Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Chicago, Wash U, Northwestern and Notre Dame are all prestigious.
I grew up in the Midwest, and no one would rank ND in the same class as UChicago and Northwestern.
It's interesting, though. Discussions about where to apply here on DCUM always include UChicago and UMich. Northwestern is barely mentioned...and Wash U and ND almost never. Not sure what that means...
But I would pick UChicago and UMich overall. UIUC for engineering only. Purdue for engineering, but lower than the other three.
Grinnell and Carleton for LACs.
It means ND is a Catholic school so only Catholics rank it high. It's like saying BYU is the best in the mid-west/Utah area. Yes, it's a premier destination for those in the faith but not so much for others.
Anonymous wrote:Notre Dame isn’t known for being intellectual but to the masses it has a lot of cachet. Especially in the Midwest.
Nobody gives a damn about Chicago. Most have never heard of it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:U. Chicago is a weirdly divisive subject. I don’t get it.
It’s a reflection of the deep ambivalence in the US re whether “elite” colleges are those that educate the richest or the smartest kids. Ironically, this polarization is happening as Chicago becomes richer (and Princeton becomes smarter, and Harvard becomes more economically diverse while Stanford has become both richer and smarter). Basically, at least in terms of admissions, there’s a lot of convergence now among schools that were originally developed on very different models.
Top colleges have cachet because parents want their kids mixing with rich and connected peers. And rich and connected families donate the most. Chicago’s endowment is relatively low and the student body is too poor and middle class to have the elite cachet its top 20 Midwest peers Notre Dame and Northwestern enjoy. Even huge public Michigan has a far wealthier student body.
Your argument is UChicago is recruiting smart poorer kids by choice? Doubtful. It’s because rich smart kids target schools with elite cachet and rich peer student body. Now if you think UChicago’s recruiting philosophy is better, where’s the proof? Show us outcomes that recruiting more poorer smart kids leads to superior graduate outcomes. Spoiler: it doesn’t.
Wow, I hope you’re making lots of money because your college education didn’t include reading comprehension, much less critical thinking!
) when really it’s because the college is most appealing to poor and middle class grinds, many Indian and Asian — not the smart and rich HHI who flock to more prestigious campuses. Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Chicago, Wash U, Northwestern and Notre Dame are all prestigious.
I grew up in the Midwest, and no one would rank ND in the same class as UChicago and Northwestern.
It's interesting, though. Discussions about where to apply here on DCUM always include UChicago and UMich. Northwestern is barely mentioned...and Wash U and ND almost never. Not sure what that means...
But I would pick UChicago and UMich overall. UIUC for engineering only. Purdue for engineering, but lower than the other three.
Grinnell and Carleton for LACs.
Anonymous wrote:Wisconsin-Madison.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Top colleges have cachet because parents want their kids mixing with rich and connected peers. And rich and connected families donate the most. Chicago’s endowment is relatively low and the student body is too poor and middle class to have the elite cachet its top 20 Midwest peers Notre Dame and Northwestern enjoy. Even huge public Michigan has a far wealthier student body.
Some of us have different definitions of elite. Those who are dumping on both Chicago and, earlier in the thread, Oberlin (which I attended), come across as anti-intellectual. Both of these schools have a track record of drawing kids who are notably smart and--equally notably--uninterested with money and with following the herd. Both are wildly overrepresented (esp Oberlin, given its size) among Macarthur "genius" grant recipients
https://www.macfound.org/media/files/MacArthur_Fellows_-_Undergraduate_Degrees_1.pdf
Both schools rank high in percent of students who go on to earn doctorates--so do Carleton and Grinnell:
https://www.swarthmore.edu/institutional-research/doctorates-awarded
And both are really not for everyone. Which is fine. But in my field and my world, both schools have a reputation for being pretty special.
Anonymous wrote:Chicago, Wash U, Northwestern and Notre Dame are all prestigious.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Notre Dame? Northwestern? Michigan?
This ranking, which seems reasonable to me, would put them in this order: Chicago, Michigan, Illinois and Northwestern. Notre Dame does not rank in the top 50in the world.
Anonymous wrote:
Top colleges have cachet because parents want their kids mixing with rich and connected peers. And rich and connected families donate the most. Chicago’s endowment is relatively low and the student body is too poor and middle class to have the elite cachet its top 20 Midwest peers Notre Dame and Northwestern enjoy. Even huge public Michigan has a far wealthier student body.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Chicago for sure.
Oberlin for small liberal arts undergrad.
Oberlin? Sorry, no. Carleton and Grinnell.
I've never even heard of those latter two colleges.
If that's true, you are not an authority on colleges in the midwest.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:U. Chicago is a weirdly divisive subject. I don’t get it.
It’s a reflection of the deep ambivalence in the US re whether “elite” colleges are those that educate the richest or the smartest kids. Ironically, this polarization is happening as Chicago becomes richer (and Princeton becomes smarter, and Harvard becomes more economically diverse while Stanford has become both richer and smarter). Basically, at least in terms of admissions, there’s a lot of convergence now among schools that were originally developed on very different models.
Top colleges have cachet because parents want their kids mixing with rich and connected peers. And rich and connected families donate the most. Chicago’s endowment is relatively low and the student body is too poor and middle class to have the elite cachet its top 20 Midwest peers Notre Dame and Northwestern enjoy. Even huge public Michigan has a far wealthier student body.
Your argument is UChicago is recruiting smart poorer kids by choice? Doubtful. It’s because rich smart kids target schools with elite cachet and rich peer student body. Now if you think UChicago’s recruiting philosophy is better, where’s the proof? Show us outcomes that recruiting more poorer smart kids leads to superior graduate outcomes. Spoiler: it doesn’t.