Why all the Chicago bashing?

[Anonymous]

Page 14 - just in one day! People have such strong feelings about UChicago. I am an alumni and very grateful for the amazing education I received (on full financial aid that covered almost entire cost). Chicago continued to have top notch faulty and research facility. Not sure why ED stuff bothers people so much. For those that really seem to dislike the school- why not just not have your kid apply??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with UChicago is that, as others have said, it completely sold out everything it was in the interest of an admissions-shenanigan-fueled drive to become more "elite," which it's tried to achieve by opening the doors to HYPSM rejects and guaranteeing them a spot through enforced ED. It's also taken on tons of debt to build fancy new dorms and as a result had to cut back key academic elements. Not only that, but its provost's office has produced scores of university administrators who repeat these games elsewhere. It's basically ground zero for everything that's wrong with US higher ed right now. And I say that as someone who recognizes the faculty and programs as top-notch! (They're precisely what recent and current administrators seem to care so little about.)

Yes, there is the irony, Chicago's faculty and programs are really top tier.
But the school is selecting for ability to commit, not ability to thrive. Admitting for yield control, not fit.

I am the alum who is sad about the changes and I agree with both you. Profs and programs - still great. The admin around them? Deeply gross and disappointing. I also agree with a later poster who said the university probably couldn’t have survived without these changes. I don’t know why but I have this song in my head about a deadhead sticker on a Cadillac. Seems apt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with UChicago is that, as others have said, it completely sold out everything it was in the interest of an admissions-shenanigan-fueled drive to become more "elite," which it's tried to achieve by opening the doors to HYPSM rejects and guaranteeing them a spot through enforced ED. It's also taken on tons of debt to build fancy new dorms and as a result had to cut back key academic elements. Not only that, but its provost's office has produced scores of university administrators who repeat these games elsewhere. It's basically ground zero for everything that's wrong with US higher ed right now. And I say that as someone who recognizes the faculty and programs as top-notch! (They're precisely what recent and current administrators seem to care so little about.)

Yes, there is the irony, Chicago's faculty and programs are really top tier.
But the school is selecting for ability to commit, not ability to thrive. Admitting for yield control, not fit.

I am the alum who is sad about the changes and I agree with both you. Profs and programs - still great. The admin around them? Deeply gross and disappointing. I also agree with a later poster who said the university probably couldn’t have survived without these changes. I don’t know why but I have this song in my head about a deadhead sticker on a Cadillac. Seems apt.

Irrelevant. T20s admit ~2000 kids each out of which ~ 500 are top notch. Even if some school admits all students with the best HIGH SCHOOL STATs it would nt mean anything to the school ( this is undergraduate school we are talking about) so some charity via FGLI admission , some to donors/ legacy paying heed to financial imperative etc appears to be the best alternative.
Besides, we have seen many instances where a kid with say 3.7 in high school trounces - nonchalantly - the kid with say 4.0 while in college. So don’t , facilely, expect linearity in academic outcome based on what happened before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with UChicago is that, as others have said, it completely sold out everything it was in the interest of an admissions-shenanigan-fueled drive to become more "elite," which it's tried to achieve by opening the doors to HYPSM rejects and guaranteeing them a spot through enforced ED. It's also taken on tons of debt to build fancy new dorms and as a result had to cut back key academic elements. Not only that, but its provost's office has produced scores of university administrators who repeat these games elsewhere. It's basically ground zero for everything that's wrong with US higher ed right now. And I say that as someone who recognizes the faculty and programs as top-notch! (They're precisely what recent and current administrators seem to care so little about.)

Yes, there is the irony, Chicago's faculty and programs are really top tier.
But the school is selecting for ability to commit, not ability to thrive. Admitting for yield control, not fit.

I am the alum who is sad about the changes and I agree with both you. Profs and programs - still great. The admin around them? Deeply gross and disappointing. I also agree with a later poster who said the university probably couldn’t have survived without these changes. I don’t know why but I have this song in my head about a deadhead sticker on a Cadillac. Seems apt.

Irrelevant. T20s admit ~2000 kids each out of which ~ 500 are top notch. Even if some school admits all students with the best HIGH SCHOOL STATs it would nt mean anything to the school ( this is undergraduate school we are talking about) so some charity via FGLI admission , some to donors/ legacy paying heed to financial imperative etc appears to be the best alternative.
Besides, we have seen many instances where a kid with say 3.7 in high school trounces - nonchalantly - the kid with say 4.0 while in college. So don’t , facilely, expect linearity in academic outcome based on what happened before.

Wut

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with UChicago is that, as others have said, it completely sold out everything it was in the interest of an admissions-shenanigan-fueled drive to become more "elite," which it's tried to achieve by opening the doors to HYPSM rejects and guaranteeing them a spot through enforced ED. It's also taken on tons of debt to build fancy new dorms and as a result had to cut back key academic elements. Not only that, but its provost's office has produced scores of university administrators who repeat these games elsewhere. It's basically ground zero for everything that's wrong with US higher ed right now. And I say that as someone who recognizes the faculty and programs as top-notch! (They're precisely what recent and current administrators seem to care so little about.)

Yes, there is the irony, Chicago's faculty and programs are really top tier.
But the school is selecting for ability to commit, not ability to thrive. Admitting for yield control, not fit.

I am the alum who is sad about the changes and I agree with both you. Profs and programs - still great. The admin around them? Deeply gross and disappointing. I also agree with a later poster who said the university probably couldn’t have survived without these changes. I don’t know why but I have this song in my head about a deadhead sticker on a Cadillac. Seems apt.

Irrelevant. T20s admit ~2000 kids each out of which ~ 500 are top notch. Even if some school admits all students with the best HIGH SCHOOL STATs it would nt mean anything to the school ( this is undergraduate school we are talking about) so some charity via FGLI admission , some to donors/ legacy paying heed to financial imperative etc appears to be the best alternative.
Besides, we have seen many instances where a kid with say 3.7 in high school trounces - nonchalantly - the kid with say 4.0 while in college. So don’t , facilely, expect linearity in academic outcome based on what happened before.

Of course. SAT scores are much better predictors of college success. GPA is not standardized.

Chicago on the other hand claims GPA better predicts college performance. At least 25%, at most 50%, of their admits didn’t submit scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with UChicago is that, as others have said, it completely sold out everything it was in the interest of an admissions-shenanigan-fueled drive to become more "elite," which it's tried to achieve by opening the doors to HYPSM rejects and guaranteeing them a spot through enforced ED. It's also taken on tons of debt to build fancy new dorms and as a result had to cut back key academic elements. Not only that, but its provost's office has produced scores of university administrators who repeat these games elsewhere. It's basically ground zero for everything that's wrong with US higher ed right now. And I say that as someone who recognizes the faculty and programs as top-notch! (They're precisely what recent and current administrators seem to care so little about.)

Yes, there is the irony, Chicago's faculty and programs are really top tier.
But the school is selecting for ability to commit, not ability to thrive. Admitting for yield control, not fit.

I am the alum who is sad about the changes and I agree with both you. Profs and programs - still great. The admin around them? Deeply gross and disappointing. I also agree with a later poster who said the university probably couldn’t have survived without these changes. I don’t know why but I have this song in my head about a deadhead sticker on a Cadillac. Seems apt.

Irrelevant. T20s admit ~2000 kids each out of which ~ 500 are top notch. Even if some school admits all students with the best HIGH SCHOOL STATs it would nt mean anything to the school ( this is undergraduate school we are talking about) so some charity via FGLI admission , some to donors/ legacy paying heed to financial imperative etc appears to be the best alternative.
Besides, we have seen many instances where a kid with say 3.7 in high school trounces - nonchalantly - the kid with say 4.0 while in college. So don’t , facilely, expect linearity in academic outcome based on what happened before.

Of course. SAT scores are much better predictors of college success. GPA is not standardized.

Chicago on the other hand claims GPA better predicts college performance. At least 25%, at most 50%, of their admits didn’t submit scores.

76% submitted scores:
https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/voices.uchicago.edu/dist/8/2077/files/2025/08/CDS_2024-2025_to_publish.pdf

people are just making up facts now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with UChicago is that, as others have said, it completely sold out everything it was in the interest of an admissions-shenanigan-fueled drive to become more "elite," which it's tried to achieve by opening the doors to HYPSM rejects and guaranteeing them a spot through enforced ED. It's also taken on tons of debt to build fancy new dorms and as a result had to cut back key academic elements. Not only that, but its provost's office has produced scores of university administrators who repeat these games elsewhere. It's basically ground zero for everything that's wrong with US higher ed right now. And I say that as someone who recognizes the faculty and programs as top-notch! (They're precisely what recent and current administrators seem to care so little about.)

Yes, there is the irony, Chicago's faculty and programs are really top tier.
But the school is selecting for ability to commit, not ability to thrive. Admitting for yield control, not fit.

I am the alum who is sad about the changes and I agree with both you. Profs and programs - still great. The admin around them? Deeply gross and disappointing. I also agree with a later poster who said the university probably couldn’t have survived without these changes. I don’t know why but I have this song in my head about a deadhead sticker on a Cadillac. Seems apt.

Irrelevant. T20s admit ~2000 kids each out of which ~ 500 are top notch. Even if some school admits all students with the best HIGH SCHOOL STATs it would nt mean anything to the school ( this is undergraduate school we are talking about) so some charity via FGLI admission , some to donors/ legacy paying heed to financial imperative etc appears to be the best alternative.
Besides, we have seen many instances where a kid with say 3.7 in high school trounces - nonchalantly - the kid with say 4.0 while in college. So don’t , facilely, expect linearity in academic outcome based on what happened before.

Of course. SAT scores are much better predictors of college success. GPA is not standardized.

Chicago on the other hand claims GPA better predicts college performance. At least 25%, at most 50%, of their admits didn’t submit scores.

76% submitted scores:
https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/voices.uchicago.edu/dist/8/2077/files/2025/08/CDS_2024-2025_to_publish.pdf

people are just making up facts now

You should consider any overlapping between ACT submission and SAT submission.

[Anonymous]

I know someone who just walked away from a tenured professorship there. The changes are that bad.

And I know a ton of people who went to graduate school there decades ago. Their majors no longer exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Page 14 - just in one day! People have such strong feelings about UChicago. I am an alumni and very grateful for the amazing education I received (on full financial aid that covered almost entire cost). Chicago continued to have top notch faulty and research facility. Not sure why ED stuff bothers people so much. For those that really seem to dislike the school- why not just not have your kid apply??

My kid will make up their own mind about applying. But if you start a thread about U of C and I am bored, I will weigh in saying I think less of the school for taking such a high share of their students through ED. It is not like I am spending my entire day stewing about U of C though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know someone who just walked away from a tenured professorship there. The changes are that bad.

And I know a ton of people who went to graduate school there decades ago. Their majors no longer exist.

To be fair, people walked away from tenure all the time. Spouse relocation. Recruited by another university. Or even just change of scenery. Not always have something to do with the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with UChicago is that, as others have said, it completely sold out everything it was in the interest of an admissions-shenanigan-fueled drive to become more "elite," which it's tried to achieve by opening the doors to HYPSM rejects and guaranteeing them a spot through enforced ED. It's also taken on tons of debt to build fancy new dorms and as a result had to cut back key academic elements. Not only that, but its provost's office has produced scores of university administrators who repeat these games elsewhere. It's basically ground zero for everything that's wrong with US higher ed right now. And I say that as someone who recognizes the faculty and programs as top-notch! (They're precisely what recent and current administrators seem to care so little about.)

Yes, there is the irony, Chicago's faculty and programs are really top tier.
But the school is selecting for ability to commit, not ability to thrive. Admitting for yield control, not fit.

I am the alum who is sad about the changes and I agree with both you. Profs and programs - still great. The admin around them? Deeply gross and disappointing. I also agree with a later poster who said the university probably couldn’t have survived without these changes. I don’t know why but I have this song in my head about a deadhead sticker on a Cadillac. Seems apt.

Irrelevant. T20s admit ~2000 kids each out of which ~ 500 are top notch. Even if some school admits all students with the best HIGH SCHOOL STATs it would nt mean anything to the school ( this is undergraduate school we are talking about) so some charity via FGLI admission , some to donors/ legacy paying heed to financial imperative etc appears to be the best alternative.
Besides, we have seen many instances where a kid with say 3.7 in high school trounces - nonchalantly - the kid with say 4.0 while in college. So don’t , facilely, expect linearity in academic outcome based on what happened before.

Of course. SAT scores are much better predictors of college success. GPA is not standardized.

Chicago on the other hand claims GPA better predicts college performance. At least 25%, at most 50%, of their admits didn’t submit scores.

76% submitted scores:
https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/voices.uchicago.edu/dist/8/2077/files/2025/08/CDS_2024-2025_to_publish.pdf

people are just making up facts now

You should consider any overlapping between ACT submission and SAT submission.

It's estimated that 55% submit an SAT, ACT or both scores.

49% submit SAT
27% submit ACT

You typically see 10-12% submit both an ACT and SAT. However, since the midwest is heavier on the ACT than the SAT, the number who sumbitted both an ACT and an SAT score is closer to 15% for UChicago.

It is fair to say that approximately 60% submit scores.

[Anonymous]

If you are truly curious about UChicago finances then here is an update


https://mag.uchicago.edu/university-news/update-finances

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know someone who just walked away from a tenured professorship there. The changes are that bad.

And I know a ton of people who went to graduate school there decades ago. Their majors no longer exist.

To be fair, people walked away from tenure all the time. Spouse relocation. Recruited by another university. Or even just change of scenery. Not always have something to do with the school.

Exactly. If they’re getting tenured professorship at Uchicago, they’re a hot commodity. This is like saying Google is going to collapse, because an employee is leaving to OpenAI.

[Anonymous]

It has been 24 hours since Chicago has been bashed.

Don’t be bash-ful.

[Anonymous]

If you have already applied RD or EA to Chicago, you can switch to ED2 by Jan. 15.

I know it is the 18th but it is a weekend: I am quite sure you can still switch, automatically, through the portal. If there are any problems, just call admissions. They will be super accommodating in assisting you to commit to ED2.

This might be your last chance to get into a “top 10” school.

Don’t miss this opportunity!

P.S. If you have not yet applied at all but can get your application in, pronto, I am confident that they can still accept your ED2 — you will just have to call to work it out.