<p>I think an important point is nestled in the folds of the phuriku-idad conversation above. One of the reasons Chicago has a good record for producing PhDs is that it attracts a lot of students who are likely to pursue PhDs – more, probably, on a percentage basis than Harvard (which attracts more students who are likely to pursue the Presidency or a Hollywood producing contract, on a percentage basis, than Chicago). Chicago isn’t the only college like that, but there aren’t so many where such a high percentage of the students have PhD-type ambitions. What that means to an individual student is that there is a culture amenable to graduate school applications – lots of information, vicarious experience, buzz, professors expect it of their students, and graduate admissions committees elsewhere expect to see and to admit a bunch of applicants.</p>
<p>idad is certainly right that a respected academic anywhere can do a good job placing his top students into good grad programs. What Chicago offers is a wide variety of respected academics in many fields, and a culture where going on to PhD study is normal, not exceptional. As for whether the university’s brand, by itself, adds anything: I think it does, to a limited extent. (My neighbor, then an academic scientist and graduate admissions committee member at his university, told one of my children, during the college decision process, “When you apply to graduate school, the University of Chicago really means something.”)</p>