<p>I promised the last word to others on points raised in my posts and I will stick to that. However, when someone attacks my personal integrity, I’m going to address it. </p>
<p>From the number of Northeastern threads I’ve posted to, it’s quite easy to see that I’m a proud alum of Northeastern University, the best university in Boston. If you can’t discern that it’s fair to wonder what you are capable of discerning. When I post to a thread about Northeastern U, I share my connection with the O.P., something YOU haven’t done in this thread. Represent your school well, versus making candidates want to flee in the opposite direction or make worthy alums of U. Chicago cringe. </p>
<p>Another beautiful day here, hope everyone enjoys the same where they are.</p>
<p>I got the impression that you were purposedly (is that a word?) avoiding answering to that point made by ctyankee, since you mentioned his/her alumni status but not what he said. If that wasn’t your intention, I apologize. I just don’t want the OP to get the wrong impression because of one poster.</p>
<p>Once again, I disagree with your comment… (Endless, isn’t it) A college can send teams to all the competitions if they wish to. If they prepare the kids or encourage them to is another question. The school might think it might simply be a good expereince for those who attend regardless of the result. I never attended those competitions during my college years, so I wouldn’t know, but that’s how my highschool was about math competitions. If you argue that whatever is taught in the classroom should suffice, I understand… But I disagree. I think any sort of competition requires some preparation for a success given that the contestants are all qualified students (which I believe they are).</p>
<p>And I wasn’t the one using the rankings… That was ty***(can’t remember). I am basing this mainly on the caliber of the faculty, especially in econ dept. I agree 100% with you that if the OP wants to do engineering seriously, s/he should never consider Chicago. But many people simply think they want to do something because that’s what they are supposed to do or whatever. I thought I wanted to do engineering my entire life until my senior year in HS. So I just want the OP to think seriously which of the three areas (which are very broad) s/he likes and make the right decision for him.</p>
<p>Sorry you had to read all that. (If you in fact did… lol)</p>
<p>@ctyankee. What happened was that I read by mistake you are a NU alumn instead of an NEU alum, and that’s totally my mistake, and I apologize. My clumsiness on early Sunday morning.</p>
<p>But I’m trying to make sense of what the OP wants too. That’s why I made all those comments about his/her being serious about the engineering part. I still am going consider your comment about Chicago not achieving anything for the last how many years completely unreasonable, as some other posters have too. </p>
<p>I don’t dare to deny the fact that social life at Chicago isn’t for anyone. You have to have certain personalities to enjoy it, and it’s definitely not your typical college experience. But you can’t just put down an achievement of one institution in one sentence. I find that grossly unfair. And I really do not want the OP to neglect an offer of admission from a fine instuttion just because of that.</p>
<p>The NRC study I cited ranks programs in 15 fields of the Biological Sciences, Physical Sciences, and Mathematics. Chicago’s departments rank in the top 25 in 13 out of 15, with rankings ranging from #2 (Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior) to #25 (Pharmacology). Northwestern’s departments rank in the top 25 in just 3 of them (Neurosciences,Chemistry, Geosciences). In each of those 3 fields, Chicago has an even higher ranking.</p>
<p>Whether all this adds up to Chicago’s being a science/math “powerhouse” is for you to decide, but that’s not the crux of the OP’s problem. We’re comparing Chicago and Northwestern for relative academic strength. </p>
<p>I’m sure,too, that it gets tedious to hear Chicago boosters crow about all these Nobel prizes, or to cite graduate program rankings that might be based on stale data. We can certainly debate about the relevance of these rankings to educational quality. But the burden is on NU boosters to come up with a better, more up-to-date set of data. Otherwise we are just bandying opinions around.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That may be true. Northwestern and Chicago have approximately the same endowments per student, but NU has experienced relatively faster endowment growth in recent years (to see what I mean, Google around for Wikipedia entries on University endowments). Money fuels program improvements – if it is wisely invested. So show us the evidence that NU has relatively more strength than Chicago in significant areas.</p>
<p>As I point out, the caliber of faculty isn’t significant enough to just igonore all the other unknown factors. NU econ is ranked #8 by USN and as high as #4 in some other rankings. It’s not like its ranked outside the top-50 or even top-25. Couple of the subfields at NU are ranked even higher than Chicago’s. You are splitting hairs instead of dealing a huge divide. This isn’t a slamdunk as you or some others make it out to be. </p>
<p>While I agree with you the level of preparation is important for external competitions, you don’t know if Chicago students didn’t prepare. It’s possible that they did everything they could. Also, at the Chicgao undergrad research symposium, everyone is welcome to submit his/her entry. Again, you can say Chicago students are apathetic about it but keep in mind, the undergrad research symposium isn’t really about competition; it’s supposed to be an intellectual event to showcase students’ research. Students are there to present, share, and communicate something they are passionate about to others. You’d think students from an intellectual school would be enthusiastic about it. </p>
<p>^^cyyankee,
It’s a gorgeous day in DC too. Thanks.</p>
<p>Let me clear one thing up. I went to Chicago. While I didn’t myself participate in these tournaments, I knew one student who did it representing the Univ. I don’t know how the school felt about it, but he didn’t prepare for the College Fed Challenge. (I don’t know anybody who did Putnam so I can’t speak for that.) </p>
<p>And regarding the research symposium. I guess I cannot speak for the entire College, but I don’t remember CAURS being a significant event for Chicagoans. Once again, just because they don’t take part in one symposium, doesn’t mean they’re not interested in intellectual discussion at all times at all places… There’s a huge jump in logic in that…</p>
<p>It’s a beautiful day in Boston, too, thank you.</p>
<p>If you mean the difference between the caliber of the 2 faculties, I suppose I’d buy that. Visit both schools (better hurry up, though!) Stay overnight in the dorms, attend a couple of classes, hang around the dining halls and share in conversations. Yes, there are a lot of intangible personal preferences involved. I happen to think Chicago is one of the, I dunno, 5 or 10 best schools in the country, but I did not recommend it to my own kids. It’s not for everyone.</p>
<p>tk21769
I have refrained from digging into graduate rankings but since you challenged me to provide that, you are getting your wish:
According to USN 2008 rankig, Chicago bio sci is ranked 18th overall. That’s why I wouldn’t call it a bio powerhouse. The only subfield that is ranked in the top-10 is “ecology/evolutionary bio”, a field that probably relies on its past strength more than others. In chemistry, NU is ranked #9 while Chicago is ranked #12. As far as subfields go, NU is ranked #3 in two of them–theoretical and inorganic. I have followed NU’s news and seen how it’s chemistry has evolved into a bigger player. The faculty have collected significantly more prestigous awards in recent years than, say, one or two decades ago. At the undergrad level, quite a few chemistry majors have won prestigious scholarships like Goldwater and Cambrige Gates. The surge in its chemistry ranking reflects just that.
Chicago’s physics and math remain in the top-10 and it’s not surprising since the two fields seem to go hand in hand anyway. But it seems to me Chicago’s bio and chem, the ones that have been changing rapidly, have slipped relative to quite a few other schools.</p>
<p>Just to bring this discussion back to earth and the BIG PICTURE, both these schools obviously offer very high quality academics in the sciences and economics. </p>
<p>Despite arguments on this and other CC boards, most of us who have gone to either NU or Chicago know that there is LITTLE TO NO RIVALRY between the student bodies at these schools. Chicago is not LA and USC/UCLA or the Bay Area and Stanford/Berkeley where much more significant overlaps between these unis academically and on playing fields lead to much more of a sense of competition (even if good spirited).</p>
<p>There is obviously a significant difference in CULTURE and EMPHASIS at the two Chicago schools. This is probably best reflected in what happened when UChicago, after more than a half century running Argonne Labs independently, had its contract up for renewal and risked losing control to a private entity. Its answer came in recruiting Northwestern, Illinois, and a private engineering consultancy to join their ultimately successful bid to retain control of a very lucrative and prestigious lab. </p>
<p>Here and elsewhere UChicago and Northwestern have worked cooperatively in the sciences. I’ve always found Chicago’s greatest strength as an incubator of ideas, Northwestern’s in its ability to run with ideas, pragmatize their application, and bring them to market.</p>
<p>tk, regardling your list in post #23, the most recent (2007) Nobel winner “from UChicago”, Roger Myerson, conducted much of his Nobel-winning research during his 25-year tenure <em>at Northwestern</em>. UChicago once again got all the credits… <em>sigh</em></p>
<p>O.K., great, but connect it to the big pattern. I posted the most recent, most comprehensive rankings that I could find without too much effort. You can remove some names from the Chicago list because you think their connection is tenuous, but the list will remain large even if you only include alumni and winners who were faculty members at the time of award. And the NU list will remain small.</p>
<p>I cite graduate rankings because it is very hard to find good, reliable rankings for individual undergraduate departments. Anyone who thinks graduate department strength has no bearing on the quality of undergraduate instruction perhaps should be looking at Liberal Arts colleges. But if the Ph.D. productivity data I cited is any indication, Chicago seems to compare very well to LACs in how well it motivates and prepares undergrads for graduate school.</p>
<p>You say Chicago is only 18th overall in BioSci, but I don’t see the corresponding NU ranking. Is it a lot higher than 18?</p>
<p>I have a niece at Northwestern and have walked around the campus in early October. I agree that NU is a very nice campus. NU’s campus does not invoke in me the same response in me that Chicago’s does… a visceral “great minds have walked these halls… am I up to the task?” Having been spoiled by UCLA though, neither does much for me in comparison .</p>
<p>I was so going to stay out of this…but, there are actually kids(probs a tiny amount) at Chicago who have a bent toward engineering…it’s just that they want to have a base before they go full tilt. Second son is one of them and if I recall last year there were a few kids trying to decide between MIT and Chicago. See, even engineering schools and engineering scholars are starting to believe engineers need a stronger grounding and hence you’ll find programs stretching to 5 or 6 years, or soon will. Second son as a physics major, won’t need much to get an advanced engineering degree elsewhere…and he’ll have a base that he perhaps wouldn’t have found at a strictly engineering school. And oh, the interesting people he’s met as a first year.</p>
<p>As for Chicago not having done much lately, LOL…yeah, you might want to check out the list of famous alumni at wikipedia. Or profs. From Freakonomics author to Obama advisors(and Obama) to Studs Terkel, the discoverer of Lucy, the DNA guy, famous writers and reporters to Sherri Lansing, big wig in Hollywood, Chicago has and is ever relevant. Their successful alumni tend to be big picture successful…big ideas and all that. NU is a fantastic school that is one of the best in the country, it’s just that it tends to be amazing in preprofessional areas. It’s really very, very different from Chicago.</p>
The point is to show Chicago is “not” (or no longer) a science powerhouse like you claimed. You said Northwestern is not an engineering powerhouse and I have no problem with that. Does it really matter whether if it’s a powerhouse or not in this case as long as it has a program and Chicago does not? Why downplay whatever Northwestern has when there’s a bigger problem on the other side–engineering is out of the picture in UChicago? Anyway, Northwestern has two enginereing departments in the top-5 but most others are in the top-20. You need to apply the same standard and don’t call Chicago a “science powerhouse”. NU’s bio is ranked 29th if that really matters. </p>
<p>The point of mentioning Roger Myerson was just to show the fact that Northwestern “almost” got it shows that the faculty there are no slouch. You don’t need to repeat how illustrious Chicago econ faculty are. We get it!</p>
<p>I will also admit that in hindsight, my 40 years/Milton Friedman question was far too glib and poorly considered on my part. I’m sorry for stirring up trouble. </p>
<p>Thanks for the good advice! Sorry I created so much contreversy…I guess I’m going to do some soul searching about my life and see where it goods.</p>
<p>OP - go back to Bala’s post at #50. Read it. Read it again. That’s your answer! They’re just different. Arguing which is “better” overall is pointless. NU has strengths and a certain campus culture; Chicago has different strengths and a different campus culture. Which one is better is only something you can answer. Good luck!</p>
<p>Northwestern isn’t exactly a powerhouse in engineering. Latest (2010) US News graduate ranking puts it at #21, just a slight step ahead of Minnesota and Penn State for 5th place among Big Ten schools (after UIUC, Michigan, Purdue, and Wisconsin) in that field. Better than Chicago—which has no engineering program—if you’re determined to be an engineer, I suppose, but frankly this would be an odd pair of schools to choose if that’s your ambition and you have the stats to get into a top school.</p>
<p>As for sciences, US News (2010) has them this way:</p>
<p>Biological Sciences:
Chicago #18
Northwestern #29</p>
<p>Chemistry:
Northwestern #9
Chicago #12</p>
<p>Physics:
Chicago #8
Northwestern #26</p>
<p>Earth Sciences:
Chicago #15
Northwestern #21</p>
<p>Math:
Chicago #6
Northwestern #18 </p>
<p>I don’t put too much weight on these rankings, but they’re not irrelevant. Generally they reflect perceptions among academics of the strength of the faculty. Top faculties attract top grad students, and that combination makes strong graduate programs. Northwestern’s quite good in sciences, but not one of the very top schools, more typically in the #20 to #30 area across a range of programs. Chicago’s clearly a notch better, but again not a top contender in the sciences. For engineering Northwestern’s better as Chicago elects not to compete, but Northwestern’s not a top contender, either, more or less middle-of-the-pack for a Big Ten school (though it’s a conference with a lot of strength in engineering). Overall strength of faculty definitely goes to Chicago, but Northwestern has its strengths. </p>
<p>But academic strength is just one factor. The big question is fit. These are very different schools, Chicago nerdy and deeply intellectual, Northwestern preppy, perky, and pre-professional. Go with the one that feels right</p>
.</p>