<p>The University of Chicago has arguably the best Economics program in the world and yet its graduates don't make the top feeder lists at both Harvard and Wharton.</p>
<p>Getting into one of these elite business schools requires strong work experience so its extremely disconcerting that a top 10 American university like UChicago with some of the strongest Social Science graduate programs in the world isn't even in the top 20 schools at HBS and Wharton. Is finance and consulting at the school not that strong?</p>
<p>I don't mean to incite a flame war or anything but this seems like either a huge anomaly or a stain on the reputation of one of America's finest institutions of higher education.</p>
<p>you obviously don’t know very much about Chicago, do you?</p>
<p>Chicago’s econ department is very theory-driven, and it attracts students who desire that sort of education. It has this ‘anomaly’ as you describe it because its students are much less likely to want to go to finance and consulting. </p>
<p>Chicago undergrad trains economists much more than it does businesspeople. And the economists it trains and recruits in its faculty are some of the damned finest economic minds out there</p>
<p>“Is finance and consulting at the school not that strong?”</p>
<p>I don’t understand what you’re asking here. There are no undergraduate programs in business, finance, consulting or similar pre-professional fields at UChicago’s College.</p>
<p>OP, you’ve stumbled into a hostile environment…and it ain’t getting any less hostile if you choose to matriculate, that’s for sure…</p>
<p>That said, let’s be fair. First off, I don’t know if you were aware of this, but the Booth school of Business over here at Chicago is consistently ranked among the top 5 business schools and hosts a legion of nobel-laureate and otherwise renowned faculty. Second, a great number of UChicago econ majors have no intention of pursuing graduate school and instead plan on going directly into the private sector - or an MBA program. </p>
<p>I can’t say what the significance of your data is - right now I’m interning at a major investment bank where UChicago’s reputation is quite strong and I regularly see professors from Booth giving talks on CNBC. It definitely has a significant presence here, albeit perhaps not the kind economists at Chicago’s econ department might necessarily want. </p>
<p>But I still stick to what I said in the beginning - if you’re really looking for consulting or finance, turn around in the opposite direction and run. You won’t really get what you’re looking for. </p>
<p>Actually, though, that will hardly matter anyway because if you plan on going into business, those consulting and finance courses you took in college will be about as helpful as orgo will be to a doctor - i.e. almost entirely useless. I’m not bashing the system here, per se - a BA from a competitive institution like Chicago is a strong signal to employers of competence that they pick up on, but they also know well full that almost all of the skills you use in the industry are picked up on the job. In fact, if you happen to want to go into business but at the same time thrive in an intellectual environment, Chicago will do you wonders. If you bore of incessant intellectualism, though, you probably won’t be too happy here.</p>
<p>Sorry to double-post, but in what way is this a stain on UChicago’s reputation? It is and has never been UChicago’s mission to produce great businessmen.</p>
<p>I’ve also heard that Booth has a program that tries to get students who graduate from Chicago to come back for their MBAs. Given that fewer UChicago grads go for MBAs in the first place, this might help explain why the U of C doesn’t show up on those feeder lists at all.</p>
<p>In other news, not everyone has to go to Harvard, Wharton, or even get an MBA at all to “get good jobs.”</p>
<p>I’m not going to look for it, but there’s a ranking (I think by Forbes) that ranks the best colleges to go to if you want to get rich. Chicago’s usually ranked around #5, and the statistic for the top 10% of earners is truly outstanding (I think it’s something like annual salary of $255k).</p>
<p>So Chicago graduates do go on to get really rich and all that. But they do it in diverse fields rather than concentrating on finance and business.</p>
<p>Take a peek, too, at the “methodology” of this survey: One class, one year, and percentages projected from membership in a Facebook group. I’m sure the general outlines of the survey are not crazy, but there are some stunning anomalies. Do you really think that the University of Western Ontario is a major feeder school to Wharton? More so than first-rank Canadian universities like Toronto, McGill, and UBC? I don’t, and I even know people who went there.</p>
<p>All it really tells you is that there were fewer than 6 people from Chicago in each Facebook group that year. It also probably does tell you that somewhat fewer people from the University of Chicago go to business school – of any prestige level – than from the Ivy League universities, or Stanford, Duke, or Georgetown.</p>
I’m sure some Chicago grads go on to the some of the top Economics PhD programs in the world but the majority of them will enter the job market just like every other national university and LAC in the country. Econ is one of the most popular majors at UChi and most of these students will not enter Econ PhD programs worth their time of day since there are so few spots at the very best one. There just isn’t enough space in all of the top Econ PhD programs in the country to accomodate all the Chicago undergrads if what you say is true and besides, some if not a lot of the students will not be able to perform that well in their coursework to make this a viable possibility.</p>
<p>
Sorry I should have rephrased: Is finance and consulting recruitment at UChicago strong? There are no preprofessional programs in 6 of the 8 Ivies, Duke and Stanford but these are among the most represented institutions at elite business schools anyway.</p>
<p>
UChicago’s mission is to equip its graduates with the analytical and critical thinking skills to succeed in their respective paths in life including business school.</p>
<p>
Source please? If this Forbes article uses Payscale data then that’s largely useless since its self-reported.</p>
<p>
Facebook is actually a pretty good source to gather this sort of information since it sorts profiles by their schools and you need a valid b-school e-mail address to get accepted into the group i.e. these groups are closed and you need persmission from the administrator to gain access.</p>
<p>
Actually, I do. While those three schools you mentioned have a better academic reputation than UWO, Western Ontario’s business school Ivey is undisputably the strongest feeder into Wall Street and top consulting jobs from Canada. Ivey is well represented across the financial sector and multiple sources have confirmed this. Since Wharton places a great deal of emphasis on workplace prestige, Ivey will do better than schools like Toronto that offer a more theoretical education and don’t have great connections to top American companies.</p>
<p>
What do UChicago grads do exactly after graduation? Peer schools like Penn and Duke are much better represented at the top law and medical schools as well. More Chicago grads get PhDs I’m sure, but this would still be a non-majority percentage of the population.</p>
<p>
Nope, all I hear is conjecture and speculation. Harvard and Wharton are the king of business and Chicago’s not one of the top 20-25 feeders to these programs despite its status as a top 10 university. What is going on?</p>
<p>What’s “going on” is you are thoroughly demonstrating your utterly poor fit at the University of Chicago should you (tragically) choose to attend. As countless other people have said on this forum, if you’re really concerned about these rankings or are simply dead-set on being pre-med or pre-law, an Ivy League school such as Harvard or Wharton is a much better choice. No argument or bitter feelings there; it’s a widely agreed-upon fact. </p>
<p>Your contention that this extends to pre-business is probably fairly controversial, as you mght have noticed, since many econ undergrads intend on going into business, as you correctly argued, and they definitely bank on Chicago’s reputation in business. It’s not just the pre-professional econ majors; it’s widely agreed that going to Chicago for econ is an excellent ticket into business. You may continue to argue that it’s inferior in this narrow aspect to its peers (say, Penn or Harvard), but in the broader scheme it is a pretty darn good option. I would say it’s one of the top 10 in the nation if you want to go into business. </p>
<p>The point you’re REALLY missing though: no one cares. People have been hinting at this (or outright blaring it at you) in a number of posts in this thread, but the Chicago mentality is not one that’s concerned with how well its students do in business. Academics is the biggest, if not only focus at Chicago. Your claim that since Chicago is not “one of the top 20-25 feeders to these programs despite its status as a top 10 university” there must be something “wrong” with Chicago is incredibly myopic; if your conception of a great university depends so heavily on being a b-school feeder, then you won’t be too happy with the liberal arts curriculum at any of these top colleges…</p>
<p>You should have seen how neurotic the economics dept. here was during the orientation session for econ majors; they do not smile upon econ-majors who see their degree as nothing more than a ticket into an investment bank, which again - why would they get so riled up about it if this strategy didn’t actually work? But seriously, if that’s what’s worrying you - well, by all means, apply. Should you find yourself rejected from Harvard or Wharton (which can clearly happen to anyone, regardless of qualification), Chicago is an excellent option for going into business. But your attitude about all of this suggests you won’t be happy here, so if you have better options, you best take them.</p>
<p>have you considered that Chicago Econ grads also take their skills to other social science professions, such as politics and international affairs work? have you considered that the Chicago community has an aversion to places like Wharton and HBS? </p>
<p>Have you considered the fact that UChicago is simply smaller than a lot of its peer institutions, and thus has fewer grads to start with? </p>
<p>“Facebook is actually a pretty good source to gather this sort of information since it sorts profiles by their schools and you need a valid b-school e-mail address to get accepted into the group i.e. these groups are closed and you need persmission from the administrator to gain access.”
Not only is survey data from Facebook self-reporting (people have to decide to join the networks), but the survey you list consists of only one year.</p>
<p>"Nope, all I hear is conjecture and speculation. "
I find it ironic to read you, of all people, levelling such an accusation</p>
<p>“Harvard and Wharton are the king of business and Chicago’s not one of the top 20-25 feeders to these programs despite its status as a top 10 university. What is going on?”</p>
<p>See, you’re still doing the thing that everyone admonished you for doing before. The fact is that neither UChicago nor its faculty nor the vast majority of its students emphasize success at a big-name business school as the ultimate goal of an undergraduate education.</p>
<p>It’s your thought process. You seem to think that UChicago’s failure to be mentioned on these lists (which, as has been mentioned before, have questionable metrics) is somehow a failure on the part of the institution along the lines of a failure to serve its students lunch; you think that UChicago should be on these lists just because it’s a top ten university, and you therefore believe that UChicago’s academic reputation is overstated.</p>
<p>But that’s just the thing. It isn’t. UChicago has always taken the low road when it came to college admissions, contrary to every single other top university. The Ivies have always emphasized perceived future economic success in admitting its students, and UChicago has always emphasized admitting students who would benefit from the stellar education (potentially to its financial detriment). (Check out this article for a bit of further explanation: [gladwell</a> dot com - getting in](<a href=“http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html]gladwell”>http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html) ) UChicago is just different, and if you think it’s of much concern to UChicago’s faculty that they’re not on these inaccurate lists, you just don’t understand their mindset.</p>
<p>I think there are other fine institutions which would be a far better fit for the OP. If one does not like what Chicago has to offer, well, there’s a whole <em>market</em> of schools out there from which to choose. Viva la difference!</p>
Here we go, another imperfect ranking based on one year of data. <a href=“http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/pdfs/wsj_college_092503.pdf[/url]”>http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/pdfs/wsj_college_092503.pdf</a>. This WSJ ranking includes 15 top med, law, and b-schools (including both HBS and Wharton), and Chicago comes out 14th. Given that four of the schools in the top 13 are liberal arts colleges, I’d say UChicago held up its top 10 ranking fairly well. Note that this cites 11 members of the Wharton MBA class as Chicago alums, which would put Chicago comfortably onto the list you posted. And what about Penn and Duke being “better represented at the top law and medical schools?” Well, Duke is 6th, UChicago 14th, and Penn 16th. The list also mentions the Booth program I mentioned earlier.</p>
<p>I’d still like to see some sort of explanation as to how a lack of representation at MBA programs indicates an inability to prepare students for any good job.</p>
<p>Chicago Law and Booth were both used in that study which should have helped UChicago tremendously because the preference that these two professional school have for their home institution’s undergraduates and yet Chicago still didn’t make the top 10.</p>
<p>So what? There are a lot of great institutions in the top 10, and the top 15, and the top 20, too. All of those schools did extremely well. It really isn’t much of a knock on Chicago that Amherst, Swarthmore or Brown also do well. They do!</p>
<p>It is also worth noting that:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Somewhat uniquely among the schools in the WSJ survey, Chicago has been getting a lot more selective over the past decade. The profile (and projected GMAT/GRE scores) of current Chicago students is, on average, a lot higher than it would have been with people who graduated 7-8 years ago. That’s not the only thing that matters in the world, but it probably makes a difference – a difference that could easily be magnified by the closeness of many of the competitors in that survey.</p></li>
<li><p>The survey implies that the percentage of students at each college who WANT to attend professional school is roughly the same. And that’s probably not true at all.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I think these ranking stuff are all gimmicks by the magazine publishers, they use this to sell their publications and the schools go for those because they can benefit from it. And general public fall for those becasue of false hope that some how their sons and daughters who got in will become rich and famous with good jobs and good prosepects.</p>
<p>While it is true that higher percentages of the graduates of the ivies and the like will excel, but it really depends on individuals. There are plenty of college dropouts, highschool dropouts succeeded in their lifes and many Ivy graduates did not go anywhere.</p>
<p>I have a friend who is UG Yale and MBA Harvard, he came from a family with old money and they paid all his schooling. Got a job in Texaco right after graduation. GOOD? He had a personality conflict with his boss and was fired. After that, he tried freelance as a writer, which did not go anywhere and because of his personality, he is not employable. I believe he is in his 70’s and still lives in a rent controled apartment with little income to support his living.</p>
<p>It should be clear by now that OP isn’t here to present any rigorous arguments. He already has his presumptions, and there’s no way to get rid of them. An obvious example of this is his ridiculous proposition that self-reported statistics are meaningless, so anything self-reported that serves as evidence that Chicago is doing well is immediately rejected. Of course, this ignores the obvious fact that pretty much any statistics reported on colleges are self-reported, and that the two statistics he cites (which are, by the way, completely statistically insignificant to any thinker) are self-reported by Penn and Harvard (which are, by your logic, untrustworthy and are probably doing a service to their own undergraduates).</p>
<p>By the way, jhaverford, your arguments aren’t even coherent. Criticizing Chicago because its graduates can only get into Chicago Booth (which is, by the way, completely false and ridiculous) is like criticizing Harvard because its undergraduates could only get into Harvard Business School. Chicago is a top 5 business school by any measure (and is usually ranked side-by-side with or above Wharton if you do your research; it’s #1 in the nation in BusinessWeek and #1 in the world in The Economist), so even if Chicago undergraduates COULD only get into Chicago Booth, pardon my language, but who gives a sh–? You’re only here because you want an argument.</p>