Why the vitriolic pushback against the Chicago/Columbia USNWR rankings?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
21

<p>If we’re going to use PhD’s as a measure of intellectual atmosphere and how many students enter academia, I think this page provides a much more thorough view than Washington Monthly’s list: [REED</a> COLLEGE PHD PRODUCTIVITY](<a href=“http://www.reed.edu/ir/phd.html]REED”>Doctoral Degree Productivity - Institutional Research - Reed College)</p>

<p>It might be a bit outdated, given that their data was taken from 1997 to 2006, but I think it shows that U Chicago has a strong academic presence in nearly all fields and overall is pretty well rounded, unlike some institutions higher up on goldenboy8784’s list that skewer almost completely to the sciences or the humanities.</p>

22

<ol>
<li><p>Payscale itself cautions that at the most selective universities such a large percentage of graduates get graduate degrees that its numbers are not representative of the common experience of alumni there. Most of the people I knew in college who didn’t get graduate degrees were people working in fringe activities where it didn’t make sense (like theater management, or art), journalists who became stars really quickly so never needed journalism school to boost their cred (like Marie Colvin), or people who went to work for Dad. Today, people go work at hedge funds etc. and don’t necessarily have to get MBAs, but in my cohort that path didn’t exist. If you were in the financial world and didn’t want to be stuck forever on the lowest rung, you needed to get an MBA.</p></li>
<li><p>I think my friends’ career success is a hybrid of undergraduate and graduate experience. We would not all have been at Harvard/Stanford/Columbia/Berkeley had we not been at Yale first (or someplace a lot like Yale), and for the most part what we did in life bore a lot of relationship to what interested us as undergraduates. (Which in some cases was quite different from what interested us in high school. College made a difference.)</p></li>
<li><p>UChicago never had THAT many more undergrads get PhDs than Yale or Princeton, and Caltech always had way more. I wonder, though, to what extent the ranking in Washington Monthly on this parameter reflects a failure to correct for the recent expansion of class size. Most people who were awarded PhDs in 2007-2011 would have graduated from college approximately in the range 1998-2006, with most of the people coming earlier in that period. Chicago undertook a major expansion of its class size that really began with the class of 2006 (and in some senses is still happening). The class size in 1998-2005 was 900-1,000, and the class size now is about 1,400. So if you divided average PhDs awarded to alumni in the past 5 or 10 years by the current class size, you would get a significantly distorted picture of what percentage of undergraduates got PhDs. I can’t tell if that happened or not. If it did, it may have affected Princeton, too, but it didn’t expand quite as much or as sharply as Chicago. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>(Note that, in any event, when you look at how many people went on to get PhDs, almost by definition you are talking about a different generation. People who are applying this year will be applying to the class of 2017, and the PhD data reflects the choices of people 15-25 years older than they. It’s an interesting metric, but slippery as a way to tell you anything about the university in the future.)</p>

23

<p>Remember, we had a graduating class of about 600…I went to school in the dark ages (early 80s) when Chicago was ranked in the top 3 (back then schools were ranked by purely academic reputation) before the US News came along…even then, not too many ventured to apply to Chicago because it was known as the Caltech of liberal arts…and not many young teenagers wanted to work their ***off to get a low GPA. Back then, more top students were interested in pursuing a PhD than medicine, law, or business…it may be very different now with all the changes.</p>

24

<p>Re: Chronicle article and interactive on university peer selection. Interesting, though not definitive. Very possibly some of the schools didn’t think it worth the time. Princeton, as noted, listed no peers. Columbia listed no peers. Not arrogance, I suspect, but rather complete disinterest. As for Harvard’s granting of only three schools admission to its exclusive peer sphere (YPS)? Completely irrelevant. Harvard actually has a formal list of its designated university peers (both private universities and four public universities). Harvard’s officially designated private university peers are the other seven Ivies, Stanford, MIT, and Caltech. Was disappointed not to see U of C on the official list, but know from personal experience that my Chicago degree was taken very seriously by my Ph.D. cohort and my Harvard professors. In my years at Harvard Chicago was certainly perceived as a peer institution, even if not officially listed as such. Goldenboy is simply uninformed and rather desperate.</p>

25

<p>

</p>

<p>Based on what?</p>

<p>In the following fields, Chicago ranks in the top 5 on one or more of the NRC/Chronicle scales:</p>

<p>Anthropology (#1 R-Rank High)
Astronomy
Classics
Comp Lit (#1 Research High)
Earth Science
Ecology
Economics
French
German (#1 S-Rank High)
History (#1 Research High)
History of Art
Linguistics (#1 R-Rank High)
Music
Philosophy (#1 Reseach High)
Physics
Religion (#1 Research High)
Sociology
Statistics</p>

<p>The NRC 95 rankings made it much easier to compare schools than the latest NRC rankings. According to the NRC 95 averages of non-zero scores, Stanford ranked #6 and Chicago #7. Granted, NRC 95 is way out of date. Dunno how much individual departments might have declined/improved since the mid-90s, but I doubt the averages of non-zero scores would have changed all that much.</p>

<p>In the USNWR graduate program rankings, based solely on peer assessment surveys, Chicago makes the top 5 in Economics, History, and Sociology. USNWR does not cover Anthropology, French, German, History of Art, Linguistics, Music, Philosophy, or Religion.</p>

<p>Now keep in mind, we’re talking about graduate program strengths. For undergraduate students, the benefits of excellent, highly productive faculty are likely to be affected by average class sizes, curriculum design, and other factors.</p>

26

<p>Swingtime: interesting points regarding Harvard’s peers. From what I know (and from an old but interesting book by James Karabel on Harvard admissions), many Harvard administrators (for the college) always saw UChicago as the school Harvard did NOT want to become - e.g. overly eggheaded, lacking social cache, etc. So, in forming much of their policies in the 20th century, Harvard tried to do the opposite of UChicago - e.g. keep it’s sports program and athletic admits alive, focus less on tough grading, etc. </p>

<p>With Harvard, I’m sure some of the other ivies are listed primarily because of their affiliation with this sports conference. I’m not sure how much Harvard considers a small school like Dartmouth or a place like Brown true peers, but they’re listed by benefit of being in the club. </p>

<p>Moving forward, as UChicago continues to gain relevance both publicly and as the school makes gains on factors it did not previously focus on as much (like wealth), it will hold itself out admirably.</p>

<p>Interestingly, I am surprised to note that many schools in the Chronicle article - including UChicago, UPenn, Cornell, and Yale - don’t list Duke as peers. I’m not sure if that’s an admission or what. It was strange. </p>

<p>Phuriku: Again, I just think you’re parsing too finely when it comes to determining “peers” for a school. To use the high school analogy, it’s clear that UChicago itself “sits at the same table” with NU, Cornell, etc. UChicago certainly has its specific strengths, but this to me shows that, when picking a school at the undergraduate level, these schools are considered peers, and the applicant should choose based on fit. </p>

<p>It seems what you’re trying to do is ascertain rank within the group of schools that are all already at the same table. I think that’s meaningless. Once you’re at the table, there’s not much use in parsing any farther. To a certain extent, wealth can matter because there are a set of schools that can spend more lavishly on student endeavors, and there are clear leaders there (Harvard, Yale, etc.). Besides that, though, for all the schools at the same table, fit matters most. </p>

<p>I don’t know why you still try to draw distinctions between UChicago and NU or UChicago and some of these other schools. The schools themselves consider these other institutions to be peers. I’d imagine them, that employers, other people in the know do too.</p>

27

<p>EX, we are not trying to disprove his assertions. If you read my initial thread post, it asked an entirely different set of questions. I specifically asked that this not be the kind of thread that golden is making of it. Or that you are trying to re-ignite. It was a question aimed at Chicagoans about the furor and specific allegations about “gaming” numbers.</p>

<p>When I was at Chicago we were taught the skills of CLOSE READING. You would benefit from a close reading skills brush up.</p>

<p>Just felt like it was my duty to point that out.</p>

28

<p>Sorry to change the subject, but can somebody please explain to me the whole Common Data Set issue? A certain poster on another thread keeps insisting that the ONLY reason U Chicago and Columbia are ranked higher than MIT and Stanford is because they are reporting inflated data on their CDS forms, hence the reason they supposedly refuse to disclose them. Does anybody know if it’s true that Chicago/Columbia are keeping their CDS’s completely under wraps, and if so would there be a good reason for doing this? Does this really make it easier to misreport data? Emory posts its CDS online for all to see, as well as Claremont McKenna, and these got away with reporting false numbers for years. Was it BECAUSE their CDS’s were out in public that they were eventually caught?*</p>

<p>My take on the situation so far is that U Chicago and Columbia are NOT being creative with their numbers, at least not in their CDS forms, as this poster is so adamant about. U Chicago and Columbia outshine Stanford and MIT resources devoted to faculty, 35% of which is salary, and this is NOT a category in the CDS (I checked, but I could be wrong, in which case please excuse my mistake). Considering that U Chicago has the 3rd highest paid professors in the country, I don’t find it hard to believe that their numbers regarding financial resources devoted to faculty are accurate. Also, U Chicago and Columbia actually do WORSE than Stanford and MIT in one of the professor related categories in the CDS, percentage of faculty that are full time (this information is given by US News). If they really could get away with gaming the system, wouldn’t they have inflated these stats too?*</p>

29

<p>I think Chicago was reluctantly drawn into the game, got themselves a new coach (Nondorf) and found out that they actually play very well. Wait 4-5 years and let’s see how many peers are left in the construction dust.</p>

30

<p>After reading Phuriku’s comments in this thread, I’m not sure how anyone can take this person seriously. Self-serving, blatantly biased, and throwing out assertions without any evidence. You’d think someone educated at a school as great as UChicago (I think it’s a fantastic school) would be able to articulate a more cohesive argument, and frankly, without the vitriol. I’m not sure what you have against NU, or any other school that isn’t UChicago, but it doesn’t reflect well on you or your university.</p>

<p>Going to the greatest school in the world doesn’t preclude stupid arguments nor does it seem to weed out outright unlikeable people. I don’t know you, and maybe in real life you’re not nearly as abrasive as your courageous internet persona, but you come off on these forums like a petulant brat. Congrats.</p>

<p>Columbia and UChicago are amazing places to go to college, as are most of the other schools that come up in these discussions. Students attending any one of them are incredibly fortunate for the opportunity, and it’s disheartening that so many people seem to be more interested in parsing some commercial ranking system rather than simply being satisfied with the incredible education that they’ve been afforded. There are so many other problems in the world - fighting about what number your school is ranked is just not worth it.</p>

31

<p>PMCM18. You are NOT changing the subject, you are aptly bringing it back to the concerns I raised in the introductory post to this thread. I too would like answers, because I am angered that the poster to whom you referred is using this “dishonesty” argument to try and undermine the validity of Columbia’s and Chicago’s rankings. He has also not bothered to respond to your request for clarification, which is all the proof one needs of the unethical game he is playing on CC. If it were true, this nut would have spearheaded a movement for an investigation into such practices when Columbia upended Stanford several years ago. He has not done so and won’t, because his accusations are baseless. That doesn’t mean they are not noxious and offensive. They are. They also have no place on CC and should be reported.</p>

<p>I personally do not believe these schools are being dishonest. They don’t need to be. I do believe that this counter-argument is the product of uncomprehending anger that several schools have been upended in the rankings. These people do not understand the concept of institutional history, over the course of which institutional decisions made over a long arc – thus imperceptible to the general public – can have broader institutional consequences later expressed in such things as rankings and ranking factors. These things include faculty resources. In terms of resources the evidence reveals that Columbia and Chicago devote more to faculty than do Stanford and MIT. Over the long term, this can be perceived as perhaps an ill-advised misapplication of avalaible resources by Stanford and MIT. And, such has rankings consequences. This poster has no knowledge of the institutional histories of either Chicago or Columbia, nor is he privy to or interested in the changes these universities have made to ensure and give real solid foundation to their competitiveness over the long term. Their ratings rise reflects, I would suspect, years of internal institutional changes and re-prioritizations that have had successful results. One of the results is vastly increased popularity among applicants, despite both schools formidable reputations as intellectual hothouses. The latter certainly is in part the result of both schools adopting, very late in the game, the Common Application. </p>

<p>This is also importantly true of Columbia and Chicago: both have higher SAT scores among incoming freshman than does Stanford. Thus, the statistical “talent” of the Chicago and Columbia freshmen is higher. As aggregates I think they are slightly higher than MIT, though I would assume the math scores at MIT are higher. That is a factor. Average SATs for both schools also far outstrip, for example, Brown, or UPenn, or NU, and probably Duke (clear peers) and are at Harvard level. The intellectual firepower of Chicago and Columbia students – if we accept SAT scores as one, admittedly imperfect, measure – shows Chicago and Columbia outstripping Stanford; they have become comparable on this measure with the holy trinity of HYP.</p>

<p>Another point, just my sense. Elite groups are usually fluid in their initial stages of formation. At some point in their histories elite groups become and use a variety of means to maintain stasis as closed systems. The American higher educational system has been one such long-closed system that has, over time, become porous. Elites, particularly social elites – and the schools with which Chicago and Columbia are recognized as peers (at least by USNWR) were closed not only internally to outsiders like minority groups, but closed as a self-contained system like a social caste – adapt reluctantly to change. The change is resisted most by those who feel they have the most to lose by the loss of status that they believe occurs when a formerly closed social status system is opened. Those that feel status anxiety are the alumni of such schools that have been upended by a mere magazine; they feel threatened with a kind of status anxiety which results in deperate attempts to discredit those schools that have gained entrance to what they had assumed to be a permanently closed system of educational/social status. Members of such castes link much of their own identities to membership in such social castes, and to maintain security of identity and status the caste must remain a closed system. That they are also deeply inattentive to the fact that their own institutions may be changing – that things change over time – compounds the sadness with which one views their desperation, vitriol, and dark insinuation.</p>

32

<p>I understand, and it’s sad that some of these people view such things as a zero sum game. Does it really have to be that way? Where is it written that only 5 (6, if you include CalTech) schools can offer the best education in the US as research universities? Rather than seeing this as U Chicago and Columbia replacing Stanford and MIT to make “HYPCC”, why can’t these latest trends in rankings instead be viewed as U Chicago and Columbia (among others) being able to offer the same absolute top quality education and expanding the number of institutions in the world that can offer the best of the best? Hopefully, in the near future, posters in CC will have to type “HYPSMCCCJCBDEM…” to define the “best” institutions. I guess it goes back to what you said about some wanting to feel special and of a “higher” status, something which of course happens in other schools besides of HYPSM as well. Given that one of the objectives of education is to put people of all economic and social classes in equal footing, I find this very sad and feel that it goes against what I believe should be the spirit of academia. Going to a good college is supposed to make you a better citizen and help you grow as a person (and yes, there’s the practical purposes like getting a job and such), not make you feel superior to others. I haven’t read my “Reflections on Democracy and Education” packet yet (I feel like I’ve already let the school down), so I’ll probably have many more thoughts on this later.</p>

33

<p>UChicago doesn’t attract quite the same caliber students that Stanford does although it has very smart students. Stanford blows the doors of Chicago in terms of Rhodes/Marshall Scholar production and undergrad placement into top 5 law/biz/med school. In addition, Stanford’s OCR is much stronger than UChicago’s as top-flight firms like Deloitte and McKinsey don’t even recruit at the latter.</p>

<p>I think what Cue has said all along rings true: UChicago’s alums over the past 4-5 decades have been disappointed in the school and there was a feeling of low morale at that time while a college like Dartmouth is known for having incredible alumni loyalty and tradition. This may seem trivial but it explains why consulting firms and investment banks recruit much harder at Dartmouth-the alumni simply pull more strings for Dartmouth.</p>

<p>Hopefully, the current cohort of UChicago’s students/alums feel a greater sense of affinity with their alma mater.</p>

34

<p>goldenboy: Once again, you have no idea what you’re talking about.</p>

<p>First of all, Stanford is known for recruiting students who want to go out and make a political difference in the world. Chicago has traditionally tried to recruit more academically-inclined students to produce significant results in theory. Stanford, then, would obviously have a leg up on Chicago for Rhodes scholarship production, since the Rhodes scholarship is more for students wanting to get out and make a direct difference in society. On the other hand, Chicago has more Fulbright winners than Stanford for a reason - because Fulbright wants more intellectually-inclined students. Capiche?</p>

<p>Secondly, we’ve already talked about the McKinsey thing, which is SUPPOSEDLY the only big consulting firm to mysteriously not recruit at Chicago. McKinsey was founded at the University of Chicago, and probably has more Chicago alumni working there than from any other university. I just checked Chicago’s recruiting database, in fact, and McKinsey is listed as a recruiter at the College of the University of Chicago. That you’ve pushed so far on such a small issue, though, is indicative of your desperation in trying to find some criticism to use against Chicago.</p>

<p>Also, Chicago ranks easily within the top 10 for alumni donations (yes, alumni donations through ALL graduating classes), and has the same alumni giving rate as Harvard at 40%. There’s quite a bit of school spirit at Chicago too, something that might be mysterious to a student of a school whose only knowledge of school spirit involves supporting the local basketball team.</p>

<p>I’m pretty sure that a lot of criticism coming here is simply out of jealousy. There are certainly fair criticisms to be made against ranking Chicago ahead of Stanford, but I’ve only seen one poster make any good arguments. The rest of the arguments are just popularist bullsht and arguments devoid of solid fact and logic.</p>

35

<p>Still don’t know why you want to separate so finely, Phuriku. To me NU, UChicago, Cornell, etc. are all at the same table - not much of a need to establish more of a pecking order than that. </p>

<p>The main point where I think Yale, Princeton etc. sit at the “head” of the table, if you will, is in terms of wealth. Yale can afford to spend $500M on dormitories for their students, and through decades of nurturing, have a pretty amazing network for incoming students. It’s why I’d be reluctant to advise a student to pick UChicago or Duke or NU over Harvard or Stanford or whatever. Picking between UChicago and NU or Duke? Go by fit or, if for nothing else, just flip a coin.</p>

36

<p>Agree with Cue7. Just to be provocative: it is interesting that in discussing rankings, this forum ignores discussion of the top 4 LAC’s (Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Middlebury). Historically, Swarthmore has been a heck of a lot more similar to U Chicago in terms of intellectualism/rigor/work-load/production of academic leaders than HYPS or Columbia (I know a bunch of people where the top choice for them boiled down to Swat vs. UC). Lets throw all top undergraduate institutions in the mix. And, BTW, on a per capita basis, the numbers of alumnus nobel laureates, etc. are as high or higher at some of the top LACs than at their university-ensconced undergraduate peers.</p>

37

<p>phuriku, you’re getting really desperate here. The Fullbright is a pretty easy award to win and is not that prestigious; ASU often gets more Fullbright winners than the U of C, are you going to argue that it has a more intellectual student body? :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Oliver Wyman and McKinsey both don’t recruit at the U of C in addition to Deloitte. There are only 8 or so “major” consulting firms (MBB, Booz, Oliver Wyman, Deloitte, LEK, and Accenture) and only BCG/Bain recruit at the U of C.</p>

<p>[Oliver</a> Wyman Careers- Recruiting Events](<a href=“http://www.oliverwyman.com/careers/18.htm]Oliver”>http://www.oliverwyman.com/careers/18.htm)
[McKinsey</a> on Campus | Careers | McKinsey & Company](<a href=“http://www.mckinsey.com/careers/apply/university_recruiting/schools/ba/midwest_schools]McKinsey”>http://www.mckinsey.com/careers/apply/university_recruiting/schools/ba/midwest_schools)</p>

<p>Students at Chicago must apply to McKinsey the same way that students at Iowa State and Grand Valley State must apply to the firm-through a general Midwest resume drop. Northwestern, Michigan, and even Indiana are considered core schools for them.</p>

38

<p>Deloitte, LEK, and Accenture all recruit at Chicago. Any student can log onto our career services website and see summer internship and full time positions at these firms listed with the words “Recruiting On Campus” next to each title. I personally know a fair share of individuals who graduated last year and are working for one of these three firms, all of whom obtained such positions from on-campus recruiting.</p>

39

<p>

</p>

<p>McKinsey used to recruit at the undergraduate level here. It stopped because not enough students were going back for full-time positions after graduation. That just shows you how intellectual the student body here really is - intellectual enough to turn down McKinsey for something more meaningful. If you don’t know something that well, don’t try to act like you do, or else you would just shoot yourself in the foot in front of everyone on this board.</p>

<p>And don’t implicitly question the employability of UChicago students. I think you responded to a thread I started a couple months back about UChicago alumni’s employment success post-graduation.</p>

<p>Actually being a student here, I see first-hand that the economics majors at this honorable institution tend to be more academic and intellectual than those at other places. The prospective student (majoring in economics) I hosted last year was deciding between full-rides from Duke and UChicago, and he chose UChicago. He wants to pursue a career in academia, and when he was making that decision, he knew that UChicago is the perfect place for that. Based on what I have witnessed, there are hundreds of other students here who chose this school to ponder big questions and pursue careers in academia.</p>

40

<p>

</p>

<p>Um…I beg to differ. Some CS/math majors WANT the Core. Google has hired a number of folks from UChicago in the past couple of years. There are PLENTY of recruiters who come to Chicago. My S interviewed with many of them. Chicago has qualified for the ICPC the past four years, which has gotten the school more attention. Yes, Chicago leans towards the theory side, but my older S was a math major with serious CS skills and had NO problem with job offers. Is now at a firm that put him in a department that generally does not hire new grads.</p>

<p>He turned down MIT for Chicago. Has had some regrets, but was also very happy with his four years in Chicago.</p>