<p>When I was at NU in the 80s, UC wasn’t in our conversation either. </p>
<p>At the administrative/ leadership level, both schools think highly of one another and there are some collaborations that take place, e.g., in wooing a professor to one school, if there is not an opening for the spouse at that school, sometimes they have brokered openings for the spouse at the other school. It’s really possible for these schools to simply think well of one another, recognize that they are different flavors of a certain experience, neither is “better” than the other except in the eye of the beholder, and not engage in the stilted, nerdy kwu/phuriku type of blunt approach to the world. Both schools are good enough to get anyone where they want to go.</p>
<p>Sam Lee, I agree that a couple of CC members are a little overzealous about the highly ranked status of UChicago. The University of Chicago is a Tier 1 school, and so is NU. It’s all about fit and not who is higher ranked than whom. </p>
<p>To me, comparing UChicago with Northwestern in the City of Chicago is almost like comparing Harvard with MIT in Boston. </p>
<p>Now about someone receiving two T shirts from UChicago, I think it’s a fluke and should not be viewed as something to ridicule. I know plenty of students who have the high stats and have interests in UChicago and did not receive a T shirt at all. </p>
<p>I think college admission nowadays is a game. It’s a matter of how one plays it. Northwestern plays it just the same as UChicago does or MIT, Harvard do except everybody plays a little differently; but I digress.</p>
<p>The University of Chicago has come late with a vengeance to aggressive college marketing. This is a school that for decades banned football; effectively banned sororities; had a minimal fraternity presence; imposed course requirements that added up to nearly half the undergraduate program; offered no majors in business, journalism, or engineering; only recently adopted the Common App; and suffered a reputation for brutal winters, high crime rates, and a lousy social life. </p>
<p>By the the mid-nineties, the college had faced years of relatively low application rates. A commitment was made to increase undergraduate relative to graduate enrollments. The college decided it had to up its game if it was to compete with peer colleges. It improved student housing, built new athletic facilities, relaxed Core requirements, and began these annoying (but apparently effective) mass mailing campaigns.</p>
<p>Chicago still lacks big-time D1 sports, athletic scholarships, a large Greek scene, and pre-professional majors. Average class sizes are in LAC range. There is still a required Core curriculum. It continues to affect a geeky, self-consciously intellectual posture that some people like, others don’t. Atmosphere and program offerings differentiate it somewhat from Northwestern. They are both very selective, expensive research universities that compete for students and faculty with similar academic qualifications. More collaboration would be good for both schools.</p>
<p>I find it amusing that an effective and successful marketing campaign from a university can ruffle so many feathers in the college admission game that everybody plays.</p>
<p>I find it amusing that an effective and successful marketing campaign from a university can ruffle so many feathers in the college admission game that every PRIVATE school plays.</p>
<p>You are delusional to think uchicago “alums created Second City”. Your school did not hold the first classes until Oct 1892 and by that time, the Second City was already a national railroad center for quite some time, let alone “created”, and alums from other schools including Penn (Dr. John Rauch in the public health area), UIUC (founded in 1867, and Northwestern (founded 1851) had already made contributions to the city development. In fact, the city even beat NYC and DC to host the World Fair in 1893. </p>
<p>By the way, selectivity accounts for 15%. Nobody used the term “acceptance rate” here before you did.</p>
<p>^ I highly doubt latichever was referring to the city of Chicago itself, but rather the famous improv group: </p>
<p>“The Second City was the first on-going improvisational theater troupe in the United States. It evolved from the Compass Players,[2] a 1950s cabaret revue show started by undergraduates at the University of Chicago.”</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“The Second City - Wikipedia”>The Second City - Wikipedia]The</a> Second City - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<a href=“Yes,%20I’m%20being%20lazy%20by%20going%20straight%20to%20Wikipedia”>/url</a></p>
<p>Why is U Chicago being attacked for being more selective with its admissions? If other posters can brag about Northwestern’s selectivity, why is U Chicago being criticized for trying to increase theirs? OP, I can’t testify for Northwestern (though I imagine it’s the same), but we here at U Chicago don’t spend our time comparing ourselves to our northern neighbors. Both schools are all around great with different strengths, and a quick evaluation of what YOUR interests are should reveal very quickly which you would prefer or <em>GASP</em> if there are other schools in the Chicago area better suited for them. This is the point where you should post what characteristics you’re looking for so that this thread can stop being another U Chicago vs Northwestern pi***** contest.</p>
Chicago has always been extremely selective. Even when the admit rate was in the high 40% range, as it was when I applied, the median SAT score was in the ~1450-1480 range (M/CR), well in line with most of the Ivies and comparable universities. In fact, the year I applied, a highly qualified and very enthusiastic poster was rejected from Chicago EA but accepted to Stanford RD. Although Chicago has undoubtedly slightly increased its top 10% and SAT figures over the years, I don’t think the quality of first year students has noticeably increased…rather, you simply have more applicants being rejected. There is a difference between aiming for the best class possible and simply shilling for more applicants you intend to reject, and I think not everyone agrees Chicago is walking the fine line successfully. It’s true that other colleges are not averse to such practices; despite being arguably the most famous and selective college in the country, even Harvard sends out mail to prospective students. Given that Chicago’s application numbers are well in line with Ivies like Columbia and Dartmouth these days, however, its noticeably more numerous mailings seem a little odd…hence the comments.</p>
<p>Chicago’s aggressive mailing campaigns are actually quite successful, in my opinion, and they seem to be “attacked” far less than other schools with equally (or even less) aggressive mailing campaigns. I’ve often found it odd that posters on these forums gush over Chicago’s prolific mailings while criticizing WUStL for theirs. (You’d think the latter are not even fit for wiping muddy shoes, given some comments.)</p>
<p>Thanks for pointing out my misunderstanding. I am a foreigner after all so a famous improv group in the US isn’t necessarily famous to me. According to the link, Stephen Corbert, a Northwestern alum, is an alum of the Second City Training Center. :)</p>
<p>Chicago is fortunate to have two great schools and both schools benefit from the collaboration between them.</p>
<p>I also find the p***ing match between University of Chicago and Northwestern fanboys amusing. Sort of reflects badly on both schools, in a way. Both great schools, obviously, but a lot of insecurities on both sides, apparently.</p>
<p>That said, the University of Chicago does deserve some credit for its role in founding The Second City, the hugely influential improv comedy group (not the city of Chicago itself). The Second City evolved out of the Compass Players, frequently described as the first professional improvisational theater/comedy group in the United States, dominated by University of Chicago students and dropouts including directors Paul Sills, Howard Alk, and Bernie Sahlins and comic actors like Mike Nichols and Elaine May. </p>
<p>Not much of a University of Chicago-Second City connection since then, though.</p>
<p>Yes, but their challenge over the past ~15 years has been to increase enrollment. The primary objective of the mass mailings (and other initiatives) has not been (I don’t think) to drive down the admit rates, per se, but to drive up the number of applicants. The goal has been to increase undergraduate enrollments while maintaining desired characteristics of the college. </p>
<p>In the mid '50’s, after a decade of shrinking enrollments, the college was down to 1400 undergraduates (according to historian John Boyer in a paper on student housing at Chicago). In 1992, it received 4128 applications, accepted 71 percent, and enrolled a total of 3425 undergraduates. By fall of 2008, enrollment was over 5000; the admit rate was down to 28 percent. More recent admit rates are in the teens; application numbers are over 20000. Admission yields last year increased from below 40% to over 46% (higher than Northwestern, Middlebury, or JHU, but still much lower than Harvard, Stanford, or Brown). The demographic mix also has changed. This year, 42 percent of incoming first years were students of color (including Asian Americans at ~19%).</p>
<p>These are huge changes. I have no idea what the admit rate was when I attended, but the graduating class size was only about 600 as I recall. The student body was overwhelmingly white, with high numbers of Jewish and Roman Catholic students from urban areas like NYC, Baltimore-Washington, and Chicago. Word-of-mouth and self-selection must have worked well enough in those days. Today, it apparently is necessary to beat the high grass over a much wider field to flush out the numbers they’re after. The unfortunate side-effect is to encourage applications from many students who have little chance of being admitted.</p>
<p>OP, do you think you have the stats to get into U Chicago or Northwestern? If not, or if you may need merit aid, look at Loyola and DePaul. Both are Roman Catholic schools, Loyola seems more overtly so.</p>
<p>“Chicago is fortunate to have two great schools and both schools benefit from the collaboration between them.”</p>
<p>That’s exactly the attitude to have towards these schools. There is simply no need to tear the other down. They are simply different flavors. NU has more “traditional college trappings” with sports, significant Greek presence, and a work hard / play hard mentality. UC prides itself on more of the erudite life of the mind Scav Hunt we’re-not-like-the-rest mentality. Still in all, there are significant chunks of students at each school who would have been happy at the other.</p>
<p>Not sure how old you are warblers, but the short response is no, no and yes (to the bolded). (“Always” is a very long time, and back in the '70’s Chicago was not selective at all. Heck, for awhile, Chicago was seriously considering dropping undergrad altogether, which I assume was the antithesis of their marketing programs from today!)</p>
<p>Ted O’Neill, former adcom, used to make it publicly clear that he was not a fan of standardized tests, so they were not as important to Chicago’s admissions as they (appear) to be today.</p>
<p>I don’t have data on admit rates for the 1970s. Regardless, if the average scores were that high, I don’t think it is accurate to say it was “not selective at all” in those years. It was “self-selecting”, perhaps.</p>
<p>Would you consider a 75% acceptance rate “selective”? (circa 1970)</p>
<p>“always” is a long, long time. </p>
<p>source: UofC’s archives.</p>
<p>btw: the 730 is rather high, unless the math score was relatively low. According to the Maroon, Chicago’s mean sat was ~1370 in 2003. Even so, 1370 is mighty fine score, particularly for an Admissions Dean that publicly disdained the test.</p>
<p>These numbers in isolation are not too meaningful.
Although I’d like to see a specific source for admit rates in the 1970s, I can believe it may have been as high as 75%. However, if it was 75% of a highly qualified (“self selecting”) applicant pool, then yes, I would say it was selective. </p>
<p>If you have access to the University of Chicago archives, maybe you can share a more comprehensive set of numbers (scores and admit rates) to add to information shared in previous discussion.</p>