<p>Warblersrule:</p>
<p>Of course, the “real” factors play a role in the number of applications a school receives, especially when looking at schools that are quite different, at least geographically (such as your example of Syracuse U vs. Boston U).</p>
<p>At the same time, between schools that are more similarly situated, advertising can have more of an effect. Even amongst the top schools, you can see the differences present between schools that have many more similarities than differences. Look at, for example, Wash U and Rice. Both are great schools located in prominent cities, both have a range of strong academic programs, etc.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, Wash U received 28k apps last year, and Rice received around 13k apps. </p>
<p>Similarly, if you compare Tufts and Vanderbilt - both great schools located in areas that are quite popular for students, Tufts received 17k apps, and Vandy received 25k apps.</p>
<p>On another note, when current U of C admissions dean Jim Nondorf was at Renssellaer Polytechnic Institute, RPI received as many applications as MIT.</p>
<p>These examples demonstrate that, while real differences such as location and course offerings certainly matter, in terms of drumming up applications and analyzing similar schools, advertising and admissions efforts can lead to real differences. So Vandy can receive 8k more apps than Tufts, or Wash U gets nearly 100% more apps than Rice. </p>
<p>Warblersrule, you also mentioned that you are surprised by Chicago alums’ newfound attention to admissions details as “out of character” for the school. As I’ve said many times before, the “old” Chicago approach - the more cerebral, aloof ivory tower approach - has failed. When Chicago took that path, the school nearly decided to axe the College entirely. </p>
<p>Accordingly, as the administration has made the relatively recent decision to “play the game,” and engage more in the competitive big numbers admissions scene, of course Alums will begin to monitor this. As I’ve said before, minor differences in admissions numbers isn’t a big deal, but, if Chicago is playing the big numbers game but still getting 25% less apps than Duke or Brown, that difference requires some analysis.</p>
<p>Motherbear322 - my use of the 20% figure was just an estimate. What I really meant was, as Chicago’s decided to play the game, I expected its numbers to match its peers relatively quickly. My bigger point was that, if Chicago’s peers receive ~30k apps a year, and Chicago wants to play the big numbers admissions game, it should achieve the ~30k threshold relatively quickly. </p>
<p>Finally, please note, I’m not equating “big numbers” admissions to actual differences in the quality of a class. Yale, for example, has stated that it isn’t playing the “big numbers” game as much as Harvard or Stanford, and Yale receives 5-8k less apps than these two other schools. The classes at Yale Harvard and Stanford, though, are largely interchangeable anyway. </p>
<p>Chicago, however, has decided to make a full-blooded effort to enter the fray of the big numbers admissions game. Accordingly, if this is the decision the administration has made, I of course want Chicago to be on par with its immediate peers.</p>