Strange? I personally know of several kids rejected from every Ivy, yet admitted to UChicago

[Anonymous]

OP. stop being ridiculous. All the elites get great kids. Don't let your hatred for a school get the better of you. There are legitimate reasons to criticize the University of Chicago. This is not one of them though. If you swapped classes at any of these colleges you couldn't tell the difference. That is how competitive the applicant pool at these colleges have become. The rejects from any of these schools is as good as the folks accepted. In fact many may be better than the kids accepted. When you are turning down 95% of your applicant pool, you are leaving a lot of talented kids out. Every one of these schools looks for different strengths though, so they choose kids with different strengths but academic caliber being a distinguishing factor? Please....

[Anonymous]

I wonder if an admissions officer at UofC accidentally ran over OP's puppy dog. He/she just has way too much anger about Chicago's placement on US News.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't trust Forbes if they don't post their calculated numbers for the individual schools. For all we know, it could be conjured up in thin air. It has a veneer of being reputable with HYPMS at the top, the Ivies all in the top 15, and a smattering of the most prestigious LACs (Pomona, Swarthmore, Williams, Amherst are usually considered the big 4 LAC, and all are ranked in the top 20). But rankings can't be based on just popular opinion. They have to be rooted on a methodology that can be reviewed by outsiders to ensure accuracy.

With US News, you see a component breakdown of everything resulting in the rating as it is. It helps understand and compare the difference between schools.

So Forbes hates UChicago (and Northwestern) so much they dedicated resources to a college list so they could in the end screw the city of Chicago's top universities - is that what you're suggesting?

Don't display your ignorance. Forbes is an output based ranking. It says nothing about "incoming student caliber or prestige"

One thing that Forbes values highly is "low student debt and high earning potential and career success". This favors colleges that have huge endowments that throw a lot of financial aid money at needy kids. Nothing wrong with that, it just skews the ROI calculation and hides the real cost of an elite education. To do an apples to apples comparison, they would have to do a ROI calculator for full pay vs non-full pay kids which they don't. Also since career success is correlated to your major, schools with engineering will usually be favored here over other schools.

Bottom line, Forbes is a completely different ranking system that does not try to measure student caliber or prestige at all. In fact they are proud of that, so using their ranking to justify the OP's clear bias and hatred for Chicago is pathetic.

USNews on the other hand is an input based ranking. It is all about prestige and academic caliber. So yes for what OP wants to measure, the USNews ranking is more credible.

Note that I am not saying these ranking systems are good, but if I were looking for Prestige and student caliber, Forbes is the last ranking you should be looking at.

Wouldn't that make Forbes a better ranking? The inputs are easy to manipulate- see Vanderbilt and WashU upping their SAT averages above the Ivies, faculty resources can be done to cap class sizes for the metric in exchange for making getting into classes tougher, etc. The outputs are based on larger scale things- employment, graduate school and fellowship success, percent of alumni becoming leaders in their field, etc. That to me is a much better metric. Most of the Ivies and top LACs could fill a class with perfect or near perfect SAT students with ease. Multiple times. But they're looking for authenticity, character, resolve, and passion, and those are the students who go on to have their successes.

[Anonymous]

I believe the Forbes output is salary based so it doesn't account well for kids that choose delayed gratification paths , e.g. grad school plus the salary data is old. In days of old, UChicago had a higher majority of kids that did not choose to go the banking or consulting routes which affects the current rankings.

[Anonymous]

Interesting. I think they will climb up the Forbes rankings if it depends on that. Finance and consulting is the top destination for grads these days. They're thinking about developing an undergrad business program. I heard of competitive finance/investment RSOs which are application based. I would say that LACs are the place where the liberal arts ring true, but even at the top ones you see economics and computer science as the most popular majors these days.

[Anonymous]

SV is tugging heavily at the top kids too. Not a big fan of undergraduate business programs myself but i can see why it's being debated. The kids already have the option of taking courses at Booth if they get into certain RSOs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't trust Forbes if they don't post their calculated numbers for the individual schools. For all we know, it could be conjured up in thin air. It has a veneer of being reputable with HYPMS at the top, the Ivies all in the top 15, and a smattering of the most prestigious LACs (Pomona, Swarthmore, Williams, Amherst are usually considered the big 4 LAC, and all are ranked in the top 20). But rankings can't be based on just popular opinion. They have to be rooted on a methodology that can be reviewed by outsiders to ensure accuracy.

With US News, you see a component breakdown of everything resulting in the rating as it is. It helps understand and compare the difference between schools.

So Forbes hates UChicago (and Northwestern) so much they dedicated resources to a college list so they could in the end screw the city of Chicago's top universities - is that what you're suggesting?

Don't display your ignorance. Forbes is an output based ranking. It says nothing about "incoming student caliber or prestige"

One thing that Forbes values highly is "low student debt and high earning potential and career success". This favors colleges that have huge endowments that throw a lot of financial aid money at needy kids. Nothing wrong with that, it just skews the ROI calculation and hides the real cost of an elite education. To do an apples to apples comparison, they would have to do a ROI calculator for full pay vs non-full pay kids which they don't. Also since career success is correlated to your major, schools with engineering will usually be favored here over other schools.

Bottom line, Forbes is a completely different ranking system that does not try to measure student caliber or prestige at all. In fact they are proud of that, so using their ranking to justify the OP's clear bias and hatred for Chicago is pathetic.

USNews on the other hand is an input based ranking. It is all about prestige and academic caliber. So yes for what OP wants to measure, the USNews ranking is more credible.

Note that I am not saying these ranking systems are good, but if I were looking for Prestige and student caliber, Forbes is the last ranking you should be looking at.

Wouldn't that make Forbes a better ranking? The inputs are easy to manipulate- see Vanderbilt and WashU upping their SAT averages above the Ivies, faculty resources can be done to cap class sizes for the metric in exchange for making getting into classes tougher, etc. The outputs are based on larger scale things- employment, graduate school and fellowship success, percent of alumni becoming leaders in their field, etc. That to me is a much better metric. Most of the Ivies and top LACs could fill a class with perfect or near perfect SAT students with ease. Multiple times. But they're looking for authenticity, character, resolve, and passion, and those are the students who go on to have their successes.

Better for what though?Not for the swipe the OP wants to make at Chicago. USNews ranking has lots of problems. I don't dispute that. All rankings have issues. You can pick them apart. But if you have to measure Prestige and academic caliber, the Forbes ranking is not the ranking to go to. The USNews ranking does that better even with its many limitations. The OP is just revealing his real intention when he uses the Forbes ranking to try to make his "strawman argument". He just wants to throw something out there to justify why Chicago should be way down. There is no logic to his arguments.

Its ok to hate a school (well, its not ok, but understandable). Just make it clear. Just say, I hate this school and can't stand it. Don't couch your hatred in some "mumbo jumbo pseudo reasonable argument" that can be picked apart by a middle schooler.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't trust Forbes if they don't post their calculated numbers for the individual schools. For all we know, it could be conjured up in thin air. It has a veneer of being reputable with HYPMS at the top, the Ivies all in the top 15, and a smattering of the most prestigious LACs (Pomona, Swarthmore, Williams, Amherst are usually considered the big 4 LAC, and all are ranked in the top 20). But rankings can't be based on just popular opinion. They have to be rooted on a methodology that can be reviewed by outsiders to ensure accuracy.

With US News, you see a component breakdown of everything resulting in the rating as it is. It helps understand and compare the difference between schools.

So Forbes hates UChicago (and Northwestern) so much they dedicated resources to a college list so they could in the end screw the city of Chicago's top universities - is that what you're suggesting?

Don't display your ignorance. Forbes is an output based ranking. It says nothing about "incoming student caliber or prestige"

One thing that Forbes values highly is "low student debt and high earning potential and career success". This favors colleges that have huge endowments that throw a lot of financial aid money at needy kids. Nothing wrong with that, it just skews the ROI calculation and hides the real cost of an elite education. To do an apples to apples comparison, they would have to do a ROI calculator for full pay vs non-full pay kids which they don't. Also since career success is correlated to your major, schools with engineering will usually be favored here over other schools.

Bottom line, Forbes is a completely different ranking system that does not try to measure student caliber or prestige at all. In fact they are proud of that, so using their ranking to justify the OP's clear bias and hatred for Chicago is pathetic.

USNews on the other hand is an input based ranking. It is all about prestige and academic caliber. So yes for what OP wants to measure, the USNews ranking is more credible.

Note that I am not saying these ranking systems are good, but if I were looking for Prestige and student caliber, Forbes is the last ranking you should be looking at.

Wouldn't that make Forbes a better ranking? The inputs are easy to manipulate- see Vanderbilt and WashU upping their SAT averages above the Ivies, faculty resources can be done to cap class sizes for the metric in exchange for making getting into classes tougher, etc. The outputs are based on larger scale things- employment, graduate school and fellowship success, percent of alumni becoming leaders in their field, etc. That to me is a much better metric. Most of the Ivies and top LACs could fill a class with perfect or near perfect SAT students with ease. Multiple times. But they're looking for authenticity, character, resolve, and passion, and those are the students who go on to have their successes.

If you are crazy enough to believe that, I have some pristine land in Mexico that will quadruple in value in the next six months that I want to sell to you. Come on.. These applications are read in less than 10 minutes. You can't even scratch the surface on authenticity, character etc in that time. Case in point. Look at Harvard. They had to rescind 10 or so kids after they admitted them because they found out that these kids harbored racist beliefs. The only thing you can really measure is hard numbers. Everything else including "Holistic admissions" is just a nice way to couch the discriminatory and borderline unlawful favoritism that these colleges show which if completely revealed would be struck down by US courts in a blink of an eye. That is why these colleges don't release any meaningful admit stats broken by gender, race, legacy status, geography, number of EC's etc. They would get roasted if they did.

[Anonymous]

Having done elite graduate admissions (admittedly lower volume, but similar materials), I’d say recs give you a lot more insight than grades and scores. Essays can be useful too. Agree that authenticity and character are not well reflected. But you do get a sense of whether people see the applicant as exceptional and, potentially, whether the applicant is interesting and thoughtful. So make sure your kids choose recommenders wisely and write meaningful essays (rather than narrative CVs or trite self-congratulatory parables).

Basically, first cut is grades and scores but once that’s made, the challenge is how the choose a class from among the overabundance of high stats kids still in the pool. And that cut gets made somewhat locally — regional rep compares kid to others at same school and then within the region. Track record of matriculants from applicant’s HS at that particular college may come into the mix as well.

[Anonymous]

Let's not kid ourselves, undergrad "prestige" is all about how quick your kid can make serious money on Wall Street, MBB consulting, in SV, or via t14 law school or top medical school.

US News list is a running joke. Most Chicago, Northwestern, WashU and Emory alums I know work regular ass jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's not kid ourselves, undergrad "prestige" is all about how quick your kid can make serious money on Wall Street, MBB consulting, in SV, or via t14 law school or top medical school.

US News list is a running joke. Most Chicago, Northwestern, WashU and Emory alums I know work regular ass jobs.

Then you are a moron. Don't talk about things you clearly know nothing about. And repeat after me. "Personal anecdotes, don't equal evidence". If you see the number of Wall street, Top Tier consulting firms, Prop Trading firms and hitech firms that now recruit UChicago kids, your envy will devour you even more. The school's career services has really transformed the opportunities available to these kids now. Now are these the right jobs for everybody? Hell no. But make no mistake about it. These "prestige" firms are recruiting heavily at Chicago now.

I don't know enough about the other schools to comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not kid ourselves, undergrad "prestige" is all about how quick your kid can make serious money on Wall Street, MBB consulting, in SV, or via t14 law school or top medical school.

US News list is a running joke. Most Chicago, Northwestern, WashU and Emory alums I know work regular ass jobs.

Then you are a moron. Don't talk about things you clearly know nothing about. And repeat after me. "Personal anecdotes, don't equal evidence". If you see the number of Wall street, Top Tier consulting firms, Prop Trading firms and hitech firms that now recruit UChicago kids, your envy will devour you even more. The school's career services has really transformed the opportunities available to these kids now. Now are these the right jobs for everybody? Hell no. But make no mistake about it. These "prestige" firms are recruiting heavily at Chicago now.

I don't know enough about the other schools to comment.

+1 Being located in a major business center certainly is of help too. Similar to Columbia and Stanford, a student also has easy access to mine opportunities in addition to oncampus recruiting. IMO the numerical increase in the kids who are interested in these career paths has also served to benefit the cohort as a whole. Given the spectacular success of prior alums I would guess that on past campus recruiting wasn't limited due to noninterest on the part of recruiters but more so because they couldn't draw enough students in the days of old. And, Booth graduate students have also been active with mentoring and leads for undergraduates. Once they put their minds to improving post-college outcomes, UChicago did it in their intense style, activating resources from all sides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not kid ourselves, undergrad "prestige" is all about how quick your kid can make serious money on Wall Street, MBB consulting, in SV, or via t14 law school or top medical school.

US News list is a running joke. Most Chicago, Northwestern, WashU and Emory alums I know work regular ass jobs.

Then you are a moron. Don't talk about things you clearly know nothing about. And repeat after me. "Personal anecdotes, don't equal evidence". If you see the number of Wall street, Top Tier consulting firms, Prop Trading firms and hitech firms that now recruit UChicago kids, your envy will devour you even more. The school's career services has really transformed the opportunities available to these kids now. Now are these the right jobs for everybody? Hell no. But make no mistake about it. These "prestige" firms are recruiting heavily at Chicago now.

I don't know enough about the other schools to comment.

do you think that 'anecdote isn't evidence' cliche makes you sound bright? so cringe. you've likely never had an unoriginal thought. just keep parroting windy bullshit.

[Anonymous]

an original*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not kid ourselves, undergrad "prestige" is all about how quick your kid can make serious money on Wall Street, MBB consulting, in SV, or via t14 law school or top medical school.

US News list is a running joke. Most Chicago, Northwestern, WashU and Emory alums I know work regular ass jobs.

Then you are a moron. Don't talk about things you clearly know nothing about. And repeat after me. "Personal anecdotes, don't equal evidence". If you see the number of Wall street, Top Tier consulting firms, Prop Trading firms and hitech firms that now recruit UChicago kids, your envy will devour you even more. The school's career services has really transformed the opportunities available to these kids now. Now are these the right jobs for everybody? Hell no. But make no mistake about it. These "prestige" firms are recruiting heavily at Chicago now.

I don't know enough about the other schools to comment.

My oldest finished up at UVA and just turned down Chicago law, middle child is at Yale, youngest will begin at Duke this fall.