<p>Let the debate begin.</p>
<p>“better” than some, “worse” than others</p>
<p>thread over.</p>
<p>Which UCs are you talking about?</p>
<p>University of Chicago, I think.</p>
<p>oh…</p>
<p>Well…certainly some programs at UCh are going to be better than some programs at some ivies. Why would that be debatable?</p>
<p>Not HYP, but, yeah, sure.</p>
<p>“Better” is subjective.</p>
<p>Better is totally undefined. Better aid? Not than some. Better courses? Maybe. Better location? Depends.</p>
<p>I live in New Haven in a building with many Yale Professors. One senior professor of history there told me that his son turned down Yale for Chicago. His opinion was that a Chicago education was in fact superior to Yale. His exact comment was that the volume and quality of work required of a student at “” Yale is a picnic next to Chicago". I often meet administrators and other professors at Yale and they are always blown away when you tell them your child goes to Chicago. My child also chose Chicago as her first choice and did not apply to Yale at all. Her mother teaches at Yale and my child had a shot at admission, but she and her mother thought the quality of education in general was better at Chicago. Can’t really talk about the other Ivies.</p>
<p>“Academic powerhouse, but socially irrelevant.”</p>
<p>Well, Prez Obama was settled in Chicago. So the international popularity of Northwestern and Chicago must be on the rise.</p>
<p>I feel you’ve got to be a “pain seeker” to choose Chicago,
with all the cold weather, hard classes, and hard grading.</p>
<p>Unquestionably two of the top 5 graduate business programs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You totally got a snicker out of me there. <em>g</em></p>
<p>Chicago is fantastic for some, not for others. Certainly it is a superb undergrad education. Sometimes fit is important.</p>
<p>I suppose I am in a position to comment on this. I work at the U of C and have studied here on the graduate level, graduated, etc. I also have two kids so far who have ended up at Eastern elites.
In terms of academic rigor, I don’t think you can do better than the U of C. If you get in, do the program, and graduate, you have my respect. There is a rough excellence at the U of C which few can gainsay.
In my mind, there are two drawbacks.
The first has to do with the relationship of undergraduates to the University. In my PhD program, none of the professors wanted to teach undergraduates, and they were not shy about telling us graduate students that. Even the profs who were regarded as the most “student friendly” wished they didn’t have to teach undergraduates.
The second drawback has to do with the student social environment. In spite of changes due to more selectivity and the echo-boom overflow from the Ivy League, a significant segment of the students is awkward and even painfully introverted.
Of course elites with more socially talented students can end up dealing with their own special problems, such as alcohol and foolish attention to social status.</p>
<p>^ Danas, as you probably know (but some readers might not), the appointment of Chicago faculty is a little different than at most schools. At Chicago, a professor is appointed to a graduate division/department, to the college (not to an undergraduate “department” because technically there are none), or to both. In theory at least, professors appointed to the college should be people willing to teach undergraduates. And that was my experience as an undergraduate there. There is a strong commitment to training for, and rewarding excellence in, undergraduate instruction.</p>
<p>In my long career as a student, I also spent a term at a famous Ivy mentioned above. Both schools were pretty good. However, I recollect what seemed to be a more or less distinct Chicago approach. At Chicago (at that time and in the Humanities at least) the focus was on Socratic, small class discussions based on close readings of challenging primary source materials (almost never text books). Marxist, Feminist, Freudian, etc. theories of criticism need not apply. It was all “Ms. Smith, what does the author mean by the term distributive justice at the beginning of chapter 5.” Ms. Smith was expected not only to have read through chapter 5, but to have thought about it. Then she would proceed, sometimes awkwardly sometimes insightfully, to elaborate. The professor would make occasional comments (often sarcastic), but even if (s)he was a big authority on the topic, it seemed to be considered bad form for the instructor to dominate.</p>
<p>My impression (based partly on personal observation) is that professors at some other top universities may be a little more committed to introducing the sexiest, most au courant schools of thought. An instructor may be more inclined to labor on about personal collaborations in advancing the state of the art (with relatively little real dialog). My experiences may not be at all representative (YMMV). However, I did observe a somewhat similar, relatively top-down style at both the Ivy I attended briefly as an undergrad, and at an Ivy-like school I attended as a grad student.</p>
<p>I agree with the observation about Chicago students often being introverted or socially awkward. Chicago admissions does not seem to buy into the concept of “crafting a class”. And there was never a point in time when the school’s mission was to train “1000 male leaders”. It’s all about the “life of the mind” there, perhaps (for some people’s taste) to a fault.</p>
<p>
Well, it depends on how you look at it. It almost certainly wouldn’t fare well against the Ivies in hockey, basketball, or lacrosse. </p>
<p>On the other hand, Chicago has gone undefeated by Notre Dame. Perhaps it could take on the Ivies in football.</p>
<p>Chicago is definitely comparable to to some of the Ivies. In terms of educating students, it does a great job with its core curriculum, I buy the criticism that profs are graduate focused. I have found that as a general over-arching trend chicago students are very smart, hard working, often creative, often quirky, socially awkward, introverted and nerdy. They are not nerdy in an MIT sense, but tend to be more book smart than street smart. </p>
<p>Chicago really needs to inflate the way it grades classes a little, and would benefit from considering more than raw intellectual curiosity in picking its students. Having a more balanced class (balance between practical and theoretical, love of learning vs. pre-professional) would benefit the atmosphere in my mind. But it’s difficult to deny that Chicago takes in top notch students, challenges them academically, and offers great opportunities on graduation more on the grad school front, but also on the work front.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Chicago has a distinct identity and a clear uncompromising mission.<br>
Anyone who wants a good school with a more pre-professional bent can consider Northwestern, Penn, or Cornell. In my opinion, the best thing Chicago can do to benefit its atmosphere is to continue seeking students and faculty who thrive in, and contribute to, that atmosphere. And that is the best way to continue its glorious undefeated record against Notre Dame.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh you mean the Chicago that just got completely shot down in the 2016 Olympics? Some international popularity, that…</p>
<p>And “Prez Obama” did not settle down in Chicago. Prez Obama has settled down in DC. It was “Professor Obama” (who at any rate had chosen two Ivies for his undergraduate and graduate education).</p>