I had to make the same choice a few months ago, and I chose Chicago. Here’s why:
-The learning environment: When I visited Cambridge to interview, I spoke to about half a dozen students in the space of two days; almost everyone was holed up in his/her room studying. Maybe because students follow a very specific course of study, with perhaps 10 spaces in each college for that subject, there seemed to be little in the way of academic conversation outside a subject-specific peer group. That experience might differ from most students’, but it was one I found jarring. While I’m sure the U of C (“Where fun goes to die”) will be more like Cambridge than Penn State in terms of students’ focus on academics, my impression is that you’re more likely to discuss Nietzsche with a Biology major or a Russian major at Chicago than at Cambridge.
-Location: My visit to Cambridge left me with a clear impression. It’s a lovely town, and I can imagine living there would be wonderful. It’s a short train ride from London, which I couldn’t explore fully if I had a thousand lifetimes to do so. My visit to Chicago made just as much of an impact, I loved Hyde Park - from the character that restaurants like Harold’s Chicken Shack add to the presence of Robie House just off campus - and the world-class city, with its art institute and its Magnificent Mile and its countless neighborhoods, was right there. Both were places where I could happily live, but given the choice I preferred Chicago.
-Academic interests: I’m a prospective PoliSci major (or LLS if the major isn’t eliminated). A major positive, for me, was Chicago’s Institute of Politics. This aspect of the university has gotten a lot of attention recently, with Bernie Sanders delivering a speech or two at his alma mater and David Axelrod commenting on the presidential race, but there’s nothing new in the fact that Chicago’s a great place to study politics. Cambridge has a world-class HSPS department, too, of course. The tie-breaker here was my interest in US politics specifically, a topic that could be explored academically at Cambridge but is easier to study “on the ground” as well as in the classroom. I also liked the freedom to change major, if necessary - especially as I was starting to see drawbacks to the Cambridge program I’d applied to.
-The Core: This wasn’t a deal-maker or deal-breaker for me, but my preference was to choose a broad-based undergraduate education. Every course of study at Cambridge is highly specialized, while Chicago allows undergraduates to explore subjects beyond a major’s requirements.
My family’s circumstances were such that Cambridge had an advantage in cost, but not a large one, due to some merit money from Chicago and scholarships I can’t use in the UK. I don’t know what your situation is (don’t forget to factor in living costs - which Cambridge estimates will be about $15,000 for an international student - into your calculations), so I won’t comment any further on the financial aspect of this decision.
Some of the circumstances above were very specific to my academic interests, while others are more general. As several posters have mentioned, Chicago has a world-class economics department. Some have their reservations, because it’s a famous (infamous?) bastion of neoclassical thought, but there are few things I consider more important in an education than encountering different ideas and viewpoints, even if I disagree with some of them. If this is your view as well, there are few better choices than a degree in economics from the U of C.
Both Chicago and Cambridge have a lot to offer, and it’s hard for you to go wrong here. Whatever you choose, good luck.