How do you compare the campuses of Chicago and Northwestern?

Does the U of C far surpass NU because of its exquisite gothic architecture, unified and planned? Does the Midway make a showcase for the school's setting that NU cannot match?

Does NU gain points for an eclectic mix of buildings or is this a negative?

How about its lakefront setting, does that give NU an advantage over the U of C and the vast majority of schools?

Does the U of C score on how it is weaved into the Hyde Park neighborhood and the intellectual area that it presents. How about NU? Is the more collegiate Big Ten atmosphere a plus the U of C doesn't have?

How about Evanston's cool downtown; Chicago doesn't have this amenity the way that Northwestern does. Does it count?

Tough question. They're both winners in so many different categories. The architecture at UC is nothing short of spectacular... while NU's is just mediocre (IMO). I also love that UC looks like a true campus, yet it's smack in the middle of the city. NU, on the other hand, is breathtaking because of the lake... and the true college atmosphere that comes with a big athletics program takes the University to another level.

Overall, I've got to give my vote to UofC, simply for the sheer number of world-class amenities on, and surrounding, the campus (Museum of S&I, Oriental Institute, etc)... but, Northwestern is pretty kick-ass in its own right.

I spent some time at U of C.

It is a better University (academically, except for the business school, which is just slightly lower ranked)

As I have mentioned before, I love Hyde Park. It is one of Chicago's most "Chicago-like" neighborhoods.

U of C's architecture is more "Ivy League" and fitting for a top university.

NU is in Evanston, a great suburb. But why the suburbs? To make up for it, however, NU has established its business, Law, med school, and its hospitals in downtown Chicago. U of Chicago, however, has very little downtown presence.

Thus, I am facing a dilemma. I am going to have to chug a few drinks and think about this.. :cheers2:

What about DePaul? Loyola? Both have beautiful urban settings. I don't think that they are quite Northwestern or UC but they should be in the discussion.

OK. But only if UIC gets into the mix, too.

Ugh... as a current UIC student (and loyalist)... it pains me to say this. UIC doesn't belong in the same discussion as UC and NU (or even DePaul and Loyola) if you're talking about campus presence. UIC's campus just plain sucks - unless you're into brutalism... then it might be a little slice of heaven for you.

The U of C campus has an impressive centerpiece: the Main Quadrangle in which 95% of the buildings are done in a unified gothic style. Even more impressive is the fact that this Main Quadrangle includes most of the classroom buildings for the undergraduate college, a library for the college, what serves as the de facto "Student Union" on a campus that doesn't have such a thing, and an undergrad dormitory.

From there, the campus is not as successful. The gothic theme is only intermittent beyond the Main Quadrangle and the modern buildings beyond are a mixed bag of solid, yet generally bland buildings (e.g. Crerar Library and Mies Van der Rohe's School of Social Service Admin.); eye-poppingly ugly buildings (e.g. Hinds Hall, which is the 10-story one with the red-brick "smokestacks ringing its exterior, and Pierce Tower dorm); and now a bunch of post-modern attempts at injecting new sensibility with mixed results (e.g. the tropical color assault of the new dorms behind the main library and the new business school).

I've spent less time on Northwestern's main campus, but my impressions were actually similar to my reactions to U of C, except there's less of an impressive centerpiece of buildings at NU, and the modern NU buildings generally have fewer of the outright mistakes seen at the U of C.

NU is also on the water and has much more open space, resulting in more of a "campus-y" feel to it than U of C. This is especially true because the Chicago street grid is very much a part of breaking up the U of C campus, whereas NU's campus is more separate from the Evanston street system.

U of C has the Midway, but that's on the edge of campus and would be more significant if it were actually the focus of the campus, with, say, the Main Quadrangle right in the middle of it.

I could write a book comparing the atmospheres of both campuses, but suffice to say that U of C/Hyde Park is defined by: (1) the rigorous "where fun comes to die" academic nature of the school itself, and (2) being isolated in the midst of the run-down (but in some cases improving) neighborhoods that surround it. NU, while certainly no mere party school, has a much different vibe about it that is much closer to what most people expect the college experience to be. It helps that Evanston offers more of the college town amenities than Hyde Park, which prides itself more on its selection of bookstores than on places to socialize, shop, and generally have fun.

Ugh... as a current UIC student (and loyalist)... it pains me to say this. UIC doesn't belong in the same discussion as UC and NU (or even DePaul and Loyola) if you're talking about campus presence. UIC's campus just plain sucks - unless you're into brutalism... then it might be a little slice of heaven for you.

i hear you, geoff! as a UIC grad (when I was there, it was still UICC...The Circle...I'm feeling old!), I agree that it was one of the worst examples of that brutalized,60ish architechture.

At least they tore down the ramp system and openned up the lecture center in the middle.

there is, of course, a key question here: with more growth of mature trees and a new interest in making the campus a warmer, friendlier, more achitectually attractive place, can UIC be saved? will it ever be an attractive campus or will that original master plan doom it for eternity.

one thing is sure: you sure can't fault that view of the Loop.

As a student of the UofC, let me add a few of my cents.

The gothic architecture is intermittent outside of the main quads. There are some buildings (like Henry Crowne, Rockefeller Chapel, Ida Noyes) which continue the gothic tradition, others which mesh very well (Regenstein Library), and those taht stick out like a sore thumb (Max Palevsky Residential Dorms). fortunately, the era of attempting post modern designs is over, and we're returning to the beauty of architecture... because architecture is more than just design, it's also about context.

I'll agree that the Chicago grid definitely breaks up the unified feel of the campus of the UofC. Outside of the main quads, you begin to feel that things are more like NYU... that these are just random buildings interspersed throughout an area. It doesn't help that the the west side of the Main Quads is essentially a nonstop wall of buildings, essentially closing off any major pedestrian throughfare towards the street and effect segregating the campus from any decent links to the west. Midway Plaisance has been recieving a lot of new developments, especially since the University is going to be expanding southward, so it's becomign less than a green boundary than just a nice large campus park (although during the winter... a wind tunnel).

The U of C does not differ from other campuses in the sense that its core component is quie often its best feature. Personally I have never seen on any campus the unique beauty of the Chicago quads. Walking through Cobb Gate is like going into a different world. And the enclosure the quads provide takes you well out of the city grid.

I don't believe even the Ivy League schools can match the gothic look of the U of C. Being developed at a far later time (late 19th c) more conducive to faithfully reproducing European architecture and having the funding that Rockefeller was able to provide, the U of C faithfully used Oxford and Cambridge as its design model, believing that the use of such architecture would instill instant prestige and recognition to the school. It worked.

I'd like to throw out a question here:

I have admiration for the U of C for dropping big time college sports in the 1940's, feeling the growth and commercialization of athletics (even at that time) was inconsistent with the mission of a serious univeristy. In that sense, they were undoubtedly correct.

But on a self-serving basis, was it the right move? For better or probably for worse, big time athletics keeps a school prominent nationally. The U of C's national reputation is impeciable, but its lack of athletic identity does affect its visibility.

If you look at some of the most prominent universities away from the northeast corridor (Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, etc.) major college athletics are played. This has probably been a plus for these institutions. Duke's academic visibility has been enhanced by its basketball program. Northwestern's Rose Bowl trip helped to make it into an even "hotter" school among those applying for admission. Even the more relaxed Ivy League sports scene helps contribute to the aura of Ivy League schools.

So despite the negatives that go with big time sports (and excluding the facts that the Chicago market could not handle two big-time football and b'ball programs at the U of C and NU and that the university is joined in a consortium with the B10 schools), would Chicago been better off in non-atheltic ways if it had retained Big Ten membership?

Northwestern 33 Ohio State 27

Go U Northwestern!

In response to edsg25, I'd like to respond that I don't think Chicago would necessarily be better off. In fact, I strictly prefer it without big time college athletics.

Here's the flow of logic I use: if I talk to someone who isn't familiar with the U of C, then I seem like I just went to a state school and I don't seem very intimidating. If I do talk to someone who knows about U of C, then they're not the type of person who would be intimidated. So it works out either way. The H-Bomb (Harvard) and M-Bomb (MIT) tend to have huge impacts when the fact is introduced early in a dialogue.

But also, the type of people who go to U of C are glad that the school isn't so amazingly well known, in part due to its lack of big 10 athletics (which we're only leasing to Northwestern... so we could theoretically call it back and rejoin). First of all, it means UChicago is a great school that you have a reasonable chacne to get in (unlike say Brown, which seems overly popular for its own good/merit... but I digress). Second, you don't have the kind of cutthroat athletics environment as in the Ivy Leagues. Personally, I'm glad we don't, because this means our athletics are geared more toward getting the experience down as oppossed to winning championships. I may never be able to row remotely as fast as someone from Yale, but atleast I get to row. I take pride in the fact tat UChicago has Nobel Prizes over Heismann trophies... and I think the university would be worse off with a big-time athletics program.

i hear you, geoff! as a UIC grad (when I was there, it was still UICC...The Circle...I'm feeling old!), I agree that it was one of the worst examples of that brutalized,60ish architechture.

At least they tore down the ramp system and openned up the lecture center in the middle.

there is, of course, a key question here: with more growth of mature trees and a new interest in making the campus a warmer, friendlier, more achitectually attractive place, can UIC be saved? will it ever be an attractive campus or will that original master plan doom it for eternity.

one thing is sure: you sure can't fault that view of the Loop.

^UIC's new University Village is definitely a great start. Also, if they eventually decide to tear down those terrible parking garages on the east side of Halsted (north of Roosevelt) as well as those shitty looking Tennis Courts and perhaps building some more campus buildings/housing, it would be a more attractive campus

^UIC's new University Village is definitely a great start. Also, if they eventually decide to tear down those terrible parking garages on the east side of Halsted (north of Roosevelt) as well as those shitty looking Tennis Courts and perhaps building some more campus buildings/housing, it would be a more attractive campus

So far I'm impressed with what I'm seeing at University Village. I realize that true preservationists were upset with saving only the facades of Maxwell Street and the standard stores that will be beyond them. I say, at least the exterior was saved.

I did notice what appeared to be construction work in the tennis court area (east of Halsted, north of Polk) last time I was down there (about 3 weeks back). I'm not sure what it was. I do know that UIC plans to build a new fittness center (it was in the S-T, but no mention of location). Does anyone know where it will be?

One last thought: all that brutal concrete at UIC's core: wouldn't a good dose of collegiate ivy cure a lot of the problems?

A lot of very good comments here about UC vs. NW... I've been at the U of C for a few years now, and I agree especially that the street grid really breaks up the campus. Also, the science quads on the W side are not as succesful, to put it mildly, but the new IRC building, a nice (huge) background building will help to remedy that.

The new dorms are so-so, better than the parking lot that used to be there... hard to believe it now, that it was just asphalt all that time! And I think the new GSB school and the Ratner athletics center are excellent, as good as anything done here since the original quads.

The future looks good; there will be a huge new dorm S of the Midway, behind Burton-Judson (the university just sold Shoreland, the huge dorm overlooking the lake, to a condo developer), and there are long term plans to expand the main library to the West. The $2 billion endowment project is on track, so they should have some cash to play with. My home is that they throw a friendly pedestrian bridge over the Midway when the new dorm gets built, because it's hell walking there sometimes.

Maybe I'm a little biased here, but the old campus at NW is too chaotic, and the new brutalist architecture along the lake is pathetic...

I did notice what appeared to be construction work in the tennis court area (east of Halsted, north of Polk) last time I was down there (about 3 weeks back).

I was there last weekend and noticed it. If anyone has an idea about it, i'd like to know.

I always wonder what exactly is that really tall building near the blue-line stop. In my mind, it looks like a modernist upside-down tiered building. Anyone?

And I think the new GSB school and the Ratner athletics center are excellent, as good as anything done here since the original quads.

I'm currently satisfied with the GSB, although the prarie-style influence is a bit ostentatious. Ratner, while as an individual structure I love it... REALLY doesn't feel like it belongs in any way. It's a great landmark of a building, but whenever I go there I have the slight feeling that I've left UChicago and I'm going to some newfangled fitness center. Whatever happened to context? (Although I have a wonderful view of the masts from my room... juxtaposed next to the Sears tower... mmmm....)

We generated a good deal of talk in the Chicago forum about the book, Global Chicago. I have read and and have found it highly informative.

The essay that included educational institutions was eye openning. It suggested a hierarchy among Chicagoland universities in a way that I hadn't seen before.

It suggested that the area has 3 major, comprehensive universities that are the major players for the region on the national and global stage. Obviously Chicago and Northwestern were two of these. The third: UIC. The article talked about the highly diverse population (US, international) that makes up the UIC enrollment and how the university has come into its own in relationship to Urbana. The essay pointed out the universities, representing 3 points of the compass (N, S, W) are the true core of the Chicago educational community.

Interesting stuff. How do you see this? Do DePaul and Loyola lose some of their influence in Chicago by being religiously affiliated institutions? How about IIT, due to its more narrow focus? Do you accept UIC being places with NU and U of C (not due to academic reputation: it is nowhere near the other two) in terms of influence and area-wide prominence?

I think if you simply look at enrollment numbers you see why UIC can, legitimately, be mentioned in the same breath as NU and UoC.

I think the justification for grouping UIC with the other 2 acknowledged big name Chicago universities is that UIC is the only other Chicago institution that has reached "Research One" status, which is conferred upon universities that grant a large number of PhD's and get a lot of federal research funds.

There are only about 90 of these schools nationwide and each receives at least $40 million in federal research funds (the truly big names on this list receive hundreds of millions of federal research funds).

From what I remember reading, UIC's numbers compare favorably with those of U of C and Northwestern, i.e. all receive $200-300 million in federal funding annually, mostly in medicine and the sciences. So if you're just talking about economic impact, it's fair to group UIC with the others.

Beyond this, UIC is definitely in a different class from U of C and Northwestern because: (1) it doesn't have a law school, whereas the other 2 have Top 10-15 law schools with thousands of alumni working in the city; (2) its business school is fairly new and not well-known, whereas the B schools for the other 2 are Top 5; (3) the rigor and competitive admissions for the undergraduate and graduate levels at the other 2 are so much higher that Chicago and Northwestern graduates just tend to go further in the world than UIC graduates (note that I'm not saying that UIC graduates are inferior in any way; it's just a matter of more of the most highly motivated, capable students opting to go U of C and Northwestern than to UIC).

As for Loyola, DePaul, and IIT, they're not in the same class as these other 3 because they're not research-driven. Loyola has a medical school and hospital, but maybe their science programs are not as big-time as the others. DePaul and IIT don't have medical schools, so they have even less of a shot of reaching the big time in science research.

^ 2000 was the most recent year for which I could find research expenditure data for all the Chicago universities. These figures are total dollars spent, not just federal dollars, so private grants,etc. are included:

Northwestern: $258 million
UIC: 233 million
U Chicago: 194 million
Rush: 70 million
Loyola: 37 million
IIT 14.7 million
DePaul 1.6 million

If you're like me, you don't even think of Rush as a school so much as a hospital (Rush-Presbyterian-St.Lukes) but Rush is an independent medical and nursing school.

To some extent, it's unfair to compare the impact of DePaul/Loyola/IIT to the others based only on these research figures; the mission of these schools is primarily undergraduate education. Arguably, because their student bodies are more local than NW and U of C, all 3 of these schools have more impact on our local talent pool than the bigger name schools.