<p>posted similar thread on columbia page...</p>
<p>hi i am considering an econ major and was wondering which program people would consider the better. i have been reading a bit online and most say uchicago, but my question (and really my decision) is what are the opportunities coming out of columbia vs. uchicago in terms of internships? which do you think would have the better program?</p>
<p>hi llooppii. What kind of internships are you looking for? Are you more interested in business, or finance, or academia, or research? Economics is a fantastically broad field.</p>
<p>im interested more in finance and business…but while in college i think i would like research work in economics</p>
<p>I would say that for finance, being a train ride from wall street can’t hurt. I would go Columbia for those opportunities alone.</p>
<p>Maybe New York has more chance regarding business, finance…</p>
<p>FYI, uchicago placed 32 interns in Goldman Sachs alone last year, more than any other university by far. There are also a number of fortune 500 companies that only recruit at uchicago.</p>
<p>I remember when we were at Columbia information session. Admission officer clearly said it is not the right time to send more kids to Wall Street now, may be future.</p>
<p>Both universities have strong economics programs, with similar opportunities for research or placement in various private and public institutions. Chicago is stronger overall, but roughly equal when it comes to finance. This is sad news for you, as now you must look to the university as a whole to inform you as to which to choose. This one department, undergraduate, will not suffice to make your decision for you.</p>
<p>Chicago and Columbia are awfully similar. Columbia is closer to Wall St., sure, but Chicago is popular there, too, and if you want to do something during the school year the city of Chicago has a ton of sophisticated financial firms and fewer high-quality students chasing jobs there.</p>
<p>If you are choosing between the colleges, I would focus on other differences: New York vs. Chicago, lockstep Core vs. Chinese menu Core, compressed campus in a vibrant urban area vs. diffuse campus in a leafy urban cul-de-sac, highly politicized atmosphere vs. culture of tolerance and respectful debate. That last is enormously important. Personally, I wouldn’t touch Columbia with a ten-foot pole.</p>
<p>I think that Chicago may be about 10 years behind Columbia in terms of its Career Services. Sure, some Chicago students get internships at Goldman (as though that is the only measure of importance) but what if you’re not in that select group? I think Columbia would have an advantage in career placement overall. Just MHO.</p>
<p>Columbia is very good at placing students in barrista positions in Morningside Heights, that is true.</p>
<p>I’ve posted this several times here, but basically all bulge brackets recruit for third year and graduating analyst positions at Chicago. Most bulge brackets do so at the 2nd year analyst position too. This is in terms of finance. Chicago is a huge target for GS, JPM, etc. and although Columbia is certainly close to Wall Street, Chicago is certainly a match if not better. Chicago also offers Booth classes to its undergraduates—I don’t know how much rankings fare in terms of your perception of actual education, but Booth consistently ranks highly (I believe first in past years) on the B-School lists. In terms of actual education, Booth offers all the staples of undergraduate finance that any financial-eng. major/undergraduate finance program offers (e.g. Wharton) from financial accounting to corporate management, etc.</p>
<p>In response to *drdom, Chicago is certainly behind in terms of its career placement in other fields outside of business, e.g. journalism, health professions, etc. The biggest irony about a “liberal-arts” focused school like Chicago is that its board of trustees unlike “those professionally obsessed snobs” like Harvard, is filled with investment bankers / Wall Street financiers. Like it or not, Chicago is heavily recruited in terms of finance. Chicago Careers in Business and their new offering Financial Markets offers what I believe to be top-notch undergraduate business advising to students if you want to go into busienss—networking opportunities, trips to Wall Street, to Chicago Merc. Ex., to Morningstar, etc. Also things to be noted: undergraduate finance, undergraduate consulting clubs like TBC, and Eckhart, etc. Again, whether or not you think they’re good for the school, useful at all, etc. TBC manages $120,000 (equity investment) in university endowment, it’s completely student-run, etc. These RSOs offer the opportunities.</p>
<p>In terms of economics—I don’t think comparisons can be made at the undergraduate or graduate level. At the graduate level, Chicago along with Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Cal & MIT have switched off the “top position” in the past few years. Any microeconomic theory in the past 100 years has gone through the Chicago school: either a response to or a support of. This is not a school of economics. This is THE school of economics. That being said, undergraduate economics classes at your local community college probably do not differ that much from your economics classes at the most prestige-ridden school you think possible. The difference is the fact that at Chicago, you are also getting a heavily, quantitative and like-it-or-not theoretical approach. There is a lot of math. That’s also why Chicago is top-notch in terms of economics. On the one hand, yes, Wall Street likes people who can do math. The more math you can do the more attractive you are as a candidate. On the other, this school will prepare you for the “silos” of research that academia demands. This is also the school with 7 active nobel prize winning faculty, popular empiricists like Thaler and Levitt, Bates winners like List, legal economists like Posner, etc—I can keep name dropping but to honestly compare the OPPORTUNITIES you get at Chicago to Columbia at least in terms of economics are to me, ridiculous. That being said, these are opportunities. If you don’t take advantage of them, you’ll probably get just as good of an education at your local community college.</p>
<p>Last, I actually personally made the choice between these schools. I don’t know how the atmosphere has changed but the largest thing that was weighing on my mind when I made my decision some few-odd years ago, was the supposed prestige of new york city, of columbia, etc. I can tell you now, I do not regret it one bit. I regularly go out to Chicago, I more than appreciate the interdisciplinary intellectualism at Chicago, and I love the math and economics classes here. I could’ve gone to Columbia and probably would’ve gotten a pretty good education there too, but I certainly would not have justified such a decision on the basis of the economics programs, but rather the lure of supposedly marginal prestige (which at least in the lens of Wall Street really isn’t there).</p>
<p>John List is a boss, and he taught Intro to Micro last quarter. Who says famous economists don’t teach low-level classes . . . ?</p>
<p>Sunil Gulati does not teach introductory classes. Although he is probably the most famous economist whose renown depends on purely non-economic reasons.</p>
<p>@alreadydone - you’re right. I was thinking that outside of econ jobs and internships, UChicago is behind. For econ majors who see themselves working at IBs UChicago is certainly a good school.</p>
<p>i know this thread is from 2 years ago…but I still want to bump it because I’m interested in hearing what people have to say about this, especially considering the rapid rising trend chicago has been on lately</p>
<p>Congtats! that is a big accomplishment</p>
<p>What other schools did you apply to</p>