<p>UChicago vs WUSTL</p>
<p>I want to tap into your collective brainpower to compare WUSTL and UChicago.</p>
<p>This seems like an impossible task to me since the only thing they both have in common is a great education - and a similar price tag.</p>
<p>I am posting to both school's threads in hopes of finding objective and subjective qualities to compare.</p>
<p>Purely subjective here - WUSTL is “fresh” and UChicago is “intellectual”. Which are you?</p>
<p>My older daughter graduated from U of C 12 years ago. She ended up living in London and working for a large multinational company. She travels with customers frequently to many places around the world. She says the name recognition and awe when telling people she is a Chicago grad is unbelievable. I know very little about WUSTL but would not think is has anywhere near the global recognition that Chicago has.</p>
<p>BonnieNewJersey:</p>
<p>That’s great, but did your daughter enjoy her time at UChicago in the late 90s? As a counterexample, David Axelrod (Obama’s former senior advisor) graduated from UChicago, and it opened many doors for him, but he was so disillusioned with his time on campus that he created a specific institute (the Institute of Politics) to address some of the issues he faced as a student in Hyde Park.</p>
<p>UChicago is changing quite a bit, but I imagine Wash U and UChicago are still quite distinct as institutions. To be fair, of late, UChicago has enjoyed a momentum surge, and its aspirations may be different from Wash U’s (UChicago’s College - led by its ambitious dean - seeks to be the preeminent liberal arts institution in the country, with a focus on critical thinking across disciplines). I get the sense that Wash U’s ambitions are different, and probably focus on less pointed goals. </p>
<p>Put another way, I think the two colleges are still quite different, and attract somewhat different students. Wash U’s overlap would be, I think, with schools like Duke, Northwestern, Emory, and UPenn. UChicago probably sees more overlap with Columbia, Yale, Swarthmore, and MIT.</p>
<p>The kid I know best at WashU – as well as her best friend there whom I have now spent time with on several occasions – would have fit in perfectly at the University of Chicago. I think the two institutions have a lot more in common than people generally acknowledge.</p>
<p>That said, I think there are three big areas of contrast:</p>
<p>University City and Hyde Park are not so dissimilar. U-City is surrounded by wealthier communities than Hyde Park (to say the least). Once you go beyond the immediate neighborhood, at WashU you are in St. Louis, which is an interesting city with lots to offer, and at Chicago you are in Chicago, which is an amazing, mind-blowing, world-class metropolis.</p>
<p>No one has ever even joked that fun came to die at WashU. I think fun owns a condo there. Objectively, University of Chicago students are not fun-deprived at all; they have plenty of it. Compared to WashU, though, the University of Chicago has less fun. (On the other hand, it has way more angst!)</p>
<p>WashU is a great university with a great faculty, but apart from its medical school, department by department (and graduate student by graduate student), the University of Chicago is much stronger, almost across the board. There’s no question you can get a great education at WashU, but I think the ceiling at Chicago is much higher.</p>
<p>@Kennedy2010 “fresh” sounds really good! But I am an “intellectual” at heart. </p>
<p>@BonnieNewJersey I am trying not to let prestige alone shape my decision too, too much.</p>
<p>@CUE7 I was rejected from MIT so this may be my second chance to experience this type of education. I didn’t apply to any Ivys - on principle alone.</p>
<p>@JHS Higher ceiling is important - especially in today’s world - right?</p>
<p>FYI - I intend to become a scientist or a physician.</p>
<p>Cue7:
Yes, dd enjoyed her time at the U of C. Chicago is a great city which she loved exploring. She also spent 2 quarters off campus (both winter quarters) doing an intensive language course and an internship. She says she learned to write, to research, and became a critical thinker at Chicago.
I would think that a student there today would have different experiences than dd had. All I was saying is that in her varied travels University of Chicago gets tremendous recognition and has seemed to open many doors for her in her professional life.</p>
<p>@BonnieNewJersey I see many comments here in the Forum about “the changing face of UChicago” and you mention that students today would have a different experience. </p>
<p>Do you have any feedback on the changes that have occurred - both positive and negative?</p>
<p>No, I have no up to date knowledge - just thinking that in 12 years things are sure to be somewhat different.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or maybe it was more like:</p>
<p>He was so appreciative of his experience at UChicago and the doors that it opened for him that he wanted to give back. By creating an Institute of Politics, he was able to use his own particular expertise to enhance opportunities for students while making bigger impact at UChicago than at another school that already had a similar organization.</p>
<p>I don’t know anything about Axelrod’s motivation other than what I read in an interview, so I don’t know which spin is closer to the truth, but when I see the phrase “he was so disillusioned that he X”, X is rarely “created an institute”. It would be more like “left and never donated a cent”. Unless, of course, it is “frequented CC making negative posts for years after he or she graduated”.</p>
<p>Motherbear:</p>
<p>I took my summation of Axelrod’s motivations from this interview:</p>
<p>[David</a> Axelrod on His Move to the University of Chicago - Chicago magazine - February 2013 - Chicago](<a href=“http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/February-2013/David-Axelrod-on-His-Move-to-the-University-of-Chicago/]David”>David Axelrod on His Move to the University of Chicago – Chicago Magazine)</p>
<p>The most pertinent part:</p>
<p>"You’re a U. of C. alum (BA, 1976). Did fondness for your Hyde Park years have anything to do with the decision?</p>
<p>I actually felt a kind of frustration in my days at the U. of C. It was very inward-looking and intense, and I was more interested in the world outside. I had come to Chicago [from New York City, where he grew up] because the U. of C. was such a great school and because the city had this tremendously rich political life. I wasn’t just interested in books; I wanted to participate in what was going on outside. When we were talking about the [Institute of Politics], I mentioned that sense of frustration to Bob Zimmer [university president since 2006], and he said, “That’s why we need you to come here.”</p>
<p>So, unless I’m mistaken, a “sense of frustration” spurred Axelrod to create this Institute at UChicago. Perhaps you read this interview differently, but he doesn’t seem to convey a “sense of appreciation” as much as frustration with the focus of the place in the 70s.</p>
<p>Do you read this differently?</p>
<p>Also, motherbear, you stated:</p>
<p>"Unless, of course, it is “frequented CC making negative posts for years after he or she graduated”. </p>
<p>I certainly hope you’re not talking about me, or mistaking what many consider a UChicago hallmark - critical skepticism - to be simply negativity! (We are, after all, known for being a more “angsty” bunch.)</p>
<p>Maybe Wash U. should have T-shirts that say “Where angst comes to die.”</p>
<p>TapTap, positive changes appear to be an increase in concentrating on keeping the undergrads happy with lots of activities, RSO’s, and a better career placement office. </p>
<p>Negative changes appear to be admitting too many students the past 2 years, and having some of the underclassman living in grad housing. Also, an increase in students who are concerned with this: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/1475546-worried-about-campus-life.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/1475546-worried-about-campus-life.html</a></p>
<p>Marylandfour: That set of questions gets asked, repeatedly (and often more crassly), every year during the weeks before the decision deadline. I don’t think you can measure any increase in students concerned with sex, alcohol, and “doing stupid ****”. Basically, there were never any students who weren’t interested in at least two of the three, and there still aren’t. Only a few people bother to ask about it online, though.</p>
<p>@JHS I think Watson is just interested in having some fun. The “where fun comes to die” tee shirt joke is not very funny to us prospects…</p>
<p>@Motherbear I like the positive spin you put on the Axelrod comment</p>
<p>@Cue7 Angst is a trademark? Never heard that before. Hmmm.</p>
<p>@rlmmail Ummm…yeah</p>
<p>@Marylandfour Thanks for sharing your perspective - nice to hear both + and -</p>
<p>taptap, what I was trying to say is that everyone is interested in having some fun.</p>
<p>Lots of high school students seem to believe that the world is divided between chill social people and grim drones (or, from the other side, between substance-abusing libertines and hard-working, responsible students). When you get to college, at least at a place like the University of Chicago, everyone is smart, ambitious, intellectually engaged, and basically hard-working, and *everyone<a href=“eventually;%20during%20orientation%20it%20may%20be%20only%2095%%20of%20everyone”>/i</a> wants to have some fun, kick back occasionally (usually with the help of some brain-altering organic compounds), and maybe have sex. That’s not to say that everyone balances all of those elements in exactly the same way – some people still study more than others, of course, and some people prefer to have sex without getting drunk first – but it’s a spectrum, not two opposing camps. People tend to have friends up and down the spectrum, and to move themselves easily from one point to another depending on what they want that week. </p>
<p>You won’t be in a box. So it’s kind of funny when high school students ask questions that essentially assume everybody will be in some kind of box. </p>
<p>As for “where fun comes to die,” I used to explain earnestly that it wasn’t true, it was a joke. Over time, however, I have come to believe that it’s a perfectly good little litmus test. If you don’t get the joke without a lot of explanation, chances are there are other colleges you will like better than Chicago.</p>
<p>Thanks JHS for clariying fun at UC. </p>
<p>Of course, everything is relative and it’s not that I don’t understand the joke so much as I am looking for where I fit in - just like you said.</p>
<p>So I have visited UC twice - once for an overnight and going back again for admitted students overnight. </p>
<p>Looking back I know I feel like I fit in there. It does feel like home a little bit - but trying to compare it to the place where “fun has taken a dorm room”.</p>
<p>Honestly, WUSTL has offered more tangible opportunities (summer research this summer as an example) than UC and so it is hard to walk away from the opportunities that they offer - for a place that feels a little like home.</p>
<p>Anyway - thanks for the note. I will check back in and let you know what I decide after my visits.</p>
<p>Cue7,
I had seen the same article. Note that “felt a kind of frustration” and “was so disillutioned that…” do not mean the same thing. I think you projected your own feelings on him and added a negative spin that was not warrented by the words attributed to him in the article, and especially not when considering the context-- Disillutioned people generally don’t come back and start institutes. You also took my comment too literally. I wasn’t really trying to say anything about David Axelrod, but rather make a point about your post. If one tries hard enough, there is a negative and a positive interpretation of just about everything.</p>
<p>And yes I was referring to you. I’ve read enough of your posts to notice pattern:
Some CC poster: Something positive about their (or their kid’s) experience at UChicago.
Cue7: Great, but…</p>
<p>I’m reminded of this: [xkcd:</a> Duty Calls](<a href=“http://xkcd.com/386/]xkcd:”>xkcd: Duty Calls) Just replace “is wrong on the internet” with “said something good on CC about UChicago”.</p>
<p>Motherbear:</p>
<p>Sure, I’ll take issue with that. If you go back in my posting history (I’m not sure how far back it goes), you’ll see that I openly note that I’m a proud UChicago alum, and I believe the education I received there was first-rate. Note as well, that I never really criticize the school’s core strength - providing a fantastic liberal arts education. UChicago has done this for decades, and will continue to do so. </p>
<p>For a long, long time, however, UChicago’s College struggled with the other critical facets of an undergraduate life. So, career planning, engagement with the community, initiatives and support for student life, fundraising and resources provided, etc. etc. lagged well behind UChicago’s peer schools. UChicago really increased its efforts on this front about ten years ago. </p>
<p>During this time, I’ve also spent considerable time at or had significant exposure to many other schools, including Penn, Brown, and Yale. While I was at UChicago, I didn’t really know what I was missing (or what other schools’ were missing in terms of academic life that UChicago had in spades), but my analysis of UChicago is informed by my knowledge of how other schools operate. </p>
<p>While all this was happening, UChicago began enjoying a tremendous popularity surge. It zoomed up in the rankings, the accept rate plummeted, etc. </p>
<p>What I don’t want to have happen is for UChicago to have kind of a “halo”. Especially vis a vis it’s high-aspiring peers, there are still considerable, systemic problems at the school. The education continues to be first class, but gaps in the experience certainly still exist. </p>
<p>Especially on this board, the rush of enthusiasm for the school (with threads such as: when will UChicago surpass HYP?) needs to be tempered, at times. If you want to talk education, PhD placement, Rhodes Scholar production, you’ll hear nothing but praise from me. When the talk turns to other important areas, such as strength in fundraising, career advising, administrative transparency, the state of Hyde Park, etc., my analysis becomes more critical. </p>
<p>Also, regarding the Axelrod interview, would you agree that his experience at UChicago, from what he states, reveals ambivalence about the school? At the end of the day, I also recognize the gaps present at the school. I recognize what it does superbly well, but my enthusiasm for the school does not fall into the purely cheerleader category - there are areas where improvement is sorely in order, and this has been the case for many years.</p>