What do people consider the most prestigious college in the Midwest?

[Anonymous]

How was this thread continued for 19 pages?

Geez.

[Anonymous]

One of the ND boosters here. I'm not arguing that UChicago isn't a world class institution and one of the very best universities in this country. That would be silly. What I take issue with is the posters who dismiss Notre Dame notwithstanding its top 10-15 ranking in every quantifiable measure that counts: selectivity, endowment, etc. Yes, they're good at sports, but so is Duke, Stanford, UVA, etc. That a school can be both highly selective and have an outstanding sports program isn't a negative -- it's a positive. People care about these things.

[Anonymous]

Washington University

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many elite colleges don’t have engineering programs either. That does not mean that MIT isn’t elite.

Notre Dame holds its own with virtually any university in the country outside of the top five. To suggest otherwise is to be decades behind the times. Or to be an anti-Catholic bigot . . .

I am Catholic and send my kids to a Catholic school. I also was on our hiring committee for years. Chicago blows ND out of the water. ND is a bro school.

Maybe it depends on the industry. People keep talking about how the academics at Chicago are sooo much better. And maybe they are. But when I'm hiring someone, I'm not hiring them solely on academics. That's why the 4.0 kid doesn't always get hired over the 3.5 kid. Yes, academics play a role, but so too does emotional intelligence. Can they work as a team? Can I trust them to do well with our clients (e.g. be personable, not awkward, etc.)? Are they good at building relationships with others? And sorry, but there is a large contingent of UChicago kids for whom that is just not true.

Having attended both, I would slightly counter your argument and say that I think the difference lies in the perspectives & underlying constructs of each school. My thought is that ND teaches you how to be a good team player more, and how to systematically fit into well-defined systems and corporate constructs more -- the knowing where the lines are drawn and in not overstepping them. It's a little more of a follow the rules type of school and mentality, which is not all that bad. But I would not characterize it as a think outside of the box type of school -- probably more a status quo school on many fronts. Many kids need that underlying stability in college, and ND delivers that in spades.

UChicago, by contrast (and again in my opinion), encourages more independent and outside of the box thinking. It teaches you how to be a leader (or a better leader) and thought-provider; to forge a path for yourself and to blaze new ways of thinking, empowerment, and social construct for this society, world and beyond. I think this ties in with what you are saying about how you tend to view UChicago students as not fitting in to more mainstream managerial environments and traditional role play. I think UChicago students fit in alright, but more as the leaders and guiders on thought and action at their companies, or in industry, policy and governance. That's the premise underlying a UChicago education -- that focus on inquiry -- and that is what its President espouses as his vision for the University and its global educational impact (at least that has been my takeaway, but I could be wrong).

I love both almas dearly, but they are very, very different -- different in outlook, different in student base, and different in paths and methods to professional success. To be a student who wants to work within the contours of a traditional system and to abide by it (and have others follow along as well), you go to ND. You cannot go wrong. It is a lovely place for an 18 year old to figure out life in a very nurturing and supportive way. But to be a student who already sort of has that prescient leaning, and who wants to shape ideas, lead movements, define academic thought and industry proaction, to be able to question the status quo, and to delve in the uncomfortable at times, you definitely go to UChicago because that is why you are selected, and that is what is expected of you and your classmates while there.

UChicago is far more global in makeup and in vision, and in its embrace of the unknown and in the chartering of new territories and grounds for imbuing change (think Edwin Hubble and his telescopes or Second City Improv with Nichols and May). It's not afraid to question traditional thinking or structures on things. It's not afraid in being the first in a field (like improv, deep space exploration or atom bomb stuff) -- not afraid to risk it all at forging a new path. There is no mistaking UChicago's thought leadership and ability to shape world, professional, political and civic action and thought. That is what it does and it does it quite well. You can be a feminist or anarchist at UChicago. You can lead a revolution at UChicago. You can believe in another way at UChicago and it's pretty much accepted.

For the quintessential traditional U.S. college experience, it's hard to beat the warmth, phenomenal beauty and idealism of ND. The level of comfort and tradition offered -- from the folklore, the four horsemen/Gipper, the beautiful dome and grotto, top notch athletics, and the mysticism of the Catholic Church and its teachings --provide warmth and plenty of feel-good and security. I know that's why I chose it. At UChicago, with a campus no less beautiful and achievements and lore no less astounding, many students just hit the ground running already with these lessons already learned in many cases.

Two totally different environments, one no better than the other in my opinion. If you want to follow creed, you go to ND. If you are brave enough to question, transform, better, or suspend & upend traditional thought, UChicago may be the place for you. And if you're like me, you enjoy them both!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Washington University

I went to Washington University.

It's a great school, but I don't think it's nearly as well known to the general public as Notre Dame.

From the perspective of people who are into school prestige rankings, I don't think it has as much raw academic prestige as the University of Chicago. Maybe it's comparable to Northwestern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How was this thread continued for 19 pages?

Geez.

Welcome to DCUM.

[Anonymous]

With this definition:

pres·tig·ious
pre?st?j?s,pre?stij?s/
adjective
inspiring respect and admiration; having high status

Notre Dame would be the hands down winner for MOST Americans

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many elite colleges don’t have engineering programs either. That does not mean that MIT isn’t elite.

Notre Dame holds its own with virtually any university in the country outside of the top five. To suggest otherwise is to be decades behind the times. Or to be an anti-Catholic bigot . . .

I am Catholic and send my kids to a Catholic school. I also was on our hiring committee for years. Chicago blows ND out of the water. ND is a bro school.

Maybe it depends on the industry. People keep talking about how the academics at Chicago are sooo much better. And maybe they are. But when I'm hiring someone, I'm not hiring them solely on academics. That's why the 4.0 kid doesn't always get hired over the 3.5 kid. Yes, academics play a role, but so too does emotional intelligence. Can they work as a team? Can I trust them to do well with our clients (e.g. be personable, not awkward, etc.)? Are they good at building relationships with others? And sorry, but there is a large contingent of UChicago kids for whom that is just not true.

Having attended both, I would slightly counter your argument and say that I think the difference lies in the perspectives & underlying constructs of each school. My thought is that ND teaches you how to be a good team player more, and how to systematically fit into well-defined systems and corporate constructs more -- the knowing where the lines are drawn and in not overstepping them. It's a little more of a follow the rules type of school and mentality, which is not all that bad. But I would not characterize it as a think outside of the box type of school -- probably more a status quo school on many fronts. Many kids need that underlying stability in college, and ND delivers that in spades.

UChicago, by contrast (and again in my opinion), encourages more independent and outside of the box thinking. It teaches you how to be a leader (or a better leader) and thought-provider; to forge a path for yourself and to blaze new ways of thinking, empowerment, and social construct for this society, world and beyond. I think this ties in with what you are saying about how you tend to view UChicago students as not fitting in to more mainstream managerial environments and traditional role play. I think UChicago students fit in alright, but more as the leaders and guiders on thought and action at their companies, or in industry, policy and governance. That's the premise underlying a UChicago education -- that focus on inquiry -- and that is what its President espouses as his vision for the University and its global educational impact (at least that has been my takeaway, but I could be wrong).

I love both almas dearly, but they are very, very different -- different in outlook, different in student base, and different in paths and methods to professional success. To be a student who wants to work within the contours of a traditional system and to abide by it (and have others follow along as well), you go to ND. You cannot go wrong. It is a lovely place for an 18 year old to figure out life in a very nurturing and supportive way. But to be a student who already sort of has that prescient leaning, and who wants to shape ideas, lead movements, define academic thought and industry proaction, to be able to question the status quo, and to delve in the uncomfortable at times, you definitely go to UChicago because that is why you are selected, and that is what is expected of you and your classmates while there.

UChicago is far more global in makeup and in vision, and in its embrace of the unknown and in the chartering of new territories and grounds for imbuing change (think Edwin Hubble and his telescopes or Second City Improv with Nichols and May). It's not afraid to question traditional thinking or structures on things. It's not afraid in being the first in a field (like improv, deep space exploration or atom bomb stuff) -- not afraid to risk it all at forging a new path. There is no mistaking UChicago's thought leadership and ability to shape world, professional, political and civic action and thought. That is what it does and it does it quite well. You can be a feminist or anarchist at UChicago. You can lead a revolution at UChicago. You can believe in another way at UChicago and it's pretty much accepted.

For the quintessential traditional U.S. college experience, it's hard to beat the warmth, phenomenal beauty and idealism of ND. The level of comfort and tradition offered -- from the folklore, the four horsemen/Gipper, the beautiful dome and grotto, top notch athletics, and the mysticism of the Catholic Church and its teachings --provide warmth and plenty of feel-good and security. I know that's why I chose it. At UChicago, with a campus no less beautiful and achievements and lore no less astounding, many students just hit the ground running already with these lessons already learned in many cases.

Two totally different environments, one no better than the other in my opinion. If you want to follow creed, you go to ND. If you are brave enough to question, transform, better, or suspend & upend traditional thought, UChicago may be the place for you. And if you're like me, you enjoy them both!

Beautiful post and spot on! Thank you (I have no affiliation with either but am in the higher ed field)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many elite colleges don’t have engineering programs either. That does not mean that MIT isn’t elite.

Notre Dame holds its own with virtually any university in the country outside of the top five. To suggest otherwise is to be decades behind the times. Or to be an anti-Catholic bigot . . .

I am Catholic and send my kids to a Catholic school. I also was on our hiring committee for years. Chicago blows ND out of the water. ND is a bro school.

Maybe it depends on the industry. People keep talking about how the academics at Chicago are sooo much better. And maybe they are. But when I'm hiring someone, I'm not hiring them solely on academics. That's why the 4.0 kid doesn't always get hired over the 3.5 kid. Yes, academics play a role, but so too does emotional intelligence. Can they work as a team? Can I trust them to do well with our clients (e.g. be personable, not awkward, etc.)? Are they good at building relationships with others? And sorry, but there is a large contingent of UChicago kids for whom that is just not true.

Having attended both, I would slightly counter your argument and say that I think the difference lies in the perspectives & underlying constructs of each school. My thought is that ND teaches you how to be a good team player more, and how to systematically fit into well-defined systems and corporate constructs more -- the knowing where the lines are drawn and in not overstepping them. It's a little more of a follow the rules type of school and mentality, which is not all that bad. But I would not characterize it as a think outside of the box type of school -- probably more a status quo school on many fronts. Many kids need that underlying stability in college, and ND delivers that in spades.

UChicago, by contrast (and again in my opinion), encourages more independent and outside of the box thinking. It teaches you how to be a leader (or a better leader) and thought-provider; to forge a path for yourself and to blaze new ways of thinking, empowerment, and social construct for this society, world and beyond. I think this ties in with what you are saying about how you tend to view UChicago students as not fitting in to more mainstream managerial environments and traditional role play. I think UChicago students fit in alright, but more as the leaders and guiders on thought and action at their companies, or in industry, policy and governance. That's the premise underlying a UChicago education -- that focus on inquiry -- and that is what its President espouses as his vision for the University and its global educational impact (at least that has been my takeaway, but I could be wrong).

I love both almas dearly, but they are very, very different -- different in outlook, different in student base, and different in paths and methods to professional success. To be a student who wants to work within the contours of a traditional system and to abide by it (and have others follow along as well), you go to ND. You cannot go wrong. It is a lovely place for an 18 year old to figure out life in a very nurturing and supportive way. But to be a student who already sort of has that prescient leaning, and who wants to shape ideas, lead movements, define academic thought and industry proaction, to be able to question the status quo, and to delve in the uncomfortable at times, you definitely go to UChicago because that is why you are selected, and that is what is expected of you and your classmates while there.

UChicago is far more global in makeup and in vision, and in its embrace of the unknown and in the chartering of new territories and grounds for imbuing change (think Edwin Hubble and his telescopes or Second City Improv with Nichols and May). It's not afraid to question traditional thinking or structures on things. It's not afraid in being the first in a field (like improv, deep space exploration or atom bomb stuff) -- not afraid to risk it all at forging a new path. There is no mistaking UChicago's thought leadership and ability to shape world, professional, political and civic action and thought. That is what it does and it does it quite well. You can be a feminist or anarchist at UChicago. You can lead a revolution at UChicago. You can believe in another way at UChicago and it's pretty much accepted.

For the quintessential traditional U.S. college experience, it's hard to beat the warmth, phenomenal beauty and idealism of ND. The level of comfort and tradition offered -- from the folklore, the four horsemen/Gipper, the beautiful dome and grotto, top notch athletics, and the mysticism of the Catholic Church and its teachings --provide warmth and plenty of feel-good and security. I know that's why I chose it. At UChicago, with a campus no less beautiful and achievements and lore no less astounding, many students just hit the ground running already with these lessons already learned in many cases.

Two totally different environments, one no better than the other in my opinion. If you want to follow creed, you go to ND. If you are brave enough to question, transform, better, or suspend & upend traditional thought, UChicago may be the place for you. And if you're like me, you enjoy them both!

Beautiful post and spot on! Thank you (I have no affiliation with either but am in the higher ed field)

I disagree. I think this draws on pre-concieved notions about what is conventional and about the schools themselves. Who is more "inside the box", the kid leaving UChicago to go work for Goldman Sachs (per 2016 outcomes report, one of their largest employers. In fact 38% of graduates go into finance or consulting, far higher than any other category) or the ND kid going to the Peace Corps, or Military (ND is a top producer for both), or Teach for America? Not that there are not plenty of finance kids at ND and plenty of kids doing interesting things after Chicago, but it is not nearly as clear cut and stereotypical as you seem to lay out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many elite colleges don’t have engineering programs either. That does not mean that MIT isn’t elite.

Notre Dame holds its own with virtually any university in the country outside of the top five. To suggest otherwise is to be decades behind the times. Or to be an anti-Catholic bigot . . .

I am Catholic and send my kids to a Catholic school. I also was on our hiring committee for years. Chicago blows ND out of the water. ND is a bro school.

Maybe it depends on the industry. People keep talking about how the academics at Chicago are sooo much better. And maybe they are. But when I'm hiring someone, I'm not hiring them solely on academics. That's why the 4.0 kid doesn't always get hired over the 3.5 kid. Yes, academics play a role, but so too does emotional intelligence. Can they work as a team? Can I trust them to do well with our clients (e.g. be personable, not awkward, etc.)? Are they good at building relationships with others? And sorry, but there is a large contingent of UChicago kids for whom that is just not true.

Having attended both, I would slightly counter your argument and say that I think the difference lies in the perspectives & underlying constructs of each school. My thought is that ND teaches you how to be a good team player more, and how to systematically fit into well-defined systems and corporate constructs more -- the knowing where the lines are drawn and in not overstepping them. It's a little more of a follow the rules type of school and mentality, which is not all that bad. But I would not characterize it as a think outside of the box type of school -- probably more a status quo school on many fronts. Many kids need that underlying stability in college, and ND delivers that in spades.

UChicago, by contrast (and again in my opinion), encourages more independent and outside of the box thinking. It teaches you how to be a leader (or a better leader) and thought-provider; to forge a path for yourself and to blaze new ways of thinking, empowerment, and social construct for this society, world and beyond. I think this ties in with what you are saying about how you tend to view UChicago students as not fitting in to more mainstream managerial environments and traditional role play. I think UChicago students fit in alright, but more as the leaders and guiders on thought and action at their companies, or in industry, policy and governance. That's the premise underlying a UChicago education -- that focus on inquiry -- and that is what its President espouses as his vision for the University and its global educational impact (at least that has been my takeaway, but I could be wrong).

I love both almas dearly, but they are very, very different -- different in outlook, different in student base, and different in paths and methods to professional success. To be a student who wants to work within the contours of a traditional system and to abide by it (and have others follow along as well), you go to ND. You cannot go wrong. It is a lovely place for an 18 year old to figure out life in a very nurturing and supportive way. But to be a student who already sort of has that prescient leaning, and who wants to shape ideas, lead movements, define academic thought and industry proaction, to be able to question the status quo, and to delve in the uncomfortable at times, you definitely go to UChicago because that is why you are selected, and that is what is expected of you and your classmates while there.

UChicago is far more global in makeup and in vision, and in its embrace of the unknown and in the chartering of new territories and grounds for imbuing change (think Edwin Hubble and his telescopes or Second City Improv with Nichols and May). It's not afraid to question traditional thinking or structures on things. It's not afraid in being the first in a field (like improv, deep space exploration or atom bomb stuff) -- not afraid to risk it all at forging a new path. There is no mistaking UChicago's thought leadership and ability to shape world, professional, political and civic action and thought. That is what it does and it does it quite well. You can be a feminist or anarchist at UChicago. You can lead a revolution at UChicago. You can believe in another way at UChicago and it's pretty much accepted.

For the quintessential traditional U.S. college experience, it's hard to beat the warmth, phenomenal beauty and idealism of ND. The level of comfort and tradition offered -- from the folklore, the four horsemen/Gipper, the beautiful dome and grotto, top notch athletics, and the mysticism of the Catholic Church and its teachings --provide warmth and plenty of feel-good and security. I know that's why I chose it. At UChicago, with a campus no less beautiful and achievements and lore no less astounding, many students just hit the ground running already with these lessons already learned in many cases.

Two totally different environments, one no better than the other in my opinion. If you want to follow creed, you go to ND. If you are brave enough to question, transform, better, or suspend & upend traditional thought, UChicago may be the place for you. And if you're like me, you enjoy them both!

Beautiful post and spot on! Thank you (I have no affiliation with either but am in the higher ed field)

I disagree. I think this draws on pre-concieved notions about what is conventional and about the schools themselves. Who is more "inside the box", the kid leaving UChicago to go work for Goldman Sachs (per 2016 outcomes report, one of their largest employers. In fact 38% of graduates go into finance or consulting, far higher than any other category) or the ND kid going to the Peace Corps, or Military (ND is a top producer for both), or Teach for America? Not that there are not plenty of finance kids at ND and plenty of kids doing interesting things after Chicago, but it is not nearly as clear cut and stereotypical as you seem to lay out.

PP here. I think I beg to differ a bit on your perspective. I think I have a pretty good take on both schools, and have friends who have attended both like myself. You will always have your outliers. But by and large, I stand by my assessment of the schools and their cultures. They are completely different overall. Again, that is not to say that one is better than the other. Just that they emphasize overall different experiences.

[Anonymous]

I read the comparative post as an analysis of two different cultures/environments/ethics and which types of kids would appreciate/get the most out of each. I think PP’s take is on target, but it’s also true that, in the cosmic scheme of things, two expensive/prestigious/highly selective/internationally known private colleges in the Midwest that attract extremely high performing kids with upper middle class backgrounds or aspirations are going to have a lot of overlap in terms of undergrad outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With this definition:

pres·tig·ious
pre?st?j?s,pre?stij?s/
adjective
inspiring respect and admiration; having high status

Notre Dame would be the hands down winner for MOST Americans

Lots of high status signifiers are things MOST people don’t know about. Their cachet comes from only those in the know appreciating/having access to them.

[Anonymous]

I’ve never met a happy UChicago alum. The cyber boosters are all crazy Tiger moms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve never met a happy UChicago alum. The cyber boosters are all crazy Tiger moms.

In contrast - have you ever met an UNhappy ND grad. Not my school, but those who went there love ND.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve never met a happy UChicago alum. The cyber boosters are all crazy Tiger moms.

In contrast - have you ever met an UNhappy ND grad. Not my school, but those who went there love ND.

I know quite a few very happy UChicago alums, including myself.
And I know quite a lot of unhappy ND grads (and lots of happy ones to).

hey are both fantastic schools and proud to have them both as my almas.