Opposites: Dartmouth v.s UChicago?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
1

<p>I'm deciding between Dartmouth and UChicago - so basically two complete opposites - research university v. liberal arts, large city v.s. rural. Those factors don't matter too much to me. What I'm really looking for is a supportive, community atmosphere that has a large undergraduate focus that will allow me to excel after graduation. Also taking prestige/reputation into account too. Right now I'm leaning towards Dartmouth because of some of the negative things i've heard about chicago's student life ("dangerous," fun goes to die, intense, etc.), but I want to major in econ or one of the sciences where Chicago has dominant programs.</p>

<p>any comments? Are my conceptions about Chicago wrong? </p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

2

<p>Well, I think your post has it just about backwards. If you don’t care about “research university v. liberal arts” (something Dartmouth would bridle at, a little, because they think they are a research university, too, but comparatively you are right), or “large city vs. rural”, then you might as well flip a coin, because those factors describe most of the important differences between the two colleges. Those differences are real, and worth caring about. Things like prestige and community atmosphere – both colleges have plenty of those, and you would have a hard time measuring the differences.</p>

<p>Precisely because it is less of a research university, Dartmouth is more undergraduate-focused almost by definition. Does that mean anything for the education you get or your later success in life? Hard to tell; probably not. Some people are going to like that better, though, and others are going to prefer being where the cutting-edge action is, which means lots of grad students and stuff going on other than holding your hand and asking if you have understood everything before we go to the next chapter.</p>

<p>At Dartmouth, people do a heck of a lot more in the great outdoors than they do at Chicago. They also drink more and have more massive, campus-wide parties resembling orgies. That’s because there’s nowhere else they can go. So you have awesome school spirit if you can remember anything when you wake up. Whether that’s more or less dangerous than your exposure to panhandling and petty theft in Hyde Park is an interesting topic for debate.</p>

<p>Chicago almost certainly has a somewhat more intense atmosphere than Dartmouth, academically, and the people who go there like it that way. People there don’t seem to waste a lot of time pretending to be too cool for school. They LIKE school. So do the people at Dartmouth, but they don’t talk about it as much.</p>

<p>As for fun coming to die – if you don’t get the joke, then by all means go straight to Dartmouth, because you are not going to like Chicago much.</p>

<p>Really, they’re both fine educational institutions, and your degree from either will communicate that you are smart and successful to anyone who matters. Each college has a fairly obvious character that’s different from the other, but both inspire pride and loyalty in their students. Dartmouth students have simply adored it for centuries. Chicago has been up and down, and seems to be pretty firmly up right now, but every undergraduate has a list of likes and dislikes about it – that’s just how they are built. It’s pretty tough to be drawn equally to them. Go with your gut.</p>

3

<p>wow - thank you for the response!</p>

4

<p>Hey there,</p>

<p>I’m actually making the exact same decision as well. I’ve spent the past two weeks doing as much research I can on both of them, which has only weighed them more equally than before. What’s worse is that I don’t have this “gut feeling” everyone speaks of. Bloody hell.</p>

<p>I’m going to Dimensions next weekend AND staying over at Chicago. Are you? If not I can tell you about what I see and experience as a prospective student without a bias towards either school.</p>

<p>Hopefully I’ll find this ever elusive “gut feeling” by the end of my trip.</p>

<p>Best of sincerest luck.</p>

<p>P.S.
I totally realize that I pretty much did nothing to help inform you, but I just wanted to let you know that you’re not alone. At all.</p>

5

<p>Why not just visit. Just make sure to go when school is still in session. Spend a weekend at both schools and compare your gut reactions.</p>

6

<p>I think Darmouth and Chicago are more alike than you would like to think.
They both have similar populations of undergraduates, similar type students, quarter system, etc. I do, however think the main difference is twofold:

  1. Dartmouth is in the middle of nowhere, whereas Chicago is in the middle of everywhere.
  2. Dartmouth has ~1,700 grad students whereas Chicago has ~10,000.</p>

<p>So overall, while Dartmouth IS a research university, it doesn’t have nearly as much as Chicago has… probably because of reason number one. That being said, you’re going for and undergraduate education, so the grad students really ought not matter too much. From what I garnered this past trip to Chicago, there are really phenomenal teachers teaching in the College. However, these professors are surprisingly young (30s and 40s). They are recent PhD recipients from world-class universities (Oxbridge, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, LSE, King’s College, etc) who need to find work. UofC puts them up for a few years, allots some research opportunities, and has them teach “lower level” classes (Sosc, Hume, Civ, Math 130s-160s, etc). Despite that, these professors are not up for tenure. So you’ve got these wicked good professors, doing research, heavily focused in on undergraduates, but who (in all likelihood) will not remain at Chicago for a significant amount of time. Conversely, the “true” professors (i.e. those intensely focused on cutting edge research) are teaching 1-2 classes, usually graduate courses, and focusing the rest of their time on globally enhancing their specialized field. </p>

<p>I can’t really compare/contrast that with Dartmouth, but at Chicago, while you’re not getting the Milton Friedmans in your basic classes, you’re getting the post-doc’s who are very excited about teaching undergrads and are not as focused on their research… but you do have the hope of getting a Milton Friedman professor maybe in your third or fourth year. </p>

<p>I would say Dartmouth has a tad more prestige, and also money on its side. I read a study recently that Dartmouth grads (ones who don’t go to grad school, that is) have the highest starting salary of anyone in the country. You can take this for what its worth, just a factoid or a big predictor of future successes. On the other hand, Chicago has one of, if not THE, highest percent of undergrads who complete PhD’s. Again, take that for what you wish. </p>

<p>Your conception of Chicago being the place where fun comes to die is 100% false. I spent last Friday night with Pierce people, and fun certainly was not dead. I think if you wanted fun to die, you could make it, but no one there wants to. The fun coming to die schpiel is from a T-shirt that carried said title. It caught on with the students because of the [massive] amount of work they had to do, however, most of the students LIKE and HATE the work at the same time. So the “where fun comes to die” thing is just self deprecating humor: “We have massive amounts, and a lot of the time it sucks. But we like work so it’s okay for us to laugh about how much we like the ridiculous amount of work we have to do.”</p>

7

<p>neogop: All professors, even Nobel laureates, are required to teach at least one undergraduate course. All of my professors are pretty much top-notch. Some of them are very famous, and others are not.</p>

8

<p>Mmm… I’d like to see a source on that because I know of a professor whose daughter explicitly told me he only taught undergraduate courses. She may have been wrong, but that is what I heard. But, I would not be surprised if a significant number of top-notch researchers wanted to teach undergraduate courses consistently.</p>

9

<p>This may be changing, but historically for faculty members to teach a recurring undergraduate course at Chicago they must have an appointment in the College. The Dean of the College confers such appointments. One can have an appointment to the College without one to a Division (how the grad schools are organized) and only teach undergrads, though that is rare; and, one can have an appointment to a division, but not to the College, and only teach grad students, which is also rare. </p>

<p>My advisor at Chicago had the title Professor in the Departments of Psychology, Psychiatry, Medicine, and in the College. He taught graduate, undergraduate, and combined courses (he would usually cross list his course between the grad department, the College, and psychiatry). So, there would be undergrad students, grad students, medical students, and at times a medical resident or two all in the same course. He ran a large lab with many grads and undergrads doing research, and was preeminent in his field. S1 has had classes with many top researchers while at Chicago in many areas. His Core topics biology course was taught by a very respected research/clinician MD.</p>

10

<p>

</p>

<p>The Princeton Review</p>

11

<p>Yeah, I wasn’t saying ALL College courses are taught by the L. E. Dickson instructors, but a lot of the lower level classes are. Some that I’ve noticed are Sosc, Hume, Civ, Math 130s, 150s, 160s, Analysis, etc.</p>

12

<p>Heh three of my courses right now are taught by top-notch professors, one of whom actually represents the entire university’s genetic school of thought. If you want their names PM me. I am just a freshman!</p>

13

<p>I had to make the same decision too a month ago. It’s a hard choice.</p>