“I think a lot of alums do rhapsodize about the HUM, CIV, and SOSC classes, give or a take a quarter. But I wonder how many people feel that way about their science (and math, and foreign language) core / gen ed requirements.”
Maybe this is because science, math and F/L at UChicago more closely resemble those subjects at other uni’s and LAC’s far more than do Hum, Sosc. and Civ. Especially if you are talking courses taken to fulfill gen. ed’s.
@marlowe1 : I am just seeing this. Do you mean among Chicago’s peers? Do you see how people trash talk and put down my alma mater Emory as if its undergraduate program isn’t even comparable caliber wise to schools it closely ranks near (and usually data and post-grad success suggests otherwise). Chicago seems to at least get respect even if there is that annoying rivalry related sarcasm that occurs on here. I personally “get” Chicago far beyond its admissions numbers and tactics and like it a lot versus other great (okay amazing) places (then again, my values with respect to highered are hardly rooted in an obsession with popularity contests, admissions incoming stats, and lay prestige. I care a lot about the type and caliber of educational experience provided in and out of the classroom, and the “products” or students that come from said schools. Chicago is insane in these respects. Doesn’t look like a case of “gold in, gold out” with the school deciding to take a hands off approach to further developing thinking and problem solving skills and talent even further. Basically, “harboring smart people” as I say), but I guess those especially at peers don’t get it I suppose. It is also “different” and has a different past in terms of undergraduate popularity and academic feel which makes it an easy target I suppose (I suppose my alma mater is targeted, if ever mentioned as relevant at all among elite universities, because it has had patches of bad PR and was on paper less selective than most of its “near peers”. Also, it is quite new in comparison to most others to being an AAU labelled research university. Being new, lacking D-1, plus having not great communications and marketing makes it relatively invisible and poorly understood). Chicago seems to suffer from: “We recently got the rank the rank we may actually deserve”. Many schools are attempting to follow its former admissions tactics before this announcement, and indeed have similar score ranges, but their academic caliber isn’t there in comparison. If they moved up significantly in rankings due to selectivity, I wouldn’t trust it as a measure of improving academic quality or really any other quality. Meanwhile Chicago has always deserved better. It maybe had to switch up its recruiting tactics for rankings to reflect it, but even before it deserved way more respect from lay folks and prospective students than what it had.
Chicago is fortunate to be discussed as much as it is in elite highered (indicates that people care about what it is doing). Let people trash talk it while it continues to educate extremely well and have a ranking in the area that it likely deserves based upon that. Meanwhile some folks from other schools who play “stats whore” in the admissions office can trash talk and ONLY discuss their changing admissions profile and other superficial issues because there isn’t much else that would hold much of a candle to a place like Chicago…at least nothing meaningful. When some wonder why their schools haven’t moved up so/as significantly after they started “new” admissions schemes heavily emphasizing scores, all the not so superficial differences between their schools and those with ranks they are chasing with the new scheme are precisely the reason…
@JHS : Let them try to keep exposing Chicago as a fraud. Go check out the academic caliber of other schools with pointing fingers while using the same admissions tactics, compare it to Chicago and its peers (perhaps its most elite and well-regarded peers at that) and tell me what you find. I kind of looked, its in favor of Chicago and its peers. Those folks can stay mad until their schools actually want to start putting forth effort into properly catering to the caliber of student they claim to have now-a-days.
@bernie12 you, for one, do not suffer from UChicago derangement syndrome and I absolutely agree with you assessment. :-bd
@CU123 : lol. I’m just pointing out some facts and weird, hypocritical behavior among finger pointers. The obsession with things like admissions statistics and conflating them with academic caliber among already highly ranked schools has clearly led to delusion with regards to their own caliber as well as pointing fingers among some of Chicago’s lower peers and near peers. In the case of the lower ones: Apparently playing games in the admissions office to make yourself look like Chicago and its near peers on paper, makes up for comparatively weak curricula and lack of rigor versus Chicago and really most if not all of its near peers. I get so sick of those arguments and they run rampant. “We have a 1700/1600 SAT median. Shouldn’t we be ranked higher than Chicago or X?” Those that present such shallow logic are the types that attack Chicago meanwhile also turning around and saying that people should come to their schools precisely because it is less intensive than Chicago or some other peer schools. You know, because the more intensive academics (and what I think is a specific willingness and resources to provide lots of academic options that challenge those whose talent and preparation, the SAT/ACT and GPA do no justice in describing as well as providing an unusual level of “baseline rigor” for the more standard high achievers among the student body. I’m sorry, but Chicago is among such schools whereas those I speak of are not particularly so) isn’t what leads to the much stronger outcomes at the very highest ranked schools in the US (or in the case of Chicago before its rise, should have been the highest ranked). It must instead primarily be rampant grade inflation…except at Penn, Princeton, MIT and Chicago. They should at least get the story straight. The tone and nature of attacks on schools like Chicago tend to take on the tone I described: “We are more popular than you in terms of applications received, and even though are academics are not on par or are hardly superior, we mainly deserve more respect because of our admissions as that equals quality. Oh and we’re funner than you” lol. I’ve never been silly enough to think that the high scoring student bodies at all the highly selective privates were created equal and that once the score range and GPAs at two schools were even, they were then equal academically. Again, schools at or very near the caliber of Chicago attract more who are far better than those metrics indicate and it is because they have the academic resources and culture to deal with an abundance of such students.
Those from near peers seem obsessed with anything that draws attention from themselves as leaders in everything. It gets annoying when people in either camp don’t want to recognize reality.
I really wish we could do better on CC sometimes, especially the students at these elite schools. I know we have school pride and all, but given how intelligent we are, we should be able to do nuance and self-critique. I don’t find the need to equate pride with delusion. You can recognize the greatness of your own school while recognizing other elites (higher or lower ranked) may be better in certain areas or for certain types of high achievers.
@JHS @marlowe1 @85bears46 Apologies - I’m a newbie here and so I’m a little late to this party. After reading through this thread I’d like to trademark the term “The UChicago CC Bubble” - a space in which UChicago affiliates reinforce beliefs about their university that almost nobody else recognizes. I will also coin the term “UCIC”: UChicago Inferiority Complex - a disorder which often leads to the perception of UCDS in other CC posters.
I don’t hate UChicago by any means and frankly I don’t think anyone does. I don’t think people are frazzled or deranged by UChicago’s ranking - I just think they don’t care. People tend to not say positive things about things they don’t care about.
Until about a day ago when I noticed a thread titled “UChicago: Stanford of DIII?”, I honestly had close to zero thoughts about UChicago. But I’ve come to realize that while the UChicago CC Bubble may be small, it’s incredibly dense. Perhaps the perspective of a millennial UChicago-outsider like myself can help diminish the collaborative filtering of the UChicago CC Bubble?
I don’t know anyone my age (23) who is “in the know” about higher education that actually believes (or even worries) that UChicago is “on par” with Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford in terms of student body, prestige, etc. - even with the new US News Rankings. On par with Columbia, Caltech? Yes, but generally speaking Columbia and Caltech are seen as the more favorable choices because of location, name brand, famous alumni, etc.
It’s also just simply not the case that people see UChicago as uniquely “intellectual”. I’m sure UChicago people do, but the general perceptions of UChicago are notably 1) it’s the place where fun goes to die 2) it’s a very cold place 3) it’s great for economics 4) it’s quirky. When I think of intellectual schools there are 5 or 6 schools come to mind before UChicago. I think most people would agree with me too (outside of the UChicago CC Bubble, that is).
@EliteCulture331 - UChicago DOES have an insular culture (IMHO), though less than it used to, perhaps. Many (if not most) would agree that, when faced with a choice of attending UChicago vs. HYPS for undergrad, the typical response would be to attend the latter. Harder to tell with Columbia or a niche school like CalTech - but good people can disagee on that. Many on this thread discuss whether UChicago has the monopoly on being “intellectual” - read through the threads or hang around a bit and you might catch some of that.
But even if you are 100% right on all of that, UCDS still seems to be a real thing.
You are definitely and enthusiastically invited to hang out and try to break the UChicago CC Bubble! The threads have been quiet and dull lately so some of us would enjoy a bit of a more lively debate. Welcome!
IMHO, UCDC is an overstated characterization of the reaction evoked when those in the UChicago CC Bubble make statements that many outside it (e.g., @EliteCulture331) disagree with. I don’t doubt that some in what you might call the “HYPS Bubble” are turned off by elements of the UChicago boosterism on these threads, but I wouldn’t say it rises to the level of derangement.
I would suggest that the reason “the threads have been quiet and dull recently” is that there’ve been fewer examples of this kind of boosterism, and consequently fewer reactions to them from the world outside the UChicago CC Bubble, which has gone back to its default state of generally respecting but not thinking very much about UChicago.
Despite knowing fairly little of the type of discussion which goes on in this Gd-forsaken forum (be it UChicago CC or Harvard CC), I’d have to agree with @DeepBlue86’s diagnosis. I would add that I - supposedly inflicted with UCDS - simply haven’t heard such claims that UChicago is the intellectual powerhouse people claim it to be on this thread. Just put yourself in my situation for a moment however - if you walked into a conversation among Penn students claiming Penn wasn’t “far superior” intellectually to Harvard/Yale, but rather just “superior” you’d have a fairly charged reaction (not making comparisons between intellectualism at Penn/UChicago btw). So, I apologize if my posts came off as hostile or belittling to UChicago.
Despite being a Princeton grad I don’t accept “HYPS” as being a relevant term anymore. Columbia and UChicago from my understanding have always been the destinations for students who were Princeton-quality in terms of grades but either didn’t have interest in the elitism present at Harv/Yale/Prin or the do-it-all attitude of Stanford kids.
BTW, if I were a proud Yale grad I would be very worried about the rise of Columbia and UChicago in recent years. I don’t think Columbia and UChicago being ranked 3rd is analogous to 4th ranked Penn in the early 2000s. It’s obvious that US News thinks the faculty/academics at C/Chi are entirely on par.
Ivy League poohbahs are forever dismissing Chicago as being beneath their interest - or else taking after it when claims are made for it. However, UCDS in its purest manifestation is entirely gratuitous. I offer as a case study the thread started by @cue7 which asks the rhetorical question whether Chicago is suddenly becoming the “Stanford of DIII sports”. Look at the solemn and spluttering refutations, of which @EliteCulture331 's is only the most extreme. None of these people is pushing back against any assertions or arguments - nobody on the U of C side is arguing at all (though some of them may be laughing just a bit). This culminates in Elite’s reaction to a facetious old Mike Royko column on “The Monsters of the Midway” in which he says he doesn’t buy the claims of intellectualism and says “UChicago grads don’t seriously think their school is that respected, do they?”
Bingo. I know it when I see it, and that’s it.
@DeepBlue86 your soulmate has arrived. I suspect that the copycat-inspired “UCBB” will be the mantra of the triggered going forward which, of course, will only prove that UChicago lives rent-free inside some heads that have no affiliation with the place other than forums such as this. Not that YOU have UCDS - that’s a more extreme manifestation - but I suspect the underlying catalyst is the same. You are probably correct that UChicago has gone mainstream-elite so no one cares as much anymore - it’s not so great, different, etc. Sad!
@EliteCulture331 - UChicago hasn’t released its stats for Class of '22 and they’ve been coy about disclosures in the past anyway. Princeton far more helpful on that. Not that it matters but UChicago isn’t quite “Princeton quality” - it’s slightly superior these days, at least in terms of Fall 2017 SAT/ACT. That doesn’t prevent the legendary Anti-UC Misanthropes from roaming the halls of Burton Judson or MaxP lamenting the fact that they didn’t get into Princeton (my daughter has claimed to run into one or two so I guess the stereotype is alive and well still . . . ).
I would hope there IS a charged reaction to comparisons between Penn and H/Y simply because that would demonstrate a level of interest/engagement with those schools that simply doesn’t exist if one views one’s education as “transactional” in purpose (ie get what you need from the place; move on . . . ). It’s not that other elite threads are more polite, modest or reasonable - it’s that they simply may not know much about the distinct history or traditions of their respective - and remarkable - alma mater, and they care even less. However, it seems that the human mind and heart can’t always be content with that level of intellectual ennui. So they wander over to the UChicago threads and have a minor breakdown over the posts. Shock such as you’ve expressed is typical; however, you have stuck around long enough to explain yourself. There’s hope for you!
They are on par with Y, and P, and H and S (although you could argue that the breadth is greater at H, and possibly S). I don’t think that’s quite the point, though. People pick HYPS because the faculty/academics are tops (as they also are at UChicago, MIT, Columbia, Caltech, etc.), but also for all the other reasons mentioned (student body, prestige, network, climate, location). This is why I don’t think Yale should be any more worried than Princeton should be, whatever US News says.
As for the “Stanford of DIII sports” thread, I thought that was a great example of the UChicago exceptionalism that you see from the bubble. I was amused that the thread was started, and by people’s reactions to it. I imagine if you’re an Amherst/Williams grad reading that, you feel the same way as an HYPS grad reading all the other UChicago threads.
Gimme a break, @DeepBlue86 . Were you too taken in? Perhaps the bubble exists elsewhere than you think. Here’s a modest question for you: If Cue or any dreaded Chicago booster (and, as you know, Cue is hardly that) was seriously making that claim, why has no one come forward to argue it? You will admit that there’s no dearth of argument coming from the UChicago camp when there’s a serious proposition on the table. Yet a strange lack of humor or nuance always descends on HYPS types who have occasion to come to the Chicago site.
I think JB is on to something when she suggests that what we are dealing with here is a true commitment to the culture of a place. This has almost nothing to do with how others see it. If that is what you like to call a bubble, so be it. Those who don’t know anything of that culture, or care to inform themselves, see it only as a pretentious grab for prestige and rankings. These are the two solitudes of the cc board! [Hint: that’s a joke.]
I have said it so many times that I am almost tired of repeating it: U of C is more than just The College. U of C has been well respected for its Business School, Law School and Graduate Division for ages. In my eyes it is far more important to have graduate schools with significant research done than to just have a high ranking undergrad division. The recent rise in ranking of The College amuses me but it is never source of my pride. For my field of finance and economics, it is the work of Lucas, Sargent, Becker, Fama, Scholes and Thaler, et al. that I really admire. For the constant bickering among undergrad ranking, my emotional reaction is: who the heck cares? You will get an excellent education in the T40 as long as it fits you. It is the research atmosphere at U of C that makes it special but also an acquired taste.
I remember a poster said that U of C was nothing but a Duke in cold climate but lacking a Coach K. For me I think Scholes (just randomly pulling a name out of the above list of Nobel Laureates) has a far more impact in the real world than a college basketball coach. The multi-trillion dollar derivative industry traces its root from Scholes 1973 JPE seminal paper. Of course, due credit has to be given to Fisher Black (MIT/Goldman) and Robert Merton(MIT) too. Nonetheless, it is this type of research that makes me proud as an U of C alumnus.
I am not saying U of C is necessarily better than HYPSM. I am just saying the emphasis on research makes the WHOLE university a more unique place. And I am really fed up with people looking from a persecutive of high school students and college students. If you are in Choate, Groton or any HYPSM and you think U of C is beneath you, that is your prerogative. But you bet Goldman, Sullivan And Cromwell, and top Math, Physics, Economics departments know and respect the U of C name.
I’ve inferred over time from this board that most of the UChicago boosters are at least a little conflicted about having sports become more prominent there, given how that might affect the culture. That might explain why the usual crew didn’t weigh in as usual. I also understand that @Cue7 was being whimsical in comparing UChicago to Stanford - and I don’t rule out that he/she might have been doing it to tweak that usual crew.
When Harvard’s admission process, as revealed by the discrimination lawsuit, was criticized (I’m among the critics) recently on the Harvard board, no one there felt the need to attack the critics. Why is this UChicago board is so different? UChicago is among the top schools, and rankings at this level, frankly, is meaningless. Each school has its own strengths and weaknesses. Why so defensive when faced with any criticism?
So let’s do a thought experiment. Suppose a Chicago grad goes on the Princeton board and says, among other demeaning things, that “Princeton grads don’t seriously think their school is all that respected, do they?” Would Princeton grads take that lying down? If so, they’re made of pretty poor stuff.
Not to get started on the Harvard lawsuit, but surely you see the difference between a drive-by slam of a school and defending a deep and divisive policy. There may be a reason why Harvard grads are having trouble with that one.
It does occur to me once every few months there will be a new poster, to quote @Marlowe1, that throws “a drive-by slam” at U of C. I wonder whether that is the same person.
@85bears46 @marlowe1 I have no intention of doing a “drive-by-slam” of UChicago and I don’t agree with many of @DeepBlue86 points. As I said, my intention is to infuse some realistic outside perspective into this thread because the “UChicago boosterism” is really over the top from the 4 or 5 pages I’ve read.
Just take @85bears46 comment as an example, “I’m not saying U of C is necessarily better than HYPSM…” Better? My friend, it would take an arm and leg to get most people to agree that UChicago is even an equal to Harvard, Yale, Princeton or Stanford (I see MIT as more of peer to the high end of Columbia, Caltech and UChicago). I hope you don’t think it’s better! Further, you’re arguing to your own disadvantage - UChicago is a relatively small research university with notably no engineering school. Most cutting edge research nowadays is engineering related and schools with engineering departments like Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Columbia produce significantly more research across many fields.
To swerve back to the debate surrounding undergraduate strength - I want to reiterate that I have respect for UChicago and recognize it as an elite school for undergraduates, but the fact is Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Stanford are by-and-large seen as being in an entirely superior tier. I personally believe that this so-called “HYPS” status quo will change, but I don’t see UChicago as the stand out to do it. Columbia and MIT have too much going for them in terms of reputation, rankings, and location not to equal if not beat UChicago to the punch.
What strikes me most about this forum, specifically posts from @marlowe1 and @85bears46, who in my opinion produce the most “boosterism”, is that they almost never mention UChicago’s true peers: Columbia, Caltech, Penn (on the lower end). There seems to be an infatuation on this page with comparing UChicago to Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Stanford as if UChicago stands alone beneath them. As I mentioned before, I can think of two non-HYPS universities off the top of my head which out-do UChicago by several measures.
In response to @DeepBlue86: I don’t believe Yale will begin losing ground in cross admit battles to Columbia, MIT, or UChicago in the short term because of US News. Yale’s main weakness is that some of the variables prospective students take into consideration (a few that you mentioned) could potentially put the university at a disadvantage relative to Columbia, MIT and UChicago.
Yale’s attractiveness derives mostly from its network, prestige and history - it’s nearly unparalleled in these aspects. I think you’ll agree with me, however, that Yale is poorly located. NH is a 2 hour train ride from NYC and has one of the worst crime rates in the United States. It has no self-sufficient industry that can attract talent that is at the frontier of science and technology. By comparison, MIT is embedded in probably the most exciting tech hub in the United States. New York City is primed to become a leader in FinTech, data science and even biotech. If Cambridge or New York City see a major influx of science and tech talent in the coming years and decades, Yale will struggle to compete with MIT and Columbia simply due to its location. Researchers and professors don’t care much for dropping the Y-Bomb (or the P-Bomb) on people. In turn, an influx of researchers and faculty can have a trickle down effect on the undergraduate program. We’ve seen it happen before with Stanford.
“UChicago is a relatively small research university with notably no engineering school.”
This is the first time I heard that U of C is being denigrated as a small research university. And if you are only into engineering, then HYP probably is no match for MIT, Caltech and UCB. If you decide engineering is the only criterion in deciding greatness, UIUC may be even better than HYP.
“Most cutting edge research nowadays is engineering related…”
So I presume you must be a recent engineering major. I would suggest that you grow up and open up your eyes and recognize that there is a lot of scholarly work done in many different fields. Not all of or even majority of them are necessarily engineering related.
I am always careful in saying U of C is no better than HYPS or even UPenn or Columbia. I don’t believe in absolute ranking. In my field of finance and economics U of C is at least equal to HYPS. For me U of C is the best but that is just me since it fits me. Nonetheless, I repeat it many times that anyone can get good undergrad education in the top 40 universities. If you have to believe that U of C is worse than HYPS and should stay in that place, that is your prerogative. I don’t expect a young person with a very narrow focus can understand a board perspective.
@85bears46 I’m just going to go down the list of misinformed points in your response.
As I specifically stated: UChicago is a small research university relative to Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, MIT and Yale.
Stanford, MIT, Caltech definitely have better engineering programs than Harvard, Columbia, Yale, Princeton and the rest of the Ivies, but UChicago doesn’t even come close in engineering to ANY of these schools. Columbia, Princeton, Cornell have Top 15 engineering departments; Harvard - Top 20; Yale - Top 30; UChicago? Nonexistent. Your argument that UChicago is UNIQUELY strong and focused in research flat out dies with this truth.
Unlike you, I actually do doctoral research in the hard sciences and engineering, not to mention at an “HYPSM”. I also have an undergraduate degree from an HYPS, unlike you. In fact, I’m pretty certain I have a much broader perspective than you when it comes to how both high school students and undergraduate students see the tiers of research universities. For example, you mentioned UChicago’s Econ department and yet even in economics, UChicago loses cross admit battles with Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and MIT decisively. I greatly recommend you drop the old “whipper snapper” argument because you’re not so wise big guy.
So in conclusion - from an objective perspective, the schools that attract the highest level of talent on the undergraduate and graduate levels are Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford. UChicago simply does not match these schools and barely matches Columbia and Caltech.
To reiterate: UChicago DEFINITELY isn’t better than Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Columbia, MIT or UPenn. In fact all of those schools defeat UChicago in cross admit battles.
BTW, no one here is claiming that the Top 10 universities are the only places to get a good education …