Is U Chicago worth cost over in-state UVA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So for an average student — read: not some gunner future PhD who’s been doing cancer research since 12 yo — it’s an extra $40,000 per year for:

- better food? But UVA stu cafes are actually good.

- free tutors? UVA has those too.

- better dorms? UVA’s aren’t terrible, in my experience.

- prestige? Ok, it’s certainly near the top.

- smaller classes? Ok, no debate there.

That's $40,000 per year x4 years, you do the math ($200,000.) UChicago is known as a place where fun goes to die. You get a glimpse of that here with cutthroat alums and their parents.

Is that uva/state school math?

You need to add hidden costs like travel (about 4x a year if you count all the breaks), walk-around money in Chicago, etc. That's how $160000 can equal $200000.


University of chicago is now 73,000+ a year. so PP has that wron too. https://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg03_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=327

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So for an average student — read: not some gunner future PhD who’s been doing cancer research since 12 yo — it’s an extra $40,000 per year for:

- better food? But UVA stu cafes are actually good.

- free tutors? UVA has those too.

- better dorms? UVA’s aren’t terrible, in my experience.

- prestige? Ok, it’s certainly near the top.

- smaller classes? Ok, no debate there.

That's $40,000 per year x4 years, you do the math ($200,000.) UChicago is known as a place where fun goes to die. You get a glimpse of that here with cutthroat alums and their parents.

Is that uva/state school math?

You need to add hidden costs like travel (about 4x a year if you count all the breaks), walk-around money in Chicago, etc. That's how $160000 can equal $200000.


University of chicago is now 73,000+ a year. so PP has that wron too. https://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg03_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=327

DP but I think that was the difference between UVA and UChicage per year ~40k

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UVa is a different experience for outgoing & connected rich kids who can get bids from top Greek houses. But if your child wasn’t born one of those types, I’d rather have the Chicago credential than be bottom tier or GDI from UVa.

That's crazy. Didn't know UVA was so fratty

Does anyone know how fratty it is compared to Maryland?

Maryland has frats but I don't think people spend much time worrying about being a GDI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, this is a no-brainer. U Chicago, period, no matter what. U Chicago, at full pay, over a state school (ANY state school) for free. Not even a question.

This is a fine example of Chicago's aggressive used-car style promotion of itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not impressed by Chicago at all. I went to an Ivy and my school doesn’t spam high school students it has no intention of admitting with materials to try and make it seem more selective than it is already. And I don’t see alumni going out of their way to denigrate top state schools like UVA, Michigan or Berkeley, either. It just comes across as constant self-promotion by people who couldn’t quite make the cut.

Ok, new poster here. I’ll chime in about this.

I went to one of the (ugh I hate this phrase) “top tier” Ivies for undergrad.

Then I went to Chicago, where I also taught undergrads while getting my grad degree.

Honestly, the Chicago kids seemed brighter all around. I’m not excited to admit that — the realization diminished my pride in my alma mater a bit. But the Chicago admissions committee is clearly doing something right. And the classes, from what I saw, are much more rigorous, not least because the more advanced undergrads are often side by side with grad students enrolled in the same course.

In other words, I don’t think the Chicago cheering squad is simply made up of people who “couldn’t quite make the cut.”

But with regard to OP’s question, I have no idea if her child should go to Chicago or UVA. Getting saddled with huge debt isn’t worth even a world class education, and I don’t think Chicago’s name is *so* glittering that the degree would be worth the price tag in terms of status points. (Honestly, I think only Harvard has that kind of cachet globally, although, in my opinion, the cachet is not merited.)

[Anonymous]

we're bbqing tonight with two UChicago alums and at least 4 UVA alums - one of whom brought this discussion up. The consensus is that these schools are not even close to similar and have a very small intersection of the "sets" of students (meaning that not too many students will be indifferent between going to either school). The discussion here has settled on the advice to visit each of the schools - the differences will be clear. On that basis you will make a good decision - for you. And you will end up enjoying a nice bbq with friends from the other school someday

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Put UChicago undergrad in the 10-15 range where it belongs and all these desperate strivers living through their tiger cubs would go back to being obsessed with Ivies Duke and Northwestern.

And we are are off. Low IQ rejects who show up on every UChicago thread to dis the school. This loser was exposed and his accounts banned on reddit multiple times. He is such an idiot, he even uses the same words in all his posts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put UChicago undergrad in the 10-15 range where it belongs and all these desperate strivers living through their tiger cubs would go back to being obsessed with Ivies Duke and Northwestern.

And we are are off. Low IQ rejects who show up on every UChicago thread to dis the school. This loser was exposed and his accounts banned on reddit multiple times. He is such an idiot, he even uses the same words in all his posts

You are as bad as s/he is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, the Chicago kids seemed brighter all around. I’m not excited to admit that — the realization diminished my pride in my alma mater a bit. But the Chicago admissions committee is clearly doing something right. And the classes, from what I saw, are much more rigorous, not least because the more advanced undergrads are often side by side with grad students enrolled in the same course.

My impression, as an outsider, is that the University of Chicago and Cal Tech probably have the very brightest kids, because they have good aid, and a they really care about is raw academic aptitude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:we're bbqing tonight with two UChicago alums and at least 4 UVA alums - one of whom brought this discussion up. The consensus is that these schools are not even close to similar and have a very small intersection of the "sets" of students (meaning that not too many students will be indifferent between going to either school). The discussion here has settled on the advice to visit each of the schools - the differences will be clear. On that basis you will make a good decision - for you. And you will end up enjoying a nice bbq with friends from the other school someday

If costs were comparable, that approach (DC visits and chooses school he prefers) would work. And if DC prefers UVA, it works. OP, I think, is trying to figure out what her DC gets in exchange for the extra $$ if he prefers Chicago (and then whether that makes the expenditure worth it for her family).

[Anonymous]

I didn’t think that U of C and CalTech gave any aid other than need-based

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. What is it about U of Chicago that gets so many people worked up on this board? It has only recently come on my radar as we have a rising junior and starting to think about colleges. There seems to be a group out there hell-bent and determined to quickly criticize this school and another group that is equally passionate about letting everyone know how fantastic it is. Is it because it has always had a so-so reputation and only recently come into the limelight? Other schools do not seem to get people as worked up as this place! Even Harvard and the other Ivy’s !

Boosters from NU, Duke and Penn hate the school because now it's ranked higher. That #3 ranking burns them up. It's stupid that somebody can get so riled up over their ranking surge but it is what it is

Folks who were rejected, also hate the school. This is one reason the school is waitlisting so many kids now. They recognize the animus that might be generated from a rejection

It's just intense jealousy

The Chicago boosters feel that some, of the criticism leveled against the school is either unfair, trolling or just untrue. So they post to correct the haters. Chicago is not for everyone. It is an academically rigorous school whose Core curriculum will drive you crazy until you graduate and realise it's benefits years later. Winters in Chicago are brutal, very few classes throw out A's unless you have really earned it, the quarter system will really tax you and the administration has no patience for and rarely entertains demands from SJW students.. All this can be very alienating for some kids.

If you mismatch with Chicago, you are going to be very unhappy, but if you get a buzz from rigorous academics both in Humanities and STEM, like interacting with smart peers who love academics, don't want a politically charged atmosphere and prefer a large city, Chicago offers one of the best undergrad experiences in the US today and that includes HYPSM, let alone the other elites

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The data is crystal clear on this: for the students who get into both but elect to go to the state school, their outcomes are the same.

No its not. Read

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2473238

My interpretation of the study (which is just one study) is not the same as yours.

According to the introduction: "This relation between undergraduate status and postbaccalaureate outcomes is not simply driven by higher ability of those graduates of elite institutions but also holds taking into account family background and individual standardized test scores."

That says a lot. In short, a bright, upper middle class student from an educated family is likely to have similar outcomes in life whether she goes to Chicago or UVA. And this bears out what I've seen in real life. There are plenty of successful UVA grads. There are plenty of unsuccessful Chicago grads. It's all about what *you* do with the resources at hand. I don't doubt that Chicago has amazing recruiting but in many ways that's limited to those who aren't interested in finance or business. There are plenty of UVA alums who go on to top graduate schools and into finance and business.

My vote (and I say this as a double Ivy graduate) is to go to the cheapest school and put the differential towards graduate school or even use it as a nice down payment on the first property after college.

The real financial benefits of going Ivy or other top colleges has always accrued more to the first generation, low income students than the standard upper middle class student. This has long been known.

Read he whole paper. You are wrong. Even after controlling for all kinds of variables including parental education, Tier1 institution students earn more

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The data is crystal clear on this: for the students who get into both but elect to go to the state school, their outcomes are the same.

No its not. Read

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2473238

My interpretation of the study (which is just one study) is not the same as yours.

According to the introduction: "This relation between undergraduate status and postbaccalaureate outcomes is not simply driven by higher ability of those graduates of elite institutions but also holds taking into account family background and individual standardized test scores."

That says a lot. In short, a bright, upper middle class student from an educated family is likely to have similar outcomes in life whether she goes to Chicago or UVA. And this bears out what I've seen in real life. There are plenty of successful UVA grads. There are plenty of unsuccessful Chicago grads. It's all about what *you* do with the resources at hand. I don't doubt that Chicago has amazing recruiting but in many ways that's limited to those who aren't interested in finance or business. There are plenty of UVA alums who go on to top graduate schools and into finance and business.

My vote (and I say this as a double Ivy graduate) is to go to the cheapest school and put the differential towards graduate school or even use it as a nice down payment on the first property after college.

The real financial benefits of going Ivy or other top colleges has always accrued more to the first generation, low income students than the standard upper middle class student. This has long been known.

Read he whole paper. You are wrong. Even after controlling for all kinds of variables including parental education, Tier1 institution students earn more

Weren't there earlier posts proving that UC grads make more than UVA - by approximately $5000 more per year - UC's $65000 vs UVA's $61000?
It seems the ROI for UC just isn't there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Folks who were rejected, also hate the school. This is one reason the school is waitlisting so many kids now. They recognize the animus that might be generated from a rejection.

It's just intense jealousy

Oh, here I thought Chicago putting 10,000 unqualified kids on a waiting list was another one of their deceptive marketing scams, or as Inside Higher Ed coined it "cruel and insane."

https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2018/04/02/colleges-and-high-schools-again-debate-use-waiting-lists-admissions