Skip to content

Advertisement

Viewpoints

Hard to admit

Drop in acceptance rate reflects changes in admissions office, not necessarily in student body

Photo: Maroon Staff/The Chicago Maroon

Tuesday’s announcement that only 15.8 percent of applicants were admitted to the class of 2015 was probably a hard hit for high school juniors hoping to attend the U of C. The College has experienced one of the most dramatic changes in admissions statistics over the past five years: Applications have more than doubled (from 9,538 for the class of 2010 to 21,669 for the class of 2015) and the difference in acceptance rate seems unexplainable (it was 38.5 percent for the class of 2010). Obviously, the trend is unsustainable. The U of C’s class of 2020 is not going to beat Harvard’s current number of applicants by 7,000 nor is it likely that the acceptance rate will get sliced another two-fifths so that only 6.5 percent (smaller than Yale, Princeton, and Stanford’s current admit rates) get in. But the question is still up in the air—how low can the U of C’s acceptance rate get? And how will a lower admit rate affect the College? How did it even get this low in the first place?

The last one is the easiest to answer. The biggest spike the U of C has seen happened in the past two years, after Jim Nondorf took control as Dean of Undergraduate Admission, replacing Ted O’Neill (M.A. ’70). Last year. the University made headlines when applications to the College went up by 42 percent, which was largely attributed to Nondorf’s increased focus on marketing the U of C (commonly known as the University of Illinois at Chicago). Other factors were the decision to switch to the Common Application three years ago and the national trend of rising application numbers.

While the surge of applications and the plummeting acceptance rate make the University more selective and allow the admissions office to draw from a more diverse body of applicants, it also conflicts with the past goals of the College. O’Neill, whose personality was widely known around campus, had a different admissions philosophy from Nondorf. Applicants were seen as self-selecting and grades and test scores were said to hold less weight than the student’s thirst for knowledge. When I saw the class of 2015’s acceptance rate, the first question that came to mind was whether I would have been accepted to the U of C if I applied today. Probably not. When I applied early action two years ago, I was deferred—a death sentence come regular decision, when the acceptance rate can be near 10 percent. A U of C alum told me that the College pays attention to students who have a strong desire to attend the school, so I wrote a note to Dean O’Neill, attached another letter of recommendation, and got an acceptance letter in the mail a few weeks later with a handwritten note at the bottom from O’Neill himself.

Of course the current Office of Admissions tries to hold up its old image, with phrases like “At UChicago, you are more than your GPA or test score” splotched around the admissions website. But to an extent, there’s a trade-off to increased selectivity. If Nondorf spent 10 minutes looking through each application (a modest number, considering the decision can easily change a person’s life—or at least where they live for the next four years), it would take him about 500 workdays—two years when accounting for weekends and holidays-—to select the class of 2015. The current admissions timeline allots three months between the application deadline and the University’s decision. Of course, Nondorf has a staff of admissions officers doing the job for him, and other schools are still managing with many more applications than the U of C, but it's hard not to raise an eyebrow when reading that qualified applicants have no minimum GPA or test score but are “bright students with an unquenchable thirst for knowledge and passion for learning” (emphasis in the original).

For all the talk circulating about record-low acceptance rates, the truth is that it probably won’t affect the University significantly. The same quality of students—or better—will matriculate and keep the U of C a top 10 university. But while it might not affect the school as a whole, it affects the individual applicants profoundly. Many are drawn to the U of C because of its emphasis on non-quantifiable factors. “An institution with as strong a character and as defined an identity as Chicago… leads students to apply to it and to accept their offers because some genuine desire is connected to something genuine in the institution,” O’Neill said when he announced he was stepping down from his old position. “[Some colleges] mistakenly screw things up by wanting to be something they are not, by trying to make themselves Williams or Yale, by betraying themselves one way or another.” As the new office of admissions continues to attract more applicants and accept a smaller percentage of them, let’s make sure that they’re still choosing the students that make the University of Chicago great in its own way.

Adam Janofsky is a second-year in the College majoring in Law, Letters, and Society. 

7 comments on “Hard to admit

  1. reply

    It’s interesting to see how quickly UChicago has risen in admissions relative to other universities. If you look at what colleges had the lowest acceptances rates over the past few years (WITHOUT considering grades and test scores), then:

    1) In 2004, when the UChicago accepted 40% of applications, it ranked 81st in selectivity.
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-11-02-collegerates_x.htm

    2) In 2009, when the UChicago accepted 27% of applications, it ranked 60th in selectivity:
    colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/lowest-acceptance-rate

    3) In 2011, when the UChicago accepted 15.8% of applications, it ranked in the top 20 in selectivity.
    http: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/30/college-admissions-rates-_n_842807.html

    (Keep in mind this takes into account the increases all the other schools had as well.)

    Of course, Chicago can’t rise another 60 spots since there aren’t another 60 spots to go. It appears certain to drop below 10% accepted over the next few years, which would place it in the 10 lowest acceptance rates.

    It will be interesting to see how low Chicago can go with its acceptance rate. Of course, the decreasing acceptance rate will also raise Chicago in the rankings (and not just because of increased selectivity but also because retention rate, yield rate, graduation rate, and alumni giving rate will all go up.) Colombia is down to just over 6% and Chicago is a much better school, so the future is looking good.

  2. reply

    2011 Lowest College Acceptance Rates

    2.9% — Curtis Inst. of Music
    5.5 —- Julliard
    6.2 —- Harvard
    6.9 —- Columbia
    7.1 —- Stanford
    7.2 —- Cooper Union
    7.4 —- Yale
    8.4 —- Princeton
    8.7 —- Brown
    9.6 —- MIT
    9.7 —- Dartmouth
    12.0 — Cal Tech
    12.3 — Univ. of Penn
    12.6 — Duke
    12.8 — Amherst
    13.6 — Pomona
    13.8 — Claremont McKenna
    14.9 — Swarthmore
    15.4 — WUSTL
    15.5 — Vanderbilt
    15.6 — Bowdoin
    15.8 — Univ. of Chicago
    17.1 — Williams
    17.4 — Washington & Lee
    17.7 — Middlebury
    18.0 — Cornell
    18.0 — Northwestern
    18.0 — Georgetown
    18.3 — Johns Hopkins

    • reply

      In response to Brett…
      Not really. Most schools stay static and don’t move. No other school is doing what Chicago is — flying up the charts. And keep in mind Chicago already tied Harvard and Stanford in Rhodes Scholars last year — and beat every other school in the country — even with a higher admit rate.

  3. reply
    Pablo Kuchinski

    Prospie here.
    Based on personal experience, I don’t think the college is changing the type of people it admits due to a higher number of applicants. I was admitted despite having a LOW gpa, and probably mostly because I demonstrated by passion for scholarship and intellectual “quirkiness.”

  4. reply

    Pablo- I was admitted for the exact same reason without a comparatively high GPA, and thank God they recognized that. However, even with the University’s comprehensiveness for its application, I still indeed believe that some people feign these qualities even though they are not meant for this school. Unfortunately, with the new trend in admission statistics, some people like you and I, who maybe did not get dished a decent high school experience, might be obscured by all the other classic “high achieving” candidates who will probably not end up choosing U of Chicago.

  5. reply

    Just read this comment on Wikipedia. Hilarious:

    http://www.wikicu.com/Ivy_League

    Ivy “Should-be’s”

    There are several universities which many believe are equal to the Ivies in endowment and academic achievement (and surpass many significantly in terms of such indicators of excellence like the Nobel Prize). These include such schools as the University of Chicago, Stanford University, and MIT. Of course, regardless of what prestige whoring students from those schools and their ill-informed parents say, these schools are not officially Ivies. However, many would gladly trade Dartmouth, Brown, and Cornell for Stanford, Chicago, and MIT straight up. Many would also kick the University of Pennsylvania (aka Penn State) out for good measure.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

By submitting a comment, you agree to the terms of service of The Chicago Maroon.