<p>I think it has great potential to do so, given all its latest changes.</p>
<p>But I said that on Facebook and lots of people liked the reply of someone who said "no" in response to that (most of them weren't even HYPSMC students).</p>
<p>I don’t want it to pass HYPSMC either. I love UChicago’s reputation as the underdog, if you will. Many students apply to the schools you listed, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, and Columbia, because they are viewed as the nation’s top colleges. Those students may not in reality want to go there, but the “prestige” of those universities has been drawing in applicants. In my opinion, students apply to UChicago, because deep down they know it’s the place for them.</p>
<p>To be honest, I really don’t see why Harvard is considered the nation’s top college. Can someone explain it to me? Back in Harvard’s heyday, I could see why, but, at this current time, I’m sorry, I just don’t. The level of grade inflation at Harvard is just ridiculous; a handful of my friends are current Harvard undergraduates and they have attested to this fact.</p>
<p>Academically, in my opinion, I don’t think there is a better university in the nation than UChicago. However, UChicago isn’t for everyone. You have to “fit”, to understand UChicago. </p>
<p>I’m a current RD applicant, and I have visited the University of Chicago a plethora of times to know what I’m talking about.</p>
<p>Whatsausername - I think the OP meant Caltech, not Columbia…</p>
<p>One of these days I’ll get around to writing my note on “The Historical (In)Significance of the Ivy League Schools” but I haven’t gotten around to it yet.</p>
<p>Let’s just say that not many of the greatest thinkers in history had anything to do with the Ivy League Schools. (Harvard likes to brag about being 400 years old but ask yourself how may Shakespeares it’s produced in that amount of time. 0.) In fact, some of the greatest thinkers of all time didn’t even go to college.</p>
<p>And as a matter of fact, anyone with access to a public library or the internet these days could get a much better education than any one will get at Harvard or perhaps any school, if they applied themselves (though they probably won’t.)</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter, by the way, whether they like it. It’s a matter of simple math and there’s nothing they can do to stop it. The shallow slackers in the Ivy League have been overrated for far too long and now it’s time for a quality school to take over.</p>
<p>truth, I’m confused by your response.</p>
<p>First of all, what does “ask yourself how many Shakespeares it’s produced” mean? No college ever produced any Shakespeares, so obviously the answer is zero. Are you implying that Harvard should produce more poets, or great thinkers? Harvard has obviously produced plenty of both, but you could also easily argue that Harvard’s job isn’t to produce poets or thinkers. Harvard’s goal has always been to educate leaders, and it has been a success in that respect.</p>
<p>“Some of the greatest thinkers of all time didn’t even go to college” - That’s true, some of them didn’t. But why does this reflect poorly on the Ivy League schools in particular, and why does this make UChicago better?</p>
<p>“anyone with access to a public library or the internet these days could get a much better education than any one will get at Harvard” - That’s debatable, but again, this is a blanket statement about universities in general that doesn’t show why the Ivy League schools are any worse than any other school.</p>
<p>“It’s a matter of simple math” - Nothing about the subjective comparison of Universities is a matter of simple math.</p>
<p>@whatsausername, so glad to find a like-minded person! UChicago is, academically speaking, as good as a university can get. However, the nice thing about UChicago is that it’s not for everybody–true distinctiveness can never be for everybody. My worry is that now UChicago’s fast-increasing reputation and growing “popularity” will diminish this distinctiveness that makes it unique–and the best in my opinion.</p>
<p>In what way do you want UChicago to surpass the Ivies + others listed? In academics? In prestige? In endowment? In my opinion, University of Chicago is better than any school at somethings, it just depends on what matters most to every person and their view of schools.</p>
<p>Hmm - good points everyone!</p>
<p>I agree with you all. Sometimes I just wish that UChicago got more respect. Even though its reputation as the continual “underdog” attracts me (and it is by far the best fit for me in particular).</p>
<p>The reason why UChicago is unlikely to surpass HYPSMC in general prestige in the near future stems from UChicago’s considerably smaller endowment. Without catching up in endowment, UChicago will not be able to compete on financial aid awards or offer as many opportunities for undergrads. It is hard to imagine UChicago’s endowment catching up in the near future so I predict UChicago will not catch up in general prestige to the above schools.</p>
<p>“Without catching up in endowment, UChicago will not be able to compete on financial aid awards or offer as many opportunities for undergrads.”</p>
<p>UChicago already offers just as much, if not more, opportunities for its undergrads than HYPSM. The only school I can think of that can compete with UChicago on that front is Caltech, and let me note that Caltech has less than 1/3 of the endowment that Chicago has. Also, MIT’s endowment isn’t really that much larger than Chicago’s.</p>
<p>Your argument on financial aid also doesn’t work. Caltech provides just as good financial aid as HYPSM despite its smaller endowment. To get to Harvard’s level of financial aid, Chicago would have to dedicate about $80m more a year. But Chicago’s endowment is over $6b. This would be completely feasible if Chicago wanted to; instead, it has decided to dedicate its finances to large-scale campus construction projects. Once these expansions are complete within the next 10-15 years, this will free up a lot more money to be used on financial aid, etc.</p>
<p>The fact is, endowment doesn’t really have much to do with anything. Most universities just get a big endowment and don’t really do anything with it. They just let it grow. Look at Harvard. Is there anything that Harvard’s doing now with its $30b endowment that it couldn’t do with a $10b endowment? It doesn’t even NEED that big of an endowment. </p>
<p>Chicago is fine with its current finances.</p>
<p>“UChicago already offers just as much, if not more, opportunities for its undergrads than HYPSM. The only school I can think of that can compete with UChicago on that front is Caltech, and let me note that Caltech has less than 1/3 of the endowment that Chicago has. Also, MIT’s endowment isn’t really that much larger than Chicago’s.”</p>
<p>Granted I’m not entirely familiar with all the opportunities for undergraduates at all these schools but in my research of schools it seemed like both MIT and Caltech had considerably better paid research opportunities for undergraduates than UChicago. If UChicago has comparable programs they should do a better job advertising them to perspective students. I mean endowment per student. Sorry for being unclear. Caltech’s endowment per student is roughly double UChicago’s and MIT’s is more than double UChicago’s. Both MIT and Caltech get significantly more research funding per student than UChicago does as well.</p>
<p>“Your argument on financial aid also doesn’t work. Caltech provides just as good financial aid as HYPSM despite its smaller endowment. To get to Harvard’s level of financial aid, Chicago would have to dedicate about $80m more a year. But Chicago’s endowment is over $6b. This would be completely feasible if Chicago wanted to; instead, it has decided to dedicate its finances to large-scale campus construction projects. Once these expansions are complete within the next 10-15 years, this will free up a lot more money to be used on financial aid, etc.”</p>
<p>Caltech is something of a strange case as it gets a huge amount of research funding relative to its small size. I’m also under the impression that financial aid at MIT and Caltech is not quite as good as HYPS’s particularly for higher income brackets although I may be wrong about this. I guess it’s possible that in 10-15 years UChicago’s financial aid will rival HYPS’s although I’m not personally with the detailed finances at each school.</p>
<p>"The fact is, endowment doesn’t really have much to do with anything. Most universities just get a big endowment and don’t really do anything with it. They just let it grow. Look at Harvard. Is there anything that Harvard’s doing now with its $30b endowment that it couldn’t do with a $10b endowment? It doesn’t even NEED that big of an endowment. "</p>
<p>Considering the trouble schools including Harvard ran into when their endowments fell during the recent financial crisis, I think it’s unlikely that endowments are totally irrelevant. Harvard’s endowment accounted for 35% of its income last year. Excluding patient care, endowment accounted for over 20% of Chicago’s income.</p>
<p>“Granted I’m not entirely familiar with all the opportunities for undergraduates at all these schools but in my research of schools it seemed like both MIT and Caltech had considerably better paid research opportunities for undergraduates than UChicago. If UChicago has comparable programs they should do a better job advertising them to perspective students.”</p>
<p>There was a ranking back about a year or so ago that ranked schools on research, etc. opportunities for undergraduates. UChicago was first in the nation, Harvard was second. (Maybe someone around here knows of it; UChicago doesn’t get ranked 1st in the nation much, so it got some attention hereabouts.) UChicago does advertise this quite well to prospective students, as far as I am aware. </p>
<p>“Sorry for being unclear. Caltech’s endowment per student is roughly double UChicago’s and MIT’s is more than double UChicago’s. Both MIT and Caltech get significantly more research funding per student than UChicago does as well.”</p>
<p>It’s true that MIT and Caltech have double the endowment per student than Chicago, but what I want to make clear more than anything is how irrelevant endowment is to institutional finances. At Chicago for instance, only about 12.3% of annual revenue is provided by the endowment. (Source: <a href=“Page Not Found | University of Chicago”>http://www.uchicago.edu/annualreport/financials/endowment.shtml</a>.) Anyway, it’s insane to say that 12% of a school’s annual revenue is the reason that a school can’t increase its prestige or undergrad opportunities.</p>
<p>More importantly: Caltech and MIT don’t have the annual revenue resources that Chicago has. Chicago has cash cow programs like Humanities Masters Programs that feed its finances. And one good reason that Chicago recently established the Institute of Politics was so that it could raise big bucks, like the Kennedy School does for Harvard. With programs like these, Caltech’s and MIT’s finances just can’t compete with Chicago’s. I mean, look at average professor salary. (Here: [The</a> Chronicle: AAUP Faculty Salary Survey](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/]The”>http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup/)) Chicago’s is MUCH higher than MIT’s and Caltech’s because it has better sources of revenue to pay for it. You really think Chicago couldn’t do the same with undergraduate aid? Chicago is slowly but surely increasing its financial aid. It WILL catch up to HYPSM eventually, but the University doesn’t want to make any groundbreaking financial adjustments yet; these kinds of changes take time, and usually, gradual financial adjustments are much wiser than huge changes.</p>
<p>“Considering the trouble schools including Harvard ran into when their endowments fell during the recent financial crisis, I think it’s unlikely that endowments are totally irrelevant.”</p>
<p>It’s austerity. In the midst of a recession, rich people can’t act rich. If they do, people come to dislike them. Harvard was getting enough bad media attention in the midst of the economic crisis; their purported austerity, which really amounted to Harvard students not getting free cookies for breakfast, was a media stunt to show the world that they were suffering too, even if they weren’t.</p>
<p>Take a look here at USNWR’s world-wide ranking, UChicago beat Princeton, Columbia, and Stanford;
[World’s</a> Best Universities; Top 400 Universities in the World | US News](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/education/worlds-best-universities-rankings/top-400-universities-in-the-world]World’s”>http://www.usnews.com/education/worlds-best-universities-rankings/top-400-universities-in-the-world)
Take another look at The Times Higher Education World University Rankings, UChicago beat Yale and Columbia;
<a href=“http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/top-400.html[/url]”>http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/top-400.html</a></p>
<p>When you are looking at endowments, one of the things you have to notice is whether the university owns a hospital that is consolidated in its reporting. Hospitals tend to generate significant endowment, but it tends to be restricted endowment of little value to any students. Chicago, Yale, Stanford, Columbia and Penn have hospitals on their books. Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Caltech don’t. </p>
<p>There are lots of other reasons for endowments to get restricted, however. Harvard Business School reportedly has a way disproportionate share of Harvard’s endowment, and that money can’t be shifted to benefit undergraduates (other than the collateral benefits of having a huge, strong, wealthy business school near by).</p>
<p>Endowment also does not include buildings, etc. A stroll around Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and then Chicago, would pretty effectively demonstrate that HYP have a lot more money in the ground than Chicago does, even though Chicago’s campus is plenty impressive.</p>
<p>Yeah, I don’t agree with Phuriku’s claim that Harvard’s recent austerity is purely for show. Since I live about 10 minutes away from Harvard, I’ve seen a lot of the local news reports of major projects cancelled, cutbacks, etc. Also, I have a good friend who is a professor there, and I’ve heard from him a lot about cancelled departmental hires, retirements without replacements, cutbacks on support staff, etc. If I’m not mistaken, part of the problem was that the market downturn a few years back did not just affect their endowment size. They had actually embarked on a very aggresive investment strategy (and done well with it at first) in which near-term operating funds were significantly more exposed than many people realized.</p>
<p>Here are a couple URLs related to my last post. One is from the Boston Globe detailing how Harvard lost $1.8 billion in cash because of Larry Summers’ high-risk strategy. (By the time this blew up, he was once again on to helping manage the nation’s finances.)</p>
<p>[Harvard</a> ignored warnings about investments - The Boston Globe](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2009/11/29/harvard_ignored_warnings_about_investments/]Harvard”>http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2009/11/29/harvard_ignored_warnings_about_investments/)</p>
<p>The other URL is from Harvard Magazine, noting that even in fiscal 2011, Harvard ran an operating deficit of $130 million, as it is still recovering from the 2008 debacle.</p>
<p>[Harvard's</a> $130-million deficit in 2011 | Harvard Magazine Jan-Feb 2012](<a href=“http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/01/deficit-days]Harvard’s”>http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/01/deficit-days)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>U Chicago has all the respect it needs among the people who know better. You’re right, it will never be as known by the “masses” - even in the city of Chicago - the way other schools are. But isn’t that their problem and not yours? Why is prestige among the masses so important, when the masses don’t know much?</p>
<p>
This. The word “surpass” implies we have some sort of established metric to work with here, which is obviously not the case.</p>
<p>I’ve spoken to our Chief Risk Officer for Chicago’s endowment, and according to him our fund is growing quickly, on par with Columbia this year among the highest rates of return in its peer group. At the same time, this growth has been achieved with significantly lower risk profiles compared to other endowments. So on at least relative terms, we’re doing fine.</p>
<p>If you want to compare absolute endowment numbers, you’re going to have to delve into Chicago’s history for that one. I recall Dean Boyer mentioning that before Hutchins’ presidency, we had an endowment on par with if not larger than Harvard’s. Then, of course, Hutchins cancelled football, cut down the undergrad program, ****ed off the alumni, and blew all our cash on graduate programs, in the meantime creating the Chicago that exists today.</p>