@milee30 “expert opinion” is still 20% of the ranking and includes high school guidance counselors. Having huge numbers of applicants and being selective will definitely affect the “opinion” of public school counselors in my kids school. So although they removed the “direct” effect after decades of criticism, they still have an indirect affect of selectivity. After all, ‘selectivity’ is a well known psychological influencer on lots of things in society - and very likely high school guidance counselors and deans, admin officials etc… UCLA is also an aggressive marketer to kids (particularly out of state) with over >100,000 applications annually. This has driven the reputation, once clearly behind Berkeley to near equivalence. Only if USNWR drops rankings for counselors and admissions folks will it truly not matter.
@milee30 “Appears UChicago is following that script and trying to reach a greater pool of students who previously might not have been aware of the college.”
time will tell, but my prediction is the number of pell grant recipients and percentage of african american will not change at U. Chicago. I guess being test optional will in theory allow Chicago to take more low income kids without hurting their rankings for “standardized testing” which is STILL part of USNWR rankings methodology (>7% of value). You are making the most optimistic assumptions, but cynical ones would also achieve a rankings desired result with the same U Chicago application rules. My point a complete cynic who wants to game the USNWR system could go test optional and email/mail tons of kids like Chicago. We really would need to know the zip codes of where their physical mailings go, which I doubt U chicago would divulge are their emails and mailing going to zip codes in the bottom third of income or the top third?
Time will tell (Pell grant recipients and retention are incorporated by USNWR so the hard data will be there).
wow @ApplestoApples89 do you have a link to the international admits going up at Dook? I thought most schools tried to cap internationals ~10% ? Since they tend not to be able to pay. Also, I do think Dook is honest that they do benefit ED applicants (which I believe is true). RD will be brutal at these schools since they can fill the rest of their class 4times over with perfect test score/grade students. best of luck.
I’m personally not a big fan of the components of the USNWR ranking; they do not align with the things we would value as a family, so we didn’t use USNWR as anything other than a place to get ideas about additional colleges to research.
Difficult to tell how “expert opinion” (which I agree is one of the most useless pieces of the ranking system) is influenced by mailings, though. Yes, increased selectivity could indirectly indicate something is more desireable and lead someone to have a higher opinion of that college. On the other hand, if people who don’t understand how the rankings are calculated (as is obvious from many posts here) are complaining to their GCs about how a big, mean college hurt their child’s feelings through some nefarious plot those complaints and dealing with the fallout probably don’t serve to bolster an influencer’s opinion on that college. IMO, it’s probably a wash - neither net positive or negative. Again, increased direct mailing only serves to potentially unearth some previously untapped top students.
It doesn’t make sense to read too much into short term fluctuations in apps. College students follow trends and their increasing linkage through social media means small trends can result in large swings in current public opinion and resulting apps to any one college. A story or two can result in thousands of applications more or fewer for a college. A president’s daughter is accepted at a college and the college might get many more apps, the media focuses on gun violence in a city and the college based in that city gets fewer apps. Just how fads work.
Focusing instead on long term trends can indicate if something is a fad, manipulated or real. When the very first USNWR ranking was published in 1983, UChicago was ranked #6. And that was when very few people outside Chicago and the academic circles of the coastal elite had even heard of it. So the increase in ranking from #6 to #3 (with trendy fluctuations in between) over a period of 30+ years isn’t a huge change. Could a 3 place increase over a period of 30 years be the result of an evil plot and manipulation? Sure. But it could also just be the result of a few things, including the greater trend for students to want an urban experience, increased marketing to make people aware of the college’s offerings that were previously a hidden gem sort of thing and a general goal of improving the student experience in what was already a top academic university. The facts point towards the latter.
Having a child at UChicago, and knowing plenty of kids at MIT, I can say that UChicago can be every bit as intense as MIT if one wants it to be. The Honors courses in particular seem to be about 5x harder than the normal courses. My D took an Honors Econ course one quarter, and she spent much more time on that than her other three classes put together.
I also disagree that you don’t have options at MIT if you decide to leave STEM. Other standouts include philosophy, economics, linguistics, and of course the business school.
Four courses per quarter is a typical load at Chicago, allowing up to 48 classes over 4 years, whereas only 42 are required. I knew Caltech was seriously intense, but I had no idea that it was 5-6 classes per quarter, or more than 60 over 4 years. In contrast, Harvard allows 32 classes over 4 years.
Sure. https://today.duke.edu/2018/12/more-880-early-decision-applicants-admitted-duke Now I have to correct what I wrote because this says 52% of ED admissions this year were students of color and international applicants. Last year it was in the low 40’s. That’s a big jump in a year, but they didn’t break out the international admissions from the past two years. Since they decided not to admit more students from previous years despite doing everything possible to get more applicants, the result was an all time low admission rate (again makes them look more selective) and a gut wrenching experience for well qualified legacy students who worked years for this.
@anon145 High school counselor ranking in fact hurts Chicago not helps it. If you look at USnews ranking by High School counselor ranking scores, Chicago ranks lower than many of its peers that it ranks higher in the overall score.
@milee30 the zip codes of where U Chicago mailings and emails go would answer the question. Are they targeting poorer kids or not. That would answer the question of cynic vs optimist, no?
Sorry, milee30, but I’m not buying U of C’s party line on this. It’s one thing to send out one or two mailings, but Chicago took the marketing thing and cranked it all the way up to 11. Doesn’t seem like it made any effort to distinguish between low income/low population density students and others either. Only thing it was looking for was a high SAT/ACT scores. The fact that the Washington Post is publishing stories about which schools saw a rise in applications and which saw a decline demonstrates that it’s very much in a school’s self interest to find itself in the former group. Whether it’s fair or not, selectivity plays a large role in determining a school’s academic reputation and there is no question in my mind that underlying Chicago’s marketing blitz is a plan to bolster the school’s already formidable reputation by increasing selectivity.
" I guess being test optional will in theory allow Chicago to take more low income kids without hurting their rankings for “standardized testing” which is STILL part of USNWR rankings methodology (>7% of value). You are making the most optimistic assumptions, but cynical ones would also achieve a rankings desired result with the same U Chicago application rules. My point a complete cynic who wants to game the USNWR system could go test optional and email/mail tons of kids like Chicago. We really would need to know the zip codes of where their physical mailings go, which I doubt U chicago would divulge are their emails and mailing going to zip codes in the bottom third of income or the top third?"
I’m not a supporter of test-optional and frankly don’t understand how it will be helpful at a college like UChicago, so am the last person to give an opinion on the merits or reasons for test-optional. But the facts show going test optional won’t help in the direct ranking calculation, either. You’re ignoring the part of the calculation where USNWR penalizes schools that don’t report 100% of their admitted student test scores. Schools that do not report 100% of their admitted student test scores receive a 15% reduction in the value of the scores reported. Since UChicago has historically had one of the highest reported scores - generally second only to CalTech - it’s reasonable to assume that admitting students who don’t report scores and more students with lower scores will actually decrease their ranking for that metric since they’ll incur the 15% penalty.
BTW, zip codes are not necessarily a great way of reaching the high achieving low income students. Outside the few areas with highly concentrated populations - which is where these students live, the low density areas - zip codes aren’t a fine enough tool to determine the wealth of the population. Heck, our area of coastal Florida is a great example. In a waterfront neighborhood the homes directly on the water will be worth $2 million +, the homes for the next few streets over from the water may be $500k - $1.5 million and within a few streets further in there may be a trailer park. All in the same zip code. Zip codes only work as a wealth indicator in certain densely populated areas, which is not where the previously undiscovered students are.
Well, as embarrassing as it is to admit, I fell for the UofC mailings and I do feel like we were duped. My S, who is a great student and has good stats, thought Uof C was maybe trying to change the student profile - get students outside the usual profile. I don’t think his feeling UofC was targeting him is unusual coming from our district and having parents who didn’t fully understand how crazy the college process can be. I’ll be more prepared the next go ‘round!
“Doesn’t seem like it made any effort to distinguish between low income/low population density students and others either. Only thing it was looking for was a high SAT/ACT scores.”
If you’re trying to attract previously undiscovered students and make students aware of something they haven’t heard of or considered, then cranking the marketing up to 11 may be the way to do that. As I described in my prior post, the exact students who top colleges may be trying to reach are the ones that are hardest to pinpoint through traditional means. They don’t live in areas with dense enough population that zip codes are a good distinguisher of income, so you can’t use zip code targeting. And study after study have shown how student reported income data is hugely inaccurate or missing, so even if students do self-report, you can’t rely on that data. So mass mailing based on high scores is about all that remains.
Not what I’d choose, but makes sense.
There really is no “party line” as UChicago is very tight lipped about their admissions process.
It’s OK if one college or another isn’t your cup of tea. With thousands out there, just throw away any junk mail you receive and move on.
First read http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/21721003/#Comment_21721003
I hope some folks from UChicago would feel better that their school is pretty strong in graduate research.
As you can see, US News is not good at measuring undergraduate programs.
Although the detail of the WSJ rankings is only available to its subscribers, you can find the overall rankings at
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/united-states/2019#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats
UChicago is not in the top 10 for good reasons.
Finally read http://collegecatalog.uchicago.edu/thecollege/thecurriculum/ and watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvxp2FcvApQ to see if you are interested in UChicago’s core curriculum. Do you agree with the view of this girl in the video? She is refreshingly honest. She even talked about “Students Beaten, Cars Burned in Teen Attack on Halloween” (https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2018/11/2/students-beaten-cars-burned-teen-attack-halloween/).
This is also a good read – http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/21711997/#Comment_21711997
UChicago should get rid of EA at least so it is not picking up students who apply ED elsewhere. (one recently posted here to complaint.) Those students obviously don’t choose UChicago as their first choice school (if they like it at all) . In fact, UChicago admits close to 80% of students in two rounds of ED. Those rich kids who are obsessed with rankings chant “I am in a top 10 school”; some all the way to the mental hospital. BTW, do you know how many kids in UChicago currently in medical leave? If I can find the number, I hope you can too.
Applestoapples89- “It’s stressful and gut wrenching when a student does everything they can to be qualified, and “factors outside of their control” lead to a rejection/deferral”.
Gut wrenching but not unfair. Would it be more equitable for another student who did everything within their control to get turned down becaise they aren’t a legacy?
None of us can say exactly but the likelihood is that the applicant you elude to likely lost out based on lesser qualifications relative to another legacy. Your candidate I am sure is excellent but the reality is that in the eyes of those reviewing the applications side by side they didn’t merit admission in spite of a legacy boost.
Don’t blame others or claim victimization or risk apples to apples seeming more like sour grapes.
“I fell for the UofC mailings”
I didn’t see it, but judging from how others report similar findings you’re not alone.
It isn’t helpful for families currently in the middle of the app process, but if you’re reading this because your family has a student applying next year… please consider ignoring all college mailings. Seriously, they’re just junk mail like any other unsolicited stuff you receive from the local carpet cleaner or pizza place and no more targeted or indicative of whether you have a chance for admission. We viewed them as the junk mail that they are and tossed them before they even came in the house. If you’re intelligent and caring enough to be doing the research (indicated by the fact that you’re reading this forum), there is little to be gained from being influenced by shotgun mass marketing. And no matter how personalized it appears, that’s what the college mailings are - about as personal and indicative of meaning as the junk mail you get from the local car dealership proclaiming you could win a new car.
Throw it away. Do your own research. When you have some colleges that interest you, ask them for information and use that information plus what your research turns up to make a decision.
.
8-|
It is unfair when alums are informally advised that if a well qualified legacy doesn’t go ED, the committee considers that a rejection of Duke, and raises the question of whether Duke is the right place for the legacy. If you doubt this, ask around. You have no idea what qualifications the student I’m referring to has, so please don’t assume anything about fairness. There is an element of arbitrariness and subjectivity and beyond that Duke admitted and denied many people based partly on factors “outside of the applicants control” but didn’t increase the total number of offers made. Now those are facts. It’s easy for you to call it sour grapes but sometimes grapes are sour because the experience was bad. I’m pretty sure this student also got inundated with U Chicago emails as well. As I wrote earlier the Georgetown admissions person is right that these binding ED schemes benefit the school not the students.
And by the way YES it would be less unfair if in comparing two highly qualified applicants, they gave preference to a legacy whose family and who themselves have shown strong commitment to the university over years, especially if on the flip side they punish legacies who do not ED. ?
^ What Duke says is that you will not get the benefit of legacy status unless you apply ED. It is not viewed as “a rejection” of Duke but instead a statement that Duke is not your first choice. In other words you can’t receive a legacy benefit unless Duke is your first choice. There is absolutely no promises made.
Also I dont know the qualifications of the student you reference. Similarly you don’t know the qualifications of the other 4,000+ ED candidates. Ironic however that you won’t concede the possibility that his qualifications while great weren’t enough to get accepted once reviewed against others.
Your emotions aside Duke does not admit on as you put it “an arbitrary” basis. They take the best of the best. The elements beyond the students control are the applications of others that stand out.
If your students application was reviewed and was amazing relative to others they not only would have been accepted, they would have been nominated as a Robertson Scholar semi finalist. The admissions people review each application holistically and relative to cohort. In the case of legacies they get extra attention.
You state your experience was bad. So unless you gained acceptance to one of the most competitive schools in the world…bad experience. Sorry sounds like anything short of champagne was going to be sour grapes.
Just saw this from you.,
“YES it would be less unfair if in comparing two highly qualified applicants, they gave preference to a legacy whose family and who themselves have shown strong commitment to the university over years”.
Good news is they do give a tie breaker to the legacy candidate. Bad news…it gives you an idea just how much better the other candidates were in relative terms apparently.
Getting deferred or rejected stinks but publicly whining about it deminshes the achievements of those that got in.