30,369 people apply to UChicago 2017

Colleges & Universities University of Chicago
141

<p>Thanks, jak321, you understood me perfectly. The only nuance you didn’t catch was that I stuffed a spare rabbit into the hat by adding “. . . and breadth”, since there is no department at Swat or Amherst with a headcount as great as half that of Chicago. So even if you thought the scholarly production of individual faculty members at the LACs was on a par with the Chicago faculty (which it isn’t – although there are individual LAC faculty members who might hit that standard), I would still be right, because there simply aren’t enough of them to cover everything equally well.</p>

<p>But, as you understood, the point isn’t to slag Swat or Amherst at all. Many, many years ago, I chose to go to a major research university rather than any LAC because I wanted that collection of big-name faculty, and I didn’t care much about the things LACs did better. I had a great, great college experience. But with the perspective of 35 years, I know that I probably would have had an equally great college experience had I gone to a strong LAC. I might even have liked the way my life turned out better. (Maybe not, too. It’s really unknowable.) </p>

<p>My (very different) kids both went to Chicago, and they both thought it was nearly perfect. So did I. But among the other kids I know who are their age, some of the ones who are most successfully pursuing their dreams are kids who went to LACs. I can see how the nurturing and attention they got there substitutes effectively for not quite being as up-to-the-minute in every class.</p>

142

<p>

I would like to see you justify this opinion with actual facts. Chicago’s Math, Economics, and Physics graduate programs are perhaps far superior to Duke’s but they are are peers in every other field of academic study with Chicago having an edge in Business, Law, Cultural Anthropology, History, Chemistry, and Sociology while Duke has an edge in Biology, Medicine, Political Science, Computer Science, Classics, Evolutionary Anthropology, and Religion.</p>

<p>The ARWU is biased towards towards schools with strong Economics, Math, and Physics graduate programs so no surprise that UChicago outperforms Duke by a wide margin in that ranking.</p>

<p>I don’t know too much about Northwestern’s graduate strengths but its Chemistry is definitely much stronger than Chicago and Duke’s. </p>

<p>Overall, all 3 of these schools have professors in all subjects that are renowned “enough” to get their top undergraduates into the best PhD programs in the country.</p>

143

<p>Irrelevant but does anybody remember this?</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-essays/834970-should-u-chicagos-admissions-dean-have-sent-essay-around-am-i-too-strict.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-essays/834970-should-u-chicagos-admissions-dean-have-sent-essay-around-am-i-too-strict.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

144

<p>Don’t try to reason with him goldenboy. He is obviously deluded.</p>

145

<p>ILoveUofC, you “KANT” tell Kenyanpride what to do.</p>

146

<p>You all clearly have too much time on your hands to seriously argue over the internet about advertising techniques used by universities</p>

147

<p>“This is probably the last you are going to hear from me though”
Good for you Kenyanpride. I was wondering why you-apparently intensely dislike uchicago-have to come to a place you hate so much in almost daily basis and getting yourself all upset. Geez, what a torture. Really, forget UChicago. Whatever you think of uchicago does not matter, you are not going there. Get excited and be happy with the college you are heading. There was a poster in premed forum, I think his name is bluedevilmike, a very proud and loyal duke alum. I remember reading his very helpful and well thought posts thinking I would want my kid to be around kids like him. It is students like him that make others think so high of his alma mater.</p>

148

<p>I understood what you said. The problem is you are still wrong.</p>

149

<p>

</p>

<p>There is really no need to respond to any of his posts. Like you said, you are not going to have any productive or reasonable discussions with him.</p>

150

<p>Datboyjj - no way Swarthmore or Amherst have as large or broad a faculty as UChicago or Duke, or produce the same amount of research. That’s just not happening - they are fundamentally different types of institutions.</p>

151

<p>And U of Chicago does not have as large or broad a faculty as University of Michigan or Berkley… there is a certain point where size of faculty does not make a difference, as you can only take so many classes as an undergraduate anyway. Even if the faculty is covering more ground as a group, the average undergrad doesn’t really get a lot of benefit from that, IMHO.</p>

152

<p>intparent:</p>

<p>That’s the idea exactly. Determining strength of the undergraduate curriculum by faculty breadth/depth/output is a poor exercise indeed. That’s the point both JHS and I try to make, and the error with Phuriku’s analysis.</p>

153

<p>One thing that people forget is that, UChicago is using its marketing money to market to places and people who dont know UChicago at all. The “growth” is from virgin territories… which explains why its so explosive. </p>

<p>Marketing is the school’s way of democratizing the application process. UChicago should not be only for people who are “in the know” but should be made accessible to those who would be a good fit but were born in a place where UChicago is unknown.</p>

<p>That is not mean-spirited. Its the right thing to do.</p>

154

<p>Exactly, but lets not put on white hats and pretend that UChicago is doing it because it’s the “right” thing. They’re doing it because it is the right thing for the university itself, but it just so happens that a colleges and a students motives can be aligned.</p>

155

<p>For me, if the college and the overall pool of applicants benefit (or are on balance unharmed), then it is the “right” thing to do. I think people tend to confuse doing what is right with sacrificing for what is right. The college does not have to continue to sacrifice its potential popularity with the masses, to do right by applicants.</p>

156

<p>why is uchicago suddenly receiving significantly more applicants in the past five years? is there something i am missing? I just dont get it. in five years the application percentage went from 25 to 9 percent is just unbelievable</p>

157

<p>In a way, it is unbelievable. Otoh, it isn’t. It used to be that UChicago either didnt care that their applicants only came from a specific socio-economic stratum or a specific geographic area. Academics and Industry knew it was a great school, with historical claims to being the best and the first in so many areas in Physics (hubble, argonne, fermi, atom bomb), economics (chicago school),business(Booth, CRSP, economic journals), Law (Law & Econ, Supreme Court Clerkships, Conservative movement, women’s rights), Literature & Liberal Arts (Great books, Core, Philosophy Divinity school, math, chemistry. But like many Intellectual snobs in their Ivory Towers, they did not care about popular with the masses, money, or media because they already had influence and fame where they thought it counted. They valued theory and intellectualism and believed that the rest will take care of itself. Hence, even when USNews didnt think much of UChicago, it was celebrated by world rankings of universities. </p>

<p>It was a great product (or service) that was not being conveyed to a wider audience. This was ok but the side effect was many alums and students felt undervalued by those who are not “in the know”. They couldn’t brag about their accomplishments to their grandmas and their grocers. </p>

<p>Given the increasing democratization of Education, and the risk that the University wont have enough resources to be able to preserve the good life that it has been giving the Intellectual snobs, it realized that it had to open its doors to people it didn’t care much to attract before e.g the hicks in Kansas and Texas, the inner city kids in its own backyard, California, and all those liberals who care too much about the world and care too little about the life of the mind.</p>

<p>Now that it is showing that it cares about those people by spending money, those people are returning the love. And USNews noticed. UChicago is changing, and yet it has not - by opening its doors, it is only being true to its claims that it is the wild wild west of ideas: where you are free to advocate anything and everything as long as you are ready to be challenged and defend your ideas. And the hicks, poor uncouth inner city folks, Californians, and liberals are getting into the mix.</p>

<p>I think its a good thing. I like change in general. I like this change, in particular.</p>

158

<p>Awesome post FStratford</p>

159

<p>Well… while Fstratford makes some very good points, going to the Common App is probably at the top of the list in reasons for application growth.</p>

160

<p>Nope. Certainly a factor, but not even arguably “the top of the list”. </p>

<p>A decade ago, five years before adopting the Common Application, Chicago was getting about 8,000 applications per year. Five years later, the year before going to the Common App, it got 12,400 applications. The next year, with the Common App, it got 13,600 applications – basically the same rate of increase it had had for a few years. The next year, there was a more significant increase, to 19,300 applications, and credit for some of that doubtless goes to the Common App. But over the ensuing four years applications have gone up another 56%, to 30,100 this year. </p>

<p>At the top of the food chain, everyone’s application numbers have been increasing over the same period. Ten years ago, Harvard got fewer than 20,000 applications; this year I think it’s around 34,000. In the 2005 application season, Duke got 18,100 applications, vs. about 31,700 this year.</p>

<p>Chicago is hardly the only college ever to have moved from a unique application to the Common App. I think it has been common for them to have application increases in the first two years of accepting the Common App. Cornell adopted the Common App a few years before Chicago, and went from 21,000 applications the year before to 28,000 two years later. USC bumped from 37,000 applications to 46,000 when it adopted the Common App. All of that is basically consistent with Chicago’s Common App-related increase. But none of them has has anything like the over 50% increase that Chicago has experienced since.</p>