Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+2. Everything I’ve read recently suggests that UChicago is no longer cut throat pressure cooker?

Chicago has changed a lot in recent years, so it's not the pressure cooker it was, and a lot of alumni are upset about it. It was part of the charm - where fun goes to die and somehow you survive.

I think these days Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, and Berkeley are the worst - mostly because they are all very good at STEM but absolutely garbage at managing human beings, particularly 18-22 year olds. Very stressful schools for those students in already difficult majors.

Perhaps it's not the pressure cooker because it's now more collaborative than competitive? Maybe the students are just nicer now than the UChicago of before.

I don't want to derail this thread into the usual cesspool of Chicago hatred, but I do think it's ironic that the school gets flak for being a pressure cooker, and also gets flak for attempting to lower the pressure (relaxing common core reqs, expanding the Greek system, admitting more "fun"/athletic kids). Can't win.

Because there are 3000 schools. Plenty for everyone to find a fit. Chicago can’t seem to figure out what that fit is in 2026. Whereas in the past, it was clear. Do they want quirky intellectuals who think their weird essays are cool and are willing to grind? Or to the way frat boys and fun kids? Do they want to be work hard and to attract kids who an intellectually curious and thrive on the grind? Work hard, play hard, play hard? When my kid considered them 5 years ago, it was clear what they were and after 4 years of TJ, we discouraged another school that was full of very smart kids, but a grind. But there was nothing wrong with who they were, and TJ kids lined up to apply.

Now, who TF knows? They seem to be having an identify crisis or something. They stood for something and their education was something specific 5 years ago. Now? It’s about beer pong with the serious Marxist economic scholars. Like, WTF? All they stand for is ED and ensuring as many full pay students as possible. Nothing special about that.

This really isn't that difficult. They want a diverse background student who actually wants to go to UChicago. It's about creating a community that is intentional and sees Chicago as its first choice. You will get a rigorous academic experience at Chicago, no matter who you are, because they have the quarter system and a focus on theory.

I was a nerdy quirky type. I was interested in U Chicago 30 years ago but now I think there are other colleges that have done a better job of remaining true to their identity.

Such as?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+2. Everything I’ve read recently suggests that UChicago is no longer cut throat pressure cooker?

Chicago has changed a lot in recent years, so it's not the pressure cooker it was, and a lot of alumni are upset about it. It was part of the charm - where fun goes to die and somehow you survive.

I think these days Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, and Berkeley are the worst - mostly because they are all very good at STEM but absolutely garbage at managing human beings, particularly 18-22 year olds. Very stressful schools for those students in already difficult majors.

Perhaps it's not the pressure cooker because it's now more collaborative than competitive? Maybe the students are just nicer now than the UChicago of before.

I don't want to derail this thread into the usual cesspool of Chicago hatred, but I do think it's ironic that the school gets flak for being a pressure cooker, and also gets flak for attempting to lower the pressure (relaxing common core reqs, expanding the Greek system, admitting more "fun"/athletic kids). Can't win.

Because there are 3000 schools. Plenty for everyone to find a fit. Chicago can’t seem to figure out what that fit is in 2026. Whereas in the past, it was clear. Do they want quirky intellectuals who think their weird essays are cool and are willing to grind? Or to the way frat boys and fun kids? Do they want to be work hard and to attract kids who an intellectually curious and thrive on the grind? Work hard, play hard, play hard? When my kid considered them 5 years ago, it was clear what they were and after 4 years of TJ, we discouraged another school that was full of very smart kids, but a grind. But there was nothing wrong with who they were, and TJ kids lined up to apply.

Now, who TF knows? They seem to be having an identify crisis or something. They stood for something and their education was something specific 5 years ago. Now? It’s about beer pong with the serious Marxist economic scholars. Like, WTF? All they stand for is ED and ensuring as many full pay students as possible. Nothing special about that.

This really isn't that difficult. They want a diverse background student who actually wants to go to UChicago. It's about creating a community that is intentional and sees Chicago as its first choice. You will get a rigorous academic experience at Chicago, no matter who you are, because they have the quarter system and a focus on theory.

I was a nerdy quirky type. I was interested in U Chicago 30 years ago but now I think there are other colleges that have done a better job of remaining true to their identity.

Such as?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone have fairly recent, firsthand experience with Wellesley? My D26 loved Smith and Mt. Holyoke, but I've avoided asking her to check out Wellesley bc of the historically competitive nature of the school. But the marketing stuff they send is heavy on the collaborative, supportive vibe and I've seen current students online raving about how it's extremely supportive. Any input is appreciated!

It's one of the most demanding schools in the country. You have to truly put in substantial effort to get an A in the classes there. People cross-register in MIT humanities and arts because they're known to be much easier than the Wellesley counterparts. Grade deflation hard cap is no longer a thing for most departments, but the economics department does seem to institute it softly (median grade tends to be a B+ in most classes). More than half of the students get cum laude+ honors these days which is a 3.6, so a good GPA is definitely attainable with hard work

The school is supportive and collaborative. Faculty are extremely caring and most students want their peers to thrive and succeed equally. Not a cutthroat environment by any means. But very, very academically focused- pressure cooker definitely fits. Almost everyone is up till late night studying. Less emphasis on busy work and more intellectually fulfilling, detailed readings and assignments, but still, academics dominate everything. Not much of a social scene in the actual campus. While the students are nice, they do tend to study individually for the most part- not as outright collaborative as some other LACs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+2. Everything I’ve read recently suggests that UChicago is no longer cut throat pressure cooker?

Chicago has changed a lot in recent years, so it's not the pressure cooker it was, and a lot of alumni are upset about it. It was part of the charm - where fun goes to die and somehow you survive.

I think these days Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, and Berkeley are the worst - mostly because they are all very good at STEM but absolutely garbage at managing human beings, particularly 18-22 year olds. Very stressful schools for those students in already difficult majors.

Perhaps it's not the pressure cooker because it's now more collaborative than competitive? Maybe the students are just nicer now than the UChicago of before.

I don't want to derail this thread into the usual cesspool of Chicago hatred, but I do think it's ironic that the school gets flak for being a pressure cooker, and also gets flak for attempting to lower the pressure (relaxing common core reqs, expanding the Greek system, admitting more "fun"/athletic kids). Can't win.

Because there are 3000 schools. Plenty for everyone to find a fit. Chicago can’t seem to figure out what that fit is in 2026. Whereas in the past, it was clear. Do they want quirky intellectuals who think their weird essays are cool and are willing to grind? Or to the way frat boys and fun kids? Do they want to be work hard and to attract kids who an intellectually curious and thrive on the grind? Work hard, play hard, play hard? When my kid considered them 5 years ago, it was clear what they were and after 4 years of TJ, we discouraged another school that was full of very smart kids, but a grind. But there was nothing wrong with who they were, and TJ kids lined up to apply.

Now, who TF knows? They seem to be having an identify crisis or something. They stood for something and their education was something specific 5 years ago. Now? It’s about beer pong with the serious Marxist economic scholars. Like, WTF? All they stand for is ED and ensuring as many full pay students as possible. Nothing special about that.

This really isn't that difficult. They want a diverse background student who actually wants to go to UChicago. It's about creating a community that is intentional and sees Chicago as its first choice. You will get a rigorous academic experience at Chicago, no matter who you are, because they have the quarter system and a focus on theory.

I was a nerdy quirky type. I was interested in U Chicago 30 years ago but now I think there are other colleges that have done a better job of remaining true to their identity.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone have fairly recent, firsthand experience with Wellesley? My D26 loved Smith and Mt. Holyoke, but I've avoided asking her to check out Wellesley bc of the historically competitive nature of the school. But the marketing stuff they send is heavy on the collaborative, supportive vibe and I've seen current students online raving about how it's extremely supportive. Any input is appreciated!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+2. Everything I’ve read recently suggests that UChicago is no longer cut throat pressure cooker?

Chicago has changed a lot in recent years, so it's not the pressure cooker it was, and a lot of alumni are upset about it. It was part of the charm - where fun goes to die and somehow you survive.

I think these days Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, and Berkeley are the worst - mostly because they are all very good at STEM but absolutely garbage at managing human beings, particularly 18-22 year olds. Very stressful schools for those students in already difficult majors.

Perhaps it's not the pressure cooker because it's now more collaborative than competitive? Maybe the students are just nicer now than the UChicago of before.

I don't want to derail this thread into the usual cesspool of Chicago hatred, but I do think it's ironic that the school gets flak for being a pressure cooker, and also gets flak for attempting to lower the pressure (relaxing common core reqs, expanding the Greek system, admitting more "fun"/athletic kids). Can't win.

Because there are 3000 schools. Plenty for everyone to find a fit. Chicago can’t seem to figure out what that fit is in 2026. Whereas in the past, it was clear. Do they want quirky intellectuals who think their weird essays are cool and are willing to grind? Or to the way frat boys and fun kids? Do they want to be work hard and to attract kids who an intellectually curious and thrive on the grind? Work hard, play hard, play hard? When my kid considered them 5 years ago, it was clear what they were and after 4 years of TJ, we discouraged another school that was full of very smart kids, but a grind. But there was nothing wrong with who they were, and TJ kids lined up to apply.

Now, who TF knows? They seem to be having an identify crisis or something. They stood for something and their education was something specific 5 years ago. Now? It’s about beer pong with the serious Marxist economic scholars. Like, WTF? All they stand for is ED and ensuring as many full pay students as possible. Nothing special about that.

Sounds like UChicago & Northwestern are gradually exchanging identities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+2. Everything I’ve read recently suggests that UChicago is no longer cut throat pressure cooker?

Chicago has changed a lot in recent years, so it's not the pressure cooker it was, and a lot of alumni are upset about it. It was part of the charm - where fun goes to die and somehow you survive.

I think these days Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, and Berkeley are the worst - mostly because they are all very good at STEM but absolutely garbage at managing human beings, particularly 18-22 year olds. Very stressful schools for those students in already difficult majors.

Perhaps it's not the pressure cooker because it's now more collaborative than competitive? Maybe the students are just nicer now than the UChicago of before.

I don't want to derail this thread into the usual cesspool of Chicago hatred, but I do think it's ironic that the school gets flak for being a pressure cooker, and also gets flak for attempting to lower the pressure (relaxing common core reqs, expanding the Greek system, admitting more "fun"/athletic kids). Can't win.

Because there are 3000 schools. Plenty for everyone to find a fit. Chicago can’t seem to figure out what that fit is in 2026. Whereas in the past, it was clear. Do they want quirky intellectuals who think their weird essays are cool and are willing to grind? Or to the way frat boys and fun kids? Do they want to be work hard and to attract kids who an intellectually curious and thrive on the grind? Work hard, play hard, play hard? When my kid considered them 5 years ago, it was clear what they were and after 4 years of TJ, we discouraged another school that was full of very smart kids, but a grind. But there was nothing wrong with who they were, and TJ kids lined up to apply.

Now, who TF knows? They seem to be having an identify crisis or something. They stood for something and their education was something specific 5 years ago. Now? It’s about beer pong with the serious Marxist economic scholars. Like, WTF? All they stand for is ED and ensuring as many full pay students as possible. Nothing special about that.

Sounds like UChicago & Northwestern are gradually exchanging identities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+2. Everything I’ve read recently suggests that UChicago is no longer cut throat pressure cooker?

Chicago has changed a lot in recent years, so it's not the pressure cooker it was, and a lot of alumni are upset about it. It was part of the charm - where fun goes to die and somehow you survive.

I think these days Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, and Berkeley are the worst - mostly because they are all very good at STEM but absolutely garbage at managing human beings, particularly 18-22 year olds. Very stressful schools for those students in already difficult majors.

Perhaps it's not the pressure cooker because it's now more collaborative than competitive? Maybe the students are just nicer now than the UChicago of before.

I don't want to derail this thread into the usual cesspool of Chicago hatred, but I do think it's ironic that the school gets flak for being a pressure cooker, and also gets flak for attempting to lower the pressure (relaxing common core reqs, expanding the Greek system, admitting more "fun"/athletic kids). Can't win.

Because there are 3000 schools. Plenty for everyone to find a fit. Chicago can’t seem to figure out what that fit is in 2026. Whereas in the past, it was clear. Do they want quirky intellectuals who think their weird essays are cool and are willing to grind? Or to the way frat boys and fun kids? Do they want to be work hard and to attract kids who an intellectually curious and thrive on the grind? Work hard, play hard, play hard? When my kid considered them 5 years ago, it was clear what they were and after 4 years of TJ, we discouraged another school that was full of very smart kids, but a grind. But there was nothing wrong with who they were, and TJ kids lined up to apply.

Now, who TF knows? They seem to be having an identify crisis or something. They stood for something and their education was something specific 5 years ago. Now? It’s about beer pong with the serious Marxist economic scholars. Like, WTF? All they stand for is ED and ensuring as many full pay students as possible. Nothing special about that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+2. Everything I’ve read recently suggests that UChicago is no longer cut throat pressure cooker?

Chicago has changed a lot in recent years, so it's not the pressure cooker it was, and a lot of alumni are upset about it. It was part of the charm - where fun goes to die and somehow you survive.

I think these days Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, and Berkeley are the worst - mostly because they are all very good at STEM but absolutely garbage at managing human beings, particularly 18-22 year olds. Very stressful schools for those students in already difficult majors.

Perhaps it's not the pressure cooker because it's now more collaborative than competitive? Maybe the students are just nicer now than the UChicago of before.

I don't want to derail this thread into the usual cesspool of Chicago hatred, but I do think it's ironic that the school gets flak for being a pressure cooker, and also gets flak for attempting to lower the pressure (relaxing common core reqs, expanding the Greek system, admitting more "fun"/athletic kids). Can't win.

Because there are 3000 schools. Plenty for everyone to find a fit. Chicago can’t seem to figure out what that fit is in 2026. Whereas in the past, it was clear. Do they want quirky intellectuals who think their weird essays are cool and are willing to grind? Or to the way frat boys and fun kids? Do they want to be work hard and to attract kids who an intellectually curious and thrive on the grind? Work hard, play hard, play hard? When my kid considered them 5 years ago, it was clear what they were and after 4 years of TJ, we discouraged another school that was full of very smart kids, but a grind. But there was nothing wrong with who they were, and TJ kids lined up to apply.

Now, who TF knows? They seem to be having an identify crisis or something. They stood for something and their education was something specific 5 years ago. Now? It’s about beer pong with the serious Marxist economic scholars. Like, WTF? All they stand for is ED and ensuring as many full pay students as possible. Nothing special about that.

This really isn't that difficult. They want a diverse background student who actually wants to go to UChicago. It's about creating a community that is intentional and sees Chicago as its first choice. You will get a rigorous academic experience at Chicago, no matter who you are, because they have the quarter system and a focus on theory.

I was a nerdy quirky type. I was interested in U Chicago 30 years ago but now I think there are other colleges that have done a better job of remaining true to their identity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+2. Everything I’ve read recently suggests that UChicago is no longer cut throat pressure cooker?

Chicago has changed a lot in recent years, so it's not the pressure cooker it was, and a lot of alumni are upset about it. It was part of the charm - where fun goes to die and somehow you survive.

I think these days Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, and Berkeley are the worst - mostly because they are all very good at STEM but absolutely garbage at managing human beings, particularly 18-22 year olds. Very stressful schools for those students in already difficult majors.

Perhaps it's not the pressure cooker because it's now more collaborative than competitive? Maybe the students are just nicer now than the UChicago of before.

I don't want to derail this thread into the usual cesspool of Chicago hatred, but I do think it's ironic that the school gets flak for being a pressure cooker, and also gets flak for attempting to lower the pressure (relaxing common core reqs, expanding the Greek system, admitting more "fun"/athletic kids). Can't win.

Because there are 3000 schools. Plenty for everyone to find a fit. Chicago can’t seem to figure out what that fit is in 2026. Whereas in the past, it was clear. Do they want quirky intellectuals who think their weird essays are cool and are willing to grind? Or to the way frat boys and fun kids? Do they want to be work hard and to attract kids who an intellectually curious and thrive on the grind? Work hard, play hard, play hard? When my kid considered them 5 years ago, it was clear what they were and after 4 years of TJ, we discouraged another school that was full of very smart kids, but a grind. But there was nothing wrong with who they were, and TJ kids lined up to apply.

Now, who TF knows? They seem to be having an identify crisis or something. They stood for something and their education was something specific 5 years ago. Now? It’s about beer pong with the serious Marxist economic scholars. Like, WTF? All they stand for is ED and ensuring as many full pay students as possible. Nothing special about that.

This really isn't that difficult. They want a diverse background student who actually wants to go to UChicago. It's about creating a community that is intentional and sees Chicago as its first choice. You will get a rigorous academic experience at Chicago, no matter who you are, because they have the quarter system and a focus on theory.

Anonymous wrote:Culinary Institute of America.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+2. Everything I’ve read recently suggests that UChicago is no longer cut throat pressure cooker?

Chicago has changed a lot in recent years, so it's not the pressure cooker it was, and a lot of alumni are upset about it. It was part of the charm - where fun goes to die and somehow you survive.

I think these days Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, and Berkeley are the worst - mostly because they are all very good at STEM but absolutely garbage at managing human beings, particularly 18-22 year olds. Very stressful schools for those students in already difficult majors.

Perhaps it's not the pressure cooker because it's now more collaborative than competitive? Maybe the students are just nicer now than the UChicago of before.

I don't want to derail this thread into the usual cesspool of Chicago hatred, but I do think it's ironic that the school gets flak for being a pressure cooker, and also gets flak for attempting to lower the pressure (relaxing common core reqs, expanding the Greek system, admitting more "fun"/athletic kids). Can't win.

Because there are 3000 schools. Plenty for everyone to find a fit. Chicago can’t seem to figure out what that fit is in 2026. Whereas in the past, it was clear. Do they want quirky intellectuals who think their weird essays are cool and are willing to grind? Or to the way frat boys and fun kids? Do they want to be work hard and to attract kids who an intellectually curious and thrive on the grind? Work hard, play hard, play hard? When my kid considered them 5 years ago, it was clear what they were and after 4 years of TJ, we discouraged another school that was full of very smart kids, but a grind. But there was nothing wrong with who they were, and TJ kids lined up to apply.

Now, who TF knows? They seem to be having an identify crisis or something. They stood for something and their education was something specific 5 years ago. Now? It’s about beer pong with the serious Marxist economic scholars. Like, WTF? All they stand for is ED and ensuring as many full pay students as possible. Nothing special about that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+2. Everything I’ve read recently suggests that UChicago is no longer cut throat pressure cooker?

Chicago has changed a lot in recent years, so it's not the pressure cooker it was, and a lot of alumni are upset about it. It was part of the charm - where fun goes to die and somehow you survive.

I think these days Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, and Berkeley are the worst - mostly because they are all very good at STEM but absolutely garbage at managing human beings, particularly 18-22 year olds. Very stressful schools for those students in already difficult majors.

Perhaps it's not the pressure cooker because it's now more collaborative than competitive? Maybe the students are just nicer now than the UChicago of before.

I don't want to derail this thread into the usual cesspool of Chicago hatred, but I do think it's ironic that the school gets flak for being a pressure cooker, and also gets flak for attempting to lower the pressure (relaxing common core reqs, expanding the Greek system, admitting more "fun"/athletic kids). Can't win.

Anonymous wrote:Culinary Institute of America.

Anonymous wrote:Swarthmore. Felt way more intense than the rest of the WASP schools