University of Chicago Admit Rate and SAT relative to Ivy/Competitive Set

Colleges & Universities University of Chicago
61

I’m an outsider and have no dog in this fight. But here’s what I’ve picked up from this riveting discussion.

“Where fun goes to die”/Intellectual monastery reputation was the result of two factors:
A. Intellectual rigor. For best fit students, challenging academics ARE fun. But a smaller proportion of students felt that way when the acceptance rate was higher.
B. No frills/lack of investment in programming and amenities. Subsequent investment helped attract a larger applicant pool AND made campus life more enjoyable.

Did I capture that part of the discussion?

62

Where fun goes (comes I think is the original saying) to die was originated as undergraduate t-shirt slogan. My son says it is definitely not true today. He’s saying our house is now “Where fun comes to die.” because none of his friends are here. He has no sports practice or his other outside activities. Plus Mom, Dad and his little sister are here. He actually enjoys class and does a pretty good job of trying to keep up with all the readings.

63

@CaliMex that’s pretty much correct; though keep in mind that “fun comes to die” - whenever it materialized and spread - was based on a long-standing image of the undergraduate program that existed decades prior to the period that Cue7 refers to. One of the presidents in the mid 20th century even described the undergraduate class as a bunch of “oddballs” and actively set out to recruit more “normal students” :blush:

By the mid 90’s, the College knew that it needed to change up a few things in order to expand successfully. The #1 challenge was to expand while not compromising academic quality of the matriculating class. This was a huge concern of faculty and the primary argument in favor of no expansion. Of course, faculty might also have been motivated by concern for resources being diverted to undergraduate rather than grad programs. However, the answer to that was that tuition revenues would help the university overall (including graduate programs). The primary reason for expanding the College was financial: the university was at significant risk of losing its placement as a premier institution unless they increased the top line.

This was a real chicken-an-egg dilemma. The College needed more matriculants in order to reach a size that could feasibly support more infrastructure. But it needed the infrastructure to attract more applicants and hence more matriculants. The one person who can fill us in a bit better here is @Cue7, who attended right at the time they were deciding all of this. He’ll know better how the newly-hired Michael Behnke broke the cycle of low-yield-high-attrition and the timing of how everything unfolded. But I believe, in a nutshell, it all came down to heavy recruiting and investment in programs and plant on an accelerated basis. Concurrently.

The transformation was fairly swift (for a college). In 1994, the College had a 90% freshman retention rate. In 2012, it was just shy of 99%. (it’s now been at 99% for past several years). South went up sometime in 2009 and ground broke for North in 2013 or so. And, initially planning for WRC was getting started by 2013 as well. Ratner opened in 2003. @Cue7 mentioned Logan Center which is truly a wonderful addition to the campus and a game-changer for the arts community; that was announced in 2007 (not sure when it opened). I recall visiting MSI in 2013 with my kids (we were in town for some kid’s tournament or other) and being stunned with what I saw on campus. This was not their father’s (or their mother’s) U of C.

At the same time, applications soared from just under 5K in '97 to 30k 15 years later; SAT scores were lower than peers - 50 points lower than top peers - in the mid 90’s but surpassed by 2011. (Boyer, who shares these stats in his history of the university, uses SAT scores as a measure of academic strength of the matriculating class). And, in support of Cue’s point of view of the place once upon a time, Behnke himself was quoted in the NYT as saying: “I don’t know how many students we can attract if we go after those who only seek the life of the mind. . . . Kids aren’t sure that they can lead a balanced life here. My job is to convince them that they are not joining a monastery.” Yes, that apparently did cause some problems as faculty and alums now assumed the College was abandoning rigor (my husband and I were two of those alums).

They began pumping up Career Services in the late '90’s, focusing on internships and mentoring. And then the Core itself was scaled back a bit in the late 90’s to make room for more ability to double major or take interesting electives and/or do study abroad. Those things were not possible back when the Core represented 50% of total required credits. It now represents about a third.

Based on how rapidly and successfully the College was able to implement these positive changes, it’s safe to say that they should have been put in place years and years before. People actually LIKED (and like) UChicago once they understand it better, despite the rep. for being academically demanding. Enrollments, yields and SAT’s were expanding well before all the building or career services were completed (and even several years before some of it broke ground). The biggest challenge to making these changes was a conflicted faculty. Anyone scratching their heads as to how doing things like building better dorms or introducing study abroad or beefing up the arts can possibly be seen as “controversial” only need go back and read the NYT pieces on the topic, as well as the open letters generated by concerned scholars everywhere. You would have thought UChicago was attempting to turn itself into Summer Camp. But some of the concern - though misguided - was genuine and due not only to what scholars treasured about UChicago but what they were also noticing on other campuses.

64

Regarding UC’s increased standardized scoring profile, note its position in this analysis:

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/2179480-of-competitive-colleges-that-have-increased-in-selectivity-these-may-have-increased-the-most.html#latest

65

Yes you did. And in true UChicago fashion, we have overanalyzed the distiction between “super rigorous and poor amenities” and “super rigorous and middle of the road amenities”

I agree with the commenters who say that the essence of the school and student body has not changed. Until UChicago starts providing free designer shampoo, defolliating face wash, etc in their dorms, like some of its peers, I can not see how any would choose the school because of creature comforts. :smiley:

66

Former President Hanna Gray said it best. She recalled a party she gave in Ida Noyes once for the College:

"At the end of it, a student came up to me and she said very politely, ‘Thank you. That was a very nice party.’ And then she glared at me and she said, “I hope you’re not going to try to make this into a fun place.’ And I felt–that it is your University of Chicago student.”

Elsewhere Gray said, “I had been an assistant professor at Harvard before coming here. And the students there were diverse in terms of their intellectual interests. Some had no intellectual interests at all so far as I could tell. They did all of their studying in reading period. Here all the students seemed to want to be intellectuals. That was different. And here they were all studying the same texts and so on, so they were talking to each other about what they were reading and the ideas that they were coming into contact with. And that was wonderful for a teacher to feel that there was that kind of focus and there was that kind of intensity.”

She added that A. J. Liebling wrote a series about the City of Chicago called “The Second City” for the New Yorker in the 1950s. “He said about the University of Chicago that–‘It was the biggest collection of neurotic adolescents seen in the world since the Children’s Crusade.’”

67

Thank you for the lesson on UChicago culture over the last few decades but here’s an observation - most of the discussions are not about UChicago vs Ivy SAT competitive set?

68

@Waitlistedparent - no surprise. In “true UChicago fashion,” we have strayed way off topic.

69

It is certainly an interesting read with sprinkles of “on topic” discussions but are these to be turned into supporting documents where someone summarizes how they lead to a conclusion or analysis? As an outsider (non-Chicago Ph.D. EE & MBA), I find it quite entertaining but not quite on point. Perhaps, that’s how things go in CC but as a newbie, it’s all a learning experience ?.
If it’s the ways things go, please continue on as it is quite amusing - in passing I wanted to say that I would’ve never guessed that @marlowe1 was a Texan? (I spent some time in Texas and were around many UT and Aggie grads and non sounded like CC’s own @marlowe ?

70

No. At least not in a way that neatly summarizes the issue with everyone agreeing - or agreeing to disagree - before moving on to another topic. The university and many of its various members and stakeholders have always seemed to enjoy a spirited debate over what they consider to be Important Matters, and in any given era some component of the university will attract attention of both supporters and detractors for something it has said or done, whether it meant to or not. So the debate is non-ending and even attracts those with no obvious connection to the place. That’s perhaps a distinguishing characteristic of UChicago here on CC. Because it’s essentially an academic debate, It’s messy. Many will join in during the middle somewhere and wonder what is going on. Those seeking an answer should check out some of the prior threads.

71

@JBStillFlying - got it! Thank you. Since I’ve only been on a couple of threads, it’s all new to me?

72

Ah, but here’s the difference, @Waitlistedparent : Those Aggies and ‘horns didn’t come to UChicago as undergrads and get their minds turned upside down. There is a famous poem by Robert Frost which tells us that taking a certain less-travelled road makes all the difference. Or something like that. Some day soon we will start to get reports from all these Texas kids who now flock to the College. My guess is that they won’t sound like Aggies (not that there’s anything wrong with Aggies!), though they will likely keep a trace of Texas in their speech and a taste for barbecue and Tex-Mex in their cuisine.

Staying strictly on point has its virtues, but a certain creative straying from it can also assist the understanding. These long cc threads on the Chicago board never entirely lose contact with their starting point. I might paraphrase Keats and say that we on this board generally refrain from “an irritable reaching for certainty.”

There are disparate attitudes to this school, and these are defended not without passion and not without logic and factuality - and sometimes, it must be admitted, beyond all normal human endurance. A tip of the hat to the mods is due for generally cutting us some slack and letting us run on. Perhaps they recognize the helpfulness to any prospective student who reads them, not merely as a means of obtaining information on a particular point but as replicating in some degree what they will encounter in their classes and among their fellow students.

That’s a general ethos at this school, where it will be brought to bear in discussions of far more diverse and interesting matters than we deal with here. The spirit will, however, be similar. The taste of that spirit you get on this forum will either thrill you or bore you. Which reaction you have might be a way of telling you whether you should come to this school.

73

@marlowe1 - well said! Even though I am unable to hear your accent, who knows, you may even sound like Tom Bodett (of the NPR fame). But then again, Tom is originally from Illinois so his accent is something he picked up after moving to Texas. Perhaps like your UChicago influence?.

74

Along the line of UChicago SAT comparison with Ivy/Competitive set, I see where Chicago outshines its competition in New York, Boston and San Francisco:

https://www.udiscovermusic.com/classical-features/best-orchestras-worlds-greatest-top-10/

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97291390

The NPR ranks LA Philharmonic higher than NYC or Boston and I wanted to say that I used to be a season ticket holder there (albeit as s student member in the nose bleed section).

P.S. First time posting from a PC and my hyperlinks didn’t break ?

75

@WaitlistedParent - my son attended CSO several times this year along with his house. The top guy in the world for my son’s instrument plays for them so he tries to attend as often as he can spare.

76

In post #62, @JBStillFlying does a nice job of capturing the essence of the transformation. Note, she uses transformation as the operative word - and I agree with that. This has been a drastic change for UChicago.

The debate, as it were, comes down to this: to paraphrase (Behnke or Boyer): “can we be academically rigorous and have a nice swimming pool?” Believe it or not, many Chicago stewards said NO.

Also, to use Behnke’s quote from above, the admin has spent decades convincing applicants they can come to Chicago and lead a “balanced life.” This, I think, was a key friction point. Some (like Ted O’Neill) believed that, to come to Chicago was to accept a lopsided life - a life of the mind. Others believed in the “and” - to come to Chicago was to accept the life of the mind AND a life rich with other pursuits.

That, to me, was the “ivy” portion of the debate. For years, Chicago’s ivy peers espoused “balance” and “well-roundedness.” You could be a great academic AND good at sports. A great academic AND an a cappella singer. Many ivies created lots of supports to help students achieve some balance (e.g., academics AND career prospects…)

Chicago used to reject these claims - you came for the austere study, and that was it.

The move to go toward what Behnke espoused, “a balanced life,” was a big, big shift. Chicago is more academically-centered than its peers, but balance is promoted. In the past, balance was actively discouraged.

To me, that’s the drastic change. That’s the move to “ivy-ness.”

77

That is certainly what swayed my 18 year old to accept vs other Ivies and highly rated schools. The notion of fun going to die worried him, even if it was originally self deprecating humor, not reality.

78

A “balanced life” sounds suspiciously like “well-roundedness” and other such watery middlebrow ideals. I prefer the statement of purpose recently delivered by Dean Boyer to all the existing students in the College. It referenced Thucydides (naturally) and contained reflections on the insight a knowledge of history can provide “into the powerful impact of institutional structures, traditions, and deep cultural patterns, beyond the quirks of individual human choices.” It asked the current students of the U of C to resist the temptation to succumb to the fears of the moment and to reflect upon “the courage and resilience that empowered preceding generations at this university in facing a myriad of crises involving war and peace, social and political turmoil, and the defence of fundamental civil liberties”. The peroration deserves extended quotation:

“With this in mind, I hope you will recall the unique foundation that your liberal arts education offers in moments of great uncertainty. We are not out to develop well-rounded women and men at the University of Chicago. As my distinguished predecessor Alan Simpson once observed, the problem with well-rounded students is that they will roll wherever they are pushed. We are out to help you prepare yourself to assume intellectual leadership positions in all walks of life, to show the luminous power of a Chicago education in and to the world, and to enhance your self-confidence and your capacity for innovation and collaboration. We want you to live lives of discernment, judgment, and courage, to approach the inevitable vulnerabilities and perplexities of life with resilience and fearlessness, such as those we now face in these profoundly uncertain times…”

Those are words that could have been spoken at any time in the history of the College. They very much encouraged me in the belief that with all the changes of recent years the substance of a Chicago education has not itself essentially changed. Boyer, who presided over those changes, certainly believes this.

79

IMO, it comes down to what is central and what is supplementary what at each of these schools.

At UChicago now, the academics are central. In general order of importance, Career Advancement, D3/Logan, Ratner/New Dorms/Good Dining all SUPPLEMENT the academic pursuit and make it easier to choose UChicago for the academics. They don’t REPLACE academics in terms of importance.

When you attend the Admit Overnight, the message is “It’s ok to pursue your academic dream here because we support your dream with outstanding career advancement opportunities and then also a thriving residential life, RSO’s, state of the art gym and arts center.”

Is that the message when someone attends an Ivy’s admit days?

80

@marlowe1 - I think a close reading of Boyer’s remarks are necessary. He says Chicago isn’t out to develop well-rounded men and women, but, per Behnke’s remarks, Chicago is certainly seeking to admit them. The “balanced” students Behnke sought have enjoyed a place at Chicago for a decade+ now.

Moreover, Boyer’s remarks focus on developing “intellectual leaders in all walks of life.” I read that as leaders across all industries, who will be “intellectual” (or thoughtful, well-educated, etc.). This also is a change - the connection of a Chicago education to leadership wasn’t espoused the same way in the past.

The development of leaders (be them intellectual, jocks, frat bros, etc.) is a quintessential part of elite American education. Elite schools aim to produce leaders. Chicago, until recently, never gave much air time to that purpose. Boyer’s remarks, btw, echo President Zimmer’s: https://president.uchicago.edu/ (“[Chicago students] will be empowered by their education… [to] become leaders in virtually every area of endeavor”).

@JBStillFlying asked if Chicago’s messages resemble (or don’t resemble) peers’ messages to students. From what I can see, the schools now have similar messages, with differences lying in the schools’ different flavors.

Here are some examples:

Brown: “You have freedom to construct your own education, and you’ll be supported!”

https://www.brown.edu/about/administration/president/statements/20160902-welcome

UPenn: “Use powerful ideas to do things and you’ll be supported!”

https://president.upenn.edu/content/convocation-2019

UChicago: “Use your powerful education to do become leaders, and you’ll be supported!”

(Look at Zimmer’s or Nondorf’s recent speeches to incoming classes. Note we literally have an “empower” initiative.)

The approaches and flavors are different, but the general models are similar - creating a supportive, robust network of services and people to meet the institutions goal: producing leaders who make change. These leaders may be independent, free-thinking (Brown), intellectual (Chicago), more practical (Penn), but the end goal is similar - just different flavors. And the surrounding atmosphere inculcating these future leaders is similar.

In the past, I think Chicago’s goal was different (produce academics), and the surrounding atmosphere was not as nurturing.

Also interestingly, I think the schools are converging in ways JBStillflying may be underestimating. Put another way, I think Princeton, Dartmouth, and Vanderbilt are probably more academic/intellectual now than they were 30 years ago. Chicago is probably more “balanced” than 30 years ago. There’s more homogeneity than ever. Students can pick flavors of schools, but the real outliers are found elsewhere and are smaller (places like Reed, St. Johns, Deep Springs, Bard, etc.).

30 years ago, Chicago stalwarts had a very real debate about rigor and swimming pools, accepting “balanced” or lopsided students, being monastic vs. generally supportive. Now, those debates have ceased. Unless you follow little-known corners of this discussion board.