<p>
If a non-Chicago poster can interject an opinion, I was one of the students who applied to and was admitted to Chicago during that time period. At that time, Chicago was not part of the Common App and refused to notify applicants of their decision by any method other than snail mail, both fairly unique practices among top schools. </p>
<p>Chicago has always been more selective than it seems. The middle 50% range for SAT scores was extremely high (~1350-1500, if I recall correctly). Only about 80% were in the top 10% of their class, but that’s not an abysmal figure. The year I applied, when the admit rate was ~45%, there was an extremely qualified and passionate poster who was rejected by Chicago EA and was somewhat bitter about having to “settle” for Stanford. Though the quality of the classes have very slowly increased, I think the primary difference is that today Chicago turns away many qualified applicants, whereas in the past most qualified applicants were admitted. </p>
<p>The year I applied to college, Duke was ~#5 and Chicago ~#15. I applied to both and wasn’t particularly concerned with the ranking of either. Chicago was my first choice, and many other posters turned down Ivies and other top schools for Chicago. Chicago has long been recognized by employers and graduate/professional programs as an excellent school, and that’s something that will not change on the whims of a ranking. Yes, more students may be familiar with Chicago now - that’s great! My sister received more mail by far from Chicago than any other school a couple of years ago, something that surprised me, since I learned about Chicago independently and had to request mail. At the same time, I am not entirely convinced that moving up in the ranking by a few spots will result in a substantially improved university. I am admittedly not an alum, so I can understand that many would be happy with wider recognition of their degrees. That said, Hopkins has done quite well for itself, despite having a “low” rank, engaging in relatively little marketing, and not being in the vaunted Ivy League.</p>
<p>I think it’s worth noting that Chicago students seemed noticeably happier and more active when I visited for graduate admissions than when I visited in high school. It did seem a little less quirky - though my interaction with undergraduates on the second visit was rather limited - but I’d have to say any changes have definitely been for the better. This includes drastically improved financial aid (a pitiful FA offer was the reason I rejected Chicago in high school, by far my top choice at the time).</p>
<p>
I tend to agree. How difficult is it to get a copy of Fiske or the Insider’s Guide and read about colleges? I’d practically memorized the contents of both by the start of senior year. What about going to an information session? Requesting information? A college should not be blamed because its potential applicant pool is too lazy to do adequate research. In any case, getting a high rank, even consistently, isn’t enough to garner more respect – the absurd amount of bashing poor WUStL receives here is proof enough of that. I wasn’t impressed by Chicago because it did fairly well in US News – I was impressed because of the detailed descriptions of its excellent programs in its viewbook (with reference to the NRC rankings, naturally), the course offerings in the course catalogue they sent me, etc.</p>
<p>I don’t think there’s much to the “But X College would’ve been perfect for students, if only they’d known…” argument, unless it’s a VERY unique school like Deep Springs. Top colleges are extremely diverse places, with all sorts of religions, ethnicities, interests, quirks, hobbies, and approaches to academics. I think it may take a “typical Chicago kid” a little longer to find his/her place at certain schools, but I definitely believe it possible to do so.</p>