University of Chicago

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Pretty impressive how UChicago managed to shoot through the rankings in the last 20 years. It used to be a no name school except for Economics. I doubt anything has changed except for the public perception.



That’s just silly.


Why is it silly? Some schools including Chicago are really good at branding and gaming the rankings. Doesn’t mean Chicago is not a good school. Although it is most likely overhyped


That article from a few years back is still true. The school aggressively markets to ystudents they would never accept. 1260 SAT & 990 PSAT for example. By aggressive I mean multiple mailings, emails and in case of the 1260, a phone call along to encourage the application. DC goes to a predominantly white very average school with local college educated parents. No hooks among most of them but Chicago has been here marketing hard. Some families fell for it and applied. All rejected last year and I expect the same for this year. It's disingenuous and yes, they game their selectivity in a dishonest way.


I got an SAT score of 1260, got accepted to UofC and attended for undergrad. That was in the 90s, so maybe SAT scores skewed lower in those days. But 1260 SAT score is not unheard of!


UChicago had above 50% acceptance rate in the 90s. In 2005 the acceptance rate was 40%.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Pretty impressive how UChicago managed to shoot through the rankings in the last 20 years. It used to be a no name school except for Economics. I doubt anything has changed except for the public perception.



That’s just silly.


Why is it silly? Some schools including Chicago are really good at branding and gaming the rankings. Doesn’t mean Chicago is not a good school. Although it is most likely overhyped


That article from a few years back is still true. The school aggressively markets to ystudents they would never accept. 1260 SAT & 990 PSAT for example. By aggressive I mean multiple mailings, emails and in case of the 1260, a phone call along to encourage the application. DC goes to a predominantly white very average school with local college educated parents. No hooks among most of them but Chicago has been here marketing hard. Some families fell for it and applied. All rejected last year and I expect the same for this year. It's disingenuous and yes, they game their selectivity in a dishonest way.


I got an SAT score of 1260, got accepted to UofC and attended for undergrad. That was in the 90s, so maybe SAT scores skewed lower in those days. But 1260 SAT score is not unheard of!


UChicago had above 50% acceptance rate in the 90s. In 2005 the acceptance rate was 40%.


This is what I meant. It was always a good school but nothing exceptional. It was always known for its graduate Economics program. What changed to make it so much more selective? Is it just branding or were there structural changes? Obviously they attract a higher level of student now due to its ranking.
Anonymous
If you actually got accepted by an Ivy, I’m not sure why you would turn it down for Chicago. I wouldn’t. You can find an intellectual group anywhere.
Anonymous
Isn't it where fun goes to die?
Anonymous
It was still ranked #10 or so in the early 1990s despite your claimed high acceptance rate. In any event, maybe all that marketing results in more applications, which makes it look more selective. Currently like 7% acceptance rate. Is it because HS seniors are applying to multiple times more colleges than in the past? Is this supposed to justify the $80k price tag?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Isn't it where fun goes to die?


Actually, when I attended, it was where hell freezes over. No seriously, I still have the T shirt with the school seal, with the phoenix standing on ice cubes and this phrase on it.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Isn't it where fun goes to die?


Actually, when I attended, it was where hell freezes over. No seriously, I still have the T shirt with the school seal, with the phoenix standing on ice cubes and this phrase on it.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Pretty impressive how UChicago managed to shoot through the rankings in the last 20 years. It used to be a no name school except for Economics. I doubt anything has changed except for the public perception.



That’s just silly.


Why is it silly? Some schools including Chicago are really good at branding and gaming the rankings. Doesn’t mean Chicago is not a good school. Although it is most likely overhyped


That article from a few years back is still true. The school aggressively markets to ystudents they would never accept. 1260 SAT & 990 PSAT for example. By aggressive I mean multiple mailings, emails and in case of the 1260, a phone call along to encourage the application. DC goes to a predominantly white very average school with local college educated parents. No hooks among most of them but Chicago has been here marketing hard. Some families fell for it and applied. All rejected last year and I expect the same for this year. It's disingenuous and yes, they game their selectivity in a dishonest way.


I got an SAT score of 1260, got accepted to UofC and attended for undergrad. That was in the 90s, so maybe SAT scores skewed lower in those days. But 1260 SAT score is not unheard of!


UChicago had above 50% acceptance rate in the 90s. In 2005 the acceptance rate was 40%.


https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/education/edlife/guidance29.html fun fact is UChicago was called a "safety school" for Upenn by the New York Times back in 2007.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Pretty impressive how UChicago managed to shoot through the rankings in the last 20 years. It used to be a no name school except for Economics. I doubt anything has changed except for the public perception.



That’s just silly.


Why is it silly? Some schools including Chicago are really good at branding and gaming the rankings. Doesn’t mean Chicago is not a good school. Although it is most likely overhyped


That article from a few years back is still true. The school aggressively markets to ystudents they would never accept. 1260 SAT & 990 PSAT for example. By aggressive I mean multiple mailings, emails and in case of the 1260, a phone call along to encourage the application. DC goes to a predominantly white very average school with local college educated parents. No hooks among most of them but Chicago has been here marketing hard. Some families fell for it and applied. All rejected last year and I expect the same for this year. It's disingenuous and yes, they game their selectivity in a dishonest way.


I got an SAT score of 1260, got accepted to UofC and attended for undergrad. That was in the 90s, so maybe SAT scores skewed lower in those days. But 1260 SAT score is not unheard of!


UChicago had above 50% acceptance rate in the 90s. In 2005 the acceptance rate was 40%.


This is what I meant. It was always a good school but nothing exceptional. It was always known for its graduate Economics program. What changed to make it so much more selective? Is it just branding or were there structural changes? Obviously they attract a higher level of student now due to its ranking.


Just that more kids are applying to college nowadays, plus the common app. Chicago used to have an "uncommon" app like Georgetown, which probably accounted for the lower number of applicants.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Pretty impressive how UChicago managed to shoot through the rankings in the last 20 years. It used to be a no name school except for Economics. I doubt anything has changed except for the public perception.



That’s just silly.


Why is it silly? Some schools including Chicago are really good at branding and gaming the rankings. Doesn’t mean Chicago is not a good school. Although it is most likely overhyped


That article from a few years back is still true. The school aggressively markets to ystudents they would never accept. 1260 SAT & 990 PSAT for example. By aggressive I mean multiple mailings, emails and in case of the 1260, a phone call along to encourage the application. DC goes to a predominantly white very average school with local college educated parents. No hooks among most of them but Chicago has been here marketing hard. Some families fell for it and applied. All rejected last year and I expect the same for this year. It's disingenuous and yes, they game their selectivity in a dishonest way.


I got an SAT score of 1260, got accepted to UofC and attended for undergrad. That was in the 90s, so maybe SAT scores skewed lower in those days. But 1260 SAT score is not unheard of!


UChicago had above 50% acceptance rate in the 90s. In 2005 the acceptance rate was 40%.


This is what I meant. It was always a good school but nothing exceptional. It was always known for its graduate Economics program. What changed to make it so much more selective? Is it just branding or were there structural changes? Obviously they attract a higher level of student now due to its ranking.


Just that more kids are applying to college nowadays, plus the common app. Chicago used to have an "uncommon" app like Georgetown, which probably accounted for the lower number of applicants.


When I was considering colleges (late 80s), I didn't apply to UChicago because the application had four essays. One really had to want to go there to write four essays.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Terrific school hurt by its crummy location. Chicago is a massive city and the campus is deep in its south side, which is war torn and dangerous except for the campus and a Whole Foods. It takes an hour to get downtown on public transportation and it's not a safe trek to put it mildly. It's cold and grey most of their Oct-June school year. Living in Chicago is a dream come true for Midwest-raised kids but to international, Sunbelt, East and West coast kids it's just 'meh'.

Leaving the Big Ten conference 60 years ago was probably a mistake they wish they could take back. Look how sports have helped Stanford, Duke, Northwestern and Notre Dame. Big Ten membership brings in $60 million cash to each college, plus the name rec, the alum engagement, on and on.


Northwestern's location on the Northside of Chicago (right outside city limits IIRC) is actually ideal IMO. Access to the big city, and actually closer to the more exciting neighborhoods and sights than UChicago, ironically, but also has its own cute little college town.


My DC DC loved Chicago and thought Evanston was boring and very suburban (“Bethesda”). She and classmates routinely went downtown (or to other neighborhoods) and never had any problem wrt safety. Used all forms of public transit as well as Uber. Different people have different tastes and different perceptions re safety. FWIW, last time I saw neighborhood-level stats (2018 data), Hyde Park had a significantly lower violent crime rate than Lincoln Park. And Hyde Park is closer to the Loop and Mag Mile than Evanston is.


As someone who spent over 10 years in Chicago, this is a strange claim. Cite a source on that. If you're just look at the bottom line numbers, of course Lincoln Park would appear more dangerous as it has over 3x the population and it's 3x the sq/mi. Per capita? No chance Hyde Park is safer. You're also being very misleading because campus is in both Hyde Park and Woodlawn.


Note the lack of follow up. The PP was another misleading and defensive UChicago parent whose kid got rejected from all the Ivies. She personally probably visited Hyde Park twice and now she's an expert.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Pretty impressive how UChicago managed to shoot through the rankings in the last 20 years. It used to be a no name school except for Economics. I doubt anything has changed except for the public perception.



That’s just silly.


Why is it silly? Some schools including Chicago are really good at branding and gaming the rankings. Doesn’t mean Chicago is not a good school. Although it is most likely overhyped


That article from a few years back is still true. The school aggressively markets to ystudents they would never accept. 1260 SAT & 990 PSAT for example. By aggressive I mean multiple mailings, emails and in case of the 1260, a phone call along to encourage the application. DC goes to a predominantly white very average school with local college educated parents. No hooks among most of them but Chicago has been here marketing hard. Some families fell for it and applied. All rejected last year and I expect the same for this year. It's disingenuous and yes, they game their selectivity in a dishonest way.


I got an SAT score of 1260, got accepted to UofC and attended for undergrad. That was in the 90s, so maybe SAT scores skewed lower in those days. But 1260 SAT score is not unheard of!


UChicago had above 50% acceptance rate in the 90s. In 2005 the acceptance rate was 40%.


This is what I meant. It was always a good school but nothing exceptional. It was always known for its graduate Economics program. What changed to make it so much more selective? Is it just branding or were there structural changes? Obviously they attract a higher level of student now due to its ranking.


God you’re dense.

It became more selective because they started accepting the Common App.

The acceptance rate has *nothing* to do with the quality of the school, nor are they attracting a higher level of student now. Even before they accepted the Common App, they were ranked something like #15.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Pretty impressive how UChicago managed to shoot through the rankings in the last 20 years. It used to be a no name school except for Economics. I doubt anything has changed except for the public perception.



That’s just silly.


Why is it silly? Some schools including Chicago are really good at branding and gaming the rankings. Doesn’t mean Chicago is not a good school. Although it is most likely overhyped


That article from a few years back is still true. The school aggressively markets to ystudents they would never accept. 1260 SAT & 990 PSAT for example. By aggressive I mean multiple mailings, emails and in case of the 1260, a phone call along to encourage the application. DC goes to a predominantly white very average school with local college educated parents. No hooks among most of them but Chicago has been here marketing hard. Some families fell for it and applied. All rejected last year and I expect the same for this year. It's disingenuous and yes, they game their selectivity in a dishonest way.


I got an SAT score of 1260, got accepted to UofC and attended for undergrad. That was in the 90s, so maybe SAT scores skewed lower in those days. But 1260 SAT score is not unheard of!


UChicago had above 50% acceptance rate in the 90s. In 2005 the acceptance rate was 40%.


This is what I meant. It was always a good school but nothing exceptional. It was always known for its graduate Economics program. What changed to make it so much more selective? Is it just branding or were there structural changes? Obviously they attract a higher level of student now due to its ranking.


Much like Penn.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Pretty impressive how UChicago managed to shoot through the rankings in the last 20 years. It used to be a no name school except for Economics. I doubt anything has changed except for the public perception.



That’s just silly.


Why is it silly? Some schools including Chicago are really good at branding and gaming the rankings. Doesn’t mean Chicago is not a good school. Although it is most likely overhyped


That article from a few years back is still true. The school aggressively markets to ystudents they would never accept. 1260 SAT & 990 PSAT for example. By aggressive I mean multiple mailings, emails and in case of the 1260, a phone call along to encourage the application. DC goes to a predominantly white very average school with local college educated parents. No hooks among most of them but Chicago has been here marketing hard. Some families fell for it and applied. All rejected last year and I expect the same for this year. It's disingenuous and yes, they game their selectivity in a dishonest way.


I got an SAT score of 1260, got accepted to UofC and attended for undergrad. That was in the 90s, so maybe SAT scores skewed lower in those days. But 1260 SAT score is not unheard of!


UChicago had above 50% acceptance rate in the 90s. In 2005 the acceptance rate was 40%.


This is what I meant. It was always a good school but nothing exceptional. It was always known for its graduate Economics program. What changed to make it so much more selective? Is it just branding or were there structural changes? Obviously they attract a higher level of student now due to its ranking.


Just that more kids are applying to college nowadays, plus the common app. Chicago used to have an "uncommon" app like Georgetown, which probably accounted for the lower number of applicants.


When I was considering colleges (late 80s), I didn't apply to UChicago because the application had four essays. One really had to want to go there to write four essays.


That was their entire goal. They wanted kids coming to them.

I was accepted in 2004; my sister was accepted in 2006. She went, but I didn’t. In both cases, kids in our respective high schools with the same stats as us (or in some cases better stats) got rejected from UChicago because UChicago didn’t feel they were a good fit.

Now that they started accepting the Common App, they’re not the quirky, off-beat place they used to be.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I would say it differently. In terms of revealed preferences. there are some top kids who are drawn to U Chicago. I am ecstatic that my DC was admitted to U Chicago ED1. I am HYP legacy, and when I had that discussion with my DC, he was firm that he was not interested in my school, and that U Chicago is the perfect fit. I was made aware of the school two years ago by another HYP parent at our school, who sent both his sons to U Chicago. There is a subset of kids who love the fact that U Chicago has top intellectual rigor across the board, and professors are often very quirky and witty. Mine took Summer College there and had a blast, but problem sets were very, very hard. On another note -the U Chicago supplemental essays reflect the spirit of the school - very weird, very intellectual, very fun to write... if you are a certain type of kid. So if you enjoyed writing those, you are probably a good fit for the school.

A previous poster mentioned it's not the preprofessional pipeline of Harvard - true!!! And that is what is so great about the school; college is more just a race to the first job in BigLaw, Big Finance or Big Consulting.


Is Yale, Harvard, Columbia not intellectual enough for your kid. Give me a break!


I went to Harvard College and was surprised by how few of my classmates were intellectually-oriented. Ambition and self-confidence were defining attributes of the class rather than brains and curiosity. That said, obviously, if you were intellectual (and it didn’t matter to you what most of your cohort cared about), it was great — so many resources, accessible faculty doing interesting work, lots of grad students. I think Chicago is (has been?) attractive to kids who want their peers to share their academic values.


And yet more kids proportionally end up in consulting and finance than from H, so maybe UChicago is just as careerist, if not more so, than all the other T20 schools?


I didn’t say careerist (nor would I assume careerism is measured by % that go into consulting/finance). This is more of a “what do I want out of college?” question for most kids. “I want to be surrounded by people who want to stay up late talking about ideas” is, for example, different from “I want to be among the future elite.” And, yeah, there are both types at all these schools, but in different proportions. That’s before we get to the economics of the situation which is that lots of kids/families have college debt and need a lucrative job pay it off or pay it back. More than a few of my ambitious/self-confident Harvard classmates had the safety net of wealthy families and/or connections (and we all had much lower tuition), so could pursue passion projects after graduation (e.g. arts careers, starting a magazine).

I don’t think Chicago is uniquely intellectual or necessarily the best place for an intellectual kid, but I agree with the first poster quoted here that its intellectual culture attracts a certain type of very bright/high-performing kid who is turned off by the (undergrad) culture of HYPSWharton.


Or to be blunt, kids from upper-middle-income families who have high grades but without the hooks that would otherwise have gotten them into the ivies (legacy, athletics, URM, children of big donors, exceptional talent in a certain area, etc.) Chicago does that to a certain extent but not as much as the ivies. DC graduated from STA and is now at UChicago and just about everyone who got accepted into an ivy fell into one of these aforementioned categories and the quirky, high-performing but non-athletic kids usually ended up at Chicago (5-10 years back they would have easily gotten into the ivies).
post reply Forum Index » College and University Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: