@CaliMex , I was being a bit whimsical above, but an immersion in Cue’s past posts shows that he does not hold brainiac types in high regard, and the word itself - his word, not mine - is just a tad pejorative, wouldn’t you say? Or maybe it’s that if your parents are wealthy enough to send you to a prep school, then ipso facto you are not a brainiac but something more acceptable - a kid with a love of rigor and a high SAT.
You’re referencing Fitzgerald’s hero and alter ego in “This Side of Paradise”, @merc81 . That’s definitely another take on the Ivy League experience of a bygone period. However, Fitzgerald was a pretty rare bird, an amalgam of social climbing snobbery, romantic longing, and a genuine artistic gift. I read the book in high school, was moved and inspired by it, and considered it an important text in my own pantheon. I doubt it has aged very well. At its end, if I recollect correctly, Amory Blaine became a socialist and undertook to save the world from the vulgarities and excesses of the twenties. I wanted to believe in that solution at the time, but even then it seemed rather improbable.
@merc81 at #19 - LOL, had forgotten that. The College was also a lot smaller in those days, and far less well known. They did very little outreach even at their local suburban publics, under the mistaken notion that those who needed to know about the place already knew about it.
It would make more sense to focus on the years 2000 to 2010, and then 2010 to 2020. The first decade reflects both significant growth in enrollments and selectivity, while the second reflects the influence of Jim Nondorf and his plans to “shape the class” (as @Cue7 describes it). I’d specifically zero in on how the proportions between the selective private preps and public schools might have changed beginning with the fall 2017 entering class, since they were the first to be admitted ED.
IMO, this is a more complex issue that tends to defy the long-standing “preppy” stereotype in many respects. While “the rich” will always gravitate to “the best” educational opportunities available, these more often than not still include district, magnet and charter schools for many areas of the country. So UChicago doesn’t need to recruit from the top selective private preps in order to find full-pay families. They might just be looking for something else among those various feeder schools. Over the past decade or so (at least), the stereotypical “rich kid” boarding school seems to be offering financial aid to at least some of the student body, so could it be that they are more interested in graduating smart kids than rich kids? If their goal is to send as many kids as they can to a top college, and the top college itself is offering generous financial aid, then why do these “feeders” need to be functioning as a screening mechanism for anything other than finding brilliant kids who will have what it takes to succeed at the top college? For all UChicago knows, they keep admitting the poorest kids at Phillips-Exeter and that’s just fine with them.
@JBStillFlying - you can google the figures fairly easily… in 2008 Andover sent 5 grads to Chicago. In 2018, it sent 17. I’m assuming many other prep schools saw similar increases, in the 100-200% range - far outpacing Chicago’s actualy growth in the past 10 years.
I think the prep crowd is irresistible to chicago - many students familiar with boarding school life, had very rigorous academic programs, a bunch of good (but not great) athletes, many wealthy, many diverse backgrounds, etc.
Prep schools are popular with any ivy plus type schools because they look like (demographically) ivy plus schools, just on the high school level.
And, when you use a type of ivy admissions criteria, as chicago does (e.g., shaping a class, having a mix and diversity across many different dimensions - racial, geographic, a student body that skews wealthy but has variety, athletes for the good - but not world class - athletic programs, etc) prep schools are a great place to recruit.
This is for the best, but let’s call a spade a spade. Pre nondorf and pre behnke, when chicago did not have such strategies, one class year might be a bunch of eggheads primarily from the midwest, and another year would be eggheads primarily from the midwest and northeast. Very little diversity on many dimensions - that just wasn’t an instituional priority.
Now, all the classes seem to resemble one another, more and more. There’s a strategy in place - one that’s utilized elsewhere often, and to great effect.
@JBStillFlying invited me to this thread from “2024 Waitlist UChicago RD“ thread last week but I didn’t feel qualified (imposter syndrome) to comment then but allow me to do that now. I’m inclined to agree with @Cue7 with his earlier “shaping a class” and the above “strategy in place” comments.
My DD20 is more like the eggheads of boarding schools with 1550 SAT with 4.0 UW GPA. Being a NMS Finalist, she also has EC & CS but what differentiates her from the boarding school eggheads who will undoubtedly have equal if not better credentials along with a proven track record of being “full freight?” My DD20 is also full freight but why take a chance with a student from a school that has never sent a student to UChicago?
I’m waiting to see if geographic diversity (she’s ranked 1/129 from a small school in Florida ranked #82 nationwide by USNWR) works to her advantage to be pulled off the WL as she’s not a URM but over-represented if anything.
I hope my plan NOT to use legacy status at Top 20 something schools that I went to for grad school (Southern Cal and Carnegie Mellon) or Teens that her sister went to (Vanderbilt - she was WL at Harvard but never got in) doesn’t leave her at a Top 30 something school (Florida) but if it does, at least she has a free ride ?
The assumption is being made that because Chicago now recruits from the privates at comparable levels with the ivies it is recruiting comparable kids. If the measure of comparability is test scores, marks and proven ability to live away from home, that might be true. But what interests me is the deeper if harder to measure indicators of personality, interest, and aspiration. Surely these are the more significant ingredients in a person or a culture.
Someone with better knowledge of the private school scene than me should speak to this. A once-frequent visitor to our board with real knowledge of these eastern private schools, @DeepBlue86 , noted a year or so ago that Chicago was now recruiting more prominently from them. However, he dismissed the trend insofar as it implied the comparability of Chicago to the ivies. It is well known, he said, that the sporting and popular types, the leaders with flair and charisma, the high-flyers, want to go to the ivies; whereas Chicago gets the grinds, the pedestrian, the unfashionably studious, the ones who have not particularly distinguished themselves except perhaps as test-takers. Although he made the distinction in this invidious manner I expect his observations were getting at real differences, though one could flip the invidious epithets in the other direction easily enough and describe the contrast as being between the flashy status-seekers, on the one hand, and the sincere searchers after knowledge and meaning, on the other. However that may be, his point that there is a distinction in personality operating in the choice seemed sound to me as a matter of general principle: all institutions I have ever observed are populated by a range of different and often discordant individuals. Private school kids are not likely to be uniquely monolithic cookie-cutter replicas of one another. And these kids with their different personalities must be moved to select colleges with different personalities.
I again appeal to someone with real knowledge of that scene to tell us whether there is any perceptible difference between the private school kids with Chicago as first choice and the ones with an ivy as first choice. If so, what is the difference?
@marlowe1 - it’s that “distinction in personality” that we dispute. As Chicago has solidified its position in the “ivy plus” set, it has increasing overlap in applicants with these other schools.
I posit that, within this peer group, Chicago now offers a flavor - but it’s a difference in degree, not a difference in kind. The Chicago students are more academically inclined, with academics being more front-and-center, but it’s now (I believe) a difference in degree from peer schools. The exit outcomes look more similar than ever before, the demographics look more similar than ever before, the socioeconomic background probably looks more similar than ever before, etc.
So, if you looked at the 17 Andover grads at Chicago, I suspect they’d be much more diverse and varied in outlook and presentation than the 5 Andover grads who headed to Chicago in 2008.
We know prep school kids at Ivies and at U of Chicago. I doubt you’d be able to tell who attends which college from looking at their resumes or even from talking to them for 30 minutes about their I retests and priorities.
- Behnke was there in 2008. Also, the myth suggesting that higher quality students were admitted prior to Behnke and Nondorf simply dissolves upon close examination. All the statistics as well as feedback from professors who have taught there long-term point to the opposite. I'd argue strongly that most of those undiversified kids weren't truly eggheads either :wink:
- The "prep crowd" (ie the stereotypical NE prep-schooler) could easily have increased 200% and still be a fairly small proportion of the overall entering class. Also, the "prep crowd" doesn't represent the full gamut of private school options available to many today. We still don't know the breakout of public vs. more selective private preps. I will add that in many cities - including Chicago - the public magnets are quite selective as well.
In reality we could well see a shift to private schools in UChicago’s matriculating class, but that might have more to do with families being increasingly dissatisfied by lack of choice in the public system than desiring to attend a feeder to the elites. Back when all of us were in high school, there were precious few private options anywhere unless you were from a specific region of the country. It’s different now.
- Just for clarification, the notion that once upon a time UChicago enrolled nothing but a bunch of egghead types is just fallacy. If SAT's are any indication, UChicago lagged other top schools back in the 80's and 90's, only surpassing average scores once the number of applications and selectively increased. It's possible that the number of certified "eggheads" is greater now that the College is twice its old size.
Also, “shaping a class” might have more to do with admitting a wide variety of academic interests than anything else. My son might well have been admitted for his interest in pursuing the humanities as much as for his top grades and stats.
- I wonder about this but my experience is limited to extended family who are at the NE prep schools in order to segue to an Ivy or equivalent to continue to play their sport. I kind of doubt many kids of that type are trying to get into UChicago for the same reason.
- The demographics and SES will be similar, but that has more to do with income and education levels of their parents. There continues to be a high correlation between parental education level and opportunities for their kids.
- Not clear at all that there would be "increasing overlap in applicants." UChicago was a clear backup to these other schools back in the day and brought many - perhaps most - to campus who preferred to be elsewhere. Today, the early pool sees 13k-15k applicants with a strong preference for UChicago. ED1's haven't applied to other Ivy+ schools unless as a backup (or, like MIT, it offers unrestricted EA). Of course, ED2 and RD are a different story and that's another 20k-22k applicants. So it's hard to know overall, but the existence of at least ED1 means that there might be LESS overlap than before.
@JBStillFlying - as all schools use ED more, there is less actual overlap than in prior years, across the board. But, I think the range of schools considered overlap a lot more now than in prior years. Again, as Chicago offers so many of the same things now as other schools (not the least of which is more enjoyable student life), I anticipate the overlap is stronger. Let me put it to you this way:
An applicant in 1990 could say, I’m deciding between a school (Brown) and an intellectual monastery (Chicago).
An applicant in 2020 would liken Chicago less to an intellectual monastery, and more to, well, another school!
Also, when I say pre-Behnke pre-Nondorf, I’m talking the early 90s, not 2008. Back then, Chicago classes were very erratic - one year, lots of eggheads from the midwest, another year, a different feel.
Now, I think Nondorf has put in place a system that is generally more predictable, with demographics looking more similar, year to year. That’s for the better, but it’s a different system.
@JBStillFlying - FYI DD20’s older sister was a humanities major and met her husband at Vanderbilt Law School. So I have one of those too?
Taking one at a time:
“But, I think the range of schools considered overlap a lot more now than in prior years.”
- Sure, due to everyone being on the common application, among other factors. However, the recent application declines in pretty much all the Ivy+ schools except UChicago and Princeton suggest a growing awareness that the "kitchen sink" approach makes less sense than picking your schools with care.
"Again, as Chicago offers so many of the same things now as other schools (not the least of which is more enjoyable student life), I anticipate the overlap is stronger. Let me put it to you this way: An applicant in 1990 could say, I’m deciding between a school (Brown) and an intellectual monastery (Chicago). An applicant in 2020 would liken Chicago less to an intellectual monastery, and more to, well, another school! "
- UChicago is still an "intellectual monastery" compared to Brown and many other schools. The "Fun goes to die" rep. is still alive and well despite efforts to change it.
I’ll put it to you THIS way: Every Ivy+ kid is (presumably) home right now stuck doing nothing but schoolwork. How are the UChicago kids faring compared to everyone else? THAT will tell you whether the student body at UChicago is “different in degree” - or just different.
"Also, when I say pre-Behnke pre-Nondorf, I’m talking the early 90s, not 2008. Back then, Chicago classes were very erratic - one year, lots of eggheads from the midwest, another year, a different feel. Now, I think Nondorf has put in place a system that is generally more predictable, with demographics looking more similar, year to year. That’s for the better, but it’s a different system.
-Well, my guess is that the number of Andover kids enrolled at UChicago in 2008 > than the number enrolled in the early '90’s. Because: Size.
Not exactly sure what your definition of “egghead” is, but mine is along the lines of a student attending college primarily for the academic experience and intellectual growth. Unfortunately, back in the early '90’s the College had admit rates well in excess of 50% so they admitted eggheads and non-eggheads alike. Within the former group you would find lots who were drawn to the rigor and the workload. Within the latter, you would find those who were prone to struggle, or at least who were taken by surprise or grew increasingly weary by it. In other words, there was a genuine mismatch between what the College taught and what many in the College were capable of or interested in learning. That’s changed. And not because there is a “lighter core” or because they’ve doubled the number from Andover. It’s because the academic strength and intellectual curiosity of the overall class is now a lot higher than it was back in the early 90’s and are better able to meet the demands of the faculty and coursework. That’s what happens when you increase applications seven-fold; you can be a lot more choosy about whom you admit. They may have a more “diverse” student body in terms of interests and abilities now (for instance, the proportion drawn to economics was even higher back then than it is today), and they may have a significantly greater number of major and minor offerings, better career support, RSO’s, athletics, and so forth that attract this wider diversity. None of those things would discourage an egghead from attending, as long as the university is still focused primarily on academics and intellectual growth. Which it is. So “eggheads” are still more than welcome there. In fact, they tend to thrive, based on what I know from my own two eggheads.
So no, Nondorf didn’t put a different system in place. He’s not even in charge of “the system” and he wasn’t around when Sonnenschein scaled back the Core in order to make more room for double majors and study abroad or opted to expand the school rapidly. Nondorf is in charge of the bookends: Admissions, and Career Placement. Everything in between is a matter for the President, Provost, College Dean and faculty.
We actually have two. My 3rd year is a history major (technically a social science at UChicago) but loves literature and classical studies and - well, she’s a humanist as well. Her best part of the required historiography class was learning how to write a history narrative in a captivating and engaging manner.
@JBStillFlying - DD20’s sister was an English major. Got her BA at 20, JD & passed the bar at 23. I would like DD20 to meet her match in college and that’s the reason why UChicago appeals to me much more than Florida…
Wish I had the ability to put a thumb on the scales in favor of your DD, @Waitlistedparent .
@marlowe1 - thank you very much for the kind words ?
I think head to head competition is tough to measure in the ED world or the ED1/ED2 world. It isn’t like it was when I applied to schools 36 years ago. Now you have to pick a strategy. Not what is the best school, but what is the best school that I have a fighters chance to get in. I really don’t think you can look at cross admit battles anymore the data is just too muddled. There are also flavours. For some Princeton is the ultimate “Professors teach every class” environment, for others it’s hard to compete with centuries of dominance at Harvard. When my boys were looking for a school, they each were looking for different things and they both ended up at schools that had those things.
However, I think you can compare things like test scores (though as the world skews more towards test optional, that may become fuddled) as a representation of at least quantitatively who is getting the best. I am more and more convinced that if you want to know what the best undergraduate institution is, you need to look at other things like “share of voice.” I think you would be hard pressed to find a school with more share of voice over the past 5 years than UChicago. Is Harvard King? Is MIT the most intellectual? When you get down to it is a “Ruth vs. Williams debate.” But over the past 5 years the school that people are looking at for share of voice is Chicago. First for it’s “rise up the rankings,” then the “Statement on Free Speech” and finally becoming the first elite National Research University “to go test optional.”