Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I know someone who just walked away from a tenured professorship there. The changes are that bad.
And I know a ton of people who went to graduate school there decades ago. Their majors no longer exist.
To be fair, people walked away from tenure all the time. Spouse relocation. Recruited by another university. Or even just change of scenery. Not always have something to do with the school.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The problem with UChicago is that, as others have said, it completely sold out everything it was in the interest of an admissions-shenanigan-fueled drive to become more "elite," which it's tried to achieve by opening the doors to HYPSM rejects and guaranteeing them a spot through enforced ED. It's also taken on tons of debt to build fancy new dorms and as a result had to cut back key academic elements. Not only that, but its provost's office has produced scores of university administrators who repeat these games elsewhere. It's basically ground zero for everything that's wrong with US higher ed right now. And I say that as someone who recognizes the faculty and programs as top-notch! (They're precisely what recent and current administrators seem to care so little about.)
Yes, there is the irony, Chicago's faculty and programs are really top tier.
But the school is selecting for ability to commit, not ability to thrive. Admitting for yield control, not fit.
I am the alum who is sad about the changes and I agree with both you. Profs and programs - still great. The admin around them? Deeply gross and disappointing. I also agree with a later poster who said the university probably couldn’t have survived without these changes. I don’t know why but I have this song in my head about a deadhead sticker on a Cadillac. Seems apt.
Irrelevant. T20s admit ~2000 kids each out of which ~ 500 are top notch. Even if some school admits all students with the best HIGH SCHOOL STATs it would nt mean anything to the school ( this is undergraduate school we are talking about) so some charity via FGLI admission , some to donors/ legacy paying heed to financial imperative etc appears to be the best alternative.
Besides, we have seen many instances where a kid with say 3.7 in high school trounces - nonchalantly - the kid with say 4.0 while in college. So don’t , facilely, expect linearity in academic outcome based on what happened before.
Of course. SAT scores are much better predictors of college success. GPA is not standardized.
Chicago on the other hand claims GPA better predicts college performance. At least 25%, at most 50%, of their admits didn’t submit scores.
76% submitted scores:
https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/voices.uchicago.edu/dist/8/2077/files/2025/08/CDS_2024-2025_to_publish.pdf
people are just making up facts now
You should consider any overlapping between ACT submission and SAT submission.
Anonymous wrote:I know someone who just walked away from a tenured professorship there. The changes are that bad.
And I know a ton of people who went to graduate school there decades ago. Their majors no longer exist.
Anonymous wrote:Page 14 - just in one day! People have such strong feelings about UChicago. I am an alumni and very grateful for the amazing education I received (on full financial aid that covered almost entire cost). Chicago continued to have top notch faulty and research facility. Not sure why ED stuff bothers people so much. For those that really seem to dislike the school- why not just not have your kid apply??
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The problem with UChicago is that, as others have said, it completely sold out everything it was in the interest of an admissions-shenanigan-fueled drive to become more "elite," which it's tried to achieve by opening the doors to HYPSM rejects and guaranteeing them a spot through enforced ED. It's also taken on tons of debt to build fancy new dorms and as a result had to cut back key academic elements. Not only that, but its provost's office has produced scores of university administrators who repeat these games elsewhere. It's basically ground zero for everything that's wrong with US higher ed right now. And I say that as someone who recognizes the faculty and programs as top-notch! (They're precisely what recent and current administrators seem to care so little about.)
Yes, there is the irony, Chicago's faculty and programs are really top tier.
But the school is selecting for ability to commit, not ability to thrive. Admitting for yield control, not fit.
I am the alum who is sad about the changes and I agree with both you. Profs and programs - still great. The admin around them? Deeply gross and disappointing. I also agree with a later poster who said the university probably couldn’t have survived without these changes. I don’t know why but I have this song in my head about a deadhead sticker on a Cadillac. Seems apt.
Irrelevant. T20s admit ~2000 kids each out of which ~ 500 are top notch. Even if some school admits all students with the best HIGH SCHOOL STATs it would nt mean anything to the school ( this is undergraduate school we are talking about) so some charity via FGLI admission , some to donors/ legacy paying heed to financial imperative etc appears to be the best alternative.
Besides, we have seen many instances where a kid with say 3.7 in high school trounces - nonchalantly - the kid with say 4.0 while in college. So don’t , facilely, expect linearity in academic outcome based on what happened before.
Of course. SAT scores are much better predictors of college success. GPA is not standardized.
Chicago on the other hand claims GPA better predicts college performance. At least 25%, at most 50%, of their admits didn’t submit scores.
76% submitted scores:
https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/voices.uchicago.edu/dist/8/2077/files/2025/08/CDS_2024-2025_to_publish.pdf
people are just making up facts now
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The problem with UChicago is that, as others have said, it completely sold out everything it was in the interest of an admissions-shenanigan-fueled drive to become more "elite," which it's tried to achieve by opening the doors to HYPSM rejects and guaranteeing them a spot through enforced ED. It's also taken on tons of debt to build fancy new dorms and as a result had to cut back key academic elements. Not only that, but its provost's office has produced scores of university administrators who repeat these games elsewhere. It's basically ground zero for everything that's wrong with US higher ed right now. And I say that as someone who recognizes the faculty and programs as top-notch! (They're precisely what recent and current administrators seem to care so little about.)
Yes, there is the irony, Chicago's faculty and programs are really top tier.
But the school is selecting for ability to commit, not ability to thrive. Admitting for yield control, not fit.
I am the alum who is sad about the changes and I agree with both you. Profs and programs - still great. The admin around them? Deeply gross and disappointing. I also agree with a later poster who said the university probably couldn’t have survived without these changes. I don’t know why but I have this song in my head about a deadhead sticker on a Cadillac. Seems apt.
Irrelevant. T20s admit ~2000 kids each out of which ~ 500 are top notch. Even if some school admits all students with the best HIGH SCHOOL STATs it would nt mean anything to the school ( this is undergraduate school we are talking about) so some charity via FGLI admission , some to donors/ legacy paying heed to financial imperative etc appears to be the best alternative.
Besides, we have seen many instances where a kid with say 3.7 in high school trounces - nonchalantly - the kid with say 4.0 while in college. So don’t , facilely, expect linearity in academic outcome based on what happened before.
Of course. SAT scores are much better predictors of college success. GPA is not standardized.
Chicago on the other hand claims GPA better predicts college performance. At least 25%, at most 50%, of their admits didn’t submit scores.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The problem with UChicago is that, as others have said, it completely sold out everything it was in the interest of an admissions-shenanigan-fueled drive to become more "elite," which it's tried to achieve by opening the doors to HYPSM rejects and guaranteeing them a spot through enforced ED. It's also taken on tons of debt to build fancy new dorms and as a result had to cut back key academic elements. Not only that, but its provost's office has produced scores of university administrators who repeat these games elsewhere. It's basically ground zero for everything that's wrong with US higher ed right now. And I say that as someone who recognizes the faculty and programs as top-notch! (They're precisely what recent and current administrators seem to care so little about.)
Yes, there is the irony, Chicago's faculty and programs are really top tier.
But the school is selecting for ability to commit, not ability to thrive. Admitting for yield control, not fit.
I am the alum who is sad about the changes and I agree with both you. Profs and programs - still great. The admin around them? Deeply gross and disappointing. I also agree with a later poster who said the university probably couldn’t have survived without these changes. I don’t know why but I have this song in my head about a deadhead sticker on a Cadillac. Seems apt.
Irrelevant. T20s admit ~2000 kids each out of which ~ 500 are top notch. Even if some school admits all students with the best HIGH SCHOOL STATs it would nt mean anything to the school ( this is undergraduate school we are talking about) so some charity via FGLI admission , some to donors/ legacy paying heed to financial imperative etc appears to be the best alternative.
Besides, we have seen many instances where a kid with say 3.7 in high school trounces - nonchalantly - the kid with say 4.0 while in college. So don’t , facilely, expect linearity in academic outcome based on what happened before.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The problem with UChicago is that, as others have said, it completely sold out everything it was in the interest of an admissions-shenanigan-fueled drive to become more "elite," which it's tried to achieve by opening the doors to HYPSM rejects and guaranteeing them a spot through enforced ED. It's also taken on tons of debt to build fancy new dorms and as a result had to cut back key academic elements. Not only that, but its provost's office has produced scores of university administrators who repeat these games elsewhere. It's basically ground zero for everything that's wrong with US higher ed right now. And I say that as someone who recognizes the faculty and programs as top-notch! (They're precisely what recent and current administrators seem to care so little about.)
Yes, there is the irony, Chicago's faculty and programs are really top tier.
But the school is selecting for ability to commit, not ability to thrive. Admitting for yield control, not fit.
I am the alum who is sad about the changes and I agree with both you. Profs and programs - still great. The admin around them? Deeply gross and disappointing. I also agree with a later poster who said the university probably couldn’t have survived without these changes. I don’t know why but I have this song in my head about a deadhead sticker on a Cadillac. Seems apt.
Irrelevant. T20s admit ~2000 kids each out of which ~ 500 are top notch. Even if some school admits all students with the best HIGH SCHOOL STATs it would nt mean anything to the school ( this is undergraduate school we are talking about) so some charity via FGLI admission , some to donors/ legacy paying heed to financial imperative etc appears to be the best alternative.
Besides, we have seen many instances where a kid with say 3.7 in high school trounces - nonchalantly - the kid with say 4.0 while in college. So don’t , facilely, expect linearity in academic outcome based on what happened before.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The problem with UChicago is that, as others have said, it completely sold out everything it was in the interest of an admissions-shenanigan-fueled drive to become more "elite," which it's tried to achieve by opening the doors to HYPSM rejects and guaranteeing them a spot through enforced ED. It's also taken on tons of debt to build fancy new dorms and as a result had to cut back key academic elements. Not only that, but its provost's office has produced scores of university administrators who repeat these games elsewhere. It's basically ground zero for everything that's wrong with US higher ed right now. And I say that as someone who recognizes the faculty and programs as top-notch! (They're precisely what recent and current administrators seem to care so little about.)
Yes, there is the irony, Chicago's faculty and programs are really top tier.
But the school is selecting for ability to commit, not ability to thrive. Admitting for yield control, not fit.
I am the alum who is sad about the changes and I agree with both you. Profs and programs - still great. The admin around them? Deeply gross and disappointing. I also agree with a later poster who said the university probably couldn’t have survived without these changes. I don’t know why but I have this song in my head about a deadhead sticker on a Cadillac. Seems apt.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The problem with UChicago is that, as others have said, it completely sold out everything it was in the interest of an admissions-shenanigan-fueled drive to become more "elite," which it's tried to achieve by opening the doors to HYPSM rejects and guaranteeing them a spot through enforced ED. It's also taken on tons of debt to build fancy new dorms and as a result had to cut back key academic elements. Not only that, but its provost's office has produced scores of university administrators who repeat these games elsewhere. It's basically ground zero for everything that's wrong with US higher ed right now. And I say that as someone who recognizes the faculty and programs as top-notch! (They're precisely what recent and current administrators seem to care so little about.)
Yes, there is the irony, Chicago's faculty and programs are really top tier.
But the school is selecting for ability to commit, not ability to thrive. Admitting for yield control, not fit.