<p>So that's what makes a "better" school, how financial resources are reported. That's what makes USNWR rankings so meaningful...</p>
<p>The truest part of the article was the quote by executive editor Brian Kelly, ''The difference between 1 and 10 is minuscule. Whether that's minuscule or not to a reader, that's up to them.''</p>
<p>The Chicago Trib has even more information:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The University of Chicago, facing complaints from alumni about its ranking, says this year it re-examined figures it was submitting in categories such as financial resources and concluded it was underreporting. The school's ranking shot up from 15th to No. 9.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Diocletian,</p>
<p>Many Chicago people do care about US News rankings just like <em>every</em>body else. ;) When UChicago was ranked lower last year, UC fans were saying that's because the school didn't care about rankings blah blah. UC sometime reminds me of the prudes in Catholic church.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The problem is that they probably already figured it out. We're late to the game
[/quote]
</p>
<p>He's reminding people they are still "more innocent" than others. lol!</p>
<p>Some alumni care, others of us do not and find the rankings distasteful.</p>
<p>"Some alumni care, others of us do not and find the rankings distasteful."</p>
<p>-This could be said for every school.... :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Many Chicago people do care about US News rankings just like <em>every</em>body else. When UChicago was ranked lower last year, UC fans were saying that's because the school didn't care about rankings blah blah.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So? This isn't even an argument, and I wasn't saying that.</p>
<p>I wan't arguing but just pointing out the <em>reality</em>.</p>
<p>idad,</p>
<p>I find it distasteful too. But then I also pay attention to it (that's how I know it's flawed...lol) and I don't pretend I don't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wan't arguing but just pointing out the <em>reality</em>.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh. I'll join in, then. Did you know that British sea-trout are really just ordinary brook trout which adapted to a migratory lifestyle? It's true!</p>
<p>And the species of lake trout found in the Lake Crescent in WA are ordinary brook trout adapted to just hanging around. I guess they can go both ways!</p>
<p>Diocletian speaks for himself. Most UChicago students, like most college students, are happy to see their college recognized in public.</p>
<p>well, regarding the fact that Chicago didn't care much about the rankings in the past and that's why it did poorly then... I think this article somewhat confirms that notion. </p>
<p>and as for Diocletian's comments, I think that the greatest impact that Chicago will see is that it's self-selective applicant pool will go away... and, inevitably, more students who just apply to all schools will add Chicago to that list. And I'll agree and say that Chicago does lose from this. Here's what I posted elsewhere:</p>
<p>Hey everyone, </p>
<p>First of all, let me apologize for the thread I started a couple days ago indicating that Chicago had dropped to the 16th spot... clearly that source was bogus and it has become pretty evident that the actual rankings have us in 9th tied with Columbia and Dartmouth. </p>
<p>I think that the title of this thread indicates a lot of what I think the discussions among deans and admissions reps. at Chicago will consist of over these next couple of months: what does this NEW ranking mean to the school, and why/how is it important? </p>
<p>I think that it is important to consider the rise that the University of Chicago has had in these rankings.. our ascendancy to the top is indeed spectacular. Yet, at the same time, I would like to point out a specific statistic in the 1999 issue. Chicago's acceptance rate? 72%!!!! </p>
<p>Here's my point: </p>
<p>When we applied, were admitted, or chose to attend, we came across this term called "self-selectivity" - often used to describe our applicant pool. It tried to explain to us how a school like Chicago managed to accept around 50% of their applicants last year, yet still have a higher SAT average for the entering class than four of the ivy league schools. This explained to us how we were a school who only attracted kids who truly knew about it, who were committed to its ideals of education, and who would further those ideals during their time at the school. Thus, the school could afford to admit so many of its applicant, 'cause those seeking admittance into Chicago were, for the most part, kids who truly wanted to be here. </p>
<p>I constrast that with today's environment, recent events, and things stated on this forum. First, I want to mention the overnights that some of us had in April. It has been widely stated that the University was/is trying to agressively combat the image that Chicago was not a fun place, and many people I talked to said that this effort was reflected during the overnights. The problem, in my opinion, was when I heard comments that this was, in some part, trying to mask what the actual REALITY was like at the University of Chicago. Secondly, I'd like to point out how we stand in terms of selectivity today. Our class was, by the numbers, the most selective one... 36% admission rate. Lastly, some in this thread have already expressed how they wouldn't mind if we were considered on the same footing as other more popularly-famous American Universities. </p>
<p>When I add all of this up I get a little bit concerned. </p>
<p>Chicago has built its worldwide reputation not by the kinds of numbers we are seeing today. It was known for its incredibly strict core (which has watered down, and would've watered down even more if it weren't for student efforts), full committment to academics, and, most of all, very unique student body. These past developments, though good for the school's day-to-day image, seem to be distancing the school from these characteristics. </p>
<p>I think that when we applied to college a lot of us felt that many of the schools on our list were like the ones in everyone else's list. The difference was simply on how high on that list you'd be able to climb - and consequently, how high on that list would you be able to brag. Chicago, however, was different. When applying to college I found that it was a school with no real subsitute. It had its own thing going on... and I liked that. </p>
<p>As we now enter the realm of top schools that the American public knows, I am worried that we won't gravitate towards becoming just another one of those schools that were on our college list. I think that Peter's "I hope it doesn't lose that" explains much of my concern. I decided to come here becomes we were indeed a special place. A place which few knew, but those who did respected it... a place which, since its founding, prided itself in being an unique institution. My concern is that this new ranking in USNWR will attract to Chicago more of those buckshot-approach applicants. I fear that Ted O'Neill's vision of "love letters" will become mass mailing-lists. I think that although some may celebrate this, I see it as the end of the days in which Chicago just attracted the bright and intelectually motivated... let us hope that Chicago, at the very least, only accepts the bright and intelectually motivated...</p>
<p>Hmm...that looks true; however, I don't think the fans were specificly referring to the miscalculation/under-reporting when they said that but whatever. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
"It is rare that a school like the University of Chicago admitted that they were not doing their federal financial data correctly," he said. "They came across as an institution ... that in some cases wasn't doing as serious a job reporting some of their data as they could have."</p>
<p>Behnke said the university also changed other calculations, but he declined to say in which areas.</p>
<p>"Frankly, I don't want to help my competitors," he said. "Let them figure it out. The problem is that they probably already figured it out. We're late to the game."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have long argued on other boards how data could easily be tweaked. idad mentioned "financial resource" and I think WashU included the federal $ for medical research (over $400 million if included and that puts them into top-10; $60 million if not and that puts them out of probably top-50) because I don't see how it's #3 without doing that.</p>
<p>felipecocco,</p>
<p>I actually ran into two friends that went to UChicago and they said it's already not the very same place it used to be (after I jokingly said their school was "queer" and geeky).</p>
<p>yeah... thats precisely the reason why i have my concern... ohh well... maybe our class might bring it back lol.</p>
<p>W/e, im fine with balance... I just hope it doesn't turn into a place filled with pre-professional minded students... that wouldn't be optimal imo.</p>
<p>I do think the powers-that-be at Chicago care about the rankings but only in the following ways.</p>
<p>1-They know they're one of the best colleges in the country from the standpoint purely of academic quality (the quality of their research faculty), and they think their undergrad curriculum is one of the most rigorous. This roughly translates into their thinking they should be "top 10" in everything they try to do seriously, including undergraduate teaching. If you look at the typical rankings by academic discipline, and for the professional schools, that's the benchmark they also tend to use, and failing that top 20.</p>
<p>2-They know they're a better school than Northwestern, and so it would be satisfying to be ranked above them in this year's rankings, just as they were unhappy some years ago when the tables were reversed. Being the ruler of Chicagoland is not a trivial thing for them.</p>
<p>Other than these comparisons, Chicago doesn't much care about rankings.</p>
<p>i looked up what the core used to be, and it really doesnt look much different. you had to take 6 quarters of pe and language (3 each) i believe and im already gonna have to take 3 of language, and 3 of pe would be fun anyway and i might do that too. an extra hum and an extra bio, some of which i imagine could be tested out of? it really doesnt seem as bad as everyone makes it out to be. or am i wrong?</p>
<p>"If you look at the typical rankings by academic discipline, and for the professional schools, that's the benchmark they also tend to use, and failing that top 20." - huh?</p>
<p>Felipe, what's the problem? It's a standard benchmark for graduate programs to try to be top 10. And the next round-number "rung" they really care about if they don't achieve top 10 is to be top 20. (Speaking from experience in the business. . . .)</p>