“BTW, in STEM and social science fields, NU is much closer to UChicago in rigor than it is to some other schools you may think of that play bigtime football.”
You mean schools like Stanford?
“Does it change the tone of a 20-student discussion class to have 2 not 1 wonky future doctors of philosophy in the room? Maybe a little (if they both talk).”
In my experience, the schools with the high PhD production rank have a student body that reflects that culture well beyond the bounds of the kids who actually get the PhDs. In other words, the schools that attract and groom a lot of future PhDs are also attracting and grooming a lot of future-PhD TYPES. Almost all of them are the kind of folks who think about getting a PhD. Some of them just end up on other paths.
I had half my undergrad years at an extremely high-ranking school by this measure (Bryn Mawr) and half at a school with a good but lesser showing (Harvard). The expectation and exaltation of academia vs. other types of professional education were and are different at the two. I could feel it. A big way that it comes out is the relative appeal of PhD programs vs. other kinds of graduate education. At Bryn Mawr, it seemed like most of the people not aiming for PhDs didn’t plan on postgrad degrees at all. PhDs were the default model for grad school. At Harvard, it seemed like the PhDs were here and there among the crowds aiming for MDs, JDs, and MBAs. There were plenty of them, but they weren’t swimming with the current the way the BMC PhDs were.