No American Rhodes Winners from UChicago Undergrad for 7th Consecutive Year

Colleges & Universities University of Chicago
81

No doubt, bcos Chicago’s grad programs were spartan at best. (unlike the professional schools)

Most, perhaps, but that includes hundreds of publics that don’t even fully fund their PhD students. OTOH, I can assure you that schools like Stanford (don’t even think about calling it a west coast Ivy, bcos they sure feel that they are better than most Ivies and on a par with HYP) & some of the Ivies, can and will coddle its grad students.

While Chicago was trying to just to get to par with its peer group, the peer group has raised the bar even higher. So, UoC has a long way to go to catch up.

Fwiw: the S & M in STEM are liberal arts disciplines.

82

"OTOH, I can assure you that schools like Stanford (don’t even think about calling it a west coast Ivy, bcos they sure feel that they are better than most Ivies and on a par with HYP) & some of the Ivies, can and will coddle its grad students.

While Chicago was trying to just to get to par with its peer group, the peer group has raised the bar even higher. So, UoC has a long way to go to catch up."

  • Agree with this.

“Fwiw: the S & M in STEM are liberal arts disciplines.”

That’s true, but liberal arts also includes healthy doses of social sciences and hum/arts. ALL universities, even STEM-focused ones like MIT and Cal-Tech or large universities with a land-grant component, will include at least a bit through the gen eds. However, highly specialized programs of study (BS in science, math, ag) or something like a bachelors in business or engineering won’t allow for the flexibility of curriculum that you get under a liberal arts program - such as what exists at H, Y, P, and UChicago. UChicago really has very little in common with Cornell in terms of curricular foci, although the latter no doubt has excellent instructors and bright students.

Edit to add: I used the example of Cornell upthread so that @Cue7 could explain how it was more of an “ivy” model than MIT or Cal Tech. Obviously, in terms of athletics it is, of course. But does UChicago resemble its “ivy-ness”? I think not.

83

With all due respect, when I read these many UoC posts it always seems to have an inferiority complex undertone with the ivies and specfically Harvard. Let Chigaco be who Chicago is, no need to compare oneself to HYP, otherwise it comes across as a desperate attempt to tear down your peers to make yourself seem superior. Just my 2 cents.

84

@JBStillFlying - wait, the Cornell model resembles Chicago’s and upenn’s, right? They are also requiring freshmen and sophomores to live on campus (just like C and P), and they are also opting to build massive dorms, most likely bc they want to keep up w the joneses, but don’t have the money of a Y or H.

Also, yes, Chicago is picking and choosing in its ivy plus group. Also. I agree, Chicago went in this direction for revenues.

But, when faced with its decision points, it is an interesting thought experiment if chicago decided it would be the “different” top uni.

So, instead of having a res life system that is a poor imitation of yale’s, what if it marketed to students that this is the “independent” college experience, where most of our students embrace apartment living?

What if Chicago, like swarthmore, ended football for good, and constricted or limited its athletic program?

What if chicago decided it was going to be the top nerd destination for the best midwestern students, and limited its recruitment of east coast preps, knowingthat, if it kept the above and below principles, it would lose most of them anyway?

What if, instead of starting business econ and me programs, they doubled down on programs like the little red school house and liberal arts?

What if they scrapped ED and mass recruitment, and said we don’t care if our yield is 45% instead of 78%, and our acceptance rate is 30%? (And would probably save millions in advertising and recruitment budgets.)

What if they held the line on grade inflation, as princeton tried to do (but abandoned)?

Those would be “un-ivy,” moves, and i gather the counter argument is they would lose top talent to their rivals. But, would they lose “top” talent, or just get “different” talent?

Further, would modest expansion of the college and adherence to the above really kill the bottom line revenue?

I agree that chicago hasn’t done a 180, but they are a good 90-100 degree turn from where they were before. I’m curious if the above would’ve been a death knell for the college, or if they would rumble along just fine - sure, losing tons of kids to columbia or brown, but would be just fine all the same.

85

@Cue7 what if instead UChicago made decisions that helped maximize net revenue while holding the quality of the academic program constant? That’s kind of what they have been doing the past 20 years. They don’t need to offer apartment living in order to make that happen. And actually, I did hear they they may be considering expansion to 8K . . . (but not from Boyer himself).

BTW, there’s little evidence that the first years are experiencing ‘grade inflation’ so that one’s just fantasy on your part.

They certainly could abandon the ED and see yields north of 70%. But why would they? For one thing, it allows them to segment their pools into price sensitive and non-price sensitive groups. That helps to optimize merit aid. Second, they know which applications to spend more time on; that helps allocate time more efficiently.

Had they not attracted more to the college it wouldn’t have been a death knell, but UChicago would no longer have been able to maintain its reputation as a top university. Perhaps it’d be top 50 still.

In Cornell’s case I wouldn’t call this a ‘massive dorm’. The first and 2nd year complexes are separate and the former, at least according to the visual, has a far more traditional layout despite adding about the same number of beds as WRC. Think Harvard Yard, not Woodlawn and 61st. 100% will be first years who are new so all events and activities will be directed toward integrating them into campus life. In contrast, if what happens with WRCis is like what happened with North, there will be a flood of current students opting for the newest dorm, 1st year beds will be a small number, and most upper div students won’t have the incentive to become involved with a new house system or with res. life. Admin has the ability to circumvent this, of course, but their track record isn’t good. Over time the houses will gel, but they won’t for a few years out. So no - not like the ivies. UChicago’s two year requirement to live on campus is a step toward “ivyfication” perhaps but more likely it’s a larger step to ensuring financial health by ensuring some sort of payback from the classes of 23 and 24. However, I’m a big fan of being on campus all four years - as well as having the dorms close to food and classes - so applaud these changes wholeheartedly. If THIS is the ‘ivy model’ then tell me when to show up and help with the planting.

@socaldad2002 @FStratford and @privatebanker - UChicago probably does gauge some trends as set (or taken up by) HYP. It’s smart to do so. But it won’t change its strong academic and intellectual culture just to be more like this or that school. Not sure how it could, as faculty help set that culture. This alone might make UChicago’s undergraduate program very distinct from some of the ivies, particularly those that are also strongly or primarily liberal arts. For instance, unlike H and Y (not sure about P), the College at UChicago has no power to direct faculty as to how often or what to teach the undergraduates. Faculty run their departments, including resources required for the undergraduate program, as they see fit. Furthermore, there is strong agreement between the College, the faculty, and the university in general that undergrads should be giving preference to academics over other activities. As a result, the College in many respects is a well integrated component of the university. This is not how, for instance, Harvard College is viewed. Whether or not UChicago is “ivy-fying”, I don’t see it embracing a Harvard College model of academic experience anytime soon.

86

@JBStillFlying - two quick points:

1.) why are you only focusing on grade inflation for first years? Overall, over the past, say 8-10 years, when incoming classes were fairly comparable in terms of academic strength, do you think Chicago has steered in the direction of overall grade inflation (e.g., not just first years, but overall), or not? (Noting that we can offer what the ivy plus schools always say, incoming classes keep getting stronger, etc… And noting also that there is a definitive way to curb grade inflation with administratively mandated curves - and Princeton tried it… Chicago did not.)

2.) I’ve posited a lot about what I feel the ivy model is. Let me turn this around - what do you think the ivy model is?

87
  1. Not sure that timeline is accurate. You can’t assess the degree or cause of “grade inflation” w/o doing the event study on the factors supposedly contributing to it.

A more appropriate timeline would be, say, 2009 - 2016, and then 2017-2018, and then 2019+. 2009 is the start of the Nondorf era and significantly increasing/increased selectivity. 2017 is the first year of ED (and the new SAT’s if you are using SAT data to assess academic strength). 2019, of course, is the first year of TO and the new honor system.

One thing we do know is that average GPA’s have increased over time. As stated before, there are several possible reasons for this including higher academic strength of the student body, more interesting variation among Core subjects, more introductory courses, a changing mix of stem vs. econ vs. other majors, and - of course - more lenient grading overall (“grade inflation”). Anecdotally, there is lots of chatter among the students as to which instructors are more lenient, but that doesn’t point to “grade inflation” - it just means some are easier than others currently (they might all be significantly easier or significantly tougher than they were 30 years ago).

Without access to proper data, it’ll be very hard to understand the source of increased grades; therefore it’ll be difficult to understand what’s going to happen going forward.

The reason I mentioned the first year class is that I actually have some very anecdotal distribution information. Also, this year - unlike my daughter’s year and earlier, they were relatively strict with math and science placement; you couldn’t trade down from what you were placed into. Also, first year grades are typically lower since you have less choice about your courses and you are adjusting to a fast-paced academic system. It’s like a pure test of aptitude.

The College doesn’t interfere in the academic departments, so it’s not surprising that they don’t impose a grading scale on undergraduate courses. If Princeton tried that, it’s another way that UChicago is distinct from the ivies. Most if not all of the latter started as colleges with a university system growing out of that. Not so UChicago, which sprung full force as a university with various academic divisions and, for undergraduate scholars, a college (which at one point even had its own instructors). Even during the tumultuous Huthins years, I don’t believe the college had much control over the academic divisions. Someone is free to correct or clarify. Anyway, that probably explains the lack of systemized grading.

  1. I’m not the best person to state what an “ivy model” is since I’ve never heard of the term before the past couple weeks. Besides, I tend to assess schools by the “Chicago model” :wink: I consider research rankings to be pretty important as well (especially if the school has an undergraduate program that reflects the degree of scholarship you also find at the graduate level). By that metric, the ivies can really be all over the place.
88

@JBStillFlying - you may have data on this - is say, the class of 2023 noticeably stronger than the class of, say, 2015 or 2016? Stronger incoming classes are often touted as a reason for rising grades, but is there some noticeable gap here? I’d think the strength would be fairly comparable.

Also, as I’ve tried but perhaps have not been successful - would any other posters like to clarify what the ivy model for a college would be? It isn’t uniform of course, but what are the common threads? Perhaps I’ve been awry in what I’ve classified as an ivy-like approach.

89

@Cue7 all I have is data on test scores from Wayback Machine and the Boyer book (the latter cuts off around 2013 or so). The Class of 2015 was the first year that SAT’s surpassed all the peer groups. That year (incoming fall 2011), the average ACT of enrolled students was 31 - 34, compared to 33 - 35 for the Class of 2022 (the last class before TO). The Class of 2015 average SAT was 1420 - 1530 which concords to something like 1470 - 1550 for the new test. In comparison, the Class of 2022 had average SAT’s of 1490 - 1560. All great scores, but they have edged up recently. For Class of 2023, ACT range was pretty much the same as it was the prior year, but SAT’s edged up a bit more: 1500 - 1560. However, keep in mind that 15% of the class enrolled TO and I don’t believe they were ever asked to report scores.

Not sure any of us knows the pace of GPA increases at UChicago. I have the impression that it’s been gradual but don’t have concrete data to show that. Yearly LSAC data would be helpful just to see what the delta is (obviously those GPA’s may not be representative of the entire class).

90

“would any other posters like to clarify what the ivy model for a college would be? It isn’t uniform of course, but what are the common threads?”

Perhaps the following article can identify some of those common threads:

https://evolllution.com/managing-institution/higher_ed_business/lessons-learned-from-the-ivies-on-the-ivy-model-and-its-influence/

While the author doesn’t identify UChicago as one of the ivy-type schools, this article is three years old and several changes at the college have happened since that time.

91

This gentleman defines an ivy as a school so rich that “Students never have a need that goes unmet.” That sounds about right, but, if so, it doesn’t impress me as the best environment either for book learning or for life learning. Let us hope that Chicago, with its recent improvements, does not approach that definition of the ivy model.

However, some other remarks are sensible enough to bear repeating:

“My advice to any institution, including my own, is know who you are, and be that.”

“Institutions need to stop trying to be an Ivy. Let the Ivies be the Ivies.”

“Harvard envy is just not healthy.”

We would not be thinking and talking about Harvard nearly as much on this board if it were not always being pushed at us from the usual quarters. Fight!

92

In my (perhaps cynical?) opinion, stronger incoming classes is the justification for rising grades, but its just spin for keeping up with the Joneses. If the College or any Department or Professor wanted to continue a 1960’s curve (say, C+ mean), they could certainly do so. For example, Reed College, which is known for rigor, has kept its mean GPA between 3.1 and 3.2 for the past 20+ years. In contrast, Chicago was 3.35 in 2006. (And if rumors are any indication, it’s higher now.) For comparison, Johns Hopkins got to 3.38 in 2016, or a decade later than Chicago.

Sorry, I just lump all top ~20 private R1 universities into the same bucket: well endowed (so undergrads don’t want for anything), residential & full service, offering outstanding educations. Some are rural, some urban, others suburban. Some have big time D1 sports and school spirit, some offer D3. Some tend to focus on grad education (based on grad/undergrad ratio), others undergrad. Some lean more towards traditional liberal arts while others offer undergrad professional programs. (All have plenty of preprofessional students, however; none are St. Johns-or Reed-like.)

I understand your point Marlowe, particularly if the money is spend on say, rock walls, but one big advantage of having a well-endowed school that is willing to spend money on its undergrads is the ability to participate in research as a undergrad. At less wealthy schools, obtaining an undergrad research position can be extremely difficult bcos there are not enuf slots/money to go around. At HYP or Stanford, for example anyone who wants to do research with a prof or fund a self-research project can readily find a grant to do so. (To me, that is both book and life learning.)

93

Cue made the point as part of his ivification crusade that a hundred million bucks or should be put into a student union building, further relieving the harshness of U of C culture and, of course, making the place more like an ivy where “no student need goes unmet”. Putting aside the inevitable ivy wannabeness of that formulation, perhaps that would be a good thing. Perhaps it wouldn’t. Such facilities inevitably pull students away from studies.

A new student union at Chicago would become the enemy of that age-old Chicago meeting and courting ground - the library.

An old friend of mine from high school days once upon a time spent most of his waking hours holding court in the Student Union Building at the University of Texas. He more or less set up shop there as a charismatic figure. It was great for his social life - so great that he saw no reason to go to class or trouble his head with schoolwork. In high school he had been ambitious about learning. He lost that at the Student Union, and, believe me, he came thereafter to no good end, muttering incoherently to himself on a mountain top. That Student Union wrecked him: having too easy recourse to the fleshpots of life is a moral hazard. Study always involves some level of deprivation and renunciation of immediate pleasures for more lasting ones. You can check your Aristotle on that one if you don’t believe me.

Some will say that I’m singing from a broken old hymnal. Possibly. However, I took heart recently from the comments of U of C students on a reddit thread titled “Was UChicago your first choice of school”? Of the thirteen responses to that question I counted eleven positive ones. One of the negatives was interesting in its own right - not really negative so much as a lament for the lost carefreeness of being a kid in high school, playing video games, partying and hanging out with friends: “I just don’t think UChicago would be anyone’s first choice unless they really enjoy the hardass, cold, stoic academic feel that’s going on.” And later on he says you shouldn’t come unless you find “learning is fun in itself”. Another commenter, a recent grad, chimed in to differ with him somewhat on the grounds that things have just recently (things are always doing this “just recently” in the eyes of alums) become way too normalized: “I think there are too many normal people and the school is trying to cater to everyone, rather than allow itself to be a niche school, which is why it appealed to me.”

I deduce from most of the positive responses and from the first of these dissents that the school is still pretty darn tough and anhedonic as of old (about which this poster has a complicated reaction but which the other responders embrace). That’s the very reason why this second dissenter chose to come here in the first place (and why he worries so much about the normalizing of the place).

Aristotle tells us that the truth usually lies somewhere between extremes. I can accept that Chicago’s proper culture ought to include many betterments in student life. However, there is a limit as to how far that sort of ivification should go without depriving the place of its very essence - its quidditas, its haeccaeitas, its soul - the thing that distinguishes it and that it was chosen for by many a student. Not incidentally, all the best authorities tell us that learning is always accompanied by some degree of pain, and Chicago is first and foremost about learning. Yes, keep the banner of “where fun comes to die” flying!

94

One point from the article that I found interesting was the collaboration (collusion?) among the ivies. That would provide more lockstep for directional changes and perhaps making it easier for non-ivies to follow suit. Just one example I noticed when my son was gearing up to apply to college was the decision by Harvard, then Yale, to drop the essay requirement from the new SAT in spring and early summer of 2018. By end of July, Princeton, Stanford, Duke, and Michigan, among others, followed suit. Even UChicago changed its wording from “supplemental” to “not essential,” although that might have had more to do with its TO policy announced around the same time.

Obviously the ivies don’t all have identical admission plans and even vary on how many earlies vs. regulars they decide to accept. But they do (still) recruit from the same pool of applicants, according the article, and we know that many other aspects of their admission process are coordinated (Ivy Day, lack of merit scholarships). We also know that in the “olden days” some of them tended to divy up rather than compete with one another for preppies. It’s quite an agreeable arrangement and frankly, I wonder how much of it violates anti-trust statutes.

The article is pretty vague but very likely the ivies are coordinating more than just a few admission policies with one another. This suggests a sort of cartel, and it would have several advantages. For instance, aunited front of this sort will keep any of them from doing something too breakout or maverick. It probably also has important signalling value for other institutions (“do this, if you want to be like us”). Sounds like a great way to set the standard for the higher-ed industry!

Any “ivy model” would need to include a means for collusive behavior of some sort. Remember that the definition of “tacit collusion” from our old econ textbooks informed us that big players often will not change things up because doing so encourages competition. I’ve no doubt that many “ivy types” tacitly collude with the ivies. The question is whether UChicago does so.

95

tbf, most had stopped considering the essay way before then. Perhaps no school wanted to be the first for unilateral disarmament.

As do other top ~10 private, non-Ivy colleges. A big preference difference is geography. HYP will easily beat Stanford on a cross-admit matchup in the NE, but not so easily in say, California. Many top kids from the South are more than happy to accept an offer (and merit money?) from Duke or Vandy over say, Cornell.

I doubt any of that is going on anymore at the Uni level. If it was, it would be anti-trust-central.

Instead, the GC’s at top prep schools continue perform a sorting hat function by where they encourage/discourage their students to apply.

While I am one of the biggest cynics on cc, I do not buy the Ivy-collusion concept in today’s market. Adcoms move around constantly. There is no way that they could keep such a secret.

96

“In my (perhaps cynical?) opinion, stronger incoming classes is the justification for rising grades, but its just spin for keeping up with the Joneses. If the College or any Department or Professor wanted to continue a 1960’s curve (say, C+ mean), they could certainly do so.”

  • There are some UC professors who still do this. My daughter had a civ instructor who probably hadn't updated the grade distribution for 30 years.

'For example, Reed College, which is known for rigor, has kept its mean GPA between 3.1 and 3.2 for the past 20+ years."

  • Reed and other LAC's are perfect examples of where it's possible to control grade scales from top-down, because all academic departments are under the administrative authority of the college. This is NOT true at UChicago. I'm not sure that Boyer is able to do more than plead with the math, chem or econ departments to go easier on the kids. It's one likely reason why students may find a different world exists from what was described to them once they arrive and actually start taking a few courses (academic inquiry and rigor is emphasized by Admissions, but the existence of profs who curve on a C+ seems to get skipped over).

“In contrast, Chicago was 3.35 in 2006.”

  • What's interesting about the numbers on grade inflation dot com is that the most significant amount of "grade-inflation" at UChicago happened between 1965 and 1999, and NO ONE truly believe the college was grade-inflating during that time period LOL. UChicago's 3.35 GPA was achieved at a time when selectivity markedly increased from 1999 (admit rate dropped from 50% to 30%) and average SAT's (which UChicago used in those days to gauge academic strength and quality of the class) increased about 75 points, from 1350 to 1425. In contrast, Chicago's most selective peer group saw average SAT's drift up from just under 1450 to just over. So I think UChicago faculty were probably seeing very real - and notable - improvements in undergraduate student quality during those seven years. It's small wonder that GPA's drifted up a bit.

“(And if rumors are any indication, it’s higher now.) For comparison, Johns Hopkins got to 3.38 in 2016, or a decade later than Chicago.”

  • Another social site (rhymes with Feddit) posted last year that "on good authority" Uchicago's mid 50% is 3.4 - 3.8 with a median of 3.62. The university will not post any GPA data, period. So no way to verify but the OP insists it's good data, and the subsequent conversation and scant available data doesn't contradict that range.

I’d expect JHU to have a lower average GPA due to the heavy proportion of STEM majors there. UChicago STEM majors also tend to have a lower GPA than the non-STEM majors, and we know this based on the requirements for honors in the major. The most relevant comparison would be major-to-major since differences would be more likely to reflect distinct degrees of leniency vs. other factors. It also helps if the quality of the class isn’t moving much (or at all).

97

There has to be something else that the collective massive brainpower of the posters (myself excluded) on this thread could do for something good.

I bet you folks could combine energy and solve perpetual motion or time travel. Win a Nobel like many Chicago profs. Etc. lol.

UChicago is a really really great school. No school is perfect

Done.

98

I didn’t bother reading this whole thread.

I was very disillusioned to find out that Rhodes Scholars weren’t the “best and the brightest” of the students. Indeed, I haven’t been that impressed intellectually by many I met - holding them to the standard of being the brightest. They were just good strong students no doubt.

What distinguishes the award is how political it is. You need to manage your college career towards getting it. The school plays an active part. Indeed when I was applying to college my local state school offered me a full ride as part of 10 students they chose to make into Rhodes candidates. The school I ended up attending did have a classmate become a Rhodes and she was a good student but not the smartest I had met by any standard. (For example my scores were higher than hers in both classes we took together). However her resume was very polished towards that goal.

UChicago could succeed in producing a Rhodes or Gates if that was their goal. Don’t assume that a top student can just make it happen at application time. It is so political.

Incidentally I did spend a year at Oxford and so met many more Rhodes. Admittedly a small sample size overall. Very accomplished individuals but I wouldn’t hold them out to define how good a school is. In some ways the Gates Fellows I have met since have been more intellectual.

99

“As do other top ~10 private, non-Ivy colleges. A big preference difference is geography. HYP will easily beat Stanford on a cross-admit matchup in the NE, but not so easily in say, California. Many top kids from the South are more than happy to accept an offer (and merit money?) from Duke or Vandy over say, Cornell.”

  • @bluebayou what cross admit data do you have that shows this? What you say makes sense naturally, but is there data to confirm?

“While I am one of the biggest cynics on cc, I do not buy the Ivy-collusion concept in today’s market. Adcoms move around constantly. There is no way that they could keep such a secret.”

  • AO's might move around - do adcoms? Also, I don't think there is much in the way of secrecy. But I'll bet they do have lots of conversations with one another and they clearly agree on some policy matters. This is a no-brainer. They know that people tend to apply to the ivies as a group so excellent candidate "A"'s decision to apply to Harvard probably means he/she will apply to Yale as well. Each benefits from the presence of the others. Furthermore, Duke or Stanford or NU being "ivy types" also helps each ivy. Someone applying to one of those three is likely to apply to one or more ivies as well. This way, they get to look over the maximum number of qualified apps. These schools are all substitutes in terms of where you eventually get admitted and matriculate, but they are all complements when it comes to applying. When you apply to one, you are more likely to apply to several others as well.

While I think that UChicago also benefits (ie applications to ivies and ivy-types will be positively correlated with apps to UChicago), the more complicated and unusual admission plan system and the heavy focus on ED acceptance probably complicates things. Best guess is that a good majority of admits consider the school first choice or strong 2nd choice after an SCEA, and that the number of regular applications doesn’t exceed 20,000 or so (which is a pretty small number for a top school). If that guess is accurate, then it suggests the degree of complementarity between UChicago and other elite privates is relatively small. If those other elite privates are following an “ivy model”, UChicago might not feel it necessary to do so. That means most of the changes that make it look more “like an ivy” are done for different reasons. As best practices, they may resemble some “ivy model” actions. But they aren’t necessarily done with “ivy model” in mind.

100
  1. A corrective note to @JBStillFlying : Chicago's house system actually pre-dates Yale's residential college system, which started in the 1930s, as well as Harvard's house system, which pre-dated Yale's by a few years. That doesn't mean that Chicago today isn't trying to replicate what works so well about Yale's system (just as Princeton, Penn, and Rice do, among others), but Chicago, not Yale, was the innovator in this field, a long time ago.

Also, I don’t get why you think Chicago was more Ivy-like when it had more, smaller dorms and houses smaller than 100+ students. Yale now has 14 residential colleges for what will soon be 6,000 students. That’s an average of about 430 students per college. The actual sizes vary somewhat, more students than ever are living off campus, and some colleges have first year students living separately from the others, but I don’t think any college at Yale has fewer than 250 students in residence there. Harvard has 13 houses for about 5,000 2nd-4th year students, or about 380 per house. Princeton, I believe, has 8 residential colleges for 5,200 undergraduates, although only four of them house 3rd and 4th year students. Penn’s “college houses” have hundreds of students, too.

  1. More anecdotal material on "Chicago vs. Ivy": Over the weekend, I was talking to my son and daughter-in-law about their college choice (both went to Chicago). My son said, "On the same trip, I visited [my sister, then a first-year] at Chicago and then [another friend, also a first-year] at Harvard. And Chicago and Harvard were my top two choices, for exactly the same reasons. I went to classes both places, and there was this incredible intellectual energy. Everyone was totally engaged. All I wanted was to be someplace where things like that were going on." ( My daughter-in-law went to Chicago because it was a prestigious college not far from home (she didn't want to be too far from home), it was supposed to be for nerds (she was a nerd), and it had a little more prestige than her older brother's college (WashU -- take that, bhayya!).