I’m applying to both schools as a transfer and I was wondering if you guys think Vandy’s academic stature is following the trends UChicago has gone through over the past few decades. I apologize if you feel this is more relevant to a Vandy forum than UChic–I just thought UChicago students would have more knowledge on this issue.
Has UChicago had a reputation as a top 10 school for more than the past three/four decades or is its rise from “respectable” to elite a little more recent?
And upon its rise in selectivity, did international reputation quickly follow? Vandy is getting very selective but it seems to perform poorly internationally, placing only in the top 100 for reputation and general rankings.
I’m not sure if this is a joke or not. Chicago has had a huge reputation since it was founded, in 1890. It was the opposite of what you suggest in your post: selectivity followed reputation. Chicago has always had a huge academic reputation (i.e. its faculty were very well regarded) but in the 70s and 80s it ignored its College. Selectivity started falling, the neighbourhood got gradually worse, and it got names like “where fun goes to die.” Throughout the whole time, it continued to produce nobel laureates and important research. Then in the midst of the 90s it decided to invest in its College again, and here we are today, where Chicago is in its rightful place. The same cannot be said of Vanderbilt. I am hard pressed to name a single scholar from Vanderbilt, whereas out of Chicago there has been Enrico Fermi, James Watson, and Janet Rowley.
Simply put, no, Chicago has always been an elite university, just not in the eyes of high-school graduates.
As neweducation pointed out, UChicago has always been viewed as a super elite school by the well-educated. Its business and law schools have always been top 5 nationally, and its economic department has always been #1 in the nation. The problem that Chicago had one was one of branding - it had all the pieces in place academically to compete with the top Ivies, but the administration always had its head in the clouds and refused to be concerned about its mainstream reputation.
The main reason why Chicago continued to do so well despite not having a mainstream reputation (up until the 80s at least) is simple: social stratification. The social elite didn’t care what the middle class thought since mutual interaction was scarce. But with increased interaction among the classes especially in the 80s and the 90s, mainstream reputation gained relevancy among universities, and especially at the undergraduate level, Chicago declined considerably. The Zimmer administration represents a departure from this apathy toward mainstream reputation. Thankfully, Chicago continued to recruit the best professors through its troubled times, since professors care mostly about quality of academic environment, which Chicago has never lacked. So a drastic improvement in marketing and a mild shift in the attitude of the administration (in order to increase alumni donations and recruit less academically-inclined elites like Axelrod and Paulson) was sufficient to bring Chicago back to the forefront of American education.
Vanderbilt, while being a good school, doesn’t have what Chicago has. It’s not known for being an extremely high-quality academic environment, and therefore can’t attract the best professors. Its endowment and alumni are also not at Chicago’s level. It’s lacking super-elite professional schools, as well. Vanderbilt would be better served focusing on the fundamentals than on increasing its marketing, but it’s undeniable that building a school with extraordinary academic fundamentals takes a whole lot longer than shifting an administration’s focus to more practical matters.
At first, this question seemed a little strange to me, but when I researched Vanderbilt a little more, I can see why you have that question. They are both quite selective. Their student body is pretty top notch, although Chicago seems to have a slight edge in terms of SAT/ACT scores and GPA’s. Class sizes are similar. Both offer pretty small classes. Chicago does seem to have a major advantage in the “academic resources” department. It has much better library resources, It also pays its faculty better in general and has a larger endowment. My guess is that Chicago as a city also offers more than Nashville can. This may be an issue long term for Vanderbilt compared to UChicago. For example, this is one reason I think the East and West coast elite schools will always have an advantage over Midwestern schools like Chicago. The Northeast is a center for finance, the west is a center for technology. Over the long term, this factor affects endowments, fund raising, alum networks etc. Unless the focus of the economy and growth moves to the south or midwest in the US, the west coast and east coast schools will continue to dominate.
I think Vanderbilt is doing well and will continue to do well given the above factors, as long as the Trustees also focus on building the “long term” capital of the university and use their endowment wisely. Taking your eye off the ball even for a decade can result in huge setbacks. The education market has become so much more competitive nowadays.
Here’s a link that directly addresses your question. UofC bottomed out at #15 in 2006, and peaked in 1985 at #5.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070908142457/http://chronicle.com/stats/usnews/
The schools seem very different to me. Is reputation of paramount importance? Do you have an intended field of study? My son applied to Chicago (and thankfully was accepted this past December) because of his desire for a core curriculum, an intensely academic environment, research opportunities–and yes, reputation. A few days ago the Telegraph reported on world universities ranked by reputation; Chicago was #11.