As would be expected @Cue7 draws with great glee the conclusion that these figures could mean only that his Fab 3 are, well, fabulous and Chicago is - not. I look at them and draw different conclusions.
The truly talented types at Chicago have never been focussed on what @arbitrary99 has convincingly described as the political and dossier-building skills necessary to win the Rhodes and no doubt the Marshall. I also highly suspect that the HYP brand tips the scale with the deciders of these awards - either because they have drunk the prestige Kool-Aid or because they genuinely believe that the grads of these schools are more talented by ten-fold than all others. For Cue these cavils, even if he believed them, would not matter: nothing succeeds like success. To some of the rest of us what matters most and what the figures show is the different mindset that characterizes UChicago types - and, even more, the different education all types at the University of Chicago get.
With respect to the differential between rates of acceptance of Chicago grads at top law schools, I believe two factors are at work. One would be that same prestige factor described above. But the other - and this would account for the slightly lesser LSAT scores of Chicago grads - must be that UChicago students, being famously less pre-professional in orientation, do not field as rich a crop of aspiring lawyers. The top students in my day did not see lawyering as a destination. If that’s still so, then the ones who take the LSAT may not be the ones likely to score the highest and most likely to end up at HLS. They would probably also be less likely to want to go east. I myself took the LSAT in my last undergrad year at Chicago. My heart wasn’t in it, I didn’t prepare in the least, and, not surprisingly, my score wasn’t so hot. That’s not the way to get to HLS. I don’t believe I was unrepresentative. Seven years later, having spent some time in less interesting and remunerative ways, I did it all again - with much better results, though managing to avoid the siren song from the banks of the Charles. Attitude is everything.
^ With 150’ish applying in a given year to law school . . . . that’s 10% of the Class! I think LSAT prep and law school advising at UChicago has become a bit more standardized since Marlowe’s day (though as usual I love his historical depictions). Can’t say why they are a tad below HYP in LSAT scores but it will matter for top admissions. Fortunately, the trend looks upward, albeit slightly. More data is needed.
@JBStillFlying , one wonders whether those 150 Chicago law applicants are distributed in their U of C class (in terms of smarts) in the same way as their counterparts at HYP. The destinations of the top kids might be somewhat different at these schools. Law is often a fallback for those who can’t think of anything else to do - especially those in the Humanities who would rather be reading Homer all things considered but don’t see a future in that. My hunch is that luke-warmness for the law would be more likely at Chicago than a place where smooth ascension into the professions is the whole point of being there.
Hmm. I wonder. The UChicago Careers in Law, Business and Med School session was very well attended last spring but maybe that’s due to bus and med, not law. The LLS “pre-law” major had 100 students apply a couple of years ago (only 25 were chosen). Maybe each year all 100 hopefuls go on to apply to law school, along with 50 additonal mavericks who opt for a “less traditional” major like history, philosophy or poly sci
The fact that the number of Chicago graduates applying to law school in any particular year represents 10% of the graduating class does not mean that 10% of the graduating class is applying to law school. It means, at most, that 10% (or more) of the graduating class may eventually apply to law school. That 150 number includes both graduating fourth-years and people who are years, even decades, past their fourth year of college. What’s more, their stats probably lag the stats of the current graduating class to some extent (if we think Chicago has gotten more selective in recent years).
Between them, my kids knew exactly one person who applied to start law school immediately after college. And they described him as an incredible tool; he was apparently famous among his peers for being a jerk. (They knew him because his mother is an old friend of my family’s.) They know a number of Chicago friends who have gone to law school now, but none of them went straight from college. (One of them is the child of two parents who were both presidents of fancy law reviews: Harvard and Penn. My child who knows him was not exactly shocked when he applied to law school, but he worked as a reporter for three years before he did that.)
Goading @marlowe1 : Yes, the child of the Harvard and Penn law review presidents (with undergraduate degrees from, respectively Penn and Harvard, and non-legal graduate degrees from other Ivy League universities) went to Chicago. So did the children of the two top officers of the Stanford Law Review from my class, whose undergraduate degrees came from – you guessed it – Harvard and Yale. So did the children of my Harvard AB, Princeton PhD cousin. Chicago is crawling with people like that. It is not isolated from the prestige university world anymore, if it ever was.
I claim for Chicago a culture that is, if not utterly unique, at least distinct from that of the top ivies, but I don’t say It is isolated from them. I do say that those who come here, or have children who do, don’t all see Chicago as indistinguishable or hope to make it so. Some probably do, and some probably don’t care much, but some surely came because they preferred what was here to what was there. Robert Maynard Hutchins didn’t come to Chicago from Yale in order to make Chicago in to Yale. One of the frequent commenters on this board is the child of a Harvard alum who has taken against Harvard and sees something both different and preferable in Chicago. OP is on the other hand a Chicago alum who much prefers Harvard. So it goes. An institution with a powerful and individual character is a beacon bringing the like-minded to it and transforming many of those who came serendipitously or without preconception. Some, admittedly, it cannot change.
Don’t look now, but the 2021 Schwarzman Scholars were just announced - and guess what? UChicago has a winner!
In comparison, Harvard had six winners (!), and Yale had three.
I suppose, @JBStillFlying if you’re looking at ways to distinguish Chicago from the “ivy gold standard” you mentioned, we’ve found a difference. They destroy us in overall award fellowship production, as seen throughout this thread.
^ Sure, but w/r/t HYP that’s always been the case. They also tend to get more applications and at least two of them are more selective. And they offer superior FA and have a bigger endowment. This is why they are a “gold standard.”
Thought the relevant point you’ve been trying to make - on other threads as well as this one - is that the College is backsliding a bit. This is a newer scholarship, so hard to make that assessment here.
Here’s a thought - rather than wring your hands over the fact that UChicago isn’t performing as well as what obviously must have been your first choice for undergrad, why don’t you instead be more proactive: gift the necessary funds to set up the “Cue7 Institute for Ivy-Model Outcomes” at the College. That way, students start winning awards, the College starts to brag, and you start to feel good about yourself and your actual alma mater.
Outside of scholars production, when have I stated the College is backsliding? It’s as strong as it ever has been (in the recent era, at least). I have much more concern about the hospital system and science end of campus (along with the U’s general finances).
The bigger issue for the College is competition with, as you note, wealthier, juggernauts and big-time competitors. With HYPS enjoying their traditional dominance, along with UPenn, Columbia, Duke, Northwestern, Hopkins, etc. all improving, from a rankings standpoint, Chicago may not be able to hold its position (in fact, a position that has started to slip).
This isn’t about the College itself deteriorating - it’s much more about other schools surging.
The hospital system, institutional finances, and some of the medical/science plant - that’s another story.
^ Thought research grants had increased in 2019? Or is UChicago behind the ball on that one as well? :neutral:
Regarding “backsliding” - @Cue7, using your own definition and understanding of the term, which era would you say has been more successful at bringing in a “high quality” type of student to the College: Pre 2009 Admissions, or Admissions beginning in 2009?
@JBStillFlying - research grants did increase, moving Chicago from around #42 in NIH funding in 2018 to #34 (or something like that) in 2019.
Thats way, way down from where it was 20 years ago or so, comparatively. Not exactly a reason to cheer, right?
Northwestern, on the other hand, has been the biggest forward mover in the chicago area re research grants.
Also, I think the college now has better incoming students than before nondorf, but as I have said before, I don’t know if it was worth the cost.
Here’s a question for you - per the class profiles, how much better are the classes now? Maybe, say, 10-15 SAT points better, with 95% in top 10% of the class, as opposed to 90%?
“Here’s a question for you - per the class profiles, how much better are the classes now? Maybe, say, 10-15 SAT points better, with 95% in top 10% of the class, as opposed to 90%?”
I've answered that question (see my comment #88 on this thread). Edit to add: Boyer's book has SAT averages relative to peer groups from 1981 through 2013.
Also, what do you mean by “better incoming students” and what is this extra cost that you keep referring to? The CC forums haven’t noted an influx of mailings in recent years and I know for a fact that we have received less from UChicago than from other top schools (Columbia, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford for both kids). They seem to have scaled back on regular mailings as soon as they implemented ED. What other recruitment expenditures have you noticed that are above and beyond what other top schools have been doing?
From personal experience with these scholarships, the main factors are the school’s constituency and their preparation schemes.
Rhodes assesses schools based on the applicant’s location (either their university or high school), and only a certain number of awards are available per constituency. That can make it “easier” for a particular university to get loads of awards if there aren’t many other universities in their constituency, or if there are none. My alma mater is the only university in its constituency and so we get one nearly every year. It’s only “nearly” because everyone knows which constituencies are less competitive, and so if they attended university in a more competitive constituency and did HS in ours, they’ll opt to compete in ours.
And each university has a different approach to coaching students, which may be more or less successful. Sometimes it’s a university-wide approach, with students recruited as freshmen, groomed for 4 years in interviewing and creating their profile, trained by people who have experience. Others will only provide mentoring within individual departments, which can vary in quality and aggression. In practice, that means any scholars are more likely to come from law and the humanities because the sciences are less likely to set up the scheme. And others still will offer nothing to prospectives, or give terribly restrictive advice and training that makes their students sound like robots.
Aside from those two things - all of the applicants are fantastic. They all have great grades, they all have great ECs, they all have great vision.
