<p>“I wouldn’t decline a university I was otherwise interested in simply for fear of falling victim to street crime.”</p>
<p>It is a very legitimate concern jakey, especially for a woman.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Other universities typically have departments spanning undergraduate and graduate levels. Chicago’s governance model is a little different. Since 1932, the Dean of the College has been empowered to make faculty appointments to the College. Not every professor of a given (graduate) department is appointed to the College. Those who are will be listed in the department faculty pages as, “John Smith, Assistant Professor of American History and the College” or some such. In theory (at least), the Dean of the College can appoint undergraduate faculty more focused on teaching than research, and not overly focused on the concerns of one department. My experience (admittedly from quite a few years ago) was that faculty did tend to interact in a serious way with undergraduates. </p>
<p>I don’t know how many faculty these days are appointed exclusively to the College. So I would not want to over-stress the practical difference this governance model makes, by itself. However, it should be understood that Chicago’s “Core” is more than just a set of required history courses, English courses, etc., with a Great Books focus. The college-wide faculty appointments, the curriculum, the use of primary-source materials, and small discussion-focused classes are all elements of Chicago’s approach to an integrated, roughly 2 year long, program of general education for all undergraduates. If you don’t value this approach, if you just want to get on with the business of studying economics or whatever, I don’t see much point spending a lot more money to attend the University of Chicago. It’s also possible that I’m over-idealizing Chicago’s program, and that Michigan’s honors program delivers enough integration and discussion (or whatever you’re looking for) at a lower price.</p>
<p>tk, Chicago seems to have formalized a system that exists in a less formal setting a most prominent universities; word of mouth. At Michigan students pretty much know which professors are hands on and which are not based on their reputation. </p>
<p>Again, through the Core, Chicago students have a very effective and formalized means of taking discussion-based courses, while at Michigan and most other universities, students who value such interactive courses have several options to choose from in each field and discipline. It naturally takes some initiative for students to figure out which courses offer the sort of discussion-based courses, but they are available in abundance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s ranked higher. I wouldn’t say that makes it ‘better’ or ‘more prestigious.’ A counter claim to the former might be the dangerous neighborhood of Hyde Park; As far as the latter is concerned, i think that outside of the Midwest, (perhaps even in it,) Chicago’s still a notch below HYPSM, like the 20-25 other universities, including Michigan. I doubt many would hold that Chicago is meaningfully more prestigious than Michigan.</p>
<p>OP, i also don’t have a dog in this fight. But i also agree you choose for fit. If your daughter’s very intellectually oriented, choose Chicago; if she wants a traditional college experience, choose Michigan.</p>