Pressure cooker schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+2. Everything I’ve read recently suggests that UChicago is no longer cut throat pressure cooker?

Chicago has changed a lot in recent years, so it's not the pressure cooker it was, and a lot of alumni are upset about it. It was part of the charm - where fun goes to die and somehow you survive.

I think these days Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, and Berkeley are the worst - mostly because they are all very good at STEM but absolutely garbage at managing human beings, particularly 18-22 year olds. Very stressful schools for those students in already difficult majors.

Perhaps it's not the pressure cooker because it's now more collaborative than competitive? Maybe the students are just nicer now than the UChicago of before.

I don't want to derail this thread into the usual cesspool of Chicago hatred, but I do think it's ironic that the school gets flak for being a pressure cooker, and also gets flak for attempting to lower the pressure (relaxing common core reqs, expanding the Greek system, admitting more "fun"/athletic kids). Can't win.

Because there are 3000 schools. Plenty for everyone to find a fit. Chicago can’t seem to figure out what that fit is in 2026. Whereas in the past, it was clear. Do they want quirky intellectuals who think their weird essays are cool and are willing to grind? Or to the way frat boys and fun kids? Do they want to be work hard and to attract kids who an intellectually curious and thrive on the grind? Work hard, play hard, play hard? When my kid considered them 5 years ago, it was clear what they were and after 4 years of TJ, we discouraged another school that was full of very smart kids, but a grind. But there was nothing wrong with who they were, and TJ kids lined up to apply.

Now, who TF knows? They seem to be having an identify crisis or something. They stood for something and their education was something specific 5 years ago. Now? It’s about beer pong with the serious Marxist economic scholars. Like, WTF? All they stand for is ED and ensuring as many full pay students as possible. Nothing special about that.

This really isn't that difficult. They want a diverse background student who actually wants to go to UChicago. It's about creating a community that is intentional and sees Chicago as its first choice. You will get a rigorous academic experience at Chicago, no matter who you are, because they have the quarter system and a focus on theory.

I was a nerdy quirky type. I was interested in U Chicago 30 years ago but now I think there are other colleges that have done a better job of remaining true to their identity.

Such as?

Northwestern, Duke, BU, William and Mary

Oh please. DD has friends in all these schools and others who are at UChicago. No comparison, at least in the case of Duke, BU, and W&M.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+2. Everything I’ve read recently suggests that UChicago is no longer cut throat pressure cooker?

Chicago has changed a lot in recent years, so it's not the pressure cooker it was, and a lot of alumni are upset about it. It was part of the charm - where fun goes to die and somehow you survive.

I think these days Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, and Berkeley are the worst - mostly because they are all very good at STEM but absolutely garbage at managing human beings, particularly 18-22 year olds. Very stressful schools for those students in already difficult majors.

Perhaps it's not the pressure cooker because it's now more collaborative than competitive? Maybe the students are just nicer now than the UChicago of before.

I don't want to derail this thread into the usual cesspool of Chicago hatred, but I do think it's ironic that the school gets flak for being a pressure cooker, and also gets flak for attempting to lower the pressure (relaxing common core reqs, expanding the Greek system, admitting more "fun"/athletic kids). Can't win.

Because there are 3000 schools. Plenty for everyone to find a fit. Chicago can’t seem to figure out what that fit is in 2026. Whereas in the past, it was clear. Do they want quirky intellectuals who think their weird essays are cool and are willing to grind? Or to the way frat boys and fun kids? Do they want to be work hard and to attract kids who an intellectually curious and thrive on the grind? Work hard, play hard, play hard? When my kid considered them 5 years ago, it was clear what they were and after 4 years of TJ, we discouraged another school that was full of very smart kids, but a grind. But there was nothing wrong with who they were, and TJ kids lined up to apply.

Now, who TF knows? They seem to be having an identify crisis or something. They stood for something and their education was something specific 5 years ago. Now? It’s about beer pong with the serious Marxist economic scholars. Like, WTF? All they stand for is ED and ensuring as many full pay students as possible. Nothing special about that.

Sounds like UChicago & Northwestern are gradually exchanging identities.

Recently visited both with my son. Smart, sporty, work hard, play hard type. Definitely imagines himself in a fraternity. Both schools were filled with very, very nerdy kids. Yes, there were more mainstream kids here and there, but it was overwhelmingly the “quirky” type at both schools. I do think Chicago is changing, but not quite to the level we had hoped. I was imagining Duke in 1995. Nope.

I have a kid at Northwestern and most of the kids there I know fit your son’s description. Definitely more mainstream nerdy kids than quirky ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We also wanted to avoid pressure cookers, so nudged kids away from Carnegie Mellon, Chicago, Cornell, MIT, Reed, Swarthmore. Also, to a lesser extent, Penn. If they had been drawn to those schools, we would have talked more, but there were plenty of other schools that were more appealing to them anyway.

All these schools have severe grade deflation. Are they different from other schools in essence? I doubt it Ochem at Cornell is taught differently from at Dartmouth.

Once they inflate the grade by a level up (B to A), all the pressure gone.

No schools have grade deflation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We also wanted to avoid pressure cookers, so nudged kids away from Carnegie Mellon, Chicago, Cornell, MIT, Reed, Swarthmore. Also, to a lesser extent, Penn. If they had been drawn to those schools, we would have talked more, but there were plenty of other schools that were more appealing to them anyway.

All these schools have severe grade deflation. Are they different from other schools in essence? I doubt it Ochem at Cornell is taught differently from at Dartmouth.

Once they inflate the grade by a level up (B to A), all the pressure gone.

No schools have grade deflation

Some engineering schools do

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+2. Everything I’ve read recently suggests that UChicago is no longer cut throat pressure cooker?

Chicago has changed a lot in recent years, so it's not the pressure cooker it was, and a lot of alumni are upset about it. It was part of the charm - where fun goes to die and somehow you survive.

I think these days Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, and Berkeley are the worst - mostly because they are all very good at STEM but absolutely garbage at managing human beings, particularly 18-22 year olds. Very stressful schools for those students in already difficult majors.

Perhaps it's not the pressure cooker because it's now more collaborative than competitive? Maybe the students are just nicer now than the UChicago of before.

I don't want to derail this thread into the usual cesspool of Chicago hatred, but I do think it's ironic that the school gets flak for being a pressure cooker, and also gets flak for attempting to lower the pressure (relaxing common core reqs, expanding the Greek system, admitting more "fun"/athletic kids). Can't win.

Because there are 3000 schools. Plenty for everyone to find a fit. Chicago can’t seem to figure out what that fit is in 2026. Whereas in the past, it was clear. Do they want quirky intellectuals who think their weird essays are cool and are willing to grind? Or to the way frat boys and fun kids? Do they want to be work hard and to attract kids who an intellectually curious and thrive on the grind? Work hard, play hard, play hard? When my kid considered them 5 years ago, it was clear what they were and after 4 years of TJ, we discouraged another school that was full of very smart kids, but a grind. But there was nothing wrong with who they were, and TJ kids lined up to apply.

Now, who TF knows? They seem to be having an identify crisis or something. They stood for something and their education was something specific 5 years ago. Now? It’s about beer pong with the serious Marxist economic scholars. Like, WTF? All they stand for is ED and ensuring as many full pay students as possible. Nothing special about that.

Sounds like UChicago & Northwestern are gradually exchanging identities.

Recently visited both with my son. Smart, sporty, work hard, play hard type. Definitely imagines himself in a fraternity. Both schools were filled with very, very nerdy kids. Yes, there were more mainstream kids here and there, but it was overwhelmingly the “quirky” type at both schools. I do think Chicago is changing, but not quite to the level we had hoped. I was imagining Duke in 1995. Nope.

I have a kid at Northwestern and most of the kids there I know fit your son’s description. Definitely more mainstream nerdy kids than quirky ones.

Northwestern has a good mix of kids; my son is there. He is sporty and in a frat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+2. Everything I’ve read recently suggests that UChicago is no longer cut throat pressure cooker?

Chicago has changed a lot in recent years, so it's not the pressure cooker it was, and a lot of alumni are upset about it. It was part of the charm - where fun goes to die and somehow you survive.

I think these days Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, and Berkeley are the worst - mostly because they are all very good at STEM but absolutely garbage at managing human beings, particularly 18-22 year olds. Very stressful schools for those students in already difficult majors.

Perhaps it's not the pressure cooker because it's now more collaborative than competitive? Maybe the students are just nicer now than the UChicago of before.

I don't want to derail this thread into the usual cesspool of Chicago hatred, but I do think it's ironic that the school gets flak for being a pressure cooker, and also gets flak for attempting to lower the pressure (relaxing common core reqs, expanding the Greek system, admitting more "fun"/athletic kids). Can't win.

Because there are 3000 schools. Plenty for everyone to find a fit. Chicago can’t seem to figure out what that fit is in 2026. Whereas in the past, it was clear. Do they want quirky intellectuals who think their weird essays are cool and are willing to grind? Or to the way frat boys and fun kids? Do they want to be work hard and to attract kids who an intellectually curious and thrive on the grind? Work hard, play hard, play hard? When my kid considered them 5 years ago, it was clear what they were and after 4 years of TJ, we discouraged another school that was full of very smart kids, but a grind. But there was nothing wrong with who they were, and TJ kids lined up to apply.

Now, who TF knows? They seem to be having an identify crisis or something. They stood for something and their education was something specific 5 years ago. Now? It’s about beer pong with the serious Marxist economic scholars. Like, WTF? All they stand for is ED and ensuring as many full pay students as possible. Nothing special about that.

Sounds like UChicago & Northwestern are gradually exchanging identities.

Recently visited both with my son. Smart, sporty, work hard, play hard type. Definitely imagines himself in a fraternity. Both schools were filled with very, very nerdy kids. Yes, there were more mainstream kids here and there, but it was overwhelmingly the “quirky” type at both schools. I do think Chicago is changing, but not quite to the level we had hoped. I was imagining Duke in 1995. Nope.

I have a kid at Northwestern and most of the kids there I know fit your son’s description. Definitely more mainstream nerdy kids than quirky ones.

Wake Forest reminded me a bit of Duke in the 1990s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+2. Everything I’ve read recently suggests that UChicago is no longer cut throat pressure cooker?

Chicago has changed a lot in recent years, so it's not the pressure cooker it was, and a lot of alumni are upset about it. It was part of the charm - where fun goes to die and somehow you survive.

I think these days Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, and Berkeley are the worst - mostly because they are all very good at STEM but absolutely garbage at managing human beings, particularly 18-22 year olds. Very stressful schools for those students in already difficult majors.

Perhaps it's not the pressure cooker because it's now more collaborative than competitive? Maybe the students are just nicer now than the UChicago of before.

I don't want to derail this thread into the usual cesspool of Chicago hatred, but I do think it's ironic that the school gets flak for being a pressure cooker, and also gets flak for attempting to lower the pressure (relaxing common core reqs, expanding the Greek system, admitting more "fun"/athletic kids). Can't win.

Because there are 3000 schools. Plenty for everyone to find a fit. Chicago can’t seem to figure out what that fit is in 2026. Whereas in the past, it was clear. Do they want quirky intellectuals who think their weird essays are cool and are willing to grind? Or to the way frat boys and fun kids? Do they want to be work hard and to attract kids who an intellectually curious and thrive on the grind? Work hard, play hard, play hard? When my kid considered them 5 years ago, it was clear what they were and after 4 years of TJ, we discouraged another school that was full of very smart kids, but a grind. But there was nothing wrong with who they were, and TJ kids lined up to apply.

Now, who TF knows? They seem to be having an identify crisis or something. They stood for something and their education was something specific 5 years ago. Now? It’s about beer pong with the serious Marxist economic scholars. Like, WTF? All they stand for is ED and ensuring as many full pay students as possible. Nothing special about that.

Sounds like UChicago & Northwestern are gradually exchanging identities.

Recently visited both with my son. Smart, sporty, work hard, play hard type. Definitely imagines himself in a fraternity. Both schools were filled with very, very nerdy kids. Yes, there were more mainstream kids here and there, but it was overwhelmingly the “quirky” type at both schools. I do think Chicago is changing, but not quite to the level we had hoped. I was imagining Duke in 1995. Nope.

I was at Chicago admitted students weekend with DS. I'd say 2/3rds nerdy to 1/3 mainstream. Which is really nothing like Duke. There's also no sports culture to speak of. My DS is also smart/work-hard-play-hard/semi sporty (likes to play; isn't very good at it) and he felt at home. We'll see how it goes. I definitely worry about the pressure cooker aspect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We also wanted to avoid pressure cookers, so nudged kids away from Carnegie Mellon, Chicago, Cornell, MIT, Reed, Swarthmore. Also, to a lesser extent, Penn. If they had been drawn to those schools, we would have talked more, but there were plenty of other schools that were more appealing to them anyway.

All these schools have severe grade deflation. Are they different from other schools in essence? I doubt it Ochem at Cornell is taught differently from at Dartmouth.

Once they inflate the grade by a level up (B to A), all the pressure gone.

No schools have grade deflation

Some engineering schools do

They may still be tough, but they have grade inflation. Average GPA is going up over time.