<p>I'm really confused over which one I want to attend. I will most likely major in biology and apply to med school after my undergrad. </p>
<p>I'm looking for overall teaching quality, reputation, and research opportunities...though I've taken into account the whole weather issue as well as the class sizes</p>
<p>Any input would be helpful! ;)</p>
<p>bump same situtation as OP</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You do not have to major in biology to take the pre-med courses.</p>
<p>azndarkvader, the first thing to consider is cost. If you are a California resident with no aid from either school, the difference is substantial. In that case, if you’ve been accepted by both and at this point still don’t have a clear preference, go with Berkeley.</p>
<p>Otherwise, if the costs are reasonably close, and since you are not a prospective engineering or CS major, I’d recommend Chicago. What does “reasonably close” mean? That’s for you and your family to determine. </p>
<p>Chicago offers smaller classes and a more intimate campus environment. The faculty puts a lot of thought into the undergraduate curriculum and rewards good teaching. Both schools have excellent resources in the life sciences (faculty, etc.) but I think you’d find those resources are better focused on undergraduates at Chicago. Chicago also draws undergraduate students from all over the USA and the world, whereas the Berkeley student body is overwhelmingly from California, especially from the Bay area and surrounding counties.</p>
<p>In Berkeley’s favor, the weather is better. If you want more of a traditional college experience (sports scene, etc.) you might be happier there. In recent years Chicago has invested heavily in athletic facilities and dorms, but I’m afraid many people would still find the environment a little gloomy if you’re not strongly attracted to what it has to offer.</p>
<p>I agr4ee with TK21769. And check the four year graduation rate for Berkeley. You may find the cost differential narrowing between Berkeley and Chicago if it take you 5 years to get the courses you want - increasingly a problem at Berkeley.</p>
<p>I’m actually majoring in chemistry but going into premed… i have little to no financial aid from cal but almost half aid from u of chicago. my concern is if its too hard to maintain my gpa at u of chicago? will it jeopardize my chance of being a competitive medschool applicant if i go to u of chicago??</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps consider chemical engineering, since it is a better backup in terms of job and career prospects than chemistry (according to the [UC</a> Berkeley career survey](<a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Major.stm]UC”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Major.stm)) in case you do not get into medical school.</p>
<p>I haven’t really read much on U of Chicago’s average GPA, but Berkeley is a well-known GPA deflator, so it’s going to be difficult to get good grades at Berkeley as well. I’ve heard this may be particularly true for the College of Chemistry, which offers (from what I hear) an amazing education in chemistry but can’t be easy to get a good grade in.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>teaching quality: Berkeley > Chicago
reputation overall: Berkeley > Chicago
reputation undergrad: Berkeley = Chicago
research opportunities: Chicago > Berkeley (maybe)
quality of research: Berkeley > Chicago
weather: Berkeley > Chicago
(faculty to student ratio) class sizes: Chicago > Berkeley</p>
<p>^ What is the basis for claiming Berkeley’s undergraduate teaching is stronger than Chicago’s? This is a very hard thing to measure and compare. To do it well, you’d have to account not only for faculty competence (knowledge, experience), but also for the quality of instructional materials, class sizes, the level of interaction in discussions and written assignments, the availability of professors outside class, course and curriculum design, and
pedagogical practices.</p>
<p>I have no first-hand knowlege of undergraduate teaching quality at Berkeley. I can say that Chicago for many years has been known for having an exceptional undergraduate faculty. Many well-known senior faculty members regularly teach undergraduates. The College reqognizes excellent teaching through the undergraduate Quantrell Awards, which have often gone to very distinguished scholars. Class sizes are comparable to small LACs. They are very discussion-focused and almost always use primary source materials (which in the past often have been prepared by the university press for specific courses). A great deal of collective faculty thought and discussion has gone into the Core curriculum design, and pedagogical methods for teaching and testing, over the past several decades. So I think it is safe to say (although I cannot put a number on it to compare with other schools) that teaching quality at Chicago is really superb.</p>
<p>As for research, I don’t know how anyone can make a blanket assertion that the “quality of research” is clearly better at one peer school than another. At best, one can say that one school invests more in research, publishes more journal pages per faculty member, racks up more citations per faculty member, etc. These are quantitative metrics. Nobody has figured out how to measure the quality of research for a university as a whole. You could count faculty prizes or national academy memberships per capita, but those are fairly crude indicators. Both Berkeley and Chicago would score well by such measures.</p>
<p>
Check this out: [Best</a> Undergraduate Teaching | Rankings | Top National Universities | US News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/undergraduate-teaching]Best”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/undergraduate-teaching)</p>
<p>
I’m not sure about that. Maybe you’re correct. But according to USNews, Berkeley’s is just better. In fact, it is ranked (in the top 10), while Chicago is not. </p>
<p>
Actually, you can. There are citations for having done great research. Words circulate quite fast in your field – you tend to know who’s great at which program/field easily. Then you have the budget data. Of course, well-funded research works are presumably higher quality research works than small-funded research works.</p>
<p>I don’t see a link to any description of the methodology behind that USNWR ranking.
What does “noted by college administrators as paying a particular focus on undergraduate teaching” really mean? In this area in particular, I think a numeric ranking is especially absurd.</p>
<p>Try to deconstruct what we mean by teaching quality into measurable factors and on that basis replicate the USNWR ranking. Think about what that would entail. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you are talking about citation density studies, they do not measure “citations for having done great research”. They count citations, period. Now you can assume that if one peer-reviewed journal article is cited in another peer-reviewed journal article, the cited article does represent good and significant research. It is a huge leap to compare the cumulative totals and say, on this basis, that the university with the bigger number has superior “quality of research” overall.</p>
<p>If you’re an in-state Californian, definitely Berkeley.
Otherwise, definitely Chicago. The “wow” factor is definitely higher for Chicago, and if you are intellectually-minded, Chicago is definitely going to attract a higher percentage of that type–and will also draw from a larger pool of people from different parts of the country, etc. For the same money, a state university–especially in a state as broke as California–just can’t compare.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No way. Berkeley gets more OOS applicants than Chicago does, that despite that Berkeley does not grant scholarship to OOS students and Chicago does.</p>
<p>For graduate school, both are amazing places with Berkeley having the edge in most areas. But for undergraduate, assuming that cost is not a material factor, the edge clearly goes to Chicago, in my opinion. But you have to be prepared for the core curriculum and the somewhat nerdy, egg-head culture that prevails at Chicago. I don’t think anyone can seriously question that most students would consider Berkeley as a more fun experience.</p>
<p>But, at least on the east coast, a BA from Chicago suggests that the graduate is very smart, if perhaps a little different as well. I believe that every student at Chicago gets an excellent liberal arts education, while only some Berkeley students do.</p>
<p>“Otherwise, definitely Chicago. The “wow” factor is definitely higher for Chicago”</p>
<p>Most people have no idea how great of a school Chicago is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Berkeley has ~25K undergraduates to Chicago’s ~5K.
Almost 70% of enrolled Chicago undergraduates come from outside the Midwest. For Berkeley, I believe the number of OOS students is now about 25%, after large recent increases. So the ratios of enrolled students is approximately flipped.</p>
<p>Berkeley gets about 50K applicants to Chicago’s 20K. If the percentage of OOS/Out of Region applications is proportionate to the percentage of enrolled OOS students, then Chicago must be getting about 13K-14K applications from outside the Midwest. If 1 in 4 Berkeley applicants is OOS, the absolute number probably is still a little smaller than Chicago’s.</p>
<p>But I’m just estimating and projecting. RML, do you have published numbers for OOS applicants to both schools?</p>
<p>OMG… U of C, where fun comes to die. I did an overnight visit there and when I got home took that school OFF my list immediately. It was an awful atmosphere, and loaded with very weird people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While tprajka’s comment isn’t all too helpful, he does hit on an important theme: atmosphere. If you can visit either school, I highly recommend that you do so. More than ephemeral concepts like reputation and quality of research (at this level, all the schools are going to be great at, well, being schools), the social atmosphere at a given college is going to greatly impact your performance and your happiness. Look for a place that feels like home, a place where you could feel comfortable and free, a place to prosper.</p>
<p>For example, I knew I wanted to go to Chicago when I overnighted my senior year; my host and I went to a Decemberists concert at the Riviera. I had a fantastic time, loved the people there (majorly chill with a side of hipster 
), and now I’m happily in my third quarter at Chicago.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOLL. Sorry RML. The brute fact is UChicago is ranked 9th best in America. Berkeley is 22. Uchicago is better than Berkeley by far in undergrad level.</p>