<p>
</p>
<p>Well, sure. Personally, I think the “prestige” concept is rather medieval. It is way over-emphasized on this forum. If students from famous universities seem to have above-average outcomes (in earnings or grad school admissions), part of that is no doubt because the famous schools are cherry-picking top students (who in many cases would tend to succeed, regardless).</p>
<p>Having said that, the most selective, most prestigious schools do tend to have objective advantages. For one thing, they have a lot of money to throw around, which generally means much better financial aid. It also can mean nicer facilities (not only research facilities but also quality-of-life facilities such as dorms, dining halls and athletic facilities.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Quite a few high-status Chicago faculty spend time teaching undergraduates, as I tried to demonstrate above. What evidence is there that low-paid, low-status instructors have any more (or less) concern for undergrads? Suppose there is no correlation between salary/status and concern for undergrads. In that case, isn’t faculty achievement still a net benefit to the community? The mission of research universities is to discover and spread knowledge, which includes (but is not limited to) teaching undergraduates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So don’t go to college at all. Sit at home, read books, and surf the internet.</p>
<p>Classes at Chicago tend to be small and discussion-based. Interaction with professors and with other students is an important part of the experience. The interaction includes not only classroom discussion about challenging readings but also the professor’s feedback to writing assignments (papers and essay test questions).</p>