<p>
</p>
<p>Difference in Degree vs. Difference in Kind</p>
<p>I really don’t understand the problem at all, or exactly what objobs is objecting to. A university is a company, they are incorporated as not-for-profits, with a couple of exceptions. United Way and many NFP’s advertise like crazy, and for good reason. Every entity has its own set of needs and goals, and marketing is virtually always part of the equation in meeting those needs and goals. Heck, even deciding not to advertise and to instead rely on word-of-mouth and other outside mechanisms is a marketing decision. Objobs demonstrates a good example of this with Cal Tech. I am certain they do some marketing, but the nature of the school and its incredible reputation allow it to take the very reasonable marketing strategy of boosting word-of-mouth and write-ups in the main college guides, along with very limited yet strategic use of more traditional marketing tools. Not everyone is in that postion, so they use a different strategy. Again, Marketing 101.</p>
<p>But to repeat myself, and let’s use Chicago since they are the big topic here, how much sense would it make to have taught this exact lesson to thousands and thousands of students over the years at the Booth School of Business and then say “Oh, but I am a university. None of that applies to me”. Degree and kind? Is there some rule I am unaware of as to how much marketing a university should do? Certainly one is entitled to an opinion that says that one does not care for the particular marketing campaign employed. Happens all the time, and ad agencies get fired for it. But in this day and age to ignore marketing completely, even for a university, is potentially a disasterous attitude and choice.</p>
<p>Oh and memake, thanks for the compliment. Very nice of you to say so. Tulane is a great place for a lot of people, not right for others. Occupies an interesting “space”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sorry objobs, I don’t know you personally and how long you’ve been out of the admissions cycle, but your interpretation of the analogy doesn’t quite jive with the present state of affairs.</p>
<p>It’s erroneous to contend that Chicago feels that marketing is okay because Ivies would do the same if they were less popular, because as a matter of fact, Ivies DO send out pamphlets/letters/random marketing crap. In this way, Chicago is imitating what the Ivies are actually doing, not what they would hypothetically be doing in Chicago’s situation.</p>
<p>By extension, does Harvard’s marketing spam (I really could care less that the asian student group would really love to have me apply) mean it is a less meritable university? clutching at cheese-filled attempts to get more applicants?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i’m intrigued by this metaphor</p>
<p>Blintzes??</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like I said: “Difference in Degree vs. Difference in Kind.”</p>
<p>And like I said: Different entities market differently. Just like Lexus markets differently than Rolls Royce. Lexus knows how Rolls Royce markets, but they don’t base their decisions on it although they would be foolish not to pay attention to something that works, and vice-versa. Doesn’t mean they will do it. They are each trying to achieve their own goals and reach their target market. It is silly to say Chicago is imitating the Ivies; pamphlets and letters were hardly invented by the Ivies. But it is equally silly to complain about a marketing campaign that appears to have been successful, unless you have some moral objection. To call what Chicago is doing superficial and questionable is just completely bizarre.</p>
<p>It IS erroneous to contend that Chigago feels that marketing is okay because Ivies would do the same if they were less popular. Chicago feels marketing is okay because it is…okay. What a revelatory thought!</p>
<p>It’s flattering to me that my one-liners receive such lengthy responses.</p>
<p>It isn’t just your one-liner that I am responding to. It is the totality of your posts that the one-liner represented. Besides, the “superficial and questionable” comment you made wasn’t part of your one-liner.</p>
<p>I guess you told me.</p>
<p>I guess I did, lol. Funny.</p>
<p>Almost as funny as Tulane’s 17% yield rate…</p>
<p>Feel free to have the last word (for I know you will). I’m done with this thread, which jumped the shark a while ago.</p>
<p>OMG, lol. You really don’t get their strategy at all if you are bringing up their yield rate without bringing up the admissions rate too. Both are meaningless because of their strategy. Proof? They enrolled 1680 kids this time with that 17% yield. That is about 130 over the target number, and puts them in a bit of a housing crunch, so they had to let more sophomores live off campus than they like (technically you are supposed to live on campus the first 2 years minimum). If they had a yield like some if the other schools of 30-40%, they would be in big trouble. BTW, take a look at Nebraska’s yield and then tell me how yield=quality. <a href=“http://irp.unl.edu/dmdocuments/CDS2009-10.pdf[/url]”>http://irp.unl.edu/dmdocuments/CDS2009-10.pdf</a> page 6 Just shows you have no idea what you are talking about.</p>
<p>@fallenchemist: I think it’s pretty clear that objobs is just ■■■■■■■■ (look at his past posts, which from what I can tell are all bashing various colleges). Just let it be.</p>
<p>The quarter system is not the root of the problem unto itself; rather it is the tempo the quarter system imposes (less time between midterms and finals and time to catch up if you fall behind) without an adequate reading period. </p>
<p>It always seemed ridiculous to me to pull back to back days with 2-5 hours sleep in the final week of autumn and winter terms knowing there were sizable vacations immediately around the corner. I would have gladly forgone some free time during holidays to work on papers and prepare for examinations. </p>
<p>I understand, however, why the College will never cave on this point and most Ivies are moving to eliminate reading periods altogether. It is not just that some students use them to slack off and then sprint at the end (although this is the biggest issue), but also that some students work diligently throughout all of the time afforded them, in turn making disparities in final performance enormous. It wasn’t until I had to grade finals in graduate school did I realize how poor of a position this puts profs in. The difference between a ‘B+’ paper - the grade we had to give to any student who turned in something even remotely cogent and not ripped verbatim from Wikipedia - was miles below an ‘A.’ Viscerally, you wanted to give the former a ‘C’ when benchmarked against the later, but it would run you afoul of a dean. In many respects, as annoying as it is, the compressed schedule UChicago operates on is an equalizer of sorts. It subtly rewards raw talent (of which there is plenty) over sustained paper shuffling. There is also a mental health argument about having real holidays, which may or may not have merit (since arguably some people go bonkers in advance precisely because their is no reading period).</p>
<p>heinochus - thanks, I didn’t look at his past posts. Appreciate the heads up.</p>
<p>Thanks heinochus, though I never really understood his one-liners. Anyone feel like explaining them to me?</p>
<p>@heinochus: Wow, you’re so right. I went back and looked at his posts, and every single one is negative.</p>
<p>I definitely dislike this year’s 42% increase in applications.</p>
<p>^ lol I agree.</p>