<p>Anyone know anything about bio at UChicago? I heard it's good from a student who goes there now, but in the last 10 years UChicago has not had one of the best ratings for sending students to grad schools...</p>
<p>'UChicago has not had one of the best ratings for sending students to grad schools'</p>
<p>contrary to what iv heard.. someone check up on that.</p>
<p>What I mean here is, UChicago sends a smaller % of its total students to grad school in Biology than Swarthmore or Carleton, say. This causes me to worry that the program is overall not as strong as the programs at the other two schools. If someone could counter this, however, I'd be greatful.</p>
<p>I don't know about biology, but Chicago sends 35% of it graduates to graduate school upon graduation, Swathmore 26%, and Carleton 22%. Chicago sends 8% directly to med school, Swathmore 5%, and Carleton 2%. The number of Chicago graduates going on the grad school increases dramatically if one looks at the data a couple of years after graduation. From what I understand, Chicago produces a higher percentage of college professors than any other school, hence the name "teacher of teachers." </p>
<p>Reed College sends 65% of its graduates on to grad school, but only 49% graduate within 4 years, and 70% after 6 years.</p>
<p>well I think their department is ranked #25 or somewhere around there, so it's good, but not one of their premeir majors :p</p>
<p>The concept of ranking a biology program is a little difficult to understand. Typically, outside of an LAC, most research universities don't really have biology departments, Chicago has a Division of Biological Sciences. Chicago for example is ranked 9th in the nation for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 17th for Cell Biology, and #1 for Evolutionary Biology.</p>
<p>Yeah, problem is that all of those rankings refer to their grad school. They offer a decent array of courses for undergrads, but I've noticed that even upper-level courses are often large, and in such courses I'm uncertain how much of a research or inquiry-based component you can have to the course.</p>
<p>I took many divisional bio courses at Chicago as a grad student. Most had many undergrads in the courses, none were large. The largest was perhaps 25 students, most 8 -12. All required a great deal of inquiry and analytical work (the comparative neuroanatomy midterm for example was two hours of "practical" lab examination and 4 hours of essay (it was one question asking us to apply what we had studied to analyze a peripheral and central neural system in the shark never mentioned in class -- wrote 32 blue-book pages).</p>
<p>Sounds intense! -however, I'm taking general bio as a Sophomore, so I'm interested in more general courses like organismal physiology and biomechanics (physiology is a lecture). I may take some grad school ecology courses though -hmm...</p>
<p>are you concentrating in bio, or are talking about core courses? If you are concentrating bio which sequence are you taking 180s, 190s, or 240s?</p>
<p>I'm concentrating bio, I'll be taking one of the first two sequences -I was told one was better/harder, but I forget which. 190s? Why?</p>
<p>Because you asked about the lower level bio classes. I took the 240's so my classes weren't to big, but I actually don't know about the 190s. At any rate I highly doubt any individual class is larger than 50 students, which will undoubtly be broken down into smaller sections. And as I believe was said above upper level class are generally quite small.</p>
<p>Actually, the classes are about 100. Anyway, do you think the teaching in the bio dept is good?</p>
<p>Classes I should definitely take/avoid?</p>
<p>When it comes to undergrad education, rankings are pretty meaningless, as they reflect grad school programs, and are strongly influenced by factors that are irrelevant or even counter to undergrad education. </p>
<p>Saying that, how is U. Chi bio? For an undergrad, as good as anywhere else, and offering opportunity for lab experience probably unparralled among its peer universities. Why? Because the Biological Sciences Division is over both the regular university and the Medical School. So there are a huge number of faculty with space for undergrads in their labs. And, there are a lot of lab jobs. Go here to get an idea:</p>
<p>I'm not sure what "as good as anywhere else" means. Bio experiences vary tremendously depending on where you take it, as does anything else. I turned down both Carleton and Swat, both of which supposedly have excellent Bio programs which teach excellent critical thinking skills, and both of which have locations I prefer. If the undergrad Bio education at UChicago is arguably not as good or better than the education at those two institutions, I would like to know.</p>
<p>A related question to University of Chicago's Biology department: Does anyone know what Chicago's acceptance rate to medical school is?</p>
<p>ecape,</p>
<p>you missed my whole point - but a UofC education will address that. It is splitting hairs, and ultimately irrelevant, to keep asking if A is better than B, than C etc. The answer is always IT DEPENDS. (Qualification, it could matter if you want bragging rights.)</p>
<p>So, your next sentence is half right. Bio experiences vary depending on WHO IS TAKING it as well as where.</p>
<p>ecape, I'm sorry that you seem so confused right now. Personally, I really have very little respect for the LAC science departments ( I understand that this is an alienating comment), I think that there is value in learning science from people who are actively researching in the field. I don't believe that college shoud be "high school: Part Two" That said, I honestly did not really care whether my classes (in the sciences) were small ten people 'discussion' type situations or 100 people, because honestly I have zero interest in what my class mates have to say in a science based course. disregarding ethics, philosophy of science medicine et al.) Any way, now that I when on my drunken rapage against LACs, you strike me as someone who has to decide whether or not you're willing to give your current situation a chance or not.</p>
<p>Well, science profs at LACs DO do research. Sometimes their research is even as publicized as those of university profs. Since certain LACs turn out students who go on to do (on average) quite well in science grad schools, I think it makes little sense to assume LACs are not capable of teaching research science. I have heard the argument that LACs tend to teach better critical thinking skills than many universities, b/c profs are better able to work on many skills with each student, whereas university profs are less likely to know their students and so only teach course material. I AM going to give the UoC a chance (I don't have a choice at this point...) I'd just like straight answers about good and bad profs, b/c fact is a prof can be capable of doing the best research in the world, but unless they really try to mentor their students, it doesn't do the student much good.</p>