@novusdoctrina shouldn’t confuse averages with the upper tail, which is the part of the curve targeted by UChicago and other top schools. The Texas National Merit cut-score has consistently been one of the highest in the nation for as long as we’ve been keeping track (so for the past several years) and is well above Florida (that other state Novus mentions as a comparable). This holds for both the prior design of the test, which was much more “aptitude-oriented,” as well as the new version which focuses more on degree of college-preparedness.
It’s all about research, research, research.
btw: I would argue that UT is on a par with UVa, but both still trail Cal and Michigan.
The UT endowment is spread across many campuses and includes / covers tens of thousands more students than does Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Penn, Northwestern, Chicago or any other high endowment university.
THe Univ. of Texas system-wide endowment should only be compared to Univ. of California system-wide endowment, or to Texas A&M system-wide endowment.
Actually, the Rice admission rate was 8.7% last year. Also, I think Rice has always had higher stat kids compared to the admission rates, since it was much smaller and lower profile than the other top schools. I think it’s similar to Harvey Mudd now, whose acceptance rate is a bit higher than some but the applicant quality is very high. When I was looking at schools, I’d heard of Duke and Vanderbilt and Penn, but not Rice until I asked my CalTech PhD neighbor what he thought the top engineering schools were. That used to be how many people found out about Rice.
I’ve had a pretty broad view of academic landscape in the US. Originally from Minnesota, which I think it generally considered amongst the better states nationally for K-12, and specifically from the number one rated high school in the state this year (at least in one publication; go team). Schools go up and down (I’m getting a bit old, but Chicago wasn’t particularly attractive at the time I was applying, nor was Penn, Columbia, and another schools which became so later), but we sent a truckload of students (and most of my friends) to East Coast LACs like Middlebury, Bowdoin, Williams, Colby, etc. etc. (in addition to Carleton, Grinnell, and the like closer by). Northwestern also, but - like I said - UChicago wasn’t popular. I attended Rice and saw the level of education in Texas, which I’d say you underestimate above. Texas as a whole, like California and , has middling high schools (actually, Illinois isn’t particularly strong either, is it?). There’s still plenty of top students coming out of both of them. I’m actually not super familiar with the prep schools in TX, but I do know them very well in Minnesota. Those schools do a good job of getting rich kids into big name schools, because that’s what the parents are paying $30k/year for. They don’t necessarily product better students. First job in Cambridge, MA in a company full of Dartmouth, Duke, Williams, etcs. grads, so I got a taste of East Coast college pecking order. Grad school at UCLA. Work at UCSF with grad students and post-docs from all over (many from Berkeley and Stanford, of course, but one of my favorites from UChicago). I think I’ve seen a pretty broad stripe of academia in the US. I think you’re deluding yourself if you think introducing yourself as a Chicago grad in the halls at UCSF or MD Anderson would get you any additional prestige or respect compared to Vanderbilt, Northwestern, or Rice. One thing I would say is that you were looking beyond academic rankings and look at some other equally dubious indicators such as happiness of students, quality of life, etc., along with academic standing, Rice (and I’d add Vanderbilt) isn’t easy to top.
Those of us who like the idea of greater numbers of Texas kids coming to Chicago would never pitch this to them in terms of comparative rankings or of “additional prestige or respect compared to Vanderbilt, Northwestern, or Rice.” The salient feature would be the possibility of a really good fit between a certain type of kid and the intellectual culture and academic intensity of the College, especially the existence of the Core. Something like that was what fired me up once upon a time, but I got lucky: I stumbled across a neglected Chicago catalog on the shelves of a guidance counsellor who knew nothing of the place.
I’m convinced that the kind of kid who would respond to these features of Chicago culture can be found pretty much everywhere but is probably not characteristic of anywhere. The thing that excites me about this present initiative is simply that it puts the Chicago option on the table for many a kid who might not otherwise have known about it. Some of them will be just the right fit, some will not. I trust that’s the message that is being sent.
While the University of Chicago is prestigious, it is not above Johns Hopkins, Columbia, Penn, Princeton, Yale, Harvard, Northwestern, Rice, Duke, Brown, Vanderbilt, UCLA, UCal-Berkeley, MIT, Stanford, CalTech, Harvey Mudd, Williams College, Amherst College, Swarthmore College, Pomona College, Claremont McKenna College, Cornell, Carnegie Mellon Univ., and a few–actually many-- others.
UChicago is the conservative version of Columbia University & Swarthmore College.
And when speaking of technical universities, UChicago is probably not even in the top 25 in terms of prestige.
UChigago is, however, among the top 5 for both MBA & JD programs.
To the average person—not in academia–I suspect that schools such as Notre Dame, Berkeley, Georgetown University, UCLA, USMA at West Point, & NYU and many, many others are more prestigious than the Univ. of Chicago.
Guess that I am a bit shocked at some postings on UChicago threads.
Nothing wrong with any of those schools, @Publisher , but shopping lists of schools held to have prestige and bald assertions as to relative status don’t add much to the discussion we are having here. We on the Chicago forum do see Chicago as embodying a certain educational ethos. We don’t expect everyone to sign on to it. That’s sort of the point, actually. If you don’t get it and it shocks you, that’s fine with me. There are plenty of schools out there that won’t discombobulate you. I always marvel, however, that visitors to our board find our discussions so discomfiting. The only retorts they ever have are ex cathedra assertions about the greater prestige, status or, heaven help us, recognition by “the average person” of this or that other school. Close reading of what is actually being said is a skill evidently not taught in all schools.
@marlowe1 wrote: “ex cathedra assertions” and “discombobulate”, “bald assertions”, & “embodying a certain educational ethos”.
Can’t argue with you on these points.
If it helps, US News offers “peer assessment scores” and Chicago does well. UChicago, according to the US News peer assessment scores, is equal to Penn, Cornell, Amherst College, and Swarthmore College.
UChicago places just behind Johns Hopkins, Columbia, Williams College, and CalTech.
This dubious pecking order constitutes an argument? And for what - that Chicago should cease making such a fuss about itself given that it’s just a poor version of Johns Hopkins?
@marlowe1 wrote:
“This dubious pecking order constitutes an argument ? And for what–that UChicago should cease making such a fuss about itself given that it’s just a poor version of Johns Hopkins ?”
I suspect that you will do well recruiting in Texas.
@Publisher - do you have a point with #45 and 46 that is actually relevant to this thread? If you feel triggered by the UChicago forum, perhaps you should refrain from reading it.
OP’s post #14 in this thread asserted:
“Schools which University of Chicago now considers in their “rear-view mirror”, such as Penn and Columbia,…” prompted my initial response.
The rest should be obvious to any reader of this thread.
@Publisher - your beef in this case isn’t actually with OP or anyone else on the thread but with the UC head-honcho mucky-mucks. OP is just a parent relaying their strategy for the school. If you have a point tying your alternative set of peer schools to the strategic vision of UC, then go ahead and make it.
Let’s face it. UChicago, strategically positioning itself “beyond” Penn, May be “wrong” to some but it’s absolutely the right move if they want to move ahead. Especially in Texas. Position it as a comparable to the top ivies - but with a middle American ethos.
That’s a sales pitch, if I ever heard one. Not a bad sales pitch either. Is it 100% true that Penn is in its rear view mirror? No. Can one make a decent argument that it is, especially when trying to sell itself to some smart Texas kids who might be a match for the academic rigor it offers? Absolutely!
Besides, if it’s going to go aggressively campaigning in Texas, I hope it does target those kids who would have been a good match for its own perceived peers. There’s bound to be a bunch of those kinds of smart kids in TX who are “allergic” to the perceived brand of “coastal” universities but may consider a school in the middle of the country to be a cultural fit.
In response to post #53 above:
A bit surprised at how sensitive some folks are. No need. I am not an enemy.
My point is that when promoting itself, a school should know & understand it’s strengths, weaknesses, and position in the market much better than by making overly broad claims that suggest otherwise.
In response to post #54’s first line:
When making a move in a market, you need to know the competition.
It is fine & reasonable for the University of Chicago to make comparisons to the “Ivy League” with respect to academic excellence; it is misguided to try and compete with a non-competitor such as Penn (which is clearly among the best at what it does).
Moreover, making bold, questionable, unsupported claims of superiority over Columbia University harms UChicago’s credibility & suggests desperation.
The University of Chicago can stand on its own accomplishments without lowering itself to belittling others in the marketplace.
Publisher, your strict belief on what UChicago should consider as its peers is your own. I would put more money in UChicago’s internal analysis on who they should be competing with in a particular subregion in the US than your sweeping, yet so far, flimsy analysis.
The nerve for UChicago to think of itself a better option than Columbia? Well, to many it is. And that segment is what they should be marketing to when they are going into a market that they think is a growth opportunity for then. Your protestations, notwithstanding.
Another poster wrote:
“The nerve for UChicago to think of itself a better option than Columbia” = misses the point.
The point is: “The need for UChicago to think of itself as better than Columbia”.
My thoughts are supported by US News’ “peer assessment” made by university & college presidents, provosts, and deans of admission.
But, hey, if UChicago thinks that it has a superior undergraduate business school to UPenn-Wharton, then we just have to agree to disagree. And if UChicago’s core curriculum is believed to be superior to that of Columbia, then it is a matter of opinion on which reasonable folks can disagree.
I see MIT thrown around in this thread, but while UChicago might be considered MIT’s “almost-peer” overall (#6 vs #3 USNWR, and #10 vs #1 in QS 2020 World University Rankings), I agree that it is decidedly not the case for technical majors MIT is world famous for.
UChicago’s CS program is ranked 30th in the US by USNWR at the graduate level and 51-100 worldwide by QS at the undergraduate level, and it does not offer engineering degrees.
MIT’s is ranked #1 by USNWR and QS in CS and in Engineering.
The only institution that can truly call itself MIT’s peer is Caltech.
Or, perhaps, it is MIT that is Caltech’s peer:-)