Why all the Chicago bashing?

[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….

How do you explain Times college rankings?
Chicago ranked #9 overall among US colleges
#7 in teaching among US colleges
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/latest/world-ranking

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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!

It is possible. Their livelihood is tied to managing the appearance of competence notwithstanding the reality.

[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.

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.

- Twice as many core requirements than schools not named Columbia means less opportunity for exploration, not more
- Most kids take a core course during the summer to even make a double major possible. This is a cash cow for Chicago, as it is another 10k tuition. Something applicants and their parents never think about at the time.
- Most core classes are not taught by tenure track profs
- IR? Really? You are making Georgetown look better and better than Chicago
- Subject rankings are about grad school. But certain of its top grad programs and niche departments are being cut.
- 30% of Chicago undergrads are Econ majors and that number increases yearly. At what point is the competition for jobs too much.
- Enrollment has doubled the last generation

Any other points to easily rebut? You are a pretty ignorant dude who apparently knows very little about Chicago. I’ll talk real slow and write real simple so you can understand better. You need help, after all.

[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….

How do you explain Times college rankings?
Chicago ranked #9 overall among US colleges
#7 in teaching among US colleges
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/latest/world-ranking

Grad. School.
Duh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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!

As technology continues to rapidly develop - obviously faster than you can comprehend - I have some advice for your future psychological well-being: remove the tin foil hat, before it is too late.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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!

Most of the admission prep industry is located in DMV/NE region. Midwest kids are genuinely at a disadvantage in this HOLISTIC voodoo.

[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.

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.

You need a course in logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

As technology continues to rapidly develop - obviously faster than you can comprehend - I have some advice for your future psychological well-being: remove the tin foil hat, before it is too late.

If this isn't true, then y'all need to get a life and get off this school's back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

It is possible. Their livelihood is tied to managing the appearance of competence notwithstanding the reality.

Doesn’t the college counselor industry benefit from Chicago? It is about results: “See, my ED strategy got you into a top 10 school!!” College counselors stand to lose, big time, if Chicago is no longer perceived as a top 10. But I am sure you have already thought this through…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

It is possible. Their livelihood is tied to managing the appearance of competence notwithstanding the reality.

Doesn’t the college counselor industry benefit from Chicago? It is about results: “See, my ED strategy got you into a top 10 school!!” College counselors stand to lose, big time, if Chicago is no longer perceived as a top 10. But I am sure you have already thought this through…

I don't think it's much about college counselor industry. School counselors recommend Chicago to parents and kids very often, particularly to the unhooked kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

It is possible. Their livelihood is tied to managing the appearance of competence notwithstanding the reality.

Doesn’t the college counselor industry benefit from Chicago? It is about results: “See, my ED strategy got you into a top 10 school!!” College counselors stand to lose, big time, if Chicago is no longer perceived as a top 10. But I am sure you have already thought this through…

I don't think it's much about college counselor industry. School counselors recommend Chicago to parents and kids very often, particularly to the unhooked kids.

Idk why this surprises some. It's a college in an urban city, it will take kids from private schools, it is a gorgeous college campus, and it generally is strong in any field it offers. Seems like a great generalist choice.

[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.

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.

- Twice as many core requirements than schools not named Columbia means less opportunity for exploration, not more
- Most kids take a core course during the summer to even make a double major possible. This is a cash cow for Chicago, as it is another 10k tuition. Something applicants and their parents never think about at the time.
- Most core classes are not taught by tenure track profs
- IR? Really? You are making Georgetown look better and better than Chicago
- Subject rankings are about grad school. But certain of its top grad programs and niche departments are being cut.
- 30% of Chicago undergrads are Econ majors and that number increases yearly. At what point is the competition for jobs too much.
- Enrollment has doubled the last generation

Any other points to easily rebut? You are a pretty ignorant dude who apparently knows very little about Chicago. I’ll talk real slow and write real simple so you can understand better. You need help, after all.

IR is one of the few subjects that has an undergraduate-specific ranking from a well-respected ranking source, which is why I mentioned it. And yes, Chicago is top 10: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_the_Ivory_Tower

But no, subject rankings are not “about grad school.” They are about departments, and Chicago is top 10 in most of them. And undergrads benefit from that when they study in those departments, whether it is having access to significant resources, access to professors (which is the case at Chicago) or benefitting from being part of a school and department whose reputation is very high (also the case). It’s almost like you never even went to college. You’re probably one of those people who think grad school is just for kids who can’t find jobs.

As for jobs, it hasn’t seemed to hinder anyone thus far in the slightest. Probably benefitting from the reputation of the econ DEPARTMENT.

In any event, whine more about those admissions practices and leave the substantive discussion to the adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At the start of the US News and World Reports rankings in the 80s, UChicago and Columbia both accepted 50%, so a coin toss. Harvard and Yale were about 20-25%. The above chip shot needs to be put in context. Now all those schools are <4% admit.

Actually in the 1980s-early 1990s the Columbia admit rate was 65%. Which is interesting bc the Barnard admit rate at that time was 50%. Many/most students avoided these schools in super dangerous areas, understandably so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

- Twice as many core requirements than schools not named Columbia means less opportunity for exploration, not more
- Most kids take a core course during the summer to even make a double major possible. This is a cash cow for Chicago, as it is another 10k tuition. Something applicants and their parents never think about at the time.
- Most core classes are not taught by tenure track profs
- IR? Really? You are making Georgetown look better and better than Chicago
- Subject rankings are about grad school. But certain of its top grad programs and niche departments are being cut.
- 30% of Chicago undergrads are Econ majors and that number increases yearly. At what point is the competition for jobs too much.
- Enrollment has doubled the last generation

Any other points to easily rebut? You are a pretty ignorant dude who apparently knows very little about Chicago. I’ll talk real slow and write real simple so you can understand better. You need help, after all.

IR is one of the few subjects that has an undergraduate-specific ranking from a well-respected ranking source, which is why I mentioned it. And yes, Chicago is top 10: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_the_Ivory_Tower

But no, subject rankings are not “about grad school.” They are about departments, and Chicago is top 10 in most of them. And undergrads benefit from that when they study in those departments, whether it is having access to significant resources, access to professors (which is the case at Chicago) or benefitting from being part of a school and department whose reputation is very high (also the case). It’s almost like you never even went to college. You’re probably one of those people who think grad school is just for kids who can’t find jobs.

As for jobs, it hasn’t seemed to hinder anyone thus far in the slightest. Probably benefitting from the reputation of the econ DEPARTMENT.

In any event, whine more about those admissions practices and leave the substantive discussion to the adults.

Since GW outranks Chicago overall (there are three categories, after all, and Chicago is top 10 in only one of them; tied for 10th doesn’t count), does that make GW a top 10 school? How about American? Also top 10. You are on a DMV site and espousing IR as the major to underscore Chicago’s elite status. Not a good look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The mixed nuts are out today, lady, enough with the UChicago bashing. Take a walk.

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.

- Twice as many core requirements than schools not named Columbia means less opportunity for exploration, not more
- Most kids take a core course during the summer to even make a double major possible. This is a cash cow for Chicago, as it is another 10k tuition. Something applicants and their parents never think about at the time.
- Most core classes are not taught by tenure track profs
- IR? Really? You are making Georgetown look better and better than Chicago
- Subject rankings are about grad school. But certain of its top grad programs and niche departments are being cut.
- 30% of Chicago undergrads are Econ majors and that number increases yearly. At what point is the competition for jobs too much.
- Enrollment has doubled the last generation

Any other points to easily rebut? You are a pretty ignorant dude who apparently knows very little about Chicago. I’ll talk real slow and write real simple so you can understand better. You need help, after all.

IR is one of the few subjects that has an undergraduate-specific ranking from a well-respected ranking source, which is why I mentioned it. And yes, Chicago is top 10: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_the_Ivory_Tower

But no, subject rankings are not “about grad school.” They are about departments, and Chicago is top 10 in most of them. And undergrads benefit from that when they study in those departments, whether it is having access to significant resources, access to professors (which is the case at Chicago) or benefitting from being part of a school and department whose reputation is very high (also the case). It’s almost like you never even went to college. You’re probably one of those people who think grad school is just for kids who can’t find jobs.

As for jobs, it hasn’t seemed to hinder anyone thus far in the slightest. Probably benefitting from the reputation of the econ DEPARTMENT.

In any event, whine more about those admissions practices and leave the substantive discussion to the adults.

Since GW outranks Chicago overall (there are three categories, after all, and Chicago is top 10 in only one of them; tied for 10th doesn’t count), does that make GW a top 10 school? How about American? Also top 10. You are on a DMV site and espousing IR as the major to underscore Chicago’s elite status. Not a good look.