<p>While the term ‘better’ is relative, I for one think that MIT is objectively more prestigious than chicago. What does prestigious mean? Well that again is a subjective matter, but I guess name recognition would be one of the defining criteria. As an international I am eminently qualified to opine on each university’s global prestige, and although my inferences are admittedly based on anecdotal evidence, I believe that they provide an accurate reflection of the on ground reality (at least in Asia).</p>
<p>happyman, yes and no, it just depends. </p>
<p>btw, you seem to go around bashing UChix</p>
<p>I do, but only when people make ludicrous comparisons between Chicago and HYPSM. I concede that Chicago is having a great year, and I absolutely believe that it is a great school. However, I cannot condone giving these impressionable youngsters bad advice. You said it yourself on a different thread, schools are like stocks, they experience increases and decreases in value. Chicago is obviously ‘hot’ at the moment, but as you rightly put it Duke was (and still is to a lesser degree) incandescent a few years ago. If a few years ago, if someone had asked me to choose between Duke and Stanford, I would probably pick Stanford. Schools like HYP do not need to get hot. They represent the very best that the American educational system. A normal student with no particular affinity for Chicago (or Duke, or Penn) would do well to attend Stanford or MIT or whatever over it. This is the viewpoint that I hold, and I base my rationale whilst answering questions on the assumption that 90% of HYP and Chicago/Penn/Duke cross admits would be better off in the long run if they stuck to one of the big 3. So, I have no specific bias against Chicago (i applied and was admitted), I simply feel that people on this forum are getting swayed too easily by the over zealous comments of some euphoric Chicago students. That is why, I chime in every now and then in order to endow the proceedings with a measure of sanity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To take this analogy one step further, and perhaps in a different direction you intended, schools are also investments. Financial, yes, but even moreso socially and educationally. You don’t need to be “social” in the fraternity or sorority sense to appreciate that schools are social units- these are places where active minds wander, collide, and produce incredible results. Read Ken Auletta on Stanford in a relatively recent New Yorker for a sense of this.</p>
<p>Long story short: if money isn’t the driving factor, one may be well-advised to go to the school where they think they’ll meet the best kinds of people.</p>
<p>I can see how popularity comes and goes- the students applying to college on the heels of 9/11 wanted away from cities and towards small liberal arts colleges nestled in the secure hills. Before Harry Potter, our campus was gloomy. Now it’s Hogwarts (plus some facilty additions and upgrades.)</p>
<p>What school are you going to like despite the inevitable gains and losses of value?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see your point-- I wriggle over unsubstantiated claims around here assumed as fact. But I am also a believer in fit, and at the time I applied the University of Chicago was the best school offering exactly what I was looking for, and I got what I wanted from it and more. So I am your euphoric alumna as well!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I could not agree more with most of this; Duke, to my view, is the ultimate case of a university hyped beyond reason. </p>
<p>UChicago, on the other hand, had been rather absurdly overlooked by the masses for many years, despite strengths in social sciences, humanities, and physical sciences that put it in a very exclusive league. </p>
<p>Consider this: I attended as an undergrad when UChicago was accepting >50% of its undegrad applicants. By that standard, happyman, UChicago was not considered any sort of prize. In fact. no one in my high school had heard of the place.</p>
<p>On the other hand, consider this: Three of my professors (one in physics, two in economics) were Nobel laureates, all teaching college classes < 20 students. I became a research assistant for one professor simply because I walked into his office one day and asked; five years later, he also won a Nobel for his work. </p>
<p>I’m not saying Nobel prizes–or Field medals, or NAS memberships, etc.-- are the measure of everything. On the hand, how many universities could offer that kind of opportunity to an average undergraduate? </p>
<p>Vanishingly few.</p>
<p>I believe UChicago’s vertiginous rise in popularity to be the rare case–perhaps the singular case–where hype reflects the correction of a “market inefficiency” rather the creation of new bubble.</p>
<p>Nobel laureates make surprisingly poor professors, specially at the undergrad level. The most highly acclaimed researchers do not have the patience to teach ignorant undergrads. They view teaching as a necessary inconvenience.</p>
<p>Two of the three were among the finest teachers I’ve ever encountered in a classroom. The third could be a little scattered but his enthusiasm and eagerness made up for it.</p>
<p>But that’s beside my point, and, if your SATs really were as stellar as you claim, you know it.</p>