Her* not his. And I never used fraud, so please don’t put words in my mouth. Thank you for the well wishes. Chicago told me they love a good debate, thrive off feisty skepticism and constructive criticism, so the negative energy is surprising. I think the College cares about their yield, so I figured this was a good place to share how they lost me.
The part that I don’t quite get is how a research power like Chicago is so obscure with deets. You wouldn’t get anything published using “trust me, truly smart people “get” Chicago” or “trust me, I know a few grads from the 80s on Wall Street.” But apparently those are the sort of lines we’re supposed to buy before we mail in a $79,000 cheque.
@notUC2022 - eh if you want data, take a look at the feeder places themselves. For example, here’s Yale Law 's list of top feeder schools (go to p. 168 of the document):
Chicago has 13 grads at Yale Law right now. That’s similar to Duke (11), UPenn (16), Cornell (14), Stanford (10), and Georgetown (8), but behind HYP (tons), Brown (21), Columbia (34), and Dartmouth (28).
That seems pretty good - in line with lots of peers.
Another example, here’s Chicago undergrad’s placement at Chicago Law (go to p. 168 of the doc):
Unsurprisingly, at Chicago Law, Chicago undergrad places extremely well, with 34 students represented. That’s more than UPenn (15), Harvard (11), Yale (11), etc. etc.
If you’re eager for data, you just have to dig a bit. Nowadays, it looks like Chicago does pretty well.
But good luck wherever you go - hopefully your college of choice had good representation at Yale Law or others!
“If you’re eager for data, you just have to dig a bit.”
Isn’t it odd that a university known around for world for its research and data prowess turns cryptic, lacking transparency and details when it comes to graduate surveys? I read Harvard Business Review, so I know using percentages instead of hard numbers is a misleading consulting tactic. Maybe this isn’t the case but it seems to tease out an orchestrated effort to both shield and puff up what might be relatively disappointing data.
@notUC2022 - don’t confuse the admissions office and career office with “the University’s research and data prowess.” These offices have a vested interest in obfuscating data to present the school in the best possible light.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
The OP made her decision. The deadline for accepting offers is past. There is nothing left to say, and having had to deleted several posts, it’s time to invoke the mercy rule. A pop culture reference that the OP may not understand, but others might: this thread has devolved in Dan Ackroyd saying to Jane Curtin, “Jane, you ignorant…” so I am closing.
MODERATOR’S NOTE: Apparently, some users misunderstood skieurope’s post. No, he is not calling anyone a slut. He’s saying the thread has gone downhill and people are using ad hominem attacks. The description of the reference on Urban Dictionary:
"Originally an ad hominem attack against Jane Curtin by Dan Akroyd on Saturday Night Live during Weekend Update. At that time, it featured a “Point/Counterpoint” in which Jane made one point, and Dan would prefix his counterpoint with this phrase. "