<p>Prestige doesn’t matter for med school. What matters is your GPA. That said, it doesn’t seem like Temple is the right school for her. She should decide between Chicago and Middlebury, depending on whether she wants city or rural.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Chicago is not especially huge. It has ~5100 undergraduates. Compare that to Temple’s 28,000. Moreover, Chicago’s average class sizes are quite small. Chicago has a smaller student:faculty ratio, and a higher percentage of classes with less than 20 students, than Middlebury does.</p>
<p>I don’t know what evidence anyone might have that Chicago professors have no interest in teaching undergraduates. Chicago does have incentives for high-quality undergraduate teaching ([Llewellyn</a> John and Harriet Manchester Quantrell Awards for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching | The University of Chicago](<a href=“Page Not Found | University of Chicago”>Llewellyn John and Harriet Manchester Quantrell Awards for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching | University of Chicago)). Many of its most distinguished professors have taught undergraduates.</p>
<p>The web pages for each department includes a “faculty” section. You can visit them to see the many distinguished professors who occupy named positions (or “chairs”) as well as appointments to “the College.” For example, in the Economics department ([University</a> of Chicago Department of Economics | Faculty & Staff](<a href=“http://economics.uchicago.edu/facstaff/]University”>http://economics.uchicago.edu/facstaff/)), on page two of the faculty pages is Steven Levitt. He is “The William B. Ogden Distinguished Service Professor in Economics and the College”. He also is co-author of Freakanomics, the recipient of the Johns Bates Clark Medal (highest distinction in the field, next to the Nobel) … and a 1998 recipient of the Quantrell award for excellence in undergraduate teaching.</p>
<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>