TestMagic

econphilomath · 11-26-2007, 11:37 PM

Did things change this last year at Chicago??

I'm applying for a developing country with a history of getting people into Chicago every year. Last year two great applicants made it into lots of programs but not Chicago. The explaination I heard was that Chicago had lowered the amount of admits to lessen the stress when prelims come around and to have more money for first year students, more time for supervising disertations etc.
So there supposedly was a structural break of sorts, away from the old ways of Mordor/Chicago. Nicer life for those in the Shire, but a lot tougher for those who didn't get a chance to show their stuff.

jlist, or zsla, could you confirm this? Since this old thread is on the subject, I thought I'd brush the dust off and maybe get some fresh info on the subject.

polkaparty · 11-26-2007, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by econphilomath

away from the old ways of Mordor/Chicago

Haha. For reference, here (Chicago placements (and pass rates)) is a post from last March by Dr. List.

econphilomath · 11-27-2007, 12:00 AM

Thanks polkaparty por the link. I'm still interested however in knowing if something changed regarding the number of admits and funding.

Dr. Lists previous posts have basically argued that its really not that bad at Chicago (in the end the numbers were 70% get through to the end) and that placements had been down but rebounded last year.

I want to know if Chicago is making an effort to change (curb their old evil ways

) whatever was going on by admitting less and treating them better. More spa-harvard style, less Minnesssota-Wisconsin suffering. You get the point...

(Disclaimer: I'm a self declaired masochist, I think Chicagos style is fine, I just want to know if its going to be harder to get in due to less slots up for grabs. )

polkaparty · 11-27-2007, 12:21 AM

I would be just a little upset if Chicago become indistinguishable from the other top schools. It's comforting to at least think there's a top school that people with less than perfect profiles have a reasonably good chance at getting in to, a school that gives them a chance. If that means more competition in the first year then that's the price you pay.

Now with that said, perhaps the best way for Chicago to improve is to get rid of the so called "superstar" post-qual problem, rather than making quals easier. I recall hearing something about changes at the general university which require some amount of funding for all students. This seems about in line with Chicago's typical aid packages reported at TM last year (2 year tuition waiver + stipend from the third year on).

Anyway, once the quals are over, distribute the towels and the keys to the sauna!

Ibn Abbas · 11-27-2007, 01:40 AM

I have been in and around this forum for over 2 years and I FINALLY notice that Professor List actually posts in this forum. Sigh...

Karina 07 · 11-27-2007, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polkaparty

I would be just a little upset if Chicago become indistinguishable from the other top schools. It's comforting to at least think there's a top school that people with less than perfect profiles have a reasonably good chance at getting in to, a school that gives them a chance. If that means more competition in the first year then that's the price you pay.

Now with that said, perhaps the best way for Chicago to improve is to get rid of the so called "superstar" post-qual problem, rather than making quals easier. I recall hearing something about changes at the general university which require some amount of funding for all students. This seems about in line with Chicago's typical aid packages reported at TM last year (2 year tuition waiver + stipend from the third year on).

Anyway, once the quals are over, distribute the towels and the keys to the sauna!

I never thought of it that way, but your post is convincing.

econphilomath · 11-27-2007, 03:39 AM

I think polkaparty is right on the money.

dyiwang · 11-27-2007, 08:16 AM

I am a big fan of U of Chicago and had the pleasure of marching through its econ buildings during some of my best years in life so far. And I am always a bit surprised by Chicago's "tough and cut-throat" reputation. Indeed, Chicago econ, especially at the intro Ph.D level (price theory, income theory, the core and all that jazz), is quite tough, but I'm sure that other departments in the top 5 are not handing out their degrees easily either. And I completely disagree with the cut-throat reputation. When I was there, I had a sense that students often help each other and work together. The fact that I did not score the highest (or even close) on problem sets and exams did not bother me, and from what I can see, did not seem to bother too many others in similar positions.

The low funding is indeed unattractive, but if Chicago wants to stick to the policy of having a bigger class, I guess uneven funding is necessary. The one thing that bothered me a little bit is that maybe because the class was so big, people form cliques along culture origins. For example, the Spanish speaking kids stick to their own, the kids more comfortable with American culture studied together, and the Chinese kids (like people who were actually trained in China) did their own thing. And I have to admit, that was a bit weird. However, I do not foresee the department can do much to change this phenomenon and am pretty sure that other schools probably see similar things, maybe just not as exaggerated as Chicago.

Chicago is a great program, I think this is undisputable. I like the idea that it admits kids who might be turned down by other top schools for whatever reason so they can give it a shot. I am a believer of "don't tell me I can't, let me try and fail" idea. For if I did try and fail, I would know for sure.

Granted, my view of U of Chicago is probably biased and I am just one data point. I had a taste of what Chicago Econ Ph.D program is like, and although I did not end up pursuing my Ph.D there, I do not think it is as bad as some people make it sound.

eqtisadi · 11-27-2007, 08:54 AM

Here's my little story, if that will add any information.
I have been thinking about applying to PhD in Economics for about two years or so. Other than getting the impressions from this forum, I also talked to one of the professors in our department who had the pleasure to go to Chicago for a year and then leave/get-kicked-out (I didn't ask for specifics regarding who dumped who). He finally graduated somewhere else and went for a post-doc in MIT. He told me something like that (it was a year or two ago): in Chicago you will feel as if you don't exist, but in MIT the attitude towards the PhD students is so much better. He couldn't stress more how the atmosphere is different.

From my past experience with the B.A thesis, I know how hard it can be to find an instructor and how bad it can be for the paper one is working on if there is not a good chemistry with the instructor. I don't want to do the same mistake with my PhD thesis.

This is why I did not include UC in my departments list at least. Only recently one of my recommenders wrote to me: "What did you decide in the end about Chicago? [...] I would not cross them out a priori. I have heard that the boot-camp mentality of the first year has mellowed a bit recently, and probably it is not particularly worse than in other places."
I'm still skeptical, especially since I intend to come with my wife, so I need a decent financial aid if I'm going to do that.

Now, I know that if you make the conditions bad enough, you create a "natural" selection process. Military examples of elite units come to mind immediately. But people who are in favor of this method tend to forget the overhead that comes along: people expend energy on survival instead of investing it in construction. If the PhD program is about selection, then the UC way (at least as the rumors describe it) is good. If the PhD program is about training, then you might want to give more attention to the students and their needs.
There is a trade-off between the two and UC may choose its optimal position there. As to the applicants, I assume that those who are either afraid they won't get into other programs (because the first gates of selection there are narrower), or if they give more weight to the signalling of their abilities, they might indeed prefer a UC-style program. Other students - those who are more certain about getting into other good programs and look for one that will give them the best training and guidance - will prefer them over UC.

Disclaimer: When I am referring to UC, I am referring to the belief I have on the department, of which correlation with the real situation at UC is questionable.

nancy_dream · 11-27-2007, 10:48 AM

After see so many friends' words, My feeling is complex.
As a student in China, in a not good universtiy( I really hate to refer this, I believe this is not my fault, How can a school enroll the best students from other provinces except its own city>Cheating!>>>MY GOD!) I study finance and i want to pursue PHd of economics. The first time I came to know Chicago's economics, I never forgot the conversation: "Do you know UC? if you are admitted, that means in a few years, you will get Nobel!" "OH...OK...forget this school!" There is an old saying about : "I do not why I love you, I just want to tell you, I really love you. " the same to me. I want to UC, I admire everything about it! but to a Chinese student, without high impressive score, without strong background, UC is a dream not a goal. I know Passion is useless to realize a dream though it maybe help me to wrok for a goal. I think if UC could offer more chances to students, such like me, maybe, It can hold its statue in everyone's mind and improve its imagine in our kinds of people's heart. I never understand why a school can enroll student from his or her GRe or Toefl, everyone knows not everyone is good at "exams"....it is a little unfaire, isnot it?

11-26-2007, 11:37 PM	#21 (permalink)
econphilomath Adriannn! Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,257	Did things change this last year at Chicago?? I'm applying for a developing country with a history of getting people into Chicago every year. Last year two great applicants made it into lots of programs but not Chicago. The explaination I heard was that Chicago had lowered the amount of admits to lessen the stress when prelims come around and to have more money for first year students, more time for supervising disertations etc. So there supposedly was a structural break of sorts, away from the old ways of Mordor/Chicago. Nicer life for those in the Shire, but a lot tougher for those who didn't get a chance to show their stuff. jlist, or zsla, could you confirm this? Since this old thread is on the subject, I thought I'd brush the dust off and maybe get some fresh info on the subject. Last edited by econphilomath : 11-26-2007 at 11:40 PM. Reason: I just can't proof read before posting...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-27-2007, 12:00 AM	#23 (permalink)
econphilomath Adriannn! Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,257	Thanks polkaparty por the link. I'm still interested however in knowing if something changed regarding the number of admits and funding. Dr. Lists previous posts have basically argued that its really not that bad at Chicago (in the end the numbers were 70% get through to the end) and that placements had been down but rebounded last year. I want to know if Chicago is making an effort to change (curb their old evil ways ) whatever was going on by admitting less and treating them better. More spa-harvard style, less Minnesssota-Wisconsin suffering. You get the point... (Disclaimer: I'm a self declaired masochist, I think Chicagos style is fine, I just want to know if its going to be harder to get in due to less slots up for grabs. )

11-27-2007, 12:21 AM	#24 (permalink)
polkaparty retired Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Academia Posts: 833	I would be just a little upset if Chicago become indistinguishable from the other top schools. It's comforting to at least think there's a top school that people with less than perfect profiles have a reasonably good chance at getting in to, a school that gives them a chance. If that means more competition in the first year then that's the price you pay. Now with that said, perhaps the best way for Chicago to improve is to get rid of the so called "superstar" post-qual problem, rather than making quals easier. I recall hearing something about changes at the general university which require some amount of funding for all students. This seems about in line with Chicago's typical aid packages reported at TM last year (2 year tuition waiver + stipend from the third year on). Anyway, once the quals are over, distribute the towels and the keys to the sauna!

11-27-2007, 01:40 AM	#25 (permalink)
Ibn Abbas Within my grasp! Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 236	I have been in and around this forum for over 2 years and I FINALLY notice that Professor List actually posts in this forum. Sigh...

11-27-2007, 03:39 AM	#27 (permalink)
econphilomath Adriannn! Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,257	I think polkaparty is right on the money.

11-27-2007, 08:16 AM	#28 (permalink)
dyiwang Within my grasp! Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 183	I am a big fan of U of Chicago and had the pleasure of marching through its econ buildings during some of my best years in life so far. And I am always a bit surprised by Chicago's "tough and cut-throat" reputation. Indeed, Chicago econ, especially at the intro Ph.D level (price theory, income theory, the core and all that jazz), is quite tough, but I'm sure that other departments in the top 5 are not handing out their degrees easily either. And I completely disagree with the cut-throat reputation. When I was there, I had a sense that students often help each other and work together. The fact that I did not score the highest (or even close) on problem sets and exams did not bother me, and from what I can see, did not seem to bother too many others in similar positions. The low funding is indeed unattractive, but if Chicago wants to stick to the policy of having a bigger class, I guess uneven funding is necessary. The one thing that bothered me a little bit is that maybe because the class was so big, people form cliques along culture origins. For example, the Spanish speaking kids stick to their own, the kids more comfortable with American culture studied together, and the Chinese kids (like people who were actually trained in China) did their own thing. And I have to admit, that was a bit weird. However, I do not foresee the department can do much to change this phenomenon and am pretty sure that other schools probably see similar things, maybe just not as exaggerated as Chicago. Chicago is a great program, I think this is undisputable. I like the idea that it admits kids who might be turned down by other top schools for whatever reason so they can give it a shot. I am a believer of "don't tell me I can't, let me try and fail" idea. For if I did try and fail, I would know for sure. Granted, my view of U of Chicago is probably biased and I am just one data point. I had a taste of what Chicago Econ Ph.D program is like, and although I did not end up pursuing my Ph.D there, I do not think it is as bad as some people make it sound.

11-27-2007, 08:54 AM	#29 (permalink)
eqtisadi Rationally insane Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 225	Here's my little story, if that will add any information. I have been thinking about applying to PhD in Economics for about two years or so. Other than getting the impressions from this forum, I also talked to one of the professors in our department who had the pleasure to go to Chicago for a year and then leave/get-kicked-out (I didn't ask for specifics regarding who dumped who). He finally graduated somewhere else and went for a post-doc in MIT. He told me something like that (it was a year or two ago): in Chicago you will feel as if you don't exist, but in MIT the attitude towards the PhD students is so much better. He couldn't stress more how the atmosphere is different. From my past experience with the B.A thesis, I know how hard it can be to find an instructor and how bad it can be for the paper one is working on if there is not a good chemistry with the instructor. I don't want to do the same mistake with my PhD thesis. This is why I did not include UC in my departments list at least. Only recently one of my recommenders wrote to me: "What did you decide in the end about Chicago? [...] I would not cross them out a priori. I have heard that the boot-camp mentality of the first year has mellowed a bit recently, and probably it is not particularly worse than in other places." I'm still skeptical, especially since I intend to come with my wife, so I need a decent financial aid if I'm going to do that. Now, I know that if you make the conditions bad enough, you create a "natural" selection process. Military examples of elite units come to mind immediately. But people who are in favor of this method tend to forget the overhead that comes along: people expend energy on survival instead of investing it in construction. If the PhD program is about selection, then the UC way (at least as the rumors describe it) is good. If the PhD program is about training, then you might want to give more attention to the students and their needs. There is a trade-off between the two and UC may choose its optimal position there. As to the applicants, I assume that those who are either afraid they won't get into other programs (because the first gates of selection there are narrower), or if they give more weight to the signalling of their abilities, they might indeed prefer a UC-style program. Other students - those who are more certain about getting into other good programs and look for one that will give them the best training and guidance - will prefer them over UC. Disclaimer: When I am referring to UC, I am referring to the belief I have on the department, of which correlation with the real situation at UC is questionable.

11-27-2007, 10:48 AM	#30 (permalink)
nancy_dream Trying to make mom and pop proud Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 21	After see so many friends' words, My feeling is complex. As a student in China, in a not good universtiy( I really hate to refer this, I believe this is not my fault, How can a school enroll the best students from other provinces except its own city>Cheating!>>>MY GOD!) I study finance and i want to pursue PHd of economics. The first time I came to know Chicago's economics, I never forgot the conversation: "Do you know UC? if you are admitted, that means in a few years, you will get Nobel!" "OH...OK...forget this school!" There is an old saying about : "I do not why I love you, I just want to tell you, I really love you. " the same to me. I want to UC, I admire everything about it! but to a Chinese student, without high impressive score, without strong background, UC is a dream not a goal. I know Passion is useless to realize a dream though it maybe help me to wrok for a goal. I think if UC could offer more chances to students, such like me, maybe, It can hold its statue in everyone's mind and improve its imagine in our kinds of people's heart. I never understand why a school can enroll student from his or her GRe or Toefl, everyone knows not everyone is good at "exams"....it is a little unfaire, isnot it?

TestMagic

Free GMAT, GRE, SAT Test, TOEFL practice tests