Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.

Class of 2017 Yield Rate 55%

2»

Replies to: Class of 2017 Yield Rate 55%

  • ChaudhuriChaudhuri Registered User Posts: 60 Junior Member
    Not just $280,000, you missed one zero, made it 10 times smaller. It should be $2,800,000 for 28,000 applications if you include application fee and some SATs or ACT........
  • jak321jak321 - Posts: 173 Junior Member
    @Insidelane

    First of, I think you meant $2,800,000 rather than $280,000. But please remember that were it not for the efforts of the admissions office to garner more applicants, there would still be thousands of rejectees, certainly more than 10,000. The "unnecessary costs" (another idea I shall try to debunk) that can be blamed on the admissions office is probably closer to one million than three.
    This whole race thing is absurd. The huge number of kids rejected from a school is an indication of a college's admissions failure.

    Well, it seems to me that a decrease in an institution's acceptance rate is almost always heralded as a success of a college's admissions office. Improving a college's applicant pool strength and increasing it's size often go hand in hand, not to mention the affect of (perceived) selectivity on prestige and rankings, things that Chicago ignored for far too long.
    It means that the college is not socially responsible, is not concerned about the quality of its admissions pool and it [sic] not conducting its admissions season in a socially responsible and ethical manner.

    Marketing is a service, albeit one we've learned to hate (but we would hate almost anything if it were to interrupt our TV shows...). If I hadn't discovered Chicago through a friend's mailings, I probably would not have realized that it was precisely what I was looking for in a school, and I probably wouldn't be Chicago bound right now. I don't see why it's a universities duty to be socially responsible, but short of inundating your mailbox with packages, I don't really see how Chicago is harming society. Their acceptance statistics are all available online, and it's a students decision to weigh the costs (time, applicant fee and other investments, not least the emotional) to their odds of gaining admission.
    It means they are unsuccessful marketing their school to their target population and are creating a lot of noise instead.

    The university wouldn't know whether a student lies in it's target population until he or she applies. One way admitting a better student body is by simply increasing the number of applicants (by definition, it's the applicants on job to be self-selective).
    A beter way to think about it is "University of Chicago solicited >28,000 applications from students that they rejected, thereby unnecessarily costing families approximately $280,000 (Including cost of scores-and does not include travel costs for visits).

    Your rejoinder notwithstanding, the best way of thinking about this is the University reached out to thousands of people who, statistically speaking (since close to 25,000 applied last year, and fewer than 10,000 applied just a few years ago) would not have applied otherwise. These students were still given every option of not applying (and several did not), but some decided the application fee (often waved) was worth the odds. I am one of these students, and even though this process led to the disappointment of 4 of my friends, I'm still glad for it (on a macro level as well. One persons acceptance is easily worth the disappointment/100 bucks of tens of rejectees). Investments do not yield positive results for everyone (or even most), but that is not a testament to the reprehensibility of investments, just the investors (if even that).
    That unnecessary cost for families is followed by having to muster up funds to pay for education.
    Chicago is pretty good with FA these days (and are getting better). Chicago also awards several merit scholarships (unlike the Ivies etc.). Out of the thousands admitted, I'm sure there are several hundreds (even a thousand) students who would not have applied were it not for the tireless efforts of the admissions office (and their payoff for admissions alone more than compensates for a few hundred dollars here and there). Many would have received better financial offers from Chicago than they did at other (peer) institutions. These total savings alone may have compensated for the million or so spent on applicant fees (at the very least, blunted it).
    The PR expense is also immense to the university.
    If I hade to put money on it, I'm pretty sure they don't regret doing it. You seem awfully concerned with only the costs of a transaction and tend to ignore the benefits.
    All this BS hinders efforts to carefully match students to schools and causes unnecessary hardship.
    Hyperbole and rehashed arguments...
    The numbers game is totally irrelevant to the quality of the school and higher yield numbers says nothing about the quality or even popularity of the school since the most important variable is unknown-and that is which school was preferred over which others.

    The number game is irrelevant in itself, but it's just a numerical (and hence objective and precise) way of looking at something very relevant, which is the quality of a school's class. Nonetheless, you don't seem to consult any data on the "important variable" before tearing Chicago apart. Here is the only data I could find on it:

    Parchment Student Choice College Rankings 2013 | Parchment - College admissions predictions.

    It may not be precise (look at their methodology and sample sizes) but it does pass the sniff-test, at least for the first few colleges. Chicago does pretty well, it's ranked 6th, right behind MIT and Princeton and just ahead of Brown and Caltech. Their past data chronicles Chicago's ascent (and therefore the admissions office's successes) very well.
    The choice of Chicago over Harvard, Yale and MIT means something entirely different than the choice of Chicago over NYU, U of Maine and St. Johns(NY) and it is impossible to differentiate on the basis of yield alone.

    I think you underestimate (among many underestimations) the quality of Chicago's student body. Consider

    Success in producing prestigious scholarship winners:
    http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/1498021-colleges-produced-most-gates-cambridge-scholars.html#post15874622

    Objective stats:
    http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/15465760-post44.html
  • friedmanfriedman - Posts: 183 Junior Member
    With parchment, the first 10 seem more or less accurate. However, I have a hard time believing (if you go through the next 20) that Pomona or Carleton would be ahead of Columbia.
    If you look at the UChicago profile, the 18.8% accept rate (from 2010) is still used, so it may not be up-to-date.
  • texaspgtexaspg Forum Champion Pre-Med & Medical Posts: 16,684 Forum Champion
    "50 years ago Stanford was a second-rate community college. "

    I don't believe Stanford was ever a community college. Hewlett Packard was started in 1939 by two Stanford grads but looking up Walter Hewlett's bio, I see his father joined Stanford medical school faculty back in 1916.

    William Redington Hewlett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I also remember seeing 82% yield for Harvard this year.
  • JHSJHS Registered User Posts: 17,944 Senior Member
    Stanford and Chicago were both founded at about the same time by wealthy men hoping to create a great private university in "the West" that resembled the great universities of the East. They took their inspiration largely (but not entirely) from the institutions we now call "Ivies". The initial Chicago leadership was almost entirely associated with Yale. Stanford's first leaders were tied to Cornell, which was really the pre-eminent educational innovator of the mid-late 19th Century in the U.S. (Interestingly, though, Stanford's initial faculty had a distinctly Midwestern cast, while Chicago largely raided faculties in the East.)

    Within a decade of their founding, Chicago and Stanford were both among the 13 charter members of the Association of American Universities, then as now the gold standard for serious research universities in this country. Chicago was actually one of five convening institutions, along with Harvard, Berkeley, Columbia, and Johns Hopkins. Six of the eight Ivies (not Brown or Dartmouth) were also charter members.

    It is true that in 1963 Stanford did not quite have the reputation it has today, but it is ridiculous to suggest that it was anything like a community college then, and the elements that created its meteoric rise in public regard were already in place: a stupendous electrical engineering program that had already spawned Hewlett-Packard and SRI, the work of Lewis Terman in its Psychology Department, its law school enhanced by a wholesale raid on the Columbia faculty, the founding of its business school, the Hoover Institute, the linear accelerator which was then being designed . . . . Four future Supreme Court Justices had already graduated from the college (Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Breyer). That's pretty impressive -- it gives you a sense of the kinds of students it was attracting, even though few would have compared it to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton then. (Princeton currently has three alumni serving. Yale has had lots of law school alumni there, but no college alumni. Chicago has had one college alumnus.)
  • friedmanfriedman - Posts: 183 Junior Member
    If you look at the Google Profiles of all the major universities, UChicago is the only school whose 2013 acceptance rate is listed. All the others still have their 2012 acceptance rate.
  • jamesbond1jamesbond1 - Posts: 232 Junior Member
    @friedman, yeah i saw that too. do you know why that is?
  • rhg3rdrhg3rd Registered User Posts: 947 Member
    ^I don't think this will ever happen. Eventually, the location in Chicago becomes an issue with applicants. The majority of the US population is on the two coasts.
  • PoplicolaPoplicola Registered User Posts: 179 Junior Member
    Any guesses that yield will hit 60%+ next year?

    I think it will happen if and only if UChicago

    1) improves its financial aid package
    2) maintains its ranking performance
    3) establishes its brand recognition

    All these actions require many years or even decades to accomplish.
  • FStratfordFStratford Registered User Posts: 407 Member
    Oh ye of little faith.
  • dadof3kidsdadof3kids Registered User Posts: 2 New Member
    Hi Jak, I'm new on this forum, but I was under the impression that Chicago does not have the most national merit scholars (that distinction lies with Harvard). Perhaps you are mistaking the institutionally awarded scholarship (which most top schools don't offer) for the one awarded by college board. My daughter received a national merit scholarship from Chicago but I don't think that is equivalent to one sponsored by college board.
    Also, I am of the opinion that the yield could hit the 60% over the next few years. The only problem is that as the college gets more competitive, it will be battling for students with schools like Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Duke and Caltech are prime examples of top schools with low yields. I believe this is because of the large overlap between them and schools like Harvard. Perhaps Chicago will begin to suffer from the effects of the same phenomenon? Either way, Zimmer and Nondorf have both done a fantastic job of improving the college's image and convincing students to attend!
  • FStratfordFStratford Registered User Posts: 407 Member
    Agree with Blankfein.
  • artloversplusartloversplus Registered User Posts: 8,430 Senior Member
    I think it will happen if and only if UChicago

    1) improves its financial aid package
    2) maintains its ranking performance
    3) establishes its brand recognition

    My only beef about Chicago is its financial aid package. It uses its own financial profile in addition to the css and fafsa to grant FA therefore limited the FA package to the middle income families who want to come to Chicago. I was told by Princeton in a campus tour that any qualified admitted student in P will have no debt at graduation. Yet, in Chicago's FA package, loans are major part of it. The merit scholarship is so few and far short of a real merit to a qualified student in relationship to the COA so that only "rich" family can afford.
  • PAGRokPAGRok Registered User Posts: 557 Member
    Loans depend on the individual package of the student but I know Uchicago doesn't do huge loans like NYU does and the school has created programs to reduce loans through the Odyssey scholarship for fairly lower incomes (below 60,000 I think) as well as uchicago promise guarantees no loans for Chicago area students. Average debt is not too high I'm sure compared to other schools
2»
This discussion has been closed.