<p>i got in columbia RD (after being deferred ED) and i love the school. but when i was deferred, i fell in love with uchicago as well. i'm looking to major in poli sci, history, anthropology, international relations, and other social sciences of the sort...so i need some help. i mean they're both great academically, but which one is better for these fields?</p>
<p>also, uchicago has a social environment i think i would be more comfortable in. it's quirky and a little dorky and i really like that, but columbia, i feel like, has more name recognition/network. also, i'm looking for discussion-based classes that are relatively small, and i noticed that columbia doesn't offer freshman seminar like most schools and that most of the classes i'll be taking are lectures. the core also worries me too. it takes up two full years of college. </p>
<p>soo any comments on the two schools would be really helpfull... thanks!</p>
<p>At the risk of incurring annoyance on the Columbia board, where I usually tout the Columbia experience my S is having :), it sounds to me as if you really see yourself at UChicago, but are nervous about turning down an Ivy League School. Chicago is a great institution, and if by networking/name recognition you mean academic, it has a wonderful academic reputation. Also, Chicago is known for treating its undergrads more like grad students. That means a lot will be expected of you there, but you are also likelier to have more access to professors than at some of the larger departments at Columbia. Given your self-description, I think Chicago could be a great experience for you. But I would suggest that, if you can, you revisit both schools and sit in on classes.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>There are freshmen seminars. those form the basis of the core curriculum. they're small discussions (led by professors, not TAs)</p></li>
<li><p>Columbia does not lack in the dorky department. you will meet kids nerdier than yourself, I guarantee it. You will also meet finely poised blue-bloods trying to become the next generation of leaders. But nobody feels out of place. The CU Games Club is a good example of the former.</p></li>
<li><p>The core itself is a tribute to how much the university actually does care about its undergraduates, since it has spent so much time and money refining and providing the curriculum. These are classes that, left to your own devices, you might wish you had taken at some point - but would ordinarily avoid, since they're probably outside your area of expertise and you wouldn't want to be at a competitive disadvantage. Well, since EVERYONE has to take them, no one is at a competitive disadvantage. Lastly, everyone has had experiences where they walked out of a core class and actually felt more educated - like they'd learned something important or raised their awareness. It's hard to describe until you've been through it.</p></li>
<li><p>Chicago is a great institution. You can't go wrong.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>thanks for the suggestions/info. i am visiting and staying overnight at both. and you both are totally right. sac, i am kind of nervous/regretting turning down an ivy league (and so are my parents). and you're right denzera, no matter where i go, i'll be able to find my niche. i guess i have to do more research about columbia...the whole frosh seminar thing with coreee. and i'm not saying i don't like the core -- i can't wait to take art humanities -- i'm just not sure i want something so concrete. hmmm. does anybody know which school has a stronger social science faculty -- especially poli sci.</p>
<p>If I'm not mistaken (can someone back me up on this?) Columbia has the #1 Poli Sci department in the country. Chicago has the #1 Econ department.
Chicago and Columbia are actually very similar schools in terms of "core," workload and intellectualism, but Columbia definitely has an edge in Math/Sci and relative prestige. </p>
<p>But again, you can't go wrong with either of these schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are freshmen seminars. those form the basis of the core curriculum. they're small discussions (led by professors, not TAs)
[/quote]
Sorry to contradict. Again, I'm a Columbia fan and my kid loved the core, but he did not have a single professor for his core classes. Every one was taught by a grad student. Some of them were great, some weren't. Having a grad student, especially freshman year, might even have been an advantage. Still I think we should be accurate. Not that many profs teach core classes.</p>
<p>Also, though many of them were taught seminar style, they were mostly more than 20 students, which is larger than what most people think of as a seminar.</p>
<p>Chicago's core is different than Columbia's. It allows for more choice. This can be a plus, or a minus, depending on how valuable you think it is to have the experience of all your classmates reading the same books at the same time, vs being able to choose more classes according to your interests.</p>
<p>Rankings of departments as an undergrad don't count for much, especially between institutions with overall reputations that Columbia and Chicago have. Even if poli sci ranks higher at Columbia, the question is at which poli sci department would you have the best experience as an undergrad. </p>
<p>I'm glad you're revisiting both places. You have two excellent opportunities. Congratulations. After your visits, go with your gut, not USNWR.</p>