<p>My original point is that UChicago seems to be marketing way too much - will this tone down in the future? No doubt UChicago markets more than any other top school. I’m a bit concerned about UChicago relying too much on marketing, and while Chicago indeed has a great product, I’d like to see them eventually scale down the marketing to a level similar to peers. An immediate superficial concern is certain stereotypes regarding UChicago marketing to students who would never get in anyway (though, the Ivy brand arguably does the same, as empirical points out, but in a more discreet way). There will perhaps be a credibility issue with Chicago if it continues to market like crazy five years from now, since it gives the impression that Chicago must market to sustain its numbers. </p>
<p>Empirical does have a point about Chicago’s “niche” - I think with Nondorf’s admissions strategies, Chicago will possibly fall a few notches in the proportion of students who go on to graduate school. This significantly weakens Chicago’s distinctiveness and claim on emphasis on academia. So where does that leave Chicago? What’s next? HYP can claim to breed the future leaders in just about everything, S has claims to Silicon Valley and tech, MIT has claims to future scientists/engineers…but Chicago’s niche is increasingly becoming less distinct.</p>
<p>I am probably going to get some flak for this, but good Econ departments are pretty common among top schools. Obviously UofC has some very distinguished economists, but so do other schools. I don’t see a big difference between UofC Econ and HYPSM + Columbia Econ. Same goes for comparisons in physics/math. Yet, HYPSM + Columbia can arguably offer more than UofC can in location, career placement, and academic strength in other subjects outside of econ/physics/math. What exactly, then, sets UofC apart today?</p>