<p>This is a very serious question.</p>
<p>Sure. I don't think I'd ever want it to be on par with Harvard (just because schools with different reputations draw different kinds of people) but I don't see how gaining more prestiege would detract from it.</p>
<p>..... after this year, of course ;)</p>
<p>Actually this university is about as prestigious as you can get with those that matter, i.e. employers and other academic and educational institutions,etc. How else could you explain the large number of Rhodes Scholars, Fullbrights, etc. coming from a school like this with a relatively small undergraduate population. Prestige doesn't necessarily mean that the average Joe knows all about Chicago. What matters is that the people who can help you with where you want to go think its prestigious. Just look at the peer review ratings in USNWR or the London Times review of world universities where Chicago is in the top ten.</p>
<p>I think by prestige the OP means more well-known, like Harvard or Princeton.</p>
<p>Actually, I hope that U of Chicago doesn't get any more well known with the average person than it is now. This allows really bright kids who really know about the school and want to go there to get in rather than just have a huge number of kids apply for no other reason than that it is a particular name brand that they can wear on their sleeves to merely brag about. Then many kids who deserve a Chicago education and really want to be there would get rejected. That would hurt the school and change its character. If one looks at the statistics you will see that the stats of the students attending the school are pretty close to or above most of the ivies or comparable schools. I think that it bodes well for Chicago that it doesn't have the hordes of applicants that some of the other schools have and it worries me to see such a surge in applications. I only hope that the switch to the common app won't encourage random applications.</p>
<p>Yeah, I think if Chicago's reputation changed, it's character would change too. I mean I think it's common knowledge that Chicago has probably the best undergraduate academic experience...yet people still want to go to the Ivies, Duke, Stanford, the rival across town...</p>
<p>While I personally do not care what our rank is, what our SAT scores are, what blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, I think it's important for other people. Most, if not all, of my friends who are here chose Chicago over an Ivy League school that they were also admitted to, and some of them got more flak than others for making that decision (the other school offered more money, offered entrance into a special program, offered greater curbside appeal, etc.). All of them ended up choosing Chicago for their own reasons; none of them have regretted the choice. </p>
<p>Even though there are lots of academic and social gems of schools all over the United States, I think it still goes that the most academic, most charged, most interesting people end up gravitating not towards Whitman and St. John's and Reed (though I know people at those schools who are just as smart and amazing as any) but towards the "best" schools. When I applied to colleges from my top hs, I was applying to the "best" schools. In retrospect, I really should have considered other schools that weren't as well-known more carefully for various reasons, but I imagine that if I had gone into my GC's office with a list of schools that didn't match up with my transcript, I would have gotten quite the quizzical look.</p>
<p>I want to make it easy as possible for the students who want to choose Chicago to justify their choice to themselves, their families, and their peers. That's much easier to do if the school is a leader in rankings. That's also much easier if Chicago can make financial aid money fall from the sky.</p>
<p>I think we already have an example present where Chicago has become prestigious. I'm talking about economics, of course. And look at what's happened in that department. A lot of the econ majors really don't care about the education they receive here. They just want to get out of here with a prestigious degree and get a high-paying job.</p>
<p>If we become more prestigious, this will be the same for any field, and we'll have a bunch of academically non-committed students (we already have enough as it is)... which is exactly what we've been trying to avoid.</p>
<p>Although I agree with what unalove is trying to say, I really don't think that allowing students to justify their matriculation decisions is an excuse for polluting the academic environment.</p>
<p>I agree with phuriku. I think Chicago is special, unique, different and yes BETTER than HYP because it puts intellectuals first but more importantly scares off the "power" people and premeds who care more about prestige or grades than about actual intellectual content. Last year's val from D's suburban public HS told one teacher that HS was harder than Harvard. It seems like attracting the power people and premeds would just bring it down intellectually even further which would be a real shame because there doesn't appear to be many real substitutes. I don't even understand why they <em>want</em> to increase the applicant pool by using the common application. Think about who these extra people are who would apply using the common app, but wouldn't apply using the uncommon app. These are the same people who want to know if something is going to be on the test to decide whether or not they should care.</p>
<p>One positive thing I can think of with prestige (and I do share phuriku's concerns to some extent) is that non-academic parents might be more willing to cough up with the tuition. Some parents are willing to pay for attendence at one of the crazy eight ... but "can't affort" a similar cost at other private schools.</p>
<p>As a parent of a first year student at UChicago, I have to admit that --had UChicago been more traditionally prestigious-- it would have been on my S's map of possibilities a lot sooner. Neither I nor my S knew much about it, and hesitated before making a mid-cross-country trip to visit the school. Prior to this, we were looking at highly ranked schools that were accessible by train, not plane. However, once we visited, both of us fell in love. It turned out to be the ONLY school to which he applied. He is now gloriously happy and growing intellectually by leaps and bounds. </p>
<p>I'd like to think that, if the prestige were increased but the intellectual character of the school was maintained (not an unreasonable possibility), more students who "belong" at the school would consider it more easily. They would be more likely to make that long trip to visit it and would similarly fall in love.</p>
<p>Sachmoney, pretty strong words there: </p>
<p>"I mean I think it's common knowledge that Chicago has probably the best undergraduate academic experience...yet people still want to go to the Ivies, Duke, Stanford, the rival across town..."</p>
<p>I think it's common knowledge among intellectuals that Chicago is ONE of the best schools for a great undergrad academic experience, but the BEST? how would such an arguable point be common knowledge?</p>
<p>its the princeton reviews "best university" for 2007 i believe. i think they determine this by incorporating and considering undergraduate experience and quality with test scores and acceptance rates.</p>
<p>I retract my opinion. I think UChicago is pretty prestigious and I concede that any more fame and we'd be attracting the brainless sort of people who gravitate towards HYP (not that ALL of them do, but a lot don't care about anything except for grades and mandatory ecs. No passion, no spirit).</p>
<p>rap_mom, I disagree. I don't think it's any benefit to the university if it's easier for students to get in. Those who know about UC and like it will try their damndest to get in, halfway across the country or no. It's why I cringed when they said they were going to use the Common App. Why? So more people can check 8+ colleges and carpet bomb for admissions? No thanks.</p>
<p>
[quote]
One positive thing I can think of with prestige (and I do share phuriku's concerns to some extent) is that non-academic parents might be more willing to cough up with the tuition. Some parents are willing to pay for attendence at one of the crazy eight ... but "can't affort" a similar cost at other private schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Boy, that sounds awfully familiar...</p>
<p>Alright, may be I should've said one of the best, but it did get really high ratings from Princeton Review as beefs said.</p>
<p>Miss Silvestris, you misrepresent what I said/think. I don't believe that increasing the school's prestige (and I agree that it's pretty prestigious in many but not all circles) will make it "easier to get in." It's simply that the higher level of knowledge about the school and name familiarity will make people take a second look at the school -- if it's a "match", great. If not, no big deal. I trust the admissions office, overworked as it is, to be able to sort out those who truly have a passion for what the school represents rather than be interested in it solely for the prestige factor.</p>
<p>And although the Common App will make the "information" section easier since applicants won't have to fill out a separate Chicago form, if indeed the University keeps the "uncommon essay questions" in its Supplement, it will not likely be any easier to apply than it is now. Students who choose to apply to Chicago will then have to complete the Common App essays AND the Chicago supplemental essays, which I hope will be as thought provoking as always. it will be interesting to see what the numbers are next year.</p>
<p>While I think admitting more bright well rounded kids that are only half-committed to the schools ideals will change the places character somewhat, they can be managed in such a way as to improve the institution overall. UChicago should not be in the business of accepting lowering performing applicant A just because he or she puts on an act about loving learning, which can be easily and effectively feigned, over higher performing applicant B who makes it clear they will take the best school that admits him or her amongst Chicago and its competitors. </p>
<p>What really matters at the end of the day is institutional structure. There is a big difference between a school like Duke, which recently swallowed a fairly disheartening internal report about the class attendance and study habits of its students, versus UChicago. Yet, I believe that the disparity is only superficially about culture, and mostly about incentives. That is, the life of the mind mostly is about the rigor of the academic program. Take tests for instance. If you make it known to students that doing half of the reading and attending half of the classes, as in the case of Duke, will still position them to get a solid grade, then given all the competing interests there are in college its not surprising that young people will find something more interesting to do (not all Duke students are out doing a headstand on a kegger, involvement with clubs, special events, free reading and so forth are enticing). </p>
<p>In comparison, I can count on one hand the number of courses I took at the U of C where putting in a literal half effort would have allowed one to pull out anything above a B-. Finals were usually well thought out to canvass a large portion of the syllabus, and likewise classes were small enough that the professor or teaching assistant took note of those with abysmal attendance (which was almost always part of the grade). Likewise, in the core, my natural science professor had no qualms with assigning a failing to the majority of the class after our first midterm when students refused to take to heart his claim that the homework had been graded much more generously than the examination would be. He could have caved, and there were no doubt students who felt that the mass assignment of Ds was horribly unjust, but the reality is people had not put in the study time they objectively should have and were thus penalized. Not surprisingly, the average grade on the final went up multiple letter grades since people hit the books and did quite well. </p>
<p>All in all, I think what UChicago will find as it tries to tap more into the outright valedictorian crowd is that when these students are pushed intellectually, they do in fact respond. So as long as it keeps committed to the ideal of academic rigor, it really can get the best of both worlds. I think MIT, which does get a lot of students identical to HYP especially outside of the physical sciences, already embodies the success of this model.</p>
<h2>My mistake rap_mom. Nevertheless, I still support the Uncommon App but I see your point.</h2>
<p>The 'obviously valedictorian crowd' doesn't really automatically equal good student. I know a couple valedictorians who are boring people only interested in playing the grade game. I think that if UC should try to attract any other type of kid, it would be the scholarly, well-rounded type who usually go to Columbia or somewhere similar. At the risk of sounding too opinionated, I think I've already said quite enough, heh.</p>