<p>It seems to me that UChicago is always ranked in the Top 10 no matter what methodologies the system would choose to adopt. The attached link is the latest one. I would like to hear what you think.</p>
<p>This high ranking is due to U of Chicago’s aggressive advertising methods and common app</p>
<p>I disagree with Fredjan. Chicago is a powerhouse research university, any way you look at it. That said, the rankings in that article are, like most rankings, slightly ridiculous. </p>
<p>@zzzmmm
I won’t deny that it is a powerhouse, but is it really that far above what should be its peer institutions (JHU, Duke, Vanderbilt, Cornell)?</p>
<p>Peer institutions based on what?</p>
<p>Its peer institutions based on average SAT are the mid-level Ivies, Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, WashU and Vandy.</p>
<p>Its peer institutions based on Nobel laureates are Harvard and Columbia.</p>
<p>Its peer institutions based on selectivity are the Ivies, Stanford, Duke, etc.</p>
<p>I’m not going to look up rankings for 50 different undergrad majors, but Chicago is very strong in plenty of programs. </p>
<p>So… they seem to be earning those top-10 rankings based on strength of students, faculty and academics. </p>
<p>It’s generally a fact that uneducated and lower-class people don’t seem to understand, but UChicago IS a top 10 world university, and has almost always been. Among highly-educated people, it is also REGARDED as a top 10 world university and on par with the Ivies.</p>
<p>Its SATs are ABOVE those of Harvard, Stanford, MIT, etc. Its acceptance rate (8%) is the same as MIT’s and barely above Harvard’s (6%). In terms of Nobel Laureates, only Harvard, Columbia, and Cambridge are comparable. And no informed person would deny that Chicago is the best university in the world to study theory (whether it be mathematics, economics, sociology, etc.)</p>
<p>Most of these rankings are research-oriented rankings, so Fredjan’s comments that UChicago’s advertising has anything to do with it are clearly based on ignorance (which you can tell from a variety of other traits of said poster). A lot of people, especially rejects from the College, are bitter about Chicago’s rise in popularity among the general population, even though it has ALWAYS been top 10 for research and reputation among the well-educated.</p>
<p>@phuriku
Oh, come on. 2004 data for many colleges:</p>
<p><a href=“College acceptance rates: How many get in? - USATODAY.com”>College acceptance rates: How many get in? - USATODAY.com;
<p>UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO Applications: 8,751 Accepted: 3,503 Acceptance rate: 40.0%</p>
<p>If U of Chicago still had these statistics, it wouldn’t be up there with HYPSM.
There are at least three factors drove the acceptance rate from 40% in 2004 to single digits today:
- More people are applying to college than ever.
- The application for U of Chicago used to be intensive before it began using the Common App. People couldn’t just copy and paste for this specific application.
- This past decade, U of Chicago embarked in an aggressive advertising campaign. It’s no secret that U of C sends far too much mail to likely candidates based on PSAT scores.</p>
<p>For the record, I’m not bitter about U of C. I’ve never applied there and don’t hold a grudge against the university. </p>
<p>edit: on the other hand…
According to an MIT file:
<a href=“MIT Institutional Research”>MIT Institutional Research; (page 3)
U of C has always been at the top, or nearly at the top. There was a huge jump from 2011 to 2012, though (the university went from #9 to #5 in one year). </p>
<p>Ok, I’m not a fan of Chicago’s marketing either. However, even I must admit that its international ranking probably doesn’t have much to do with its approach to marketing. Chicago has always been a research powerhouse. These rankings reflect that fact. Having said that, I’m not too fond of the methods that some of these ranking organizations use. Surveys are virtually meaningless and the over-reliance on certain indicators of research excellence (like the number of Nobel laureates affiliated with a particular institution) favor older, more established institutions at the expense of more dynamic younger ones. The fact that the selection committee for the Nobel Prize is partially comprised of previous winners of the award is also quite unsettling. If 10% (this is an arbitrary number) of the selection committee is comprised of individuals who are members of a particular institution’s faculty, how unbiased do you think the selection is really going to be? </p>
<p>Also this nonsense about “lower class” people should have no place on this website. Find a shrink to help you deal with your insecurities. This is just preposterous. </p>
<p>From the data it appears that U of C is taking these measures to keep up with its peers.
@phuriku
Ok, I admit it, I acted immaturely and with ignorance. Still, I’d likely choose UIUC over U of C if I were a top Illinois student, but that’s just due to my interests.</p>
<p>Also, there is definitely something wrong with this ranking. Duke beats NU handily in 7 out of 8 categories and is still ranked a couple of spots lower. That shouldn’t even be possible mathematically!</p>
<p>I think really the only difference in the last few years is that the marketing has turned it into a sexy school in the eyes of applicants that’s on par with, say, Columbia. </p>
<p>So my kid gets just as much marketing info from Harvard, Hopkins, Williams and Yale. It’s all glossy, it’s all expensive to produce and it’s all designed to increase the number of applicants.</p>
<p>I have never believed that the effective marketing and common app alone could have propelled UChicago to its admirable position in college ranking. I do believe, however, the effective marketing campaign engineered by Jim Nondorf has made awareness of the high quality of education The University has to offer. Combined that with the high caliber of their world class faculty and of the student body and the adoption of common app allowed UChicago to catapult its understated reputation to the forefront.</p>
<p>If you look at all these different world university ranking systems, be it AWRU, QS, THE, and now this CWUR, they all have used different metrics (by design) to measure the quality of those universities. But no matter how they cut, UChicago is always right there in the TOP TEN. You may see different combination of the usual suspects in the Top 10 in different ranking systems, but UChicago is always right there without missing a beat and that leads me to believe that UChicago is one of the very best universities in the world. </p>
<p>Phuriku is basically right. The rankings we look at most in the US are essentially measuring consumer factors for undergraduates. Most of the international rankings don’t give a crap about undergraduates, and are essentially ranking faculty reputation and output. On an international scale, Chicago has really never been out of the top 10 in that dimension. For a long time, it had a reputation – maybe a deserved reputation – as an unpleasant place to be an undergraduate, but no one ever questioned that it was one of the top collections of faculty talent in the world across multiple disciplines, and one of the top producers of PhDs as well. In the undergraduate market here Chicago and places like Duke or Brown are essentially peers, but Duke and Brown are nowhere near as strong as Chicago in the factors that matter for most international rankings.</p>
<p>This particular ranking tries to bring in some student factors, in a b.s. kind of way. It looks at how many alumni are CEOs of major companies. Yay. The sponsor’s discussion of methodology does not make it clear, but I am pretty sure they are looking at all alumni at every level – i.e., BAs, PhDs, MDs, JDs, MBAs, etc. That makes sense for a Saudi ranking – their students will be much more interested in graduate studies abroad than undergraduate. But that’s why these “whole university” rankings have little practical interest for anyone beyond gossip – if you are an undergraduate Physics major, the fact that Chicago has a top business school and law school is barely relevant to you.</p>
<p>^ Chicago is ranked 8th on the meta university ranking that averages data from the 3 major world rankings (ARWU, THE and QS). Duke is ranked 20th and Brown is languishing somewhere in the 40s. </p>
<p>You absolutely cannot compare Duke with Brown as far as research is concerned. They are not in the same league. Duke is ranked on par with Chicago. Brown is not even in contention. </p>
<p>Take the recently released CWUR ranking. Chicago isn’t the outlier. Brown is!</p>
<p>Publications: Duke - 22nd (22nd last year)
Chicago - 17th (37th last year)</p>
<pre><code> Brown - 123rd
</code></pre>
<p>Influence: Duke - 23rd (17th last year)
Chicago - 19th (21st last year)</p>
<pre><code> Brown - 66th
</code></pre>
<p>Citations: Duke - 13th (17th last year)
Chicago - 10th (30th last year)</p>
<pre><code> Brown - 55th
</code></pre>
<p>Broad Impact: Duke - 15th (category did not exist last year)
Chicago - 18th </p>
<pre><code> Brown - 97th
</code></pre>
<p>Patents: Duke - 42nd (24th last year)
Chicago - 149th (101+ last year)</p>
<pre><code> Brown - 170th
</code></pre>
<p>I might get bashed for this, but I would say that Chicago is pound for pound the most intellectual campus in America. That includes HYP. I would say it’s the liberal arts version of MIT. Not for the meek. </p>