<p>goldenboy: Once again, you have no idea what you’re talking about.</p>
<p>First of all, Stanford is known for recruiting students who want to go out and make a political difference in the world. Chicago has traditionally tried to recruit more academically-inclined students to produce significant results in theory. Stanford, then, would obviously have a leg up on Chicago for Rhodes scholarship production, since the Rhodes scholarship is more for students wanting to get out and make a direct difference in society. On the other hand, Chicago has more Fulbright winners than Stanford for a reason - because Fulbright wants more intellectually-inclined students. Capiche?</p>
<p>Secondly, we’ve already talked about the McKinsey thing, which is SUPPOSEDLY the only big consulting firm to mysteriously not recruit at Chicago. McKinsey was founded at the University of Chicago, and probably has more Chicago alumni working there than from any other university. I just checked Chicago’s recruiting database, in fact, and McKinsey is listed as a recruiter at the College of the University of Chicago. That you’ve pushed so far on such a small issue, though, is indicative of your desperation in trying to find some criticism to use against Chicago.</p>
<p>Also, Chicago ranks easily within the top 10 for alumni donations (yes, alumni donations through ALL graduating classes), and has the same alumni giving rate as Harvard at 40%. There’s quite a bit of school spirit at Chicago too, something that might be mysterious to a student of a school whose only knowledge of school spirit involves supporting the local basketball team.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure that a lot of criticism coming here is simply out of jealousy. There are certainly fair criticisms to be made against ranking Chicago ahead of Stanford, but I’ve only seen one poster make any good arguments. The rest of the arguments are just popularist bullsht and arguments devoid of solid fact and logic.</p>