<p>Mmm, but I would argue that none of those other colleges combined the Common App change with the massive increase in marketing U of C has undertaken in the past few years. I actually don’t dispute any of Fstratford points. I think U of C has a great product, and has been “undervalued” in the market over the years. But it is a combination of access and marketing push that has been a big factor in increasing the number of applications.</p>
<p>Fstratford, many of your assumptions are deeply flawed.</p>
<p>My point is I think the marketing, and the persistent reinforcement in USNWR and elsewhere that Chicago belongs among the top universities in terms of quality, and the long-term effects of having happier undergraduates because more attention was being paid to their well-being, and significant improvements in Chicago’s financial aid programs for poorer students – all of those are big contributors to the increase, probably more significantly than the Common App. And also the general increase in applications everywhere among prestigious colleges, which is probably based on things as diverse as an increase in the number of applications per student as admissions has gotten harder to predict and increased prosperity in Asia generally, creating more demand for elite education in the West.</p>
<p>@JHS
I would probably agree with intparent. Chicago’s switch to the common app has almost certainly been the major factor that has led to Chicago’s precipitous increase in applications, for the simple reason that the switch has given Chicago room to grow. To those people who knew about “American education’s best kept secret”, the uncommon app was no obstacle at all, but to all those “hicks, poor uncouth inner city folks, Californians, and liberals”, those very people Chicago has so successfully reached out to with its marketing in the last few years, the uncommon application would have been an almost insurmountable obstacle. As such, it is only because of the switch that Chicago’s marketing has culminated in meaningful improvements in its applicant tally. And I’d wager that if they removed their essay in favor of a more Harvard-esque approach, they’re applicant tally would rise even further, faster! (And I pray to god that they never go down that road)</p>
<p>Thank you for such a thoughtful and well-written post, FStratford.</p>
<p>What could you possibly mean by “unsurmountable obstacle”? The difference between having the Common App plus supplement and having a unique application amounts to having to type your name and address, and a few basic facts about yourself, one extra time. It can’t make more than a 30-minute difference (and that’s very generous).</p>
<p>Going to the Common App certainly seems to increase applications – that’s consistent across many different colleges. But it’s not actually that meaningful a change, especially in Chicago’s case where the real obstacle – a unique additional essay with a quirky prompt, in addition to the standard “Why This College? paragraph” – remains. (Harvard doesn’t ask for any additional essays in its supplement, and that surely contributes to Harvard’s high application numbers relative to its peers, but its peers have numbers close enough to Harvard’s to make it silly to suggest that ease of applying is the most important factor in generating applications.)</p>
<p>@JHS
You’re absolutely correct. After some googling around I have come to realise that Chicago’s uncommon application wasn’t quite as peculiar as its name suggests. I’d like to amend “insurmountable obstacle” to “mild annoyance” and retract most of my point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree, except for the pesky fact that there is zero historical or factual evidence that:</p>
<p>
</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Did I miss anything? Perhaps, I should point out to the easy to find “corrections” needed to what amount to pure speculation on every count. </p>
<p>Easy as in researching what created the changes in the ranking of the USNews, as opposed to think that an increase in applications created the rise in the rankings and overlook that a fair amount of lipstick liberally applied to the porcine helped a tiny bit. </p>
<p>Easy as identifying when the “world university rankings” actually came out of the twisted minds of those Chinese and English pseudo-scientists. </p>
<p>Easy as remembering --or realizing-- that the admission rate accounts for a whopping 1.5 percent of the overall USNews rankings. </p>
<p>On the other hand, knowing that the marketing arm of Chicago did reach plenty of Texan hicks a decade ago, and that the efforts to reach the “destitute” in far places existed a long time ago are indeed a bit harder to evaluate. </p>
<p>The reality is that rise in applications is not quite as romantic as one might think, or want to think. It is a combination of factors that play differently among the “new applicants” and does stem from a departure from an unattractive proposal and the PERCEIVED rise in prestige attached to a higher acceptance rate than at most of the peers.</p>
<p>All in all, Chicago has NOW reached admission statistics that do reflect its place in the peer group. The rise has been dramatic because it was … so far, and probably inexplicably, way behind schools with which could compete academically, or even surpass. </p>
<p>The fact that the school was not WELL-KNOWN is a loudly quacking canard. It was well-known but not considered as highly desirable as equally prestigious schools, and most importantly, some of its attributes were plainly off-putting. Like it or not, the school was often (and is still to a large extent) the next best thing for … HYPS rejects, as more than a few anecdotes of MY generation amply demonstrated on this forum. </p>
<p>In the end, concluding that the recent changes in volume of applications come from reaching to far places and reaching out to the less fortunate is purely speculative. As an alternative, one could suggest that the climb in the rankings did generate plenty of interest from the not-so-small group of students that applies to the USNews 10 top ranked school without rhyme or reason. That group sometimes derisively labeled as trophy hunters and prestige whores. And a group that has contributed to a massive increase in the number of applications (versus applicants) at the highest ranked schools.</p>
<p>Here you go!</p>
<p>Xiggi,</p>
<p>Why are Chinese & english scientists- “pseudo-scientists” and why are their minds twisted?</p>
<p>You are so focussed on data- maybe you have some data to back this.</p>
<p>"Easy as identifying when the “world university rankings” actually came out of the twisted minds of those Chinese and English pseudo-scientists. "</p>
<p>Well that is your opinion, and its fine. I have one quibble.</p>
<p>So what if the “trophy hunters”, another demographic that UChicago used to not care about, are applying? Now UChicago cares about having them apply too and, I must say, as a group, they are probably not less qualified than other applicants.</p>
<p>Don’t hate on people who think that it is a good thing to get to the best school possible. It is, after all, a rational decision.</p>
<p>Like I said, the wider the application base, the better for the university and the application peer group as a whole. Will there be people who cant go in now that would have gone in 10 years ago? Definitely. But that is just a side effect of democratizing the application base - there’s more competition. And competition is good. Or are you scared?</p>
<p>Lol. I just re=read our post.</p>
<p>You might know how to google data but your “analysis” is lacking. First you belittle 1.5% - but you fail to put it in context. In a ranking where its not uncommon to see quadruple/triple ties, a bump in a criteria that is worth 1.5% can mean a 3 spot jump! You also fail to do a game theory analysis where this 3 spot jump (or two) plus the media effect and the waves it generates in academic and admissions circles can affect other criteria like peer scores, for example. Iterate that to 10 years and voila!</p>
<p>I still can’t get over how you derisively refer to the Chinese and English, and peple who obsess about “status” or perception. I bet you’re one of those people who hate on pre professionals too. Whatever. Get on with the program cos UChicago aint waitin on ya (imagine me saying this with wagging fingers)</p>
<p>LOL</p>
<p>“group of students that applies to the USNews 10 top ranked school without rhyme or reason. That group sometimes derisively labeled as trophy hunters and prestige whores.”</p>
<p>@Xiggi - Out of curiosity, what do you label the group (if there is such a group) who refer others as “HYPS rejects”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fwiw, take a look at the sentence I wrote, and apply a tad more CR. </p>
<p>"Easy as identifying when the “world university rankings” actually came out of the twisted minds of those Chinese and English pseudo-scientists. "</p>
<p>The “Chinese and English pseudo-scientists” is a direct reference to the people who actually started the ARWU and THES rankings, not the Chinese and English in general. Not a small difference!</p>
<p>Oh now I see what you mean. You claim that there were never any international rankings of universities prior to ARWU and THES? Really?</p>
<p>I know for a fact that prior to WW2, Oxford was considered numero uno. After the war, Harvard took the lead internationally and Cambridge took over #1 in the UK.</p>
<p>It may not have been as formal as ARWU or THES, and not done every year, but universities have been ranked worldwide by academic reputation u before these two rankings that you googled even existed.</p>
<p>The era of global rankings started with the publication of the first results of the Shanghai Jiao Tong University ranking called Academic Ranking of World Universities (hereafter referred to as ARWU) in 2003. Publication of the results of the first round of ARWU in 2003 stirred the fire (van Raan, 2005). </p>
<p>Quoted from <a href=“http://www.eua.be/pubs/Global_University_Rankings_and_Their_Impact.pdf[/url]”>http://www.eua.be/pubs/Global_University_Rankings_and_Their_Impact.pdf</a></p>
<p>Feel free to post a link to a prior “world ranking”. And do not hesitate to use Google in your quest. Regardless of the futility. ;)</p>
<p>This is my last post on your comments, because I think it really is becoming unrelated to the thread</p>
<p>Like I said those are formal published rankings of universities. There were schools before then that were considered top schools and the people in academia knew how they fared among each other. More often than not, the fame and fortunes of a university changed with innovation - from Bologna and Salamanca, to Oxford, to the German Research Universities, to Harvard and the American universities.</p>
<p>I googled, for your pleasure, and here’s a long read that tangentially describes how Universities in the **18th Century ** were regarded, and who is tops. Again, its not a Listing with 1,2,3,etc so don’t expect that, but clearly there was even back inthe 18th century, and understanding of the relative status of world universities vs each other</p>
<p>In the same light, UChicago became one of the the top World Universities even before your precious THEs and ARWU came to be. Its really funny how you think there was no academic consensus on the best universities before then. Where do you think those who your refer to as Chinese and English pseudo scientists got their idea in the first place? All they did was quantitatively formalie the ranking that already existed in the mind of academics.</p>
<p><a href=“Redirect Notice”>Redirect Notice;
<p>Or you could read “The Advancement of Learning” written by Francis Bacon in I think 16th or 17th century. Its a book - you know those pesky pieces of paper that contained information before the internet was invented?</p>
<p>Information about a lot of things existed before they were put on wikipedia, you know that righta?</p>
<p>Haha, no need to twist words and arguments. It is fine to recognize that your use of the words “world rankings” was unfortunate. And those were the words I addressed. </p>
<p>As far my precious ARWU and THES, you seemingly do not know what I have written about them, let alone think about them. </p>
<p>If you were not so intent to find faults in what I have written, you might find that we might actually agree on how universities have gained recognition and reputation for excellence. And perhaps see how irrelevant this reputation can be to the items relevant to the OP of this thread, and as to WHY the number of applications at Chicago finally reached the same average of the Ivies and Stanford at around 30’000. </p>
<p>It is all about context.</p>
<p>In 1925, it was big10 schools not ivy dominate US college ranking</p>
<p>1925 American University Rankings</p>
<p>In 1925 Raymond Hughes, the president of Iowa State College, conducted “A Study of the Graduate Schools of America” for the Association of American Colleges. He ranked graduate programs in 24 subjects by surveying faculty. Others quickly turned his departmental rankings into overall institutional rankings based on how many top-rated departments a school had.</p>
<p>Overall Ranking 1925:</p>
<p>1) University of Chicago (B1G)</p>
<p>2) Harvard (Ivy)</p>
<p>3) Columbia (Ivy)</p>
<p>4) Yale (Ivy)</p>
<p>5) Wisconsin (B1G)</p>
<p>6) Princeton (Ivy)</p>
<p>7) Johns Hopkins</p>
<p>8) Michigan (B1G)</p>
<p>9) California (Berkeley) (PAC12)</p>
<p>10) Cornell (Ivy)</p>
<p>11) Illinois (B1G)</p>
<p>12) Pennsylvania (Ivy)</p>
<p>13) Minnesota (B1G)</p>
<p>14) Stanford (PAC12)</p>
<p>15) Ohio State (B1G)</p>
<p>16) Iowa (B1G)</p>
<p>17) Bryn Mawr</p>
<p>18) Caltech</p>
<p>19) MIT</p>
<p>20) Northwestern (B1G)</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/14564115-post6.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/14564115-post6.html</a></p>
<p>Sparky will be proud.</p>