<p>with Chicago’s rank being in the top 10, one would wonder why it’s not getting a lot more than 13,500 (people nowadays seem obsessed with getting into a top 10 school). the truth is, the application is a deterrent for many. it would be great for the institution to get 20,000+ but there’s also a chance the increases might taper off simply because not that many people are interested. even with improved marketing, they might not be able to target the pool that typically applies to Ivies in droves. those students probably already know what Chicago is about but just choose not to apply. changing the application to appeal to the mainstream could mean changing the character of the institution.</p>
<p>brebeuff - it depends on what you think a “healthy” admissions goal would be. U of C’s President, Robert Zimmer, has targeted getting between 15,000 and 20,000 applications in the next several years. Chicago’s class size will probably stay around 1300, and if yield hovers a bit below 40%, that means accepting around 3500 a class. In the next few years, this would translate to about a 18% accept rate. </p>
<p>I think it’s perfectly conceivable that Chicago could hit an 18% acceptance rate by the class of, say, 2017 without changing anything about the school. Instead, Chicago could just market harder and participate in more aggressive outreach. Is it really worth changing the character of the school to hit, say, a 14% accept rate rather than a 18% accept rate? Such a change would probably cause significant alumni (and faculty) backlash. Everything else about Chicago seems to be pretty strong - solid ranking, good financial position, etc. </p>
<p>I guess another way to frame the issue is, how selective does Chicago need to be? An acceptance rate in the teens seems to connote the level of selectivity (or “eliteness”) necessary to maintain its position. Changing the character of the school to shave a few more % points off the accept rate seems like a foolhardy and unneeded measure.</p>
<p>Most of Chicago’s immediate peers will maintain acceptance rates somewhere in the teens. If years from now Chicago has a 15% accept rate, and Columbia’s is 10%, I don’t think the discrepancy is that big a deal. When I applied to Chicago in the 1990s, U of C was accepting around 65% of applications, whereas Columbia, Brown, etc. were accepting 25% of apps. (Northwestern, at the time, was accepting maybe 35% of apps.) Then, the difference was much more glaring and caused many people to quirk their eyebrows. </p>
<p>Now, Chicago’s selectivity is dropping in line with its peers, while the core character of the school remains similar and alums don’t seem frustrated. This is a pretty significant accomplishment.</p>
<p>Final note - I think it’s more important for Chicago to make headway in making the place a more appealing option for students. Again, this doesn’t mean jettisoning the “serious” reputation of the school. Instead, U of C needs to continue what it’s already doing - expanding the extra-curricular and living options for students to make the campus more amenable to undergrads. Building a new arts center, creating a more centralized campus, etc. all add to this. Again, changing the character isn’t really the way to go.</p>
<p>I agree 18% is conceivable assuming the yield doesn’t drop and the school is forced to accept more. Whether or not that figure can compete with Dartmouth or even Penn is questionable though.</p>
<p>Actually Dartmouth has the lowest ED percentage in the Ivy league, with about 33% ED. Compare this to Penn (48% ED) and Columbia (43% ED).</p>
<p>Chicago is more selective.</p>
<p>^random. we already settled this if you read previous posts. stats show NU is slightly more selective.</p>
<p>I intended my post to convey my disagreement.</p>
<p>Congratulations, few have the wherewithal to directly contradict facts and reason!</p>
<p>Selectivity is not quantifiable or objectively conveyable; I’m not contradicting reason or fact. I was communicating my subjective conclusion based off of admissions decisions I have seen.</p>
<p>My anecdotal support for my conclusion is that 1 person has been selected to Chicago from my high school among the 30-40 who applied over the last 5 years. 11 people among the 30-40 who applied to Northwestern were accepted.</p>
<p>I went to a Northeast elite feeder school with about 20% going to Ivies (plus Stanford, MIT, Duke, Amherst), another 20% going to top 15 places like NU, Chicago, WashU, top LACs, and Rice, and another 20% going to the top 25 and top 20 LACs. There is no question in my mind that at my school Northwestern was more selective, and honestly with a meaningful difference.</p>
<p>is there a difference in selectivity between the 2 if applying with science/engineering major in mind or premed/prepharmacy goals?</p>
<p>silverturtle, when looking at which is more selective, you should look at the entire picture (meaning overall stats and admission rates for each school), not just at your school. anecdotal support is weak.
some schools’ acceptances will align with the overall pattern, some not.</p>
<p>
tell that to HYP. honestly, your arguments sound kind of ridiculous.</p>
<p>Anecdotal support confined to the subject matter of the thing which I am trying to prove is not weak. Anecdotal support is weak in proving more generally, which I have already acknowledged. It seems as if the posters have missed my point: I feel that the concept of selectivity is not concrete, sensibly quantifiable, or objective enough to warrant meaningful comparisons in cases in which the two objects of comparison are, by anyone’s account, similar.</p>
<p>The fact that there is differing anecdotal evidence should indicate this.</p>
<p>“tell that to HYP. honestly, your arguments sound kind of ridiculous.”</p>
<p>I don’t know what matters relating to HYP you are referring to. None of those three schools attempt to convey their relative selectivities absolutely.</p>
<p>You’ve got to be kidding me if you don’t think HYP are not more selective in every way possible.</p>
<p>Selectivity, as we’ve defined it, is a matter of acceptance rate, stats of admitted students and whatever else that matters, like yield and quality of the applicant pool. You should already know this.</p>
<p>how is your HS representative of all high schools with applicants to NU and UC as a whole?</p>
<p>okay this thread is going off in tangents… let’s just say to define which school is “harder to get into” is really ambiguous and varies from student to student depending on their strengths (if we are talking strictly about those who qualify and are considered within competitive range, not outliers on both ends). There’s obviously no true formula to gaining acceptance, as admission officers try to create “a well-rounded body of students… not a body of well-rounded students.” (can’t remember who said it, but it was well put, don’t you think?)</p>
<p>“how is your HS representative of all high schools with applicants to NU and UC as a whole?”</p>
<p>I have now stated in three different posts that it is not, nor is any high school.</p>