Anyone know anything about University of Chicago?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's cherry-picking. cf Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Hopkins.

Or even within the same city: It's harder to get downtown from Northwestern than from UChicago.

[Anonymous]

Depends on where you're going and when. Also, NW has its own free shuttle from the main campus to the law school/hospital (near Water Tower). Not that it should be a voting issue either way. In both cases, you can get to Chicago easily without a car and it's not expensive to do so, but it takes a little time and effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's cherry-picking. cf Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Hopkins.

Look, I love the city of Chicago, and I'll readily agree New Haven and Baltimore can't touch it (no need to even discuss Princeton and Palo Alto --both of which are 'burbs), but you have to admit that Harvard, MIT and Columbia students have much better public transportation options than UofC students.

[Anonymous]

That's what cherry-picking data means -- you chose a few examples that made your point but suggested they were typical of a broader category (peer academic institutions). my point was they aren't representative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that in the 2000s UofC has become more invested in making it easy for students to get out of the neighborhood-so there's more direct bus service to downtown and the northside and more frequent bus service to the El. And the University puts more effort into making sure that students actually know how to use public transit to get around. You do need to be more intrepid if you are in Hyde Park and really want to enjoy all of Chicago, but to me that's a benefit.

My nephew is a law student at UofC. Taking public transportation to other parts of the city is really time-consuming.

The #2 aka the Hyde Park Express is decently fast (25 minutes north end of campus to the Loop), but only runs during rush hours. The #6 aka the Jackson Park Express runs all day every day and also goes from Hyde Park up Lakeshore Dr (25 minutes Museum of Science and Industry to the Loop) but doesn't go through campus, you have to meet it a few blocks away from campus.The METRA is really fast (15 minutes trip Hyde Park to Van Buren in Grant Park) but doesn't come as frequently as buses so you have to time your trips. You can also take the Red Line or the Green Line (15 minutes Garfield to Adama/Wabash or Monroe in the Loop), which run all the time and trains come frequently, but the stations are somewhat far away from campus (it might be a good idea to take the 55 bus to them instead of walking) and in sketchy neighborhoods.

It's very easy to get downtown if you know how to use public transit.


Compared to other city schools in UofC's peer group -- e.g., Columbia, Harvard or MIT -- the options you're describing don't sound that easy, safe or convenient.
Also, starting the 2016-2017 academic year, all UChicago students will be able to use their ID cards to ride the CTA (all buses and the L) for free.

All these things are running at the same time. It's not like Columbia where you have the 1 and that's your gateway to the city - there are different options and they work best at different times, but there is always an easy and fast way to get downtown. Anything that doesn't pick up on campus picks up somewhere very close to campus where there are UChicago shuttles running constantly, after a certain time (at night) they even work like taxis, you can just tell them where you want to go.

FYI, just because the Green & Red lines are in sketchy neighbors doesn't mean they're unsafe. I've ridden the 55 bus along from Midway to UChicago, which goes across some of the worst neighborhoods in Chicago if you just look at crime rates. I'm a small woman traveling alone. Nothing ever happened to me, and I never felt like I was in any sort of danger. The CTA is very, very safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's what cherry-picking data means -- you chose a few examples that made your point but suggested they were typical of a broader category (peer academic institutions). my point was they aren't representative.

The broader category is peer schools in a city, not all peer schools. A kid who would choose Chicago is not likely to want to go to Stanford.

[Anonymous]

Not really. Certainly my kid and her peers are focussed on programs and rankings. They may have broad geographical preferences (or aversions), but they aren't choosing among colleges based on criteria like best public transit access or highest muni bond rating.

The lifestyle choice aspect may be a bigger deal for less academically-oriented kids, but the kinds of kids who apply to U of C are very likely to apply to HYPS and Hopkins as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not really. Certainly my kid and her peers are focussed on programs and rankings. They may have broad geographical preferences (or aversions), but they aren't choosing among colleges based on criteria like best public transit access or highest muni bond rating.

The lifestyle choice aspect may be a bigger deal for less academically-oriented kids, but the kinds of kids who apply to U of C are very likely to apply to HYPS and Hopkins as well.

It's actually the opposite with the kids I know, including my own 2 who were National Merit semi-finalists. These kids apply to highly-ranked schools, sure, but they have the luxury of choice among them and look for the best fit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not really. Certainly my kid and her peers are focussed on programs and rankings. They may have broad geographical preferences (or aversions), but they aren't choosing among colleges based on criteria like best public transit access or highest muni bond rating.

The lifestyle choice aspect may be a bigger deal for less academically-oriented kids, but the kinds of kids who apply to U of C are very likely to apply to HYPS and Hopkins as well.

It's actually the opposite with the kids I know, including my own 2 who were National Merit semi-finalists. These kids apply to highly-ranked schools, sure, but they have the luxury of choice among them and look for the best fit.

Yes, I was talking about applications. Fit comes later and, even then, bond ratings and transit schedules aren't likely to be voting issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not really. Certainly my kid and her peers are focussed on programs and rankings. They may have broad geographical preferences (or aversions), but they aren't choosing among colleges based on criteria like best public transit access or highest muni bond rating.

The lifestyle choice aspect may be a bigger deal for less academically-oriented kids, but the kinds of kids who apply to U of C are very likely to apply to HYPS and Hopkins as well.

It's actually the opposite with the kids I know, including my own 2 who were National Merit semi-finalists. These kids apply to highly-ranked schools, sure, but they have the luxury of choice among them and look for the best fit.

Yes, I was talking about applications. Fit comes later and, even then, bond ratings and transit schedules aren't likely to be voting issues.

I was talking about applications as well. Ask any college counselor in this area and you'll be advised that fit actually should be considered very early on -- and one of the first questions they'll ask a kid is whether she's more inclined toward a city school or one in the suburbs or a small town.

[Anonymous]

College counsellors deal with a broad range of kids and, often, kids whom they don't know at all. So city vs suburb vs small town is a good ice-breaker question. That doesn't mean degree of urbanness must or should be an important criterion for choosing a college. Or that kids who look at some big city schools are likely to have no interest in schools that are commuter rail distance away from a city.

To me, it's crazy to assume that a kid who is interested in U of C is unlikely to be interested in Stanford or Princeton. That said, I can certainly imagine kids who are interested in Stanford or Princeton but no interest in U of C. But it's not an urban/suburban split -- it's about what a kid is looking for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chicago's awesome -- great food, live music, interesting theater, Art Institute, nice parks, independent bookstores, decent transit. I spent a couple of years there during grad school and loved it.

The challenge at U of C will be to get out of Hyde Park and see other parts of the city. It's almost like Berkeley to SF which is more of a schlep than Cambridge to Boston.

Chicago - freezing 8months out of the year, then boiling hot for 4, everyone has a layer of fat/blubber, extreme violence (it isn't called chiraq for nothing), boring northside - there's a reason why it is so cheap even with its 'world class bones' compared to cities like boston and even seattle (forget about sf).

It's so shit even moody's has given it a bond rating of almost as bad as detroit

You've clearly never been there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chicago's awesome -- great food, live music, interesting theater, Art Institute, nice parks, independent bookstores, decent transit. I spent a couple of years there during grad school and loved it.

The challenge at U of C will be to get out of Hyde Park and see other parts of the city. It's almost like Berkeley to SF which is more of a schlep than Cambridge to Boston.

Chicago - freezing 8months out of the year, then boiling hot for 4, everyone has a layer of fat/blubber, extreme violence (it isn't called chiraq for nothing), boring northside - there's a reason why it is so cheap even with its 'world class bones' compared to cities like boston and even seattle (forget about sf).

It's so shit even moody's has given it a bond rating of almost as bad as detroit

You've clearly never been there.

Yes I have - are you disagreeing with the shitty weather, violence (the mayor's son got run up by chiraq savages), people carrying extra weight due to their midwestern fatness?

No these are empirical facts reflected in how cheap of a city it is. Demand don't lie

[Anonymous]

Got BA from there 30 yrs ago when undergrads were all weird and intense. There was definitely partying but yep, in a weird and intense way. Or maybe that was just me and my friends. Is Jimmy's still there? Lived in the Shoreland my first year, a huge old apartment building made into a dorm on the lake, still had a few old people living there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:College counsellors deal with a broad range of kids and, often, kids whom they don't know at all. So city vs suburb vs small town is a good ice-breaker question. That doesn't mean degree of urbanness must or should be an important criterion for choosing a college. Or that kids who look at some big city schools are likely to have no interest in schools that are commuter rail distance away from a city.

To me, it's crazy to assume that a kid who is interested in U of C is unlikely to be interested in Stanford or Princeton. That said, I can certainly imagine kids who are interested in Stanford or Princeton but no interest in U of C. But it's not an urban/suburban split -- it's about what a kid is looking for.

I went to Stanford, DH went to Princeton, we have a nephew who's a grad student at UofC (Booth). These schools are very different. Even Stanford and Princeton, both suburban schools, are culturally miles apart. A kid who's interested in all 3 is probably going by rankings only and missing out on what's most important.