UChicago vs Other Top Universities

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
1

<p>According to the table seen here: [The</a> New York Times > Week in Review > Image > Collegiate Matchups: Predicting Student Choices](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/09/17/weekinreview/20060917_LEONHARDT_CHART.html]The”>http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/09/17/weekinreview/20060917_LEONHARDT_CHART.html), the implied university rankings based on students’ choices are as follows:</p>

<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Dartmouth</li>
<li>UPenn</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>Georgetown</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>Virginia</li>
<li>Northwestern</li>
<li>UC Berkeley</li>
<li>UCLA</li>
<li>Tufts</li>
</ol>

<p>The table doesn’t have UChicago. Where do you think UChicago is placed?</p>

2

<p>My impression of this data is that the New York Times was listing schools it had data for, not issuing rankings. If these are ranking of 4,000 colleges and universities nationwide.... where's CalTech? Where are the liberal arts colleges?</p>

<p>Revealed Preference rankings, which I'm pretty sure this data is from, are the worst way to choose a college for yourself. I would much rather you think of the US News ranks as the Holy Bible than to use herd mentality to help you choose your college choices. When you trust data that says "X percent of students chose School A over School B," you are trusting relatively uninformed high school students whose concept of what a college is like most likely comes from viewbooks or hearsay.</p>

<p>It's funny that people don't use this kind of thinking for other situations.... just because a lot of people smoke, divorce each other, are unhappy with their jobs, and otherwise make poor decisions doesn't mean you aspire to do those things.</p>

3

<p>I totally agree with Unalove here. Looking at revealed preference rankings is inherently problematic because they don't demonstrate what specific applicants might want in a college, or what would best fit a certain student. Also, for schools using the "well-rounded we want future leaders" admissions metric, these sorts of studies slant too far in the direction of affluent white private school kids in the east coast. Who are the students that generally choose between Duke, UPenn, and Columbia? Generally the prep school students located in the east coast. So this reveals what they prefer, but doesn't do much beyond that. </p>

<p>If you MUST use some sort of ranking, at least go by US News, or heck, even the world university rankings, or at least something that at least includes some academic factors in its analysis.</p>

4

<p>There should be a standard disclaimer to print whenever someone refers to that article/study. The study on which the story was based is 7-8 years old, and the data that the study used several years older than that. The sample size was not very large, and in order to generate a ranking the study had to infer preferences for which there was insufficient direct evidence. The study didn't look at every college -- the colleges it chose were based on interest (Ivies etc.) and, for the others, the avaiability of meaningful data.</p>

<p>And, for all that, if you find anything remotely surprising about the results, then you may have been living on Mars. Did you really need an interesting, somewhat problematic new social science methodology to figure out that HYPS and MIT are very attractive to students who get admitted?</p>

5

<p>The most academically rigorous schools are never on such lists. Which is why I'm rather happy to not see Chicago there.</p>

6

<p>Gosh..this is such a stupid "ranking system". The one that only allow ivies and stanford+MIT in the top 10. I guess they must've asked uneducated people in America about which colleges they've heard of in their lives and then ranked them based on the number of times that particular college is mentioned. UChicago can easily pierce through the ranking and beat at least half of the ivies.</p>

7

<p>I completely agree with BearCub! When I saw the list I was like, WHERE IS UCHICAGO? I just wanted to see where people thought UChicago would fall on the list amongst the Ivies. You know, just out of interest.</p>

<p>Unalove: I agree with you. I don't think that a bunch of uninformed high school students are qualified enough to make decisions for my college education. But I also don't believe that ANY ranking should be thought of as the Holy Bible. A decision to study at a certain university is based on how well it caters for your own academic and future career plans. No one, and no ranking, can determine which university is best suited for you.</p>

<p>Cue7: I chose to look at these rankings simply because everyone knows the US News, Times and world university rankings are. Examining and criticising different rankings would be more interesting. I also think that many university rankings based on academic factors seem to change year after year. I believe it was last year, correct me if I’m wrong, that Hong Kong University shot up the list and was ranked above Stanford. So looking at rankings that were determined by what a “normal person” thinks is better would be a bit more stable of a ranking, I guess?</p>

<p>So just for everyone to know, no, I'm not an idiot. I don't base my future plans on what the crowd thinks. The crowd is normally stupid. If I did that, I wouldn't be where I am now in life! </p>

<p>I simply wanted to find out where people thought Chicago would fall on the list of universities.</p>

8

<p>My recollection is that this article was discussed here previously (most recently, more than a year ago) and the collective wisdom was that the sample size was small, biased and generally not reflective of anything useful.</p>

9

<p>Before you dis the study, you should read it: <a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w10803.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nber.org/papers/w10803.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I happen to think Caroline Hoxby does excellent, thought provoking work. Just because you don't like the results is no reason to dismiss them, like Unalove is so quick to do. ("are the worst way to choose a college"...who said anything about "choosing"? This is just a ranking. Use the rankings as you will).</p>

<p>JHS remembers well, though, since the data was gathered in spring of 2000, and preferences have no doubt changed by now.</p>

<p>CD, the sample was hardly small - 3240 students. Biased? Depends on how you define it. Not reflective of anything useful? Oh really...?</p>

<p>OK, so you want to know where Chicago is? #27 nationally, just ahead of JHU and USC, right behind Northwestern (at 21), Pomona, Berkeley, Georgia Tech, Middlebury and Wesleyan (CT). This actually would have made sense at that time. </p>

<p>An interesting side note is that the study also analyzed the data by regions. UofC's score was pretty consistent across the country, from a high of 25 in KS, MN, MO and NE, to a low of 29 locally (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) and on the west coast.</p>

<p>Don't be so quick to throw out the message before you understand what is being said. And feel free to go to source documents instead of newspaper articles. :)</p>

10

<p>Nicolehywong - Correct me if I'm wrong, but while the World Rankings and others might fluctuate, in an attempt to gain some semblance of legitimacy, I think the US News rankings have stabilized of late. For the past 4 years or so, I think the rankings have looked quite similar from year to year. </p>

<p>If anything, I'd imagine revealed preference rankings might fluctuate significantly from year to year. One year, Cornell might be a "hot" school, and another year, following a rose bowl appearance or something, Northwestern might shoot up. </p>

<p>Also, when you ask "what a normal person" might think, lets unpack what the "normal" person is in light of the revealed pref survey. This person is most likely a member of a privileged class, with the highest proportion of these students found in the east coast. The "high-achieving" students faced with these choices most likely (as noted in studies cited by David Kirp or Jerome Karabel in their works) look primarily at "prestige" - not academic quality - in making their decision. Students deciding between these schools may often have a variety of hooks to these institutions (legacy status, good squash ability, whatever). </p>

<p>If you want to know where Chicago would place when THIS is our normal person, I would assume the U of C would not fare well. It should be solidly beaten by all the ivies save for perhaps Cornell, and would not win the cross-admit battle with Northwestern (which has more appeal for well rounded east coast prep types). With an east coast concentration already built in, I'd have a hard time seeing why a prep school kid in Philadelphia would pass up UPenn for a school hundreds of miles away with a weaker brand name in the east coast region. </p>

<p>If you want a very prestigious, well-known school, look elsewhere (or heck, just look north to Northwestern). Chicago isn't going to win that battle. Just realize that this study essentially ranks what 18 yr olds believe is prestigious and attractive, not anything else. If you tell most high school seniors that they can pick a well known school with great post-college options and significant grade inflation (Brown), or a very rigorous, more of a grind type school (Chicago), what do you think that student would pick? </p>

<p>If you want to look at academic metrics or strength of brand to the post-college crowd, however, the story would change quite significantly...</p>

<p>EDIT: Yep, Newmassdad's post seems about right. Chicago coming in behind all the ivies and Northwestern. Note, the study was done eight years ago (about when I graduated), and Chicago has changed significantly since then (see my post on this if you want). </p>

<p>Now, I'd anticipate Chicago would be in the top 15 or 20, and that in specific cross admit battles, it's not a blow out any more with some peer schools (for example, UPenn and Duke wouldn't take 75% of the cross admits or whatever. It might be more like 60-40 now). Nevertheless, in a ranking that looks primarily at prestige as judged by the high school crowd, Chicago will not do well.</p>

11

<p>Quick other note - Newmassdad, a subjective problem with the study is that in simply noting "wins and losses" during the cross-admit battle, the study naturally demonstrates what factors are most important to students. Moreover, as other studies (cited in Kirp's book and Karabel too I believe) note, "Prestige" is BY FAR the most important factor that high-achieving students look to in their college choices. So this ranking may present a rough view of the public's perception of prestige, but it does not actually assess the quality of these institutions. </p>

<p>As argued by Karabel and others, most colleges remain highly invested in the cross-admit game, and they modulate their admissions policies to make sure they stay attractive to the constituencies they most want to attract. For example, Harvard etc. adopted the "happy bottom 25%" policy, where, to attract the high achieving top 10%, Harvard felt it needed to have an athletic, waspy, powerful legacy base to maintain its image. Maintaining this perception helped the school win the cross-admit battle.</p>

<p>The big problem here is that, as far as I know, Chicago doesn't play this type of game. I can't find any studies on this, but I just don't know if Chicago is as cognizant of maintaining these sorts of quotas or instituting these sorts of policies to present an image that is attractive to the prep-type student. Of late, Chicago may be starting down this line a bit, but it is 4-5 decades behind its peers on this front.</p>

12

<p>I should have been more specific when I said "where people thought Chicago would fall on the list of universities".</p>

<p>I don't mean where Chicago is on published rankings I can find in a click of a button (because I've already looked). </p>

<p>I was hoping to see what people, either applicants, students, alumni or anyone who knows anything about Chicago, personally think it should be ranked on the list I provided. Or any list. </p>

<p>Cue7, thanks for the insight. The more I read your comments, the more I understand why people get so irritated and worked up by ambiguous rankings with no set criteria. Although I find opinion based rankings important, since in the end, when you find a job, those who are hiring will pick the candidate who comes from what they perceive to be the better university, I certainly do find rankings based on academic factors much more reliable.</p>

13

<p>Nicolehywong- of course, you're welcome. I wish there were more rankings on perceptions based on "those who matter" to recent college grads, but of course that's difficult too. The WSJ published a study on post-college placement at certain professional schools, but that was problematic as well. </p>

<p>As with anything else, as is important to remember, it's the students own talents and capabilities that are critical - the strength of the school is just a baseline. Outside of maybe HYPS, out of the next top handful of schools, it's not as if one student gets a big edge over another just because student X attends Brown and student Y attends Northwestern. </p>

<p>Newmassdad - quick question, in the study, do you know how Swarthmore finished in relation to Williams and Amherst? It might be a telling example. By any measure, Swat is as strong as Williams and Amherst, but given its reputation for rigor and its somewhat "quirky" student body, I wouldn't be surprised if it finished a bit behind its immediate peers (for example, Williams had a 60-40 edge over cross admits). Any idea on the specific stats or rankings between these schools?</p>

14

<p>cue7, Swat was 14. Amherst 9 and Williams 19.</p>

<p>Why folks get so lathered up over rankings is beyond me. There is a lot to be learned from studies like this. But such a study will never tell you who is "better", because "better" depends on a lot of other factors and is ultimately an individual decision. </p>

<p>As I've said in other posts: You want bragging rights about what college you attend? Look elsewhere than UofC - too many folks still think it is a state university, even in Chicago. But, you want a great education? Take a close look...</p>

15

<p>
[quote]
in the end, when you find a job, those who are hiring will pick the candidate who comes from what they perceive to be the better university

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You know, this isn't true at all. Or, perhaps it would be true if one were talking about two candidates who were precisely equal in every other relevant respect. But that's a make-believe situation, because no two candidates are that equal. And prestige-of-bachelor's-degree-institution is so far down on the list of criteria any employer would have that candidates are almost certainly differentiated long before anyone gets to it. If you want to see a holistic admissions process, look at how actual employers hire, at least for the kinds of jobs you would like to have. There isn't just one interview, there are multiple ones. References are usually checked critically. Sample work may be reviewed, and grades and often test scores will be studied. And all of that usually gets you some kind of internship or probationary employment, where your actual performance will be evaluated closely before your position is made permanent. Things like table manners and clothing taste are probably more important than the differences between similar universities. And, to the extent universities are taken into account, people may think about such things as keeping recruiting lines open at a wide range of schools, or recognizing that the CEO wants two or three people from his alma mater, West Podunk State, hired every year.</p>

<p>Where you go to college really matters in one respect only -- if it's not on an employer's recruiting list, it may be more difficult to get a job with that employer. ("More difficult", but nothing like impossible.)</p>

16

<p>Newmassdad - thanks for the results. I was more interesting in noting, however, (like in the nytimes "scoreboard" picture), how the schools did in direct competition with one another. For example, for students choosing between Swat and Williams, what are the results? (Just like how, in the link nicoleywong posted, in cross admit battles between UPenn and Duke, UPenn gets "wins" 66-34.) While UPenn and Duke are not separated by much in the final ranking, for whatever reason, UPenn gets a sizable majority of the cross-admits between the two schools. </p>

<p>I'm interest in seeing whether Swat takes less than its share of cross-admits when in direct competition with its two closest LAC rivals. </p>

<p>Also, you ask, why do people get "so lathered up" over rankings? The answer is pretty simple - most people remain concerned about status, and rankings provide a numerical appraisal of status. In reading books published on the topic, as a reflection of this, most schools remain VERY CONCERNED about status. Professor Jerome Karabel goes as far as to say that, for most of its history, Harvard was status-obsessed, and carefully scrutinized the decisions made at peer schools such as Yale and Columbia. </p>

<p>Most schools work VERY hard to maintain their status, and in reading these books, I have a newfound appreciation for how hard most schools work to maintain their status and brand. These schools compete vigorously with one another, and Professor Kirp (I think you read this too) terms the competition "positional warfare." </p>

<p>For most of its history, Chicago simply was not concerned about this battle. Indeed, for long stretches of its history, Chicago was just trying to maintain financial viability. Now, the tables have turned a bit, and the U of C is becoming more brand-conscious and more willing to play the admissions game. While I would be loathe to admit it, I think my peers and I were always a bit resentful about being ranked "too low" in the rankings, and I think current students are at least mindful of the school's current position. </p>

<p>In this way, schools operate like firms in a market, where money, prestige, and status are the main forms of currency in the realm (to borrow from Kirp's assertions). Moreover, they just reflect the majority of people's concern over status.</p>

17

<p>I am a very proud Northwestern University parent, love this study, but believe that for overall quality of rigorous education for highly motivated, hard-working brainiacs the Univ. of Chicago & Swarthmore College should be ranked at the top of the list. Princeton & most engineering schools would also make the top of my list. In short, I want my son's professors to have degrees from these schools if possible for the subject matter being studied.</p>

<p>P.S. I think that my assessment of most schools is accurately borne out by the USNews Peer Assessment ratings.</p>

18

<p>If number of nobel laureates were used to rank colleges, I think U of Chicago will be in the top 3, not just in the U.S. but in the world.</p>

19

<p>With how the schools count these things, U of C would be #2 with 82, behind Cambridge with 83.</p>

20

<p>Depends on how you define Nobel laureate with respect to a college. UofC tends to count anyone who ever was (a) a student (b) a faculty member (c) a researcher and maybe (d) walked on campus? (not sure about (d) :) )</p>

<p>others may not be so agressive....</p>