<p>So my college choice comes down to Cornell (school of arts and science) and U Chicago. Financial aid isn't an issue, so it really comes down to what both schools have to offer to me in terms of academics, setting, and other factors. I plan on studying physics with a possible double major in philosophy or econ. Thanks in advance!</p>
<p>Well, would you rather be in a large city or a rural collegetown? Would you rather have a core or not? Would you rather have Division I athletics or less of a campus spirit vibe?</p>
<p>Most importantly, have you visited both campuses?</p>
<p>I don’t think there is much of a difference between the academics at Cornell and Chicago, especially for such majors as physics or philosophy. Both are extremely good undergraduate institutions.</p>
<p>ha ha I had the same dilemma…and I ultimately decided that Cornell was the place for me. I have not visited…i will this weekend and next weekend I will visit Chicago…but only because if I canceled the trip I would have had to pay for the airfare…he he
But it was a pretty hard decision…not choosing between the schools but choosing how far way to go…lol</p>
<p>Cornell is probably a funner place to be; the competition is not as intense, the students are more closely knit and its…safer.</p>
<p>UChicago, on the other hand, is more academically prestigious, but may also not provide an as-fun experience.</p>
<p>I’m going to Cornell but I have to say both schools are awesome. I have a lot of respect for UChicago, which has a lot of cross admits with Cornell, people on CC from UChicago are always very smary and respectful. We should create an alliance haha. It really comes down to your personality, they are two very different social atmospheres</p>
<p>If you do a search on the sub-forums of these two universities, there are numerous prior threads on this same topic that will offer further discussion.</p>
<p>U Chicago is where fun goes to die… 'nuff said. [url=<a href=“http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=where+fun+goes+to+die]Urban”>Urban Dictionary: where fun goes to die]Urban</a> Dictionary: where fun goes to die<a href=“yes,%20i%20did%20just%20cite%20urban%20dictionary”>/url</a></p>
<p>I, until recently, had almost the exact same dilemma. I am very interested in mathematics as well as physics so the quality of the programs was very important, however at this level (tier1) there isn’t much of a difference. So with that in mind, I took on a new lense so to speak by not only looking at the financial aid difference, but the atmospheric/academic difference. </p>
<p>Personally, I feel that while the Core is awesome I would like to have more options as an undergraduate as to what i want to study: my interests are too broad for something so confining as the core. Furthermore, the intellectual difference seems to be of no issue; cornell is so diverse and big that there are bound to be many students who can carry on conversations on austrian economics or politics, philosophy, etc. Thus if you really think about it, Cornell is big enough to fit a bit of a UChicago inside it, in terms of what courses you take and the students you encounter.
Nevertheless, the teaching styles might very well be strikingly different: chicago is a much smaller school, and if you take a tour you might notice the round tables which promote an egalitarian environment, conducive to learning and questioning. I’m not quite sure how cornell differs in that respect, but i’m willing to give cornell the benefit of the doubt. </p>
<p>It really comes down to the climate, and the everpresent reality of a college town encompassing the school–or perhaps the other way around-- vs the “urban jungle.”
Hope this helps.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a fantastic point that I really wish more people would be able to digest. If you are looking for intellectualism on campus, it isn’t hard to find at Cornell. Cornell has undergraduate journals in philosophy and economics, and many of the co-ops and cafes have a decidedly intellectual bent (Telluride, Temple of Zeus, Stellas?). I’ll also point out that the frequent Cornell posters on this site tend not to exhibit the full range of intellectualism that is found on campus.</p>
<p>I have a good friend from Chicago who would often visit friends in Ithaca, and he often commented on how similar he felt the student bodies were between the two campuses. But that was only because he was hanging out with my friends. I took him to a frat party one night and I think he wet his pants a little. </p>
<p>I also have many friends currently in their PhD programs at Chicago who in hindsight were extremely happy to have spent four years at a place like Cornell, which is incredibly focused on undergraduate education and the undergraduate experience.</p>
<p>Haha, that’s a great story Cayuga. I remain a little reluctant of the student body at Cornell, mainly because the student body is so large and that over 30% of undergraduates are involved with Greek life. I assume that out of the 60% that does not go Greek, there is definitely an intellectual community that can be found, and that there is a balance to the partying. Can you elaborate on the extent of partying on campus?</p>
<p>I second the concern brought up by ChaoticOrder about classes and whether they promote learning and inquiry. I sat in on a couple of classes; two of them were large lectures, and I found quite a few (or rather, a large minority of) students playing games on their laptops. I found this a bit disheartening, since I know that Cornell students are generally hardworking and dedicated. There was very little student questioning or professor-student interaction during these lectures, which wasn’t too surprising. However, I also sat in on some smaller classes, and during one particular literature class (which contained a maximum of 20 students), there was virtually no teacher-student interaction. Cayuga, I would just like an explanation or justification of why this might have been the case. Surely, not all small classes have little to no interaction? I would like your thoughts on this.</p>
<p>Not all seminar classes have little to no interaction. I took a seminar called Social Studies of the Human Sciences…it was a fantastic class. There was absolutely no lecturing from the prof…the class went in whatever direction we (the students) chose.</p>
<p>It was a long class…but I looked forward to it every week because the material was interesting and the students’ different perspectives on the material made discussion enjoyable and intriguing.</p>
<p>I took a larger lecture course called Sociology of Health and Ethnic Minorities. The prof had to push through the material in class, but did stop for brief discussions. I’m normally not one to attend office hours, but I went to the prof’s office on more than one occasion to talk about a point made in class that I wanted to elaborate on.</p>
<p>There’s really as much partying on campus as you want there to be. Some students go out four nights a week. Others perhaps once a month. And for the person with a general aversion to parties, after freshman year where you are mainly bonding with your dorm mates, it becomes either a) pretty easy to avoid or b) easier to find the type of parties you enjoy yourself at. There are also a whole bunch of other activities to pursue besides partying on campus – including events organized by the dorms, the program houses, and the various student groups.</p>
<p>As for your lectures and the inattention provided by students, I don’t think you would have a different experience at any other research university. Even Harvard and Yale Law schools are notorious for students not paying attention in class. Personally, I liked the large-lecture format to a lot of my introductory courses, because it meant that when I had something that was more important – like do work for a professor or talk to a friend who needed to chat – I wouldn’t necessarily feel guilty not showing up.</p>
<p>As for the smaller lecture, I actually think it is fairly common for smaller lectures of 15-30 students not to have all that much classroom discussion either. That’s what makes lectures, well, lectures. I’ve sat in on smaller lectures at such schools as Notre Dame, Georgetown, Dartmouth, and Harvard and haven’t ever really had an experience where there was a lot of give and take between professors and students. In fact, some of my favorite courses at Cornell were simply smaller lectures in history or economics where you really got to know the professor, but most of the time you just sat in awe of everything they were teaching you. And quite frankly, any conversation you could have during the class would be subpar to what was being offered in lecture format. And you are required to write papers and sit for exams to show that you have put thought into the material – not come up with interesting questions designed to impress the professor. And really, that’s what office hours are for. The professor has a lesson plan to get through.</p>
<p>This contrasts with seminars and independent studies, which are really interactive learning tutorials, and most Cornell student have a half a dozen of these types of experiences as well. Most of the time these are great, but I think at all schools you will encounter the person who is just talking to hear himself heard and not really adding much to the conversation. I know that’s why I would have hated to have all of my classes like that.</p>
<p>Of course, your learning style may differ. But I learned more in my 150 person economic history course than in my 15 person seminar on theories of political systems. If you want constant attention from professors, a liberal arts school is the way to go. If you want more expansive freedom to explore different subjects and to be able to develop closer relationship with a couple of professors, a research university like Cornell does an excellent job, in my mind.</p>
<p>Cayuga, thanks for your insight. While I know that many large universities hold lectures, where is the room for thinking outside the box? I am loath to think that all top-tier schools teach information to brilliant students just for them to memorize and regurgitate. Or maybe I’m missing something, and that just simply by listening to lectures students are able to become better thinkers. I don’t know what specific types of classes you’re referring to, but I am interested in a social sciences-type path, and I know that generally in these classes, discussion and personal perspectives of students matter more than in, say a biology class. </p>
<p>I understand that the knowledge professors gives students is more important that the opinions of the students, but I did not know that classes without discussion was common protocol in universities. I mean, generally one hears parents ask about the student to teacher ratio, and I thought that their whole concern was whether their student would be lost in the shuffle or not. I am not saying I would like constant attention from professors nor am I challenging the effectiveness of lectures, but I just did not know that all universities used this policy.</p>
<p>I hope I did not offend you; that was not my intention. I am just genuinely curious about how college education works. I have been made to believe that smaller classes with more dicussion are more conducive to learning. I may change my mind once I get to college.</p>
<p>I can’t attest to more social science-y classes, but I can tell you about the engineering experience.</p>
<p>Engineering is made for “thinking outside of the box.” We are encouraged to come up with novel solutions to age old problems.</p>
<p>We have lectures, where we learn the theory behind everything. Then we have homework and recitation sections, where most of the learning happens. Most of the time, if homework isn’t just “plug and chug” type problems from a book, then the creative problems really require students to play with their understanding of the material. We are forced to ask ourselves for other ways to approach the problem, and then apply it.</p>
<p>Now if every single person who had what they thought was a novel concept talked about it in lecture, none of the foundation would be learned.</p>
<p>In English classes, lecture really is more of an informal discussion. Analysis of the book is entirely done by the students, and the flow of the discussion is directed by the professor.</p>
<p>It is a general misconception that these smaller type classes teach you more. There are plenty of methods and times for interacting with your professors that don’t infringe upon their time to teach you the material.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Keep in mind that there’s a huge difference between college and grad school, too, and I would argue that somebody who has experienced the any school from the graduate or professional side hasn’t really experienced it from the undergraduate side. Graduate school is very different in its purpose, philosophy, and the kinds of students you meet from any undergraduate college.</p>
<p>Both are amazing schools academically with very different social experiences. Choose for fit.</p>
<p>My daughter is a Sophmore at Cornell (ILR) and applied ED. Her only regrets as to school options is that she did not seriously consider U of Chicago. She would be happy at a school where fun went to die-a badge of honor of sorts.</p>
<p>Just like to thank everyone for their responses in this topic so far :O</p>
<p>From a UC professional school alum who hung out with undergrads years ago and has an undergrad.child at UC: “fun comes to die” is an old aphorism, probably adhered to still by undergrads manifesting perverse pride in UC’s academic rigor. I attended a family weekend luncheon 4 years ago at which the dean of admissions addressed how UC had made a concerted conscious effort in the 2 years prior to that to make UC more fun; my child ardently testifies to its success, in a very UC way- see,e.g. the scavenger hunt.</p>