<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>