<p>LOL-- I had a similar experience.</p>
<p>I had seen people wearing a "Cal" and a funny looking "D" a bunch, but I didn't know what they referred to. I thought that "Cal" referred to "CalTech" for a very long time, until I visited Berkeley. Even then, I was wondering why this CalTech logo was all over the place, if we weren't at CalTech.</p>
<p>I think I linked the "D" and "Duke" when I started looking at colleges.</p>
<p>The St. Petersburg Times renamed the article. The actual title is "The Disadvantages of an Elite Education". I was a little surprised by Deresiewicz's piece. I don't really recall him ever blasting elite schools before. But he did just leave his position at Yale... maybe on poor terms?</p>
<p>gradatgrad,</p>
<p>NEVER heard of ED Hirsch. How did you pick him as your idol?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You think it's that easy? That the U of C can simply take a stack of applications, pull one out at random, and know whether or not that person will graduate?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's really not that hard, particularly with computing power being so darn cheap these days. Simply perform a statistical analysis on all of your past students (graduates and nongraduates) to determine statistical markers that determine what signifies who is likely not to graduate, and then just admit fewer people who have those markers. Given the dataset that UChicago or any other school has, anybody with basic statistics training could perform such an analysis. </p>
<p>Lest you think this is radical, this is precisely what insurance companies do to determine how much to charge for premiums, or even whether to insure people at all. For example, it was found through statistical data-mining that smokers suffer from bad health, which is why they are charged higher premiums. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Has it ever occurred to you that they may have been fully able to graduate but CHOSE to transfer away?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So what? It still means that, for whatever reason, UChicago was not the right choice for that student. After all, if he CHOSE to transfer away, that student for some reason didn't want to be there. So why admit that student in the first place? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Whoa there, let's not draw conclusions when there are none. Chicago stands at 90%, Cornell at 92%, and Dartmouth at 93%. Do you consider Chicago to be significantly lower than Cornell or Dartmouth?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's quite significantly lower. All you have to do to see it is turn the numbers around: 10% of UChicago students won't graduate, compared to 8% and 7% at Cornell or Dartmouth respectively. What that means is that a randomly picked Chicago student is 25% more likely to not graduate than a randomly picked Cornell student. </p>
<p>What makes the situation even more egregious is that Cornell has a quite large engineering program, whereas Chicago does not offer engineering, and engineering programs are noted for their unusually high attrition rates. Yet, despite that fact, Cornell still manages to boast a higher graduation rate than Chicago does. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you consider Cornell to be 'worse' than Dartmouth even though Cornell has a lot of confounding factors that might affect its graduation rate (e.g. more diverse socio-economic background, some unique five-year programs, lower academic qualifications in some of the niche majors (e.g. agriculture))?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nobody is denying that there are confounding factors. But that doesn't take away from the point that UChicago is probably a relatively "dangerous" school, in terms of a lower graduation rate relative to its peers, and for a well-known reputation for difficulty and rigor. Which leads back to the question I have posed before: why would you want to go to a school like that if you have a comparable option? Why make things more difficult for yourself if you don't have to? After all, employers (sadly) aren't going to care whether you graduated from Chicago or one of its peer schools. There is no "bonus" for graduating from Chicago. There probably should be, but sadly, there isn't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Believe it or not, 2001-2002 are watershed years for Chicago. It's after 2001-2002 that I expect the data to change, because it's after 2001-2002 that significant changes to the school began to take place.</p>
<p>Why admit students who showed smoke signals? Finances, is my guess. The university increased its size over a relatively short time span when they were in financial trouble and they were just looking for paying customers more than anything. Some of those "seatpayers" could have been the ones who had trouble graduating.</p>
<p>So, in the past, difficulty of admission < difficulty of graduation.</p>
<p>But now, in 2008 and 2009, I think difficulty of graduation< difficulty of admission. If we're just talking about walking across the podium graduation. That's something that's not reflected by the 2001 data.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then we'll just have to wait and see what the future data says. </p>
<p>But even if what you are saying is true, that still doesn't exactly bode well for Chicago. What you are basically saying is that Chicago decided to prioritize its own finances over the welfare of its students in that they admitted a bunch of students who they probably suspected weren't going to graduate, just so that the school could pay the bills. Well, I think you must agree, that's not exactly a great signal to be sending to the market. Be honest - why would people rationally want to go to a school that has a reputation for treating students like that, when they have other options? Sorry to be harsh, but that speaks to a certain level of coldness and callousness of the school, at least in the past, and who's to say that it won't happen again? </p>
<p>
[quote]
And while yes, the degree is nice, I don't know how I feel about a university just graduating people if they are truly mucking around. It decreases the value of the degree in some ways, and while it's economically important to have a degree, the fact that you didn't have to lift a proverbial finger for it is kind of upsetting to the hard workers, no?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then don't admit those people. I've always said that this is the preferred strategy. If you don't think somebody is actually going to graduate, then why admit him in the first place? </p>
<p>Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not asking for perfection. Obviously no school will have a 100% graduation rate. But you still should not be admitting people who you have reason to believe are not actually going to graduate. If nothing else, it would mean that you would be able to give those spots to those who are actually going to graduate. </p>
<p>
[quote]
There are a lot of risks that come with putting down a deposit at a school. One is not graduating, and another more immediate concern is not enjoying the school. Somewhere along the line I decided that Chicago was the school most likely to make me happy and that my deposit there was worth the risks. I thought that the "risk-averse" options, by your definition, weren't the best college choices for me. I think other students come to similar conclusions, because there has to be <em>some</em> reason they choose Chicago, despite risks of not graduating or even not liking it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, like I said, I think one major reason for many people is simple: they didn't get into other comparable options. I would certainly choose Chicago over the vast majority of other schools in the country, for Chicago is clearly better than them. </p>
<p>But the relevant question is obviously whether people would choose Chicago over most other schools, but whether they would Chicago over a particular set of top-notch schools. That's a far dicier proposition. I can't remember what Chicago's yield is, but I think you would agree that it's not that high, i.e. under 50%. That means that most people who are admitted to Chicago choose to go elsewhere. </p>
<p>I'll give you the example of my brother and Caltech. He freely admits that he went to Caltech only because he didn't get into places like Harvard or Stanford (and he chose Caltech over MIT only because Caltech offered him a full ride). Then, when he got into Stanford for grad school, he jumped at the opportunity. </p>
<p>Nobody is denying that some people will still choose Chicago (or Caltech) even if given those other options. But my point simply regards what do the bulk of people tend to do, and the truth is, they tend not to want to go to Chicago. I think you have to agree that most people would be turned off by a school that has a motto of being "where fun goes to die", particularly when the school itself is located in one of the most interesting cities in the world.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've only learned that Cal is another name for Berkeley in the past year or so. Why would I know that, when I don't live in California? It's irrelevant to my everyday life. I know Berkeley's a fine school and I've visited the campus, but knowing that it's also called Cal is ... whatever, irrelevant to me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're only reinforcing my point: geographic knowledge does not translate cleanly into common man's prestige. Everybody (I hope) has at least heard of California. But that doesn't mean that everybody thinks that "Cal", the "University of California", or even "University of California at Berkeley" is a prestigious school. </p>
<p>It all gets back to what I think somebody here said. The common man only knows of schools that are regional to him, of (if a sports fan) schools that have prominent sports programs, as well as Harvard, Yale and Princeton (and even Princeton is somewhat debatable). Other schools rarely register, whether it's UChicago or Berkeley or Caltech or whatever.</p>
<p>"You're only reinforcing my point: geographic knowledge does not translate cleanly into common man's prestige."</p>
<p>I don't disagree with you on this point, at all. I totally agree that the common man knows only of what schools are nearby / the state schools of that state and perhaps neighboring ones, HYP, and that's about it.</p>
<p>Here in Chicago, the common man is more likely to know Northwestern than U of Chicago. This means nothing about the relative quality of both schools, but it simply reflects that Northwestern is more "visible" because of both the physical presence (there is little reason for Chicagoans to go to Hyde Park unless they have business in that area, whereas NU has a prominent presence in both Evanston and downtown Chicago) and because NU fields a football team and plays U of I. That's all.</p>
<p>NU is way more visible, if only because they have Northwestern Med right on the miracle mile and even I've learned how to spot a Northwestern logo (or maybe it's Northern Illinois?)</p>
<p>Sakky, I agree with you that I don't think Chicago's enrollment strategy was necessarily the right thing to do, but I can't change the past. There are a lot of other colleges and universities out there that I really like that have also have done or do some ethically questionable things, but it doesn't mean that students don't have a great time there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
think you have to agree that most people would be turned off by a school that has a motto of being "where fun goes to die", particularly when the school itself is located in one of the most interesting cities in the world.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The administration would LOVE if students stopped copyrighting "Where Fun Comes to Die" and slapping it on the backs of t-shirts and sweatshirts and selling them to current students. A lot of students find it ironic and funny, as it is a motto that we made up, rather than a phrase that somebody else put on us. That's important to point out. When it's the students poking fun at themselves, it's hard to take it seriously.</p>
<p>But yes, you have a point. Maybe the fact that we're not known as "University of Chicago: Haven't I hooked up with you before?" probably means that a lot of prospective students are turned off by the school. They're not a good fit, even at one I had "priority" admission status to. That's not a bad thing: there were a lot of schools that turned me off, too. I wasn't a good fit. Chicago may be "risky" and it may not be as "preferred," next to another school, but I guess in your mind, sakky, this leads to it being underrated? I'm sure administrators are very aware of this status, particularly with the (controversial) move to the common application.</p>
<p>To me, Chicago is just "rated." Every university or college is just "rated." Yes, there are terrific schools that don't get the attention they deserve-- William and Mary, Pomona, Rice, Wesleyan, and on and on-- but the simple truth is that most people in the country aren't going to know them, aren't required to know them, and the students who find out about them have a wonderful time there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can't imagine a student at today's Northwestern not EVER having heard of Dartmouth in his or her life.</p>
<p>Can you?!</p>
<p>
This article strikes me as arrogant and I don't agree with you painting me into that corner. It sounds like the author feels guilty about not being able to converse with his plumber and tries to paint elite educational institutions as failing with regards to practicality, when in reality it is he who has failed to expose himself to certain aspects of society and the world around him. </p>
<p>Personally, I can talk to my plumbers. I have an uncle who is a plumber; he does quite well for himself. My father worked the better part of his career in a warehouse.</p>
<p>I wouldn't expect a warehouse man or plumber to know Dartmouth, though my father and uncle certainly do. I would expect someone who spent a decade in college to know it.</p>
<p>
Because it should be common knowledge, or at least common sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You don't think that there are indefinable characteristics that make one person less likely to graduate from Chicago than another? You think everything can be reduced to simple numbers that the student submits on the application? </p>
<p>I don't get it. What, pray tell, might be one of these magical indicators?</p>
<p>
No, it means that a randomly chosen Chicago student is 2% less likely to graduate than a randomly chosen Cornell student. Nothing more, nothing less.
What you fail to realize is that we're talking about probabilities here. So while a statistical regression analysis might reveal today's average UChicago admit to have a 90% chance of graduation, the admits in 2001 or 2002 might have had, say, an 85% chance of graduation. Is that really an egregious example of the university putting its needs ahead of its students'? There are plenty of universities with a graduation rate below 85%.</p>
<p>
You don't think that the mythical "common Chicagoan" knows both schools?</p>
<p>Kidding?</p>
<p>You may find this hard to believe, gradatgrad, but at the Northwestern *I attended, not everyone was Ivy-crazy or obsessed. BTW, I did / do know the Ivies and turned one of them (Penn) down for NU. But, I also grew up in the East Coast. That makes a bigger difference than you think in terms of attention paid to name-brand colleges.</p>
<p>I didn't say my husband never heard of Dartmouth in his life. I said if you asked him to name all 8 Ivies, he wouldn't be able to rattle them off in 8 seconds the way I would, or the way many CC'ers would. He'd recognize the name Dartmouth, but he wouldn't have any *impression of it other than "obviously a very good school, and in the Northeast someplace." Why is it relevant to his Chicago-born-and-bred life as a physician to know precisely where in New England Dartmouth is located, or to know anything about it other than it has a good reputation? What more "should" he know about Dartmouth? How will that help him in his work relating to the average everyday American?</p>
<p>
Northwestern: <a href="http://www.logoserver.com/college/NorthwesternWildcats2.GIF%5B/url%5D">http://www.logoserver.com/college/NorthwesternWildcats2.GIF</a></p>
<p>NIU: <a href="http://www.logoserver.com/college/NorthernIllinoisHuskies4.GIF%5B/url%5D">http://www.logoserver.com/college/NorthernIllinoisHuskies4.GIF</a>
[quote=unalove] particularly with the (controversial) move to the common application.
Rather than "controversial," I'd prefer to term it deliciously ironic.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To me, Chicago is just "rated." Every university or college is just "rated." Yes, there are terrific schools that don't get the attention they deserve-- William and Mary, Pomona, Rice, Wesleyan, and on and on-- but the simple truth is that most people in the country aren't going to know them, aren't required to know them, and the students who find out about them have a wonderful time there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly. W&M is one of my personal favorite schools, for example. If my kids are so inclined, I'd love them to look there. So what that the everyday average Joe Schmoe person here in Chicagoland might not know what it is? Who cares? Is that why you do things -- to impress other people? Blech. If they were so inclined and it was a good fit, I'd send them in a heartbeat and not care about what "prestige" it held or didn't hold in the eyes of Joe Schmoe.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I didn't say my husband never heard of Dartmouth in his life. I said if you asked him to name all 8 Ivies, he wouldn't be able to rattle them off in 8 seconds the way I would, or the way many CC'ers would.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I bet most people with advanced degrees can't do that either.</p>
<p>"You don't think that the mythical "common Chicagoan" knows both schools?</p>
<p>Kidding?"</p>
<p>Not sure if you are or not, but for the average Joe Schmoe on the street? Yeah, I think that there's confusion between U of Illinois - Chicago and U of Chicago. But so what? Why should that stop anyone who is interested in U of Chicago? How is that going to "harm" the U of Chicago grad any, that average Joe Schmoe doesn't think of it top-of-mind as a great school? </p>
<p>I think it's a sign of personal weakness to spend so much time worrying about what other people think. I think the rankings are good for the info they provide and for putting schools into general types of tiers for comparison purposes, but worrying about "prestige" is stupid.</p>
<p>
Neither is NU Ivy-crazy or Ivy-obsessed today. But today's students would have certainly HEARD of Dartmouth. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I didn't say my husband never heard of Dartmouth in his life. I said if you asked him to name all 8 Ivies, he wouldn't be able to rattle them off in 8 seconds the way I would, or the way many CC'ers would. He'd recognize the name Dartmouth, but he wouldn't have any *impression of it other than "obviously a very good school, and in the Northeast someplace." Why is it relevant to his Chicago-born-and-bred life as a physician to know precisely where in New England Dartmouth is located, or to know anything about it other than it has a good reputation? What more "should" he know about Dartmouth? How will that help him in his work relating to the average everyday American?
[/quote]
Nothing, that's absolutely the outlook I'd expect someone in his position to have. What alarmed me about my friend's story is that the doctor had honestly never once heard mention of Dartmouth in his 50+ years on Earth.</p>
<p>"Nothing, that's absolutely the outlook I'd expect someone in his position to have. What alarmed me about my friend's story is that the doctor had honestly never once heard mention of Dartmouth in his 50+ years on Earth."</p>
<p>Alarmed you, how? Maybe he just wasn't attuned to it. </p>
<p>You know, I'm the kind of person who couldn't tell you for all the tea in China who was in last year's Super Bowl. I might hear it on that day, I might retain it for a day or two, but then I delete it out of my brain files, because I have no desire to devote any space in my brain to retaining that information. So what? All that means is that I'm not interested in the topic.</p>
<p>Not everyone is interested in knowing about colleges beyond what's personally relevant to them and their loved ones. Maybe this guy has heard the name Dartmouth but it went in one ear and out the other, because it had no personal relevance or meaning to him. He had his own college selections, he was doing well, that's all he needed to know.</p>
<p>But let's even play along -- ok, so now someone's heard the name. Should they be required to know anything about the school? Where it is, what it's known for, whether it has a core curriculum or not, whether it has fraternities, when it was founded ... what? </p>
<p>I think you'd be amazed if you did a national survey of awareness of colleges, that beyond HYPS, most people are only going to be aware of their state flagships and related schools, other local colleges, and perhaps colleges with renowned or prominent sporting programs (Ohio State, UCLA, Notre Dame, etc.). The rest -- it's all regional. Really. It's just not a high priority for most people, and there is no reason it needs to be.</p>
