<p>I've been accepted at UChicago, Washu, and Carleton and am having a real problem deciding where to spend my undergraduate years. I plan on pursuing a pre-medical education, however, I want to study cognitive science/neuroscience. Based on that information WashU is probably the best fit because of its renowned pre-med program. However, I hear that liberal arts colleges have strong med school placement because graduate schools want a more rounded student. So in this respect Carleton would be my obvious choice. Adding another factor to the mix, however, is that I want to go to a name-brand school (however shallow that may seem). UChicago, in my experience, is more universally acknowledged in my area as a top tier school, even though all of my schools are most definitely top tier. I'd appreciate it if someone were to go through some pros and cons of each college so that I can better understand each school and their individual programs.</p>
<p>One question is what type of interaction would you want to have with faculty if you seek research opportunities (a good idea as a pre-med). UChicago will have lots of labs which may (or may not) encourage participation by undergraduates. The faculty will have a flock of grad students and post-docs, and an undergrad will probably work as an assistant to one of those folks, at least to start. At Carleton, the whole teaching and scholarship picture for faculty are the undergraduates, and you would be first in line. (I’m not sure where WashU falls on the research continuum, though I believe the graduate science program is smaller than UChicago.) </p>
<p>Another thing to consider is that Carleton’s setting in Northfield is in a small town, with Mpls & St. Paul ~ 45 min away. It’s not a huge barrier, but you do have to plan. UChicago is, well, obviously in Chicago with all the pros & cons of that, and without too much effort you can explore the city.</p>
<p>Minnezota</p>
<p>You’ve probably not seen a more enthusiastic response to your query given its open ended nature. It would be a lot easier to answer specific issue involving these three schools. But let me offer up these points/suggestions.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>There is no such thing as a “renowned pre-med program” unless you do marketing for a college. Places like Wash U and Hopkins are often handed this moniker, but why not, for example, Stanford or Yale or Harvard or Columbia or Duke all of which have comparably “renowned” medical schools + undergrad acceptance rates to med school that are at least the equal of the former? The difference lies in the number/proportion of pre-meds on campus and the - yes - marketing orientation of the school. Personally, I’d much rather be pre-med at a school not known for having pre-meds. Being pre-med is stressful enough without being surrounded by others similarly stressed. </p></li>
<li><p>Studying cog sci/neurosci will be great at any of the three places mentioned. Lots more 1 on 1 with a lab PI (maybe the only “I” in the lab) at Carleton with the possibility of 2nd or possibly even 1st authorships/conference presentations. Lots more 1 on 1 with very strong grad students and post grads at Chicago and Wash U with a lower tier presence on publications/presentations out of a better known lab. Grad schools love rigorous LACs like Carleton and its students place as well as the best of the most prestigious unis.</p></li>
<li><p>If med school is your ultimate goal, you, as an individual, will fare equally well graduating from any other these three schools.</p></li>
<li><p>“I want to go to a name-brand school (however shallow that may seem)” - the clear edge to Chicago if this is an all-consumer contest. But be aware that once you harvest that MD or PhD degree, no one, I mean no one, will care (or likely know) where your BA or BS originated. Its all about the terminal degree.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>There are endless things that could be said about location, quality of life, student body, and ice fishing at these three schools. As I mentioned a few paragraphs ago, let fly some more specific questions if you want to stimulate reader’s sensory receptors and provoke a response.</p>
<p>Almost forgot:</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>Not a close call</p>
<p>Not sure about your program at other schools but Carleton has a very strong Bio and cognitive science program (my friend raves about the professors). Just going by the schools I’d go for Chicago. I’ve studied there briefly and there’s NOTHING like the intellectual atmosphere I found there and this is speaking as a Carleton student. The culture there is really one of a kind and it will bend your mind. It has a very good Core and I personally believe it gives a more rigorous and well rounded liberal arts education than what I’ve experienced here.</p>
<p>Were life so simple. </p>
<p>Agree Chicago likely offers the most “pure” intellectual experience of any in the country. But college is not just about challenging one’s intellect. Hyde Park is no life of the mind nirvana. Many come through four years there harboring regret that their experience was too narrow, too compromised. There’s a good reason a large number of Carls say no to Chicago for the warmer climes of Minnesota. ;)</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/1487865-thoughts-alum.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/1487865-thoughts-alum.html</a></p>
<p>@1190 Yeah, life is more about intellect, but on the other hand the OP did mention that having a “liberal arts” experience is a part of his consideration too, and what I tried to say was it doesn’t really matter. As far as getting a liberal arts education goes, Carleton is not, as he put it, “his obvious choice” because UChicago offers a comparable, if not (in my experience) superior liberal arts education. Don’t get me wrong, Carleton classes are great and out of my six terms here I only have cause to complain about one. Most of them are so good I honestly can’t pick favorites.</p>
<p>My main complaint is that it is very EASY to get out of parts of liberal arts you might not necessarily like because distribution requirements have a tendency of being vague and broadly applicable. Also the college doesn’t seem to believe that there are some things everyone should know. So for instance they got rid of the required English 1,2,3 for the English department and instead you have a pretty free choice of what (highly specialized) English classes to take, if you were an English major. So you can easily graduate without reading some of the classic literature WRITTEN IN ENGLISH (Dickens, Austen, Steinbeck, etc.), forgetting all the great classics written in other languages for a moment.</p>
<p>There are very few general survey courses (I’m taking one right now and it’s an immersive, unbelievable experience. You feel like you’re seeing the whole picture. From the beginning of a genre to its developmental climax). I came into college wanting to meet the greatest minds in human civilization only to find them spread out into multiple classes that I can’t possibly all take (again, Carleton courses tend to be pretty specialized). The distribution requirements enable a very “skim the surface” approach. People often talk about how diverse their courses have been, but sometimes I wonder how much they actually remember from those courses because they might not take that department again- knowledge only reinforces itself the more you encounter it. I’m a college student. There are important ideas I SHOULD be exposed to, but might not know their worth to start out. Maybe I don’t even WANT to be exposed to them. Maybe I will choose the easy way out. My favorite teacher in high school made us read many texts we didn’t find initially appealing and in the end our lives were changed.</p>
<p>Maybe my greatest issue is simply that Carleton doesn’t think it knows more than I do about what I should know. And that’s what I feel is missing. Guidance. And that’s what I think Chicago’s Core does very well even if it may seem overbearing or pompous. I didn’t come in knowing everything- I’m only 20.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that’s an interesting perspective, and I also think it’s a matter of preference. For me, for instance, Carleton’s distribution requirements are a point in the school’s favor. If there’s a spectrum of “guidance” – with Chicago’s common core at one end and an open curriculum (like Brown’s) at the other – Carleton seems to fall roughly in the middle.</p>
<p>I do have to quibble with the characterization of the English major requirements as having too much “free choice” of “highly specialized” courses. As an English major, I’ve found the degree requirements to be too traditional and constraining, if anything (though my overall experience with the department has been positive). Adding more required survey courses is the last thing I’d want. </p>
<p>But anyway, this is getting way off-topic from the OP’s cogsci/premed interests. OP, you’ve almost certainly made your decision by now, so best of luck – you really can’t go wrong with any of those options.</p>
<p>I like your thinking on this, Impero. I don’t think a core curriculum has to be rigid. (Though my son is at UChicago and has been very happy with the core, though now he’s also happy to be done with the core courses.) But I do think that in general most students are deprived of something if there is not a required core. If a “curriculum” is merely a vehicle for maximal individualism (e.g. Brown), then what happens to the experience of the school as a community of learners who are grappling with a common or at least significantly overlapping set of ideas and works? This is mostly lost when there are just a few large distribution requirement buckets.</p>
<p>Former Harvard Dean, Harry Lewis, wrote a book discussing this–“Excellence Without a Soul.” He argues that one of the best things a school can give students is a minimum set of works and subjects that they should learn. When a school does not do this, it is basically saying that it doesn’t even know (or more likely simply can’t decide due to faculty in-fighting and turf battles). A side-effect of this, according to Lewis, is that it creates a “race to the bottom,” where students simply try to find the easiest “A’s” that they can, and the quality and coherence of students’ education declines.</p>
<p>“Maybe my greatest issue is simply that Carleton doesn’t think it knows more than I do about what I should know.” I would guess that faculty at Carleton have very strong opinions about many things that it would be very valuable for you to know. But they probably also understand that you can’t possibly learn more than a small fraction of those things in your 4 years at Carleton. There is too much out there. I doubt that the faculty at Chicago believes that the core curriculm there is transmitting to students all that they “should know.” It’s just a taste, which it sounds like you have gotten in a possibly less coherent fashion at Carleton. But knowledge is not organized coherently out in the world, you have to sort it out, so maybe what Carleton does teaches you something about doing that. There is no spoon feeding outside of the academy. The most valuable education you can get is one that gives you the tools–critical reading and thinking skills and a love of learning–to be a life long learner.</p>
<p>It’s funny that the OP never returned to this discussion. Reading that initial post, I have two thoughts: 1. I must applaud the truly diverse group of Universities in question (I mean, hey, you have a real decision here to discuss and not another Carleton/Macalaster/Grinnell or Wahington U/Oregon U/ USC thread. Good work putting together a real choice between three very distinct schools with very different cultures and locations). 2. On the other hand, UGH!! Another whiney, self-indulgent teenage post based on a youthfully narrow understanding of college in the specific and Education in general.</p>
<p>1190’s response was dead-on, and gave about as much as one can hope for from an open and anonymous internet forum. Any would-be college applicants who stumble on this thread should read 1190’s response and consider putting together a truly diverse college list like Minnezota. </p>
<p>Oh, The ensuing conversation about the relative values of core curricula is pretty good stuff, however. And very much worth a little reading by the casual lurker.</p>
<p>My D is actually applying to these same three colleges. Hope she gets accepted to all 3 and we have the same decision to make.</p>
<p>This thread is awesome! Loved reading your guys’ take on the core at UChi vs. Carleton. They’re both awesome schools</p>