Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to another thread, Sidwell and NCS/STA are harder than Chicago and the average student there isn't as smart as these two high schools. LOLOLOLOLOL. You heard that right.

I can’t comment about whether the kids are prepared or not but the cathedral schools are sending a LOT of kids there this year, especially for how big those two schools are.

Right -- because they couldn't get into the Ivy League.

Back under the bridge.

Anonymous wrote:Chicago is happy to be (among other things and not primarily) a back-up plan for Sidwell/NCS/StA students (and, I assume, those from similar prep schools in other major cities) who struck out @ HYPS. They know the kids can handle the workload, they’re likely to be full pay, and UofC is eager to become more socially elite.

Pretty much. Which isn't dismissive, it's a fine school—certainly superior to all the flagship public degree mills and far more campus brain power than say Vanderbilt—but anyone expecting it to be some lottery ticket or a mega status symbol like the Ivies, Stanford, and Wharton is a deluded imbecile. Nobody gives a darn about UChicago. It's hilarious how easy it is to rattle an average UChicago parent by pretending you've never heard of their kid's college. You can't imagine an Ivy, Stanford, even Duke or UVA mother getting rattled at such a thing, because they'd just confidently chuckle and move on. While many (most?) UChicago parents become unhinged because they're painfully insecure and status-obsessed strivers.

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps, but regular admissions is not much of a back-up plan. Yes, the Cathedral Schools and Sidwell do well at U of C, but for the most part through ED.

Yes, I called it a back-up plan rather than a safety for that reason. You have to apply RD to have a shot at that option though. Maybe it’s like ED3 (in some cases it sounds like offers are only extended (late in the RD process but before the official waitlist) if the student is willing to commit.

And yes, of course UofC routinely takes kids with strong records at these schools who apply ED. But it’s not the only entry point. How many get in which way probably varies from year to year. RD may well yield candidates as good or better than an ED candidate who realistically assumed s/he had no shot at an SCEA school.

Perhaps, but regular admissions is not much of a back-up plan. Yes, the Cathedral Schools and Sidwell do well at U of C, but for the most part through ED.

Chicago is happy to be (among other things and not primarily) a back-up plan for Sidwell/NCS/StA students (and, I assume, those from similar prep schools in other major cities) who struck out @ HYPS. They know the kids can handle the workload, they’re likely to be full pay, and UofC is eager to become more socially elite.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to another thread, Sidwell and NCS/STA are harder than Chicago and the average student there isn't as smart as these two high schools. LOLOLOLOLOL. You heard that right.

I can’t comment about whether the kids are prepared or not but the cathedral schools are sending a LOT of kids there this year, especially for how big those two schools are.

Or, I should say how small

Anonymous wrote:According to another thread, Sidwell and NCS/STA are harder than Chicago and the average student there isn't as smart as these two high schools. LOLOLOLOLOL. You heard that right.

I can’t comment about whether the kids are prepared or not but the cathedral schools are sending a LOT of kids there this year, especially for how big those two schools are.

According to another thread, Sidwell and NCS/STA are harder than Chicago and the average student there isn't as smart as these two high schools. LOLOLOLOLOL. You heard that right.

Anonymous wrote:Friend’s DC graduated recently. Economics. Didn’t see a real prof until his third year. And some of the profs were jerks. Tough school. He is on a PhD track so felt it was worth it. Would not recommend for the less than fully serious student.

we were just there on a tour and were told almost all classes taught by full profs except some intro math classes and some newer fields like digital design where the younger people know more...

+1. My guess is bullying women is PP’s sweet spot

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
3) Disagree with the PP that says that the free speech thing is BS. It's not. It's engrained in UChicago culture, and it attracts applicants and academics who value this. And this might surprise the above PP, but those kids are often liberals who value it and want to hear conservative viewpoints. It attracts people who are looking to discuss differing points of view.

You're just echoing official University of Chicago marketing which has no basis in reality. The literal handful of outspoken Conservative kids are bullied and cyber bullied relentlessly by wacko peers and wacko professors. One of them was even fired from the official student newspaper, which is run by intolerant far left wackos. And the Conservative kids are not anywhere near the obnoxious MAGA strain who you might infer deserve the scorn; they're basically just dorky pro-life Centrist kids i.e. RINO, Conservative Inc. types. UC's actual campus ethos is no different than you'd find at any Ivy and Berkeley and not too far from Oberlin.

College kids who aspire to be right wing apparatus grifters e.g. Candace Owens deserve to be bullied.

You are salivating at the very thought, aren’t you?

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone had a kid attend NCS and then Chicago?
My daughter thrives at NCS--does well, does not mind the work-load (maybe 3 hours of homework a night?)
She thinks she may be interested in Chicago. Currently a junior in high school.

About five girls are going this year. You can follow up with them soon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
3) Disagree with the PP that says that the free speech thing is BS. It's not. It's engrained in UChicago culture, and it attracts applicants and academics who value this. And this might surprise the above PP, but those kids are often liberals who value it and want to hear conservative viewpoints. It attracts people who are looking to discuss differing points of view.

You're just echoing official University of Chicago marketing which has no basis in reality. The literal handful of outspoken Conservative kids are bullied and cyber bullied relentlessly by wacko peers and wacko professors. One of them was even fired from the official student newspaper, which is run by intolerant far left wackos. And the Conservative kids are not anywhere near the obnoxious MAGA strain who you might infer deserve the scorn; they're basically just dorky pro-life Centrist kids i.e. RINO, Conservative Inc. types. UC's actual campus ethos is no different than you'd find at any Ivy and Berkeley and not too far from Oberlin.

To clarify, I'm the top PP and am now responding to you. We disagree. It's possible the marketing has created the culture; it's probably a two way street. The unique culture is there; it's distinct from Berkeley and Ivies. I also disagree with lumping the Ivies together (Brown w/Columbia or Dartmouth, e.g.) but that's for a different thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
3) Disagree with the PP that says that the free speech thing is BS. It's not. It's engrained in UChicago culture, and it attracts applicants and academics who value this. And this might surprise the above PP, but those kids are often liberals who value it and want to hear conservative viewpoints. It attracts people who are looking to discuss differing points of view.

You're just echoing official University of Chicago marketing which has no basis in reality. The literal handful of outspoken Conservative kids are bullied and cyber bullied relentlessly by wacko peers and wacko professors. One of them was even fired from the official student newspaper, which is run by intolerant far left wackos. And the Conservative kids are not anywhere near the obnoxious MAGA strain who you might infer deserve the scorn; they're basically just dorky pro-life Centrist kids i.e. RINO, Conservative Inc. types. UC's actual campus ethos is no different than you'd find at any Ivy and Berkeley and not too far from Oberlin.

They're not talking about dopey kid politics, they are talking about whether there are deep conservative theoretical frameworks guiding some traditions of faculty scholarship at Chicago. Which there are in a number of disciplines. Economics and Sociology in particular. Serious liberal students want to hear those conservative perspectives. They don't want to hear some dopey 18 year old guy going off about whether women have a right to make choices about their own bodies. Just because you think that's "Centrist" doesn't make it not grossly oppressive to any woman who believes they have a right to bodily autonomy.

So we went from the campus is this magical tolerant ethos to....... a handful of dorky Conservative Inc. / Federalist / RINO trickle down professors are tenured in billionaire investment banker Ken Griffin's econ dept. Got it.

"Magical tolerant ethos" does not equal to being down with oppression. Sorry. We don't need to accept your framing.