I’m interested in the question as it pertains to people more generally, but also with regard to my specifics. I’m deciding between UChicago, Berkeley, and UMichigan (tho family is pushing against last). I’m pretty undecided, but I’m leaning towards majoring in STEM, esp CS or biology, and considering medical, law, and graduate school.
The choice between CS and biology will make a bigger difference in your employment prospects than Chicago, Berkeley, or Michigan. CS currently has good job prospects, but could be subject to economic and industry cycles (e.g. was quite bad during the tech bubble crash). Biology generally tends to have a large supply of graduates relative to the number of good jobs in the field, so biology majors should consider the possibility of seeking and taking non-biology jobs at graduation.
Medical and law school do not require any specific undergraduate major, although medical school requires pre-med courses (which are “conveniently” covered by the biology major, so many pre-meds major in biology; since most do not get into medical school, they add to the supply of biology graduates looking for jobs). PhD programs generally prefer undergraduate study in the same or closely related field.
A degree from any of these three will be looked at favorable by employers and grad schools. Go to the one where you feel you’d fit best and that offers the atmosphere, courses and opportunities you’re most interested it. (Check out Chicago’s new molecular engineering program if you haven’t already.)
Why are they discouraging Mich? Are you from CA? Between those 3, there are no bad answers. If you are IS CA or MI, go there and save your $ for law school!
If it all costs the same, and you don’t want a big sports team, go with Chicago. If you don’t like the cold: Berkeley! And if you want a great campus and big 10 experience: Michigan!
Assuming you are not a resident of any of those states, and cost is not an issue, I would recommend going for fit. Those three universities have very different feels. I recall having to choose between them and the choice between them was clear at first glance.
Employers don’t know and don’t care about the minutiae of the usnwr rankings. All these universities are equally strong.
Look at their career services, companies that come to campus, etc.
For industry jobs, biology is a bad major due to oversupply (#1 post hits the nail on the head). If you’re not dead set on it, try various science classes.
First, super congratulations. These are all stunning institutions. In the decision tree, the fork is UChicago versus Michigan and UCB. Uchicago is one of a handful of elite private universities with a major emphasis now on the college . This means lost of individual attention, very low teacher/student ratio and strong career and graduate schools placement. You will not have oversubscribed classes and housing issues as in Berkeley. Uchicago wil force you to take the core. It is not a big ten or Cal undergraduate party scene. Chicago is a fabulous city. If you like sports and are looking for the picture book college party scene, go Mich or Cal. . Placemen t stats for Uchicago grads into top medical and law schools are excellent.
Chicago has little to no engineering, and technology. That being said, the academic experience is first rate, nerdy and intense. So it would be SM vs STEM vs STEM. You can’t go wrong with any of them.
Uchicago is tops ion Math, Statistics, Physics and Astronomy. Bio and Chem not that strong but still very very good.
<<<<
Employers don’t know and don’t care about the minutiae of the usnwr rankings
[QUOTE=""]
[/QUOTE]
Exactly!
They hire the person! They’re not hiring a school!
The typical employer will not care at all.
However, for the more unique hard-to-get jobs, prestige can make a lot of difference. UChicago will give an undergraduate much better access to professors, research opportunities and internships/
And on a per capita basis, UChicago places a higher percentage of its graduating class in top law schools, medical schools, and PhD programs.
“However, for the more unique hard-to-get jobs, prestige can make a lot of difference. UChicago will give an undergraduate much better access to professors, research opportunities and internships/
And on a per capita basis, UChicago places a higher percentage of its graduating class in top law schools, medical schools, and PhD programs.”
Really? Do you have any evidence to back up your claims? Clearly, Chicago places a higher percentage of its graduates in PhD programs, but that is just the nature of Chicago’s student body. I have not seen any evidence that would suggest that top graduate programs or exclusive employers favor Chicago graduates over Cal or Michigan graduates. If you have actual placement reports that prove your point, by all means, feel free to share them with us.
“Chicago will give an undergraduate much better access to professors, research opportunities and internships”? Again, please prove your point. Do you have actual data on how much time undergraduate students at Chicago spend with faculty? Perhaps the percentage who are involved in research? Internship placements?
I would say that for a handful of jobs at a handful of companies, prestige can make a little bit of a difference - maybe a tiebreaker between two candidates, or a first look at a resume that gets picked out of a pile. But Berkeley, Michigan and Chicago are all in the tier of school that would earn that second look.
@Alexandre You are asking for everything but the kitchen sink, some questions that you know can’t actually be proven with available hard data but are true nevertheless.
UChicago has 5800 undergrads, while UMichigan has 29,000 undergraduates. The student faculty ratio at UChicago is 6 to 1. The average class sizes at UChicago are significantly smaller, with 80 percent of the classes having under 20 students. Massive amounts of research are going on at both places, but at UChicago, there are 24,000 less undergraduate students chasing those opportunities. UChicago has more Fulbright scholars than UMichigan, despite being one fifth the size. It has over twice as many Rhodes scholars, despite being one fifth the size.
There is no database of every top law, medical and MBA program, but if you go check any individual one, you generally will see both schools well represented - but UChicago has one fifth the students, so UMichigan should have five times the representation. That is never the case.
As far as internships go, UChicago runs the Metcalf internship program, which provides students with over 2300 internships every year. As a practical matter, that means that every student who wants one, gets one.
I’m an alum of Michigan - Go Blue. It’s a great place. But for undergrad, it’s not quite the same experience as an Ivy-type school, which Chicago certainly is.
ThankYouforHelp, I will preface this post with a quote from Gerhard Casper, President of Stanford University 1992-2000.
“I am extremely skeptical that the quality of a university - any more than the quality of a magazine - can be measured statistically.”
The moment you try to compare universities statistically, you are going to run into problems. That is one of the main challenges facing people who try to quantify the quality of a university. Chicago and Michigan are not similar. Michigan has a lot more in common with Cal, Cornell, Northwestern, Penn, Texas-Austin and Wisconsin-Madison. But attempting to compare universities using statistical measures does not work. There are far too many variables, too many unknowns, too many unreported figures, too many inconsistencies and too many intangibles.
At any rate, you make some claims that I do not agree with entirely, but keep in mind that statistical comparisons do not work.
“UChicago has 5800 undergrads, while UMichigan has 29,000 undergraduates.”
Michigan also has a much larger faculty. Its student body is scattered throughout more programs. Michigan has a CoE and undergraduate Business program, a school of Education, a Nursing program, a Music School, a school of Architecture, a school of Kinesiology etc…
“The student faculty ratio at UChicago is 6 to 1.”
Chicago is one of those universities that conveniently omits 4,000 thousand graduate students enrolled in its from its student to faculty ratio. There is no such thing as a research university with a 6:1 student to faculty ratio. When you factor in graduate students, Chicago’s ratio is probably 10:1.
“The average class sizes at UChicago are significantly smaller, with 80 percent of the classes having under 20 students.”
Classes will be smaller at Chicago, but not significantly. 75% of the classes at Michigan have fewer than 30 students. Outside of intro-level classes, you will most likely not have a significant difference in the size of your classes at those two universities.
“Massive amounts of research are going on at both places, but at UChicago, there are 24,000 less undergraduate students chasing those opportunities.”
You are assuming that all 29,000 undergraduate students at Michigan intend on participating in research. That is not the case. Only a fraction of undergraduate students seek out research experience, and the majority of incoming freshmen who apply for UROP/MRC at Michigan are placed. Those that aren’t often pair up with faculty on their own initiative.
“UChicago has more Fulbright scholars than UMichigan, despite being one fifth the size.”
Actually, Michigan has produced more Fulbright Scholars than Chicago, which is ridiculous considering how academically focused Chicago is. Admittedly, when you factor in their respective size, Chicago does better than Michigan, but again, Chicago is arguably the most intellectually charged university in the US. However, if you compare Michigan to universities that are similar to it, like Cal, Cornell and Penn, it holds its own nicely. From 2004-2016, Michigan has produced 389 Fulbright Scholars, leading all other universities. No university comes close. Harvard is second with 314 and Yale is third with 305. Chicago has produced 254, which is impressive considering its size. But like I said, Cornell and Penn have produced 178 and 187 respectively, which are comparable to Michigan 389 proportionately speaking.
“It has over twice as many Rhodes scholars, despite being one fifth the size.”
Technically, it is a little under twice! 
Chicago has produced 51 to Michigan’s 26. But that is not a fair comparison, nor one I intend on disputing. Michigan and Chicago are very different institutions, and attract very different types of students. Michigan has produced as many Rhodes scholars as Columbia and Cornell, and more than Northwestern or Penn. But the Rhodes Scholarship is an outlier. UVa has produced more Rhodes Scholars than Chicago. Is it better? Oklahoma has produced more Rhodes Scholars than Columbia. Is Oklahoma better than Columbia?
“There is no database of every top law, medical and MBA program, but if you go check any individual one, you generally will see both schools well represented - but UChicago has one fifth the students, so UMichigan should have five times the representation. That is never the case.”
While Michigan is 5 times larger than Chicago, it is also far more diverse academically. Michigan does not have 5 times more premed or prelaw or pre MBA students. But since there is no accurate database, it is impossible to determine the exact relationship between Chicago and Michigan.
http://www.inside-higher-ed.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/wsj_college_092503.pdf
According to this slightly dated study, Chicago placed 59 graduates in top 5 Medical, Law or MBA programs in that given year, compared to Michigan’s 156 graduate placed in those same elite graduate programs in the same year. That’ a 3:1 ratio, despite a 5:1 size advantage. However, Michigan has very diverse academic offerings, which include schools of Music, Nursing, Architecture, Kinesiology etc…Students from those programs do not usually transition to MBA, Law or Medical programs. Also, the survey did not include graduate Engineering programs, and Michigan has a large undergraduate Engineering program with many undergraduates going on the graduate school. And when you include Michigan graduate programs (Medical, Law, Graduate Engineering and Ross MBA), all considered elite graduate programs, and all admitting and enrolling a very large number of Michigan graduates. Overall, the total number of Michigan graduates enrolled in good graduate programs will likely outnumber Chicago graduates. One thing is clear, however; graduate school admissions committees will not distinguish between applicants of those two universities.
“As far as internships go, UChicago runs the Metcalf internship program, which provides students with over 2300 internships every year. As a practical matter, that means that every student who wants one, gets one.”
That is to be expected of all great universities. I am not sure how it is unique to Chicago. Obviously, Michigan is more diverse academically, and will therefore attract a far wider range of recruiters on campus. Michigan students who are interested in careers in Banking or multinationals will generally major in Business and have access to Ross’ career office.
https://michiganross.umich.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/Community/pdfs/15_recruiters_guide.pdf
Those seeking careers in technology or manufacturing will major in Engineering or Computer Science and have access to the CoE career office, which is also excellent.
http://career.engin.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/2017/02/annualreport1516.pdf
Consulting firms actively recruit across LSA, Ross and the CoE. LSA also recently started a program called the Opportunity Hub, designed at connecting LSA students with companies from multiple industries all over the world. Typically, 95% of Michigan students are either employed (70%) or enrolled in graduate programs (25%) within 6 months of graduation. Again, I do not think employers have a preference for one university over the other at that level.
“I’m an alum of Michigan - Go Blue. It’s a great place. But for undergrad, it’s not quite the same experience as an Ivy-type school, which Chicago certainly is.”
What exactly is any Ivy-type school? Are all Ivy-Type schools alike, and different from Michigan? Do Cornell and Penn have more in common with Dartmouth and Princeton, or with Michigan? I am an alumnus of both Cornell and Michigan, and architecture/landscaping aside, the two universities are identical in virtually every way. Are Northwestern and Penn materially different from Michigan and Cornell?
Chicago law is fourth in the nation, and Booth is third. Ten percent of the entering class of Yale Law School in he the fall will be from Uchicago. Chicago is a world leader in Nobel prizes, both historically and since 2000. I would take Michigan over any public university other than Berkeley. But this is summary judgment in favor of chicago for undergrad unless one has a very specific undergrad pre professional school in mind at Mich…
@lastposts, in the topic question, what do you mean by “favor”?
If you’re asking whether employers will offer different salaries depending on your alma mater’s rank/prestige, the answer almost certainly is “no”. If you’re asking whether they’ll target campus recruiting to some T30-40 schools more than others, the answer is “maybe”. Even in that case, factors like location and size may matter at least as much as school prestige (although some industries, investment banking in particular, appear to be more prestige-conscious than others.)
For medical or law admissions, I doubt your college brand per se will matter. Chicago may have higher admission rates just because it cherry-picks higher-scoring students in its own college admissions (so its applicants would be expected to have higher MCAT/LSAT scores). For PhD programs, UChicago does have higher per capita completion rates than Berkeley or Michigan. The reasons why are not completely clear,* but again, I doubt the college brand per se has much if any impact on admissions if these are the 3 schools we’re comparing. Students from all 3 schools with comparable GPAs and equally mature research interests should have about the same shot for doctoral program admissions, I would think.
- Whether UChicago's higher *completion* rates are due primarily to selection effects or to treatment effects is hard to answer confidently, one way or another. UChicago is more selective than Berkeley or Michigan. UChicago spends much more on instruction per student than Berkeley or Michigan. These and other characteristics may have positive impacts on some outcomes (like PhD completions) but not on all others (like professional school admissions or financial ROI), and would not necessarily be worth a price premium for all students. So (bottom line) it would be reasonable to focus on net cost and personal fit.
There can also be student self-selection effects as well. For example, Berkeley and Michigan offer more pre-professional majors (e.g. engineering majors and business) than Chicago does. Also, students in liberal arts majors may have different levels of pre-professional-ness at different schools. These may affect both entry to PhD programs and completion of PhD programs for those who enter them (more pre-professional-oriented students may just go to work after BA/BS (or may target professional schools like MD or JD programs), even if they would be admitted to PhD programs).
B and M do enroll more students in pre- pro majors than UChicago does. But even among a&s majors, I think you’ll find Chicago and many LACs have higher rates. Research I’ve seen recently suggests this isn’t necessarily just because they arrive at college more pre-disposed toward graduate work. These are complicated issues that need more study, but I think it unlikely that instructional spending, class size, etc. have no impact.
“Chicago law is fourth in the nation, and Booth is third.”
Churchill, we are talking about undergraduate, not graduate programs. But even if we weren’t, Booth and Ross are peer MBA programs, and Chicago and Michigan Law are both elite. Both have equally good Medical schools as well. I do not think either of us can honestly claim one school edges the other when it comes to graduate professional programs. Michigan has a top 10 College of Engineering while Chicago does not have a College of Engineering, but that is probably the only difference between the two.
“Ten percent of the entering class of Yale Law School in he the fall will be from Uchicago.”
Do you have proof of that? 10% seems excessive. Usually, Harvard and Yale graduates make up 10% of Yale Law school’s entering class. No other university comes close. Princeton clocks in at #3 with roughly 5%, and no other university makes up more than 3-4% of the entering class at Yale Law. Michigan and Chicago usually enroll anywhere from 2-5 of their graduates at Yale Law schools annually, which works out to roughly 1%-2% of Yale Law’s entering class. And no, Chicago does not have the edge here.
“Chicago is a world leader in Nobel prizes, both historically and since 2000.”
But how many Nobel Laureates have undergraduate degrees from Chicago? 11? Maybe 12? Michigan has produced 5-6. When you consider the fact that Nobel Prizes have been handed out for 115 years to close to a thousand people, it is clear that Nobel Prize winners are outliers. Case in point, Michigan undergraduate alumni have won more Nobel Prizes than Princeton and Stanford undergraduate alumni…combined. I will be the first to admit that Michigan is a tiny notch below Princeton or Stanford. Northwestern undergraduate alumni have won 1 Nobel prize and Penn 3 Nobel prizes. A Michigan undergraduate alumnus has won the Fields medal. As good as Chicago is in Mathematics, none of its undergraduate alumni have won the Fields medal. Does that make Michigan better than Chicago in Mathematics? Again, the quality of a university cannot be measured statistically.
“I would take Michigan over any public university other than Berkeley.”
A personal choice, and a perfectly legitimate one, although many would choose Michigan over Cal. It really boils down to fit.
“But this is summary judgment in favor of chicago for undergrad unless one has a very specific undergrad pre professional school in mind at Mich.”
My posts above prove beyond a doubt that it is not a “summary judgement”. Chicago does not present any advantage over Michigan. Those are two peer institutions, albeit completely different in character and feel. When choosing between the two, as I did many years ago, I would recommend going for fit. As much as I respect Chicago, I would not have had nearly as good an experience there as I did at Michigan.
By the way, the OP has said that he/she is considering CS or Biology as a major, and Medical or Law School later one. When it comes to those interests. I do not think Chicago presents any advantage over Cal or Michigan.