Anonymous
04/15/2018 22:42
Subject: Is U Chicago worth cost over in-state UVA?
Northeastern in Boston, NYU, and UChicago have gone way up US News list. All three are known to be pretty shameless in their marketing and tactics.
Is UChicago worth 80000$/yr? Hell no. It's a miserable school for PhD gunners. Save the money for their wedding or an apartment after college.
Is UChicago worth 80000$/yr? Hell no. It's a miserable school for PhD gunners. Save the money for their wedding or an apartment after college.
Anonymous
04/15/2018 22:34
Subject: Is U Chicago worth cost over in-state UVA?
So, after 13 pages...
If I can afford UChicago, I'd choose UChicago.
If it requires a huge loan, no school, not even Harvard, is worth it, if that's going to weigh down student's future.
That's me based on my financial situation. Only OP can decide what's best for the student and the family.
If I can afford UChicago, I'd choose UChicago.
If it requires a huge loan, no school, not even Harvard, is worth it, if that's going to weigh down student's future.
That's me based on my financial situation. Only OP can decide what's best for the student and the family.
Anonymous
04/15/2018 22:02
Subject: Is U Chicago worth cost over in-state UVA?
So, after 13 pages...
Yes. U of C offers things a state school, even a good one, cannot.
So, do you want these things for your kid, Andy can you pay for them without more than minimal borrowing? We can't answer that part.
Yes. U of C offers things a state school, even a good one, cannot.
So, do you want these things for your kid, Andy can you pay for them without more than minimal borrowing? We can't answer that part.
Anonymous
04/15/2018 20:38
Subject: Is U Chicago worth cost over in-state UVA?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Or we just have fundamentally different values.
Scorecard data, BTW, will not be indicative of salaries generally. It’s based only on attendees who received federal aid.
Wrong. Gov scorecard pulls all students.
No you're wrong. The Govt can only track the data of folks they have data on and these are the folks who applied for financial aid through the Govt. It is incomplete data, specially for schools that have a lot of institutional funds and are need blind and also have a lot of full pay kids.
Finally, Chicago has changed a lot in the last year years. All Govt or private pay level data for Chicago based on earlier cohorts is just not representative anymore. They are now attracting richer and more professionally oriented students and these students will have different career trajectories
That's even better if the scorecard data controls for extraneous factors. Scorecard also shows the following:
MIT. $94200
Harvard. $90900
Yale. $83200
Princeton. $80500
Stanford $85700
Duke. $77000
UChicago. $65000
God you are dense. You can't compare these schools because their rates of student loan participation was very different ( for example HYPS data is skewed higher because they have need blind longer than Chicago, and support their kids with their own funds, so those poor kids don't show up in these surveys) and availability of engineering majors at these schools skews the data. It will also depend Where the graduates live. Also, alums who are 34 a free years ago graduated a long time ago when Chicago had a very different School profile and demographics. The careers and demographics of the current student body looks nothing like it was at that time
If you are looking at a number like this and infering that one school is better than the other, you are an idiot
Sounds like you are in denial. It comes to this: do I trust this data or do I trust a UChicago alum or parent's self serving speculative analysis?
Normally, I'd never trust a government data if I can find same info elsewhere. But the question is, trust government data or a Chicago fan's analysis? I'll make an exception and go with the government data.
It's ignorant to reject out-of-hand reasonable observations that pertain to the analysis of the data set - regardless of the source. A critical analysis and evaluation would incorporate all the information available and come up with a more nuanced, conditional, and accurate understanding. But feel free to insist on the "government data" - lots of fools do.
As stated, I'd never go to the government for data if the info were available else where. The problem is, we are dealing with the Chicago source. Chicago USNews ranking jumped enormously from 60% admit rate to what it is now in a relatively short time. Claremont McKenna manipulated the data the old fashioned way - by fudging the numbers it submitted to USNews. Not suggesting Chicago fudged the numbers. However, Chicago data is not what it purports to show. I'd be equally skeptical of a Chicago booster's analysis.
They started taking the common app and marketing much more aggressively. That made their acceptance rate plummet, which led to their ranking going up. It’s not hard.
"God you are dense." You lost me right there. That's not part of any logically recognized sound analysis.
Ton of schools started taking common app. Most schools take common app nowadays or its equivalents. So, you are just begging the question when you bring up common app. Some schools like Claremont McKenna did it the old fashion way, by fudging numbers. Not suggesting Chicago is fudging numbers. But common app is not the answer.
Anonymous
04/15/2018 20:15
Subject: Is U Chicago worth cost over in-state UVA?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Or we just have fundamentally different values.
Scorecard data, BTW, will not be indicative of salaries generally. It’s based only on attendees who received federal aid.
Wrong. Gov scorecard pulls all students.
No you're wrong. The Govt can only track the data of folks they have data on and these are the folks who applied for financial aid through the Govt. It is incomplete data, specially for schools that have a lot of institutional funds and are need blind and also have a lot of full pay kids.
Finally, Chicago has changed a lot in the last year years. All Govt or private pay level data for Chicago based on earlier cohorts is just not representative anymore. They are now attracting richer and more professionally oriented students and these students will have different career trajectories
That's even better if the scorecard data controls for extraneous factors. Scorecard also shows the following:
MIT. $94200
Harvard. $90900
Yale. $83200
Princeton. $80500
Stanford $85700
Duke. $77000
UChicago. $65000
God you are dense. You can't compare these schools because their rates of student loan participation was very different ( for example HYPS data is skewed higher because they have need blind longer than Chicago, and support their kids with their own funds, so those poor kids don't show up in these surveys) and availability of engineering majors at these schools skews the data. It will also depend Where the graduates live. Also, alums who are 34 a free years ago graduated a long time ago when Chicago had a very different School profile and demographics. The careers and demographics of the current student body looks nothing like it was at that time
If you are looking at a number like this and infering that one school is better than the other, you are an idiot
Sounds like you are in denial. It comes to this: do I trust this data or do I trust a UChicago alum or parent's self serving speculative analysis?
Normally, I'd never trust a government data if I can find same info elsewhere. But the question is, trust government data or a Chicago fan's analysis? I'll make an exception and go with the government data.
It's ignorant to reject out-of-hand reasonable observations that pertain to the analysis of the data set - regardless of the source. A critical analysis and evaluation would incorporate all the information available and come up with a more nuanced, conditional, and accurate understanding. But feel free to insist on the "government data" - lots of fools do.
As stated, I'd never go to the government for data if the info were available else where. The problem is, we are dealing with the Chicago source. Chicago USNews ranking jumped enormously from 60% admit rate to what it is now in a relatively short time. Claremont McKenna manipulated the data the old fashioned way - by fudging the numbers it submitted to USNews. Not suggesting Chicago fudged the numbers. However, Chicago data is not what it purports to show. I'd be equally skeptical of a Chicago booster's analysis.
They started taking the common app and marketing much more aggressively. That made their acceptance rate plummet, which led to their ranking going up. It’s not hard.
Anonymous
04/15/2018 20:08
Subject: Is U Chicago worth cost over in-state UVA?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Or we just have fundamentally different values.
Scorecard data, BTW, will not be indicative of salaries generally. It’s based only on attendees who received federal aid.
Wrong. Gov scorecard pulls all students.
No you're wrong. The Govt can only track the data of folks they have data on and these are the folks who applied for financial aid through the Govt. It is incomplete data, specially for schools that have a lot of institutional funds and are need blind and also have a lot of full pay kids.
Finally, Chicago has changed a lot in the last year years. All Govt or private pay level data for Chicago based on earlier cohorts is just not representative anymore. They are now attracting richer and more professionally oriented students and these students will have different career trajectories
That's even better if the scorecard data controls for extraneous factors. Scorecard also shows the following:
MIT. $94200
Harvard. $90900
Yale. $83200
Princeton. $80500
Stanford $85700
Duke. $77000
UChicago. $65000
God you are dense. You can't compare these schools because their rates of student loan participation was very different ( for example HYPS data is skewed higher because they have need blind longer than Chicago, and support their kids with their own funds, so those poor kids don't show up in these surveys) and availability of engineering majors at these schools skews the data. It will also depend Where the graduates live. Also, alums who are 34 a free years ago graduated a long time ago when Chicago had a very different School profile and demographics. The careers and demographics of the current student body looks nothing like it was at that time
If you are looking at a number like this and infering that one school is better than the other, you are an idiot
Sounds like you are in denial. It comes to this: do I trust this data or do I trust a UChicago alum or parent's self serving speculative analysis?
Normally, I'd never trust a government data if I can find same info elsewhere. But the question is, trust government data or a Chicago fan's analysis? I'll make an exception and go with the government data.
It's ignorant to reject out-of-hand reasonable observations that pertain to the analysis of the data set - regardless of the source. A critical analysis and evaluation would incorporate all the information available and come up with a more nuanced, conditional, and accurate understanding. But feel free to insist on the "government data" - lots of fools do.
As stated, I'd never go to the government for data if the info were available else where. The problem is, we are dealing with the Chicago source. Chicago USNews ranking jumped enormously from 60% admit rate to what it is now in a relatively short time. Claremont McKenna manipulated the data the old fashioned way - by fudging the numbers it submitted to USNews. Not suggesting Chicago fudged the numbers. However, Chicago data is not what it purports to show. I'd be equally skeptical of a Chicago booster's analysis.
Anonymous
04/15/2018 19:42
Subject: Is U Chicago worth cost over in-state UVA?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Or we just have fundamentally different values.
Scorecard data, BTW, will not be indicative of salaries generally. It’s based only on attendees who received federal aid.
Wrong. Gov scorecard pulls all students.
No you're wrong. The Govt can only track the data of folks they have data on and these are the folks who applied for financial aid through the Govt. It is incomplete data, specially for schools that have a lot of institutional funds and are need blind and also have a lot of full pay kids.
Finally, Chicago has changed a lot in the last year years. All Govt or private pay level data for Chicago based on earlier cohorts is just not representative anymore. They are now attracting richer and more professionally oriented students and these students will have different career trajectories
That's even better if the scorecard data controls for extraneous factors. Scorecard also shows the following:
MIT. $94200
Harvard. $90900
Yale. $83200
Princeton. $80500
Stanford $85700
Duke. $77000
UChicago. $65000
God you are dense. You can't compare these schools because their rates of student loan participation was very different ( for example HYPS data is skewed higher because they have need blind longer than Chicago, and support their kids with their own funds, so those poor kids don't show up in these surveys) and availability of engineering majors at these schools skews the data. It will also depend Where the graduates live. Also, alums who are 34 a free years ago graduated a long time ago when Chicago had a very different School profile and demographics. The careers and demographics of the current student body looks nothing like it was at that time
If you are looking at a number like this and infering that one school is better than the other, you are an idiot
Sounds like you are in denial. It comes to this: do I trust this data or do I trust a UChicago alum or parent's self serving speculative analysis?
Normally, I'd never trust a government data if I can find same info elsewhere. But the question is, trust government data or a Chicago fan's analysis? I'll make an exception and go with the government data.
It's ignorant to reject out-of-hand reasonable observations that pertain to the analysis of the data set - regardless of the source. A critical analysis and evaluation would incorporate all the information available and come up with a more nuanced, conditional, and accurate understanding. But feel free to insist on the "government data" - lots of fools do.
Anonymous
04/15/2018 16:31
Subject: Is U Chicago worth cost over in-state UVA?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Or we just have fundamentally different values.
Scorecard data, BTW, will not be indicative of salaries generally. It’s based only on attendees who received federal aid.
Wrong. Gov scorecard pulls all students.
No you're wrong. The Govt can only track the data of folks they have data on and these are the folks who applied for financial aid through the Govt. It is incomplete data, specially for schools that have a lot of institutional funds and are need blind and also have a lot of full pay kids.
Finally, Chicago has changed a lot in the last year years. All Govt or private pay level data for Chicago based on earlier cohorts is just not representative anymore. They are now attracting richer and more professionally oriented students and these students will have different career trajectories
That's even better if the scorecard data controls for extraneous factors. Scorecard also shows the following:
MIT. $94200
Harvard. $90900
Yale. $83200
Princeton. $80500
Stanford $85700
Duke. $77000
UChicago. $65000
God you are dense. You can't compare these schools because their rates of student loan participation was very different ( for example HYPS data is skewed higher because they have need blind longer than Chicago, and support their kids with their own funds, so those poor kids don't show up in these surveys) and availability of engineering majors at these schools skews the data. It will also depend Where the graduates live. Also, alums who are 34 a free years ago graduated a long time ago when Chicago had a very different School profile and demographics. The careers and demographics of the current student body looks nothing like it was at that time
If you are looking at a number like this and infering that one school is better than the other, you are an idiot
Sounds like you are in denial. It comes to this: do I trust this data or do I trust a UChicago alum or parent's self serving speculative analysis?
Normally, I'd never trust a government data if I can find same info elsewhere. But the question is, trust government data or a Chicago fan's analysis? I'll make an exception and go with the government data.
Anonymous
04/15/2018 16:26
Subject: Is U Chicago worth cost over in-state UVA?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Or we just have fundamentally different values.
Scorecard data, BTW, will not be indicative of salaries generally. It’s based only on attendees who received federal aid.
Wrong. Gov scorecard pulls all students.
No you're wrong. The Govt can only track the data of folks they have data on and these are the folks who applied for financial aid through the Govt. It is incomplete data, specially for schools that have a lot of institutional funds and are need blind and also have a lot of full pay kids.
Finally, Chicago has changed a lot in the last year years. All Govt or private pay level data for Chicago based on earlier cohorts is just not representative anymore. They are now attracting richer and more professionally oriented students and these students will have different career trajectories
That's even better if the scorecard data controls for extraneous factors. Scorecard also shows the following:
MIT. $94200
Harvard. $90900
Yale. $83200
Princeton. $80500
Stanford $85700
Duke. $77000
UChicago. $65000
God you are dense. You can't compare these schools because their rates of student loan participation was very different ( for example HYPS data is skewed higher because they have need blind longer than Chicago, and support their kids with their own funds, so those poor kids don't show up in these surveys) and availability of engineering majors at these schools skews the data. It will also depend Where the graduates live. Also, alums who are 34 a free years ago graduated a long time ago when Chicago had a very different School profile and demographics. The careers and demographics of the current student body looks nothing like it was at that time
If you are looking at a number like this and infering that one school is better than the other, you are an idiot
Sounds like you are in denial. It comes to this: do I trust this data or do I trust a UChicago alum or parent's self serving speculative analysis?
Anonymous
04/15/2018 16:17
Subject: Is U Chicago worth cost over in-state UVA?
Anonymous wrote:https://www.quora.com/How-did-University-of-Chicago-rise-from-15-to-4-in-university-rankings-so-quickly
Interesting thread
Crazy that it rose so much in the rankings
I knew the previous dean of admissions personally. He was adamantly against these changes—one of which was beginning to accept the common app—and said it would destroy the soul of the school. As someone who went there for grad school, and the sister of an undergrad alum (I also got in for undergrad, but went elsewhere), I totally agree. It used to be special; now they’re marketing it as just another top school. Really sad.
Anonymous
04/15/2018 16:06
Subject: Is U Chicago worth cost over in-state UVA?
https://www.quora.com/How-did-University-of-Chicago-rise-from-15-to-4-in-university-rankings-so-quickly
Interesting thread
Crazy that it rose so much in the rankings
Interesting thread
Crazy that it rose so much in the rankings
Anonymous
04/15/2018 15:51
Subject: Is U Chicago worth cost over in-state UVA?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Or we just have fundamentally different values.
Scorecard data, BTW, will not be indicative of salaries generally. It’s based only on attendees who received federal aid.
Wrong. Gov scorecard pulls all students.
No you're wrong. The Govt can only track the data of folks they have data on and these are the folks who applied for financial aid through the Govt. It is incomplete data, specially for schools that have a lot of institutional funds and are need blind and also have a lot of full pay kids.
Finally, Chicago has changed a lot in the last year years. All Govt or private pay level data for Chicago based on earlier cohorts is just not representative anymore. They are now attracting richer and more professionally oriented students and these students will have different career trajectories
That's even better if the scorecard data controls for extraneous factors. Scorecard also shows the following:
MIT. $94200
Harvard. $90900
Yale. $83200
Princeton. $80500
Stanford $85700
Duke. $77000
UChicago. $65000
God you are dense. You can't compare these schools because their rates of student loan participation was very different ( for example HYPS data is skewed higher because they have need blind longer than Chicago, and support their kids with their own funds, so those poor kids don't show up in these surveys) and availability of engineering majors at these schools skews the data. It will also depend Where the graduates live. Also, alums who are 34 a free years ago graduated a long time ago when Chicago had a very different School profile and demographics. The careers and demographics of the current student body looks nothing like it was at that time
If you are looking at a number like this and infering that one school is better than the other, you are an idiot
Anonymous
04/15/2018 15:29
Subject: Is U Chicago worth cost over in-state UVA?
Anonymous wrote:If your kids wants to go where fun goes to die, then go to UChicago.
Another moron who hates the school and has no real advice to offer except the very tagline developed decades ago by UChicago students themselves to wryly describe themselves and their school humorously. Chicago is a totally different School now, but this idiot would not know that
I guess this moron will also believe taglines such as "UChicago, because I was waitlisted at Hogwarts"
or UChicago: Where the only thing that goes down on you if your GPA
Ignore this intellectual midget
Anonymous
04/15/2018 14:44
Subject: Is U Chicago worth cost over in-state UVA?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Students reviews:
http://www.studentsreview.com/IL/UC.html
http://www.studentsreview.com/VA/UV.html
UChicago:
B (Overall college rating)
Education Quality
A-
Social Life
C+
Extracurricular Activities
B
...
University Resource Use/ spending
B+
Surrounding City
UVA:
B+ (Overall score)
Education Quality
A-
Social Life
B+
Extracurricular Activities
A-
...
University Resource Use/ spending
B+
Surrounding City
No scores on crime/safety? Interesting.
One of Chicago parents posted that Chicago provides extra security for students. This speaks of volumes. When I went to U of M and St. John's in 80's, we hardly needed protection.
I would be more worried about safety in C-ville.
Let me guess, you still live within 7 miles of your high school.
????
Several hours away from my HS. Also went to a private university several hours away from my HS.
As a woman, I’d be more concerned about getting raped, murdered, or run over in C-ville than anything at Chicago. I’d love to hear students’ perspective on safety, like the survey above.
Have you been out of your state before?
Despite the high-profile case of murder at CVille, the crime rate is very low - its an area made up of mostly upper middle class families with the extremely wealthy owning huge properties all over the Piedmont. To compare Chicago and Cville in terms of safety is laughable.
Out of “my” state? Which one is mine exactly?
Which high-profile murder do you mean? The lax girl? The blond downtown? The girl run over by the white supremacist?
I’d be more worried about rape TBH.
If you're worried about rape at UVA, they you shouldn't send your daughter to any college at all. Rape is at every college campus.
Anonymous
04/15/2018 14:41
Subject: Re:Is U Chicago worth cost over in-state UVA?
Going back to the original question, "worth it" is in the eye of the beholder. for whatever reasons important to them It's likely "worth it" if one has no question about it. If you don't know, you won't miss it. If you know and you can't afford it, well that's an answer too.