<p>Also, the funny thing is, whenever people mention top schools, at least on cc, it is normally HYMPS, plus Caltech, not so much Chicago, but here you say brand, that Chicago is up there with MIT and Stanford, do you really think so? From a realisitic perpsective probably, what about from a prestige perspective?</p>
<p>I was told a generation ago, Chicago was more prestigious than they are now. Chicago isn't a newcomer like WashU with an upward trend; it's been known for a long time and it's trying to maintain its reputation. </p>
<p>I second slipper that Californians seem to overestimate the prestige of Berkeley domestically. You probably already know this: Berkeley's med school placement is pretty weak compared to many privates. You seem to be very concerned with the prestige of a school and I seem to recall you are interested in premed. If you want a school's prestige to benefit your med school application, then Berkeley is no better (and often worse) than many privates that you might have considered inferior before. There may be more great schools you can consider, not just Stanford/MIT.</p>
<p>how good is the pre med at Chicago, does anyone know? I coudn't find exact numbers, but is it a good/better choice for premed than Berkeley?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you think given a few years, it may be cemented as one of the elites along with Stanford, MIT, Yale, Columbia, etc? Just curious what you guys think
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's going to take more than a few years. </p>
<p>Chicago's yield - at 33% - is unusually low for a school aspiring to become one of the elites. In comparison, the top schools have at least a 55-60% yield. Stanford, Yale and MIT have about a 67% yield, and Harvard has an amazing 80%+ yield. Even Berkeley has a 40% yield. </p>
<p>Two points.
1) That list HYPMS plus sometimes CalTech is more about selectivity than quality of undergrad education; prestige and selectivity are of course closely related. Because it is so selective, sure, add CalTech.
2) Chicago isn't "aspiring to become one of the elites." It's incredibly elite already. More Nobel laureates have studied, taught, or researched there than at any other American university. In terms of research productivity (and grad school prestige, btw) it certainly belongs on that list with HYPMS. That its yield is low says more ill about the misplaced priorities of American college students than about the University.</p>
<p>EDIT: I don't mean to suggest CalTech doesn't belong on the list for any reason but selectivity. It belongs.</p>
<p>Pulkit, </p>
<p>I don't really know either. I know Cornell definitely has better rate and it's not all about whether one has more grade deflation/inflation than another. Stats show that a person with the same GPA from Cornell has better chance to get into one or more med school than from Berkeley. Schools like WashU, Tufts, and Emory which you probably haven't even thought about, also have better placement rates.</p>
<p>pullkit just stay at berkeley... you seem to say you don't like it and want to leave but then you defend it as better and more prestigious than every other college we recommend...so just stay there....</p>
<p>
[quote]
but here you say brand, that Chicago is up there with MIT and Stanford, do you really think so? From a realisitic perpsective probably, what about from a prestige perspective?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As Sam Lee has noted, Chicago's prestige is not recent. In the 90s, it was ranked among the top 10 by USNews at least once and has always bounced around in the top 20. Simply consider the business, law, and economics graduate programs at Chicago. The school is among the greatest in the nation in those areas, and many more.</p>
<p>I am convinced that if Chicago had a lower acceptance rate (comparable to that of MIT, Stanford, etc.) it would easily be near the top. Even with a 40% acceptance rate, it is top 10! It's just not as popular among undergraduate students - which, as someone else said, just shows what students often base their decisions on.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Chicago isn't "aspiring to become one of the elites." It's incredibly elite already. More Nobel laureates have studied, taught, or researched there than at any other American university.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Columbia is claiming more. </p>
<p>But besides, I think the Chicago way of counting Nobels is highly dubious. Chicago counts every single person who has ever had an affiliation with Chicago ever, no matter how tenuous. Nor has the list been updated. IF I applied the same criteria to, say, Harvard, one could come up with more Nobels. </p>
<p>For example, Chicago officially "claims" 79 Nobels. Wikipedia lists 76 under Harvard. But let me give you 4 more examples. I see that Roy Glauber is not counted under Harvard, even though he won the Nobel in Physics in 2005 and is on the Harvard faculty. Thomas Schelling won the Nobel in Economics in 2005. He was a Harvard prof from 1958-1990. Craig Mello, who won the Nobel in Medicine this year, got his PhD at Harvard. David Politzer, winner of the 2004 Physics Nobel, got his PhD at Harvard.</p>
<p>So 76 + these 4 more gives you 80. Hence, Harvard has already beaten Chicago. And I haven't even bothered to look for more example. </p>
<p>
[quote]
In terms of research productivity (and grad school prestige, btw) it certainly belongs on that list with HYPMS. That its yield is low says more ill about the misplaced priorities of American college students than about the University.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But I don't think we're talking about that here on this thread. Nobody disputes that Chicago is a great graduate school and research powerhouse. Berkeley is too, but the OP is looking to transfer out of Berkeley anyway, and he is considering schools like Northwestern which are clearly not as strong as Berkeley in terms of grad-school strength and research. Seems to me that the OP is looking for a better undergrad experience, and it is those metrics that we ought to be using. </p>
<p>Hence, I wouldn't say that it's a matter of "misplaced priorities". Hardly so. Most undergrads have no intention of becoming researchers anyway. So what do they care about going to a big-time research school? </p>
<p>If the OP just wanted to be at a school known for major research, he could have just stayed at Berkeley and never started this thread, and therefore we wouldn't be here talking about any of this in the first place.</p>
<p>Pulkit, honestly I think you are missing the point. No med school is going to think Berkeley is better than Northwestern just because the grad schools are better. The truth is often the LACs with unranked departments do the best at graduate placement.</p>
<p>o basically, u guys think that since Im planning on going to med school, I should go to the school that has the best program for that. which is Chicago over Berkeley. In addition, Chicago has a much stronger emphasis on ugraduate than Berkeley, which is part of what I want as well. </p>
<p>So, as far as overall prestige, it really shouldn't even be an issue. but, if I were to take it into account, then Chicago prolly still has better ugraduate prestige with the educacted nonlayman anyways.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So, as far as overall prestige, it really shouldn't even be an issue
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly. </p>
<p>I'm not sure if I've said it yet - so I'll say it anyways - have you looked at Washington University in St. Louis for pre-med. You'd definitely have a shot...may be worth looking into and sending an app to if you like it.</p>
<p>maybe, ill look into it</p>
<p>
[quote]
o basically, u guys think that since Im planning on going to med school, I should go to the school that has the best program for that. which is Chicago over Berkeley. In addition, Chicago has a much stronger emphasis on ugraduate than Berkeley, which is part of what I want as well. </p>
<p>So, as far as overall prestige, it really shouldn't even be an issue. but, if I were to take it into account, then Chicago prolly still has better ugraduate prestige with the educacted nonlayman anyways.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Personally, I think that Berkeley vs. Chicago is pretty close. Yes, Chicago has more undergraduate emphasis. But Berkeley does seem to have greater overall prestige, at least with the layman. </p>
<p>I don't know that I would transfer from Berkeley to Chicago. Maybe choosing Chicago over Berkeley as a freshman might have been advisable (although even that is somewhat debatable). But if you've already started out at Berkeley, then re-establishing yourself at another school is going to be tough, and I don't know that Chicago would give you that much of a improvement to justify the switch. Hence, if it were up to me, I would actually probably choose to stay at Berkeley. </p>
<p>But then again, that's me. You may want to visit Chicago and find out if it would work for you.</p>
<p>the med school placement rates at Cornell are far better than at Berkeley. If you want actual numbers to see for yourself, I can post them.</p>
<p>Gomestar, medical school placement rates are not telling. Some schools like Juniata College place over 90% of their pre-med students into Medical Schools. MIT places roughly 75% of their pre-meds into medical school. Does that make Juniata much better than MIT? Of course not. There are many factors that go into the equation. Do you realize that at public universities, 50% of medical school applicants have sub 3.3 GPAs? Those applicants are, for the most part, doomed before they ever put pen to paper. Very few sub 3.3 students at private universities apply to medical school because they are generally not encouraged to do so.</p>
<p>Sakky, I thought you would be the first one to side with me on this move, especially after all the bashing you do about Cal, lol. Okay, now I know that you are just trying to be fair and you do acknowledge that Cal has a good ugrad program, just not the best, but thats exactly it. Berkeley is just a large school, it is impersonal, and even you keep telling people about how it doesnt have much support for the ugraduate student. I mean, they don't have great advising, they don't have a great student to faculty ratio, they don't have guaranteed housing, I mean there are a number of things that berkeley lacks as an Undergraduate school. And that is what you constantly seem to be making the argument for, is that Berkeley has an excellent graduate program, but not so good undergraduate. </p>
<p>SO, in that case, shouldn't I go to a school that exemplifies these qualities that Berkeley lacks, like attention to its undergraduate class. I mean, in the end, if the layman is confused why I left berkeley for Chicago, so be it, as long as the guy reading my resume to go to med school doesn't think the same. </p>
<p>I respect your opinion, thats why I'm curious to why your saying this Sakky, but if you think that its not all that worthwhile to try to go to Chicago, then why, and what other schools that have a decent transfer rate should I try for because I do feel like the ugraduate experience is lacking at berkeley. Maybe Cornell, as others are saying</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, I thought you would be the first one to side with me on this move, especially after all the bashing you do about Cal, lol.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wouldn't characterize what I do as 'bashing' of Berkeley. Rather, I just don't think that Berkeley's undergrad program is as good as that of some of the schools that it is often times compared to, and in particular, is not as good as that of HYPSMC or the top LAC's. I would hardly call that a controversial point, although others apparently seem to think it is. </p>
<p>
[quote]
is just a large school, it is impersonal, and even you keep telling people about how it doesnt have much support for the ugraduate student. I mean, they don't have great advising, they don't have a great student to faculty ratio, they don't have guaranteed housing, I mean there are a number of things that berkeley lacks as an Undergraduate school. And that is what you constantly seem to be making the argument for, is that Berkeley has an excellent graduate program, but not so good undergraduate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>True indeed, Berkeley doesn't have the best undergrad program. But it's all relative. The truth is, while, again, I would have a hard time recommending Berkeley over, say, HYPSMC for undergrad, I would have a hard time recommending Chicago over HYPSMC too. Looking at it from a preference standpoint, while Berkeley undergrad definitely has a lot of people who are there only because it was their safety school and would rather be going somewhere else (i.e. Stanford) but didn't get in, Chicago also seems to have a lot of undergrads who would rather be going someplace else, like an Ivy or even Northwestern, but didn't get in. The Hoxby Revealed Preferences study seems to confirm this assessment, with Berkeley actually being preferred over Chicago, although, granted, this has almost certainly to do with lots of people preferring Berkeley's in-state tuition. Also note that Chicago's overall yield rating is even lower than Berkeley's, at 33% vs. 40% according to the NCES. </p>
<p><a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=601105%5B/url%5D">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=601105</a>
<a href="http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cool/%5B/url%5D">http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cool/</a></p>
<p>The truth is, there seems to be something amiss about Chicago's undergrad program such that people don't really want to go there. While I am certainly am not an expert on Chicago, I have heard too many rumors about Chicago being a place where "fun goes to die" and other morbid stories about the lack of work-life balance of the school. I can understand to some extent why a major engineering school like MIT or Caltech may revel in its reputation for an unbalanced lifestyle as engineering in general (unfortunately) seems to be an unbalanced major that is highly inconsiderate of quality of life. But Chicago doesn't even have engineering, and they * still * have this morbid reputation. </p>
<p>The point is this. If you were saying that you were leaving Berkeley for HYPSMC or AWS, yeah, OK, there wouldn't be a whole lot I could say. But this is Chicago you're talking about. I feel that you would be trading one set of problems at Berkeley for an entirely different set of problems at Chicago. Hence, it's not clear at all that there would be a net benefit.</p>
<p>But like I said, that's me. Maybe Chicago fits you a whole lot better.</p>
<p>Alexandre, that may certainly be the case, though what do you think of comparing side-by-side GPA vs. admits? When comparing students who have a 3.7 at both schools, Cornell gets a higher percentage into med school ... in fact, I think Cornell places more with something like a 3.4 than with a Berkeley 3.7 (it's something like this, the actual data is on another thread). Would you say this tells a bit more than 'Cal sent X% last year and Cornell sent X%'</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>Those are already taken account just like gomestar said. I was actually surprised to see the group with 3.8-3.9 GPA at Berkeley had only 76% admit rate. That's pretty bad in my opinion considering how people say it's very tough to get 3.8+ at Berkeley. I specualate poor advising may be the reason.</p>
<p>Someone suggested WashU and I think it's a great choice. Your fellow students would be of higher caliber on average. It lacks a little in prestige though but it has a very good bio program and it's med school placement rate is around 80-85% (vs. 60% or so at Berkeley).</p>