<p>What do you guys think? I want to do biochemistry, physics, or chemical engineering. Which do you think is the best for these majors. I also might end up doing an MD PhD instead, specializing in radiation oncology. </p>
<p>Have you been admitted/received likely letters/visited these three? Any money issues between the three? </p>
<p>Academically, there are no bad choices. Otherwise, each will feel somewhat different. Caltech is small, sunny, and the most focused of the three on science and engineering. MIT gives you the Boston experience (Cambridge, if you want to get picky) and a larger student body than Caltech. UChicago is arguably the most academically diverse (meaning it’s not all science all the time) and was probably coldest this year. </p>
<p>UChicago does not offer chemical engineering. </p>
<p>MIT. Caltech is also very strong, but more known for earth sciences vs. biolchemical sciences.
U Chicago doesn’t have engineering. </p>
<p>Biochem:
MIT
Caltech
Chicago</p>
<p>Physics:
MIT = Caltech = Chicago</p>
<p>Chemical Engineering:
MIT
Caltech</p>
<p>I would avoid Chicago because you will want to be able to change to engineering without transferring schools. About Caltech and MIT, like Slithey said it’s just a matter of personal preference in environment an location. You should also keep in mind that Caltech does not give credit for AP tests, so if that’s important to you go with MIT.</p>
<p>I haven’t even applied yet, I’m a junior. Just wondering. The only reason I added UChicago was because their med program is so good. I guess I’ll go with MIT as my top choice, although I’m more likely to get into to CalTech.</p>
<p>All of these schools are reach-for-everyone. You need to find safeties that you like and can afford.</p>
<p>UCLA and Berkeley are my safeties.</p>
<p>You can’t be guaranteed to get into those even if it is likely, so add a few more UC’s so you don’t end up being one of those kids who get shutout. </p>
<p>I am automatically accepted to UT Austin.</p>