<p>JHS,</p>
<p>you raise an interesting point (lack of legacy students). D2 is a full ride freshman at a top 30’ish school private school (small, ~ 1000 students per class). Their acceptance rate is something like mid 20’%. Their yield is well over 40%. I thought that was quite interesting, since their yield was much higher than that of its peer schools. And, location wise, it’s in the middle of nowhere - a small town far from any excitement. </p>
<p>Then, it dawned on me when I went to the parents orientation during the move in day, there was a VERY palpable legacy presence. People were talking about three generation legacies and what not. Plus siblings. School loyalty runs pretty strong in the family. Perhaps that’s part of how they keep their yield so high. Of course, I am just pulling this from my arse, but it sort of jibes in with JHS’s observation on the opposite direction for U Chicago. </p>
<p>The fact that U Chicago has not captured the mind share also shows in its low yield - comparably low for a school of its stature. Of course, the fact that they don’t do ED makes a difference, but I am still left wondering … Georgetown does not do ED, but its yield is still higher than U Chicago’s. </p>
<p>There is no doubt in my mind that U Chicago is seriously under performing when it comes to the brand equity, and there is A LOT of room for upward mobility WITHOUT sacrificing its core educational mission and treasured tradition and values. </p>
<p>I would never advocate U Chicago losing its unique persona to be like HYP. As such, I wouldn’t want Chicago to discard core to be more appealing. I think it can be what it is meant to be, and perhaps ever BETTER, and be considered on par with the likes of MIT, Stanford, Columbia, and Penn with a properly executed “out reach” programs (that sounds more politically correct, doesn’t it?)</p>