UChicago is not less prestigious than Columbia. If anything, it is more prestigious than Columbia overseas. The academic and research reputation is better, hence the higher ranking on World University Rankings (QS, Times, ARWU, CWUR). Columbia has many cash cow master’s programs that dilute its prestige (even its undergrad prestige). If anything, Columbia is known for its inclusivity rather than its exclusivity.
Higher selectivity doesn’t mean a school is better. You just get many apps from unqualified kids. The point is to get the best students. Princeton with possibly only 2/3rds of the number of apps Columbia gets is in a better position than Columbia to get the best students.
@tsbna44 - well, what’s most prestigious in the eyes of most of the beholders? What would make UChicago more prestigious? Should it change its name and become an ivy league?
@JBStillFlying - doesn’t prestige mean what most people think of as best?
I saw it was #6 in US News, but it’s getting fewer applications, and people on this thread are saying it’s less prestigious than schools around it.
Sorry @skieurope - maybe I am misunderstanding here. If this thread is about the largest applicant pool in UChicago’s history, but it’s still 20,000 less apps than schools ranked around it, what does that say?
Doesn’t selectivity from a large applicant pool reveal prestige? I thought top US News schools want big application numbers to get more prestige - to be the best.
Otherwise, what does it show when a school has the largest applicant pool in its history, but the other schools have 20k more apps?
@CateCAParent - really not trying to provoke a fight. I saw UChicago was #6 in US News, but I can’t put my finger on why it’s different than all the other schools. I’d heard of all the other schools - they are big names like Harvard and Columbia and Duke, but UChicago seems like the odd man out.
I am curious why. Maybe because it is less prestigious?
But on this thread, it’s hard to figure out. Some say it’s just “different,” other says it’s less prestigious - or say because it’s not an ivy league. Can it apply to be an ivy league to help this?
UChicago considers itself a specialty school. It appeals to people looking for a particular thing. They don’t expect or want everyone to apply, much like MIT or CalTech or elite LACs.
So comparing number of apps to Harvard, etc is apples to oranges.
That thing, that UChicago ethos, is (from what I have come to understand) devotion to traditional core requirements, emphasis on hard work, and commitment to free speech across the political spectrum.
UChicago is one of the best universities in the world. It is certainly not the “odd man out.” The ivy league is a sports league and just happens to be a consortium of some of the best colleges in the US. The undisputed top universities in the world are Harvard, Stanford, and MIT. Two of them are not ivy league.
UChicago is not different from other schools except that it emphasizes free expression and rigorous inquiry. It is also arguably a more academic place, which deters many high schoolers from applying.
The main reason why UChicago has less apps than Columbia is 1. it has essay questions that are difficult to respond to. 2. it is not in NYC. 3. It has a perception of being academically rigorous. Getting less apps does not mean the school is worse than Columbia or Duke. UChicago certainly does not get worse students than Columbia, which is what really matters.
Sorry @skieurope - I am new to this board. As you can determine what questions to ask on this thread, may I ask: “Should UChicago strive for more apps, and would that give the school a bigger name?”
If that is not an acceptable question, please kindly delete this question.
@CateCAParent - thank you for the message! This is what I wanted to know! So, UChicago is a “specialty school” - so different than Harvard and Columbia, and more like MIT and Cal Tech? But isn’t it bigger than those schools, and not a technical institute?
If it is a specialty school or technical school, is that why it doesn’t have a big name, and gets less applications? MIT is still a very big name.
No debate here, but the word “prestige” is fascinating to me. It has a couple of definitions. One would be “great respect or importance.” The other, an older usage, implies charm, illusion (even flattering illusion) such as in a magic trick.
Please skieurope if this is an unacceptable question, my apologies, but, for top college admissions, do the schools given the most “great respect or importance” typically get the most applications?
But, then the “specialty schools” (like UChicago or Cal Tech) get less?
@PlayTag I am probably not the best person to answer these questions. But…
UChicago isn’t a technical school in the sense that MIT or CalTech is. What I mean by specialty is just that its curriculum and style is different enough that it attracts a different kind of student by design. Its applicants overlap with Ivies because the applicants are stellar in their qualifications, but whether UChicago or Harvard is the best fit for a student isn’t all about “prestige” (whatever that means). That said, lots of students would thrive in any Ivy, UChicago, and any number of other schools out there.
I think people starting to look at colleges tend to come at it first with an understandably broad-stroke vision that is very dependent on numbers and rankings. Lowest admissions=best. Highest test scores = most selective. #1 on USNWR has the best students. Like everything in life, the more you scratch the surface, the more complex the analysis is. UChicago is an example of a school that requires a more nuanced look.
No. NYU got more than 100,000 applications but is not even close to being as selective as Harvard. It is also not given as much “great respect or importance” as Harvard. Same thing with UCLA. The number of applications doesn’t matter. The quality of the applicant pool matters and the quality of the matriculating student body matters.
UChicago is not a specialty school. The undergrad student body is very akin to its ivy plus peers.
@hongkongbanker - I meant schools that are similar in ranking. Harvard and NYU are not close in the rankings. UChicago and Harvard are.
Also, I am confused. @CateCAParent says UChicago is a “specialty school” but hongkongbanker says it is not. CateCAP says UChicago attracts a “different kind of student” but hong kong banker says its student body is similar to “ivy plus.” Why would people disagree about this? Is it a specialty school or not?
Also, if it is different than the ivy league, why is it in the ivy plus?
Sorry - I don’t mean to be argumentative. I saw UChicago was #6, but this thread is confusing - people are saying opposite things.
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. It’s important not to confuse “great respect or importance” regarding the university with the popularity of the undergrad program. Perhaps the question should be why some of the Ivies or Stanford - all of whom are ‘peer’ schools with respect to their liberal arts program - are more popular than UChicago. Anecdotally speaking - and whether deserved or not - the latter just has a reputation for being a tougher undergrad program, all else equal. If one can get the same or better access to the “top jobs” and graduate programs, but not have to work as hard as an undergraduate, that undergrad program will be more popular than one that makes you work super-hard. I suspect that has a lot to with those application numbers.
JB puts this in a good way. UChicago is more academically rigorous than peer schools, so this deters many high schoolers from applying. It also has the quirky essay prompts that many students struggle with. For many schools, you could just use the same supplemental essays. But for UChicago, you have to actually be creative and write a meaningful one.
The college at UChicago has seen immense changes in the last 30 years, it is certainly not a specialty school or attracts a different kind of student nowadays—I have firsthand evidence as I am a current student there. Sure, the school may appeal to more academic types, but that’s only the minority of the student body and certainly not the prevailing norm.
Even the same student on campus can disagree with themselves on this one! Believe me, I’ve witnessed that. Yes, it attracts the same “type” of student - that is, someone who’s a top academic performer in high school and who is looking to be liberally educated, have a wide choice of majors and courses and internship and career opportunities, etc. This is at first glance, a very uniform group of kids. They’ve taken mostly the same courses, gotten the same grades, similar board scores and AP’s, etc. Even similar EC’s (music, leadership sports, etc.). What might separate them would have more to do with what goes on inside their head than outside of it. “Life of the mind” and “learning for the sake of learning” might be more attractive to someone headed to UChicago than elsewhere. Clearly, other top schools have “life of the mind types.” There’s no doubt about that. The difference would be that at UChicago, you can’t get away from it, even if you want to. So those looking for that type of experience might end up anywhere, but UChicago does tend to admit a whole lot of them relative to elsewhere.
Good question. I think the truth is in the eye of the beholder. I would like people who are personally affiliated with UChicago to weigh in. I think that question is at the core of a lot of discussion on this forum. Is UChicago trying to be something different than the Ivies?
In my original post, I included LACs as being specialty schools, too. I think they separate themselves out from the Ivies as well, but are competitive with them. Similar questions usually circle around them.
Another angle that differentiates elite schools is how ”pre-professional” they are. UPenn is on one end of the spectrum, not sure where UChicago is, but I would think it is at the other.
Ok, again, forgive my ignorance here, but “quirky essay prompts” and “academically rigorous” don’t sound that bad. When I research the big names - Columbia or UPenn or Cornell - I see MUCH worse. skieurope, sorry if I can’t mention this, but UPenn has mentions of suicides, so does Cornell, and Columbia has “mental health problems.”
The other schools seem to have deeply unhappy students. You can just google any of them and the articles start popping up. But even though people say Columbia is “the most stressed college,” somehow they get 20,000 more applications than UChicago?
If a school is #6 but has a “quirky essay,” who cares? My explanation would be it has a smaller name amongst the top schools - which is why I was surprised to see it was #6. But it’s because high achieving smart students don’t like to be academically rigorous, or don’t want to write a quirky essay? The articles on the other schools sound MUCH worse.