Is U Chicago worth cost over in-state UVA?

[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

No, sweetie, we just got the first bill from the school and it’s 78k.

[Anonymous]

We got an actual bill from the school, along with our adjusted FA amounts, and the new estimated cost of attendance for a freshman is $78,555.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

What UC does is to offer a gap year to waitlisted students as a condition. Those who accept gap year are then locked in for the next year USNews yield stats. This is one reason why Chicago's relatively high yield rate is deceptive. (See College Confidential on Chicago waitlist practice.) And with a very large waitlist, Chicago can pick and choose who they offer spots to, probably based academic and income stats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We got an actual bill from the school, along with our adjusted FA amounts, and the new estimated cost of attendance for a freshman is $78,555.

Is this for school year 2017-2018 or 2018-2019?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Making more money is not actually everyone’s goal . Lots of business grads making money selling various things upon graduating from college doesn’t mean that the education they received was better.

[Anonymous]

That's a lot of money to pay for a crushed grade point average and sexual frustration. Have fun at a tier 2 or 3 grad or prof program. That's why Chicago alums are so fanatic about their undergrad; they couldn't get into an elite grad program with their crummy gpa.

>in before "muh admissions knows THE COLLEGE is hard"

Yup, and they don't care. Admissions is all about the bottom line. Only in your imagination is anyone giving you some sort of admissions bonus for Chicago's deflation and difficulty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got an actual bill from the school, along with our adjusted FA amounts, and the new estimated cost of attendance for a freshman is $78,555.

Is this for school year 2017-2018 or 2018-2019?

2018-2019 freshman class.
2017-18 is paid for already & old news.

[Anonymous]

I'm watching 'The Martian' at the moment and the lead character (who solves about 100,000 problems to keep himself alive) went to U Chicago for undergrad.

Just sayin'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Making more money is not actually everyone’s goal . Lots of business grads making money selling various things upon graduating from college doesn’t mean that the education they received was better.

What a joke. Based on the content of this thread, it's difficult to believe income is not one of the main goals of the UC graduates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm watching 'The Martian' at the moment and the lead character (who solves about 100,000 problems to keep himself alive) went to U Chicago for undergrad.

Just sayin'.

Love that movie/character.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Making more money is not actually everyone’s goal . Lots of business grads making money selling various things upon graduating from college doesn’t mean that the education they received was better.

+1

If you’re goal is to be a “business” major and “maximize ROI” of education then state school might make more sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Making more money is not actually everyone’s goal . Lots of business grads making money selling various things upon graduating from college doesn’t mean that the education they received was better.

Those who truly cared about the life of the mind consistent with Chicago's Core program, would have attended St. John's College in Annapolis. These schools are always connected in some way. Yet, St. John's does it in obscurity, never aspiring to be yet another Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What UC does is to offer a gap year to waitlisted students as a condition. Those who accept gap year are then locked in for the next year USNews yield stats. This is one reason why Chicago's relatively high yield rate is deceptive. (See College Confidential on Chicago waitlist practice.) And with a very large waitlist, Chicago can pick and choose who they offer spots to, probably based academic and income stats.

Chicago's manipulative waitlist scheme is the same psychology behind gambling machines ALMOST giving you a jackpot. They want 10,000 plus gullible saps bragging to everyone they know that they almost got into Chicago, so all those gullible friends and more apply next year because they heard so and so almost got in. Pathetic weasels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got an actual bill from the school, along with our adjusted FA amounts, and the new estimated cost of attendance for a freshman is $78,555.

Is this for school year 2017-2018 or 2018-2019?

2018-2019 freshman class.
2017-18 is paid for already & old news.

It means most high hitting colleges and unis will be very similar - a rise by approximately $5000 from 2017-2018.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What UC does is to offer a gap year to waitlisted students as a condition. Those who accept gap year are then locked in for the next year USNews yield stats. This is one reason why Chicago's relatively high yield rate is deceptive. (See College Confidential on Chicago waitlist practice.) And with a very large waitlist, Chicago can pick and choose who they offer spots to, probably based academic and income stats.

Not unique to Chicago. Cf Harvard’s Z-list.