Why have so many Chicagoans never heard of The University of Chicago? (Evanston: live in, education)

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by ajolotl

Interesting. In my particular field MIT destroys Harvard at the graduate/research level. There is no comparison. Cal Tech is a probably distant second. UC is top notch on theory but weak on the engineering aspect.

Well, I'm not saying Harvard is #1 is every single academic field. In particular, Harvard doesn't do engineering at all. Still all its professional schools are top notch, as well as physical and biologic sciences. Don't know squat about arts and literature, but I would guess that the playing field is more even there as money isn't as big a factor in English lit research versus Molecular Biology.

Besides, there's a fair bit of collaboration between Harvard/MIT as well as all the independent (but Harvard-affiliated) hospitals like Massachusetts General, Brigham and Women's, Beth Israel, etc.

[Lookout Kid]

U of C has no architecture program. Harvard does, though they just studied shopping with Rem Koolhass for many years. Screw both schools.

[coldwine]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

U of C has no architecture program. Harvard does, though they just studied shopping with Rem Koolhass for many years. Screw both schools.

I guess you can't make it big without a funny name.

I have such a boring, normal name. It's not "Rem" or "Ragnar" or "Siobhan". I'm so jealous

[EyesInTheSky]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

Well, I'm not saying Harvard is #1 is every single academic field. In particular, Harvard doesn't do engineering at all. Still all its professional schools are top notch, as well as physical and biologic sciences. Don't know squat about arts and literature, but I would guess that the playing field is more even there as money isn't as big a factor in English lit research versus Molecular Biology.

This is a very interesting thread. I'm a native Chicagoan and I also have the impression that many locals do not realize what a fantastic school the University of Chicago really is. Of course, I was born and raised in a working-class section of the south side, not the north side, so that might explain my perception. LOL

One of my main affiliations with UC was as a high school kid. They had a "weekend & summer scholars" program that I participated in, where we were sponsored to engage in some of the UC academic activities. It was a really cool program; they had a grant from I think Westinghouse and it paid for my transportation, meals, rooming, etc.. Like some others on this thread, I had the opportunity to attend the UC for my undergrad, but I elected to get my education in the Big Ten.

I now occasionally collaborate with UC researchers, including some UC-sponsored affiliate centers like TTI. In addition, some colleagues in my research group are Ivy League grads, in addition to Stanford, Cal Tech, Berkeley, MIT, and so forth. In my experience, UC grads are every bit as sharp as the Ivy Leaguers (and their west-coast counterparts). However, I think it's almost indisputable that Harvard is considered stronger than the UC. Gosh, last I heard the Harvard endowment alone was well over $30 billion (pre-market crash), which probably is more money than all the Big Ten endowments combined!

BTW, Harvard *does* have a school of engineering. They call it the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, or SEAS. In fact, the director of my research group got his PhD from SEAS. The Harvard engineering program is not large, such as those of the University of Illinois or University of Michigan, but it is of course extremely strong.

[Lookout Kid]

It's hard to argue that Harvard isn't a more well-regarded school that U of C. Yale and Princeton too. But I'm sure there are at least a few programs at U of C that are number one nationally. And several are in the top 10. I've specifically seen that their economics and sociology programs are strong. And the association with Argonne and fermilab definitely boosts their applied sciences programs.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Anthera

Correct, but UC does still retain the right to rejoin the Big Ten football conference at any time. And the Bears did steal the "Monsters of the Midway" nickname from UC's football team.

Very interesting. I never heard that. Do you have any idea where I could find information on that subject?

The problem with Hutchin's pulling out of the Big Ten was more related to PR than to athletics. In the best of all worlds, college sports would not be so like professional sports and such a major part of a university's persona. Obviously that is far more true today than in the 1940s when the U of C left the conference.

Still, unfortunate though it may be, athletics (football in particular) was a guiding light in helping to create the status of private universities, not only Ivy League, but in the early days of college football schools like Chicago, Notre Dame, and Stanford.

That Stanford, for example, still plays major college football and basketball helps keep its stellar academic program further highlighted by its athletic program being big time. And perhaps a better example that looks towards more at the second half of the 20th century than the first would be Duke. I doubt that Duke's academics would have made it as prominent as it is without that famed Blue Devil basketball program that has, no doubt, helped raise its academic status through pure publicity.

The U of C may have cut off its nose to spite its face, despite a far more admirable stance on college athletics that is far more consistent with the purpose of a university.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by chet everett

Why did so many Chicagoan vote for Blago? Why did ANY human being vote for the Toddler?

Same reason "real real real stupid" in great abundance...

Easy to forgot how many there are when you work in academia.

a nation that elected (sorta) Bush and then incredibly reelected (sorta) him has no right to criticize Illinois for electing Blago.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by coldwine

I don't say this simply because The University of Chicago is my alma mater, but... UC blows Harvard out of the water.

Harvard is a two-bit institution that pumps out civil service workers like a sausage factory. Law schools across the country are arguably the same, with the exception of where recruiters are looking for students.

Harvard has a superior physical sciences program, and its scientific research is far advanced-- UC doesn't really focus on that. But for hardcore academics, for actually teaching students out of care and concern and passion, Harvard isn't even in the top twenty schools in this country.

UC is in the top five, I guaranty.

Don't know if I 'd go along with the Harvard observation, but suffice it to say that U of C's unusual mission (and perhaps the best mission a university could have despite its rareness) is to provide a well rounded education for people who graduate who are not so much prepared for jobs, but for being a thinking, questioning, well rounded individual who is ready for the rigors of life....even the jobs to which it did not specifically see as being its goal to prepare them for.

The trick with the U of C when looking at USN&WR or other ratings is to avoid the overall and concentrate on the academic reputation. Arguably no school does it better.

[edsg25]

While this thread is about the U of C, it has discussed my alma mater, UIC, and the confusion of names.

I'm not trying to hijack the thread here, just make the following observation:

Despite the comments here, I believe that UIC actually doesn't have the name recognition it should, at least in Chicagoland if not in Chicago. Again, I think athletics may have something to do with it since there is no football and basketball is 1-A. What amazes me, considering the power and draw of Chicago, is how little UIC makes of a statewide presence. Downstate students who have the advantage of going to a major public university with instate tutition in Chicago exceeds the offerings of all but a few states. No public university in the Midwest outside Illinois affords its students such an opportunity to be in a vibrant, global city.

Personally I think that the most absurd way to name a university is Univ of ___ @ _____. That harms the flagship of the system (as in UIUC which should be plain old "University of Illinois" with no city name to weaken its state wide role. Mizzou recently went from the Univ of Missouri Columbia back to its original name, Univ of Missouri, for just such reason).

The other schools in the system end up sounding like branches so they too are hurt with the flagship in the name game. UIC would be far better off as Lincoln University (or a variant) or Burnham University, or something else when it comes to name recognition.

If there is a fault in this name game, it goes to UCLA, the school that started it all and became so successful that it made it appear others could play the alphabet that way and succeed.

They can't. And besides, UC of all university systems at least has system wide recognition that transfers to all institutions within, albeit with less of the reputation of Cal or UCLA. In contrast, UW Madison's reputation has no real effect on the other UW campuses since UW doesn't have UC's branding or strong sense of mission and over-all academic reputation.

Outside of California, I can't think of a better university (besides the flagships, of course) that have the Univ of ___ @ ___ name than UIC. I don't see any, including UWM, UNLV, UAB, UTEP, etc., that are that good.

[snoylekim]

<<Outside of California, I can't think of a better university (besides the flagships, of course) that have the Univ of ___ @ ___ name than UIC. I don't see any, including UWM, UNLV, UAB, UTEP, etc., that are that good.
>>

What about good old 'woogie - boogie ' ( UWGB) ... ?? Or IUPUI ??? There's some implicit brand recognition there that just can't be foreseen ..