<p>Hi guys! </p>
<p>So these are four top choices (Berkeley and Carleton included) for college. I got into all of them and now am deciding between the four. I am leaning towards Bowdoin or USC though but am considering all four. </p>
<p>I am planning to major in neuroscience with a pre-med emphasis and also double-major in something else. I am from Southern California. </p>
<p>At USC, I got the presidential scholarship (half-tuition). It's close to home and I stayed there overnight and really enjoyed it. But I'm worried about getting into medical school from USC since the percentage is a little lower. </p>
<p>At Bowdoin, I got the Bowdoin Faculty scholar award. I love the liberal arts atmosphere and the Common Good philosophy. Everyone is so kind but I'm worried about how good the neuroscience program is. </p>
<p>At Carleton, I got the William Carleton scholar award. Again, I love the liberal arts and everyone seems really happy. Again, I'm worried about the quality of the neuroscience program. </p>
<p>At UC Berkeley, I got the Regent's Scholar. I'm not sure how I feel about such a large school though and the smaller percentage that gets into medical school. </p>
<p>What are your inputs? Anybody a student now who had to make similar decisions?</p>
<p>There doesn’t seem to be any objective reason not to attend any of the schools you listed, since you have aid at all of them. Why are you concerned about the neuroscience majors at Bowdoin and Carleton? Just because they are small LACs doesn’t mean that their neuroscience programs aren’t strong; schools like Bowdoin and Carleton attract top PhD holders who are really interested in teaching and mentoring undergraduates to their schools. I’m looking to work at a place like Bowdoin or Carleton, and most of the new assistant professors hired there completed 2-year research postdoctoral fellowships and would be relatively competitive for tenure-track positions at research universities, too. They usually have pretty good support for research in an effort to attract scholars who would rather go to, say, Princeton or Michigan.</p>
<p>I’m biased because I went to a small LAC and I think that’s just the epitome of the undergrad experience. People who went to large schools may disagree because that was their experience, and I respect that. But for me, the integration of knowledge at an LAC (emphasizing that all areas are interconnected, and that history or sociology classes are just as important for science majors as they are for humanities majors) is just the essence of what college education is. I also loved the really small, intimate, close-knit environment. An LAC is a nurturing place - a place where class discussions are commonplace because your classes are so small, where professors leave their doors open and are expected to be on campus and visible and available to students, where you can drop by the professor’s office just for a chat and have them welcome that kind of interaction. Because they are nurturing environments that encourage student growth and development, I think they’re excellent springboards to graduate school and professional school.</p>
<p>Berkeley and USC are both excellent schools, too, though. And there’s no doubt that you’ll have a wider variety of research opportunities at either of those schools, especially Berkeley (although at large research universities with graduate students, the grad students usually take up the most involved RA positions within labs; undergrads typically don’t start doing research until their junior year, and they tend to do lower-level tasks). Berkeley’s pre-med classes are competitive but if you are a driven and ambitious student you can do premed from either place.</p>
<p>It just depends on the kind of atmosphere you want.</p>