<p>^ Oh please. Cut the crappy bias. Northwestern is a fantastic school that has top programs in numerous areas and provides an excellent education for its students.</p>
<p>And in the case of this particular student, Northwestern is the CLEAR and OBVIOUS choice because engineering is non-existent at UChicago.</p>
<p>tk89,</p>
<p>Clearly you’ve got personal issues with the school, rejection issues? It might do you some good to know that even the president of U of C himself proposed to join with the pig of a school Northwestern is to form one large university for Chicago in 1933. But not to worry, it was all just part of an evil scheme to make your joints ache, 56 years later when you’d be born. After all, Northwestern is, like you said, just a “vocational” school (really, what kind of a school prepares its students to have a job, how absurd) that “happens” to have a larger endowment than U of C (wonder how that happens).</p>
<p>I’m genuinely glad you’re not a Northwestern student, I’d be embarrassed beyond words.</p>
<p>University of Chicago hands down.</p>
<p>gd016, I understand the bias tk89 has and find it absurd too. But what does the endowment have to do with the quality of undergard education one would get at the school? It all depends on how it is used and how much of it goes to the undergrad division.</p>
<p>Hope2getrice… As spark09223 said earlier, it depends on if the student’s set on the engineering part. FYI, the OP chose Chicago, and s/he obviously was aware of the absence of engineering at Chicago and doesn’t mind it. </p>
<p>To the OP: congratulations on your decision! I am glad you visited (or at least it seems like it as you mention classes) and found which atmosphere you prefer!</p>
<p>tk89 hasn’t been shy about voicing his opinion:</p>
<p>on Columbia:
on Cornell:
All came from a 40+ yo UChicago alum, no less.</p>
<p>
Oh, but I did go there. Admittedly, it was years ago. Though I certainly would hope you can tell something about its undergrad instruction by examining published metrics.
</p>
<p>I thought I had backed off that earlier “powerhouse” statement. If I did not do so sufficiently to your satisfaction (it’s been a while), sorry, I will do so now. You are right, it would be unfair to call Chicago strong in science and math and not (if the same standards apply) say the same about NU in engineering.</p>
<p>But I see nothing circular about my other statement (“above quote”, see #61). Yes indeed, it was meant to justify my earlier statement about Chicago’s strength (but I do not want to disparage NU’s, and if you think “powerhouse” is too strong, fine). I’m saying that, based on a number of objective and peer review metrics I’ve seen, Chicago seems to have a lot of breadth and depth across the board in its science and math programs. As far as I’m able to judge. I look at peer assessments (the older NRC, or if you prefer, the newer USNWR), outcomes (“Ph.D. productivity” – shorthand for the percentage of college graduates who go on to earn Ph.D.s), objective metrics that suggest instructional quality (high salaries, small undergraduate class size, faculty awards), the fact that undergraduate instruction is cultivated and rewarded, etc. I conclude the school is not just resting on its copious laurels.
O.K., point taken. If the USNWR rankings have been done well, then that sounds like an insignificant difference between the levels of quality at the 2 schools with respect to Chicago’s science/math vs. NU’s engineering.
I don’t believe that the science and math departments that ranked in the last NRC top-25 (and some much higher) have all sunk like a rock since then. But of course, professors do retire, programs get cut. The NRC is supposed to release new rankings later this year, or early next. So we’ll see. But if you say the USNWR average across s/m departments is 12 (not bad), that suggests to me that the quality must have remained fairly stable since the last NRC assessments. By the way, Chicago does not even have departments in the College. Undergraduate s/m professors typically would have joint appointments in the graduate divisions and in the College. So I think any assessment of graduate quality has bearing on undergraduate quality, as long as there are clear indications that the level of undergrad instruction is high.
O.K., then I salute NU and any other schools for improving.</p>
<p>By the way, Sam Lee (and anyone else), I regret if I contributed to a tone of disrespect toward any school. Obviously I’m partial too my own alma mater but of course NU, Cornell, Columbia are all fine schools too. I have met impressive people associated with all of them.</p>
<p>lol…Sam Lee, you and your silly pro-NU rants are the reason why I had to post on this thread. I’ve been reading your ridiculous comments re: NU for a while now and you finally outdid yourself here.</p>
<p>Honestly, NU is simply a glorified trade school. I have friends who have gone there and they work at rather pedestrian jobs and live ordinary, suburban Chicago lives. Nothing wrong with that.</p>
<p>But to compare it to the U of C, well, now that’s silly talk and you NU guys know that, especially you, Sam, since you feel qualified to post on EVERY NU/UChicago thread that’s ever been posted here.</p>
<p>BTW, I’m kinda chuckling to myself 'cos I knew that Sam would be the one to go looking up my previous posts and getting personal. Again, no surprises.</p>
<p>Sam, what are you now, an accountant or a dentist?</p>
<p>“my joints ache”</p>
<p>Of course they would, tk89, at your age.</p>
<p>And your age shows. Chicago has worked hard (and successfully) to lose its image as a place where fun goes to die and the pseudo intellectual socially inept go to brood for four years. Thank you for reminding us how far the school has come since your tenure there.</p>
<p>Tk89, from what I understand: the U of Chicago of 40 years ago is VASTLY different from the U of Chicago of now. Whereas they were more quirky and odd in the past, they are currently a LOT more mainstream, to the point where students who are getting into UChicago are becoming more and more similar to students getting into NU in terms of “normalness” and “pre-professionalism.”</p>
<p>In your heyday, your sentiments might’ve been true.</p>
<p>Hey, what’s with this ageism? I’m not THAT old!!! </p>
<p>But this thread isn’t about aging, the true irony of which most of you will hopefully get a chance to experience.</p>
<p>The issue at hand is de-bunking this myth that NU’s undergrad system is anything at all up to UChicago’s standards. Don’t fool yourselves – it isn’t. </p>
<p>Again, NU is primarily a trade school. It’s an attempt to re-create Cornell-on-Lake Michigan, and a poor one at that.</p>
<p>UChicago is one of few schools in the US based on 19th century Germanic research univeristies. You can do your own work on the implications of this, but this radically different heritage sets U of C apart from the Ivy League schools on the east coast, not to mention NU.</p>
<p>Tk89, the Uchicago model is based on the Johns Hopkins University Model. Rockefeller wanted it modeled almost EXACTLY after Hopkins.</p>
<p>The major key difference is the Core-Curriculum requirement at U of Chicago.</p>
<p>Hope2Getrice,</p>
<p>I’m afraid that I must respectfully disagree with you. While UChicago and JHU were both modeled on the classic German graduate research university, there is nothing to support your argument that UChicago was based on JHU.</p>
<p>I ask you to read, [The</a> American Research University System as America’s de facto Technology Policy](<a href=“http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:jbx4ofn0kBEJ:www.cspo.org/products/articles/researchuniversity.pdf+university+of+chicago+german+research+university&cd=45&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us]The”>http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:jbx4ofn0kBEJ:www.cspo.org/products/articles/researchuniversity.pdf+university+of+chicago+german+research+university&cd=45&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) . Here is an excerpt from that article:</p>
<p>"By just after the turn of the century, American institutions of higher education had
evolved into a structure recognizable by today’s categories. At that time there were 15
universities that resembled what we now call research universities. Johns Hopkins,
Stanford, and Chicago had been founded as research universities, adapted from the
German model. Columbia, Harvard, Penn, Princeton, and Yale had successfully evolved
from being traditional elite colleges specializing in languages, religion and the classics
into developing centers of scientific and engineering research. MIT and Cornell evolved
from technical school and ivy-league foundations, respectively, as land-grant institutions. "</p>
<p>Simply because they both evolved along similar lines with similar concerns does not imply that one grew directly from the other…</p>
<p>(and yes, I did read the Wiki article on JHU)</p>
<p>pnb2002,</p>
<p>I don’t think endowment has anything to do with the quality of the education. If you read tk89’s post and mine, you’ll see he’s the one who brought it up. At any rate, endowment still is one of the “many” things that reflects the quality of an institution, mainly because we’re not talking about a liberal arts college but a research university. It reflects the quality of the research and educational facilities and its capabilities. If you aren’t in to the sciences, perhaps research isn’t much of a concern for you at the undergrad level, but if you are a hard sciences major, being able to pursue research on campus is a very big asset. Furthermore, in the sciences, the more funds available for research the better professors the school will be able to attract, because at a research university, a professor not only teaches but continues to learn and keep themselves up-to-date in modern discoveries and research by having their own labs and projects. So yes, endowment is one of the factors that will affect the quality of the institution. But let me reiterate, I don’t think it is, in any way, a sole factor that says one school is better than another.</p>
<p>tk89, I know what I say to be true.</p>
<p>I read books on the history of the Johns Hopkins University, but I don’t have time to flip through them.</p>
<p>Instead, I will quote something I just googled:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^^ That’s from answers.com which provided a bibliography.</p>
<p>Of course wikipedia wouldn’t show it. The Hopkins wikipedia history has yet to be expanded, despite the long and accomplished history of the university.</p>
<p>“I’m not THAT old!!!”</p>
<p>No? </p>
<p>tk89: Extolling Chicago’s virtues as one of the few last great American remnants of “19th century Germanic research univeristies” - forgive my obvious confusion.</p>
<p>You’ve aggressively maligned Northwestern, Columbia and Cornell because they dare to offer more than a pure “life of the mind.” I’m shocked that you haven’t offered up similar analyses of Stanford - one of the obviously wayward schools originally “adapted from the German model” that now, trade-school like, bears a striking resemblence to Northwestern in its undergraduate model and campus life (Pac Ten/Big Ten, definitely not the Nerdy Nine). </p>
<p>Remarkably, somehow even including recruited Big Ten football players, dancers, thesbians, and musicians, Northwestern somehow still pieces together an undergraduate population that manages to match (well, actually exceed, sorry) the stats of Chicago undergrads. I find it remarkable that one school can recruit so many smart people who uniformly, you inform us, aspire to dentistry and “the life of the accountant.” </p>
<p>Chicago offers a great undergraduate education in a traditional model. But that model, Core included, doesn’t cut it for most of the brightest students out there. They want their history, comp lit, and government classes but also want engineering and the applied sciences, journalism, music, education, communications, maybe even hotel management. Mostly, they seek freedom to choose without the restraints of a heavy dose of required courses and believe they are bright enough, mature enough, and directed enough to somehow manage to accomplish this.</p>
<p>And by the way. Welcome to the 21st century. Chicago’s recently been debating beginning an engineering program. </p>
<p>What would the 19th century Germans say!?</p>
<p>
while obviously an hyperbole, compared to uchicago there is some legitimacy to this statement. it’s not necessarily bad that northwestern is a little more social and athletic than chicago. it’s just different that’s all. they are two very different schools in many regards. i think the first question you have to ask yourself when deciding between these two schools is what am i looking for in my collegiate experience? if you’re looking for great academics complemented by a lively social scene then go northwestern. if you’re looking for hardcore/rigorous academics and vibrant intellectual activity then go uchicago. it all depends on what you’re looking for. because when it comes down to strictly academics uchicago trumps northwestern in most departments. that’s just what makes uchicago uchicago. you don’t go to uchicago for the sports or the greek life…you go there for the academics.</p>
<p>Hope2getrice:</p>
<p>The University of Chicago really was a product of William Rainety Harper, the former Yale president. He was the driving intellectual force behind the creation of the University of Chicago and the man who pretty much strong armed Rockefeller into financing the new school.</p>
<p>Rockefeller, contrary to your post, didn’t have much say in the formation of the school and, in fact, was known and well-regarded for having a very hands-off approach to UChicago.</p>
<p>Yes, JHU was founded about 16 years before UChicago and it was the first successful American attempt to combine the German research university with an American liberal arts college. However, to say that “Rockefeller wanted it modeled almost EXACTLY after Hopkins”, is a ridiculous comment. There was a great deal of money going into building universities at that stage in American history and certainly there was a great amount of cross-fertilization of ideas happening. But to say, as you do, that UChicago was a copy of JHU does William Rainey Harper a grave injustice. He was one of the most brilliant educators of his time, perhaps of any time in American history, and had very clear goals about what he wanted to accomplish with his new university.</p>
<p>Bala:</p>
<p>< You’re just a kid - what do you know?></p>
<p>As you can see, the age argument can cut both ways and I could just as easily argue (to no effect whatsoever) that your lack of experience somehow cripples your arguments here. Both approaches are equally irrelevant. Your arguments are valid, as are mine.</p>
<p>I’ve “maligned” Cornell, NU and Columbia? Don’t be ridiculous. I have experience with all three schools and I’ve stated by opinions about them. </p>
<p>Regarding NU, its not the stats of the entering students that is important here. College should be about what those students do once they’re in school and NU and UChicago have very different approaches. Again, NU is about partying, football and making yourself marketable upon graduation. There is nothing wrong with that, if that’s what you’re into. More power to you NU folks.</p>
<p>But to try to compare NU’s approach to educating its undergrads to UChicago’s is crazy-talk. To begin with, NU lacks an integrated philosophy of what it tries to instill in its students. It has no unifying academic culture and you basically end up spending your time in your own separate school, learning whatever trade you’ve signed on for. Seriously, what does an NU undergrad education stand for? It simply a training regime to get its students into professional/trade schools.</p>
<p>To answer your query, a 19th century German university student probably wouldn’t consider NU to be higher education at all. He would look at it more as a prep school for higher studies or a vocational school for students who don’t plan on attending university.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But that’s the greatest appeal for some students. On the quarter system, you take over 48+ just taking the average amount of classes (you could easily take more than 50 if you wanted to), with the requirement for a major usually being not even half of that amount. That’s why you can easily explore just about any discipline you want as opposed having to stick to a set curriculum. So long as you fill the distribution requirements which include composition, history, ethics, literature and art, languages and formal studies (math, social sciences, hard sciences), you can take classes from any of the undergraduate colleges on campus including the School of Communications, Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, McCormick School of Engineering, Medill School of Journalism, School of Education and Social Policy (SESP) and School of Music. Even as a biochem concentration, I’ve taken contemporary media courses from Medill, biomedical engineering classes from McCormick, complete a sequence in Communication Sciences and Disorders (CSD) at the School of Communication, and take community development seminars from the School of Education and Social Policy, all of which (CSD at the School of Communications, SESP and Medill programs) are top ranked programs nationally and internationally. I’ve also had a chance to take classes on Baroque music and Chicago architecture for my arts distribution, which were, without a doubt, a few classes I enjoyed the most at Northwestern that expanded my view on the arts.</p>
<p>The point I’m trying to get at is that Northwestern and U of C have a different outlook on a liberal arts education. But that doesn’t mean one is incomparably better than the other. Sure, some students would enjoy having a planned out curriculum to follow (U of C and Columbia would be the best choices for students with that preference), but others enjoy putting together their own (to whom Northwestern and Brown would be good choices). After all, whoever said the 19th century German university student was the ultimate scholar? Don’t be ridiculous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure the Core has its appeals, but to say there’s no way to compare Northwestern’s approach to U of C’s is just being completely narrow-minded. I sure hope it wasn’t your education at U of C that taught you to think that way.</p>