It’s really just some 15 year old survey of Course/Learning Management System products used by “peers”. But hey, a data point is a data point, right?
I am sure this list can vary somewhat from one time to the other. Who knows how they chose this one time. I thought it was interesting that University of Texas at Austin was also there.
And I certainly find it a compelling theory that one of them clearly doesn’t belong:)
^ My nephew is considering Middlebury because he’s a strong athlete but not D1. He’s also heavily into the humanities . . . so yeah.
I don’t know why this is so controversial to some people
This is a clear attempt by UChicago at segmenting the market and doing some narrow target marketing. If it has data that says in certain segments of the TX market, it has a clear edge over Penn and Columbia and can win head to heads with a select number of peers that some in the east coast consider as superior, then it should go for it. It has comparative advantage and it has internal data to work with that proves it. I say go for it. UChicago is known for data-based and fact-based analysis. I doubt that they would be foolish enough to pour marketing dollars on a false set of data.
I have no reason to doubt that there is a sub segment In TX that would have UChicago as their top choice. The only possible quibble is how big this sub segment is. In reality though, it doesn’t matter how big this population is. The only thing that matters is it exists, it can be targeted, and there is a measurable preference for UChicago. That’s marketing 101 for goods and services that can be differentiated.
And despite all our strong opinions in the matter, the Ultimate proof of whether or not this hypothesis is right is not in our hands. We will only know for sure once we see the results.
I give kudos to UChicago on this one though. Their reliance on mass marketing may be over. A more targeted approach may give them a better bang for their marketing buck. (And perhaps dial down some people’s complaints about receiving too many marketing paraphernalia! Lol)
Always fun to see comments from poster who know nothing about UChicago. DD is being recruited by USC Viterbi Graduate School of Engineering with a all expense paid trip to visit it in April. So is USC wrong in thinking that graduating from the UChicago with a degree in engineering from the Priztker School of Molecular Engineering confers an actual engineering degree. I’ll just go with what USC thinks vs some poster. 
Ah, yeah, my bad, I honestly forgot about that thing they now have (they mentioned it in passing when we were touring). Looks like they graduate, what, 30 students a year?
But USC is not UChicago’s peer (according to UChicago), yes?
There’s a problem here. This entire thread is based on an assertion made without evidence. The OP writes:
–“The University of Chicago has quietly launched a massive campaign to attract students from Texas. Demographics and economics are big decision drivers…The thinking is that the longstanding and positive views of peer school brands by those in New York and California are not as prevalent in Texas, and, in some conservative Texas circles, the peer schools have controversial brand value. The expectation is that Chicago has a major and wide-open lane in Texas. The primary competition is the flagship honors program at the University of Texas at Austin-- valedictorians tend to stay in state unlike New York and California. This will be interesting to watch in next few years.”
Does the OP have some connection to the U of C’s inner sanctum? How does the OP know about this “massive campaign” and the specific motivation and reasoning behind it? On what basis does he/she make these claims? I’m not questioning the OP’s veracity, but this discussion has gone on for 5-pages based on a completely unsupported statement.
@Mom2Melcs, look up OP’s earlier stuff; he ducks in with interesting tidbits every now and then, and the threads run on very similarly to this one. Remember, he’s just a parent. But that doesn’t mean he can’t be privy to some of the information flowing out of the inner sanctum.
@TheVulcan at #84 - isn’t USC a respectable graduate engineering program? Besides, CU’s kid is a 3rd year. Imagine where she’ll be flown out this time next year. The ME major is very new; in Spring 2018, they had 53 1st majors with another 26 as 2nd or 3rd, and graduated only 12 students. One year later (Spring 2019) the number of first majors grew to 65 and they graduated 20. So it’s increasing in popularity but they will likely keep the growth to reasonable numbers in these early years.
“There’s a problem here. This entire thread is based on an assertion made without evidence.”
I believe OP told us last year that the University was in the process of reviewing the quarter system. That proved to be the case, though it was not public knowledge at the time. Boyer had hinted at it, but I don’t recall anyone speaking of it as an actual project. Ergo, I conclude OP had an internal source for that particular bit of info. This past instance gives the present one some credibility in my mind. Still, vague and unsourced stuff of that sort would not pass muster as facts in the world of journalism. Perhaps that’s the point @Mom2Melcs is making. Now if we could get OP under oath…
@marlowe1 : re: your post #77, first sentence of your third paragraph.
Please reread the original post which started this thread. The 7th sentence states:
“Targets in Texas are rural students, students with military backgrounds, first to college students, and Hispanic students.”
There’s no mystery here, folks. OP has attended some admit events and is just passing on some of the info. shared - the trustees do happen to sponsor quite a few of them all around the country, you know. And they are more forthcoming than many would give them credit for. It’s just that there is no reason to share the Texas strategy in NY or CA because it’s not relevant to those states. It DOES make sense to discuss in TX with TX families. Anyway, the trustees obviously don’t have extra time on their hands to be updating us on CC with assurances that they have “good sources.” OP has chosen to fill that void with the occasional update. If you look at the timing of some of the juicier posts, you notice that they are likely (or definitely) in the wake of an admit event (early Feb. for the ED1/EA, April for everyone).
Regarding the committee to explore the academic calendar, the Maroon reported on that in mid-March last year with the underlying implication that they were looking into switching to semesters. https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2019/3/18/university-convenes-calendar-committee-discuss-pos/
We then discussed quarters vs. semesters on this thread:
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/2131577-boyer-explores-possible-switch-to-semester-system-p1.html
OP, however, provided a more balanced and general perspective which, as it turned out, lines up better with the committee’s actual conclusions and the approved change: http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/2135635-admit-rates-standardized-test-averages-cross-admit-results-p1.html
So either OP’s source is more accurate than the Maroon’s, or OP didn’t jump to conclusions.
UChicago doesn’t need to justify targeting the state of Texas as Texas has a large and growing population and has a great deal of wealth and it is not located on either coast.
It is interesting, however, that UChicago feels the need to “target rural students, students with military backgrounds, first to college students, and Hispanic students” according to the intial post which started this thread.
@Publisher at #90 and #92: those targets make sense, because they align with UChicago’s Empower Initiative which has expanded outreach precisely to those groups - not just in TX but everywhere. (Odyssey as well has expanded outreach to underserved groups such as URM/Hispanic, etc.). So there is, indeed, scholarship money for those groups. But not “Texas scholarship” money because those groups exist outside of Texas as well.
As for “feeling the need” - this is personal for some of the trustees, who come from rural backgrounds themselves and believe there are more potential admits out there than some of the other elite schools have assumed. That’s why they’ve chosen to go that direction. If you google UChicago Empower Initiative you can read all about their efforts.
There is a very pragmatic reason as well and one that I’ve mentioned several times. Colleges and universities are facing a demographic cliff which is expected to begin in 2026. They can’t rely on the same-old same-old groups of admits.
So there are many reasons, both idealistic and pragmatic, to expanding outreach to these groups. If you read more about UChicago, you will learn more about its efforts and vision.
@JBStillFlying : Thank you for your post above.
I do understand the issue with declining student pool / demographics and the mission of many universities to engage in outreach to first generation, Hispanic and other URMs, military, and under-represented geographical areas. These are often referred to as “hooks”. And I aware of financial aid assistance offered by colleges and universities.
My point with respect to “targeted” groups was :
to correct the misinformation in post #77 above and
to suggest that UChicago could & should be competitive in both rural & urban areas of Texas.
Oh but @Vulcan there are a couple of kids attending from Stanford and MIT so I guess that those schools are not peers (maybe somehting below peers then)??? We all know your son was not accepted EA to UChicago, don’t take it personally just move on, MIT is a great school, although I doubt that he will get the same personalized attention that a school that only graduated 30 gets. 
Knowing how some of my wealthier and educationally focused friends from Texas think, U of Chic mining Texas should pay off. Anecdotal of course, but there is a lot of suspicion about PC elitism of coastal schools, and the 2016 letter resonated well especially as contrasted to Yale’s Halloween incident (and the like), at least among this small sample size.
A hard nut to crack though will be high achieving upper middle kids (not talking families that can be full pay anywhere without any issue). All in costs for UT for a Texas resident living on campus is about $27K. UT is pretty generous with merit aid for the high achieving kids U of Chic is targeting. U of Chic with a sticker price of $80k may be a hard sell to a family where the net cost after merit is around $20k or less at UT vs U of Chic at at least double if not over triple the cost. Tried to run the U of Chic NPC, but they require you to provide more personal info (like email) than I am ready to give. Maybe someone else can give a good range of net cost for households say in the $125 -200k annual income range with typical assets.
Not sure what to make of these recent posts of yours, @Publisher, or why you say (not once, but twice) that post #77 was misleading. I have re-read it now a couple of times and profess myself mystified as to how it could have misled you. It would help if you spell things out a bit for this poor ol’ boy from the sticks. We can agree or disagree, but the discussion is terribly frustrating, even meaningless, when the matters in dispute are not clearly stated.
You continue to imply in your own posts that there is a conservative political motivation inspiring the initiative with the targeted groups - rural, poor, military, first-gen, URMs - as against the well-to-do kids coming from the big cities. Why don’t you come out and say so if that’s your point? If you’re not saying that, then please clarify.
Incidentally, though OP refers to the targeted groups he also mentions the kids from the good high schools in the big cities. The discussion last year turned very much on the question of whether in practice these more privileged groups were likely to be the real targets. To the extent that Texas’s increasing wealth has been part of the present discussion that is the implication once again. I myself see no reason why the totality of all SES groups in Texas couldn’t be targets in the same way as in all other regions. That the motivation for recruiting from the targeted groups is that they are more conservative is frankly nonsense. OP is not saying this, no one is saying it except, it seems, you, unless you see fit to clarify what in fact you are saying.
@BKSquared at #96: it’s likely to be > $40,000. The latest data I can find on College Navigator is from two years ago. You can always call and speak to FA to get a better idea.
@Publisher at #94: Marlowe was just correcting your assumption that the targeting of rural/military is to bring in more conservative students. His angle was that this assumption misrepresents the student body at UC. My angle would be a bit different: 1) is that what you indeed meant? and 2) if so, what is your basis for that assumption? UChicago’s student body is well known to be more politically diverse than many other top schools, but it’s mere speculation - at best! - to assume that the school targets groups for admission by their political ideology.
Not much time to reread the thread as I am late for an appointment.
The last section of OP’s original post in this thread brings up the conservative issue.
Thank you for being polite in your posts @JBStillFlying .