Wait. What??? Are you suggesting now that Chicago grads would rather be in Booth than in HBS, Stanford GSB or Wharton? That is laughable, tk. </p>
<p>I’m sure many people would agree with me that HBS is superior to Booth, and that even Booth students would wish they’d rather be at HBS. Booth does not win against HBS in the cross-admit battle. HBS has a nearly 90% yield rate, whilst Booth has only 60%. HBS competes with Stanford GSB and Wharton. So, it’s more likely that those 10% who didn’t accept HBS’ offer went to one of either Stanford or Wharton, not Booth. In short, Booth is for those who aren’t HBS/Wharton/Stanford material. </p>
<p>
That isn’t true as well. Here’s the numbers for Booth. </p>
<p>Whilst Chicago made it to number 7 in the list, it having about 12 alumni, Berkeley was ranked 3rd, it having 15 alumni doing the Booth MBA program. So, Berkeley beat Chicago in its own backyard. That is pretty disgusting, tk.</p>
<p>Why doesn’t Chicago have football when many of their peer schools have football? Probably because it doesn’t really interest the students who decide to matriculate and attend Chicago. I kind of think of Chicago as a LAC in a university’s body. Kids go their to immerse themselves in their education, not because they’re pre-professional. If the latter was their goal, they’d likely be better served by the university across town. Chicago’s core, if you’re pre-professional, is a huge waste of time. Why do students do it then? Because it’s intrinsically valuable to them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your whole argument rests on the assumption that Chicago grads want the same thing as grads of Berkeley / Columbia / Duke. Anyone who’s even remotely familiar with Chicago knows that statement to be false. FWIW, I imagine most Chicago students who major in economics probably apply to graduate programs in the field. That seems more reasonable to me than imagining them being these pre-professional students looking to land at HBS / GSOB / Wharton.</p>
<p>Was your goal when you started this rant to show your sheer ignorance of Chicago and its student body? If it was, you’re succeeding. </p>
<p>Stateuniversity.com is one ranking that does place Tufts higher than Berkeley.
Its methodology is described here: <a href=“About StateUniversity.com's School Rankings”>http://www.stateuniversity.com/about/rank</a>.
In 2011 it ranked Tufts #78 and Berkeley #108.
In 2012 it ranked Tufts #80 and Berkeley #123.
Apparently it has not been updated for 2013.
Note that this ranking, unlike the US News ranking, includes LACs as well as universities (hence the relatively low ranking of both schools).</p>
<p>Rankings, in my opinion, can be useful in the initial search for reach, match, and safety schools.
Once your offers have come in and you’ve narrowed your choices down to a few schools that are pretty closely ranked, I don’t think they are too helpful. Maybe they would be if you wanted to dig into the various metrics that feed them. </p>
<p>beyphy, I’m sorry but I am not buying your argument. Are you saying Chicago grads are turning down offers from prestigious banks and firms such as McKinsey or Goldman Sachs, so they could pursue postgrad studies? </p>
<p>Let’s say, for the sake of argument, your statement was true, will you show me any postgrad/doctorate/Phd program where Chicago is showing a decent placement? </p>
<p>Someone posted the PhD economics student make up of Harvard, Yale, Stanford and Berkeley, and surprisingly, Chicago grads aren’t that visible either. So, enlighten me where Chicago grads are heading to now. </p>
<p>Let us get back to poor OP’s question
OP, it all depends on what you expect from your college experience.
if you’re interested in IR as well as economics, it’s hard to beat Tufts (one of the best IR programs in the country) and an elite private school has comforts a public university (even if it’s the best public university in the country) doesn’t have.
if you want the prestige of a Berkeley degree, then, well, you’ll put up with the lack of advising, the large lecture classes, etc. and you’ll enjoy fabulous classmates and sunny weather.
There’s no wrong choice here.</p>
<p>Indeed, RML, in his/her rabid banner-waving for Berkeley, has conveniently sidestepped the IR interest of OP. In this regard, Tufts is one of the top ten in nation (Fletcher School), alongside Georgetown and others.</p>
<p>And with respect to prestige, than to distinguish Berkeley from Tufts in such a sledge hammer-ish way is kinda silly. (And my D, too, has been to Switzerland many times with close family friends from Zurich, and has gotten impressed reactions from locals there, btw). </p>
<p>Back when I was in college, Tyson taught the ~700 student introductory economics course, and Debreu taught the ~30 student mathematical economics course.</p>
<p>Is it better for a distinguished faculty member to teach a small class or a large class? You may feel that a small class may be more beneficial to the students in the class, but the large class means that more students benefit from being able to take the class with the distinguished faculty member.</p>
<p>Also, is it better to have faculty members teach multiple small sections of common classes, or have larger sections of common classes in order to allow the same number of faculty members to teach a greater selection of advanced and elective classes in the subject?</p>
<p>RML - the OP is now in Switzerland but his father is American and he plans to stay in the US after graduating. I’d agree that Cal will go much further in name recognition if he returns overseas, but job prospects, especially if the OP wants to be on the East Coast (where he has family), will be at least as good coming out of Tufts. Given these circumstances, Tufts does seem the logical choice. </p>
<p>RML, your trolling is a bore. Tons of in-state Cali students admitted to berkeley opt for better privates that might not be as prestigious internationally (due to Cal’s GRADUATE programs) despite potentially higher costs - basically all the enrolled Cali students at every ivy, duke, jhu, rice, chicago, northwestern likely had Berkeley as a viable option. Please tell me why they are choosing Dartmouth over Berkeley despite “superior programs”? Maybe, it’s because they can see through the fact that they aren’t choosing graduate schools?</p>
<p>Blah2009, your comment is out of context. I didn’t say Berkeley is the best. I was saying it’s tiring to read comments on CC about Berkeley having 25k students thus is not as good as private schools by veteran posters like tk. </p>
<p>^ Yes, it is more cost-effective for distinguished faculty members to teach large lecture classes. Arguably, they can have broader impact by not teaching classes at all. Then they can spend more time writing journal articles and textbooks for readers all over the country and the world. </p>
<p>Having distinguished (or at least mature) professors teach undergraduates in small classes is most common at relatively small, well-endowed, selective universities and LACs, which can afford to hire more professors for fewer students. If those fewer students are among the best students drawn from all over the country, often with ambitions to serve as national leaders in academia/government/etc., it makes more sense to allocate those scarce resources to them. In those environments, the objective isn’t to provide the biggest audiences with a one-way flow of information, but to educate (“lead out”) excellent students through discussion and writing assignments. The long-term personal and public benefit of educating future thought-leaders in small classes has to be weighed against the value of lecturing to (or writing for) much larger audiences. </p>
<p>You’ll get a higher concentration of small classes taught by professors at a school like Tufts. You’re more likely to get a mix of large lectures taught by professors, and small discussion sections conducted by grad students, at Berkeley. There are pros and cons to either approach. And neither school follows either model exclusively.</p>
<p>At least on Berkeley professor got an undergraduate degree from Tufts and then went to Harvard for his PhD! My vote goes to Tufts since it is more undergraduate focused.</p>
<p>In practice, LACs tend to have fewer upper level courses and electives, often offered less frequently, since more of the faculty teaching load is consumed by lower level courses. This may be more of an issue when that subject’s lower level courses are commonly needed by non-majors.</p>
<p>I’ve read a lot of the back and forth between RML and tk and for what its worth, in my opinion, tk’s arguments are consistently more well thought out. FWIW, in this small sample size it seems as though U of C produced a deeper thinker than Berkeley. RML, you’ve got a worthy adversary, I suggest taking more time and thought to make this a more fair fight.</p>
