<p>I think morning side heights is the second safest neighborhood in NYC.</p>
<p>Hey unalove...Chicago is actually ranked higher than Columbia in USNWR...thier overall scores are the same, but check out their Peer assessment score, Chicago has a 4.7 whilc Columbia has a 4.6. Tiny difference I know...but technically, that makes Chicago higher than Columbia.</p>
<p>hey landofoo...if Chicago has a higher peer score than Columbia in peer assessment, then clearly it has lower scores in other areas, otherwise it would be ahead in rank as opposed to tied. I don't have access to the data in front of me but knowing Chicago (or knowing broad sweeping stereotypes of it, anyway ;)) it could be suffering in things like retention rate and alumni donations...</p>
<p>(wasn't columbia 4.7 the year before? some more nobel prizes later and they go down to 4.6? how silly these peer rankings are)</p>
<p>Rankings suck in general. They suck for the colleges, the applicants and the professors.</p>
<p>Yes JohnnyK, that's just it...the point I was trying to make was that USNWR is the most retarded ranking for colleges. It factors in really irrelevant things like alumni activity and donations to affect its overall score. You're pretty much going to have to admit that Chicago is just an academically stronger institution. I mean, you can argue otherwise, but Chicago produces more students who go to professional school than Columbia and is also more involved in all areas of research. (i.e. 79 nobel prize winners).<br>
But the point is...USNWR is retarded.</p>
<p>How do you define academically stronger?</p>
<p>More academically inclined, as in the experience of intellectualism on campus. academically stronger in terms of the tough grading (no grade inflation what so ever) and the coercion of the student to rise to the challenge. Chicago has been involved in more research in all areas...probably more than any other school, and offers these research opportunities to its students.
In addition, the requisites for professors at Chicago is that they have to be not only the top of their research fields, but have to have actually made discoveries and additions to that particular field of knowledge. Therefore, the professors aren't regurgetating information to the students, they are reporting their findings. </p>
<p>That makes is much more "academically" stronger than columbia, harvard, any other school.</p>
<p>I see your point, but "stronger" seems to be a bit misleading. More academically inclined, as you said, seems more appropriate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're pretty much going to have to admit that Chicago is just an academically stronger institution. I mean, you can argue otherwise, but Chicago produces more students who go to professional school than Columbia
[/quote]
</p>
<p>that is an imbecilic thing to say. you're trying to say that columbia simply CANT produce more students to go to grad school because of the quality of instruction which is absolutely idiotic. you think that undergrads at columbia who want to go to grad school cant get into the top ones? </p>
<p>if your school creates an aura of academia that is absolutely pervasive, the people that go there and apply to go there will naturally be inclined towards academia and will want to continue that onto a phd and probably a professorship somewhere</p>
<p>
[quote]
and is also more involved in all areas of research. (i.e. 79 nobel prize winners). But the point is...USNWR is retarded.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>do you mean 79 currently working there or 79 in the history of the school? if the later then columbia has 71...big difference. <a href="http://c250.columbia.edu/c250_celebrates/nobel_laureates/by_year.html%5B/url%5D">http://c250.columbia.edu/c250_celebrates/nobel_laureates/by_year.html</a></p>
<p>edit: 72. <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/cu/pr/special/nowin.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.columbia.edu/cu/pr/special/nowin.html</a></p>
<p>Although I am not a fan of rankings generally, Columbia was the #1 research university according to this.</p>
<p><a href="http://mup.asu.edu/research2006.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://mup.asu.edu/research2006.pdf</a></p>
<p>Also, why does it seem like UChicago folks seem to think that it is the only rigorous college/intellectual college? As for the OP, I wasn't interested in applying to Chicago even though I applied to Columbia. For some reason, I just didn't find it appealing to be there--not to say that it is not a wonderful school.</p>
<p>I think UChicago students are trying to somehow boost their egos by saying that they go to the most rigorous school. The fact that their yield rate is so low probably encourages them to distract ppl from this fact. What's the yield rate again? 30-40%?</p>
<p>I agree..I love Columbia but Chicago just did not appeal to me. The attitude of the students that's being displayed on this board might give some indication! I don't appreciate it when schools have superiority complexes. At my Yale and Princeton tours they would say rankings don't matter.......BUT we're #1. That is the biggest turnoff.</p>
<p>By yield rate you mean admission rate...well let's think about this pearfire. By a simple statistical calculation we can see that the number of people that apply to Chicago is significantly smaller than that of Columbia. Chicago gets something like 10500 applicants and admits 3500. So yea, the yield is like 34%. And Columbia gets something like 20,000 applications and admits about the same number of people. So obviously, with the bigger population of applicants Columbia's admission yield will be smaller. So I don't see what your argument is beside the fact that you don't understand simple statistics and confounding variables that affect/skew the perceived data. Nice try though.</p>
<p>"So I don't see what your argument is beside the fact that you don't understand simple statistics and confounding variables that affect/skew the perceived data. Nice try though."</p>
<p>This is the worst way you could have ended your statement. You've just made a complete fool out of yourself. The yield rate is not the admissions rate which makes your whole post completely superfluous. Try Google, it's your best friend.
I'm gonna sum it up for you:
1. You confuse yield rate with admissions rate.
2. You go down the wrong path and don't even recognize your fatal error.
3. You say that someone else does not understand simple stats while you confuse simply facts such as yield rate and admit rate.</p>
<p>So here's my evluation for you buddy:
"you don't understand simple statistics... Nice try though."
Your post must be the most entertaining and ironic one I've seen in a while. It's funny how it's always the most assertive ones who make fools out of themselves. If I were you I would watch my big mouth before I embarrass myself again.</p>
<p>
[quote]
By yield rate you mean admission rate
[/quote]
</p>
<p>no he doesnt, he means retention or possibly graduation rate (retention referring to keeping people after 1 year, graduation to all 4 years i think)</p>
<p>dont come onto this board and try and argue about points you will lose on (see my last post on page 2)</p>
<p>no one is saying chicago isnt a good school so just leave it alone</p>
<p>edit: pear beat me to it</p>
<p>Chicago was the first college I visited on my trip. Columbia was the 4th, I believe. After I visited Chicago, I just decided to not to apply. To be honest, I loved the city of Chicago more than NYC, but the area around UChicago wasn't appealing to me at all (no offense.) Also, my tour guide and other college books stressed how Chicago was a very hard-working place. It kind of scared me away. Besides these, Chicago's 2 uncommon essays would have taken me too long to write since, in my case, I thought they weren't very usable for other colleges. On the other hand, while Columbia doesn't use the common app either, its essay is a topic of your choice and its short answers only required a couple of sentences. I still believe Chicago is a great school though. It just wasn't for me.</p>
<p>That was one of the things I appreciated the most about Chicago--the application. I thought the essay questions were a great change of pace from the other: write about an event that changed your life, a book that changed your life, etc. I'd much rather write about why someone would need a gallon-sized jug of mayo or whatever my essay question was--I think the bulk food question was one the year I applied, but I didn't write on it. I don't remember what my essay was about, but liked it a lot better than my other essays. I remember their viewbook had that same sense of humor.</p>
<p>Thanks everybody for your input on this issue-- I personally think the idea that Chicago needs to find more applicants appaling, because the school does not cater to everybody. If you read the general forums where posters with one or two thousand comments talk about Chicago, you'll hear very mixed reactions, but very strong for or against.</p>
<p>Which makes sense to me, because I think the best part of Chicago is that it at once operates as a prestigious research institution, just like Columbia or other members of the Crazy 8, and at another time it's like a hermetic liberal arts colleges, like a Reed, Swat, St. John's. The constant back-and-forth, I think, leads to a school that's a blend of types and attracts a lot of different personalities. Including pre-professional types! You can't expect a school with a renowned econ program not to produce Masters of the Universe. :-)</p>
<p>I ultimately chose Chicago for the class discussions, really-- I don't think I was a Columbia type to begin with (i.e. I don't think my grades or scores were high enough for me to have gotten in), but I had tons of fun writing the uncommon essay and comparing something in my life to a string. Most Chicagoans know if the school is right for them once they finish the application :-)</p>
<p>I don't want this to turn into Chicago propaganda too much, but I do want to clear the air for the 800+ views on this topic, some of whom might be students considering the school:</p>
<p>1) The high acceptance rate is the self-selecting nature of the school. Chicago turns a lot of bright, interesting, motivated kids away from it. While that may be a shame, I think it also means that the students who apply really, really want to go.</p>
<p>2) The high yield has a lot to do with the fact that Chicago has a non-binding, non-exclusive EA plan. A lot of students who apply to Chicago and get in can't even go because they got in elsewhere ED. Or, students apply RD also, and get offers that they can't refuse. I don't know how yield is calculated, but if ED is included in these numbers, a ranking-conscious school would be doing itself a favor if it accepted uberloads of students ED because a) that's a definite student coming for each admittance given out, and b) the more spots that are filled before RD, the fewer acceptances they give out.</p>
<p>OK, statistically, you can't have it both ways. either its applicant pool is very self-selecting (which would lead to high admit rates but also high yield rates), or it is a "complementary" type of school, appealing to lots of the same kind of students who find Columbia appealing - but would prefer Columbia if offered a choice (which would explain its low yield rate but also create the expectation for a low admit rate given a herd mentality of applications).</p>
<hr>
<p>I've known people who went to Chicago, including my current boss. My impression of the school is one that ought to be more satisfied with its position than it is. It's sort of like the engineering equivalent of Pomona - those who know about it know how awesome its strengths are, have heard of Steven Levitt, etc, but most people haven't heard much about it. What you have is a branding problem. How do you get the word out to guidance counselors that, "hey, do you have a quirky, unusual, idea-driven thinker who needs a place that will nurture his intellectual curiosity? Send him over to Chicago!"?</p>
<p>I doubt it has anything to do with the atmosphere on campus. Many top schools have very nerdy student bodies who get worked very very hard. The key is getting more of the right kinds of kids to want to apply. However, yours is a kind of school - again, like a Caltech or Pomona - who does not necessarily want to be the center of attention, getting huge numbers of applications just from reputation alone. Marketing for a school with highly self-selected applicants shouldn't be based around trying to be all things to all people. Be happy with what you are, and focus on improving students' opinions of life on campus, and word of mouth will continue to spread.</p>