Not unfair–everyone has the right (imperative) to maximize their own utility. In terms of quality of scholarship, Chicago (rightly, in the view of many) views its peers as HYPS and, perhaps, Columbia. Through considerable investment in facilities, generous aid, and marketing, Chicago’s undergraduate prestige is now at near parity with its perceived overall academic quality. When Chicago was moving toward its current state (legitimate contender for the very best students) from where it started (unnoticed except by those who’d been born/conditioned to hear the Maroon dog whistle), the school had to offer incentives/discounts to lure students. Having reached something closer to steady state, such discounts to value are less necessary. They are also financially imprudent. I tried to lay out Chicago’s particular challenges in the post (#21) I made yesterday at 2:56 pm. Unmentioned as a revenue source in that post was debt financing, something that Chicago has used extensively–Chicago’s debt-to-endowment ratio is very high. The College is integral to the university, and it was poorly managed for a long time. It has cost big money to build new residence halls and facilities to improve the quality of student experience. For the last several years, there were some lucky people who got (are getting) a top-level education for a (relatively) budget price. After stoking the flame via debt, it is now financially sensible (necessary) for the school to ask students to pay the market price for their educations, which is what they would have paid HYPS (demonstrated need). Chicago cannot compete with HYPS by getting into merit aid bidding wars with the likes of Emory, WUSTL, or USC.