<p>An other advantage that Chicago offers over B and most other larger universities is the average student/ teacher ratio which is around 4/1. This means your professors really get to know you and there is tremendous opportunity for intellectual discouse in all classes [in fact it is virtualy required] , vrs one way lecture format, which is the way many, if not most classes at B are taught . Chicago offers an outstanding liberal arts education within a world renown research University. This year students at Princeton review voted Chicago #1 in providing the best undergraduate education.</p>
<p>While I think we are no longer addressing the OP's question (to me Berkeley plus $100k in educational opportunities vs. Chicago is a no-brainer), the issue of class size and TAs, etc. does strike a chord.</p>
<p>For the vast majority of subjects, I like small classes, and I don't care how famous the prof is. That's why I like LACs, or at least the better ones. Small language classes are always better, small writing seminars are always better, small science labs with one-on-one attention from profs are always better, small classes taking apart poems are better, small classes for music instruction, theatre, applied arts, etc. are better. To me, it seems like the large lecture class which beats individual attention for MOST (but not all) students is the exception, not the rule. Xiggi points out correctly that the truth-stretching that research universities engage in suggests they either believe the same, or have come to the conclusion that their customers do.</p>
<p>BUT (isn't there always a but?)....50-100 person classes are not likely, in most instances, to be better than 500-1,000 person classes. At the point where the prof is no longer likely to know your name, read your paper, have open-door office hours, or engage you in discussion at the snack bar or cafeteria, the advantage vanishes. The only advantage that can be gained is by being taught by a better known, more capable, more exciting professor, and it doesn't matter whether she's speaking to 75 or 750. Average class size isn't going to tell you much about experienced educational quality when you get to that size. If anything, it might be the opposite. The well-known professor is likely to attract the most gifted graduate students to him, and (all other things being equal), it is a reasonable hypothesis that they will make better TAs.</p>
<p>Complicated, isn't it?</p>
<p>Jason, congratulations on getting to choose between two wonderful colleges. Two years ago, I started a similar Chicago vs Berkeley thread for my son. Lots of folks weighed in. He ultimately decided the schools were so equal in his mind that he would save money for grad school by choosing Berkeley. He is still happy with his decision. It's not perfect, but no university is. I don't think you can go wrong with either school.</p>
<p>Here's the thread:</p>
<p>xiggi, the fact that you prefer to learn in a smaller, participatory class environment does not mean that there is no "teaching" going on in large lectures. When I was in college there were some profs who were such talented, insightful lecturers, and so wildly popular -- both at my undergrad campus and at Cal -- that the large lecture halls they taught in were always filled to capacity, standing room only -- attended not only by regularly enrolled students but also guests and auditors. Students hung on every word. The only thing that has changed is the advent of videotape, which relieves some of the physical burden of overcrowding.</p>
<p>I also had some small classes -- with a dozen or fewer students -- where most class sessions were a waste of time. The group was simply too small to consistently keep discussion going with fresh ideas -- some days there would be a good class discussion, but on other days the class would be dead. We'd sit there and stare at one another or shrug, because no one could think of anything else to say. My son reported the same from his LAC, where most classes were restricted to 15 or fewer students -- the problem was that after awhile it got tiresome listening to the same group of 19-year-old's express the same opinions over and over again. </p>
<p>You had the option to choose an educational environment that is right for you, and that's great. That doesn't mean that you ought to be bashing the educational environment that is the model for most large research universities, which education thousands of students. There are some advantages to that environment, and many students thrive in that world. I know that when I was an undergrad at a UC campus, I deliberately chose a mix of large lectures and smaller classes, and my daughter has chosen to do the same. After my son's LAC experience, I strongly encouraged my d. to avoid the LAC route and look for a larger university. </p>
<p>It is true that some profs are not the most gifted of lecturers -- but my own experience was that if the prof. was a bore who spent most of the class time putting everyone to sleep, a large lecture was better than a small class, because I could skip the lecture without being noticed. Also, some of my favorite college teachers were not full professors -- having a Ph.D. does not necessarily make for teaching ability. </p>
<p>Berkeley is a wonderful university. It is not for everyone, but then neither is Chicago, which may have smaller classes but is not known for being "nurturing". I think any student who could thrive at Chicago could also do well at Berkeley, simply because both are places where a student with a strong intellect and passion for learning can do well. </p>
<p>For the money, Berkeley is a better deal for Californians -- especially when you add a Regent's scholarship into the mix. I honestly don't see how anyone could rationally make the case -- financially - for paying $35K more annually for Chicago. (Emotionally is a different question - I'm just talking dollars, not dreams). The point is, the student can get an excellent education at either place. If the parents are rich and paying for the whole thing, I guess it doesn't matter. If not, then I think that Chicago is a hard sell under the circumstances.... especially since Jason is looking at graduate school and having qualms about Chicago's core.</p>
<p>
[quote]
BUT (isn't there always a but?)....50-100 person classes are not likely, in most instances, to be better than 500-1,000 person classes. At the point where the prof is no longer likely to know your name, read your paper, have open-door office hours, or engage you in discussion at the snack bar or cafeteria, the advantage vanishes.
[/quote]
I believe that Intro to Micro/Macroeconomics tends to be the largest class at the U of C. It had 120 students when I took it earlier this year, and it has 150 students this quarter. I sat in the front (due to poor hearing and poorer vision) and went to review sessions before the exams, but I did not raise my hand, and I did not go to office hours. Part way through the quarter after an exam the professor asked me my name. When I walked in to macro after having taken micro the quarter before, he knew immediately who I was and made some kind of comment to me about the classes. He smiles and waves to me and others I know if we see him around campus, and one of my friends, who did go to office hours, is getting him to write a recommendation. It is true that this professor has good facial recognition and memory, but there is absolutely a difference between this and a nameless, faceless lecture hall. (A note about class set-up... He did all lectures and held office hours and led review sessions. There were also five TAs who went to all classes and held their own office hours.)</p>
<p>It doesn't sound to me as if you have any reason why you should attend Chicago. I am not convinced that you sincerely desire the intellectual atmosphere and drive, given your desire to graduate in two years (on your other thread) and your worries about the core, which is what in part gives rise to the intellectualism.</p>
<p>Will I be at an advantage if I graduate from UChicago rather than Berkeley for admission to elite grad schools?</p>
<p>That's kind of a ridiculus question. Your application will be entirely different depending on which school you go to. You will have different classes, different grades, different advising, different campus jobs, different research, different internships, different amounts of money available, different friends, different opinions, different priorities, different time constraints, etc. All of these will effect your applications and, consequently, which grad schools to which you are admitted. The two schools are both excellent. It's not a matter of advantage but of difference.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Will I be at an advantage if I graduate from UChicago rather than Berkeley for admission to elite grad schools?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, you will have less money to spend on grad school. :)</p>
<p>corranged: obviously, all those factors were to be kept at constant. I was asking whether the name of the institution alone would be a factor in admission to grad school. Your answer was kind of ridiculous...</p>
<p>If you do well at either school, grad school will be no problem. But if you spend some of that extra $100k on extra educational opportunities related to your field, Berkeley will be at a distinct advantage.</p>
<p>Quick example: we still don't know your field of study. But most Ph.Ds outside of the sciences will require at a minimum reading knowledge of two languages. Studies I have seen suggest that the two major reasons folks leave grad. programs are 1) lack of funds; and 2) inability to pass the language tests. $100k? Summer language study is a snap. Now if you are planning to study languages anyway, it isn't an issue. If you aren't, a free summer or two and some extra dough can go a long way toward grad school success.</p>
<p>If you were a composer, for another example, participation in one of the prestigious composing institutes where you can have composers (many of whom teach at graduate schools) look at and critique your stuff (and maybe even write your recommendations), would be a huge advantage! But it costs both time and money.</p>
<p>My frosh child at Cal has had at least four professors learn his name and talk to him about possible grauate study options and generally be more supportive and personal than I would have thought possible at a university the size of Berkeley. (These are examples that happened to come up during the year-for all I know, there could be more!) This happened either in response to a question in class discussion or from one of the papers he turned in. One professor stayed over an hour after class one day just to talk about the subject he teaches because of a question my son asked after the lecture. He also has had great GSI's, one who called him when his grade went down to see what was going on and to see if he needed any help. Has he loved every class and every teacher? Certainly not, but has had a great experience overall and is looking forward to his upper division classes where he will really get to know his professors. Good luck with your decision!</p>