<p>sraid: columbia is the ivy most similar to chicago (they were in fact both founded by the same guy and at the time were the two largest cities).</p>
<p>It has the largest core and the focus on spreading your acedemics but it is not as intellectually driven as chicago</p>
<p>"columbia is the ivy most similar to chicago (they were in fact both founded by the same guy"</p>
<p>UChicago was founded in 1892 by John D. Rockefeller. Columbia was founded in the 1750s, I believe.</p>
<p>-Cesare</p>
<p>your right...not sure where I got that connection from...</p>
<p>though they do both have intensive core curriculums</p>
<p>"UChicago is a safety? I know someone who was accepted at Princeton and rejected at UChicago."</p>
<p>Maybe because at Princeton, they had a family history?</p>
<p>I know John Dewey, pragmastist and philosopher, was at Uchicago before going to Columbia. Any other connections?</p>
<p>Are family connections really that important?</p>
<p>At U of C, family connections don't count much.</p>
<p>At ivies, especially the top ones, Harvard, Yale and Princeton, research has shown that legacy status matters a great deal. See some of Bowen's books and writings, for instance. This is curious, because the adcoms themselves go out of their way to say how little it matters, even in the face of independent research that shows otherwise.</p>
<p>I know of two parents who where second generation legacies at UChicago whose son, with decent, though not exceptional stats, was rejected EA at Chicago. It appears true that legacy in this sense has little influence at Chicago. On the other hand, having someone write a strong letter who attended The University, that speaks as to why the student should be there, is a plus.</p>
<p>chicago offers a different 'product' than other universities. they aren't competing on the smae level as say HYPS in that those four schools offer their students four years of noncommitmen and some enhanced human capitalt in exchange for $160k. chicago offers rigor and education instead of academic liberty in exchage for $160. it just happens that there's a much smaller group of people interested in being challenged and educated than people who want a HYPS experience. </p>
<p>in the same respect, you can ask why HYPS has such a low acceptance rate compated to Julliard. obviously, they're different schhols with different aims. people just assume that chicago is simply an inferior research university because it's lumped with that group in the usnwr rankings.</p>
<p>back to the columbia comparison. i was accepted ea at chicago and rd at columbia, and they were the only two schools i really wanted to attend. (i applied to my state school as a safety and luckily didnt have to consider it and i did not even apply to any other schools) I chose columbia after comparing the two schools very carefully, reading all the viewbook propaganda that i'd been ignoring, looking at studentsreview.com, and more importantly, attending back to back admitted students weekends. despite many of the comments to the contrary on this board, i felt the same intellectual rigor at columbia that i did at chicago. neither place is a perfect nesting ground of ideas. i attended multiple classes at each, and at neither did every member participate fully, while at both slightly over half the class warmed up to the discussion and made intelligent comments. the other columbia admits actually seemed really intelligent, whereas i met a couple not-so-bright members of the uchicago class of 2009 among an otherwise bright group of kids. the most striking thing that i noticed was that when i mentioned at the chicago weekend that i was picking between chicago and columbia, at least half of the kids who heard my choice volunteered the fact that they, given the choice, would go to columbia. at columbia when i mentioned my choice, every single person encouraged me to go to columbia. whether this was because of a percieved difference in selectivity or some other factor that did not at all influence my decision, i felt that the difference in student's reactions to my choice demonstrated a deeper difference in the feelings of the kids about their school. everyone at columbia is qualified to be there and 90% of them want to be there. most, say 80%, of chicago kids are qualified to be there but only 50%, at least at first, really want to be there.</p>
<p>Eh, that's a lot of generalization to fit in one paragraph...</p>
<p>or maybe it's a concise version of the reality of the situation</p>
<p>I think there is a lot of truth to what indytucker is saying, at least in the last few lines of his paragraph. I know that Chicago is not my absolute first-choice university--for me, it's Harvard or Wharton--but it is my first-choice among my realistic chances. It's not that I think I would be unhappy at Chicago, just that there are two other schools I'd rather go to.</p>
<p>indy:</p>
<p>"some other factor" = Manhattan, which is hot right now. You really can't take Columbia out of NYC....EVERY matriculant to that school has to really want to be in Gotham, so it's really an apples and oranges comparison bcos of living conditions alone. As a result, it is no surprise that Columbia students would prefer Columbia (Hyde Park ain't Morningside).</p>
<p>Could you elaborate on the "20%" of studnets at Chicago who aren't "qualified" to be there?</p>
<p>Interesting comment about the "20%" assessment. We have a friend who is going to Yale who said in retrospect the choice should have been Chicago because half the students shouldn't be there and feels the "intellectual climate" does not match Chicago's. It is interesting to note individual assessments, but they are not scientific samples. Also, given that the quest at Chicago is for intellectual curiosity rather than on the basis of pure numbers, the false alarm rate may be a little higher, but so will the hit rate.</p>
<p>Indytucker's comments are a perfect example of how hard it is for kids to buck popular wisdom.</p>
<p>Of course Columbia kids are happy with their choice. After all, every external signal they get, be it parents, media, friends etc. says they won the lottery: They're going to an Ivy!!!! Sought after decals for the car, bragging rights at the country club...(hyperbole deliberate)</p>
<p>Chicago? A lot less prestige there. Just a lot more work.</p>
<p>So, in many ways, Indytucker is spot on, but not for the reasons he thinks. Columbia is a clear choice over Chicago for the majority of acceptees. I'm willing to bet 90% or so would chose Columbia over Chicago, all else being equal. I am also willing to bet, that, once one gets beyond the rationalizations, such as IT's, that little of the choice has anything to do with the quality of education. </p>
<p>Come to think about it, who cares what the reason is? Why should we even care if Chicago has a low yield and high admit rate? Chicago has a fine student body, offers a great education, and is a good fit for many kids. The rest does not matter, IMHO.</p>
<p>Where I live, almost nobody knows about UChicago. Many students think UChicago is like some private universities in my state that have an 80% or 90% acceptance rate. I'm no longer going to UChicago, but when I was planning to, one of my friends asked me what was the difference between UChicago and a definitely not-very-high-level university in my city. I wonder why UChicago is so unheard of.</p>
<p>In fact, I knew so little about UChicago that when I applied there EA, I considered it more of a safety, until I got deferred that is, but then I was accepted RD.</p>
<p>UChicago is very well known in Academe and in business. A friend who graduated from Columbia, who is surrounded by UChicago grads, often remarks how she wishes she had had the educational and intellectual experience the UChicago folks obviously had. </p>
<p>A WSJ article ("A Flood of Crimson Ink", April 29, 2005) suggests that Uchicago has had a far greater influence on America in the past 30 years than has Harvard, but because of who controls print in this country we do not hear of it. Who knows, Harvard been around for a while.</p>
<p>Where I grew up, the only reason anyone knew of the Ivy League was because it was a football league. Almost no one from small town midwest or northwest has heard of either Chicago or Columbia.</p>
<p>fak:</p>
<p>actually, once you move out of the NE corridor, I'd submit to you that few could name any of the Ivies, but H,Y & P, plus, maybe Cornell. Penn would be thought of as a school in the Big 10 with a football coach nick-named Joe-Pa. Tufts, Williams, Amherst, Swathmore?....what are those, some new rap singers?</p>