UChicago plans to expand by 23% in its undergraduate enrollment

[Anonymous]

UChicago may be one of the last remaining pipelines for private school students to gain admission to a truly elite university. That kind of pipeline used to exist more broadly at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, but those schools can now afford to be far more selective.

UChicago made a very smart strategic decision: it took on debt when interest rates were low, invested heavily in the institution, raised its profile, and climbed into the ranks of the top universities. It deserves the ranking it has today.

My daughter is there and is a top student. Her private school sends 10+ students to UChicago each year. Are all of them exceptional? No! Some are fairly average within that private-school pool. But every year, within that group, there are always a few truly outstanding students — the 1600 SAT, 4.0 GPA, deeply serious academic types — and those students absolutely belong at a place like UChicago. It only takes a few exceptional minds to make a place stand out.

I think this board often views UChicago through a private-school admissions lens. Maybe some people resent the pipeline; maybe they think it makes the school less selective or less impressive.

My daughter went to UChicago looking for smart, quirky, intellectually serious kids — and she found them. Her cohort includes students from private schools, public schools, scholarship backgrounds, and privilege. Some had every advantage; some had very few.

But the common thread is that many of them are genuinely brilliant, curious, and distinctive.That is what makes the school special. Not every admit has to be extraordinary for the institution to be extraordinary. A university only needs a critical mass of exceptional students to create the kind of environment where the best minds sharpen each other.

I will add that I also have a child at HYP, and it is a very different environment. Not better or worse — just a completely different culture.

HYP feels more traditionally elite and, frankly, more elitist in some ways. UChicago feels different: more quirky, more intense, more intellectually self-selecting. Academically, I think they are absolutely on par. The difference is not the caliber of the top students; it is the culture around them.

UChicago has built something distinctive. It may still have certain private-school pipelines, but that does not diminish the academic quality of the place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UChicago is trying to become a peer to the Ivies. In academic circles it has been one for generations, but they want to be seen that way by the social elites.

I have no clue why this site hates on UChicago so much. People complain that elite colleges disadvantage kids from competitive high schools, but they also trash UChicago for admitting large numbers of private school kids that aren't top of class.

Miserable middle class strivers rage at things they (and their children) can’t get access to and can’t afford. Same reason the private school forum here is full of seething public school parents. Same reason the real estate forum is full of seething proles who live in shacks and townhomes mocking so-called McMansions they can’t afford. See also country club discourse.

This has nothing to do with the middle class. It’s the private school parents that are seething because they couldn’t get access to the Ivy League, Stanford or MIT and had to settle for UChicago (in spite of their endless curating).

And yet your kids, if you even have any, can’t get in and you couldn’t afford it if they could.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UChicago may be one of the last remaining pipelines for private school students to gain admission to a truly elite university. That kind of pipeline used to exist more broadly at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, but those schools can now afford to be far more selective.

UChicago made a very smart strategic decision: it took on debt when interest rates were low, invested heavily in the institution, raised its profile, and climbed into the ranks of the top universities. It deserves the ranking it has today.

My daughter is there and is a top student. Her private school sends 10+ students to UChicago each year. Are all of them exceptional? No! Some are fairly average within that private-school pool. But every year, within that group, there are always a few truly outstanding students — the 1600 SAT, 4.0 GPA, deeply serious academic types — and those students absolutely belong at a place like UChicago. It only takes a few exceptional minds to make a place stand out.

I think this board often views UChicago through a private-school admissions lens. Maybe some people resent the pipeline; maybe they think it makes the school less selective or less impressive.

My daughter went to UChicago looking for smart, quirky, intellectually serious kids — and she found them. Her cohort includes students from private schools, public schools, scholarship backgrounds, and privilege. Some had every advantage; some had very few.

But the common thread is that many of them are genuinely brilliant, curious, and distinctive.That is what makes the school special. Not every admit has to be extraordinary for the institution to be extraordinary. A university only needs a critical mass of exceptional students to create the kind of environment where the best minds sharpen each other.

I will add that I also have a child at HYP, and it is a very different environment. Not better or worse — just a completely different culture.

HYP feels more traditionally elite and, frankly, more elitist in some ways. UChicago feels different: more quirky, more intense, more intellectually self-selecting. Academically, I think they are absolutely on par. The difference is not the caliber of the top students; it is the culture around them.

UChicago has built something distinctive. It may still have certain private-school pipelines, but that does not diminish the academic quality of the place.

This makes sense and I think we should pin it at the top of the page. My kids are at a top private that also sends 10+ kids to Chicago. Some are very average (middle of the class) but a few each year are among the most erudite kids in the graduating class. Generally the average kids are Econ bros (or gals) but some are really intellectual kids who just didn't do well across subjects in high school so they have a mid GPA. But they're deeply scholarly about one or two subjects. This type of kid often self selects to Chicago from privates.

[Anonymous]

Independent school graduates are vastly overrepresented at every Ivy, except Cornell. The poster who claims that UChicago is the "last pipeline to gain admission to a truly elite university" has no idea what she is talking about.

The top 20 independent schools provide more students to Harvard and Yale than all the public school students from California, Texas, Illinois and Florida combined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UChicago may be one of the last remaining pipelines for private school students to gain admission to a truly elite university. That kind of pipeline used to exist more broadly at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, but those schools can now afford to be far more selective.

UChicago made a very smart strategic decision: it took on debt when interest rates were low, invested heavily in the institution, raised its profile, and climbed into the ranks of the top universities. It deserves the ranking it has today.

My daughter is there and is a top student. Her private school sends 10+ students to UChicago each year. Are all of them exceptional? No! Some are fairly average within that private-school pool. But every year, within that group, there are always a few truly outstanding students — the 1600 SAT, 4.0 GPA, deeply serious academic types — and those students absolutely belong at a place like UChicago. It only takes a few exceptional minds to make a place stand out.

I think this board often views UChicago through a private-school admissions lens. Maybe some people resent the pipeline; maybe they think it makes the school less selective or less impressive.

My daughter went to UChicago looking for smart, quirky, intellectually serious kids — and she found them. Her cohort includes students from private schools, public schools, scholarship backgrounds, and privilege. Some had every advantage; some had very few.

But the common thread is that many of them are genuinely brilliant, curious, and distinctive.That is what makes the school special. Not every admit has to be extraordinary for the institution to be extraordinary. A university only needs a critical mass of exceptional students to create the kind of environment where the best minds sharpen each other.

I will add that I also have a child at HYP, and it is a very different environment. Not better or worse — just a completely different culture.

HYP feels more traditionally elite and, frankly, more elitist in some ways. UChicago feels different: more quirky, more intense, more intellectually self-selecting. Academically, I think they are absolutely on par. The difference is not the caliber of the top students; it is the culture around them.

UChicago has built something distinctive. It may still have certain private-school pipelines, but that does not diminish the academic quality of the place.

This is a great post but I have some edits.

1. 90% of private school kids who go to Ivies would not have gained admission from a public school. The difference between, say, Yale and UChicago is the number of kids they’re willing to admit from one private school. When Yale can only take 1-2 kids, of course they’re taking the hooked or top kids first. When UChicago can take 10, there’s more wiggle room. But the private school pipeline still exists with other elite universities, it’s just smaller (except for Cornell).

2. UChicago didn’t “climb” into the ranks of elite universities: it was always there. It just needed to raise its profile, as you mentioned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UChicago may be one of the last remaining pipelines for private school students to gain admission to a truly elite university. That kind of pipeline used to exist more broadly at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, but those schools can now afford to be far more selective.

UChicago made a very smart strategic decision: it took on debt when interest rates were low, invested heavily in the institution, raised its profile, and climbed into the ranks of the top universities. It deserves the ranking it has today.

My daughter is there and is a top student. Her private school sends 10+ students to UChicago each year. Are all of them exceptional? No! Some are fairly average within that private-school pool. But every year, within that group, there are always a few truly outstanding students — the 1600 SAT, 4.0 GPA, deeply serious academic types — and those students absolutely belong at a place like UChicago. It only takes a few exceptional minds to make a place stand out.

I think this board often views UChicago through a private-school admissions lens. Maybe some people resent the pipeline; maybe they think it makes the school less selective or less impressive.

My daughter went to UChicago looking for smart, quirky, intellectually serious kids — and she found them. Her cohort includes students from private schools, public schools, scholarship backgrounds, and privilege. Some had every advantage; some had very few.

But the common thread is that many of them are genuinely brilliant, curious, and distinctive.That is what makes the school special. Not every admit has to be extraordinary for the institution to be extraordinary. A university only needs a critical mass of exceptional students to create the kind of environment where the best minds sharpen each other.

I will add that I also have a child at HYP, and it is a very different environment. Not better or worse — just a completely different culture.

HYP feels more traditionally elite and, frankly, more elitist in some ways. UChicago feels different: more quirky, more intense, more intellectually self-selecting. Academically, I think they are absolutely on par. The difference is not the caliber of the top students; it is the culture around them.

UChicago has built something distinctive. It may still have certain private-school pipelines, but that does not diminish the academic quality of the place.

This is a great post but I have some edits.

1. 90% of private school kids who go to Ivies would not have gained admission from a public school. The difference between, say, Yale and UChicago is the number of kids they’re willing to admit from one private school. When Yale can only take 1-2 kids, of course they’re taking the hooked or top kids first. When UChicago can take 10, there’s more wiggle room. But the private school pipeline still exists with other elite universities, it’s just smaller (except for Cornell).

2. UChicago didn’t “climb” into the ranks of elite universities: it was always there. It just needed to raise its profile, as you mentioned.

Rockefeller when Rockefeller had real money, not the trivial sums of mere billionaires of today.

[Anonymous]

If endowment means anything as a measure of institutional resources, UChicago’s position looks relatively weak. Its endowment ranks well below many schools (#21 in 2025).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UChicago is trying to become a peer to the Ivies. In academic circles it has been one for generations, but they want to be seen that way by the social elites.

I have no clue why this site hates on UChicago so much. People complain that elite colleges disadvantage kids from competitive high schools, but they also trash UChicago for admitting large numbers of private school kids that aren't top of class.

Miserable middle class strivers rage at things they (and their children) can’t get access to and can’t afford. Same reason the private school forum here is full of seething public school parents. Same reason the real estate forum is full of seething proles who live in shacks and townhomes mocking so-called McMansions they can’t afford. See also country club discourse.

These are the comments I don’t understand. If someone questions any aspect of UChicago, they are denigrated as having academically unqualified kids or being too poor to gain admission - and therefore beneath commenting. (In our situation - neither is true. DC didn’t like UChicago and never applied, but was admitted to an equally prestigious school without aid or a hook).

Why is trashing middle class, public school kids the stock response? And do current UChicago kids share their parents’ classist attitude? None of the UChicago grads we know speak like this. It’s ugly and a terrible reflection on the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UChicago may be one of the last remaining pipelines for private school students to gain admission to a truly elite university. That kind of pipeline used to exist more broadly at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, but those schools can now afford to be far more selective.

UChicago made a very smart strategic decision: it took on debt when interest rates were low, invested heavily in the institution, raised its profile, and climbed into the ranks of the top universities. It deserves the ranking it has today.

My daughter is there and is a top student. Her private school sends 10+ students to UChicago each year. Are all of them exceptional? No! Some are fairly average within that private-school pool. But every year, within that group, there are always a few truly outstanding students — the 1600 SAT, 4.0 GPA, deeply serious academic types — and those students absolutely belong at a place like UChicago. It only takes a few exceptional minds to make a place stand out.

I think this board often views UChicago through a private-school admissions lens. Maybe some people resent the pipeline; maybe they think it makes the school less selective or less impressive.

My daughter went to UChicago looking for smart, quirky, intellectually serious kids — and she found them. Her cohort includes students from private schools, public schools, scholarship backgrounds, and privilege. Some had every advantage; some had very few.

But the common thread is that many of them are genuinely brilliant, curious, and distinctive.That is what makes the school special. Not every admit has to be extraordinary for the institution to be extraordinary. A university only needs a critical mass of exceptional students to create the kind of environment where the best minds sharpen each other.

I will add that I also have a child at HYP, and it is a very different environment. Not better or worse — just a completely different culture.

HYP feels more traditionally elite and, frankly, more elitist in some ways. UChicago feels different: more quirky, more intense, more intellectually self-selecting. Academically, I think they are absolutely on par. The difference is not the caliber of the top students; it is the culture around them.

UChicago has built something distinctive. It may still have certain private-school pipelines, but that does not diminish the academic quality of the place.

This is a great post but I have some edits.

1. 90% of private school kids who go to Ivies would not have gained admission from a public school. The difference between, say, Yale and UChicago is the number of kids they’re willing to admit from one private school. When Yale can only take 1-2 kids, of course they’re taking the hooked or top kids first. When UChicago can take 10, there’s more wiggle room. But the private school pipeline still exists with other elite universities, it’s just smaller (except for Cornell).

2. UChicago didn’t “climb” into the ranks of elite universities: it was always there. It just needed to raise its profile, as you mentioned.

This is just another way of saying the very tip top 3.95 kids go to HYP and the full pay 3.8s kids are smart to lock in Chicago early. We all agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If endowment means anything as a measure of institutional resources, UChicago’s position looks relatively weak. Its endowment ranks well below many schools (#21 in 2025).

Northwestern’s endowment is 1.5 times of Chicago’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UChicago is trying to become a peer to the Ivies. In academic circles it has been one for generations, but they want to be seen that way by the social elites.

I have no clue why this site hates on UChicago so much. People complain that elite colleges disadvantage kids from competitive high schools, but they also trash UChicago for admitting large numbers of private school kids that aren't top of class.

Miserable middle class strivers rage at things they (and their children) can’t get access to and can’t afford. Same reason the private school forum here is full of seething public school parents. Same reason the real estate forum is full of seething proles who live in shacks and townhomes mocking so-called McMansions they can’t afford. See also country club discourse.

This has nothing to do with the middle class. It’s the private school parents that are seething because they couldn’t get access to the Ivy League, Stanford or MIT and had to settle for UChicago (in spite of their endless curating).

And yet your kids, if you even have any, can’t get in and you couldn’t afford it if they could.

Is this how you behave in everyday life?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If endowment means anything as a measure of institutional resources, UChicago’s position looks relatively weak. Its endowment ranks well below many schools (#21 in 2025).

Northwestern’s endowment is 1.5 times of Chicago’s.

Insecure Northwestern parent chimes in, per usual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UChicago is trying to become a peer to the Ivies. In academic circles it has been one for generations, but they want to be seen that way by the social elites.

I have no clue why this site hates on UChicago so much. People complain that elite colleges disadvantage kids from competitive high schools, but they also trash UChicago for admitting large numbers of private school kids that aren't top of class.

Miserable middle class strivers rage at things they (and their children) can’t get access to and can’t afford. Same reason the private school forum here is full of seething public school parents. Same reason the real estate forum is full of seething proles who live in shacks and townhomes mocking so-called McMansions they can’t afford. See also country club discourse.

These are the comments I don’t understand. If someone questions any aspect of UChicago, they are denigrated as having academically unqualified kids or being too poor to gain admission - and therefore beneath commenting. (In our situation - neither is true. DC didn’t like UChicago and never applied, but was admitted to an equally prestigious school without aid or a hook).

Why is trashing middle class, public school kids the stock response? And do current UChicago kids share their parents’ classist attitude? None of the UChicago grads we know speak like this. It’s ugly and a terrible reflection on the school.

DP. That's not a UChicago parent. There is some truth to their point, but it's said very harshly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UChicago is trying to become a peer to the Ivies. In academic circles it has been one for generations, but they want to be seen that way by the social elites.

I have no clue why this site hates on UChicago so much. People complain that elite colleges disadvantage kids from competitive high schools, but they also trash UChicago for admitting large numbers of private school kids that aren't top of class.

Miserable middle class strivers rage at things they (and their children) can’t get access to and can’t afford. Same reason the private school forum here is full of seething public school parents. Same reason the real estate forum is full of seething proles who live in shacks and townhomes mocking so-called McMansions they can’t afford. See also country club discourse.

These are the comments I don’t understand. If someone questions any aspect of UChicago, they are denigrated as having academically unqualified kids or being too poor to gain admission - and therefore beneath commenting. (In our situation - neither is true. DC didn’t like UChicago and never applied, but was admitted to an equally prestigious school without aid or a hook).

Why is trashing middle class, public school kids the stock response? And do current UChicago kids share their parents’ classist attitude? None of the UChicago grads we know speak like this. It’s ugly and a terrible reflection on the school.

Also interesting that you judge an entire university on what you assume is a random parent commenting on DCUM.

And I wouldn't consider blatantly lying about UChicago on here to be "questioning an aspect" of the school. You can read the unsupported gripes about UChicago allegedly being need-aware that a PP commented earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UChicago may be one of the last remaining pipelines for private school students to gain admission to a truly elite university. That kind of pipeline used to exist more broadly at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, but those schools can now afford to be far more selective.

UChicago made a very smart strategic decision: it took on debt when interest rates were low, invested heavily in the institution, raised its profile, and climbed into the ranks of the top universities. It deserves the ranking it has today.

My daughter is there and is a top student. Her private school sends 10+ students to UChicago each year. Are all of them exceptional? No! Some are fairly average within that private-school pool. But every year, within that group, there are always a few truly outstanding students — the 1600 SAT, 4.0 GPA, deeply serious academic types — and those students absolutely belong at a place like UChicago. It only takes a few exceptional minds to make a place stand out.

I think this board often views UChicago through a private-school admissions lens. Maybe some people resent the pipeline; maybe they think it makes the school less selective or less impressive.

My daughter went to UChicago looking for smart, quirky, intellectually serious kids — and she found them. Her cohort includes students from private schools, public schools, scholarship backgrounds, and privilege. Some had every advantage; some had very few.

But the common thread is that many of them are genuinely brilliant, curious, and distinctive.That is what makes the school special. Not every admit has to be extraordinary for the institution to be extraordinary. A university only needs a critical mass of exceptional students to create the kind of environment where the best minds sharpen each other.

I will add that I also have a child at HYP, and it is a very different environment. Not better or worse — just a completely different culture.

HYP feels more traditionally elite and, frankly, more elitist in some ways. UChicago feels different: more quirky, more intense, more intellectually self-selecting. Academically, I think they are absolutely on par. The difference is not the caliber of the top students; it is the culture around them.

UChicago has built something distinctive. It may still have certain private-school pipelines, but that does not diminish the academic quality of the place.

UChicago and Harvard grad. Well written description of UChicago. However, I question the premise that UChicago investment strategy to borrow heavily was planned or intentional. There has been a shroud of secrecy on the roots of UChicago's current financial predicament. The Stanford Reporter reported an ill-timed bet on crypto, but the administration denied it. Then there is a vocal and persistent critic from UChicago that points out the failings of the investment strategy and its ramifications. I am saddened that UChicago had to sell its CSRP crown jewel, which has produced multiple Nobel prize winning work (e.g. Eugene Fama) over the decades. But glad that Morningstar was the buyer; the Mansueto family has been a loyal friend and generous benefactor to UChicago over the years. My hope is that the worse of the university's financial burden has been alleviated and that they have a good plan to dig out from the financial mess.

https://stanfordreview.org/uchicago-lost-money-on-crypto-then-froze-research-when-federal-funding-was-cut/
https://chicagomaroon.com/44858/viewpoints/op-ed/university-leaders-and-their-plans-a-pathology/?ref=stanfordreview.org
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/morningstar-inc-agrees-acquire-center-research-security-prices-uchicago