<p>As far as I can see, phruikuwas specifically talk about yield.said “If it moved to ED, it could easily have a 60%-ish yield, which would put it in the same league as Penn and Columbia and leagues ahead of NU/Duke.”</p>
<p>“If it moved to ED, it could easily have a 60%-ish yield, which would put it in the same league as Penn and Columbia and leagues ahead of NU/Duke.”
Noncturnalowl, Where did u see people claiming Chicago = HPYMS? As far as I can see, phruiku was specifically talking about this year’s yield and its future trend only and he has dada supporting his statement. I don’t know if there is much he or you can do if you or a couple odd people here are not happy with the fact.</p>
<p>Sorry for the incomplete post. I don’t even know how it got posted before I finished. Was using an iPhone.</p>
<p>Well, what I took from his post was that because of Chicago’s yield, it is leagues ahead of Duke. Even if that wasn’t his point in that particular post, do a quick search of his older posts. He and several other Chicago kids are bent on thinking that Chicago is up there with HYPSM and irrefutably better than Duke and the lower ivies.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong, Chicago is by all means a fantastic institution. But then again, so are the other schools. They are peers, nothing more, nothing less. An increasingly larger number Chicago kids are developing a superiority complex that I had to chime in ~</p>
<p>And I’ve never said I was unhappy with Chicago’s growth, I’ve acknowledged it in my other posts and even went as far to say that given Chicago’s growth, it might catch up to HYPSM in the future. I’m not sure why you assumed I had a problem. </p>
<p>Sent from my HTC Vision using CC</p>
<p>I was having a hard time to understand how come saying “yield leagues ahead of Duke” was taken as “Chicago = HYPMS”. I think people in this thread was discussing the school’s yield and was happy to see UChicago’s growth. It is much more interesting topic than some silly “Duke vs UChicago” arguments. Anyway, thanks for the clarification.</p>
<p>Yield is a pretty interesting statistic and isn’t as useful as people think it is especially when comparing non-HYPSM schools. In Duke’s case, it has a weak engineering school (relatively speaking) which I’m guessing lowers its yield when it loses students to traditional engineering powerhouses. Also, Duke is in the same state as one of the top 5 public universities in the country (UNC-Chapel Hill), so high school seniors accepted to Duke from the state of North Carolina usually save as much as $100K by choosing Chapel Hill instead (cheaper IS tuition as well as merit scholarships most likely).</p>
<p>Illinois’ in-state public, UIUC, is very strong in engineering but doesn’t really overlap with Chicago obviously since the latter doesn’t even offer the subject.</p>
<p>As NocturnalOwl has pointed out, Chicago benefits from being a unique and self-selective school with regards to yield. Cross admit data shows that the only Ivy it beats head to head is Cornell and that’s probably accurate. I imagine it should start winning more cross admit battles against Columbia, Brown, Dartmouth, Penn, and Duke as long as it maintains its USNWR rank.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I got the same feeling. Phuriku and several other Chicago posters’ “chest-thumping” gets a bit ridiculous at times. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where are you getting that data from? According to parchment, the only Ivy Chicago beats in cross admits is Dartmouth.</p>
<p>Well… based on parchment there is about a 50-50 split between Chicago and Cornell, so goldenboy8784 is not wrong.</p>
<p>Since we’re on the topic of yield (and some provocative comments by the Duke-supporters that Chicago is not on the HYPSM level), let’s look at parchment.com’s figures. The new data seems to have just recently been entered:</p>
<p>Chicago 24 - 76 Yale
Chicago 28 - 72 Harvard
Chicago 40 - 60 Princeton
Chicago 43 - 57 MIT
Chicago 44 - 56 Stanford
Chicago 56 - 44 Caltech</p>
<p>Try it for yourself: [Compare</a> Colleges: Side-by-side college comparisons | Parchment - College admissions predictions.](<a href=“Compare Colleges: Side-by-side college comparisons | Parchment - College admissions predictions.”>Compare Colleges: Side-by-side college comparisons | Parchment - College admissions predictions.).</p>
<p>So there you have it. Chicago essentially splits its cross-admits with Princeton, MIT, Stanford, and Caltech. It only loses to Harvard and Yale.</p>
<p>I might also note that no other non-HYPSM school can boast similar cross-admit figures against HYPSM. Even Columbia and Caltech get beat handily.</p>
<p>The only thing that is really holding Chicago back at this time is that it loses to the smaller schools more frequently. This is likely due to the lack of Chicago’s lay prestige and its relative lack of financial aid in comparison to the other elites. Due to the financial aid difference, it makes sense for a lot more people to be choosing their state flagships over Chicago, whereas there’s really no need to do so when they have Yale to choose from, since Yale will usually provide enough financial aid. However, I’d much rather be winning the cross-admits with MIT, Princeton, Stanford, and Caltech than the cross-admits with Arizona State.</p>
<p>Please refer back to my earlier point about the flaws of self-reported data. Looking at anecdotal evidence and other cross admit data i.e. official data from colleges themselves, I find it hard to believe that Chicago splits almost even with Princeton, Stanford, MIT, and CalTech. And no, I’m not a fervent Duke supporter, I won’t go around claiming that Duke does as well against HYPSM as Parchment claims (31 percent against Princeton, 27 percent against Stanford, etc.), nor will I claim that Duke does better against Chicago than Stanford does. Self-reported data is flawed. I believe a more accurate representation of Duke and Chicago’s yield against HYPSM would fall in the 10-20 percent range. Again, please stop trying to elevate Chicago to HYPSM glory. Its a great institution as it is. And besides, your logic makes no sense. Chicago’s lack of good financial aid and lay prestige should also hurt it against HYPSM as much, if not more so, then state flagships. </p>
<p>Oh and in case you still believe parchment to be reliable, just look at how well the University of Washington does against HYPSM (Princeton 33:67, Stanford 33: 67, MIT 40: 60).</p>
<p>And I’m done talking. If at this point, you still want to go around believing that Chicago has already ascended to HYPSM level, then there’s nothing I can say that will change your opinion. Just realize that your posts do not help Chicago’s image. When you make far-fetched claims, the only impression I get is that you are insecure about your school. Its fine to have some alma-matter pride, but don’t let it cloud your judgement.</p>
<p>One thing to keep in mind is that at the graduate school level, UChicago already punches in the same weight class as HPYSM. There are very few schools in the world that match up with Chicago across the board.</p>
<p>The key factor here is that the college at UChicago has been “underperforming” relative to its its peers for several decades now. People should keep in mind that back in the 1970s, before the age of usnews, the college at UChicago was considered absolutely top-tier. Then the 1980s and 1990s doldrums hit and the University realized that its benign neglect of the undergrad program, while well-intentioned, was also starting to hit its bottom line.</p>
<p>The revival and restoration of the College into the top-tier of schools, in this regard, is not unexpected and should surprise no one.</p>
<p>And I agree with you ILoveUofC. UChicago’s graduate programs are already in the same league as HYPSM.</p>
<p>[Academic</a> Ranking of World Universities - 2011](<a href=“http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2011.html]Academic”>http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2011.html)</p>
<p>Those of us who know UChicago well are not surprised by the College’s recent rise. Most of us see it as something that’s long over-due. Some see it as merely an alignment with, or an elevation to, the calibre of this institution’s graduate programs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, there are a lot of non-believers. I can understand where they are coming from, and I don’t blame them. I am not surprised by people’s reactions, but for those who know this school well, the institution’s rise is not surprising at all.</p>
<p>It’s not a pride thing (though we’re pretty proud of it). It’s something real.</p>
<p>“Looking at anecdotal evidence and other cross admit data i.e. official data from colleges themselves…”</p>
<p>This is pretty sufficient evidence of how much of a tool you are. Anybody making the statement “Looking at the anecdotal evidence…” needs to be looked at very suspiciously. At least, that’s what we do at Chicago. Not sure about Duke. Also, colleges very rarely self-report cross-admit data. With regard to public schools, there’s a reason why public schools tend to perform well against elites: they’re MUCH cheaper. So I completely believe that UWash wins 1/3 of its (probably few) cross-admits against the Ivies.</p>
<p>The reason that Duke competes as well as Stanford with Chicago cross-admits is obvious to any keen observer: some students hedge their bets by applying ED to Duke and EA to Chicago, thereby forcing students to go to Duke when admitted to both. With Stanford being SCEA, this scenario does not exist with Chicago. Same goes for Cornell, Penn, and Columbia, who all perform relatively well against Chicago in comparison to Princeton, Stanford, MIT, and Caltech. When students actually have a chance to choose between schools and they’re not just hedging their bets, it’s likely that they’re choosing Chicago against Duke/Cornell 2/3 of the time and choosing Chicago against Columbia/Penn 1/2 of the time. </p>
<p>This is just simple math, so I don’t know why you’re arguing. Chicago seems to be performing head-to-head with the very top schools in the nation. The only people stunned by these results are the Duke supporters who seem to be perplexed by Chicago’s sudden rise and angry that Duke hasn’t seen similar success in admission. And once again, the only argument seems to be “you can’t rely on self-reported data” without giving any reason why this would give any benefit to Chicago, esp. a widespread benefit in which Chicago is performing better-than-anticipated head-to-head against practically every single school.</p>
<p>It seems like the same argument continually occurs within all threads on this forum, usually originating from some blatantly insulting or conspicuously false comment about the university and it’s prestige or comparative quality vs other institutions. This argument is usually perpetuated by the same members endlessly until the same nuances are beaten to death. For your own good, I would advise all of you to find consolation in the fact that you have either been admitted to, attended, have an abundance of experience with, or for some much less admirable reason are knowledgeable about the University of Chicago. You are not gaining anything and you’re not convincing anyone, so please find something else to do. This type of activity is a distraction at best, and more often an embarrassment to the poster and their respective university.</p>
<p>
This is straight from Christoph Guttentag, the head of Duke Undergraduate Admissions…
[Admission:</a> Impossible? by Robert J. Bliwise - March/April 2012](<a href=“Duke Mag”>Duke Mag)
UC-Berkeley, about a forty-five minute drive from Harker, exerts a significant pull; despite its deepening California connection, Duke often loses out to Stanford University, along with Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. It does well against Cornell, Dartmouth, Columbia, Brown, and Georgetown. Guttentag notes that a higher percentage of Duke applicants now than in the past are looking at Stanford and MIT along with the Ivies, particularly the familiar HYP threesome. Dukes yield rate the rate at which accepted students attend Dukehas remained fairly steady, meaning, he says, that we are holding our own against tougher and tougher competition.</p>
<p>
Phuriku, I have a lot of respect for you, but have you absolutely lost it? Duke has binding Early Admissions which means that an applicant who applies to Duke Early Decision can’t apply anywhere else in the early round (besides their in-state school like UMichigan or UVirginia).</p>
<p>You’ve gotten so desperate to prove that Chicago has overtaken Duke in popularity that you’re fabricating information. </p>
<p>
Your analysis is way off. Chicago has a self-selecting environment that is utterly unique so applicants are more likely to forego HYPSM for Chicago rather than schools like Penn or Duke which offer a similar environment.</p>
<p>Here’s how Duke does against the other Ivies and how Chicago does:</p>
<p>Duke vs. Dartmouth: Duke wins 60-40
UChicago vs. Dartmouth: Chicago wins 56-44</p>
<p>Duke vs. Penn: Penn wins 59-41
UChicago vs. Penn: Penn wins 71-29</p>
<p>Duke vs. Brown: Brown wins 56-44
UChicago vs. Brown: Brown wins 53-47</p>
<p>Duke vs. Cornell: Duke wins 77-23
UChicago vs. Cornell: Cornell wins 52-48</p>
<p>Duke vs. Columbia: Columbia wins 56-44
UChicago vs. Columbia: Columbia wins 60-40</p>
<p>Chicago does ever so slightly better against Brown than Duke but Duke trounces Cornell while Chicago barely loses out. Duke seems to lose fewer students to Penn than Chicago as well.</p>
<p>One thing is for sure: Chicago and Duke are seen in the same light as the lower Ivies even in prestige-conscious areas of California and New England. They are competing head to head very successfully.</p>
<p>Tier 1: HYPSM
Tier 2: Chicago, Duke, Caltech, Other 5 Ivies</p>
<p>Chicago and Duke are crushing other schools like Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Emory, Rice, and Wash U though so its clear they are seen as being more elite.</p>
<p>“… an applicant who applies to Duke Early Decision can’t apply anywhere else in the early round (besides their in-state school like UMichigan or UVirginia).”</p>
<p>Not quite. Duke’s rule is like most schools’: You can apply ED to Duke and EA (non-restrictive) to any number of schools. If you accept Duke’s financial aid offer (or you don’t ask for FA and are accepted) you must withdraw all other applications.</p>
<p>See <a href=“http://www.admissions.duke.edu/jump/applying/apply_RD-ED.html[/url]”>http://www.admissions.duke.edu/jump/applying/apply_RD-ED.html</a></p>
<p>I don’t know what the point of this fight is. As far as I am concerned, Duke is a terrific institution that probably has fairly little overlap with Chicago in terms of the students to whom it appeals. The things that people tend to love most about Duke are barely present at Chicago. I think Duke’s appeal is broader; that shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. It’s a lot like Penn and Chicago, but with fewer similarities between the two colleges (i.e., Penn is a lot more like Chicago than Duke is).</p>
<p>Anyway, goldenboy is wrong about Duke Early Decision. Unlike HYPS, Duke does not forbid Early Decision applicants to apply to places like Chicago or MIT Early Action, as long as it is clear that they will be committed to enroll at Duke if Duke accepts them, no matter what the other schools do. Obviously, you can’t apply to two colleges Early Decision simultaneously, but you can apply to one college Early Decision and another (or more) Early Action, if they let you. Chicago students are familiar with that, because many of them did just that. The rule about only applying to your in-state public, that’s a HYPS rule, not a Duke rule.</p>
<p>Phuriku, everything you say is utterly baseless. Give me one piece of data that shows Chicago winning cross admits against Duke, and I will leave this forum for ever. Until you can find the data to substantiate your ludicrous claim of Chicago winning 2/3rds of cross admit battles against Duke, I suggest you tone down the rhetoric. You’re pretty cocky for someone who was admitted to chicago when the acceptance rate was 35%. Cheers</p>
<p>I would just like to point out that the list of UChicago grads who have won Nobel prizes, written world class literature and directed Oscar winning films during this period of accepting 35% (or more) of applicants is a long and illustrious one.</p>