<p>Why would anyone choose chicago over harvard or princeton ,yale, columbia, etc, besides for financial reasons?</p>
<p>I think Chicago is more recognized than Columbia in the people in the know (aka corporate or academic). Not sure about HYP.</p>
<p>Perhaps because Chicago is a better fit for them. Chicago is very unique, composed primarily of a different type of person and more rigorous than Harvard.</p>
<p>Because education at Harvard isn't good.</p>
<p>My guidance counselor told me Harvard treats its undergraduates horribly because it believes students should view it as an honor that they are accepted in the first place. I also know a Harvard graduate who had all 4 of his courses taught by Graduate Students one semester of his senior year. One class, a 500-level physics class, was taught by a math graduate student. Finally, according to Loren Pope of Colleges that Change Lives, 1/4 of Harvard's one of Harvard's class in the 50s was found to be unemployed or on welfare during the 1980s. These do not constitute a good education. Going to Harvard would be paying 50k a year for a name on the diploma that matters little.</p>
<p>Education at UChicago is better than at Harvard. The name and "prestige" of the college matters very little, only a glance during the interview for the first job.</p>
<p>Still think that someone would have to be freaking crazy to choose chicago over an ivy (except cornell) or stanford, mit, etc. Plus, kids at chicago just study, study, study, and nothing else. i don't know who'd wanna be in that kinda environment.</p>
<p>Yeah, 1/4 were unemployed and the rest were making more than chicago grads.</p>
<p>Lakerskingdom: You might think the ivy league is really prestigious and matter, but employers don't think so and it won't factor much into their decisions.</p>
<p>You don't give any source for "rest making more than chicago grads." The Loren Pope analysis was based on a 1994 New York Times article for Harvard class of 1958 (it's on page 12 of the book; you can search the terms Harvard welfare inside the book on amazon). Even your assertion is true, it's better to have a more stable job than to make a little more money and risk being unemployed. The national unemployment rate for college graduates is about 1.8% (<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/06/news/economy/jobs_march/index.htm?section=money_news_economy)%5B/url%5D">http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/06/news/economy/jobs_march/index.htm?section=money_news_economy)</a>, so Harvard is way above the average.</p>
<p>I don't think you really understand how people choose schools. There's nothing that can make one school absolutely better than another (and no, making up sweeping generalizations about the financial prosperity of a school's graduates doesn't count). I liked Chicago a lot better than any of the Ivies for several reasons. But I guess you must go to UChicago or something, since you know that all we do is "study, study, study, and nothing else." And here I was thinking that I was actually having a great time at this place.</p>
<p>I'm just saying that I highly doubt that the student body at Chicago is more brilliant that Harvard, Yale, Princeton. Maybe more unique, but not more brilliant in that they have accomplished as much. There just real studious at Chicago, wouldn't you agree?</p>
<p>There's a reason Princeton takes 9% and Chicago 35%.</p>
<p>"Still think that someone would have to be freaking crazy to choose chicago over an ivy (except cornell) or stanford, mit, etc. Plus, kids at chicago just study, study, study, and nothing else. i don't know who'd wanna be in that kinda environment."</p>
<p>It takes a kind of person to go to Chicago; you are not that kind of person. People at Chicago go there because the people there don't care about rankings and prestige, but the actual pursuit of knowledge. As far as "study, study, study" goes, from what I have heard people get out all the time. It is the city of Chicago, what more is there to say? Your blanket statements about all students being shut-ins are not appreciated. Chicago kids do have a reputation for being workaholics, but I see that as more of a positive than a negative. It will just make the weekends that much better, and Chicago students that much smarter. So, in closing, please consider Northwestern University. </p>
<p>~JK on the NU bash.</p>
<p>"There's a reason Princeton takes 9% and Chicago 35%."</p>
<p>Yes, a self selecting applicant pool. Chicago, unless I'm mistaking gets FAR fewer applicants than Princeton. Not because Chicago is a lesser institution, but because there are far fewer people destined to go to Chicago than there are people destined to go to Princeton (as there are several other institutions like Princeton, i.e. Harvard, Yale, etc). Chicago is truly one of a kind.</p>
<p>"There's a reason Princeton takes 9% and Chicago 35%." Hmm...this says nothing of either institution's quality of education. There is also a reason why Chicago can have the acceptance rate it has and still maintain its internationally renowned standard of excellence. You don't need to look far down the USNews rankings to glean this much.</p>
<p>Well said, Notsomuch. :)</p>
<p>Whoops, cross-posted. Sorry about that!</p>
<p>It's true Laserkingdom, there is a reason Princeton takes 9% and Chicago 35%. Fewer people want the intensiveness of education that Chicago will give them. As you said, the popular conception of "study, study, study and nothing else" makes people think it not worth applying. I also don't think that one student body will be more brilliant than the other. Very many Chicago alumni ended up as Nobel Prize laureates. Many famous writers- Saul Bellow, Susan Sontag, gave interviews about how much the Chicago education meant to them.
I know a girl who chose Chicago over Stanford because she liked the academic culture more. After overnights at both, she decided students at Chicago are more interested in what they study and less focused on careerism. Other students choose Chicago for its core; the breadth of education satisfies them. In short, it's more complex than you make it out to be.</p>
<p>(....cross posting is fun....)</p>
<p>I still think that college should be about being around the best and the brighest. The best and the brightest do not go to Chicago. The best and the brightest go to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, and Stanford.</p>
<p>The people at the above colleges are more intellectual. Go Lakers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There's a reason Princeton takes 9% and Chicago 35%."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And yet Chicago's mid-range of SAT scores is only like 20 points lower than Princeton's on each section. It's not as if acceptance rate implies that Princeton has considerably smarter students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The best and the brightest go to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, and Stanford.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Funny you leave out CIT and MIT. :rolleyes: Prestige all the way!</p>
<p>It's not just about smarts. It's about talents in sports, music, drama, career plans. The people at Harvard, Y, P, Stan, are more impressive in those areas. If it was just about smarts there wouldn't even need to be an admissions committee at any of these schools. They would just take the best GPA's and SAT scores. How boring a class that would be.</p>
<p>People at HYPS are also more charismatic and don't sit and read all day.</p>