<p>They might cover travel for lower-income students, but I’d inquire before just assuming that.
Other schools have fly-in programs in the fall and I know UChicago is not one of those schools (I was flown in through a private invitation, in case any of you saw my post on the Results thread and was wondering) Why they would fly in kids is a bit beyond me (it’s expensive for the school; it’s still a round-trip ticket cost) but of course, anyone is free to email and ask. I doubt UofC would openly announce it.</p>
<p>Just a few years ago (around 2003/2004) Chicago had a nearly 40% admission rate. </p>
<p>Now, that rate is nearly 1/3 of that. What happened?</p>
<p>Did it have something to do with Chicago no longer using the Uncommon Application?</p>
<p>ThereseR,
The quality of the education at Chicago has always been on par with, and some would argue better than, any school in the land, even in the dark days of astronomical admit rates. What was not on par, most would concede, was the quality of the overall undergraduate experience. (But that assessment depends on what you like and value, doesn’t it.) Also, and for a variety of reasons, the desirability of the undergraduate college, in spite of its negatives, was a well kept secret – the school flew under the radar, despite always being ranked, since the days when rankings became a blood sport, at least in the top 20 universities. </p>
<p>Further, the school preferred to be self-selecting, assuming that enough of those students who really fit to fill a class would somehow find their way and prefer Chicago to their other offers. Granted, at one point that meant admitting upwards of 60-70% of a much smaller applicant pool. Even then, and with a student body whose “objective” credentials were decidedly (but not dramatically) below today’s standard, the quality of the education was superb, if its character was not to everyone’s taste.</p>
<p>What’s changed: (a) significantly upgraded facilities along with administrative attention to providing students with a happier college experience, which, as the word got out, made the school more attractive to more students; (b) adoption of the Common App, which made it easier to apply to this suddenly more attractive school (c) a dramatic rise in the rankings, coupled with an equally dramatic fall in the acceptance rate, both of which factors encourage more to apply (d) the arrival of a very savvy marketer in Jim Nondorf to run admissions, presumably with Zimmer’s and the Board’s mandate to adjust the college-applying public’s perception of the school and to drive numbers.</p>
<p>How to rank these various factors in terms of their relative effect? Clearly they are inter-related and drive each other in obvious and perhaps some not so obvious ways. That might be an interesting exercise to parse out, but the bottom line is that UChicago’s current ranking and popularity are deserved. Today, with the possible exception of certain majors (e.g., a confirmed robotics guy might be better served by Carnegie Mellon, even as an undergrad), UChicago is as good a choice as any school in the country for those students for whom it is a fit, and the range of its “fit” today is certainly more commodious than it was 10 or even 5 years ago.</p>
<p>Basically, it’s a “new” Chicago. The students now are just about homogenous to those at Ivies and top privates. They are well-accomplished, stats are sky-high, interest in EC’s is unprecedented and pre-professionalism is more rampant. So, so many kids want to go into the traditional Wall Street finance route, myself included. A decade ago this might have been a rarity at UoC, but no more. </p>
<p>Obviously, this has led to an “identity crisis” of sorts. Realistically speaking, there is a gap between old and new UoC alumni with the latter destined for greater success than ever before. </p>
<p>Nondorf was definitely a good choice. His strategies will pay off years down the line and will have a snowball effect as successful alumni lead to more of the same. Competition is good, but only works if all parties have all the relevant information. This has certainly been the progression of UoC and its popularization with HS students.</p>
<p>The pool is becoming more competitive and more “well-qualified” students are applying to UofC, but I think the university still sets itself apart from its peers in that it really does try to find students who are the “right fit.” This protects their yield and keeps the Life of the Mind atmosphere alive and well. A changing Chicago? Yeah, definitely. A new Chicago? Probably not- at least, not yet.</p>
<p>It’ll be interesting to see if more pre-professional kids will recognize this and decide to apply/attend anyway. Clearly they’re doing something right/different if this type of applicant is applying in greater numbers (maybe).
As a recently-accepted premed student, UChicago’s “love of learning” environment (duly noted with their lack of grade inflation- a turn-off to many) paired with the implementation of an emerging, progressive pre-professional factor (I’ve reached out to the Health Professions office just recently after hearing horror about premed at UofC and the information provided was wonderful) has kept the university on the very top of my list.</p>
<p>As a recently accepted student who abhors pre-professionalism, the change scares the crap out of me. If I do go to Chicago (Brown is my first choice, I was deferred), I’m happy I’m going now before the school makes its complete transition into Harvard 2.0.</p>
<p>Can you mention some of those positive pre-med statistics? As a UChicago accepted potential pre-med myself I’m a little scared of committing to Chicago (UMich honors is my most competitive alternate option) due to some of the horror stories I’ve heard.</p>
<p>I don’t disagree that the “Life of the Mind” is still alive. It’s still very much alive and well. And it’s very possible to be both interested in learning for sake of learning AND be pre-professional, and that is what has happened here. </p>
<p>Harvard 2.0? Not quite yet. But more and more resembling it, I would say. </p>
<p>You will find pre-professional people at any school. What’s wrong with that? At the very least you get to be friends with future lawyers, doctors, CEOs, ect. I can’t say I’ve heard of anyone being harmed by that association.</p>
<p>I have a problem with pre-professionalism in that a large number of “pre-professional” students I’ve met see a degree as just cash, a guaranteed large salary, and I think that is a pathetic reason to go to college.</p>
<p>More importantly, and I completely understand that you will most likely consider me a whiny naive teenager, I do have a huge problem being around those whom I consider the future “life-blood suckers” of America. </p>
<p>I really have no interest in associating myself with the vast majority of CEOs the future has to offer. I’m sorry.</p>
<p>^ We’re aware that Brown is your first choice, trust me. Best of luck with the RD round, maybe then a spot will open for somebody whose first choice is U Chicago. Anyway, as an actual STUDENT in the school, I feel like some people have a misconception of the pre-professionalism that apparently is beginning to run rampant. Are we more pre-professional than a few generations or even a few years back? Most certainly, but I still think there’s a long way to go before U Chicago becomes “Harvard 2.0” . To say that a huge chunk of the student body is interested in Wall Street is an exaggeration, IMO, or at least solely on having the pedigree to get into Wall Street. If we’re going to include pre-med and pre-law interests, then there might be a case for more “pre-professionalism” in that sense, but there is still a noticeable difference between the student body of U Chicago and those of the more pre-professional schools (compare U Chicago to say, Dartmouth, and they could not be more opposite). That said, people act as if students with “professional” interests can not be intellectual. I’ve had fascinating conversations with pre-meds and the very few Wall Street interested students I’ve encountered, and they’re just as capable of analyzing classic texts as a prospective lit or anthro major. So, if you’re interested in Wall Street, you won’t be alone, but if you decide you want to stay away from Wall Street aspirants (seriously, you’d be surprised how many are normal people) that definitely won’t be difficult either. I could be wrong, maybe I haven’t been around enough to get a good sense of how much the pre-professionalism is taking hold of U Chicago, but my opinion so far is that we’ve still got a long way to go before U Chicago becomes a magnet for future Wall Street bankers.</p>
<p>Generalization of pre-professional students is so annoying. Do you know what it takes to become a doctor, and how many people who can’t justify their reasoning behind what they want to do get weeded out (masters and PhD programs are included)? Even then, justifying your intended major for top tier undergrad schools is important, and colleges can see through BS. I’m sure there are many “I want to make money” people out there, and even then, is that so horrible? But I won’t start a philosophical debate on career choice. </p>
<p>I’ll post the actual email later on today. It’s pretty informative.</p>
<p>@hevydevy. You seem to be very misinformed. First off you should be thankful you got “into” Chicago. Most, if not all, truly intellectuals would prefer to attend Chicago over Brown any day. Brown has historically been much more pre-professional than Chicago ever will be. Brown is one of the lesser “Ivys” that students tend to apply to who have really no idea what they are really looking for. Chicago is known for rigor very much like Princeton or Columbia…there are no easy As here. When you do get out into the real world, academic or otherwise, you will understand that Brown degree just doesn’t cut it. If you truly want to go to an intellectual school for the “sake” of learning only you should be applying to Reed or St. Johns College. Otherwise you appear very hypocritical and ignorant.</p>
<p>My D, who was accepted EA, is very much the “Life of the Mind” kid. Her application really showed it (both her components and her recommendations, I think), and the admissions committee apparently still wants some of those kids. Not completely sure yet if she will attend. Honestly, the shift to the “pre-professional” U of C is part of the reason she is still looking at a couple of other schools. The “old” U of C probably would have been her first choice, hands down. She will finish a few other applications, go to accepted students days at her top choices where she has been accepted, then decide.</p>
<p>Moreover, it seems to me that 17 or 18 year-old students in this country have a significant allergy to any school that has a reputation for having to “study hard” to get an A or a B in their class. This is why Princeton is struggling to attract the top students with their grade deflation that Chicago and Caltech have historically been known to have.</p>
<p>I am confused by this comment… if students are scared off by grade deflation, and U of C has it, why are they on track for close to 30,000 applications this year? Although I can answer that questions myself… I think LOTS of students apply for the name brand, and U of C is a hot brand right now. They aren’t even aware of the grade deflation, they just want it because they (and their parents & buddies) have heard of it.</p>
<p>@gravitas</p>
<p>Reed was in fact a college I was planning on applying to. However, due to the financial constraints that would come with living on the opposite side of the country and because I was accepted at UChicago, I have decided against it. If Reed were on the east coast, it would be my first choice school.</p>
<p>And for what it’s worth, which is nothing, the phrase “lesser Ivy” infuriates me.</p>
<p>Intparent (and hevydevy), a couple of observations, per your posts . . . </p>
<p>One, while there’s no question that UChicago and its student body are becoming more “normal,” intellectualism in the best sense (i.e., a true passion for the “life of the mind”) and pre-professionalism are NOT mutually exclusive. In fact, among the top tier universities, UChicago is arguably the one where they cohabit most openly and successfully in the same body, as well as across the student body at large. </p>
<p>Two, Nondorf is no dummy. And Boyer is no dupe. Nondorf recognizes the power of the niche he is trying, thus far successfully, to create: UChicago as the place to go for those smart pre-professionals who also like to learn for learning’s sake, even while remaining the school of choice for budding scholars in whatever field. Per this strategy (and assuming acceptances and choices), if you’re the former, where else can you go, especially now that Career Services is really getting its act together? And if you’re the latter, ditto. Obviously, you can go to other schools – sightings of passionate undergraduate scholars, for example, are not that rare at HYPMSC et al. – but the point has some validity at the level of generalizations.</p>
<p>And as long as it’s Boyer’s watch (and I suspect his spirit will continue to prevail long after he shuffles off to Hapsburg), UChicago will remain committed to academic rigor, a broad liberal arts education that is as deep as a 15 course Core curriculum can manage, and an atmosphere of open and serious discourse in the pursuit of knowledge and truth. That should continue to attract a fair portion of the school’s traditional applicant pool, and among the top universities UChicago will likely continue to be the one most congenial to life-of-minders.</p>
<p>P.S. hevy devy, while you might question the value of a friendship with a CEO (btw, they aren’t all motivated primarily by money, and some are actually intellectuals), believe me, it’s useful to count some lawyers and MDs among your friends, almost as useful as being friends with a good auto mechanic or plumber. And the older you get, the truer that is. Also, if you’ve followed what I and others have written, at UChicago the majority of pre-professional students don’t see their “degree as just cash.” Some undoubtedly do, but most wouldn’t have gone to the trouble of applying in the first place, or if they did, would have opted for one of their other acceptances instead.</p>
<p>hevydevy, perhaps you do not belong at UoC. Here we value open mindlessness and open discourse. Your attitude is reminiscent of 20th century UoC when academics looked down at any sort of pre-professionalism with disdain. And we all know how that turned out.</p>
<p>With an awesome, well hidden university full of future academics and "life of the mind"ers? Oh the horror!</p>
<p>Hey, I’ll probably end up going to UoC considering all of my applications could very well be denied. It certainly is one of my top choices and I know I will find friends who are there for the same reason I am. Being the realistic guy that I am, I also know I probably will meet someone who trades non-existing entities for money. He might even be a cool guy.
Everyone finds his or her niche, I don’t doubt that. I just have a problem with the way the university seems to be changing, given its past beacon of intellectualism status.</p>
<p>There are some students at UChicago who are pre-professional, and there are some who aren’t. Going in with an I-loathe-CEOs-and-have-no-desire-to-associate-with-them attitude doesn’t make a great deal of sense, and will lend itself to a not-fun time.</p>
<p>Going in with an I-loathe-CEOs-but-whatever-they-might-be-in-my-dorm-so-who-knows-maybe-we’ll-be-friends attitude is a better way to approach it.</p>