Anonymous wrote:Career outcomes are one of the main things families look at when deciding whether a school is worth the cost. UC coa is now well over $100K. The article says students remembered hearing a similar statistic when deciding to attend UC, they felt confident because the outcomes were that strong. A flashy statistic. Used in aggressive admissions marketing. Families rely on these numbers when deciding whether to buy a very expensive educational product. It’s getting very close to consumer fraud territory.

Did your DC enroll in 4+1?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Career outcomes are one of the main things families look at when deciding whether a school is worth the cost. UC coa is now well over $100K. The article says students remembered hearing a similar statistic when deciding to attend UC, they felt confident because the outcomes were that strong. A flashy statistic. Used in aggressive admissions marketing. Families rely on these numbers when deciding whether to buy a very expensive educational product. It’s getting very close to consumer fraud territory.

Are you full-pay, and your DC did not land a job after graduation? Is that why you are so bitter? My condolences if that is the case. Otherwise, it is hard to understand the level of anger here.

NP - What’s hard to understand is why the UChicago boosters turn a blind eye to these practices. The critics are actual UChicago students (not the loathsome “Emory Mom”).

I have no connection to UChicago. But these practices are very common among top private schools (even the not-so-top ones). Just think back to all the mails your kids received from various schools. How many of them highlighted in big fonts their "% employed within 6 months of graduation," "N XX prize winners," "N:1 student-faculty ratio," "% classes with <20 students," etc. These are all just marketing numbers. If one does a deep dive into how each of these numbers is obtained, I'm confident they would find some exaggeration or manipulation. For example, on "% classes with <20 students," a school can create a bunch of directed studies or internship credit "classes" with no lectures and with only a handful of enrolled students to increase the %. There are many ways to game these numbers, and nearly everyone does it to some extent. What the UChicago students reported can be found at most schools if anyone wants to dig into the numbers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Career outcomes are one of the main things families look at when deciding whether a school is worth the cost. UC coa is now well over $100K. The article says students remembered hearing a similar statistic when deciding to attend UC, they felt confident because the outcomes were that strong. A flashy statistic. Used in aggressive admissions marketing. Families rely on these numbers when deciding whether to buy a very expensive educational product. It’s getting very close to consumer fraud territory.

Are you full-pay, and your DC did not land a job after graduation? Is that why you are so bitter? My condolences if that is the case. Otherwise, it is hard to understand the level of anger here.

NP - What’s hard to understand is why the UChicago boosters turn a blind eye to these practices. The critics are actual UChicago students (not the loathsome “Emory Mom”).

Anonymous wrote:Career outcomes are one of the main things families look at when deciding whether a school is worth the cost. UC coa is now well over $100K. The article says students remembered hearing a similar statistic when deciding to attend UC, they felt confident because the outcomes were that strong. A flashy statistic. Used in aggressive admissions marketing. Families rely on these numbers when deciding whether to buy a very expensive educational product. It’s getting very close to consumer fraud territory.

This seems like an important lawsuit that a reputable lawyer will be eager to take up.

UChicago inflates all their statistics. It just seems desperate. They're already a top school, they don't need to keep rigging their numbers this way.

Anonymous wrote:Career outcomes are one of the main things families look at when deciding whether a school is worth the cost. UC coa is now well over $100K. The article says students remembered hearing a similar statistic when deciding to attend UC, they felt confident because the outcomes were that strong. A flashy statistic. Used in aggressive admissions marketing. Families rely on these numbers when deciding whether to buy a very expensive educational product. It’s getting very close to consumer fraud territory.

Are you full-pay, and your DC did not land a job after graduation? Is that why you are so bitter? My condolences if that is the case. Otherwise, it is hard to understand the level of anger here.

Career outcomes are one of the main things families look at when deciding whether a school is worth the cost. UC coa is now well over $100K. The article says students remembered hearing a similar statistic when deciding to attend UC, they felt confident because the outcomes were that strong. A flashy statistic. Used in aggressive admissions marketing. Families rely on these numbers when deciding whether to buy a very expensive educational product. It’s getting very close to consumer fraud territory.

Anonymous wrote:https://chicagomaroon.com/52872/news/career-advancement-appears-to-overstate-post-graduation-student-outcomes/

So, Princeton's number is 86%, somehow Uchicago reports 98%. Uchicago's number is as preposterous as their yield rate or US news ranking!

"Chief among these are master’s programs, such as 4+1 programs offered by the University, which have drawn criticism for their high costs and poor student outcomes.
“I think a lot of the people who do the 4+1 do it because they feel like they have to be doing something the year after they graduate,” Levinsky said.
Even if students do not ultimately find employment after completing a 4+1 program, they are still counted as having secured post-college plans by Career Advancement."

Why is it surprising that Chicago has a higher share of students with post-graduation plans than Princeton?
OP, please explain.

Anonymous wrote:I am confused. Why would the unemployed student be upset with career services hounding them because they are trying to assist them with getting employment? What did I miss? This is exactly what I would want, an advocate trying to fight for me to help secure a job.

This is something that parents want, not students. For one, career service departments are near useless and can give you very little assistance. The people they hire aren’t real industry experts with contacts, just people with a bit of training. Students do almost all the work of getting a job

Why wouldn't grad school count as "having secured post-college plans"?

Why such a hater, OP? It can't be healthy for you. Just let it go...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guess what, most (all?) schools that brag about XX% of their students are employed within 6 months of graduation, consider entering graduate school as being employed. The schools don't wait for the students to finish their Master's before including them in the stats. There is nothing asinine or dishonest about what UChicago does. The post is a nothingburger.

UChicago troll is becoming increasingly desperate. Refreshing the college newspaper website for troll ideas....

Seriously!!

Sock puppet!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guess what, most (all?) schools that brag about XX% of their students are employed within 6 months of graduation, consider entering graduate school as being employed. The schools don't wait for the students to finish their Master's before including them in the stats. There is nothing asinine or dishonest about what UChicago does. The post is a nothingburger.

UChicago troll is becoming increasingly desperate. Refreshing the college newspaper website for troll ideas....

Seriously!!

This reminds me of Columbia faking its U.S. News data to shoot up the rankings. But my bigger concern is how this influences college admissions decisions. How many naive high school students are going to fall for this nonsense?

I am confused. Why would the unemployed student be upset with career services hounding them because they are trying to assist them with getting employment? What did I miss? This is exactly what I would want, an advocate trying to fight for me to help secure a job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://chicagomaroon.com/52872/news/career-advancement-appears-to-overstate-post-graduation-student-outcomes/

So, Princeton's number is 86%, somehow Uchicago reports 98%. Uchicago's number is as preposterous as their yield rate or US news ranking!

"Chief among these are master’s programs, such as 4+1 programs offered by the University, which have drawn criticism for their high costs and poor student outcomes.
“I think a lot of the people who do the 4+1 do it because they feel like they have to be doing something the year after they graduate,” Levinsky said.
Even if students do not ultimately find employment after completing a 4+1 program, they are still counted as having secured post-college plans by Career Advancement."

4+1 is pretty much an extra year of hanging out at college and justifying unemployment.

And paying $100K for the experience.