<p>I have visited both WashU and UChicago, and I am now having a hard time choosing which I like more. I can apply to both early, but if I get into WashU, I have to attend. I want to study art history, and I feel like the city of Chicago is better for that. They have the Art Institute, Millenium Park, SAIC, and tons of artists within the city. However, St. Louis seems like a better city overall. The area that WashU is in is much nicer than that of UChicago, and the weather will be better. I'm from Texas, so I'm not accustomed to cold weather. I'm also a foodie, and Chicago is a great place for that. The cost of living is much better in St. Louis though. I know I would like both universities, but it comes down to the cities themselves. I want to study art, and I'm not sure if St. Louis is good for that.
Does anyone want to input their opinion?</p>
<p>apply wustl rd and chcago ea. I think they are both good.</p>
<p>Is money a factor? If so, apply to both; go to the one with the lowest out of pocket cost. If not, apply to both anyway. The adcoms may make your choice for you.</p>
<p>If you are using early admissions to strengthen an application that’s on the edge, apply early to Chicago.</p>
<p>Otherwise, apply regular to both schools and hope for the luxury of choice when the time comes.</p>
<p>Well, WashU and UChicago are my top choices. WashU has ED and UChicago EA, so I can apply to both early. Don’t consider the finances. I want to know if St. Louis is a good city for the arts.</p>
<p>ED is binding. If they offer you have to withdraw all other applications and attend their school. Don’t do it unless WashU is the absolute one for you.</p>
<p>Yes, I know that. How do WashU and UChicago arts programs compare?</p>
<p>I’d say have you considered… Williams College for art hist? That doesn’t answer your question but they are one of the best, just in case you haven’t considered. My hunch is UChicago is better than WashU academically and that’s why, reputedly, it is where the fun dies. But, my neighbor’s son is thriving at UC. And the other kid in my neighborhood loves WashU just as much, if not more. FWIW, you don’t hear anyone bragging about dorms, food, or student life at UC but they do at WashU. Another thing is UC is really a liberal art college whereas WashU is a comprehensive uni. If you change your mind and want to study engineering or business, you can’t do that at Chicago. And the city… sure, Chicago has whole lot more to offer. It’s just freaking cold in the LOONG winter that it just kills it – and this comes from a guy who used to live in Dallas, just so you know ;)</p>
<p>Yes, I’ve considered Williams, but it is a bit too isolated for me. I’m have Type 1 Diabetes, so an isolated town is not ideal.
Also, I know at both schools you can do a double major easily, and I know because I’ve talked to students from both. I know the weather will be awful in Chicago, but I can get over it for a school I really like. I absolutely know I want to study art. UChicago is building a new arts building that will be even taller than Rockefeller Chapel, which is a positive. I like the atmosphere of the city of St. Louis much more, but I don’t know if I would be able to experience as much art there.</p>
<p>St. Louis is very hot, and has tornados.</p>
<p>During the winter months when school is in session, St. Louis will normally be warmer than Chicago; but someone from Texas is not going to find St. Louis winters especially pleasant. And there have been winters when St. Louis has actually had more snow. </p>
<p>Oh, and tornadoes are not unknown in the Chicago area.</p>
<p>I can handle weather. It has been 106F pretty much every day in Texas since June. If it is 95F, then it is cool outside. Texas has tons of tornadoes, too. Does anyone know which school has a better arts program?</p>
<p>Even my DD is going to UoC and my nice graduated from WUSTL, I have no clue as to the Art programs. You should ask that question in the individual Univ. forum and perhaps you can get a better answer. Sorry.</p>
<p>[Ranking</a> of History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Graduate Schools — PhDs.org Graduate School Guide](<a href=“http://graduate-school.phds.org/rankings/art-history/rank/_MM_____________________________________________________________U]Ranking”>http://graduate-school.phds.org/rankings/art-history/rank/_MM_____________________________________________________________U)</p>
<p>Chicago’s program is first-rate. WUSTL’s program is third- or even fourth-rate relative to that of Chicago.</p>
<p>^ nah, grad rankings have nothing to do with undergrad programs. </p>
<p>OP, Go to Chicago if you’re sure about art hist. Apply EA there and RD wustl. You can always change your mind, just don’t agonize too much for now. You’ll have plenty of time to think through. Perhaps you know, there’s no guarantee that either one accepts you. I know a kid who got accepted to Stanford and Princeton this year but was waistlisted at WU. Just focus on the application process, look for some matches, one or two safeties along with these two. The safeties are harder to figure out!</p>
<p>“nah, grad rankings have nothing to do with undergrad programs.”</p>
<p>Please show examples where this is true.</p>
<p>Please show examples where it isn’t.</p>
<p>^ </p>
<p>Berkeley postgrad engineering #3 - [Best</a> Engineering School Rankings | Engineering Program Rankings | US News](<a href=“http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-engineering-schools/eng-rankings]Best”>http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-engineering-schools/eng-rankings)</p>
<p>Berkeley undergrad engineering #3 - [Best</a> Undergraduate Engineering Schools | Top Undergraduate Engineering Programs | US News Best Colleges](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/engineering]Best”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/engineering)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which graduate rankings are we talking about? The one Kwu cited is derived from the latest NRC ranking. They reflect factors that include graduate student completion rates, ethnic diversity, and financial aid. It’s true, many of these factors have little or nothing to do with undergraduate programs.</p>
<p>However, if you go to the NRC/Chronicle pages ([NRC</a> Rankings Overview: History of Art, Architecture and Archaeology - Faculty - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/article/NRC-Rankings-Overview-History/124737/]NRC”>http://chronicle.com/article/NRC-Rankings-Overview-History/124737/)) you can isolate the “research” ranks from the ones influenced by graduate student demographic data. These show Chicago in the #3-#9 range for research,and WUSTL in the #22-#25 range. NRC reports “fuzzy” ranges like this to reflect uncertainty in the source statistics.</p>
<p>Should you care about these numbers? Well, maybe. These research rankings (and several other graduate program rankings) reflect the quality and quantity of faculty publications. **Chicago’s higher numbers suggest that, compared to WUSTL, its faculty is stronger in Art History with respect to publication volume and citation rates (how often their work is cited by other scholars). ** These numbers also reflect faculty grants and awards. </p>
<p>There has been some debate on CC about faculty research strength at the graduate level and what it does or does not tell us about undergraduate program quality. When you are talking about two selective, well-endowed private schools like WUSTL and Chicago, the faculty:student ratio is high, classes tend to be small, and teaching assistants have a limited role. It is relatively likely that top scholars at these schools actually teach undergraduates. The fact that a professor is a highly productive, frequently cited researcher does not necessarily mean that s/he is (or isn’t) a more engaging classroom teacher. Unfortunately, we cannot reliably measure that. So the bibliometric data is one of the best sources we have for measuring faculty strength. </p>
<p>Of course, many hard-to-measure factors affect teaching quality. Here is a profile of one Art Historian who won Chicago’s highest award for undergraduate teaching quality in 2010:
[Teaching</a> sparks innovation for Quantrell winners | The University of Chicago](<a href=“http://www.uchicago.edu/features/20100614_quantrell_english.shtml]Teaching”>http://www.uchicago.edu/features/20100614_quantrell_english.shtml)
I don’t know how one could score and rank universities for the qualities recognized by that award. Both Chicago and WUSTL get the rare “A+” ranking for overall “Academics” on the College Pr*wler site, if that’s any indication.</p>
<p>By the way, if you want a good city for studying art, why aren’t you looking at Columbia?</p>