U Chicago pre med now (vs Penn CAS)

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
1

<p>I know UChicago has a reputation for grade deflation and has in the past not been the ideal school for a pre med student. However, they've been making many changes and I'm wondering whether it is a now a better pre-med environment (input of current students would be greatly appreciated). How hard is it to get a great (3.7-3.9) GPA? Is it more difficult to do well in pre med science classes than at peer schools? </p>

<p>I also have the option of attending Penn CAS. I liked Chicago a bit more though I think I'd be happy at both and don't know which to choose (i'm also not 100% sure I want to take the pre med route).</p>

<p>This has been asked many times but I still feel like more input would be helpful. Thanks! </p>

2

<p>Penn, UChicago’s pre-med program is currently growing, but is nowhere near as established as the pre-med program at Penn. Also, you mentioned how grade-deflation may be a problem, and I think that may be a major factor when you are applying to various medical programs after you’ve finished your undergrad. If I were you, I would definitely go to Penn, assuming your financial aid package at both schools is reasonable.</p>

3

<p>While I wouldn’t advise making a decision based on stats alone either way, this is a counterpoint to the previous post, which said</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>First of, Chicago’s grade deflation is more of a lack of inflation, and isn’t nearly as real as it was a few years ago. While the grading will likely be harsher than at UPenn, the perceived grade deflation may actually be beneficial. I’ve frequently heard that adcoms are aware of the perceived grade deflation at UChicago and take that into consideration. Either way, it is not as hard as it once was to come out of the experience with a solid GPA.</p>

<p>Second, Penn’s pre-med program is among the strongest in the nation, but so is Chicago’s. The number of Chicago grads attending JHU for med for years 10-11, and 11-12 are 8 and 6 respectively to Penn’s 10 and 7, in spite of Penn’s graduating class (especially for Premed) being significantly larger. In the same vein, UChicago premed has an admissions rate of 78% compared to 73% at Penn. These numbers are close enough for the relative strengths of the pre-med programs to be a non-factor. They both have some of the highest average MCAT scores in the country, with a 33.6 at UChicago and 33.9 at UPenn (compared to 32.4 at Princeton or 33 at Brown).</p>

<p>I guess my point is that they are very close in pre-med (perhaps the slightest edge to UPenn), and are very similar as overall academic institutions (perhaps the slightest edge to UChicago). Therefore as an undergraduate, where both facets are equally important, I wouldn’t use those sort of statistics to make a decision. If you feel that you would be happier at Chicago, I would go with that.</p>

<p>Here are good resources:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.vpul.upenn.edu/careerservices/gradprof/healthprof/parents.php”>http://www.vpul.upenn.edu/careerservices/gradprof/healthprof/parents.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/1473720-health-professions-premed-at-uchicago.html”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/1473720-health-professions-premed-at-uchicago.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

4

<p>Yeah, definitely OP should go to the college he likes better and would be happier at, but OP’s already stated that he would be happy at both Penn and UChicago. Even if the differences in MCAT scores aren’t very substantial, Penn has a prestigious name, especially in the medical field due to how established the program is, if OP’s happy at both, he should definitely take the option where there is a more successful pre-med program (even if the difference is marginal.) Which is Penn, they statistically have higher MCAT scores.</p>

5

<p>

</p>

<p>Chicago’s name is overall at least as prestigious. I don’t see any evidence that Penn’s pre-med program is especially better than Chicago’s (see previous post).</p>

<p>He should go to the college he likes better, no arguments there. I was merely contesting this statement that you made:</p>

<p>

</p>

6

<p>Is asheik serious with this? Penn and Chicago are both equally recognized brands - especially in the med/science worlds. The difference was, for a long time, chicago employed grade deflation and it’s student body didn’t tend to score quite as highly on the mcat (the incoming classes probably weren’t as traditionally accomplished as Penn’s). Worse numbers means worse outcomes. Now that the numbers are the same, the outcomes would be about equivalent. </p>

<p>Two noteworthy points - at chicago, even the premeds need to take serious humanities/core classes. This appeals to some and doesn’t to others. If you want more “English 101” courses, penn could be a better option. Also, chicagos premed group tends to be much smaller than Penn’s, leading to a more intimate environment. </p>

<p>There is no bad choice here, and both schools will get you where you want to go - in an equivalent way. </p>

7

<p>I think there is probably more anti-pre-med sentiment at Chicago than at Penn. At Penn, going to medical school is considered a perfectly admirable, honorable thing to do, and I doubt anyone would give you a hard time for aspiring to go to medical school. At Chicago, there is a streak in the institution that views going to medical school and becoming a doctor as money-grubbing, anti-intellectual behavior (as opposed to doing fundamental research in biology and biophysics, or working in public health). That isn’t limited to undergraduates – in fact, it’s probably less prevalent among undergraduates than elsewhere in the university (except, of course, the medical school), but the attitude certainly exists among undergraduates, too.</p>

<p>That doesn’t mean that Chicago is a terrible place to be a pre-med, but it may mean that Penn feels like a more supportive environment, where at least you don’t have to pretend to be apologetic about what you want.</p>

8

<p>I have never ever had to be apologetic about being a premed. That’s just nonsense. I have never gotten a negative response from someone about my career aspiration.</p>

9

<p>I agree with JHS, a majority of students attending UChicago will specialize in humanities, or in some similar department, overall, Penn will provide a much more supportive community, where you can collaborate and work with your peers more openly. </p>

<p>Even if MCAT scores are nearly the same, the community at a school like Penn cannot be quantified like test scores can. </p>

10

<p>I agree with almost everything JHS says on CC, but the comments about attitudes toward pre-meds at Chicago are wide of the mark. Chicago people generally celebrate high achievement, even when it does not involve getting a Ph.D, and those who aspire to professions are not disdained by their peers. Unless, of course, they are in the small cadre of obnoxious twerps who sit in the front of class and try to brown-nose the teacher. Hopefully, the regular people at Penn don’t much care for the twerps, either.</p>

11

<p>JHS, could you substantiate your comment a bit more? I agree with ssn137 here - I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at, or, if there are currently any notable differences in pre-med experience/outcomes at Penn and Chicago (or amongst any of the close to tippy top schools, frankly). </p>

12

<p>As for Penn students being “more accomplished” than U of C undergrads in the past: Tosh! Poppycock! When I was at the U of C – close to its “nadir” in the late 1980s and early 1990s, most of the students I knew wouldn’t have dreamed of going to U Penn, which at the time – and for quite some time afterwards (fairly or not) – was considered a “doormat” ivy… basically an unserious place with undergrads who wanted to be able to say they went to an ivy, but who wouldn’t have been able to get in to any of the others. Yes, Penn probably had a lower admissions rate back then (who didn’t have a lower admissions rate than the U of C in the 1980s?), but I don’t recall their stats (SAT, GPA, % in class, etc.) being any better – in fact, I think that they were worse… </p>

13

<p>2manyschools - I meant more traditionally accomplished - think the general well rounded types who can interview well and have the personas med schools tend to like. Penn had more of that then chicago, at least in the 90s when I was there. They also had more practical types who would zone in on jumping through all the med school hoops. Med school isn’t really all about intellect. </p>

14

<p>@Cue7: I have no way to judge who had the corner on better presenting pre-meds, Penn or the U of C. Everyone I knew at Chicago who seriously wanted to go to medical school, got in and seems to have done pretty well at it. And of course going to med school is not just about intellect – it is to some degree because you have to be able to think through the material. But it is also very much about discipline, drive, and purpose. </p>

<p>I was reacting to a fairly common meme here, which is that the U of C was awful in the 80s and 90s because it was not a terribly selective place in terms of applications submitted, students admitted, and yield. This of course overlooks the strengths of the education, even if the college was being run in a very, very flawed manner at the time. It also overlooks the extent to which other schools back then were also less selective. Columbia for instance, took about 25% of its applicants. And only Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford were much more “selective”, with admissions rates between 10% and 18% or so, if I remember correctly. </p>

15

<p>2manyschools,</p>

<p>You may be underestimating how “flawed” UChicago’s college was in past decades. Data I have doesn’t go back as far as the 80s or most of the 90s, but here’s a snapshot from 1999:</p>

<p>In 1999, UChicago accepted 48% of its applicants (as seen here: <a href=“Welcome to the University of Chicago Magazine Online”>http://magazine.uchicago.edu/9910/html/collegereport1.htm&lt;/a&gt;). Further, the mid 50% SAT range was : 1310-1470, with 78% graduating in the top 10% of their hs classes. (See here: <a href=“Chicago:Admission Standards”>http://web.archive.org/web/20001008212927/http://www-college.uchicago.edu/College/App-ad/standard.html&lt;/a&gt;)</p>

<p>In 1999, Columbia College accepted 13% of its applicants, with a mid SAT range of 1380-1500, and 90% of students coming from the top 10% of their hs classes. (See here: <a href=“Columbia Undergraduate Admissions”>http://web.archive.org/web/20000815222424/http://www.columbia.edu/cu/admissions/ugrad/&lt;/a&gt;)</p>

<p>As seen above, there are fairly big disparities between the classes 15 years ago. Columbia was much, much more selective, had a low SAT band 70 points higher than UChicago, and had a significantly higher percentage of the class coming from the top 10% of the hs class. </p>

<p>Years back, Dean Boyer readily admitted that, in the past, UChicago sought primarily just to fill seats at the latter end of the class - and the bottom of the class was much weaker than it is now. UChicago’s always had a strong group of students near the right tail - the group that wins Rhodes, Marshall, Fulbright etc., but it also had a good percentage of the class that struggled. Chicago, then, differed from the other selective schools 15 years ago. At those schools, nearly every student was there for a reason, be it intellectual aptitude, connections, sports ability, etc. Those schools didn’t just seek “warm bodies” to fill seats. The most students who enter a school for a reason or purpose, the generally better outcomes those students will have (be it either their connections continue to work, they become plugged into the various networks at their elite school, etc.). </p>

<p>So, to go back to your original assertion, UChicago might not have been “awful” in the 80s and 90s, but it certainly didn’t have the atmosphere or qualities of some of its peers at the time. The gap has narrowed considerably since that time. </p>

<p>I can only imagine that the gap in the 80s and 90s (when UChicago had closer to a 60-70% accept rate) were even more glaring than the data I presented for 1999. </p>

16

<p>Man I’m so jealous of you (rejected ED from Penn and still on the waitlist for Chicago)!! Of course, if I were in your shoes, I would choose Penn hands down (still in love, will probably apply to Penn med school as my first choice even though I can’t afford it AT ALL). Overall, UChicago just seems a lot more chaotic (in all respects) than Penn. I also think Philly is probably safer. It’s also decently close to other large East Coast cities where you can probably take a weekend trip or two!</p>

<p>They both have a med school on campus, but Philly has a LOT of hospitals you could get opportunities at! And then there’s the grade deflation thing. </p>

17

<p>Abstentions - I’m unclear, what do you mean that UChicago is more “chaotic” than Penn? </p>

<p>Also, how does UChicago still have more grade deflation than Penn?</p>

<p>Finally, does Philadelphia have more hospitals than the city of Chicago? I would imagine it’s pretty comparable.</p>

<p>This may sound a bit harsh, but as a Chicago waitlist applicant, you’d be well served to substantiate your comments more fully. You don’t present a single feasible reason above that demonstrates advantages for Penn over Chicago. </p>

18

<p>I didn’t understand the “chaotic” thing either. I am thoroughly familiar with both campuses, and “chaos” isn’t something I would associate with either, but Penn has a lot more traffic, noise, and extraneous people running around (see below). It’s not safer than Chicago, either, although safety really isn’t a concern either place.</p>

<p>But . . . Cue7: There are three hospitals effectively on the Penn campus (HUP, CHOP, and Presbyterian), two of which are world class, and if you really care (which you shouldn’t) four more within a couple miles of campus and accessible in 15 minutes or less on public transportation (Jefferson, Hahneman, Pennsylvania, Wills Eye). All of them are university-affiliated research institutions; three are part of Penn itself and a fourth might just as well be. There is one (great) hospital on the University of Chicago campus, and maybe there’s one other (non-teaching) within convenient travelling distance. So, yeah, if you want to count hospitals, Penn has a big advantage. I doubt having so many hospitals makes any kind of practical difference to undergraduate pre-meds, so it’s a little silly to focus on it, but that doesn’t mean that the two universities are the same in this respect. (More relevant, perhaps, is that Penn also has, effectively on campus, a major independent cancer research facility and a big commercial research incubator with numerous biotech and other health industry start-ups, so Penn students who want to be involved in research have options other than those provided by Penn faculty.)</p>

<p>Anyone who reads this board regularly knows I am a huge fan of the University of Chicago. There are dozens of reasons to choose Chicago over Penn, even if you are a pre-med, but by and large they relate to things other than pre-med courses and research opportunities. Penn is also a great university, and it has some real strengths in this area.</p>

19

<p>Also not feeling the “chaotic” remark. Agree with JHS that, if anything, Penn’s size, and the presence of major traffic thoroughfares directly adjacent to campus make it the more chaotic place. Chicago, by contrast, is moe like an academic oasis. The chaotic comment might, however, reflect a general impression regarding the student body that may have some validity. Penn, where I have spent a fair amount of time, always struck me as a more focused, pre-professional sort of place. At Chicago, there’s more of an “anything goes” mentality, where students question everything, including themselves (I am not aware of any other place where self-mockery is practiced with such vigor and wit). If one is hyper-focused on science strictly as a gateway to medical school, then Penn is probably the place to go. It has better hospitals, but more importantly, a student with a very narrow focus might not thrive at Chicago. Almost like taking a vow, Chicago works best for open-minded students who are comfortable with the proposition that their college education will change them. Penn is great, but if one is willing to embrace reforming one’s critical thinking through vigorous engagement with fundamental texts, caring professors, and a student cohort of fellow travelers, then Chicago is about the best place I can think of. Yale might be the only other place that combines resources, talent, and deep intellectual pursuit in roughly the same way.</p>

20

<p>Correcting an error in my last: Chicago, by contrast, is “more” like an academic oasis. Regret the poor self-editing.</p>