<p>I was accepted to both UChicago and MIT. I'm leaning towards becoming a pre-med, but I'm not 100% sure (more like 90% sure). If the debt I incur is the same for both schools, would a bachelor's degree from UChicago or MIT benefit me more in the long run if I go into medicine? What about if I choose another field?</p>
<p>Thanks in advance.</p>
<p>You are splitting hairs here. Neither will confer a significant advantage. Go where you think you will be happiest, which is also where you are likely to perform at a level closest to your potential (because you are in the ‘right place’ for you). Congratulations on the great admits.</p>
<p>p.s. visit both if you can. This is probably the best way of seeing where you will fit in best. There are certainly similarities between the two schools, but significant differences in institutional culture as well. Also, do you like the idea of Chicago’s core? It really is a big part of the experience here, and your response to the Core will go a long way to determining if this is the right place for you.</p>
<p>My brother was in the same position about five years ago; he had to choose between Chicago, Columbia, and MIT. He chose MIT in the end, and he is currently at Harvard Medical School. In my opinion, MIT has better “connections”, than Chicago (I can’t wait to get nailed by this board for that comment, lol) Also, I think MIT is respected much more by adcomms at graduate schools than Chicago is. MIT is great in other areas as well Engineering like Chemical, Electrical, Computer, etc… So, you’ll be in a great position if you go to MIT.</p>
<p>I was in the same position this year and chose MIT. I think MIT has the slight advantage in student body and faculty strength and certainly the edge in prestige as well although Chicago is not far behind and possibly catching up. If you want to go into medical research I think MIT is the obvious choice but if you’re not interested in that then both are probably about equal for pre-meds. Although I think MIT has a slight edge in general if like Chicago’s culture better you should go there as MIT’s advantage is not very much. I definitely second the recommendation to visit both.</p>
<p>UChicago has a Hospital. UChicago has the Pritzker School of Medicine. The Biological Science Learning Center (BSLC) Building on 57th Street is used as the main classroom instructional building for both med school and bio classes. Further there is a large new Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) building right next to the BSLC building. If you are on the fence about being pre-med or a doctor, are you not better off where there is an on site Hospital, Med School and medical research institute? You’ll be able to get a good look before you make any commitment.</p>
<p>Chicago is smaller than MIT in the sciences but still very competitive. Chicago has an excellent reputation in all the humanities and social sciences. There is a common core curriculum at Chicago where you have to take 9 quarter courses in Humanities, Social Sciences, Civilization and Arts, which are mostly conducted in small discussion style classes. </p>
<p>MIT has unsurpassed strength in engineering and is also as good as Chicago in economics, business and political science. There are no real downsides to MIT. Thus, it only comes down to what you might want to do other than be a doctor.</p>
<p>As UChicago alum, I saw a presentation by President of the University of Chicago Robert Zimmer in Washington DC three weeks ago. He spoke, in part, about the various efforts to improve the College over the last 15 years. I believe that it has improved since I was at student. However, MIT’s prestige is world renowned. Every country in the world outside the United States wants an MIT within their borders. </p>
<p>You really have to answer your own questions about which will benefit you the most, if you choose to pursue a medical career or if you choose something else. Exactly what else is critical to any answer.</p>
<p>We’re gonna nail you for this one, lol… “Also, I think MIT is respected much more by adcomms at graduate schools than Chicago is”</p>
<p>Please. I would say this even if I were going to MIT, they’re both respected the same as elite institutions when it comes to grad school admissions. Don’t project a layman view of prestige onto these matters.</p>
<p>I think MIT has the edge in prestige even in academia. In the Times Higher Education Reputation Rankings, MIT completely dominated Chicago. I’ll admit the methodology was more favorable to MIT than Chicago but considering MIT had 4x Chicago’s score it doesn’t come close to explaining the difference. In terms of graduate admissions it’s hard to generalize about different fields of graduate programs and there are clearly areas where a Chicago degree would be better and others where an MIT degree would be better.</p>
<p>Oh for heaven’s sake. The 2011-2012 Times survey ranked MIT 5th and UChicago 6th in the U.S. while USNews ties them at 5th. </p>
<p>Not that it matters. MIT and UChicago are both stupendous institutions, with surprising strengths (who would guess that MIT has one of the great musicology faculties while UChicago’s math department is nearly peerless?) and strong identities. An undergraduate at either institution is very fortunate, indeed.</p>
<p>MIT killed Chicago in the Times reputation rankings which are separate from the overall rankings though. The US News rankings are utter garbage and rank Columbia ahead of both MIT, Chicago, Stanford, and Caltech which definitely does not correspond with academic reputation. I agree they are both excellent institutions with many strengths although Chicago has many peers in math.</p>
<p>You’re now cherry-picking your stats, which is your right, of course, as an internet anonymity. Bye for now!</p>
<p>I’m not sure how I’m cherry-picking as in my post #7 brought up the Times Reputation rankings to argue a point about academic prestige not overall quality. As far as I’m aware those are the best known measure of pure reputation among academics. The only other measure of academic reputation I’m aware of is the QS rankings [QS</a> World University Rankings - Topuniversities](<a href=“http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011/indicator-rankings/academic-peer-review]QS”>http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011/indicator-rankings/academic-peer-review) which are kinda suspect [National University of Singapore and University of Toronto both rank above Chicago in academic reputation in them] rank MIT #4 in academic reputation among US universities and Chicago #9.</p>
<p>You’re cherry-picking when you say, in essence, “this metric here supports my thesis, therefore it’s valid, whereas that metric there contradicts my assumptions, therefore it’s ‘utter garbage.’”</p>
<p>Look, I’m in no position to say what rankings are credible and what rankings are “utter garbage.” But I do tend to look at such rankings with a fair degree of skepticism. Here’s why, using the London Times’ “prestige” ranking as a case-in-point: </p>
<p>(For those interested: [Behind</a> the numbers: reputation ranking methodology explained - Times Higher Education Reputation Rankings](<a href=“http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/reputation-methodology.html]Behind”>World Reputation Rankings 2012 methodology | Times Higher Education (THE))) </p>
<p>Basically, the Times polls academics around the world and asks them who’s top dog in their field. Only nine percent of those polled are in the humanities (so the fact that Yale has, arguably, the best English department on earth wins it little “prestige”; according to this poll, Yale is less prestigious not only than the University of Tokyo but also UCLA) and because many of the judges in this particular beauty pageant neither live nor work in the U.S. their responses tend to reflect their unfamiliarity with the landscape of American higher education. </p>
<p>So, yes, after Harvard’s predictable first-place finish comes M.I.T. which, as you pointed out, was four times more prestigious (whatever that means) than UChicago. And did you also happen to notice that this same poll says M.I.T. is three times as prestigious as CalTech?</p>
<p>I could spend the next 15 minutes having fun with this, but why bother? A lot of people will say M.I.T. is more prestigious than CalTech in engineering, CalTech more prestigious than M.I.T. in pure sciences, UChicago more prestigious than either in social sciences/humanities (although M.I.T.‘s economics department is quite illustrious, and–your amusingly dismissive rejoinder nowithstanding–UChicago’s math department, particularly statistics, may be the strongest of the three at the moment). In any event, the Times’ one-size-fits-all “prestige” ranking is blind to this reality.</p>
<p>Bottom line: If your goal is to impress the guy at the University of Kampala who filled out the Times’ questionnaire then, sure, go to M.I.T. no matter what. But if your goal is to get the best possible preparation for whatever you want out of life, ignore the rankings, ignore these message boards, do your own due diligence.</p>
<p>Think for yourself.</p>
<p>I wasn’t the first one who claimed MIT was more prestigious in academia. Perhaps instead of saying the US News rankings were “utter garbage” I should have said they don’t measure nor claim to measure academic prestige at the graduate level but instead rank undergraduate programs. As I said earlier, I agree the reputation methodology is much more favorable to MIT than Chicago but I think that reflects a global view as humanities fields vary much more between countries than science and engineering fields. A big part of why MIT does so much better in the reputation rankings than Caltech is that MIT is much larger and active in many more fields. Caltech was presumably never mentioned in the humanities or clinical sciences categories and only infrequently at best mentioned in the social sciences categories. MIT would certainly do very well in social sciences and would do okay in clinical research as well. Even in engineering and science fields MIT has a lot more faculty than Caltech which would help in the reputation rankings but wouldn’t carry over to the general ranking.</p>
<p>Clearly Chicago blows away MIT and Caltech in the humanities [with the exception of philosophy where MIT is at least as good as Chicago] and Caltech in the social sciences. MIT is pretty competitive with Chicago in social sciences though Chicago does research in more social science fields. I guess it will depend on your definition of “nearly peerless”. I took that to mean no or very few other schools are comparable which is not really in the case of math for Chicago as MIT, Harvard, Princeton, NYU, and Berkeley are at a similar level to Chicago in math though it of course varies by subfield. Like I said before there are fields where Chicago is better than MIT and fields where MIT is better than Chicago.</p>
<p>I don’t understand what the bickering is about… MIT and Chicago are both amazing schools! They are rather different in atmosphere, so money aside, most students can easily see which school fits their preferences.</p>
<p>Oh, well, I’ve been stuck at an “airport” in Pakistan for the last 36 hours and I’m bored out of my skull so screwing around on random online message boards seems like decent way to kill time, especially when you haven’t slept in two days and are too foggy-headed to do anything constructive.</p>
<p>Can’t speak for the others, sorry.</p>
<p>MIT is better for premed than Chicago. It is the clear choice here.</p>
<p>goldenboy8784, care to provide some evidence or at least reasoning for that assertion?</p>
<p>Hey guys! Thank you for all your advice. While it was a very hard decision to make, I ultimately decided to go with MIT after my visit there.</p>
<p>And wow, haha, totally didn’t see this becoming a debate over statistics and ranking for the two schools. Both schools are excellent, I think. :)</p>
<p>Congratulations Eragon! I’m sure you’ll do fantastic; good luck from one premed to another. (:</p>
<p>Thank you! Best of luck to you too! :)</p>