<p>both are great schools</p>
<p>but who are you kidding</p>
<p>the vast majority of kids that go to chicago couldn't get into penn</p>
<p>i know chicago kids might have higher scores, but most cross-admits go to Penn</p>
<p>case closed</p>
<p>For what reason do you think they do that? And why do you make that assumption in the first place?</p>
<p>Vast majority? That's a lie.</p>
<p>The educational philosophies, atmospheres, and cultures of those two schools are so very different. I don’t see why people would apply to the two of them in the first place..... As far as this discussion is concerned, I think most people who get into Chicago could get into Penn - the same goes for pretty much all of the top schools, save three or four.</p>
<p>BDMike:
I was unduly harsh. I was tired. I'd ask for some slack, but that would be pretty hypocrtical in this context.</p>
<p>MIT isn't that much different from other schools. Caltech is a special case, but given its slew of top programs and absolute top quality students, it can safely be ranked above Penn.</p>
<p>Students make rational decisions to a very limited degree. Most have very limited information upon which to base decisions, so they make pseudorational decisions. Prestige should only be a major factor to extremely ambitious people in a limited number of fields, yet most people choose to go to more prestigious schools given the chance (props to those who don't.)</p>
<p>I know Chicago has good programs, I'm just saying it isn't famous. Which it isn't. I hold Chicago in about as high esteem as I can hold a national university. I don't consider stating an actual quality of a school to be a disservice, nor do I think that a lack of fame is necessarily a bad thing (my blue collar extended family sort of distrusts me for going to a private college period. I don't need to be dropping names they've actually heard of. Except Notre Dame, in which case they'd adore me, which I also don't want.)</p>
<p>You're right about my misinterpretation of "hands-on. " My brain wasn't working too well last night. I apologize.</p>
<p>Melanieeek
Like WUSTL, Chicago's undergrad department needs no defending. I do think it's significantly easier to get into than comparable schools. I don't see that as a negative.</p>
<p>Penn does deserve spot #4(?) based on the system USNews uses. I'm saying it is ridiculous to argue that it's actually better than at least one of HYP, Stanford, MIT, or Caltech. Because USNews isn't an actual quality ranking, Penn can "deserve" a high USNews rank without actually being better than numerous schools below it. </p>
<p>I don't glorify HYP and certainly not the other Ivies. HYP do have great student bodies and faculties, however. The only top 6 school I come close to glorifying is Caltech. I don't follow your criticism here, actually. I'm not an Ivy hopeful, as I've never applied to an Ivy school.</p>
<p>Milton Friedman is more famous himself than is the University. Fame in academia is not what I mean by fame. Nuclear reactions are famous, but no one know's that the first one happened at Chicago except a handful of people.</p>
<p>"I just don't understand the point that you're trying to make with the rest of this, if you're defending WUSTL or the Ivies or both or neither or what."
My point was 1. saying that Penn is only top 6 if one uses strange criteria 2. disagreeing with some of what Bluedevil said. For the record, I do support WUSTL, which is not the topic of my post, and my opinion of the Ivies varies heavily from school to school.</p>
<p>BBall:
"the vast majority of kids that go to chicago couldn't get into penn"
Vast majority is an exagerration, but it is much easier to get into Chicago than it is to get into Penn. I don't think I've ever stated otherwise. Chicago kids have higher scores. That's my point. EC's v Scores is the issue. I think scores are more important than EC's, but I don't expect everyone to think the same. The point is not about selectivity, which is an indirect indicator of quality at best. The point is that Penn doesn't have a solid student body advantage but does have a solid program strength disadvantage outside of a few fields, so the justification for ranking it higher than Chicago is somewhat weak (I think the case can be made, actually. I still don't think Penn could reasonably place better than 7).</p>
<p>"i know chicago kids might have higher scores, but most cross-admits go to Penn. case closed" Apparently I'm not kidding anyone, as I agree with everything you've said. I don't claim that Chicago actually has better undergrad (the school claims exceptional undergrad, but I'm skeptical of the rhetoric), but I think the case for ranking Penn above Chicago aside from difficulty of admission is pretty weak. That isn't even my point though. My "not top 6" point stands even without Chicago.</p>
<p>By the way, I was way more negative towards Penn in my post than I meant to be. I visited all the Ivy league schools along with a dozen other schools on an east coast trip. Penn is one of three schools on the entire trip that I liked (the others were St. John's and Swarthmore).</p>