U of Chicago....The waitlist is going to open up!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless your teen is one of those insufferable pushy weirdo types they're not going to enjoy their experience in Hyde Park. And the pushy weirdos are terminal malcontents, so they're not really enjoying it all that much either.

Oh, and get used to the "U Chicago, is that a good school?"

Tiger mom, "YES, IT'S #3 ON US NEWS!!"

Have you applied for the waiter job at Valois yet. We need low achievers like you to serve us

We get it, your kid got into THE COLLEGE and it's all you have. Nobody cares in real life, so you spend hours on CC, dcum, reddit seeking validation.

And we get it. You are a reject who is insanely jealous of the school's rise in the most consequential of the undergrad college rankings. So you try and trash the school, then the rankings, then the students, then the parents one after the other in a futile quest to find validation. You're jealous and it's eating you from the inside.
Yet the school is doing fine and getting more popular each passing year. Life's such a bitch isn't it?

[Anonymous]

Thankfully a swot factory few people care about, full of depressed insufferable strivers wasn't my kids' only option. They're attending genuine prestigious schools full of extroverted charismatic handsome peers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thankfully a swot factory few people care about, full of depressed insufferable strivers wasn't my kids' only option. They're attending genuine prestigious schools full of extroverted charismatic handsome peers.

Lol. The directional University they attend is not a prestigious school with charismatic handsome peers ( Universities are not beauty schools you numb skull, God you are so pathetic). It's a school where you go when you are not competitive even for the state flagship. That's all anyone with your genes can hope for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain all the hate and nastiness on this thread?!

I hire / work with U of C grads and they are terrific. The school is very nice. Anyone should be proud to send their kid there.

It all started after a poster pointed out, truthfully, that chicago admit rate was 40% just 10 years ago. Go figure.

No, in fact, the admissions rate 10 years ago was just under 28% according to the link that PP posted. (Read the thread — not the URL). Not that it should matter. But if it does, recognize that 10 years ago the Common App was very new. UChicago first accepted it for the class of 2012 (after it saw what the CA did for application numbers at Northwestern and Penn). Basically, college admissions and demographics have changed dramatically over the past 10 years in ways that have benefited UChicago, which has always been an elite university but whose College has suffered lots of ups and downs over the years. IMO, there’s certainly a Moneyball style game being played with Admissions, and UChicago started playing it very well after they hired a guy who learned/developed his strategy at Yale. As a PP noted, to move up as far and as fast as UChicago has in the past few decades, you have to start out with excellent fundamentals (and, probably, being underrated or relatively unknown). Same admissions guy, between the Yale and UChicago gigs, was very successful at RPI, but RPI isn’t headed to the top 10 anytime soon.

If you go beyond 10 years, you'll see that Chicago admit rate was significantly higher than 28%. This was part of the tightening of the admit trend. Also OP has expressed surprise that Chicago is losing students to Richmond or even to UVA. If you look at the historical admit ratio where Chicago used to hover around 40%, you'll be able to connect the dots. Chicago fans, not surprisingly, are refusing to see the connection, constantly pulling in Yale to the picture as if it has the same pedegree or historical reputation that Yale has. Any one familiar with chicago's marketing effort can easily see that Chicago and Yale's marketing strategies are very different. Yale doesn't need to market itself. If Chicago were to stop it's WWE marketing strategy, it knows its admit rate will eplunge back down to the 40% level.

Yes, I (the PP you’re responding to) am well aware of the fact that UofC had a 40% admit rate in the past 20 years. In fact, it was in the high sixties when I was college/grad school-aged. It was always the example I used to explain to kids that admissions rates weren’t an indicator of the quality of a school.

Reacting (in part) to the changing Admissions environment, UChicago has made significant investments (e.g in dorms, in Arts, in career advising/internships, and study abroad — even food services) to improve the quality of life for undergrads. It’s also done a very good job of connecting kids to the city (bus/subway pass, free shuttle, ArtsPass with deep discounts to plays, museums, house field trips to neighborhoods, school events held at downtown locations, etc.). So marketing/“gaming the system” isn't all that’s going on. Basically, the University decided to invest in the College rather than treat it as an afterthought.

Re Yale. Yeah, different pedigrees. Historically, Yale was a rich kids’ school and UChicago was a smart kids’ school. Now they’re starting to converge. Yale’s reputation was based more on undergrads (and stronger domestically); UChicago’s rep was based more on faculty/grad schools (and stronger internationally).

[Anonymous]

[

Yes, I (the PP you’re responding to) am well aware of the fact that UofC had a 40% admit rate in the past 20 years. In fact, it was in the high sixties when I was college/grad school-aged. It was always the example I used to explain to kids that admissions rates weren’t an indicator of the quality of a school.

Reacting (in part) to the changing Admissions environment, UChicago has made significant investments (e.g in dorms, in Arts, in career advising/internships, and study abroad — even food services) to improve the quality of life for undergrads. It’s also done a very good job of connecting kids to the city (bus/subway pass, free shuttle, ArtsPass with deep discounts to plays, museums, house field trips to neighborhoods, school events held at downtown locations, etc.). So marketing/“gaming the system” isn't all that’s going on. Basically, the University decided to invest in the College rather than treat it as an afterthought.

Re Yale. Yeah, different pedigrees. Historically, Yale was a rich kids’ school and UChicago was a smart kids’ school. Now they’re starting to converge. Yale’s reputation was based more on undergrads (and stronger domestically); UChicago’s rep was based more on faculty/grad schools (and stronger internationally).

But....But.... But.... Uchicago just sucks.... No smart kids should apply there and because they do, they must be losers and must be ugly, It shouldn't be in the top 10 in the USNews ranking and because it is, I hate USNews. Facts are irrelevant...

So says the low IQ troll, UChicago hater and reject

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain all the hate and nastiness on this thread?!

I hire / work with U of C grads and they are terrific. The school is very nice. Anyone should be proud to send their kid there.

It all started after a poster pointed out, truthfully, that chicago admit rate was 40% just 10 years ago. Go figure.

No, in fact, the admissions rate 10 years ago was just under 28% according to the link that PP posted. (Read the thread — not the URL). Not that it should matter. But if it does, recognize that 10 years ago the Common App was very new. UChicago first accepted it for the class of 2012 (after it saw what the CA did for application numbers at Northwestern and Penn). Basically, college admissions and demographics have changed dramatically over the past 10 years in ways that have benefited UChicago, which has always been an elite university but whose College has suffered lots of ups and downs over the years. IMO, there’s certainly a Moneyball style game being played with Admissions, and UChicago started playing it very well after they hired a guy who learned/developed his strategy at Yale. As a PP noted, to move up as far and as fast as UChicago has in the past few decades, you have to start out with excellent fundamentals (and, probably, being underrated or relatively unknown). Same admissions guy, between the Yale and UChicago gigs, was very successful at RPI, but RPI isn’t headed to the top 10 anytime soon.

Various people in this thread have simply pointed to the obvious that there are surprisingly many students who would choose other schools over Chicago, and that much of the Chicago high stats are not what they purport to be. Isn't this everyone's job when attending college, to learn to be critical thinkers? Just not sure why all the hatred. Good for you u have kids attending Chicago. It is a fine school.

If you go beyond 10 years, you'll see that Chicago admit rate was significantly higher than 28%. This was part of the tightening of the admit trend. Also OP has expressed surprise that Chicago is losing students to Richmond or even to UVA. If you look at the historical admit ratio where Chicago used to hover around 40%, you'll be able to connect the dots. Chicago fans, not surprisingly, are refusing to see the connection, constantly pulling in Yale to the picture as if it has the same pedegree or historical reputation that Yale has. Any one familiar with chicago's marketing effort can easily see that Chicago and Yale's marketing strategies are very different. Yale doesn't need to market itself. If Chicago were to stop it's WWE marketing strategy, it knows its admit rate will eplunge back down to the 40% level.

Yes, I (the PP you’re responding to) am well aware of the fact that UofC had a 40% admit rate in the past 20 years. In fact, it was in the high sixties when I was college/grad school-aged. It was always the example I used to explain to kids that admissions rates weren’t an indicator of the quality of a school.

Reacting (in part) to the changing Admissions environment, UChicago has made significant investments (e.g in dorms, in Arts, in career advising/internships, and study abroad — even food services) to improve the quality of life for undergrads. It’s also done a very good job of connecting kids to the city (bus/subway pass, free shuttle, ArtsPass with deep discounts to plays, museums, house field trips to neighborhoods, school events held at downtown locations, etc.). So marketing/“gaming the system” isn't all that’s going on. Basically, the University decided to invest in the College rather than treat it as an afterthought.

Re Yale. Yeah, different pedigrees. Historically, Yale was a rich kids’ school and UChicago was a smart kids’ school. Now they’re starting to converge. Yale’s reputation was based more on undergrads (and stronger domestically); UChicago’s rep was based more on faculty/grad schools (and stronger internationally).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain all the hate and nastiness on this thread?!

I hire / work with U of C grads and they are terrific. The school is very nice. Anyone should be proud to send their kid there.

It all started after a poster pointed out, truthfully, that chicago admit rate was 40% just 10 years ago. Go figure.

No, in fact, the admissions rate 10 years ago was just under 28% according to the link that PP posted. (Read the thread — not the URL). Not that it should matter. But if it does, recognize that 10 years ago the Common App was very new. UChicago first accepted it for the class of 2012 (after it saw what the CA did for application numbers at Northwestern and Penn). Basically, college admissions and demographics have changed dramatically over the past 10 years in ways that have benefited UChicago, which has always been an elite university but whose College has suffered lots of ups and downs over the years. IMO, there’s certainly a Moneyball style game being played with Admissions, and UChicago started playing it very well after they hired a guy who learned/developed his strategy at Yale. As a PP noted, to move up as far and as fast as UChicago has in the past few decades, you have to start out with excellent fundamentals (and, probably, being underrated or relatively unknown). Same admissions guy, between the Yale and UChicago gigs, was very successful at RPI, but RPI isn’t headed to the top 10 anytime soon.

If you go beyond 10 years, you'll see that Chicago admit rate was significantly higher than 28%. This was part of the tightening of the admit trend. Also OP has expressed surprise that Chicago is losing students to Richmond or even to UVA. If you look at the historical admit ratio where Chicago used to hover around 40%, you'll be able to connect the dots. Chicago fans, not surprisingly, are refusing to see the connection, constantly pulling in Yale to the picture as if it has the same pedegree or historical reputation that Yale has. Any one familiar with chicago's marketing effort can easily see that Chicago and Yale's marketing strategies are very different. Yale doesn't need to market itself. If Chicago were to stop it's WWE marketing strategy, it knows its admit rate will eplunge back down to the 40% level.

Yes, I (the PP you’re responding to) am well aware of the fact that UofC had a 40% admit rate in the past 20 years. In fact, it was in the high sixties when I was college/grad school-aged. It was always the example I used to explain to kids that admissions rates weren’t an indicator of the quality of a school.

Reacting (in part) to the changing Admissions environment, UChicago has made significant investments (e.g in dorms, in Arts, in career advising/internships, and study abroad — even food services) to improve the quality of life for undergrads. It’s also done a very good job of connecting kids to the city (bus/subway pass, free shuttle, ArtsPass with deep discounts to plays, museums, house field trips to neighborhoods, school events held at downtown locations, etc.). So marketing/“gaming the system” isn't all that’s going on. Basically, the University decided to invest in the College rather than treat it as an afterthought.

Re Yale. Yeah, different pedigrees. Historically, Yale was a rich kids’ school and UChicago was a smart kids’ school. Now they’re starting to converge. Yale’s reputation was based more on undergrads (and stronger domestically); UChicago’s rep was based more on faculty/grad schools (and stronger internationally).

Various people in this thread have simply pointed to the obvious that there are surprisingly many students who would choose other schools over Chicago, and that much of the Chicago high stats are not what they purport to be. Isn't this everyone's job when attending college, to learn to be critical thinkers? Just not sure why all the hatred. Good for you u have kids attending Chicago. It is a fine school.

[Anonymous]

If a colleague or random contact mentions their kid goes to Duke I think the kid is probably All American, sharp, attractive, polished, extroverted, outgoing.

They mention their kid goes to Chicago I think probably not attractive, striver, weird, not charming. Then I play dumb and say I've never heard of it. Without fail it drives tiger moms nuts. I assume they then go on various web forums to express their frustration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a colleague or random contact mentions their kid goes to Duke I think the kid is probably All American, sharp, attractive, polished, extroverted, outgoing.

They mention their kid goes to Chicago I think probably not attractive, striver, weird, not charming. Then I play dumb and say I've never heard of it. Without fail it drives tiger moms nuts. I assume they then go on various web forums to express their frustration.

That says a lot more about you than it does about the schools (or the kids or their parents).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a colleague or random contact mentions their kid goes to Duke I think the kid is probably All American, sharp, attractive, polished, extroverted, outgoing.

They mention their kid goes to Chicago I think probably not attractive, striver, weird, not charming. Then I play dumb and say I've never heard of it. Without fail it drives tiger moms nuts. I assume they then go on various web forums to express their frustration.

Hahaha, so the low IQ troll Chicago reject and hater has been revealed as a Duke booster. I always suspected and have mentioned this before. Duke, Penn and NU boosters hate Chicago more than anybody else.

BTW, Duke's exclusionary and hostile culture had been regularly flagged even within the community.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2017/03/dukescene

http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2016/11/culture-of-exclusion

To call Duke's students All American, polished and outgoing just shows how unhinged and ignorant this troll is

Here is a more balanced discussion about Duke in another Forum

https://talk.collegeconfidential.com/duke-university/1974900-reasons-why-you-may-dislike-duke-a-memoir-from-an-unhappy-student.html

This is not to say Duke is not a good school, but as these links show, this idiot knows nothing about either school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a colleague or random contact mentions their kid goes to Duke I think the kid is probably All American, sharp, attractive, polished, extroverted, outgoing.

They mention their kid goes to Chicago I think probably not attractive, striver, weird, not charming. Then I play dumb and say I've never heard of it. Without fail it drives tiger moms nuts. I assume they then go on various web forums to express their frustration.

Playing dumb seems to go with your strengths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a colleague or random contact mentions their kid goes to Duke I think the kid is probably All American, sharp, attractive, polished, extroverted, outgoing.

They mention their kid goes to Chicago I think probably not attractive, striver, weird, not charming. Then I play dumb and say I've never heard of it. Without fail it drives tiger moms nuts. I assume they then go on various web forums to express their frustration.

Man, your a**hole, must be jealous of how much sh*t comes out of your mouth!!

[Anonymous]

I'm a big UChicago fan. IMO we should participate in these discussions in order to share our thoughts about the school with applicants and their families. Replying in kind to this hate filled individual serves no purpose though. Also - OP's post has been some what exaggerated along the way She ran into two individuals who will likely select UVA or Richmond. That's hardly the sweeping a majority of kids will select in that fashion. Also in my experience with this age group, it is highly unlikely that 100 kids were all that willing to talk to an adult and if confronted with intrusive questioning, would reply vaguely if at all.
The post just doesn't ring factual whether that be innocently or deliberatedly exaggerated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a big UChicago fan. IMO we should participate in these discussions in order to share our thoughts about the school with applicants and their families. Replying in kind to this hate filled individual serves no purpose though. Also - OP's post has been some what exaggerated along the way She ran into two individuals who will likely select UVA or Richmond. That's hardly the sweeping a majority of kids will select in that fashion. Also in my experience with this age group, it is highly unlikely that 100 kids were all that willing to talk to an adult and if confronted with intrusive questioning, would reply vaguely if at all.
The post just doesn't ring factual whether that be innocently or deliberatedly exaggerated.

Whole-heartedly agree with the bolded part of this post!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a big UChicago fan. IMO we should participate in these discussions in order to share our thoughts about the school with applicants and their families. Replying in kind to this hate filled individual serves no purpose though. Also - OP's post has been some what exaggerated along the way She ran into two individuals who will likely select UVA or Richmond. That's hardly the sweeping a majority of kids will select in that fashion. Also in my experience with this age group, it is highly unlikely that 100 kids were all that willing to talk to an adult and if confronted with intrusive questioning, would reply vaguely if at all.
The post just doesn't ring factual whether that be innocently or deliberatedly exaggerated.

Your instincts are right that when you are fighting trolls and idiots who clearly have an agenda, there is no point in arguing with facts. Having said that, you must insult and ridicule them constantly otherwise others might think they are actually saying something that is true. A lie told enough times begins to look like the truth.