I know that considering a college based on prestige is extremely stupid. But, despite how hard I try to convince myself, I do care about how others view the college which I attend.
I get the feeling that U Chi does not have the name recognition or prestige of the Ivies, Stanford, etc.
Am I wrong? Is U Chicago prestigious? To others outside of my bubble is U Chicago considered a world class institution along w the Ivys?
This question has been answered many times.
Anarsabc- to help the poster can you site some threads which have dealt with this topic?
My sense is that if prestige is that important to you, then you should spend the time on your applications to the Ivies and Stanford as opposed to UChicago. I don’t think that you have researched it enough if you are asking about prestige. It’s not really the right question to begin with. If prestige is what you want from your college experience then apply to the Ivies and UChicago wouldn’t be the right fit. I am not an alum nor a parent of one but have read a lot about what it provides in terms of the intellectual college experience. Good luck and hope you find what you need!
OP–my own opinion is that UChicago is prestigious. External sources such as US News and QS University rankings support this view. My inside knowledge is that the prestige is warranted because, among other things, UChicago knows it wants wants to be excellent (rigorous, “intellectual hothouse”) and they have good leadership which buys into the mission and keeps the University on track.
The poster above is correct that this topic is batted about all over CC a lot. I’ve read a number of these postings and a rough consensus usually emerges that there is a top tier always with Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford, Princeton. Sometimes Columbia is put into that group. Then there is a second group behind that first group which includes UChicago. That second group usually includes Penn, Duke, and Cal Tech. Columbia can be found in that second group oftentimes as can Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, and a couple of others.
The point is that UChicago is prestigious because it is demonstrably true that many many people believe it is. And since prestige is somewhat subjective and “in the eye of the beholder” that widespread belief makes it so, I’d say.
Not prestigious to the general public. Somewhat prestigious to those in the know.
Really? Not prestigious to the general public? And somewhat prestigious to those in the know? Then we live in vastly different geographic areas!
U Chicago is ranked the #4 best university by US News and World Report–the most popular ranking body out there, and one of the biggest source of “prestige”. Also, U Chicago has an 8.8% acceptance rate (there are only a handful of other schools with a lower acceptance rate than this!). If you don’t think the #4 ranked University with an 8.8% acceptance rate is not prestigious to the general public and only “somewhat prestigious” to those in the know, I’m not sure I could mount a stronger case to convince you…I guess you can count the number of nobel laureates they have…?
In any case, I hate “prestige factor” and I detest college rankings. It sends the wrong message. So, rankings/prestige should never (I mean NEVER) play a role in your college decision process. But regardless of how trivial I think OPs question is, the question is fairly easy to answer…U Chicago is one of the most sought after and respected universities in the world, so yes, it goes without saying, it is very prestigious. Anyone else who says otherwise, are either misinformed, uninformed, or have an ax to grind with the university.
UChicago is one of the most prestigious universities in the nation and in the world. Although accepance rate may not necessarily be a good metric to determine prestige, Chicago’s acceptance rate for the class of 2019 is 7.4%, only Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Columbia has a lower acceptance rate this year.
For what it’s worth, Chicago is ranked #2 in the 600 smartest colleges in America this year, two years in a row. It’s a research done by a Duke University Talent Identification Program researcher.
http://www.businessinsider.com/smartest-colleges-in-america-2014-10
Prestigious or not, you be the judge.
.
No, the University of Illinois at Chicago is a second tier state school for those who did not get into UIUC. Who on earth would call it prestigious?
…
Excuse my stalking but you want to be an astrophysics major. Good luck finding an astrophysicist that hasn’t heard of the school that graduated Edwin Hubble. There are way better things for you to be worried about (like the fact that many physics majors end up burnt out husks of their former selves, for example).
If you think U Chic isn’t prestigious then you live in a very small bubble.
Of course it is. 0_o
And especially for astrophysics… but generally speaking, it’s part of a group sometimes referred to as Ivy+ meaning, if you will, honorary Ivy. All schools in that group are internationally famous.
Now, a poster above had a good point, which is that attending a top LAC may be more productive for your goals since you’ll want a PhD and for that you’ll need research opportunities that won’t be hogged by grad students - unless you’re already doing research at the graduate level while in hs (yes there’ll be kids at that level at U Chic ).
You also need to think “prestige to whom?”
High school students you’ll never see once you’re in college? People who mostly know colleges for their football or basketball teams? Phd programs ? Your neighborhood so your parents can brag at church/temple? The list of names you’ll yield for each group will be very very different.
So… you’ve already admitted into all those schools and you’re thinking of turning down Stanford?
You’re going to feel inadequate the rest of your miserable life if you measure your self worth on the basis of what complete strangers think of the brand of your sneakers, your golf shirt, your car, your college.
Either get a life, or enjoy the Kool Aid…
It all really depends on what you mean by “prestige” and how you think you might use it.
In academic and governmental circles, all over the world, the University of Chicago and its faculty are seen as in the very top rank of universities world-wide, absolutely a peer of Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, Michigan, Oxford, Cambridge, ENS Paris, whatever university you want to name. Obviously, that does not extend to traditional engineering – which does not exist at Chicago – and no university is strong in every department. Having a faculty appointment with tenure at Chicago, or getting a PhD, JD, MBA from Chicago – that’s as good as it gets in Elite World, at least for people acknowledging the quality of your credential and your accomplishment.
In terms of what an undergraduate degree from Chicago means in Elite World, things are more ambiguous. On the one hand, everyone knows that Chicago ABs and SBs studied with that great faculty, and moreover that Chicago has a unique curriculum and culture that make it probably the most uniformly rigorous non-technical university college in the country. On the other hand, everyone also knows that for decades Chicago did not compete very effectively for the flashiest students coming out of high school, that its admissions criteria took no account of things like leadership qualities, and that it did not turn away many qualified candidates. So for people older than, say, 28, simply having been admitted to Chicago means a lot less than having been admitted to HYPS or MIT in terms of how impressive your “natural talent” is likely to be. Having an undergraduate degree from Chicago is a little like being a Marine: we know you’re tough, we know you’re well-trained, we know you have great skills and great values . . . but if you’re so great, why the heck did you enlist in the first place?
In short, a Chicago bachelor’s degree doesn’t support an inference that there’s a 99% chance you are a total winner to the extent that a degree from Harvard or Stanford does. People feel the need to check you out a little further. But that doesn’t mean that Chicago alums don’t compete successfully with Ivy alums and the like in the real world. They do; they get those opportunities, the second and third interviews. Moreover, Chicago has changed its admissions practices and has become very nearly as selective as the most selective of its academic peers. That is pretty widely understood in Elite World, and will become more widely understood if it is sustained over time. Ten years from now, an AB from Chicago will probably have about the same signaling function as an AB from Harvard.
Outside of Elite World, prestige comes from four sources: football, basketball, Hollywood, and, to a much smaller extent, USNWR. Chicago essentially doesn’t play in the first three arenas at a level that anyone would notice. That’s not likely to change anytime soon. It’s also in the Midwest, at considerable distance from the places where most prestige seems to be mined: the Amtrak Corridor and coastal California between Marin and Orange Counties. That’s also not going to change. (Note, however: I know two first-year students at Chicago from LA. One is the double-Ivy-legacy child of a Hollywood executive, the other a grandchild of a longtime board of trustees member at a single-initial university. Both families are thrilled that their kids are going to Chicago. But both families are solidly rooted in Elite World.)
Anyway, what is “prestige” good for? Getting yourself a hard look from a top PhD program in your field, or the Rhodes Scholarship selection board? Chicago is just about the best there is for that. Professional school admissions? You’ll get respect, but they tend to be much more numbers- than prestige-driven. Fancy job opportunities in Elite World? You will qualify; your foot will be in the door. But then like all the other elite college grads you’ll have to earn it. Post-docs, fellowships, clerkships? It’s maybe a little burnishing around the edges. My wife and I are both Yale summas, and we would be hard pressed to say that has made any difference in our careers after we turned 25.
Thanks for your informative response. I’m seriously considering applying EA to U Chicago, and this post helps me a lot.
I infer from your post that with an undergraduate degree in physics from U Chi, PHD programs at schools such as Harvard, Cambridge, (and U Chi), etc. are definitely in reach?
Is UChicago prestigious? Yes, especially in the academic world. Does it have laymen recognition as being on the world’s top 10 universities alongside its peers of Oxbridge, HYPSM, etc.? Not usually. Does laymen prestige matter to graduate school admissions? No. And employers will know about UChicago.
For anecdotal evidence, I did my undergrad at NYU. I attended a prestigious law school and am now a graduate student at UChicago. I turned down offers from NYU and Harvard. I have a friend who turned down Stanford to attend UChicago; in fact, they were accepted by Stanford but waitlisted by UChicago, got off the waitlist and came here.
JHS…really enjoyed your tour and description of elite world. Excellent post as usual.
NYU2013:Right-ee-o!
Look, Chicago suffers from three major disadvantages that will be hard to overcome.
Given these issues, it is actually pretty surprising, the University is where it is right now. Chicago has actually compensated really well given some real disadvantages
Also please note another thing. Prestige really doesn’t give you much, if you are average student from a prestigious school. Here is the salary data from some very prestigious schools in terms of what their grad’s in the 25th percentile earn 10 years since enrollment.
Harvard: $51,600
MIT: $55,600
Stanford: $50,800
Yale: $42,400
Here is what a Georgia Tech grad who earned in the 25th percentile earned 10 years since enrollment: $49,000. Not a huge difference and better than Yale!
Now here is what the Median Georgia Tech grad earned: $74,000. The grad from Georgia Tech who is in the top 25% will earn $98,300 10 years after enrolling and beat the median student from any school (HYPSM included) in terms of earnings. Median Harvard student for e.g is $87,200 and MIT is $91,600
Personal excellence and choice of major matters much more than school excellence.
So prestige gives you rewards only if you go to a prestigious school and also enter certain professions and do extremely well in school and later when you exit. Plenty of grads from the most prestigious schools, including UChicago, don’t do well. Now the top10% from all these schools do exceedingly well “monetarily”
The school will only help you so much. Rest is up to you. If you are good, you will do good at any of these schools. If you are “Meh”, no school can compensate for that
So what does school prestige really give you in tangible terms?
You understand that the salary data is complete crap, right? At least as far as elite colleges are concerned.
They only take into account people with no subsequent graduate degree. I doubt as much as 10% of my Yale class failed to pick up some graduate degree within 10 years of graduating. My University of Chicago progeny are four and six years out of college and have three (useless) master’s degrees between them. The 2009 grad is far ahead of your top-25% 2005 Georgia Tech grad, and her career path has had a lot more to do with people’s respect for her Chicago AB than for her graduate degrees (which were almost completely employer-paid). Most of their friends are similar – by their 10th reunions, hardly anyone will lack a graduate or professional degree. Or two.
There are a few professional fields where people can advance without ever picking up graduate degrees. Engineering, accounting, nursing. The press, such as it is. Trading. Some of them pay well, some not. Some people don’t really have (or want) careers, but still work some; they’re in the salary data, too. Basically, for top-shelf colleges what all of the salary data measure is the relative proportions of these outliers in their alumni pools. Colleges with no engineering programs automatically suffer (but some of them produce a lot of financial trading types). Very few elite colleges award accounting or nursing degrees. They produce a fair number of writers, few of whom earn a lot of salary. They have student bodies that are relatively wealthy, and some of those wealthy kids are willing to work for practically nothing in the nonprofit sector, because they don’t need the money. (And some of them are sort of hippies, too.)
Meanwhile, elite colleges produce tons of doctors, lawyers, MBAs, college professors, and top researchers. And even some engineers, accountants and nurses who entered those professions via graduate programs. None of those people appear in the salary data.
^ This is not Payscale data. This is data from the US treasury, based on tax information filed by kids who received aid from the Government, so no. its not crap. Its the kind of data that is impossible to come by unless the Govt extends its long arm into the data collection and synthesis business, which the Obama administration has done. And no they don’t miss graduate degrees, unless you happened to be enrolled in graduate school right at the time the data was collected
Crap may be a bit over the top but the fact is the Payscale data, to which you refer is, for several reasons, not truly reflective of University graduate outcomes and JHS identified many reasons why not. As you pointed out the data is only reflective of grads who received government assistance. I have a sister who will soon have both MD and PHD degrees plus a Masters in Biological Engineering. She was forced to take two years off to earn enough to pursue her educational goals. Ten year out income is her current $28,000 a year stipend. Doesn’t show well in the Payscale data for the University from which she obtained her BS. These kinds of income outcomes are more likely at intellectual power houses like the University of Chicago. Other than identifying that spending the money required to obtain a four year degree from some for profit school is not a good investment it’s not of much use in the selection process.