<p>Both of these schools are awesome. I think you’ll need to decide based on personal factors b/c in terms of overall academics in both schools you can’t go wrong.</p>
<p>NU has D-I athletics
UofC has D-III</p>
<p>go NU</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Bashing” is stating an unusual opinion in an aggressive tone, with nothing to back it up. From whose Top 30, other than yours, has Chicago fallen? In the USNWR rankings, it’s number 8. In the ARWU list, it is number 9 in the world (right behind Princeton and right ahead of Oxford). Even Forbes (which includes LACs as well as universities) ranks it #18.
Well, just in the field of economics, University of Chicago faculty members or alumni have won the Nobel Prize in:
2007
2000
1997
1995
1993
1992
1991
1990
1986
1982
1978
1976
1979</p>
<p>There, that’s just 30 years, and it only counts current faculty and alumni, not winners with other affiliations. The lists in Chemistry and Physics are a little shorter, but not insignificant.
</p>
<p>All of it. What do you mean? You’ve just tossed out a buzz-word and seem to expect it to have awsome magic power all by its little self. I did like your underwear metaphor, though. Pretty funny!
In other words, the percentage of its graduates who go on to earn a higher degree is one of the highest in America. (#9 in the country for overall Ph.D. production, just ahead of Yale, for the period 1992 to 2001 according to the Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium’s Weighted Baccalaureate Origins Study.) And that is a bad thing because …?</p>
<p>As for the over-worked “nerd” stereotype, in case nobody has noticed, nerds are cool now. The country likes nerds.</p>
<p>First, no one has brought up anything about nerds, so I don’t know why you are.</p>
<p>By groan house, I simply mean that when you are at cocktail reception and you meet a father of a UCHIC student, he is bound to tell you how hard his son is working there. Kind of like the guy that proudly tells you that he doesn’t own a TV, even though you didn’t ask him. ;)</p>
<p>Now, I’m partly joking here but awarding Nobel prizes each year doesn’t mean that anything significant happened to deserve an award, it just means that they award a Nobel prize in Economics every year. Have these Nobel prize winners helped keep our economy strong? If so, good because I would hate to see the mess we would be in without them. Right now, I’d settle for just giving economic decisions over to a couple guys from France and call it a day. :)</p>
<p>On a serious note, rankings that don’t factor in how much it costs to go to a school are worthless. When you say I don’t back things up, it appears you skimmed over UNC Chapel Hill is a better overall school than UCHIC. They are number 30. </p>
<p>The rankings also ignore honor colleges. What a joke. Clearly anyone that was accepted at UCHIC will be an honors college candidate elsewhere. Yet these polls do these apples and oranges comparisons to the entire scope of the public university’s body rather than the REAL decision that the student is weighing. So honors colleges with smaller class sizes, stronger students and other benefits become secondary items when they should be primary. Gee, I wonder why?</p>
<p>So, please have the last word. I just got in from golf and it’s a beautiful day. I hope you guys got out there to enjoy it.</p>
<p>“Main downside to Chicago, IMO, is its location. Hyde Park is a nice urban neighborhood but it’s a bit of an island, with some pretty dicey neighborhoods to the west and south. Chicago can look like a pretty bleak place to U of C students who are a bit cut off from the really vibrant parts of the city, mostly on the North Side and more easily accessed from Evanston.”</p>
<p>Interesting point, I think it depends on perspective. I worked with a student who chose Chicago over Northwestern, because Evanston seemed like an elitist isolated suburb which was confirmed when the campus tour guide talked primarily about shopping opportunities and frat/sorority parties.</p>
<p>But if that is your thing, go for it.</p>
<p>Having said all this, BOTH are GREAT opportunities, but Chicago would be the choice for me.</p>
<p>“I’m partly joking here …”</p>
<p>Well said. It’s as if having faculty worthy of Nobel prizes is not of any benefit to students (as long as such faculty also teach undergrads, relating to the case at hand).</p>
<p>vociferous,</p>
<p>Evanston is nice but no Beverly Hills/Palo Alto. It’s also cheaper than Lakeview or the most popular North Side neighborhoods of Chicago. I am not sure where you got that elitist vibe from.</p>
<p>Let’s not bash these two schools. I think they’re both wonderful and offer plenty of opportunities. You can get to downtown Chicago from either Evanston or Hyde Park without much trouble. Academics are great at both. </p>
<p>I’m choosing Chicago over NU after an overnight visit. Based on what I now know of the two schools, I think the OP should ask himself/herself this question: Am I an intellectual willing to work hard? If so, go to Chicago. If not, go to NU.</p>
<p>
See posts #4 and #5. My comments were not all about you.
Well, I presume that when somebody gets a Nobel Prize, he probably did something smart to deserve it. But sure, maybe every other year or so the committee takes a little rest from their evaluations and just gets on the phone to Chicago to see who hasn’t won one there already.<br>
Yup, it’s gorgeous here as well. We have a little pond down from the house where some mallard ducklings have hatched. The apple trees are in bloom, too. Spring has sprung!</p>
<p>“Am I an intellectual willing to work hard? If so, go to Chicago. If not, go to NU.”</p>
<p>Perfect. :)</p>
<p>I repeat:</p>
<p>There is no engineering possibility at uchicago. Go to northwestern. Doyyy</p>
<p>It depends on how serious you are on the engineering part. If you are leaning more towards science/economics, by far Chicago. Especially in Economics, I don’t think the NU faculty even comes to UChicago. Now, if you want do take some serious engineering courses, it’s obvious: NU. Uchicago doesn’t have engineering… </p>
<p>I also agree that Uchicago is OVERALL (I repeat, OVERALL) a better school than NU. Yes, NU journalism, music, theater and a few other disciplines are better than those at Chicago, but the majority is better at Chicago. Just my two cents.</p>
<p>^As I already said, Northwestern’s chemistry is arguably stronger (ranked higher by USN; more cutting-edge research, especially in nanotechology).<br>
[Chicago</a> Area Undergraduate Research Symposium (CAURS)](<a href=“http://www.caurs.com/awards.html]Chicago”>http://www.caurs.com/awards.html)
At the Chicago Area Undergraduate Research Symposium, NU students have performed better. Also, significantly more of the past participants from NU have gone on to win prestigious scholarships like Goldwater:
<a href=“http://www.caurs.com/wherearethey.html[/url]”>http://www.caurs.com/wherearethey.html</a></p>
<p>The difference among the top-10 econ programs is insignificant at the undergrad level. In College Fed Challenge, Northwestern’s undergraduate team never lost to Chicago’s in the midwest regional and Northwestern is a 3x national champion.</p>
<p>It is not just Spark’s 2 cents. Go to the following link:</p>
<p>[NRC</a> Rankings in Each of 41 Areas](<a href=“http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~jnewton/nrc_rankings/nrc41indiv.html]NRC”>http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~jnewton/nrc_rankings/nrc41indiv.html)</p>
<p>Step through the 41 ranked areas and ask two questions,
(1) In how many fields does each of these 2 schools show up among the top 10? The answer: Chicago shows up many times, NU shows up few times (only in a couple of engineering sub-fields).
(2) Among fields in which both schools have programs, in how many cases is NU ranked higher than Chicago? The answer: none. Chicago consistently ranks higher (and generally much higher) than NU across all of these 41 fields, except for the several engineering fields in which Chicago has no programs, and a couple of fields in which neither school makes the displayed list. But it’s not as if NU is a major engineering powerhouse. Chicago is a major science and math powerhouse, but it deliberately avoids pre-professional majors.</p>
<p>Now, those are grad school rankings. As an indicator of how well each school motivates and prepares undergraduates for advanced study in many fields, go to the following link:</p>
<p>[REED</a> COLLEGE PHD PRODUCTIVITY](<a href=“http://www.reed.edu/ir/phd.html]REED”>Doctoral Degree Productivity - Institutional Research - Reed College)</p>
<p>Now ask, in how many of the listed fields does each of these 2 schools show up among the top 10? The answer: Chicago shows up in many, NU shows up in none.</p>
<p>These are both good schools. There may be good reasons why some students would prefer NU. But if academics are the most important factor to you, then the evidence seems to favor Chicago. I’d caution that some of these rankings may be a little stale, so if anyone has more up-to-date information that contradicts earlier comprehensive studies, please share.</p>
<p>^@Sam Lee: I don’t think these contests are necessarily the best markers of the quality of education a random student will receive once they get to the respective colleges. For example, Chicago has never won the Putnam. In fact, the best they did was 2nd place, but that was 1975. Since then, they haven’t placed in the top 5. BUT that does not change the fact AT ALL that Chicago is one of the best places (in fact, usually regarded in the TOP 5) to study mathematics. (I’m pretty sure about this since I study mathematics)</p>
<p>Plus, I don’t think the NU chem dept is markedly better than Chicago.</p>
<p>I say Chicago econ dept is better than NU’s because of the professors that teach the course. You may argue that they are more reknowned and pay less attention to undergraduates, but a recommendation from a nationally-respected (or even internationally-) professor might play a big role when you are applying for internships, jobs, etc.</p>
<p>Once again, if the OP wants engineering seriously, he/she should NEVER come to Chicago. I’d say the same if the OP were to study journalism or theater. (i.e. I’m not saying Chicago is better in every department.)</p>
<p>
Neither is graduate ranking as we aren’t talking about #5 vs #100 here. </p>
<p>By the way, you apply for jobs with resume/cover letter, not professors’ rec.</p>
<p>tk,
NU chemistry has improved quite a bit in the last 15 years.
NU’s material science and industrial engineering/management sciences are ranked in the top-5; but because its other engineering disciplines aren’t, it’s not a major engineering powerhouse. While Chicago’s physics is ranked in the top-10, its biology and chemistry are not. So how is that a science powerhouse? You can’t just change the goal post.</p>
<p>Okay, I originally read the OP’s post and the ones on the last page… I can understand how people could disagree, but there’s some serious bashing going on IMO.</p>
<p>“If your idea is a bunch of buildings that would look great in an Indy Jones movie UChicago fits the mode. But what has that school done over the last 40 years but live off the former glory of Milton Friedman?” (ctyankee)</p>
<p>This is possibly the most ignorant statement I’ve ever came upon for a while… I understand that you are a NU alum (from your previous posts–I had to check what made you feel so resentful of Chicago) but UChicago has produced works of high caliber consistently. Works done by Chicago professors have won numerous Nobel prizes over the years, and that alone should suffice to prove the quality of work that goes on at Chicago. </p>
<p>NU and Chicago are both great schools. You can think whichever is better, but no need to bash one without any logic…</p>
<p>^He/she is not a NU alum, at least not that I know of. Just because one is NU alum doesn’t make him/her resentful of UChicago. NU students generally have great respect for UChicago.</p>
<p>Also, those awards are not like Putnam which is more a function of raw talents and creativity. Putnam exam questions have nothing to do with what you learn in classes. On the other hand, people do use what they learn in economics classes to prepare for College Fed Challenge. The undergrad research symposium is a direct reflection of the undergrad research at Northwestern. The fact that NU students have dominated the awards at the symposium and have by far more participants show that undergraduate research opportunities may be more abundant at NU.</p>
<p>ctyankee IS a NU alum. (AS I SAID, I CHECKED HIS PREVIOUS POSTS WHERE HE STATES THAT HE IS.) No, he doesn’t have to hate Chicago, but one can understand why he would be biased towards NU when comparing NU and Chicago. (This is so obvious I don’t think it’s even worth arguing any more)</p>
<p>You’re missing my point. Both Putnam and College Fed Challenge sends out three to five of the undergraduates from universities. The results produced by those 3-5 students from a pool of 1000 or more don’t accurately describe the quality of education students receive.</p>
<p>In addition, College Fed Challenge is one of the countless–truly–research opportunities that are out there for economics students. A college may choose to focus on it or not. You may disagree with me, but my impression at Chicago was that it does not care much for these so-called “competitions.” They are much more for learning for learning’s sake. </p>
<p>And again, ALL THIS ASIDE, the sentiment that Chicago has achieved nothing over the past three decades is simply an ignorant statement. Whether you think it’s overrated, underrated, better or worse than NU, there’s no doubt that it’s a fine educational institution that is very well regarded.</p>
<p>Clearly this isn’t going anywhere, so I’m going to stop right here… To each his own.</p>
<p>I am not saying peroformance in College Fed Challenge in an accurate reflection. But I think it’s fair to bring it up as an equalizer for the perceived difference in <em>undergraduate</em> education based on several-spot difference in <em>graduate</em> ranking. It seems like a double-standard to question the validity of the performance of an <em>undergrad</em> competition but at the same time just use the small difference in “graduate” ranking to say one undergrad program is better than another.</p>
<p>
If they don’t, they wouldn’t have sent a team. They competed at Putnam too; the only reason they didn’t do as well as Harvard/MIT is because most of the IMO winners pretty much ended up at MIT/Harvard at the first place. Chicago cares every bit about competitions, or it wouldn’t have “adjusted” the calculation for one of the USN categories; the end result was a jump of 6 spots in one year.</p>
<p>I wasn’t the one with “the sentiment that Chicago has achieved nothing over the past three decades”. But you brought it up in the post that seems to be directed to me and then use “you” in the following sentence. I know you didn’t mean to, but it’s almost like you were putting words into my mouth.</p>