Irritating Hogwarts/UoC comparison article on admissions site

Colleges & Universities University of Chicago
21

<p>To backtrack a bit, just a quick question - what do you all attribute to the big bump THIS year in Chicago applications?</p>

<p>Everyone seems to be pointing to the US News rank, but Chicago’s been ranked this high for the past 4-5 years, and it’s seen strong growth, but aside from maybe one wacky year, nothing that far outpaces its peers. This year, from what I’ve heard, the school seems set for a 40% increase in early apps, and probably a 25-30% increase overall in applications. </p>

<p>I think this has much more to do with the decision to move to the common app. Yes, being top 10 in US News helps, but the way the app process is now, if Chicago was, say, #11 but still on the common app, kids would still throw apps in Chicago’s direction bc it’s a good school. Wash U, Emory, Cornell etc. aren’t generally in the top ten, but these schools have very large app pools with increases every year. On the other hand, UPenn has been in top ten for a while now, but has had 3-4 years of stagnant admissions seasons. I don’t think a “top ten” us news ranking is the key factor here. </p>

<p>So, overall, I attribute this more to the common app and Chicago’s changing admissions strategy. I can’t stress enough how different chicago admissions is nowadays. As last as the mid-1990s, Chicago was sending out black and white brochures with titles like “life and dreams.” The admissions office had a kind of cold, standoffish feel about it. Now, there’s a more friendly vibe, and more of a desire to enthusiastically TELL people about Chicago. I think common app, more blanket marketing, and a more welcoming admissions tone explains the recent surge. Common app is easily the biggest factor i think. Thoughts?</p>

22

<p>Unalove. (10 char)</p>

23

<p>For this year, I think it’s the common app. General consensus seems to be the common app effect really kicks in at the second year it is implemented. Last year (my S1) was the first, and this is the second year. I won’t be surprised if the acceptance rate is perilously close to 20% this year (from 27% last year). </p>

<p>Next year won’t see such a drastic jump, but given that U Chicago’s wider appeal is set in motion plus the Nondorf drive, I would say, the application number will continue to inch up for a few years. I know I will get flamed for this, but I will say it: I believe all in all this is good news and directionally correct. </p>

<p>I don’t buy into all this brouhaha about the Chicago fit that should trump the imperative to put together a more high caliber and competitive student body that is on par with that of its institutional peers. Any school whose student body is comprised of top <<< 1% of the national population will have a very intellectual slant anyway. If we are talking about top 30% range, then, yes, you could have one school that mostly consists of partying Greeks and and another school that has far more studious students because of the particular care the adcoms had in selecting more serious students. However, if we are talking about <<< 1%, we are not talking about student body full of non-stop drinking buddies. </p>

<p>AND, I believe Chicago can benefit from a healthy collective of “careerists” who would go on to become captains of industry and donate $B so that it can give far better fin aid to more brilliant students who may not otherwise be able to benefit from wonderful U Chicago education. Besides why does everybody feel that careerists are not intellectually driven or capable? Must one be a starving novelist or artist to earn the respect as an intellectual? I can give you plenty of examples among the people I know who are successful careerists and very intellectually gifted and driven.</p>

<p>By the way, all the people who thumb their nose at others who take the USNWR ranking seriously and apply to U Chicago partly because of that, come on! If you ever looked at consumer report or any on-line evaluation and ranking for major consumer product purchase (like a car), you have no right to play such a holier-than-thou game. If you were ever or would be embarrassed of bringing to a prom someone who is universally acknowledged to be an extremely unattractive person, again, you have no right to strut around as an intellectual whose opinions and preferences are too lofty to be influenced by what other mere mortals and minions think. We are are all influenced by the generally accepted collective perception to a certain degree, and on top of that, the rankings do provide some valuable information about the quality of the product/objects we are talking about, though there is always room for bias and error.</p>

24

<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>

25

<p>PS - this may be better in another thread, but I think the rep Chicago should try to reinforce is that it’s kind of like “the MIT of liberal arts colleges.” A classmate of mine at Chicago said that to me, and it’s always rung true. Both schools are into cutting edge scholarship and research, and whenever I see the new buildings going up at Chicago (the plans for the new arts center, the massive bubble library by the Regenstein), it always draws me back to comparisons with MIT’s unconventional campus. MIT also has a core of “old school” buildings, but one look at some of their newer stuff, and the comparisons ring even more clearly in my mind…</p>

26

<p>Whoa! I never said that simply the quirky people belong at UChicago (In fact, I said I hated the word quirky). My statement was that UChicago was for the SMARTEST and most INTELLECTUALLY DRIVEN. I think that is synonymous with ACADEMIC TALENT and CURIOSITY.</p>

<p>And hyeonjlee, I do not really think anyone is playing the “holier-than-thou game.” Nor do I think my “opinions and preferences are too lofty to be influenced by what other mere mortals and minions think,” as you seem to suggest. Forgive me if I came across this way. </p>

<p>This is my last post in this thread. Let me just leave with this clarification: I do not believe that “quirkyness” (again, I hate this word) trumps academic ability in the Chicago admission process. Nor do I believe that US News rankings has led to a surge in applicants (I didn’t think I even insinuated this. All I meant with the US News ranking anecdote was that I know some people apply to UChicago SOLELY because it is in the top ten; this has NOTHING to do with the surge in applications). Nor do I believe that Chicago should not try to build a more competitive student body. </p>

<p>That is all.</p>

27

<p>A-punk, above you stated that Chicago should look for “creative/intellectually driven/“quirky”” students. You then go on to mention you hate the word quirky. What exactly do you mean by this statement then? When I read the phrase, "creative/intellectually driven/“quirky,” I certainly don’t think it just stands as a proxy for “academically curious.” Maybe I’m mistaken here, and if you have a chance to post again, please do elaborate on this.</p>

28

<p>In academe Chicago has always been regarded as America’s intellectual powerhouse. The pursuit of knowledge above all else through rigorous inquiry has been what sets it part from almost all other universities. I believe this view was stated best by Robbert Pippen who was on the presidential selection committee. I have posted it before, but it is worth doing again.

</p>

<p>This is what should not be lost. As JHS mentioned earlier, a school’s culture is an interaction between its history, faculty, and the type of student it seeks to attract. Over the last few years Ted O’Neill did a very good job of upgrading the admissions message and increasing applications with great dignity and respect for what Chicago stands for and its perhaps singular role in the world’s elite colleges. At the same time Dean Boyer greatly improved student life. This, coupled with the move to the common application, is the likely reason for this year’s continued increase in applications.</p>

<p>Recently Zimmer has restated the University’s mission:

We can only hope Zimmer means it, and that the new admissions team understands that students need to recruited who truly want to be part of that mission above everything else.</p>

29

<p>I don’t particularly care for Chicago’s new marketing techniques, but the Hogwarts article sounded to me as if they might’ve been poking fun at the comparison a little, while acknowledging some of the parallels that are present. I don’t think they were actually trying to say that those things are true…but then again, you never know I guess.</p>

30

<p>I dunno about you guys, but I thought the Hogwarts article was absolutely hilarious.</p>

<p>In any case, regarding this question of “fit”: To be honest, lots of kids here are great fits for other top schools, including the more pre-professional and party-hard schools, and lots of the people at those schools are great fits for UChicago. A person can fit into more than one mold, and it’s much harder to find someone at this high of a level who won’t fit into the mold, than it is to find someone who will fit in in some way, shape, or form.</p>

<p>Yes, I love it here. Yes, I consider it my intellectual home. Yes, I would’ve been perfectly fine and dandy at my state school, which is widely considered to be one of the top party schools in the nation. Really. Not because I am a party-hard type of person (I’m not; in fact, I absolutely despise large parties), but because niches exist at every school for all sorts of people.</p>

<p>Basically, in short: I feel like “fit” is overrated, and this entire “some people are just applying because it’s a top school, not because they actually fit the school” hostile jive I’m getting from some people is disconcerting. Feel free to argue with me, but if somebody is accepted, that somebody deserves to come here if they so choose.</p>

31

<p>The issue for me is not one of fit for an individual student, but of the potential for diluting the intellectual mission of the University. Increased selectivity and more emphasis on pre-professional training to attract “future leaders” (read donors) would not be worth the trade-off if that were to happen in my opinion (America has enough of those schools already). Perhaps, and hopefully, my concerns are unwarranted.</p>

32

<p>I could not have said it better myself neltharion.</p>

33

<p>For the life of me, I don’t understand why some people seem to regard intellectual drive & rigor and worldly successes in a field other than academia mutually exclusive. </p>

<p>Granted, AVERAGE die hard careerists in general may possess lower intensity when it comes the “intellectual zeal” than die hard future professors in some esoteric field like ancient Mesopotamian creation myth do. However, we are talking about putting together a class of 1300 out of the whole world, not filling a giant football stadium out of a mid sized city. </p>

<p>There are more than enough students with tippy top competitive academic edge AND ferocious intellectual drive, and YES, some of them may become professors and some of them may become captains of the industry. The problem thus far with Chicago is NOT that the world does not have 1300 students that can fulfill the intellectual mission of the school, and hence it had to lower its admission standard and competitiveness as a trade off between the perfect U Chicago type intellectual students and the dreaded careerists. The problem with U Chicago thus far is the fact that way too many potential perfect fit U Chicago students are not considering it as a top choice for whatever reason. As such, any marketing drive Nondorf is leading to cast the net wider, and to “poach” that perfect U Chicago student away from other top schools is a step in the right direction.</p>

<p>S1 chose U Chicago because of its famed econ department that will get him into the Wall Street (eeeeeeeewwwwwwwwww, the dreaded careerist). I am paying full pay for U Chicago for S1 because of the intellectual drive the school instills in its student, and I will be royally miffed if it dilutes its intellectual standard. By the way, S1 will never admit it (not cool enough), but he is one of the most intellectually driven and gifted individuals I have seen in my career. </p>

<p>I am not worried at all with the direction of the current admission administration, because I believe with the kind of reputation and academic excellence, U Chicago will not have to dilute its intellectual mission to attract the very best in the world. The so called “intellectually driven young people” are not such an endangered species to the degree we can’t find 1300 of them regardless of their career ambition. </p>

<p>Besides, for the good of the nation and our future grandchildren, I would rather see someone educated with the highest level of intellectual rigor at U Chicago to become a leader of the free world than a twit who went to Harvard or Yale as a development case because of his/her daddy’s political and financial prowess and graduated with a gentleman’s (lady’s) C, and would go on to preach that the global warming is a hoax in spite of the mounting irrefutable scientific evidence.</p>

<p>As long as U Chicago has its core, very muted Athletic scene, world class faculty who won’t give inflated grades right left and center, and darned cold weather, don’t worry: it won’t attract a horde of trust fund twits. So, don’t worry, and be happy.</p>

34

<p>I came to this party late, so I am probably beating a dead horse…but Nondorf and Company’s marketing tactics seem a tad unsophisticated. Comparison to Hogwarts?? Most seniors applying to Chicago are way beyond Pottermania (was that not over 5 years ago?), and are probably reading much heavier stuff anyways. As a parent of a prospective student, I can say that my senior was attracted to Chicago’s intellectual and academic reputation, and its uncommon app, which has understandably has gone in the favor of the Common App. But the challenging essays remain, and if marketing colors everything Chicago in Harry Potter terms, I am sure it would be turnoff in a lot of quarters.</p>

35

<p>^ You may not have noticed the frenzy over where Emma Watson was going to college. Most seniors applying to Chicago are way beyond Pottermania (I hope), but (a) they all saw the movie last summer, and (b) for many of them, the last two Potter books were their real introduction to reading something that took lots of hours and page-turnings. I think HP is still emotionally important for these kids.</p>

36

<p>Hey, I like Harry Potter. Well, I liked the first three books, at least. Too many issues with the books after PoA to list here, but they’re not bad reads, and I’m pretty infatuated with Rowling’s worldbuilding (and this coming from a fairly critical reader). </p>

<p>In fact, I’m so not over my Pottermania that I just ordered PS in French and CoS in Russian. :)</p>

37

<p>So this article is pretty much outlandish. Midnight soccer… I haven’t been there myself (been busy with papers and fun crap thursdays), but I’m almost certain no fans show up. Whoever wrote that article deserves an accollade for their “imagination” and guts but condemnation for factual inaccuracies. </p>

<p>That said we do have some things that look alot like Harry Potter. Harper’s 2nd floor library is a living picture of a “Great Hall”, except that its quite and my favorite place to study. Some of our building are prettier than the ones in Harry Potter. Cobb has the archaic clock that blends especially well with the current blood red ivy, Ryerson has this secluded lofty feel befitting of magicians (or in this case mathematicians), Stuart has these columns inside that blend with the white stone to make it look (at least to me) like a dungeon kinda. Meanwhile, the seminary tower overlooks campus like Baradur from Lord of the Rings.</p>

38

<p>Just the fact that midnight soccer exists may be what they are trying to get across.</p>

<p>My D’s first interest in Chicago came from hearing that it was “where fun comes to die,” and she immediately got it as a joke. Conversations with other parents, a few years of CC’s Chicago forum, and some contact with Chicago’s administration have convinced me that most people don’t get the joke–including a lot of 18-year-olds who would thrive at Chicago.</p>

<p>So, I’m not surprised to see them make the Harry Potter connection and try out the “work hard, play hard” line. Face it and revel in it–there is a little bit of Hogwarts in U Chicago. </p>

<p>I have to agree with the OP, you probably shouldn’t count on going to your Resident Master for help with your homework. But who did that at Hogwarts?</p>

39

<p>A few comments:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>No marketing is not positive. On all college campuses on all days of the year, the weather is beautiful and co-eds lazily strum guitars as they contemplate the Big Wide World around them. All pictures of students display all colors of the rainbow and at least one has a Greek sweatshirt on. All professors’ photos are of them mid-lesson, and they look interesting. To the extent that the article is a marketing piece, it did not strike me as dishonest. It just told a different story than the one that is usually told. And all days that the photographer wanders around campus are nice days.</p></li>
<li><p>There isn’t one quintessential University of Chicago experience. Case in point: a prospective student and parent invited me and another fourth-year out to dinner. I didn’t know the other fourth-year and I didn’t know the student or parent-- they are friends of relatives. Anyway, I felt like our conversation was something out of the three stooges:</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Parent: Is there a lot of political and social activism on campus?
Other fourth year: None whatsoever.
Me: There’s so much!</p>

<p>Student: Do people go to big frat parties on the weekends?
Other fourth year: All the time!
Me: Almost never!</p>

<p>Parent: What do you and your friends want to do after graduation?
Other fourth year: Law, business, and medicine.
Me: We’re too busy writing our BA’s to think about the real world right now. We don’t really know what’s coming next. Goat farming? Grad school?</p>

<p>And on and on. Clearly neither of us was lying; we were just retelling our story of the University through our own lenses. The other fourth year and I are at totally different ends of the U of C spectrum, so we see entirely different things in our own little universes.</p>

40

<p>For what it’s worth, my kids go or went to the same University of Chicago that unalove goes to. But it is clear to me that there are other, parallel Universities of Chicago occupying the same plane of reality.</p>