Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this Univ of Chicago being so great a new thing? I grew up in the 80s in the Great Plains just south of Chicago and Northwestern was school I always heard mentioned, never Univ of Chicago.

Because everyone knew that it was impossible to get in to the University of Chicago. Northwestern was a school regular bright kids could get into.

In the 80s/90s Uchicago admitted over 60% of those who applied to the College. So the sour grapes thesis is really anachronistic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:U. Chicago is a weirdly divisive subject. I don’t get it.

It’s a reflection of the deep ambivalence in the US re whether “elite” colleges are those that educate the richest or the smartest kids. Ironically, this polarization is happening as Chicago becomes richer (and Princeton becomes smarter, and Harvard becomes more economically diverse while Stanford has become both richer and smarter). Basically, at least in terms of admissions, there’s a lot of convergence now among schools that were originally developed on very different models.

Top colleges have cachet because parents want their kids mixing with rich and connected peers. And rich and connected families donate the most. Chicago’s endowment is relatively low and the student body is too poor and middle class to have the elite cachet its top 20 Midwest peers Notre Dame and Northwestern enjoy. Even huge public Michigan has a far wealthier student body.

Your argument is UChicago is recruiting smart poorer kids by choice? Doubtful. It’s because rich smart kids target schools with elite cachet and rich peer student body. Now if you think UChicago’s recruiting philosophy is better, where’s the proof? Show us outcomes that recruiting more poorer smart kids leads to superior graduate outcomes. Spoiler: it doesn’t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Notre Dame claims it has the greatest geographical reach/representation in its student body in the country. In a recent year the class was 35 percent midwest, 24 percent East Coast, 19 percent West/Southwest, 14 percent South and 7 percent international. I don't know if that's the "greatest," but it pretty impressive and lays to rest any claim that the school has "limited appeal."

It's also 20 percent non-Catholic.

Which means it's 80% Catholic, which means it has limited appeal to everyone else.

Most of the top 20 colleges are 80% Jewish and Asian. Are they limited in their appeal?

Anonymous wrote:By most Nobel Prize winners: University of Chicago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation

OMG WOWWWW!!!
signed,
literally NOBODY looking at undergrad colleges

You UChicago crazy parents are really grasping at straws and it comes across as really embarrassing and desperate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this Univ of Chicago being so great a new thing? I grew up in the 80s in the Great Plains just south of Chicago and Northwestern was school I always heard mentioned, never Univ of Chicago.

Because everyone knew that it was impossible to get in to the University of Chicago. Northwestern was a school regular bright kids could get into.

Huh? Not even close. Chicago wasn’t particularly selective until recently.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:U. Chicago is a weirdly divisive subject. I don’t get it.

It’s a reflection of the deep ambivalence in the US re whether “elite” colleges are those that educate the richest or the smartest kids. Ironically, this polarization is happening as Chicago becomes richer (and Princeton becomes smarter, and Harvard becomes more economically diverse while Stanford has become both richer and smarter). Basically, at least in terms of admissions, there’s a lot of convergence now among schools that were originally developed on very different models.

Agreed.

Anonymous wrote:Notre Dame? Northwestern? Michigan?

This ranking, which seems reasonable to me, would put them in this order: Chicago, Michigan, Illinois and Northwestern. Notre Dame does not rank in the top 50in the world.

Anonymous wrote:Is this Univ of Chicago being so great a new thing? I grew up in the 80s in the Great Plains just south of Chicago and Northwestern was school I always heard mentioned, never Univ of Chicago.

Because everyone knew that it was impossible to get in to the University of Chicago. Northwestern was a school regular bright kids could get into.

Anonymous wrote:U. Chicago is a weirdly divisive subject. I don’t get it.

It’s a reflection of the deep ambivalence in the US re whether “elite” colleges are those that educate the richest or the smartest kids. Ironically, this polarization is happening as Chicago becomes richer (and Princeton becomes smarter, and Harvard becomes more economically diverse while Stanford has become both richer and smarter). Basically, at least in terms of admissions, there’s a lot of convergence now among schools that were originally developed on very different models.

I think some of the anti-U Chicago PPs are confusing it with U of I Chicago.

Seriously.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chicago

How is a college few have heard of and even fewer dream about attending for undergrad peak prestige?

1a) Notre Dame
1b) Northwestern & Michigan

Partly because Notre Dame gives the impression of being the kind of school where football comes first. Stanford is the only top school that can really overcome taking sports seriously, and I think excellence sports makes even Stanford seem like a university for bright people who want to play a lot of tennis and drink wine, not for people who want to work their eyeballs out to figure out what dark matter is.

And that might be unfair. Maybe Notre Dame is full of brilliant astrophysicists. But it looks like a place where you go to major in business and party.

You have no idea what you’re talking about

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chicago

How is a college few have heard of and even fewer dream about attending for undergrad peak prestige?

1a) Notre Dame
1b) Northwestern & Michigan

Partly because Notre Dame gives the impression of being the kind of school where football comes first. Stanford is the only top school that can really overcome taking sports seriously, and I think excellence sports makes even Stanford seem like a university for bright people who want to play a lot of tennis and drink wine, not for people who want to work their eyeballs out to figure out what dark matter is.

And that might be unfair. Maybe Notre Dame is full of brilliant astrophysicists. But it looks like a place where you go to major in business and party.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:U. Chicago is a weirdly divisive subject. I don’t get it.

Because the manufactured hype for it only exists on Internet forums. Nobody in real gives a sh— about that school.

I think that there is one person, maybe two, on this board who is/are weirdly invested in all things U of Chicago. While their ardor for their school is laudable, the stridence is concerning and, frankly, repulsive.

Anonymous wrote:Notre Dame claims it has the greatest geographical reach/representation in its student body in the country. In a recent year the class was 35 percent midwest, 24 percent East Coast, 19 percent West/Southwest, 14 percent South and 7 percent international. I don't know if that's the "greatest," but it pretty impressive and lays to rest any claim that the school has "limited appeal."

It's also 20 percent non-Catholic.

Which means it's 80% Catholic, which means it has limited appeal to everyone else.

By most Nobel Prize winners: University of Chicago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation