<p>Hyeonjlee, just briefly, I agree - I think kids are significantly inflating the importance of US News (by generally relying upon anecdotal evidence), and underrating the 2nd yr common app bump and role aggressive outreach plays in admissions.</p>
<p>Case in point, I’ve posted this before, but here’s what Nondorf did at his previous institution, RPI:</p>
<p>[RPInsider</a> Nondorf Leaves the ‘Tute](<a href=“http://www.rpinsider.com/archives/1005]RPInsider”>http://www.rpinsider.com/archives/1005)</p>
<p>Sure, RPI is a good school, but under his stewardship, there was around a 4X increase in apps, and RPI’s app numbers began to head into the MIT ballpark. RPI isn’t a top ten school, just as Emory or Wash U or Cornell aren’t top ten schools, but they’ve all been getting healthy bumps in app numbers every year. </p>
<p>In the world of admissions, outreach and marketing can mean SO much. Yes, ranking can help, but admissions is fascinating partly because it’s still so much of a marketing-driven game. Moreover, Nondorf seems to know how to get this moving. </p>
<p>On another note, I’m a little tired with all the talk about how being “quirky” or “so U of C” should enhance a student’s candidacy over another kid who just possesses a lot of academic talent and inquisitiveness. I think in a lot of ways, Chicago’s “quirky” rep came about as a side effect of their poor admissions policies and weak sense of collegiate life in the 80s and 90s. Chicago was this way because only the sorta nerdy, quirky types would actually matriculate at U of C. I don’t think the admissions office was doing much to encourage or cultivate this sort of culture. (Heck, I don’t think the admissions office was doing much of anything in the early 90s - right around when admissions was becoming a full-contact sport.)</p>
<p>Now, the quirky label has stuck, but I don’t think it arose from some guided administrative directive. I really think that, more than anything else, what U of C wants is ACADEMIC TALENT and ACADEMIC CURIOSITY. That’s it. At least in my alum interviews, that’s all I look for in my interviewees. I care about a kid’s Magic: the Gathering addiction or his/her unhealthy fixation with Star Wars only to the extent that it reveals some sort of academic curiosity. I’d be just as impressed by an all-star quarterback who nurtures a burgeoning love of physics just the same. </p>
<p>I believe the quirky/nerdy quality of U of C was a byproduct of a bygone admissions age. It’s not “quintessentially” U of C. As opposed to what others like A-Punk have said above, there’s nothing purposeful that mandates that “creative/quirky” types “belong” at the University of Chicago. What matters the most is ACADEMIC TALENT and CURIOSITY. In the competitive world of college admissions, if one student has higher scores, higher grades, and demonstrates a high level of curiosity, I’d gladly take him/her over the kid who has memorized the latest U of C Scav Hunt list and is prepping for the Winter Kuviasungnerk event. </p>
<p>Like it or not, admissions is a zero-sum game folks.</p>