<p>you make some interesting observations, but still draw the wrong conclusions. To argue that undergrad is more important that grad school based on donation patterns is problematic. Most folks don't go on to grad or professional school, much less finish, so their donation options are limited. Most don't even donate. And if you look at the most prestigious professional schools, you will find that their alums donate a fortune (just look at HBS, for example). Keep in mind, too, that few PhDs end up in professions that lead to the riches that enable alums to endow chairs at their alma maters.</p>
<p>The reason the institution that awarded one's terminal degree is so important is because of the filtering that goes on in admissions all through one's progression in higher ed. Students are filtered at undergrad admissions. The same thing happens for grad or professional school. And the same thing happens in the working world, too. </p>
<p>Heck, this whole fixation on "where" someone studied can be a red herring anyway. People don't hire an alum of anywhere. They hire a person. And top credentials can hurt as well as help. "He went to Harvard? They turned down my kid last year...."</p>
<p>
[quote]
In academic settings, one's colleagues are much more likely to be thinking of the <em>department</em> at a particular University, rather than the university as a whole.
[/quote]
...and often one is simply asked, "With whom did you train?" </p>
<p>Again, as I mentioned, this applies to those with graduate degrees, particularly Ph.D's.</p>
<p>idad is absolutely correct. In my 18 years, not once have I heard my mom mention conversationally that she went to Columbia. Do people care? No. Focus on grad school, because that's what matters. If financially you can get into UChi or wherever, then go for it. Just dont fret if you cant.</p>
<p>IMO, the rational decision would be for the OP forgo Chicago for undergrad. However, I'm not convinced that a rational or reasonable decision is always best. I know that the OP doesn't like me, but I was not allowed to apply to my first choice - Radcliffe College - because of finances - and I do understand his/her position. I should have fought for it - deferred a year, taken extra jobs, etc. There was a good chance I would have been rejected, but never having had the chance galls me to this day.</p>
<p>If Nightshade - or anyone else in a similar position reading this thread - decides to go ahead with this, be sure to run the numbers so that you are very clear as to payback time and possible consequences. Remember that your projected income is not your projected take-home.</p>
<p>As far as making it work ... the less debt you can manage, the better. Working 2 jobs during the summer is certainly possible. You may also see if you can borrow within your family - who are likely to be less forgiving if you get behind on payments. Finally, you should be able to obtain term time employee at Chicago to pay your books and other expenses. Many of the house activities at Chicago are subsidized, so that even if you are on a pretty tight budget you will still be able to participate.</p>
<p>as long as the topic is "what is wrong with this school" read post #4 3rd paragraph.... David Brooks doesn't think Chicago is number one in undergrad haha</p>