New Rankings

Is anyone surprised that UChicago is number 3 this year? People on here told me it would never happen, and I’m so glad to see it did (not affiliated with the university in any way, unfortunately. Not intellectual enough lol). Regardless, do you guys think UC deserves this ranking? I’ve read on here that many people think they’ve “gamed” the rankings.

By the standardized scoring of their students, Chicago is second in the nation. This doesn’t, by itself, make UC great or, even, good. It does, however, make them highly notable.

@merc81 well said. So do you think they’re overrated?

@SeinfeldFan1 : Since their students generally appear to have been attracted to UC for the right reasons – that is, primarily the opportunity to immerse themselves in the life of the mind for four years – I’d say their current ranking seems appropriate.

@merc81 great point. I think people (including myself) read way too much into rankings.

I think UChi belongs in the very top tier of national universities. Where it stands in relation to MIT, Stanford, or Columbia is a matter of methodology, and USNWR is transparent about its methodology, so if you don’t like it, you can propose your own or use another–there are many.

IMO, UChi is a tremendous school, one from which it’s very hard to graduate without having received a very solid education.

The problem with numerical rankings is that they may exaggerate differences when there are none or barely none. By alumni accomplishments, the 5 non-HYP Ivies, UChicago, Northwestern, Duke, Georgetown, Rice, and Caltech are roughly comparable with each other, yet if you ranked numerically, one of them would be #6 and one would be #16.

@marvin100 amazing way to put it.

@PurpleTitan Aren’t HYP compatible with these schools, as well?

Folks who charge that the University suddenly woke up one day and decided to game the system, don’t really understand or appreciate the history of the school.

The University of Chicago: A History: by John W. Boyer lays out this history pretty well.

Starting in the early 1950’s the University’s leaders have recognized the need for a vibrant undergraduate college and struggled mightily to put make that a reality. Lawrence Kimpton (1951-1960) who came from Stanford was totally convinced that Chicago needed a strong and large undergraduate program, but he could not get it stood up, because he had to focus on the more pressing problem of stabilizing the neighborhood that completely disintegrated starting in the late 40’s.

Edward Levi (1968-1975), who took over in the late 60’s, after being the Dean of the Law school also spent his time trying to stand up a large and viable undergraduate college. He succeeded in putting Chicago on the map as a leading research university with excellent faculty but he too could not get the housing and social support structure needed to build a successful undergraduate program because of financial constraints.

The first steps toward a viable undergraduate program, started taking shape with the appointment of Hanna Gray who came from Yale in the late 70’s and continued with subsequent administrations, but the strategy was put in place by Kimpton and Levi decades earlier. In fact almost everything the University has executed on since the late 80s was first presented to the Ford Foundation in the late 60’s in an effort to secure sizable grants from them.

What all this means is that almost every administration at Chicago spent a lot of time thinking through what is needed for a great undergraduate program and struggled for many decades to make it happen. It took a long time to execute on all the changes that were needed. This includes all the infrastructure improvements the University has been making for decades now.

Chicago did not simply tinker with some “US news metric” to rise to prominence in the rankings. There was a lot of blood and sweat invested for decades to build the foundations of a strong program. Once that was done, the simpler mechanics of moving to the common app, aggressive marketing etc paid quick dividends, but the hard work had to be done first, much before all the other “relatively cosmetic” changes hit.

The “gaming” narrative ignores all of this. That does not mean Chicago has not become savvy with how the application process works. It surely has done this, but it has also invested hundreds of millions in infrastructure, made extensive curriculum changes and created the much needed social support for incoming undergraduates to make it a stellar undergraduate program.

It is because of all this effort over a long period of time, that it takes its place among the top undergraduate programs in the country today.

@SeinfeldFan1, you could say that (along with Stanford and MIT). Some people put HSMPY at the top, though.

@collegeangst 100%. And to those of us on campus, the changes are very plainly self-evident and noticeable.

@CollegeAngst Nice history post! I also encourage readers to take it back a bit further to the days of Robert Maynard Hutchins, who was President of the University of Chicago from 1929-45. Hutchins was a visionary and he made a lot of bold moves for the university, including a controversial plan to eliminate intercollegiate football in 1939. Keep in mind that this was only four years after Chicago received the very first Heisman trophy in 1935. They were a powerhouse program at the time but Hutchins felt football was a distraction from the more important matters of the university. It’s sort of neat to also think about the stadium being used for the Manhattan Project after the dissolution of the football team.

John Thelin provides a wonderful history of American higher education and he talks about Chicago throughout the book: https://www.amazon.com/History-American-Higher-Education-2nd/dp/142140267X

And if you want to read more about the University of Chicago and its early football program, be sure to check out this book: https://www.amazon.com/Staggs-University-Decline-Big-Time-Football/dp/0252067916

@HigherEdData, ehh. UChicago football was losing more than it was winning by the time it was cut.

They were a powerhouse in the early days, though, and football played a big part in building up the U of C, in fact.

That hasn’t stopped most schools from financing and fielding teams…

I think that UChicago is and has been (for some time…) absolutely outstanding – truly top-notch – academically. Its academic environment is often referred to as really hard and highly intellectual and other descriptions that point to a rigorous education that really makes students work hard to earn good grades. I respect that approach wholeheartedly.

But that’s not new at UChicago.

So has UChicago’s academic quality really improved all that much, or has the greater selectivity simply brought attention to the school and its quality?

Rather than wondering if UChicago is overrated now, maybe we should recognize that for a long time, UChicago was underrated (by USNews at least); maybe they’ve always really been top-5 academically.

That may be true, @prezbucky , but I don’t think anyone serious considers differences of a few ranking positions to have any real meaning. Maybe some students or uninformed parents, I guess, but I’ve literally never met anyone who doesn’t take them with salt, and I’m a test prep/consulting industry lifer.

^ Lots of uninformed students and parents in the world, however.

Infrastructure improvements have made UChicago a more appealing place to go to college. This may have attracted more applications, enabling it to become more selective, perhaps with positive effects on the intellectual climate. Nevertheless, UChicago had excellent undergraduate programs in the 50s through 90s when it had smaller undergraduate enrollments but ~equally distinguished faculty and an arguably stronger Core curriculum than it has now.

Chicago’s academics have always been top notch but the elite high school kids require more. Now they demand all this “balance” and “social life” and “mental health services”, that’s what Chicago has improved on since the start of the millennium.