<p>
</p>
<p>If that was his/her point, the link did not support it. The link was to a listing of B-schools by salary range. It had nothing to do with “research”.</p>
<p>^^ actually, if you add “selected fields” on that webpage, you can also add other criteria, such as " research", “PhD faculty”, “international exposure during MBA program”, the first collumns were salary related, but there are a number of research/academically related rankings that you can access…I believe it’s a global ranking.</p>
<p>undergrads at uchicago can take classes in the b-school (and the law school)</p>
<p>there is even a specialized program for business:</p>
<p>[Chicago</a> Careers: CCIB](<a href=“Home | CareerAdv”>Home | CareerAdv)</p>
<p>There’s an interesting story in Fortune about Jon Winkelried ('81), the former co-CEO and co-president of Goldman Sachs. He graduated from the U of C under the 5 year BA/MBA program.</p>
<p>[The</a> man who walked away from Goldman Sachs - Jan. 26, 2010](<a href=“http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/25/news/companies/goldman_sachs_winkelried.fortune/?section=magazines_fortune]The”>http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/25/news/companies/goldman_sachs_winkelried.fortune/?section=magazines_fortune)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I stand corrected. That must be a recent change…when I visited ~3 years ago, the rep said that is was extremely difficult to take a course in the B-school as an undergrad. If I recall, he said it was “doable”, but required “so many approvals” that few kids did.</p>
<p>B school needs an overhaul. All that to-do , about education , status, privilege, and they give the American public something called “toxic assets”, and the term " too big to fail "…we didn’t need some fancy MBAs to dragus into this economic morass.</p>
<p>My last posting on the rankings had no intended implications nor was it stemmed from some calculated thoughts to prove a point. It was just a simple impluse response to a prior posting. I was assuming if discussions on building an imagined stadium of an unknown capacity in an imagined location with an invisible budget to hostplay who-knows-what big sports with an unknown timeframe down the road is relevant to this thread, ANYTHING that bears a UofC name would be considered relevant as well.</p>
<p>Without the benefits of even having been to the city of C, or being a parent who is either a UofC or some big-name school alumus, or having a child who attended or is attending UofC or Oxford or Yale or whatever, my (and some of my friends) view on college programs is obviously myopic. Everything that I hear and read contributes to that view. Rankings of whatever nature done by reputable companies like US News and Financial Times are obviously one influential perspective. I must confess that I tend to believe more in a particular ranking if its ranks my dream schools high up and dislike those say otherwise.</p>
<p>Given the number of graduate students doubles that of undergraduates, and many of its achievements are related to research, I’d think that the graduate programs of UofC play a large role in making the school what it is today, much more so than its undergraduate programs. Though more on application, MBA is certainly one of the graduate programs that carries great weight in forming one’s perspective on a U who is renowned for its economics, especially for students who do not intend to go for PHDs, and even for an undergraduate applicant whose interest is not in economics.</p>
<p>newmassdad,</p>
<p>I know several undergraduates working with and researching with b-school professors. I also know a lot of students taking classes at Booth.</p>
<p>^ Okay. If you think that makes a difference, then go for it. </p>
<p>But if you base your decision to attend on such things and they don’t materialize, don’t be too disappointed. There is a big wall between Booth (and the law school) and the rest of the university, especially the College. Trust me. As a former member of the administration at UofC, I know this well.</p>
<p>The law school doesn’t even let undergrads use their library anymore. </p>
<p>It’s possible to take classes there though, as an undergrad, though not common. </p>
<p>That is not something to base your decision on coming or not coming to UC though - There are plenty excellent classes to choose from in the College and many, many, many fantastic professors.</p>
<p>From what I hear there has been an effort the last couple of years to allow more undergraduate participation in Booth, but I don’t believe this is true for the law school. I do know it is “possible” to take a course at the law school, but it is not encouraged from what I understand.</p>
<p>One of the differences is that they have the Law, Letters, and Society program in the College. That has real participation by law school faculty, but the courses are designed for college, not professional training. So it’s not as though undergraduates don’t get any benefit from having the law school there (in addition to using its library to study if they live on South Campus).</p>
<p>As for Booth, (a) there is a high degree of cross-involvement between Booth and the Econ department, so its not surprising that students move back and forth, too, and (b) as I understand it, there are a few courses at Booth where they have separate undergraduate sections, and those are a lot of the courses that undergraduates take. Those are courses (e.g., Intro Financial Accounting) that most colleges offer as a matter of course to undergraduates, but at Chicago they’re only housed in Booth.</p>
<p>I’m a Booth alum. The interaction between the Booth faculty and the rest of the U is at the graduate research level. Nothing for undergrads.</p>
<p>Interestingly, some of the most productive interaction has been between Booth economists and law school faculty. Some seminal work on the economics of regulation (to use one example) has come out of that.</p>
<p>I’m a current Booth student. There are several undergrad sections, taught by Booth professors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How current are your experiences? I understand you are a parent. Chicago has gone a lot of change last few years. Do you know if this is still the case?</p>
<p>ROTC,</p>
<p>Alum, parent and former staff member. Some things change, some don’t.</p>
<p>Booth undergrad section is not the same as taking a Booth MBA course, although undergrads have taken a rare MBA course for years. </p>
<p>Unless the faculty have changed a lot in the past three years or so, I’m reasonably current, but I suspect no one but the dean knows everything that is going on. </p>
<p>Keep in mind that Booth is a graduate/professional division of Chicago. Chicago is not unique in limiting undergrad enrollment in its biz school. Harvard is worse I’ve heard.</p>
<p>One can take Booth MBA courses which are not part of the CCIB program. Here is the page that explains how. Not the most welcoming page. [Chicago</a> Booth School of Business | The College](<a href=“http://college.uchicago.edu/academics-advising/course-selection-registration/graduate-and-professional-school-courses/chicago-bo]Chicago”>http://college.uchicago.edu/academics-advising/course-selection-registration/graduate-and-professional-school-courses/chicago-bo) It does look like it is possible for a “motivated” student to take a couple of Booth courses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Doesn’t that seem like a silly statement on its face? If collaboration is going on at the graduate research level, undergraduates are going to know about it and benefit from it. If people are giving papers, seminars, etc., I have a hard time believing that plugged-in undergraduates aren’t there.</p>
<p>At least that’s the way things worked when I was an undergraduate (elsewhere) and the people I was interested in all had their appointments in a graduate-only department. Maybe Chicago is different, but I have a hard time believing that. My daughter’s Class Day speaker was a Booth professor, and he seemed to have had a lot of contact with undergraduates, including as research assistants.</p>
<p>JHS,</p>
<p>Believe what you want. I don’t care. You’re in law, correct? Have you ever been involved in university level research? Perhaps you know the difference between being “there” when a “paper, seminar” is presented, and participating in the research. I always thought this discussion was about more direct benefit to students than the availability of seminars to attend. Heck, by your measure, a strong program at Northwestern is a “benefit” to UofC students. After all, it is just a short train ride away. So your conjecture is “silly” in its face. But I think this whole debate has become silly. If one thinks this stuff matters, then go for it. </p>
<p>Fact is that faculty can be choosy about who they allow to participate in research. Many outside the sciences don’t particularly like undergrad participation because it is more work than benefit. Even in the sciences, the nature of undergrad labor is all over the map, from glorified bottle watching to serious research. And the opportunities in science are far greater because there is far more research support. It is also the case that, in the sciences, there a a lot of post-docs who provide cheap mentorship for undergrads.</p>
<p>A lot of the things being said here are simply untrue. I’m an undergrad and I love the law library. Architecturally much more appealing than the Reg, and much closer to the South Campus dorm. I’ve checked out books from it. Undergrads are definitely welcome.</p>