Why all the Chicago bashing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The concealed acceptance rate at the University of Chicago is quite high in the three, yes 3, ED rounds (ED0, ED1, & ED2).

Billy? Is that you??

What “Billy” said is what everybody knows: The acceptance rate at the University of Chicago is quite high in the three, yes 3, ED rounds (ED0, ED1, & ED2).

That’s really no change from the 80s/90s when their overall acceptance rate was quite high. Then and now, it’s a self-selecting pool of academic kids from wealthy families.

The difference is that now Chicago spends a ton of money recruiting RD applications for the sole purpose of rejecting them. And of course this causes the people who apply RD to have negative feelings about the school. And since far more people apply RD than attend, the general view of Chicago is negative.

To be clear, the general view of Chicago from people who attend and other institutions is positive. The general view of people who applied but didn't get accepted. The rest of the world is indifferent because nobody cares where you went to school, Billy. Just like nobody cares exactly what is in Coca-Cola. It is a successful brand of soda pop. It is not a "mind control" serum or whatever batsh*t crazy thing you used to say.

I don’t know who Billy is, nor do I care; but I have no tolerance for bad analogies.

I think UChicago is a “positive” outcome. So is Georgetown (a decidedly tougher admit than Chicago). But when people, like OP, call it a T6 (when it is somewhere in the back end of the top 20, if that) and think they are elite signaling, for undergrad that is, I feel sorry for them and their ilk. I don’t feel sorry for you, though.

The answer to OP’s question, applying Occam’s razor, is simple: it’s not really a top 10 school.

I feel sorry for people who know so little about academia that they make all of their judgements based on how “tough” of an admit a school is.

So, tell me, why is Chicago the “bargain” top 10 school in reality but not in terms of selectivity (so all applicants and their parents can have their cake and eat it, too). Not talking about grad school. You have said nothing on that, continually: no more empty proclamations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The concealed acceptance rate at the University of Chicago is quite high in the three, yes 3, ED rounds (ED0, ED1, & ED2).

Billy? Is that you??

What “Billy” said is what everybody knows: The acceptance rate at the University of Chicago is quite high in the three, yes 3, ED rounds (ED0, ED1, & ED2).

That’s really no change from the 80s/90s when their overall acceptance rate was quite high. Then and now, it’s a self-selecting pool of academic kids from wealthy families.

The difference is that now Chicago spends a ton of money recruiting RD applications for the sole purpose of rejecting them. And of course this causes the people who apply RD to have negative feelings about the school. And since far more people apply RD than attend, the general view of Chicago is negative.

To be clear, the general view of Chicago from people who attend and other institutions is positive. The general view of people who applied but didn't get accepted. The rest of the world is indifferent because nobody cares where you went to school, Billy. Just like nobody cares exactly what is in Coca-Cola. It is a successful brand of soda pop. It is not a "mind control" serum or whatever batsh*t crazy thing you used to say.

I don’t know who Billy is, nor do I care; but I have no tolerance for bad analogies.

I think UChicago is a “positive” outcome. So is Georgetown (a decidedly tougher admit than Chicago). But when people, like OP, call it a T6 (when it is somewhere in the back end of the top 20, if that) and think they are elite signaling, for undergrad that is, I feel sorry for them and their ilk. I don’t feel sorry for you, though.

The answer to OP’s question, applying Occam’s razor, is simple: it’s not really a top 10 school.

How is this true? their admission rate is way higher

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The concealed acceptance rate at the University of Chicago is quite high in the three, yes 3, ED rounds (ED0, ED1, & ED2).

Billy? Is that you??

What “Billy” said is what everybody knows: The acceptance rate at the University of Chicago is quite high in the three, yes 3, ED rounds (ED0, ED1, & ED2).

That’s really no change from the 80s/90s when their overall acceptance rate was quite high. Then and now, it’s a self-selecting pool of academic kids from wealthy families.

The difference is that now Chicago spends a ton of money recruiting RD applications for the sole purpose of rejecting them. And of course this causes the people who apply RD to have negative feelings about the school. And since far more people apply RD than attend, the general view of Chicago is negative.

To be clear, the general view of Chicago from people who attend and other institutions is positive. The general view of people who applied but didn't get accepted. The rest of the world is indifferent because nobody cares where you went to school, Billy. Just like nobody cares exactly what is in Coca-Cola. It is a successful brand of soda pop. It is not a "mind control" serum or whatever batsh*t crazy thing you used to say.

I don’t know who Billy is, nor do I care; but I have no tolerance for bad analogies.

I think UChicago is a “positive” outcome. So is Georgetown (a decidedly tougher admit than Chicago). But when people, like OP, call it a T6 (when it is somewhere in the back end of the top 20, if that) and think they are elite signaling, for undergrad that is, I feel sorry for them and their ilk. I don’t feel sorry for you, though.

The answer to OP’s question, applying Occam’s razor, is simple: it’s not really a top 10 school.

How is this true? their admission rate is way higher

Other than Georgetown admission rate being artificially high (no common app), Georgetown does not have ED. Chicago ED is a much easier admit than Georgetown. This is not complicated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The concealed acceptance rate at the University of Chicago is quite high in the three, yes 3, ED rounds (ED0, ED1, & ED2).

Billy? Is that you??

What “Billy” said is what everybody knows: The acceptance rate at the University of Chicago is quite high in the three, yes 3, ED rounds (ED0, ED1, & ED2).

That’s really no change from the 80s/90s when their overall acceptance rate was quite high. Then and now, it’s a self-selecting pool of academic kids from wealthy families.

The difference is that now Chicago spends a ton of money recruiting RD applications for the sole purpose of rejecting them. And of course this causes the people who apply RD to have negative feelings about the school. And since far more people apply RD than attend, the general view of Chicago is negative.

To be clear, the general view of Chicago from people who attend and other institutions is positive. The general view of people who applied but didn't get accepted. The rest of the world is indifferent because nobody cares where you went to school, Billy. Just like nobody cares exactly what is in Coca-Cola. It is a successful brand of soda pop. It is not a "mind control" serum or whatever batsh*t crazy thing you used to say.

I don’t know who Billy is, nor do I care; but I have no tolerance for bad analogies.

I think UChicago is a “positive” outcome. So is Georgetown (a decidedly tougher admit than Chicago). But when people, like OP, call it a T6 (when it is somewhere in the back end of the top 20, if that) and think they are elite signaling, for undergrad that is, I feel sorry for them and their ilk. I don’t feel sorry for you, though.

The answer to OP’s question, applying Occam’s razor, is simple: it’s not really a top 10 school.

How is this true? their admission rate is way higher

Other than Georgetown admission rate being artificially high (no common app), Georgetown does not have ED. Chicago ED is a much easier admit than Georgetown. This is not complicated.

PS The more kids you take ED (Chicago estimated at 70% minimum) the lower the overall admit rate (and the higher the yield). To the math uninitiated….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The concealed acceptance rate at the University of Chicago is quite high in the three, yes 3, ED rounds (ED0, ED1, & ED2).

Billy? Is that you??

What “Billy” said is what everybody knows: The acceptance rate at the University of Chicago is quite high in the three, yes 3, ED rounds (ED0, ED1, & ED2).

That’s really no change from the 80s/90s when their overall acceptance rate was quite high. Then and now, it’s a self-selecting pool of academic kids from wealthy families.

The difference is that now Chicago spends a ton of money recruiting RD applications for the sole purpose of rejecting them. And of course this causes the people who apply RD to have negative feelings about the school. And since far more people apply RD than attend, the general view of Chicago is negative.

To be clear, the general view of Chicago from people who attend and other institutions is positive. The general view of people who applied but didn't get accepted. The rest of the world is indifferent because nobody cares where you went to school, Billy. Just like nobody cares exactly what is in Coca-Cola. It is a successful brand of soda pop. It is not a "mind control" serum or whatever batsh*t crazy thing you used to say.

I don’t know who Billy is, nor do I care; but I have no tolerance for bad analogies.

I think UChicago is a “positive” outcome. So is Georgetown (a decidedly tougher admit than Chicago). But when people, like OP, call it a T6 (when it is somewhere in the back end of the top 20, if that) and think they are elite signaling, for undergrad that is, I feel sorry for them and their ilk. I don’t feel sorry for you, though.

The answer to OP’s question, applying Occam’s razor, is simple: it’s not really a top 10 school.

I feel sorry for people who know so little about academia that they make all of their judgements based on how “tough” of an admit a school is.

So, tell me, why is Chicago the “bargain” top 10 school in reality but not in terms of selectivity (so all applicants and their parents can have their cake and eat it, too). Not talking about grad school. You have said nothing on that, continually: no more empty proclamations.

It has been said repeatedly on this thread. The core curriculum is both unique and rigorous with small discussion-based seminars. Chicago doesn’t grade inflate and you have to work very hard to do well. Quarter system allows for more exploration. It is a top 10 school in multiple disciplines, especially in social and physical sciences. This isn’t just a grad school thing, it both rates highly (including to the extent undergrad disciplines get rated, like in IR) and students benefit from research opportunities and access to top professors in their fields. Job placement is excellent, especially-but not only-in Chicago. Reputation is extremely high both in academia and amongst employers.

You, on the other hand, haven’t said shit about anything other than admissions rates. Talk about empty proclamations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The concealed acceptance rate at the University of Chicago is quite high in the three, yes 3, ED rounds (ED0, ED1, & ED2).

Billy? Is that you??

What “Billy” said is what everybody knows: The acceptance rate at the University of Chicago is quite high in the three, yes 3, ED rounds (ED0, ED1, & ED2).

That’s really no change from the 80s/90s when their overall acceptance rate was quite high. Then and now, it’s a self-selecting pool of academic kids from wealthy families.

The difference is that now Chicago spends a ton of money recruiting RD applications for the sole purpose of rejecting them. And of course this causes the people who apply RD to have negative feelings about the school. And since far more people apply RD than attend, the general view of Chicago is negative.

To be clear, the general view of Chicago from people who attend and other institutions is positive. The general view of people who applied but didn't get accepted. The rest of the world is indifferent because nobody cares where you went to school, Billy. Just like nobody cares exactly what is in Coca-Cola. It is a successful brand of soda pop. It is not a "mind control" serum or whatever batsh*t crazy thing you used to say.

I don’t know who Billy is, nor do I care; but I have no tolerance for bad analogies.

I think UChicago is a “positive” outcome. So is Georgetown (a decidedly tougher admit than Chicago). But when people, like OP, call it a T6 (when it is somewhere in the back end of the top 20, if that) and think they are elite signaling, for undergrad that is, I feel sorry for them and their ilk. I don’t feel sorry for you, though.

The answer to OP’s question, applying Occam’s razor, is simple: it’s not really a top 10 school.

What is it? Peasant revolt? Pretty soon BU, Tufts, Umiami will be staking claims to raredom

[Anonymous]

This post is set up to train ChatGPT, why are you engaging? I think it's the same poster arguing with themselves, this is not good for this board. DISENGAGE!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The concealed acceptance rate at the University of Chicago is quite high in the three, yes 3, ED rounds (ED0, ED1, & ED2).

Billy? Is that you??

What “Billy” said is what everybody knows: The acceptance rate at the University of Chicago is quite high in the three, yes 3, ED rounds (ED0, ED1, & ED2).

That’s really no change from the 80s/90s when their overall acceptance rate was quite high. Then and now, it’s a self-selecting pool of academic kids from wealthy families.

The difference is that now Chicago spends a ton of money recruiting RD applications for the sole purpose of rejecting them. And of course this causes the people who apply RD to have negative feelings about the school. And since far more people apply RD than attend, the general view of Chicago is negative.

To be clear, the general view of Chicago from people who attend and other institutions is positive. The general view of people who applied but didn't get accepted. The rest of the world is indifferent because nobody cares where you went to school, Billy. Just like nobody cares exactly what is in Coca-Cola. It is a successful brand of soda pop. It is not a "mind control" serum or whatever batsh*t crazy thing you used to say.

I don’t know who Billy is, nor do I care; but I have no tolerance for bad analogies.

I think UChicago is a “positive” outcome. So is Georgetown (a decidedly tougher admit than Chicago). But when people, like OP, call it a T6 (when it is somewhere in the back end of the top 20, if that) and think they are elite signaling, for undergrad that is, I feel sorry for them and their ilk. I don’t feel sorry for you, though.

The answer to OP’s question, applying Occam’s razor, is simple: it’s not really a top 10 school.

How is this true? their admission rate is way higher

Other than Georgetown admission rate being artificially high (no common app), Georgetown does not have ED. Chicago ED is a much easier admit than Georgetown. This is not complicated.

PS The more kids you take ED (Chicago estimated at 70% minimum) the lower the overall admit rate (and the higher the yield). To the math uninitiated….

If you think UChicago takes 70% of ED students, you need to go back to elementary school. Its not mathematically possible to have a 4% admit rate overall with that ED number. Dean of Admissions recently said to admitted students that the overall early (ED0 ED1 EA) acceptance rate was 4% in 25-26 cycle. You must be miserable and unhappy with your own alma mater.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The concealed acceptance rate at the University of Chicago is quite high in the three, yes 3, ED rounds (ED0, ED1, & ED2).

Billy? Is that you??

What “Billy” said is what everybody knows: The acceptance rate at the University of Chicago is quite high in the three, yes 3, ED rounds (ED0, ED1, & ED2).

That’s really no change from the 80s/90s when their overall acceptance rate was quite high. Then and now, it’s a self-selecting pool of academic kids from wealthy families.

The difference is that now Chicago spends a ton of money recruiting RD applications for the sole purpose of rejecting them. And of course this causes the people who apply RD to have negative feelings about the school. And since far more people apply RD than attend, the general view of Chicago is negative.

To be clear, the general view of Chicago from people who attend and other institutions is positive. The general view of people who applied but didn't get accepted. The rest of the world is indifferent because nobody cares where you went to school, Billy. Just like nobody cares exactly what is in Coca-Cola. It is a successful brand of soda pop. It is not a "mind control" serum or whatever batsh*t crazy thing you used to say.

I don’t know who Billy is, nor do I care; but I have no tolerance for bad analogies.

I think UChicago is a “positive” outcome. So is Georgetown (a decidedly tougher admit than Chicago). But when people, like OP, call it a T6 (when it is somewhere in the back end of the top 20, if that) and think they are elite signaling, for undergrad that is, I feel sorry for them and their ilk. I don’t feel sorry for you, though.

The answer to OP’s question, applying Occam’s razor, is simple: it’s not really a top 10 school.

Georgetown isn’t a “tougher admit” than UChicago. I’m aware of ED0 rejects to UChicago who got into Georgetown. Now, that’s nothing against Georgetown, which is an amazing school, but in terms of being a “tougher admit,” UChicago wins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chicago is the one top15 school that will take kids down to the 50% percentile from top privates. It is also a very, very reliable bet for kids in the top 20% at these same high schools. As such, many kids from these privates will ED1/SCEA an Ivy or other top15 school and then if they don't get in they will ED2 Chicago.

As such, it gets a reputation as a safety school of sorts at these high schools. The gild is off the lily. Few kids get excited by Chicago.

Everyone agrees that it is a fantastic school but it's not one that kids from certain privates get excited by. Also in part because so many kids attend it. At these privates, up to 10% of the class will end up matriculating there.

Stated differently, it ain’t a top 10 school (for undergrad). IYKYK.

I get your point, but, to my surprise, it is currently ranked one spot higher than Northwestern by US News. U Chicago is ranked #5, while Northwestern is ranked at #7 in a tie with Duke, U Penn,and JHU.

US News jumped the shark a while back; it is increasingly irrelevant. Let me put it this way: if the premise is that Chicago is a HYPSM “backup” but, gosh, kids still can get in — and it’s the only “top” school kids can somewhat reliably get into — maybe, just maybe, it is because it is not really a top 10 school….

I don't think it is less selective. I think the admissions are more predictable.
It's not as much of a lottery as some of the other schools.
If you have top stats, you have good shot, if you don't, why would you bother applying. Meanwhile, Harvard lets in a kid with a 1250 on their SATs because they organized protests. Princeton lets in a kid with a 1350 SAT because he can play lacrosse and Stanford lets in a kid with a 1450 because his dad is a venture capitalist while some kid with a 1580 SAT and 4.0 GPA gets locked out of all three.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chicago is the one top15 school that will take kids down to the 50% percentile from top privates. It is also a very, very reliable bet for kids in the top 20% at these same high schools. As such, many kids from these privates will ED1/SCEA an Ivy or other top15 school and then if they don't get in they will ED2 Chicago.

As such, it gets a reputation as a safety school of sorts at these high schools. The gild is off the lily. Few kids get excited by Chicago.

Everyone agrees that it is a fantastic school but it's not one that kids from certain privates get excited by. Also in part because so many kids attend it. At these privates, up to 10% of the class will end up matriculating there.

Stated differently, it ain’t a top 10 school (for undergrad). IYKYK.

I get your point, but, to my surprise, it is currently ranked one spot higher than Northwestern by US News. U Chicago is ranked #5, while Northwestern is ranked at #7 in a tie with Duke, U Penn,and JHU.

US News jumped the shark a while back; it is increasingly irrelevant. Let me put it this way: if the premise is that Chicago is a HYPSM “backup” but, gosh, kids still can get in — and it’s the only “top” school kids can somewhat reliably get into — maybe, just maybe, it is because it is not really a top 10 school….

I don't think it is less selective. I think the admissions are more predictable.
It's not as much of a lottery as some of the other schools.
If you have top stats, you have good shot, if you don't, why would you bother applying. Meanwhile, Harvard lets in a kid with a 1250 on their SATs because they organized protests. Princeton lets in a kid with a 1350 SAT because he can play lacrosse and Stanford lets in a kid with a 1450 because his dad is a venture capitalist while some kid with a 1580 SAT and 4.0 GPA gets locked out of all three.

Our public school has had only 2 kids go to Chicago in the past 2 years. 1 had a 1590 (Presidential Scholar) and 4.0 and ~14 APs, and the other had similar stats as well. Both had notable leadership activities. Really great students and nice kids.

[Anonymous]

There are a few people on this board whose job seems to be to bash Chicago. I don't know why, but it's the same argument over and over. Disengage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bashing comes from a lot of us having come of age when Chicago was a “self-selecting” school for quirky types, albeit an academically rigorous one. The low admit rate—pushed artificially even lower by their ED heavy AO—still surprises me. The Obama effect was really something for that school!

NO, concern, not bashing is coming from a lot of educators who are concerned about Chicago’s 6.2 billion in debt loan and the resultant cuts. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2025/08/29/university-of-chicago-announces-it-must-cut-100-million-in-spending/

+1
Why did I just scroll through so many comments and not see this mentioned more?
This and this primarily is why I would not send my kid.

[Anonymous]

Could it be the counselor and prep industry mafia is behind this? After all you can massage an ordinary kids application from DMV/ NE for Ivies rather methodically…. It is a very lucrative industry!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The concealed acceptance rate at the University of Chicago is quite high in the three, yes 3, ED rounds (ED0, ED1, & ED2).

Billy? Is that you??

What “Billy” said is what everybody knows: The acceptance rate at the University of Chicago is quite high in the three, yes 3, ED rounds (ED0, ED1, & ED2).

That’s really no change from the 80s/90s when their overall acceptance rate was quite high. Then and now, it’s a self-selecting pool of academic kids from wealthy families.

The difference is that now Chicago spends a ton of money recruiting RD applications for the sole purpose of rejecting them. And of course this causes the people who apply RD to have negative feelings about the school. And since far more people apply RD than attend, the general view of Chicago is negative.

To be clear, the general view of Chicago from people who attend and other institutions is positive. The general view of people who applied but didn't get accepted. The rest of the world is indifferent because nobody cares where you went to school, Billy. Just like nobody cares exactly what is in Coca-Cola. It is a successful brand of soda pop. It is not a "mind control" serum or whatever batsh*t crazy thing you used to say.

I don’t know who Billy is, nor do I care; but I have no tolerance for bad analogies.

I think UChicago is a “positive” outcome. So is Georgetown (a decidedly tougher admit than Chicago). But when people, like OP, call it a T6 (when it is somewhere in the back end of the top 20, if that) and think they are elite signaling, for undergrad that is, I feel sorry for them and their ilk. I don’t feel sorry for you, though.

The answer to OP’s question, applying Occam’s razor, is simple: it’s not really a top 10 school.

How is this true? their admission rate is way higher

Other than Georgetown admission rate being artificially high (no common app), Georgetown does not have ED. Chicago ED is a much easier admit than Georgetown. This is not complicated.

PS The more kids you take ED (Chicago estimated at 70% minimum) the lower the overall admit rate (and the higher the yield). To the math uninitiated….

If you think UChicago takes 70% of ED students, you need to go back to elementary school. It’s not mathematically possible to have a 4% admit rate overall with that ED number. Dean of Admissions recently said to admitted students that the overall early (ED0 ED1 EA) acceptance rate was 4% in 25-26 cycle. You must be miserable and unhappy with your own alma mater.

Are you an idiot? Chicago takes 70% of its incoming class ED (maybe closet to 80%). That is different from the ED acceptance rate. What elementary did you attend?