<p>I am split between these two. I plan on majoring in Economics (though that is susceptible to change). UChicago is about $20,000 more expensive per year. I am worried about Berkeley's large class sizes and the difficulty in switching majors and still graduating in four years. I am also worried about UChicago's infamous intensity, grade deflation, and money is an issue (I'd like graduate with debt. I'm from Southern California but I am attending an international school which is pretty rigorous in New Mexico. What do you all think? Thank you</p>
<p>Both universities can have rigorous courseloads, but UChicago is infamous for its grade deflation. Take into account that if you’re considering graduate school, your GPA will still matter. That being said, UChicago is a school full of extremely intelligent professors and students who will test your boundaries, and you’ll definitely have a unique education there. Also, when I was checking rankings last year, UChicago’s Economics division was ranked one of the best. At Berkeley, there are smart people, but they’re mixed in with those who are less ambitious. However, if you’re in-state, the Berkeley tuition is much more affordable. </p>
<p>Berkeley’s lectures are large, but as you move on to upper divs, classes will get smaller. As a student there, I’ve never felt affected by the class sizes. Also, if you want the chance to interact with your professor, that’s what office hours are there for, and you still get the benefit of discussion through your sections. Berkeley might be easier to get through if you know exactly what you’re doing, but it’s not impossible to switch majors. </p>
<p>Speaking as an Econ major who also was choosing between UC Berkeley and Northwestern, I chose Berkeley for the affordability, the fact that majoring in Econ there is still prestigious despite what people say, and because Chicago was way too cold for me. No matter which university you choose, you’ll get an excellent education.</p>
<p>I don’t know why you want to graduate with debt but if you do go to Chicago. If your parents aren’t going to pay the differential go to Berkeley, because otherwise that is just too much debt. Now if your parents are going to pay either way, then there is something to discuss. Which is it?</p>
<p>No, my parents would pay up to what Berkeley would cost and I’d take on the rest of the debt with subsidized loans.</p>
<p>There are strict limits on the amount of federal student loans you can get each year.
<a href=“http://studentaid.ed.gov/types/loans/subsidized-unsubsidized”>http://studentaid.ed.gov/types/loans/subsidized-unsubsidized</a></p>
<p>Berkeley is not difficult to graduate in four years if you plan your schedule reasonably. Most majors in the College of Letters and Science are non-competitive to declare (you just need to pass their prerequisites), but economics is one that requires a 3.0 GPA in its prerequisites to declare.</p>
<p>Chicago economics is very mathematical (multivariable calculus and linear algebra needed for intermediate economics). Berkeley economics gives you a choice of intermediate economics courses; the more-math option requires a similar level of math as Chicago economics, while the less-math option requires only frosh calculus (about 3/4 to 4/5 of the Berkeley economics majors choose the less-math option). If you plan to go on to PhD study in economics, the more-math option is preferable; in addition (at either school), additional advanced math courses are recommended.</p>
<p>Chicago has slightly higher average grades than Berkeley (3.35 versus 3.27 in 2006), but this must be considered in context to Chicago’s higher admissions selectivity.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.gradeinflation.com/chicago.html”>http://www.gradeinflation.com/chicago.html</a>
<a href=“UC-Berkeley”>http://www.gradeinflation.com/Ucberkeley.html</a></p>
<p>4 years ago, my DD choose Chicago. But you are not my DD and we are paying the extra costs. We have many friends went on to the UC route, they had to take summer classes to graduate in 4 years and many they did. However, for my DD she could graduate in Three years from Chicago, due to her AP credits and such. She choose to take two more quarters to do grade booster for med school. But, theoretically, she could graduate last year. The cost savings could make a difference.</p>
<p>For the UC goers, it seems that more liberal arts majors got graduated in 4 years easier than those science or engineering students. </p>
<p>Four year graduation rates have a lot to do with admissions selectivity – better prepared students are less likely to need remedial courses or have trouble handling full course loads.</p>
<p>Do you want to learn? Go to UChicago. Only be afraid of tough courses and grades if you are unwilling to work hard or do not want to learn. Cal will spend more energy trying to educate you in ways that have nothing to do with learning or Economics. Chicago will challenge you to think for yourself.</p>
<p>^What?</p>
<p>Are trying to say Berkeley doesn’t have tough courses and doesn’t have a well respected economics program?</p>
<p>As someone interested in economics, I’m sure you can figure out that 80k in debt at graduation is not a good idea, especially if you plan on grad school.</p>
<p>Do Chicago econ grads do better than Berkeley econ grads do? I doubt it. Chicago isn’t worth 80k more than Berkeley. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Do better” in what respect"? According to what measurements?</p>
<p>Consider the payscale ROI calculator. If you compare the annual ROI, assuming no financial aid to attend either school (and assuming full OOS rates to attend Berkeley), Chicago does slightly better (8.3% v. 8.2% for Berkeley OOS). Unfortunately, this tool does not allow users to enter their actual costs. However, if Chicago would cost $80K more, not the $6500 more that payscale assumes in this scenario, then you probably cannot count on Chicago to generate enough ROI to recover the additional up-front costs over 20 years. YMMV. payscale uses self-reported data from participants with terminal undergraduate degrees (it accepts no reports from alumni with graduate degrees.)</p>
<p>Now, you could consider other outcomes besides earnings from terminal undergraduate degrees. What about graduate and professional school admissions? Apples-to-apples comparisons are hard to make from the available data. The WSJ “feeder school” study ranked Chicago 14th, Berkeley 41st (although that study has been criticized heavily on CC). What about alumni PhD completion rates? Washington Monthly ranks Chicago 3rd, Berkeley 18th among national universities for PhD production rates. These differences may reflect selection effects as well as treatment effects; there may be a different spread for econ majors in particular.
What about 4 year graduation rates? According to Kiplinger’s, Chicago’s rate is 86%, Berkeley’s is 71%. This, again, may reflect selection effects more than treatment effects (the influence for example of Chicago’s greater admission selectivity). How about alumni awards? Twice as many Chicago graduates as Berkeley graduates have won the Nobel Prize in economics, even though Berkeley is a much larger university. But of course, very very few people win this award, and it’s hard to tease out the effects of undergraduate v. graduate education v. personal ability and drive. </p>
<p>In other words, it is very hard to make a good, apples-to-apples comparison of academic outcomes. I would not advise anyone to shell out an extra $80K for Chicago solely in hopes of a big earnings bump. If you major in econ with an emphasis on quantitative analysis at either school, and do well, you’ll probably have no shortage of good career opportunities. That prognosis may justify paying some price premium for a school you strongly prefer (for whatever reason). Whether Chicago (or any other school) might be worth an additional $N depends on how much more you like it, and how much $N is worth to you. </p>
<p>You’re talking about borrowing $80k over four years? Don’t do that. That’s too much to borrow for undergrad, and having a debt-free option as good as UCB makes it an easy call.</p>
<p>^ That may not even be an option for the OP, since $20K/year far exceeds the federal student loan limits.</p>
<p>You can’t borrow that subsidized. You can’t even borrow that unsub. Your parents would have to borrow it and be on the hook.</p>
<p>UCB is a great school, if you do well you will be equally employable as.U Chicago. If you slack off after attending, no school can be a savior. </p>
<p>“Four year graduation rates have a lot to do with admissions selectivity…”…and the absense of an engineering college with a substantial percentage of students enrolled. </p>
<p>^ Princeton, JHU, and Cornell have even higher concentrations of engineering majors than Berkeley’s 12%, yet have 4y graduation rates slightly higher than Chicago’s (88% for Princeton and JHU, 87% for Cornell). Rice has a higher concentration of engineering majors than any of these schools, yet has 4y graduation rates almost as high as Chicago’s (84%). 41% of MIT students major in engineering, but its 4y graduation rate is 84%. </p>
<p>It’s pretty well established that Berkeley and UCLA take some very weak students who will either A) take longer to graduate or B) may never graduate altogether. For example:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“UCLA admits more than 16,000 exceptional students for its fall 2013 freshman class | UCLA”>http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ucla-admits-more-than-16-000-exceptional-245294.aspx</a></p>
<p>How many students at Chicago are the first in their families to attend college? How many students at Chicago come from low-income families? The answer to both is probably not very many. And that’s not surprising, since Berkeley and Chicago have different goals for their incoming classes. They could avoid many of those students and increase their four-year graduation rates as a result. But they’d be denying a wonderful opportunity to many students who would benefit most from it in the process.</p>
<p>Re: graduation rates</p>
<p><a href=“http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/uc-student-graduation-rates-hit-246210.aspx”>http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/uc-student-graduation-rates-hit-246210.aspx</a> indicates that UCLA’s twelve quarter graduation rate is 81%, versus its four year graduation rates of around 69-73% from <a href=“http://www.aim.ucla.edu/tables/progress_gradrate_demographics_FR.aspx”>http://www.aim.ucla.edu/tables/progress_gradrate_demographics_FR.aspx</a> .</p>
<p>It would be interesting to see how big the gap between four year and twelve quarter / eight semester graduation rates is at various schools (it is obviously very high at co-op-focused schools).</p>