35

<p>Fallenchemist: you’re insightful analysis of Tulane’s strategy and it’s success has certainly opened my eyes to it as a very reasonable school to recommend for some students’ lists…</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>ObChicagoPoint: worrying that UChicago will lose it’s uniqueness (intellectual fervor; quirkiness, whatever) has been de rigeur since, let’s see, oh forever. It hasn’t happened yet, and I don’t think it’s likely to. I am remembering undergrads in the 70’s worrying that Hutchins would roll in his grave if he saw how debased the common core requirements had become. I understand there have been wide swings in acceptance rate and yield over the past couple of decades. From what I saw when I visited with my kids, the culture has not changed much.</p>

36

<p>

</p>

<p>You seem to have misinterpreted my analogy. My point is that it is human nature for people in a lesser position to think that those in a higher position would use the same (superficial and questionable) means to try to achieve that higher position if they were in a similar lesser position. If we apply this to universities, it may be natural (but wrong) for Chicago to assume that the Ivies would employ the same marketing tactics as it does (and did last year) if they had lesser name recognition. But this is not necessarily the case. On one hand, it’s futile to speculate what the Ivies would have done if they had lesser name recognition because they haven’t done it yet and they don’t have lesser name recognition. On the other, there are other highly regarded academic institutions (such as Caltech) that don’t have Ivy name recognition and Caltech doesn’t conduct cheesy marketing campaigns like Chicago.</p>

37

<p>^ What has Chicago done that Caltech hasn’t? Are you referring to the goodies like the scarves, the t-shirts, etc? I think that’s a great idea!</p>

<p>And AFAIK, Caltech has better name recognition than the University of Chicago.</p>

38

<p>Per post #36, please substitute “justify their actions by saying” for “think” (in sentence 2).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Come on. Now you’re just being coy.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Don’t sell your school short.</p>

39

<p>^ No, I actually don’t know; I don’t follow Caltech’s admissions…it’s a great school, but I have absolutely no interest in it.</p>

40

<p>To Objobs, they (Caltech) do, do a lot of marketing. Personally, I have receieved about 100 emails from them over the course of two and a half years. Not to mention, the physical mail, they have sent. Most of these schools do marketing. It keeps their school’s name out there and present. To say it is wrong to do is so is misguided. Caltech has reached #4 because of its quality of students and proffessors. This is what these rankings are based on.
Therefore, the ranking of a school is still based on a reasonably objective matter/ in enough dimensions. In regards to the dinner table conversation on selectivity or “greatness” of a university (where the discussion of better university becomes murky), this is a more social issue and really irrelevant in so far one/ a school’s students can try to directly change. Finally, universities are places. So many have their stars and whether most of the nation’s accumulate in one place or not, it’s more for the university to focus on its mission statement of educating its students in the manner it finds to be the best. If it views that there should be changes, then it should change.</p>