It is an invariable principle of the Chicago cc forum that in any discussion of policy someone will eventually claim that “it’s all about gaming the rankings”. But these are always bare assertions, without evidence and generally without much persuasive power. Everyone who is wised up is supposed to simply know that that’s the game without evidence or argument. Well, cynicism always sounds knowing, but it doesn’t count as actual knowledge. They teach that in HUM II.
YLS has such a high yield because it’s hard to turn down. They can cream skim.
Behind them, SLS is the next best law school. They are small and like YLS has a faculty driven admission process. Numbers matter but aren’t fully determinative. And yes, they can differentiate GPA’s among quality of undergrad institution as well as schedule.
HLS is far bigger, numbers driven and determined by admissions not faculty. The appeal of HLS besides name is people wanting to do corporate work. I find the SLS student - as the YLS - more intellectually diverse and interesting.
Columbia and Chicago are also in the mix for the top 5. I’d take either of these over HLS personally.
These top 5 can get the best so they aren’t worried about USNWR rankings to nearly the same degree.
I’m not a lawyer.
Interestingly, Chicago’s Student Government has come out strongly opposed to the new changes (which apparently didn’t solicit any student input - a common theme with the Chicago administration!):
https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2019/11/12/sg-urges-admin-reconsider-stricter-de/
and students have come out strongly opposed to the grade-grubbing culture the change could create:
https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2019/11/13/detriments-new-dean-list/
The student government analysis is interesting. They argue that, by not providing any clear GPA cut-offs, this will actually increase student competition and focus on grades. It seems like focus on grades is a little more in the air at Chicago these days, and this new honors system may only exacerbate this trend.
When will the ivy plus group be formalized, so Chicago can take its rightful place as the “Academic Ivy,” with all that implies?
“When will the ivy plus group be formalized, so Chicago can take its rightful place as the “Academic Ivy,” with all that implies?”
- Trustees, pres, provost, respective faculty committees and senate, as well as the dean of the College have undoubtedly been working off such a list. Are you asking why it hasn't been made available to the Maroon?
No no @JBStillFlying - I’m saying that, to me, it’s clear the admin is trying to brand chicago as the “Academic Ivy,” just like Duke is the “Basketball Ivy,” or UPenn is the " Social Ivy."
Here’s hoping the ivy plus group ( which Chicago clearly monitors carefully) becomes more of a formal thing sometime soon. Chicago’s new identity as the academic ivy would then be complete.
^ Penn actually is an Ivy.
What do you mean by “formal”?
“WHEREAS, this specific change of requirements would over-incentivize competition between students where there now is a spirit of collaboration, forcing students to work independently more often instead of in groups, and increase the burden of stress on the undergraduate student body as they are forced to work against one another;”
- This statement seems a bit over-dramatic, to say the least. SG's resolution would appear more credible if they either backed up potentially hyperbolical statements with actual evidence or just left them off altogether. The concern about grade-grubbing at the expense of an intellectual experience is legit on its own. Wonder why the SG resolution didn't include a request for the College's rationale behind these changes.
@JBStillFlying - I meant “ivy” to signify the increasing homogeneity amongst the top research Us. So, upenn is known as the social ivy, for those who want an ivy league-like student body but great basketball, duke is the basketball ivy, brown is the “hippy” ivy, Chicago is the academic ivy, etc. All these schools are more similar than ever before - they just come in different flavors.
^ OK let’s see if I can guess some of the rest. Stanford is Ivy-West, MIT is the STEM ivy, Princeton is the Risky Business ivy or maybe it’s one of the “Genuine Ivies” along with Harvard, Yale, and Dartmouth. (No hating - just going off of historical perceptions which may still lurk about). Is Columbia the Manhattan or the Big Apple ivy? Cornell would be the Lonely Ivy. Was toying with the State Ivy since there is a state institution up there with the same name, but that might generate confusion with all the Public Ivies. Northwestern is the Big 10 Ivy, JHU is the Pre-Med Ivy, Cal Tech is the Small Ivy (or perhaps Ivy-West #2), ND is the Catholic Ivy (or maybe the Football Ivy?), Vandy is the Southern Ivy, Rice is the Lone Star Ivy.
That’s the USNWR top 17 through Cornell.
Something like that @JBStillFlying - although I don’t know Rice or Cal Tech well enough to really say. They are much smaller, no? Althoug I’d hesitate to use the term little ivy, since those are in play for Williams, Amherst, etc.
Also, one edit - JFK already coined Boston College as the Jesuit Ivy, so not sure what Notre Dame would be (and it’s not as good at football any more).
Interesting point about Vanderbilt - it resembles its ivy brethren more than ever in terms of student body diversity, ability, and selectivity!
While lower in the rankings, Georgetown might have an in here somewhere too.
In any case, I think it’s clear that chicago is seeking the title of “Academic Ivy” more than any place else.
Oh and finally, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton already have a title, remember? They are the “Big 3” ivies.
20 years ago i don’t think I’d try and affix an ivy label to chicago, but now it looks more like these other schools than ever before. Academic Ivy seems to characterize it pretty well.
Notre Dame isn’t Jesuit. Catholic Ivy works well for them. G-Town IS Jesuit so can claim that title. BC is a lower ranked school. Not quite an Ivy yet.
Dartmouth is small too and it’s a real Ivy. Not sure why Rice or Cal Tech should get passed over due to size. Also not sure what to call D - the Boring Ivy?
Maybe Cal Tech can be the Asian Ivy since they don’t discriminate like some in the Big Three. Cal Tech has a large representation of Asian students. I’d stick with Lone Star Ivy for Rice.
ok, I’ll play: Cornell could be the Land-Grant Ivy, in honor of its contract colleges and its the only real Ivy that does not predate the Revolution.
Really? Besides U-Chicago, who else even cares?
btw: Columbia also has a Core Curriculum. Why does UofC think it can claim the ‘academic’ moniker from the Ancient Eight?
@Cue7 ´s idea here must be to assign a single adjective that will capture the essence of each school - the thing about it that you immediately think of. Nuances and qualifiers are not permitted in this game! (Nor much seriousness, I suggest.). Thus when people think of UChicago they think firstly of kids who study very seriously, do not have fun in the usual collegiate sense, and do so at a school in a bad neighborhood in a city with a bad climate without much name recognition or snob appeal in the usual meaning of that word.
All these schools are strong academically and attract serious students, so perhaps Cue should find a better adjective, but I can see what he’s getting at. This one-dimensional focus on studies at UChicago defines the place. That is why it has become a cliche, and like all cliches, it is tired and overblown. That doesn’t make it essentially false. It is why fun famously comes here to die. No one says that fun comes to Columbia to die merely because Columbia has a Core.
Got it, thanks.
They need to engage the Marketing gurus at Booth…"to assign a single adjective that will capture the essence of…[the] school - the thing about it that you immediately think of. "
Somehow, calling it a hyphenated-Ivy anything is a stretch; if for no other reason, Chicago is DIII. Instead, Chicago should wear its ‘we are a top 10 one-dimensional academic focused Uni’ loud and proud, and let the application chips fall where they may. (Where the ‘fun goes to die’ may be an entertaining line, but not necessarily a great tagline for thousands of 18-year-old.)
Even if UChicago truly did become a one-dimensional “something” ivy, it probably wouldn’t hurt application numbers in the least.
^^sry, my point was for the College to stand on its own – no need for any ‘ivy’ attachment.
@bluebayou - could not agree more.
@bluebayou said “my point was for the College to stand on its own – no need for any ‘ivy’ attachment.”
In the game of “big numbers” admissions (a game Chicago clearly plays), I couldn’t disagree more. @marlowe1 is completely correct in summarizing my view, in that, when trying to attract 40,000+ applicants to your school, there isn’t much room for nuance and qualifiers.
If Chicago successfully put the simple title “Academic Ivy” into play, that serves as a fairly easy way to brand and market the school. This will automatically appeal to a LOT of applicants and their parents.
Also, let’s be clear - all of Chicago’s recent branding go toward the title “Academic Ivy” - Chicago just hasn’t come out and said this yet. But when you talk about a place with serious academics but also excellent outcomes (summarized in glossy brochures and backed by a big career counseling office) that closely resemble what you see with other ivy+ schools, while ALSO featuring more robust student life opportunities (good sports teams! big arts center! more student clubs!), that seems to put Chicago firmly in its peer group.
If UPenn is the Social Ivy and Stanford is the California Ivy, and Duke is the Basketball Ivy, what flavor is Chicago? The Academic Ivy, of course!
Anything but Ivy, bcos its not. Heck, Chicago doesn’t play any D1 sports. (After all, the Ivy League was formed as a sports league.) Chicago is almost the Anti-Ivy.
Yes, they are peer academic schools. No question. (And I would argue that Chicago is more academic than some.)
But, IMO, calling Chicago the hyphenated-Ivy just serves to reinforce what it is Not, i.e., a member of the northeastern Ancient Eight (well, only 7 are pre-Revolutionary War). Moreover, to me, it denigrates the brand. What is the message, ‘Ivy-level academics’ but midwestern location so easier to get into?
Perhaps true, but it defies common sense (and Marketing 101). Pepsi does not want to be the ‘sweeter tasting coke’.
Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Northwestern, Duke and Johns Hopkins (non-Ivy top 10) don’t feel the need to market/claim an association with the Ivy League; indeed, they want to beat those Ivy colleges, not be them.
Does Chicago not have anything else to offer to standout from the pack? Like I said, this is a job for the Marketing Profs at Booth. (or maybe call their colleagues at Kellogg, the #1 Marketing school.)
btw: I googled ‘Stanford California Ivy’ and came up with nada…
Sorry, @bluebayou - I was mistaken, it looks like the term for Stanford is “Ivy of the West”:
https://www.crimsoneducation.org/us/blog/top-universities-in-usa
and Duke is “the Ivy of the South”
Anyway, the term now goes beyond a Div. 1 sports league, as I think you’d agree. It can be generally applied to schools that are highly ranked, highly selective, with a student body that sports impressive outcomes and is generally well-rounded/high-achieving.
In the past, Chicago didn’t offer particularly impressive (compared to its peers) outcomes, wasn’t particularly selective, and didn’t have a particularly high-achieving (outside of academics) student body. Maybe it used to be the anti-Ivy, but certainly not any more.
Nowadays, all that has changed, and Chicago has very much fallen in line with its ivy brethren.
It’s why, for marketing purposes in higher ed, at least, banding together (formally or informally) with other elite schools seems like a highly successful strategy. You have the Big Three, the Little Three, Public Ivies, the Ivy+ peer group, etc. etc.
And it’s not quite as simple as “beating” the ivies - a rising tide can lift all boats - it’s why status in the group is so coveted.
From what I can see, Chicago has essentially branded itself as the Academic Ivy. How is it still the “anti-Ivy”? It’s plunged into the world of big numbers admissions, focused on exit outcomes, allowed for grade inflation, adopted a latin honors system in line with its peers (to bring this back around), offered opportunities for more student groups, modeled its size after Harvard, and so much more!
Why, just yesterday, a Chicago student pleaded with the administration to stop copying Harvard so much:
https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2019/11/19/dishonorable-side-latin-honors/
Chicago has never been more Ivy-like! It’s plain to see.