Chicago's 2007-2008 Essays: a banner year?

Parents Forum
161

<p>Xiggi, what you don’t get is that Chicago doesn’t want kids like your sister to apply. Nothing against your sister, but if she was aghast at the essays, then she would probably be dismayed at the specific reading selection for her classes, the disourse in the classroom, and the sheer workload. I am sure that they would be delighted to know that the tossed the whole thing because the application made her realize that she was nothing at all like the students who are attracted to Chicago. It would tell them that their application process is doing a good job of reinforcing the message that they want to convey: that the adjectives most likely to describe the school are “intellectual” - “challenging” - “intense”. </p>

<p>I simply don’t understand your obsession with the idea that Chicago needs more applicants. What in the world for??? So they can have less time to evaluate individual applications and reject more students? </p>

<p>Chicago has always prided itself on having a self-selecting applicant pool. When a kid reads an application and thinks --“these aren’t the types of questions I like thinking or writing about” and decides not to apply, that is exactly the sort of self-selection they are aiming at. Every time a bright student who is not the Chicago type tosses their application into the trash, it has saved the ad com the trouble of making that decision for them. </p>

<p>What NYU and WUSTL share is that they have used aggressive marketing to dramatically increase their applicant pools, resulting in lowered percentages of admitted students and higher percentage of rejections, and some increase in prestige because of it. (“if the school is that hard to get into, it must be good”). And perhaps they needed to do that to get smarter students to apply and improve their reputation overall.</p>

<p>But Chicago never needed to do that because their reputation for intellectualism and intensity has always attracted only extremely capable students. Their academic reputation is enough to scare away most others. So they have a small pool of extremely bright and highly motivated applicants, who prioritize academics over all else, rather than a larger more diffuse group who are interested in prestige but who are looking for a different sort of college experience. </p>

<p>That’s why Chicago engages in highly targeted, niche marketing. They assume that they will appeal to only a small percentage of the overall college-bound population, and they are concerned only with reaching that target. The succeed very well in that. </p>

<p>Your criticism is off base simply because you are want them to change into something they don’t want to be.</p>

162

<p>"…the adjectives most likely to describe the school are “intellectual” - “challenging” - “intense” " </p>

<p>And I would add, a bit goofy. There is always the undercurrent of the Chicago sense of humor, which is often self-deprecating.</p>

<p>I remember my S getting postcards from the admissions office from time-to-time with stories or facts about UChicago. On one post card there was an early mention of the 78 Nobel winners, then this was followed by another mention of its Nobel winners, finally there was a multiple choice question that said something like, </p>

<p>What is it that I most notice about Chicago?</p>

<p>A. Its beautiful campus
B. Its commitment to the life of the mind
C. How it can’t stop talking about all its Nobel winners
D. …</p>

163

<p>Again, Calmom, you are reverting to a world of assumptions without any foundation.</p>

164

<p>No, if you are referring to my view that Chicago is engaging in effective target marketing, it is not an assumption. It is just stating the obvious. It is also the most likely explanation for why they keep utilizing the same strategy - if they were not happy with results, they’d change.</p>

165

<p>calmom,</p>

<p>I think at this point we should all just realize that xiggi is operating out of pride, not out of reason. All evidence presented so far not only weighs against his argument, but seems to point to the exact opposite, viz., Chicago’s admissons staff is actually excelling at their job. The only explanation I can think of, since xiggi refuses to explain himself, is that he just doesn’t want to admit he’s wrong.</p>

<p>I once heard this great quote: “Il n’y pas de pire sourd que celui qui ne veut pas entendre.” That’s French for “OH MY GOD CHICAGO IS DOOMED! PRESIDENT ZIMMER, FIRE TED O’NEILL AND HIRE ME!”</p>

166

<p>Thanks to ADREW (Back in post #10) for the link to the New Yorker piece, a real howler. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’d like to see an essay on THAT prompt. :)</p>

<p>And extra smilies to idad for “That’s fine in practice, but how does it work in theory?” I can’t wait to slip that one in to an interminable business meeting.</p>

167

<p>OBVIOUSLY, UofC “engages in niche makreting.” Duh! The implied question, from the opening of this thread, has been “what niche”? I agree with NMD, post #146:</p>

<p>“Why engage in a pointless debate regarding admissions practices, stats and so forth? </p>

<p>The fact is, we don’t know what the university’s intent is, nor can we. </p>

<p>Isn’t it enough that we recognize that UofC is a school that is not for everyone (just like every other college, I might add…)?”</p>

<p>Nevertheless, people in this thread & outside this thread do continue often enough to make claims about what the U’s intent indeed is, what niche is being sought. The claim is often made (putting comparisons aside now) that UofC particularly seeks or welcomes students with an intellectual hunger (including for research) above other priorities for enrollment, as well as those eager to exploit the smaller size of (a research) U which Chicago offers & the undergrad opportunities therein – some opportunities which may be unique to that institution. If that is so (logical enough), i.m.o. neither their marketing campaign nor their essay prompts efficiently target that particular group. (And I worked in marketing & advertising for a major national firm for several years, including doing market research & writing copy.) That is not to say that some of the aforementioned theoretical niche applies, gets in, is extremely happy, does beautifully. Not everybody is motivated by marketing, nor fooled by it or deterred by it.</p>

<p>I.m.o., their marketing campaign does, however, successfully exploit adolescent psychology, and how. Somebody did an outstanding job of researching that and applying it brilliantly to sales. So in that sense they are successful marketers. Do the results (quality, not stats) of admitted students align with the University’s mission? That I don’t know. Do the essay prompts screen for “intellectuals”? That I wonder.</p>

<p>What I definitely don’t buy is the implication or statement that applicants who are turned off by the essay prompts would not be able to do the work at UofC. Um, I don’t think so.</p>

<p>Separately, folks, please stop saying “somewhat unique.” “Unique” is an absolute term, not a relative one. “Somewhat unusual” is accurate. I would say that an undergrad freely taking grad courses is in fact quite unusual, and maybe even unique. (Just not “somewhat” unique.);)</p>

168

<p>“What I definitely don’t buy is the implication or statement that applicants who are turned off by the essay prompts would not be able to do the work at UofC. Um, I don’t think so.”</p>

<p>I’m sure many could do the work, but I would want them to be happy, too. Unhappy students don’t do any college (or any student much good) Chicago and MIT are, IMO, schools that you really need to visit because they are not for everyone.</p>

169

<p>

No one said that. What we have said is that they probably would not be a good fit for the Chicago-style education, which by all accounts is very “intense” and requires a high level of student participation and involvement. Chicago profs are likely to pose the same kind of questions in class and on exams that the applicants find so irksome, either because they seem “pretentious” or obtuse.</p>

170

<p>“No one said that.”</p>

<p>Calmom, your post 161 could have fooled me. Wasn’t Chicago described as being very “intense” and requiring a high level of student participation and involvement -and incompatible with whomever looked at the prompts with scorn? What happened to the other elements such as being “intellectual,” “challenging,” or the dismay of the “sheer workload?” </p>

<p>In this thread, there were more than one implication that students who found the prompts not appealing nor challenging must be intellectual laggards who lack the creativity to grasp the profundity -and intellectual superiority- of the Chicago’s essays, and who must NOT fit in a challenging environment of high intellectualism.</p>

171

<p>I agree with you, Xiggi. It was definitely said – & certainly implied by more than one poster, as well.</p>

<p>Ohio_mom, I may agree with you, but again, more than just fit was being discussed; it was also ability to do the work, whether the student was truly intellectual (if the essay prompts did not appeal), etc. </p>

<p>The essay prompts are not a litmus test for intellectualism or for creativity, i.m.o. They may be fun to many applicants, interesting to others, & “intellectual” to those who do not find alternative prompts from other institutions very challenging or intriguing. But to wax grandiose about their implications is to delude oneself.</p>

172

<p>It appears the debate in this thread is shifting from whether or not the essays do a good job at helping Chicago Admissions find the best candidates for its particular atmosphere to one of arguing about the “nature” of the applicants. Even if unsaid a single post, it is implied in the discourse that what is being talked about is a “type” of intellectual curiosity and creativity that Chicago wants to convey in its prompts and attract in its students. Does that mean that those who do not fit are less creative or intellectual?, no. It just means that they may not be as well suited for the Chicago environment. Will they miss some that would flourish at the school with this approach? Sure. Will they admit some that would be better off elsewhere? Yes here as well. But, they do what they can to find those that will benefit from Chicago’s rather unique environment. This is typified by a very bright and successful friend of my S’s who told my S that he would never apply to Chicago because it was way too theoretical in the area in which he was interested. After attending for a year, my S said his friend made the correct decision, for him, not to apply. Instead, he is quite happy at another top school, which is much less theoretical in its approach. I believe this is the only distinction calmom and others are trying to make, whether Chicago’s current admissions approach is successful communicating what distinguishes Chicago from others, can be debated. I believe it does this quite well.</p>

173

<p>

</p>

<p>And yet, that’s precisely what xiggi is doing with all his ranting about how these essays are turning away students Chicago would otherwise love to accept in droves.</p>

174

<p>Well let me simplify it for you, Xiggi:
The type of kid who would get into a snit over NOT liking the essays would probably NOT like Chicago either, because just about every day would present a whole array of additional things to get into a snit over.</p>

<p>So you either have to really like tackling the type of questions raised in the essay or else be more laid back and/or have a good sense of humor – i.e., be the kind of person who will laugh about or shrug those things off. My d. fits the latter category – which is why she responded with a humorous, choose-your-own-topic essay.</p>

<p>The fact that you are so miffed over the topics that you want to see Chicago change its long-established practices to produce essay topics more toward your liking demonstrates a certain inflexibility on your part that would not probably not fit in well at Chicago. You could do the work, but you’d be angry all the time.</p>

175

<p>Well, Calmom, let me equally simplify it for you. </p>

<p>For someone who loves to speak with authority, most of what you have written about Chicago shows how little you REALLY know about the school. You have offered a series of commentaries that are hardly supported by facts, especially about the changes made at the admissions offices. I can almost guarantee, that without running to the library, you would not know if Chicago accepted 45%, 50%, or 70% of its students five years ago, or ten years ago. Yet, you come here as a bombastic know-it-all who elevates her theories and assumptions to obvious facts, and knows exactly what kind of students not only applies to Chicago, but also would do well. </p>

<p>As usual you build everything on the feeble foundation of unsupported and unverifiable assumptions. Simply stated, you really do not know anything about how much I have researched, and how much I know about the school. Suffice it to say, that based on your post, and despite the fact that your daughter applied to Chicago, I believe to know a lot more about the school than you do, and that includes the curriculum.</p>

<p>In the end, you have your opinion about the essays and their impact on the application and admissions at Chicago, and … I have mine. And this is absolutely acceptable. What is not acceptable is your insistence to pretend knowing everything better than others, including what they think or perceive, or even how they would react to a certain curriculum. Again, to that, you can ONLY speculate and assume.</p>

176

<p>xiggi,</p>

<p>I realize you’re (supposedly) ignoring me, but here goes. Calmom might be overstating her case, but I believe she is more-or-less correct. Someone who had the violent reaction you’ve had to the essay prompts and the ensuing discussion would probably not be happy at Chicago. They would be one of those students who go around complaining all the time about how “pretentious” everyone at Chicago is. There are more than enough of those people around campus as it is. Truth be told, they’re a total drag.</p>

<p>Even if calmom hasn’t presented any hard evidence, neither have you. You stated explicitly that Chicago is securing “fewer and fewer” appicants, when the exact opposite is true. When we pointed that out to you, you ignored the objection and responded saying that the increase is occurring in spite of the decisions of the admissions staff, not because of them. But what evidence do you have of that? None you’ve stated, aside from the silly story about your sister tossing the application. And rather than address my completely straightforward questions you’ve decided to bury your head in the sand and ignore me. Lame!</p>

<p>I don’t think you know Chicago as well as you claim you do. As usual, and unlike you so far, I’m open to correction.</p>

177

<p>idad, epiphany was right – “rather unique” sets my teeth on edge too; in fact, D and I share that silly bias – whenever we hear someone qualify “unique,” we shoot disdaining glances across the room at each other :)</p>

<p>But otherwise, we’re normal.</p>

178

<p>So, this is 12 pages in the essay prompts, right? Just wanted to check. Personally, I would have liked to answer one of the U of C essays and would have felt like a school asking that kind of question would have been a fun place to be, but then, I have just been reading “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintanenace” so I could also write a treatise on one side of a coin…And my admissions essay was on “The Importance of Being Earnest”</p>

179

<p>idad, I thank you for your attempt to explain how you understand these differences. However – and there’s no attempt to be argumentative here-- just an attempt at clarification: </p>

<p>(1)What is the “type of intellectual curiosity and creativity” that U of C wants to attract that would <em>not</em> be attractive to students applying to competing schools – say HYP, Cal Berkeley, and Swarthmore (the latter, btw, often being called “intense”)?</p>

<p>(2) What is more “theoretical” about Chicago than about HYP, MIT, Berkeley, UVA, Stanford, JHU (just to mix things up a little)? I am asking about the academic program, not any student’s goals for/with that program after graduation. (A program with mid to high practical application when it comes to later employment and/or internship can nevertheless be highly theoretical in its content, with students doing poorly in that program unless they can master a complex, theoretical approach.) So if you could name some undergrad programs at U of C that are appreciably higher on the theory scale than similar courses of study at other highly esteemed institutions, please illuminate. But keep in mind that I’m not interested in speculation & rumor, merely hard facts that compare supposedly “theoretical” U of Ch with supposedly “practical” upper tier schools.
Thanks.</p>

180

<p>Question:

Answer: The type of person who would have fun thinking about how to respond to an essay prompt like “play what’s not there” or “if you are a function, what are you?”</p>

<p>And no one has said that the qualities that Chicago wants to attract would not also be attractive to other colleges. It is simply that the other colleges want to attract a broader range of personality types and interests. They want the Chicago-type students, but they want others as well. </p>

<p>To Xiggi: I know full well what Chicago’s admit rates were as far back as 7 or 8 years ago and I wonder why you think I wouldn’t. I’m getting on in years, but my brain is not so withered that I can’t remember the research I did back when my son was looking at colleges in the year 2000, and the stats & info we had was derived from 1998 data. </p>

<p>Your repeated argument simply proves my point: Chicago doesn’t want students who suffer apoplexy when they read the questions on the common application.</p>