<p>So I've been accepted to these 3 schools and I am really confused as to where to go. I am seeking some advice and here's what I know.</p>
<p>UChicago: #1 Economics and Core
In Chicago, I get an intense, strict schedule with roughly 1/3 of my courses bound to the core. Chicago is stereotypically tagged as a school where fun comes to die and where students study all day all weeks. Nonetheless, it has #1 Economics, which I intend to pursue and Chicago is my favorite city in America.</p>
<p>UPenn: Cross-Departments or Not?
In Penn, I believe I can take courses outside the school I was accepted, College of Arts and Science. It has a city-campus and Philly is a metropolitan area with easy access to other cities like NYC, Newark, New Haven, Providence, DC, and Baltimore. It also has lot of school spirit and athletics. Out of all of them, it is currently ranked the highest, though correct me if I am wrong, it is mainly because of Wharton.</p>
<p>Brown: Open Curriculum
I get a lot of flexibility in my scheduling, small city, and overall athletic school spirit feel. Of all these 3, I believe it has the strongest undergraduate department?</p>
<p>So as you can see, I don't know where to go.
My Interests:
I want to study Political Science and Economics (Do all 3 have good programs for these?). I like cities, but I also want to have the community feel (I think all 3 are fairly even in this respect right?). I like athletics feel, which Chicago is missing, but it's not really a top concern for me. What do you guys think? Are my impressions a little bit wrong of these schools? </p>
<p>Which one has the strongest undergraduate program, criteria being determined by "ranking" and reputation?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Which one has the strongest undergraduate program, criteria being determined by "ranking" and reputation?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No one does "real" (that is to say sound, methodologically) rankings of undergrad programs, not that it would make any difference for undergrads at this level of college.</p>
<p>You want prestige aka reputation? Choose an Ivy. Brown probably has more status.</p>
<p>You want a place where you'll be happy and do your best? It could be at any of these. Only you can decide.</p>
<p>These comparisons have been flogged to death here. You might want to scroll through older posts before trampling this ground some more. Or at least, pose the question in a unique way that has not been discussed yet.</p>
<p>I think nmd is totally right-- and I discourage you to choose the school just because of a ranking. In my mind, they're silly, pointless, and are not good predictors of whether you and a professor will hit it off and something beautiful (in the intellectual sense here, not what you guys are thinking) will come of it.</p>
<p>I would also go into more detail about how you can study hard and have a life here, that the two are not mutually exclusive, that students find themselves more than able to do both, but I have a major hangover to take care of this morning. :-P</p>
<p>People who visit Chicago know they are in the right place. Or, if the visit doesn't work, it's the description of the school as passed down through somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody, and through quasi-decent college guides. Everybody seems to agree that people here work hard, and that this is a great place to go for an education of any kind, but beyond that people seem to have really wildly different impressions of the school, and the ones (I find) who have the least complimentary things to say about are the people who don't have any actual experience with the school.</p>
<p>Feel free to peruse my past posts-- I have lots of things to say about lots of subjects. I don't try to reflect general U of C consensus on issues, but I do try to explain what it is about this school that I find so awesome.</p>
<p>So if you do have a chance to visit, that will help you out enormously, and if you think, after visiting, that you're developing a rash in the shape of a phoenix, you'll know.</p>
<p>I haven't had the opportunity to visit UChicago. My main concern in Chicago is two things, does course load suck away your life? Will I really be able to have fun in Chicago aside from studying every day? And, with the Core, which I love the idea, do I get much flexibility, especially if I intend to double-major?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Students find plenty of things to do that are not schoolwork-related. Just look at cast lists for a University Theater production, for example, and you'll see what I mean.</p></li>
<li><p>The Core is not going to be fun if you don't like the way it sounds, but you do. Many, many students double-major, and the majors here are pretty easy to complete (on purpose, I think, to compensate for the extensive core).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I was an economics major, and did substantial work in political science in addition (one or two courses short of the major). I later did work graduate work in both fields.</p>
<p>Basically, if you want to double major between the two it is not that hard, but at the same time, you would be better off choosing one or the other exclusively as it will allow you to really take the courses you want each quarter, rather than simply those that will fulfill outstanding requirements on schedule. If you find out that you do not like the higher math-statistics-econometrics aspect of the economics program (which is fairly consuming at four quarters of classes) but want at the same time want some recognition for doing economic theory, public policy is not a bad option for a major either. </p>
<p>As for the difficulty, Chicago is definitely up a notch in economics. In mainly comes through in the fact that most of the courses demand a solid grasp of calculus, whereas a lot peer schools tend towards a more graphical and prose explanation type of focus. Another major difference is that for many of the courses without doing the reading you will struggle, in contrast to places where a clear advantage of being a quantitative major is that a good set of class notes to study and do problem sets off of is all you will ever really need to garner an ‘A’. </p>
<p>As for political science, since many of the professors are considered leaders in their subfields, you will find that the course offerings tend to evolve around their idiosyncratic interests. There are frequently huge gaps in course coverage simply because no faculty member is presently working in that area. Modern American politics would be an example of a glaring weak spot at Chicago. Obviously, the tradeoff is you get faculty who are very interested in the courses they do teach, and rarely come to class with a begrudging attitude having been forced to offer a given syllabus. Furthermore, a lot of the more popular courses in political science are also open to graduate students, which means even if you are being graded as an undergraduate, you are still expected to cover a syllabus primarily geared towards individuals getting masters and doctorates. Political science, at least at UChicago, is certainly not a catch all or jock major by any means.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And, with the Core, which I love the idea, do I get much flexibility,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, a surprising amount. If you man up and work through as much of the core as you can first year, by second year you can start taking pleasure classes. You have no idea how fun it is to take a Shakespeare or French cinema class for the heck of it. That is, unless you</p>
<p>
[quote]
especially if I intend to double-major?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>but you won't. Trust me. Everybody thinks they will, I sure did, and then it sinks in that double majors don't mean anything. Taking some poli sci classes to broaden your knowledge base and then listing your relevant course experience means as much, if not more, to an employer than just listing another degree. </p>
<p>You'll hear this from older students, your counselors, grad school guidebooks, employer Q&A sessions, everybody until your realize that if you have a single major, a big GPA and extracurricular/internships that show leadership, dedication, skills etc., you're set. </p>
<p>You're going to be fine whichever school you pick, get some visits (overnights) in to help your decision.</p>
<p>You get to be in the city you love the most at the university that is tops in your field? Honestly, based on that Chicago is the place hands down. I really do not see what question is. Any choice would be great don't get me wrong, but Chicago seems like the place for you. Four years in your favorite city is a wonderful thing.</p>
<p>I see.... well I do believe double-majors do count, especially for jobs. I mean, as a poli sci major, I can't take a job an econ major would take right? The way I see it, poli sci is more of a major I am passionate for while econ is a marketable major that I have quite an interest for. As for Chicago, I love it, I really do, I am just concerned I might not have a lot of free time if I am forced to take Core courses, which I expect some I will grow to disgust and which seem pretty tough and time-consuming.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I mean, as a poli sci major, I can't take a job an econ major would take right?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>haha, no. it has nothing to do with what job you get. you could major in english and work finance on wall street. you just have to do some extra work to prove that you have the necessary skillset to do well in such a job (taking math/econ classes on the side)</p>
<p>The core didn't consume much of my free time at all, and the subjects are interesting enough that (at least I) did not mind taking them at all. I read a bunch of cool stuff that I probably would never have gone through on my own, and being able to namedrop Marcuse or Durkheim is fun. I also liked not having to worry about a major or picking the right classes.</p>
<p>Before my S applied, he was worried that people loathed the core and he doesn't like being in class with people who feel trapped ( had enough of that in HS). He learned from the interview and talking to random students on campus, that many/most choose Chicago partly because of the core. Now, as a first -year, he is truly enjoying Hum and Civ. Small classes, great discussion with people who generally read the material, interesting profs seem to hit the mark for him. If you are going to be miserable in the core,and it could make up half of your first-year classes is it worth it for you?</p>
<p>I can't really answer for Brown, or Penn, but I'll address your concerns about Chicago:</p>
<p>The Core: honestly, it seems like a lot but really isn't. You can test out of the sciences with AP credit.</p>
<p>Of things that you can't test out of: the SOSC sequence is absolutely AMAZING. It really changed the way I thought and gave me a whole new perspective on the world. HUM for me was a waste of time (but I took Reading Cultures, the really weird one). CIV on-campus sucks (or so I hear), but the Civ sequence abroad is great, no matter where you go. I would definitely recommend taking Civ abroad; it's a once in a lifetime experience.</p>
<p>Chicago Economics has some of the best minds in economics. But honestly, you'd be surprised at how much famous professors suck at teaching. However, if you intend to pursue economics then it is the place for you. If you work hard there are plenty of research opportunities on-campus and graduate classes that you can take.</p>
<p>As for the city part: be warned that Hyde Park really isn't part of downtown Chicago. It's a long ride on the CTA to places if you don't have a car.</p>
<p>For econ here, I think you learn it in a very different way. It is much more rigorous and real. By that I mean, you use actual algebra and math in your work instead of graphs. It's actually pretty amazing, the undergrad lecturers are amazing. </p>
<p>And take the Metra...it only takes 12-15 minutes to get downtown.</p>