<p>idad - I’ve thought a lot about this too, and I don’t think changing the admissions strategies will affect the U of C all that much. This is because the college students have not - and have never been - the jewel of the university. Instead, when people refer to the greatness of the U of C, they talk about the faculty, and the spirit of the school created by eminent faculty members. </p>
<p>Chicago is an “intellectual hothouse” because the faculty and administrators work to create an environment where faculty and top grad students debate - sometimes ferociously - the merit of their ideas. This spirit trickles down to the undergrads, but the undergrads certainly do not create the very trademark of the University. This environment contrasts what you see at a Yale or Princeton, where the College plays a much more central role in the life of these universities. </p>
<p>I think, as long as the U of C doesn’t greatly expand its athletic program, allow ill-suited athletes in, and allow for rampant favoritism for legacies to become the norm, the college will be just fine. If Chicago could get, say, more of the students that are accepted to Yale on ACADEMIC MERIT, would the College really be that different? </p>
<p>What Chicago needs are extremely bright, capable, and intellectually curious students. We don’t need the useless athletic recruits or bottom dwelling legacy admits. As long as Chicago stays true to this, it will be fine. </p>
<p>I think one of the reasons Dean O’Neill quit is because Zimmer will most likely endorse strategies to drum up applications. Instead of focusing on careful recruitment and attention to the individual, Zimmer would want admissions officers to get more extraneous applications, and mine for academic talent more generally. I think the numbers will change because of this (e.g. if all goes to plan, the number of applications will, in the next 3-4 years, go up to the 15000-20000 range, the accept rate will drop to 15-20%), but again, finding the type of students faculty enjoy teaching can still occur under this system.</p>
<p>I think Dean O’Neill laments the move away from a more personalized form of admissions. Yale, Brown, etc. all rely on this less personalized system, but I really do not think the students admitted on ACADEMIC MERIT at these schools fall a step behind Chicago students. It’s possible to go for “big numbers” admissions and still get a wonderful class full of academically gifted, promising individuals. Again, you could take the students accepted for academic merit at Yale, Brown, Harvard, etc. and the faculty would love teaching these students just as much as the current crop of Chicago undergrads.</p>
<p>& again - the key at Chicago has been, as John Boyer as stated, to find students that the Chicago faculty would enjoy teaching. This is still certainly possible under a “big numbers” admissions schema. The personalized admissions process that Dean O’Neill cherishes, however, would fall to the wayside. </p>
<p>I just hope the College can find another dean as charismatic as Dean O’Neill. I’m not sure exactly who can fill that role, but it seems if we could launch a bit of a coup and get a top official from Yale or Brown (two schools that play Zimmer’s game but also generally create classes that Chicago may envy a bit), that may work out well for the U of C. What do you guys think?</p>