<p>Phuriku - the reason why you may find so many is because, at least under Dean O’Neill, the Chicago admissions philosophy has been to “accept the best, and get as many as we can.” With this in mind, I wouldn’t be surprised if out of the 3400 or so students Chicago admits, it has maybe 350 or so cross admits with MIT. This means that, in any given class, there are probably around 20 Chicago students who turned down MIT for Chicago. </p>
<p>Also, in terms of my “lack of faith,” I loved my time at Chicago, and I learned a lot during my four years in Hyde Park. At the same time, after reading more scholarship about the university pecking order in the US, following a variety of rankings, meeting scores of graduates from HYPSM, going to a good grad school, etc., I’ve grown increasingly convinced that those schools (HYPSM) still form the gold standard in American higher education.</p>
<p>Now, don’t get me wrong, in certain specific areas, other schools can compete with the very top. Chicago, for example, does a tremendous job in terms of actual liberal arts education offered. Wharton, for example, places its graduates pretty much just as well as HYPSM. </p>
<p>At the same time, I don’t really believe that any other schools offer as good of an ENTIRE package as the top 5. In terms of financial resources, strength of faculty, social catchet, grad school placement, job placement, for connections and networking, etc., these 5 generally eclipse all the rest.</p>
<p>Yes, Chicago offers a great education, but at least in the American tradition of higher learning, a college is more about the education offered. Social catchet and preparing graduates to take on positions of power, however unfortunately, matters. Chicago does a great job on the education front, but it still lags in the OTHER goals that a top school fulfills, at least in american society. </p>
<p>Similarly, yes, Penn for example has a great business school and medical school, or Columbia has enjoyed great success with producing nobel laureates. In terms of the OVERALL package across fields, though, from what I’ve seen, the top 5 are a cut above.</p>
<p>Phuriku - one other note, I think Chicago’s yield rate is around 38% or so. This actually isn’t that bad a yield, considering Chicago’s current admissions philosophy. Most schools, after ED, have about a 45-50% yield rate. If Chicago was more savvy with its admits, and didn’t say, admit so many students that probably are getting into HYPSM, it would do much better. Again, under Dean O’Neill, the philosophy was to admit a ton of kids, and then take the 3% from Harvard or 4% from Yale. </p>
<p>Under Nondorf, I’m assuming this will change, and Chicago should bump its yield rate to around 45%, which is similar to pretty much everyone else out there. As a result, though, there may be fewer MIT admits walking around Hyde Park in the years ahead as Chicago gets to be more savvy when it comes to admissions.</p>
<p>To be clear, in terms of education offered and strength of faculty overall, I’d put Chicago RIGHT UP with HYPSM. In terms of an OVERALL university fulfilling the myriad goals that an elite american university must meet, I put Chicago a cut BELOW HYPSM, and on par with Columbia etc. (So in terms of a rough rank, I’d put Chicago as around #7 or so in the nation - in that group with Columbia etc. I don’t see this as demonstrating a horrible lack of faith in my alma mater. Being in an extremely strong second tier of elite american universities is nothing to scoff at by any means.)</p>