<p>I don’t think anyone goes to MIT with the intention of majoring in history or English. It may have a top linguistics or philosophy programs, but with only a handful of graduates it hardly counts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why is it important to you that Chicago “get the recognition it deserves”? Isn’t the school’s bona fides and your son’s happiness enough? Why is it a problem if people over in Asia don’t know about it? Their impressions of “prestige” are based on silly, pointless hearsay.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one said that the two were equivalent. The question on the table is top of mind recognition. Because Chicago doesn’t have D1 sports, it – and schools like WashU and Emory – will likely never have the same top-of-mind recognition as good schools that do have D1 sports (such as Stanford, Duke, Northwestern). That’s just a fact. </p>
<p>The conclusion isn’t necessarily “therefore, Chicago should put all its efforts into coming up with a D1 football team, rah rah.” But it’s just something to be aware of, with all the discussion about “awareness.” Like it or not, sports = awareness. I don’t particularly like it, myself, but I can’t argue that it’s not true.</p>
<p>^^Thank you p-girl. You made my point much clearer than I.</p>
<p>I doubt football has much affect on how quality is viewed. Having D1 sports may encourage more applications (but I doubt it), but I doubt it would have any effect beyond that. Where I came from people knew about Stanford and Duke but had no idea they were any different than Arizona State in terms of what type of colleges they were. And further, they didn’t care.</p>