<p>Well, hope springs eternal. There is a halo effect from rising prominence that does help. They did just recruit someone from Berkeley to lead the Molecular Engineering Institute, which is a good sign.</p>
<p>The other schools you mention do have larger faculties, so obviously a school with more faculty will get more funding. Pritzker ranked third in the country on research funding per faculty member, with average annual NIH grant support per researcher of $344,600, behind only Stanford and Yale. (From the University’s press release. LOL!)</p>
<p>Never say never. You can say it’s impossible, but historically UChicago did it before. By 1925 UChicago had the #2 faculty in the country, just behind Harvard. UChicago was basically dominant in every field and it helps to have that kind of history behind it because it’s not exactly a new school in any field of science. </p>
<p>OK, so UChicago does need to regain lost ground. But I think the University is doing the right thing to make the effort rather than adopting a defeatist attitude. Yale has a second-rate business school and can’t remotely compete with UChicago in that regard. But if you just went based on the HYP hysteria, Yale’s business school should blow UChicago away; instead, it can’t even get recruiters to show up on campus.</p>
<p>Anyway, I understand your point about the challenges. And all university’s have their strengths and weaknesses. On the other hand, as you know, UChicago does have more Nobel prizes than Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Princeton, which says something about its science pedigree. Why don’t HYP blow it away in this regard?</p>
<p>Anyway, time will tell.</p>