Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Get over it. I mistakenly left off the 'e' in the name. If you want to play this little game, I'll just go out of my way to point out any spelling or grammar mistakes in your posts from now on.
When did I ever refer to Northwestern as "Northwest University"? Please show this, would you?
I don't think it would be possible for me to care less about this issue. I haven't attended any of these institutions we're discussing, and I probably never will. I'm also willing to bet that YOU haven't attended any of them either, so why beat your chest so hard over the matter? My point, and I believe grapico's point, was to demonstrate that SF isn't as far above CHI in education as you guys like to tell yourselves you are.
Right. Of course it was a mistake. And that's called an example, not sure why you couldn't understand.
Maybe you couldn't get into any of them. I've never said SF was far above Chicago, with UChic predominantly (stellar depts. found in Booth/law/physics/sociology/econ, although the last one is currently experiencing a downturn, in light of freshwater macroeconomic failure), is arguably a top five educational city. I was admitted to three of the four schools mentioned (didn't apply to one of them, since it isn't particularly strong in either area I intend to study). Can't say the same thing for you, last time I checked, you go to some school in Wisconsin. Doesn't see how that qualifies you to even debate this, geographically/academically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico
If you think USNews is bad, should check out the hate on how the UK biased Times ranking is...
AWRU is pretty decent, but they have an extremely heavy engineering and science slant....(comes out of China)
There are too many variables, often quality of dept comes down to 1 or 2 leaders in the field on faculty.
The ARWU ranking is known to be the most widely used annual ranking of the world’s universities, and is more focused on purely objective factors like academic performance and research than more subjective ones. So it doesn't have a 'heavy engineering and science slant' per se, but an academic/research one, in which sciences or engineering yield more concrete results than say, liberal arts.
well honestly I believe chicago is an all around better city...sanfran has better weather.....Chicago is "Chicago"..This city fathered skyscrapers..is home to some of the most iconic teams and players in history. Its diverse, exciting, and cheaper than living on the coasts. We can talk culture, food etc all day and chicago has it all...there is really nothing that any of the other cities possess that chicago doesn't..over all sanfran just doesn't compare
Both are excellent cities for food and culture. You can say you prefer one over the other, but to say theyre not comparable is just flat-out wrong.
The ARWU ranking is known to be the most widely used annual ranking of the world’s universities, and is more focused on purely objective factors like academic performance and research than more subjective ones. So it doesn't have a 'heavy engineering and science slant' per se, but an academic/research one, in which sciences or engineering yield more concrete results than say, liberal arts.
Chicago makes more sense financially! Chicago is like SF in a lot of other respects... racial/ethnic diversity, good public transport, walkability, public parks, nightlife. The weather and flatness put Chicago at a disadvantage, but the cost of living is so much more reasonable for a big city.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 15,928,719 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geostud
Chicago makes more sense financially! Chicago is like SF in a lot of other respects... racial/ethnic diversity, good public transport, walkability, public parks, nightlife. The weather and flatness put Chicago at a disadvantage, but the cost of living is so much more reasonable for a big city.
Right. Of course it was a mistake. And that's called an example, not sure why you couldn't understand.
Maybe you couldn't get into any of them. I've never said SF was far above Chicago, with UChic predominantly (stellar depts. found in Booth/law/physics/sociology/econ, although the last one is currently experiencing a downturn, in light of freshwater macroeconomic failure), is arguably a top five educational city. I was admitted to three of the four schools mentioned (didn't apply to one of them, since it isn't particularly strong in either area I intend to study). Can't say the same thing for you, last time I checked, you go to some school in Wisconsin. Doesn't see how that qualifies you to even debate this, geographically/academically.
The ARWU ranking is known to be the most widely used annual ranking of the world’s universities, and is more focused on purely objective factors like academic performance and research than more subjective ones. So it doesn't have a 'heavy engineering and science slant' per se, but an academic/research one, in which sciences or engineering yield more concrete results than say, liberal arts.
Arizona State on the same level as the University of Virginia? Really?
Both are excellent cities for food and culture. You can say you prefer one over the other, but to say theyre not comparable is just flat-out wrong.
Tied in that respect, with only NYC ahead. While Chicago isn't a Michelin-starred city, which it constantly gets snubbed for, it's probably the only city left that deserves to be included along with the current American Michelin lineup of NYC/SF/LA/LV. Achatz's Alinea alone puts Chic on the culinary map (Achatz having trained under Keller at The French Laundry in Napa), and I've heard ridiculous things about Schwa, both versed in the style of molecular gastronomy.
I don't see that at all, aside from the Niners I don't see what Bay Area team is as iconic as any of the Chicago teams. The Bulls and Cubs are more iconic and have a more interesting history than any of their Bay Area counterparts. People outside the Bay Area really don't care much about its teams.
But at the same time who really cares about Chicago's teams outside of that area, aside from the Bulls? Aren't the Cubs basically a laughing stock? People out here sure don't care about Chicago teams for the most part. I have one friend who's been a Bears fan since the days of "Sweetness," but other than that I don't know any, and I'm not aware of any huge following like the Cowboys or Yankees have. The Bulls of course were to basketball IMO the equivalent of what the Niners were to football back then, but other than that I don't really come across a major Chicago sports team following.
The Raiders, although widely despised, have a huge nationwide following much larger than the Bears do (to the best of my knowledge), and I think the whole "Bash Brothers" era for the A's had them pretty large in the public eye for quite some time. Giants weren't bad back then with Will Clark/Kevin Mitchell and crew too. And the Warriors, although perpetually a major let down to their fans, had their moments like the Run-TMC era and the more recent playoff run when their bandwagon was developing.
Aside from the Bulls, I don't really think of the Chicago teams as being among the most iconic in the 3 main pro sports (I don't follow hockey a whole lot so I won't even speak on that), but I don't see how the Bay's teams are any less iconic than Chicago's. From my perspective, as far as the most iconic of each areas teams go its Niners>Bulls>Raiders>Bears. I'm not just talking team victories or anything like that. I'm talking about overall popularity and accomplishments coupled with legendary athletes. I think the Niners resume, HOF roster, Pro Bowl/All Pro roster, and former overall popularity puts them at the top of the list. That's my opinion anyway.
The 49ers are a huge one. They are perhaps the most iconic team in all of sports history. Top 5 for sure. The Giants, excluding their tenure in NY, are more iconic, have had better teams, and more prestigious players far exceeding the cubs imo. The same is true for the A's over the White Sox and the Raiders are over the Bears as well. The Bulls are of course more iconic than the Warriors and the Blackhawks over the Sharks too, but it stops there.
I could care less about Chicago teams or any other teams for that matter. Anyways a diehard fan only cares about the teams that they love--their teams. Most people in any metro who are fans of that metros' team could really care less about other metros' teams.
Also the Raiders and 49ers sell more apparell historically (not sure about today) than any teams in Chicago. Raiders apparell is probaly the most recognizable team apparel in football and the most popular as well.
For better or worse, I fully agree with all of the above.
Both are excellent cities for food and culture. You can say you prefer one over the other, but to say theyre not comparable is just flat-out wrong.
Agreed!
If someone prefers one over the other then that's all good, but the claims of one being so far out of the other's league in most cases is inaccurate and unnecessary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.