<p>45percenter - I think portions of your analysis are a bit misleading, and this discussion requires a bit more general input.</p>
<p>To push your analogy along, I agree that, when comparing “apples to apples” at two top schools, the differences will be minimal. A philosophy class at Brown or Penn or Chicago or Columbia will be quite similar. </p>
<p>The key difference between schools, however, is to consider the general array of fruits available in the basket, if you will. At Penn, you have philosophy courses and management courses and marketing courses and theoretical physics courses and engineering courses and architecture courses. For the most part, students in any college at Penn can dabble in or try out courses in other schools. The very availability of these courses can change the tone and culture of a school.</p>
<p>On the other hand, some of Penn’s closest peers, such as Columbia and Chicago, don’t offer nearly the breadth of practical courses for undergrads offered at Penn. When I was at Chicago, in fact, there were t-shirts that read “That’s great in practice, but how does it work in theory?” Up until very recently (as Chicago has opened up its grad schools to undergrads a bit more), there was simply no opportunity to take a class in marketing or accounting. Moreover, Chicago students interested in design or engineering or whatever have no outlets for this. I’d imagine students at Brown or Yale are in a similar boat. </p>
<p>On the other hand, some of the more theoretical schools have built up particularly rich histories in certain disciplines, and therefore may offer more “apples” than are offered at peer schools. For example, Penn has a wonderful history program, but if I had the opportunity to study history as an undergraduate, Yale may be an even better choice - their history department is widely regarded to be the premier department in the country. </p>
<p>All this being said, the array of schools and courses offered on campus can change the general tone and culture of a school. Penn offers fine theoretical courses - as good as anywhere in the country. At the same time, as some of its peer schools don’t offer any practical courses at all, that may make the feeling of “theory” more particularly acute at those other schools. Similarly, schools with particularly focused practical approaches may have even more of a “practical” feel. </p>
<p>I say this having attended Chicago as an undergrad, and noting the unifying theme of “how does this work in theory?” that permeated campus. Penn, on the other hand, tends to be much more disparate and laissez-faire in terms of the academic inclinations of its students, from what I observed. Some students at Penn were intensely focused on theoretical physics, others were accounting whizzes, others were promising young engineers, others were superb musical theorists who took classes at the world-renown Curtis Institute. </p>
<p>That’s not at all to say one approach is better than the other - it’s just two different approaches. Generally, when I meet a UChicago grad, I know that this individual has some interest in a core curriculum, and, more often than not, tends to like theoretical stuff. One of the pleasures of meeting a Penn grad is that, quite simply, I have no idea (initially) what the individual’s academic inclinations may be. I may be talking to a physicist or someone who focused on becoming an accountant at KPMG. </p>
<p>Each approach is great, but I think it is useful to parse a bit more finely between the top schools than you did in your post.</p>