I understand that the older data can be edifying, and it’s interesting to see. Further, I agree that the ethos of the student body is largely similar to past Chicago classes.
This being said, how can you argue that in terms of more surface-level factors (like wealth of incoming students, which does not dictate how intellectual the students are), there hasn’t been change, especially in the post Nondorf era?
@DunBoyer - you said Chicago hasn’t changed much since 2006. I agree on student ethos staying consistent, BUT, here are ways the school is noticeably different:
- MUCH more racially diverse incoming classes (20% Asian American, another 20% of the class is Latinx, African-American, etc. - this is a significant increase from a decade ago, and a huge difference from two decades ago)
- Notably sportier (in the Div. 3 rankings, Chicago was ranked #41 in 2006, and #15 now, a fairly big change)
- More amenities in and around Hyde Park (lots more restaurants, new grocery stores, the Logan Arts Center, Institute of Politics, etc.)
- Big change in career advising and graduate placement (of those going straight to the work force in 2016, about 40% headed to finance/consulting - these are very similar to numbers at other ivy plus schools, and I'd say at least a 10-15% increase from 2006)
- Admissions changes leaving some mark: yes, most was application inflation/gaming, but I think going from 40-50% selectivity and 35% yield (which is where we were in 2006) to 7% accept and 70% yield will lead to some difference in the feel of the class. Probably more people at Chicago now have it as their real #1 choice, and it probably feels a bit different/more elite to be so selective. I'm not saying this is a huge change, but it probably changes the tone a little.
… there are other changes too, but this is enough to present for now!
To sum, I think while the heart of the student body is similar to 2006, there’s a LOT different now.