Most overrated/underrated school on the USNWR?

College Search & Selection
321

<p>
[quote]
One of the primary reasons Chicago appealed to me so much was because it didn't name-brand itself. If anything, "Where Fun Comes to Die" and the Uncommon App (now Chicago supplement) and the Core worked as wards against popularity.</p>

<p>Ever see that movie about the girl who was trapped between being popular in high school and being herself? Yeah? I think Chicago, while it's becoming a more appealing school, is still not playing the popular game, because if it did it wouldn't be itself. I defend Chicago a lot here (of course I'm quite emotionally attached to it), but nobody asks me to make the case that it's the best school for everybody. It isn't. So when posters try to argue against it by suggesting it has some shortcomings that prevent it from being the best school for everybody ever, it sounds to me like somebody observing that the sky is blue.</p>

<p>But I feel that for the people who come here, at least the ones I keep on bumping into, Chicago was the right choice for them. And what matters more: what people who don't go think of the school, or what the people who attend think of it?</p>

<p>If Chicago did play this popularity game to an extent that it changed the feeling of the school, I'd pack my bags. I hear there's a small school in Portland that graduates some of the brightest students in the country, and the students there don't give a flying whiff what you think of it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But that's not what I'm talking about, as I explained above in my recent posts above. I am not talking about quirkiness. You want to be a quirky school with an unorthodox student body? That's fine.</p>

<p>But, no matter how quirky you want to be, you still should be admitting students who are actually going to graduate, for I don't think quirkiness ought to mean lower graduation rates. Why do those two have to go hand-in-hand? </p>

<p>In fact, I would argue that the opposite should be the case: that a quirky school ought to be able to attract a quirky student body which would then mean that the school should have a higher graduation rate than its peers because of the excellent fit between the school and its students. For example, you want to run a tough Core? You want to cultivate a reputation where 'fun comes to die'? Fine, then you should be attracting students who want a tough Core. Who want to go to a school who enjoy a reputation for not having fun. On the other hand, you might expect that Harvard ends up with students who don't really want to be there but were simply attracted to the brand name, but who otherwise don't really fit in. Hence, Chicago ought to have a higher graduation rate than Harvard does, right? </p>

<p>But again, that's not what happens. What actually happens is that Chicago ends up with a high percentage of students who don't really like the school, as evidenced by graduation rates: either they perform poorly and hence flunk out, or, even if they perform fine, they dislike the school by enough that they transfer out. Either way, you have a higher percentage of students who don't fit in, relative to peer schools. In fact, uvalove, you admitted yourself that in the recent past, Chicago admitted a bunch of students who probably should not have been admitted. </p>

<p>The bottom line is this. You can be as unorthodox and quirky as you want to be, and still have a high graduation rate. In fact, your unorthodoxity should increase your graduation rate, if you are truly bringing in those students who fit in well. But that's not what's happening: rather, who you are really bringing in are many students who simply aren't good enough to get into those other schools. </p>

<p>I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If Chicago is actually using conscious marketing to attract only those people who enjoy its unorthodox approach to education, then why is its relative yield rate so low? Why is its relative graduation rate so low? It seems to me that, in reality, Chicago is actually attracting people - both applicants and matriculants - who aren't good fits at all.</p>

<p>I'm not asking for Chicago to change its unorthodox stance. It can admit whatever unorthodox students it wants. All I am saying is that Chicago should admit those unorthodox students who are actually going to graduate. In other words, don't admit those students who don't really want to be there and hence aren't going to graduate anyway. I don't think I'm asking for the world.</p>

322

<p>
[quote]
Like pizzagirl said, that question should be rephrased: "Why is Harvard such a cultural phenomenon, a metonymy for every other elite school out there, and why isn't any other school, not just Chicago, able to stand on its own merits? "</p>

<p>Even the fact that you're using HARVARD in this example says something powerful about how much the HARVARD name is known and recognized and is the knee-jerk choice for a school to pick on.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Fine, if you think that Harvard is an unfair comparison, then use Yale. Use Princeton. Use Stanford. Use MIT. All of them have more powerful brand names than Chicago does. One can reasonably ask why Chicago doesn't have the brand name that any of those schools does.</p>

<p>Heck, maybe MIT is a better example. MIT is also certainly quirky. It's unorthodox. But it is a quirky, unorthodox school *with a powerful brand name<a href="or,%20at%20least,%20more%20powerful%20than%20Chicago's">/i</a>. </p>

<p>But, more to the point, MIT is quirky and unorthodox and certainly does not offer a traditional college experience. Yet even MIT has a higher graduation rate than Chicago does, which is simply amazing when you consider that the majority of the students at MIT are engineers, and engineering is noted for having unusually high attrition rates because of its great rigor. Hence, MIT is living proof that you can run an unorthodox and highly rigorous school and yet still maintain relatively high graduation rates (or, at least, higher than Chicago's).</p>

323

<p>sakky you write a lot...</p>

324

<p>
[quote]
What you have stated regarding random students is exactly what I said.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No it’s not. I’m sorry you can’t see the distinction, but no, you’re making conclusions based on little data—the conclusion being that a student at Chicago is “less likely” to graduate. Graduation is not a random event. Thus, you cannot base the likelihood of graduation on statistics like that.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The problem is, how do you know what your particular chances of graduation are? The answer is, you obviously don't know, so the conservative thing for you to do is treat yourself as a random student.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, that’s not what you do. You weigh in on the various factors affecting your graduation: whether you’ll get proper advising; whether you’ll be able to take the required classes; the rigor of the classes and your ability to meet the demands; and so on. You don’t just consider yourself a “random student.” That’s fundamentally irresponsible.</p>

<p>It’s not just the “you” that we’re focusing on here. It’s the class. You simply can’t say that a student at Chicago is less likely to graduate based on a non-random statistic like graduation rate (especially when the graduation rates of comparison are definitely within a few percent, easily error leeway). This isn’t even considering that you’d be basing it on a statistic for a class that has long graduated and it may or may not be the same for you. (Given Chicago’s trend in graduation rate, this is especially important.) All we can draw from the statistics is that if you picked a random student from the initial cohort, you’d be more likely, though not by a large margin, to find a student who didn’t graduate at Chicago than at Cornell et al.</p>

<p>
[quote]
For example, the average person will be safer if they wear seat belts, but anybody can say that they're not "the average person", so why bother wearing them?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You’re using a weak example to support your incorrect interpretation. People would be wearing seatbelts not because of statistics, but for basic safety against accidents. They don’t care how many accidents there have been or how likely it is that they can get in one, but they’ll still wear their seatbelts. (It’s like insurance for your phone: you pay a small fee each month with the fear, whether legitimate or not, that something might happen to your phone.)</p>

<p>Really, sakky, you’re using weak examples and poorly constructed points to justify your misuse of a statistic, which in your view happens to “prove” your trivial point about graduation rates.</p>

325

<p>*Underrated: *</p>

<p>GWU
NYU
American University
**
Overrated:**</p>

<p>Rice
MIT</p>

326

<p>Sakky, I think you're still drawing conclusions from the same misunderstanding of statistics you've already been called out on. In post 284, you state: "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>Now, I don't know what textbook you're using here, but any beginning statistics student would tell you that you are, simply, mistaken. What that data actually says is that a randomly chosen Chicago student is 2% less likely to graduate than a Cornell student, and 3% less likely to graduate than a randomly chosen Dartmouth student. Not particularly significant, in my opinion.</p>

<p>Throughout your posts on Chicago, you seem to be taking particular pieces of data and then drawing very specific conclusions from them, regardless of any lurking (or otherwise) variables that may be present. For instance, you state:</p>

<p>"Let's face it: Harvard clearly beats Chicago when it comes to cross-admit yield (because Harvard beats everybody when it comes to cross-admit yield), and I suspect that even if we were to somehow examine only those students "in the know", Harvard would still clearly beat Chicago. After all, the Harvard student body has a higher SAT score, higher percentage of students in the top 10% of their high school class, which indicates that Harvard garners a significantly more academically qualified student body than does Chicago, and these are precisely the people who you would expect to be 'in the know'."</p>

<p>You seem to suggest that because Harvard apparently wins the cross-admit "battle" (not your word) with Chicago, it must be a more academically desirable place than Chicago. Consider that students who apply to both schools are people, and people take many variables into account when making decisions. In this case, I think students who are accepted by both places have a not insignificant choice to make: go to the school that is not generally known by the public, and one that is widely held as "the best". Most parents, teachers, friends, etc. would probably encourage such a person to choose Harvard, but that does not mean it is the better place overall when it comes to actual learning. </p>

<p>Then, you state that because Harvard's students have higher SAT scores and class ranks, they are more academically qualified than Chicago students. Now, besides the fact that class rank and SAT scores are dubious indicators of academic qualification, you seem to be unaware of the different admissions criteria of each school. At Chicago, as you may know, much weight is placed on "the essays" to the detriment of SAT scores, class rank, and other criteria. SAT score and class rank are used mostly to judge whether a student is capable of the work. Now, whether the end result is a more qualified student for either institution is debatable; however, I don't think you should just assume that because Harvard students have higher scores they are more qualified.</p>

<p>"In fact, I would argue that the opposite should be the case: that a quirky school ought to be able to attract a quirky student body which would then mean that the school should have a higher graduation rate than its peers because of the excellent fit between the school and its students. For example, you want to run a tough Core? You want to cultivate a reputation where 'fun comes to die'? Fine, then you should be attracting students who want a tough Core. Who want to go to a school who enjoy a reputation for not having fun. On the other hand, you might expect that Harvard ends up with students who don't really want to be there but were simply attracted to the brand name, but who otherwise don't really fit in. Hence, Chicago ought to have a higher graduation rate than Harvard does, right?"</p>

<p>This entire paragraph is predicated on your assumption that Chicago has a low graduation rate, which I do not think is necessarily the case. You state, correctly, that Chicago, since it has a tough core, should be attracting students who want a tough core. Fair enough, though I think a better way to state this would be "Chicago attracts students who desire the challenge of a tough core." Students who like Chicago indeed should be attracted to the idea of the core curriculum, but they cannot possibly know how they will perform when actually faced with it and have to fulfill its requirements. As an example, someone might be very attracted to the idea of living on a houseboat, but they may, after trying it, find that it was not the best idea after all.</p>

<p>You bring up "where fun comes to die". As has been noted again and again, this is a tongue-in-cheek motto made up by students. Chicago students do, in fact, have fun. Actually, I think this motto is an example of such.</p>

327

<p>lol ny_democrat,</p>

<p>just because a school is great for the dept. you're interested doesn't make the entire school underrated.</p>

328

<p>
[quote]
No it’s not. I’m sorry you can’t see the distinction, but no, you’re making conclusions based on little data—the conclusion being that a student at Chicago is “less likely” to graduate. Graduation is not a random event. Thus, you cannot base the likelihood of graduation on statistics like that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure, graduation is not a random event. The problem is that the variables that go into determining whether you graduate are themselves not entirely predictable. Hence, the conservative thing for anybody to do is to simply assume that they are equivalent to the average person within the sample. </p>

<p>
[quote]
No, that’s not what you do. You weigh in on the various factors affecting your graduation: whether you’ll get proper advising; whether you’ll be able to take the required classes; the rigor of the classes and your ability to meet the demands; and so on. You don’t just consider yourself a “random student.” That’s fundamentally irresponsible.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And how does one go about determining such variables? For example, how do you know, as a prospective student who is considering Chicago, whether you are actually going to get the proper advising? Maybe you will, maybe you won't. You don't know. Similarly, how do you know that you will actually be able to meet the rigor of those courses at Chicago? Again, you don't know. Maybe you will, maybe you won't.</p>

<p>Hence, what is fundamentally irresponsible is to presume that you actually are going to be dissimilar enough to the average student such that the statistics don't apply to you. </p>

<p>
[quote]
It’s not just the “you” that we’re focusing on here. It’s the class. You simply can’t say that a student at Chicago is less likely to graduate based on a non-random statistic like graduation rate (especially when the graduation rates of comparison are definitely within a few percent, easily error leeway)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>False. The graduation rates have been consistent over time. One needs only read back issues of the USNews rankings to see that Chicago's grad rates have always been lower than the rates of peer schools for many years now). Hence, there is no error. </p>

<p>Again, what you are presuming is that a prospective student will know that he is going to be better than the average Chicago student. How would he know that? </p>

<p>
[quote]
You’re using a weak example to support your incorrect interpretation. People would be wearing seatbelts not because of statistics, but for basic safety against accidents. They don’t care how many accidents there have been or how likely it is that they can get in one, but they’ll still wear their seatbelts.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wrong, as the example entirely encapsulates your objections. For example, I could argue that if I am an unusually safe driver, therefore I don't really need to wear seat belts. There are obviously 2 problems with this: #1, How do you KNOW that you are actually an unusually safe driver? And #2, even if you are unusually safe, that doesn't protect you from getting into an accident through sheer bad luck.</p>

<p>Similarly, you are arguing that an incoming student may be able to argue that the (relatively) low graduation rates won't apply to him because he is not typical of the average student. But the same objections apply: #1 - How does he really know that he is atypical of the average student, and #2 Even if he is, he may encounter bad luck anyway. Either way, the bottom line is, just as it is safer for you to wear your seat belt no matter how safe of a driver you think you are, it is also similarly safer to choose a peer school over Chicago no matter what kind of student you think you are. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Really, sakky, you’re using weak examples and poorly constructed points to justify your misuse of a statistic, which in your view happens to “prove” your trivial point about graduation rates.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Really, kyledavid80, you’re using weak examples and poorly constructed points to justify your misuse of a statistic, which in your view happens to “prove” your trivial point about graduation rates.</p>

329

<p>
[quote]
Now, I don't know what textbook you're using here, but any beginning statistics student would tell you that you are, simply, mistaken. What that data actually says is that a randomly chosen Chicago student is 2% less likely to graduate than a Cornell student, and 3% less likely to graduate than a randomly chosen Dartmouth student. Not particularly significant, in my opinion.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, very significant. See my previous posts again, and this is a post that is backed by numerous textbooks which I encourage you to read. The issue is that when you are talking about low rates anyway, small changes in those low rates are significant. Again, if I don't wear a seat belt and am not injured 99.99% of the time I drive, and 99.999% of the time with a seat belt, then that is a huge change in my safety rate, or more starkly, a huge change in my avoidance of injury rate. Let's face it. Most of the time, we don't get into car accidents at all. Or at least, I hope not. The real question is what happens when we do? Similarly, most students at any of the top students will probably encounter no problems. The question is, what about those who do? At other schools, students can encounter problems and still graduate. At Chicago, not so much. Again, if you don't believe me, then ask yourself why is Chicago's graduation rate consistently lower than that of its competitors? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Throughout your posts on Chicago, you seem to be taking particular pieces of data and then drawing very specific conclusions from them, regardless of any lurking (or otherwise) variables that may be present. For instance, you state:

[/quote]
</p>

<p>False. It is actually my detractors who are drawing such conclusions, and I am the one who is knocking down the objections. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You seem to suggest that because Harvard apparently wins the cross-admit "battle" (not your word) with Chicago, it must be a more academically desirable place than Chicago. Consider that students who apply to both schools are people, and people take many variables into account when making decisions. In this case, I think students who are accepted by both places have a not insignificant choice to make: go to the school that is not generally known by the public, and one that is widely held as "the best". Most parents, teachers, friends, etc. would probably encourage such a person to choose Harvard, but that does not mean it is the better place overall when it comes to actual learning.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>When have I ever said that Harvard was the better overall place to learn? Please point to the quote where I specifically said that. You can't, because I never said it.</p>

<p>All I said is that Harvard, whether we like it or not, has a more powerful brand name than Chicago does, such that most people who are admitted to both will tend to pick Harvard. Whether that's good or bad is not the point, but it is a fact. Furthermore, the yield data indicates that the majority of people who are admitted to Chicago will tend to go elsewhere, as Chicago yields less than 50% of its admittees.</p>

<p>What that means is that Chicago's "marketing strategy" (if you want to call it that) is not really working, at least as far as applicants are concerned, as Chicago is clearly not the first choice for the majority of its applicants. It has been asserted by others that Chicago is following a 'niche' marketing strategy that caters to those particular quirky students who are excellent fits for Chicago. But if that was really true, then you would think that Chicago would not be admitting the student pool that they do, the majority of which choose to go somewhere else (for after all, if all these people really are such a perfect fits, why would so many of them choose to go somewhere else?) </p>

<p>A story that is far more consistent with the data is simple: Chicago has to pick up the 'leftovers': those particular students who just aren't good enough to get into those other competitor schools. For example, I suspect that if we offered to the existing student body at Chicago a free transfer admission letter to Harvard or Stanford, many of them would take it. On the other hand, the reverse is probably not true: I think very few Harvard or Stanford students want to transfer to Chicago. Why is that, if Chicago is really pursuing a 'niche' marketing strategy? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Then, you state that because Harvard's students have higher SAT scores and class ranks, they are more academically qualified than Chicago students. Now, besides the fact that class rank and SAT scores are dubious indicators of academic qualification, you seem to be unaware of the different admissions criteria of each school. At Chicago, as you may know, much weight is placed on "the essays" to the detriment of SAT scores, class rank, and other criteria. SAT score and class rank are used mostly to judge whether a student is capable of the work. Now, whether the end result is a more qualified student for either institution is debatable; however, I don't think you should just assume that because Harvard students have higher scores they are more qualified.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, I am simply saying that there is no reason to believe that Chicago students are somehow "more qualified" or "more intellectual" than Harvard students. Hence, again, it calls into question the "niche" marketing strategy that Chicago is supposedly pursuing. </p>

<p>Let me run down the argument again. It has been proposed that Chicago offers a 'highly intellectual and rigorous' atmosphere that caters to the 'serious student', compared to Chicago's competitors. That is in fact part of Chicago's image. I am simply showing data that indicates that there is no numerical evidence that indicates that Chicago's students are any more intellectual or serious than the students at competitor schools. Caltech may be able to legitimately claim that they cater to the deep and serious intellectual, as Caltech students really do higher numerical scores than any other school. But Chicago does not. </p>

<p>
[quote]
This entire paragraph is predicated on your assumption that Chicago has a low graduation rate, which I do not think is necessarily the case.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See above. Chicago's graduation rate is lower than peer schools, and has been for years. A legitimate question to ask is why?</p>

<p>Granted, I can agree if it was just 1 or 2 years, then I could attribute that just to statistical noise. But it's consistent. For example, does anybody want to make a bet that, in next year's USNews ranking, Chicago is once again going to exhibit a graduation rate that is lower than Harvard's or even MIT's? I didn't think so. That indicates that something is consistently holding back the graduation rates. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You state, correctly, that Chicago, since it has a tough core, should be attracting students who want a tough core. Fair enough, though I think a better way to state this would be "Chicago attracts students who desire the challenge of a tough core." Students who like Chicago indeed should be attracted to the idea of the core curriculum, but they cannot possibly know how they will perform when actually faced with it and have to fulfill its requirements. As an example, someone might be very attracted to the idea of living on a houseboat, but they may, after trying it, find that it was not the best idea after all.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Exactly - so maybe you can talk to kyledavid80 about this very point. You simply don't know whether you actually are going to do better than the average student at Chicago, so the safe thing for you to do is simply assume that you will be like the average student there, which means that you have to presume you have a 10% chance of not graduating (after 6 years). </p>

<p>However, there are 2 complicating factors which I had mentioned before, but I suppose are worth mentioning again. Ideally, Chicago really would be attracting students who desire a tough core. But again, the data indicates that that doesn't really happen. Like I said, the majority of students who are admitted to Chicago will decide to go somewhere else. So that begs the question of why these students were even admitted in the first place, or heck, why did they even apply in the first place? After all, for some reason, these students decided that Chicago was not the best place for them (otherwise, they would have matriculated). Secondly, of those that do matriculate, why does Chicago exhibit a lower graduation rate than its peer schools. Again, that speaks to a lack of fit. </p>

<p>The point simply is, somewhere along the line, Chicago's purported marketing strategy does not describe what is actually happening. It seems to me that Chicago does indeed admit and matriculate a conspicuous number of students who don't really fit in. How else can one explain the data?</p>

330

<p>
[quote]
Really, kyledavid80, you’re using weak examples and poorly constructed points to justify your misuse of a statistic, which in your view happens to “prove” your trivial point about graduation rates.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why do you always resort to such petty replies? You do it over and over again, and it makes discussion with you not worth it at all.</p>

<p>And that's exactly why I'm not going to bother debating this issue with you. I've proven my point, and your argument still stands as a weak one.</p>

331

<p>so....many....words....</p>

332

<p>I'm going to duck out of this thread. My ultimate goal is to discuss my experiences with the U of C, not to argue over rankings, ratings, and conjectures. I'm not here to win a dogfight, and I won't stay up at night over the fact that my school's graduation rate is slightly lower than some other schools' or that not everybody I know had Chicago as their first choice from the outset.</p>

333

<p>Maybe, just maybe, some people enjoy a challenge...</p>

334

<p>case = underrated.
it has a bad rep because of a high admissions rate
but it has one of the most demanding curriculums.</p>

<p>similar to cornell in a way.</p>

335

<p>he writes too much and seems to have some disdain towards chicago. i'm an NU guy but even we recognize the contribution and value of our southbound partners. </p>

<p>the overall student body might be slightly weaker going into chicago (although the uber geniuses often choose chicago over harvard), but the output is absolutely amazing. chicago has one of the highest per-capita fulbright, rhodes, and marshall scholar outputs. i think that's testament to an awesome school despite its lack of brand management.</p>

<p>now imagine what chicago could become if they actually cared...</p>

336

<p>
[quote]
So maybe it's too much to ask for Chicago to be able to match the brand name of Harvard. Fine. But I think I can reasonably ask why Chicago can't match the brand name of Stanford.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do you, yourself, have ties to U of Chicago, sakky? Are you a U of Chicago grad who feels unloved? I guess I'm not quite seeing why it bothers you so much. What do you care? If the U of Chicago felt it was a problem, they'd do something about it. Obviously they don't. Ah well. So it goes.</p>

337

<p>
[quote]
All I said is that Harvard, whether we like it or not, has a more powerful brand name than Chicago does, such that most people who are admitted to both will tend to pick Harvard.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, shrug. If every college had the exact same strength of brand name, then the concept of brand name would be meaningless. </p>

<p>
[quote]
A story that is far more consistent with the data is simple: Chicago has to pick up the 'leftovers': those particular students who just aren't good enough to get into those other competitor schools. For example, I suspect that if we offered to the existing student body at Chicago a free transfer admission letter to Harvard or Stanford, many of them would take it. On the other hand, the reverse is probably not true: I think very few Harvard or Stanford students want to transfer to Chicago. Why is that, if Chicago is really pursuing a 'niche' marketing strategy?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why do you <em>think</em> that? if you have data to suggest that your hypothesis is true, then by all means share it. Otherwise, it's just merely your hypothesis, and doesn't prove anything. </p>

<p>What IS it with you and U of Chicago? Really. It's like you have some ax to grind. If it's not your school, what difference does it make to you if they're not marketing it as well as they allegedly could / should?</p>

338

<p>obiously boston college.</p>

<p>it has a 27 percent acceptance rate and a good academics, yet it is ranked ridiculously low.</p>

339

<p>also, harvard is overrated.</p>

<p>i'd much rather go to princeton, yale, rice, darthmouth, or weslayan than a place that does not stress the importance of the undergrad.</p>

340

<p>OP -- By chance, do you go to Fordham Prep? That would explain your thought process regarding Fordham University as "underrated," not to mention your (slightly at the least) provincial, Northeast, and elitist mindset.</p>