ebolamonger

OK, here I am asking y'all for advice again....but hey, I always get the best advice here. So here's the situation:

I've been accepted to the University of Chicago and my state university, University of MO-Columbia. Chicago will cost me staggering amounts in loans; MO is just about paid for by the state. Whichever one I choose, I will be majoring in something to do with biology, and would possibly go into medical research but more likely would teach high school (I'd love to be a crazy science teacher).

State U: cheap, close to home (low transportation cost), i can make money while in school for when i get out. it's a decent school with a large course selection, fairly respectable in the sciences. however, lots of stupid people, frats, etc. small town.

U Chicago: Fantastic school that practically leaks Nobel prizes. Fantastic city. Far from home, expensive to travel to and from, loans will have me selling my kidney on the black market.

mjennyt

If it was me (and it's not), I would go to the State University. If you want to do research you can get a graduate degree elsewhere.

Go where you will be happiest. Four years is a long time if you are going to be miserable if you don't like the town or people.

tribalbeeyatch

I voted for the State U. Nobel leaureates are often times horrible teachers, so that probably won't help you much as an undergrad. As long as the State U has the sorts of classes that you want to take, then it sounds like quite the bargain.

Grad Student Humanist

Well, I would be awfully tempted to go to the U. of Chicago becuase it's a top-tier school, BUT not if you have to go into serious debt.

I know too many people who are drowning in the debt from their college years, even now a decade later. Granted, most of the people I know majored in the humanities so there weren't very many lucrative careers waiting for them after graduation. Perhaps your circumstances are different.

I just don't think it's worth it in the long run. You could always go to a top-tier graduate school in a few years and hopefully one which will give you either a fellowship or an assistantship.

godfry n. glad

I've always believed that your education is what YOU make of it, so it really doesn't matter where you go. But, the reality of it all is that the contacts you make and the reputation you build with your decision of a university may well affect the course of your career(s).

I would have mortgaged my parents' retirement to get into U. Chicago, but then, I was a callow, ambitious young man back then. Fortunately, I did not get admitted. I decided upon a relatively expensive smallish private college because of a scholarship. I bailed out of that after two years and ended up in the nearby urban state university, which I loved (of course, I avoided all the "cattle call" classes of hundreds of students by taking my lower level undergrad classes at the small liberal arts college and by the time I made it to the state university, I had only advanced courses...small advanced courses...in a field that not too many found attractive in the 1970s.

As already noted, award-winning scholastics can indeed be terrible teachers...I had one. He was stupendously bad. They tend to excell at research and "getting published", rather than being able to help students grasp concepts and develop mastery of the topic.

If you're not set on "the stars"...like some big-time singular career objective (which being a science teacher ain't) then I'd recommend that you save yourself the money and go local university. Hey...I'm not saying being the crazy science teacher isn't an admirable life goal, it is...but being the crazy science _professor_ might be fun, too (although it'll probably pay less in the long run than being high school science teacher, crazy or not), particularly when you're called upon to debunk the latest scientific fraud to come down the pike, or have the opportunity posit, and hang your name on, the latest in paradigmatic-crushing theories. Your chances at the latter would be enhanced by attending UC.

It's your decision.

LeftCoast

Given what you say your debt load will be getting out, I would recommend the State School - It's been a long time since I've cared about such things but UM-Columbia as I recall had a good rep.

The presence of Nobel Laureates will make next to no difference at the undergraduate level - If these guys(gals) teach any non-graduate level courses at all, you would not see them until your Jr. or Sr. year at the earliest. Even then they'd be teaching the core courses, which cover established principles/data within whatever discipline you are in - their research expertise would not come into play much if at all.

Where the Nobel Laureate thing comes into play is when you are in Graduate school and if you can get one of these guys to be your advisor then it�ll make a huge difference in how you are perceived.

Jimmy Higgins

Well, if you major in a science field, you have to get a Master's degree because a BS in Science doesn't get squat these days, sadly because those aren't easy degrees to get.

So with this in mind, go to the less expensive school, unless you can obtain financial aid at Chicago. After being accepted into Case Western for a Master's Program in Civil Engineering, I opted out because the cost wouldn't have really been feasible. Though, I wish I did have a Master's, I own a home now, at the age of 26, something that would NOT have been possible if I got my Masters!

And, of course, you could do both. If you excel top 5% in your class at State, perhaps you can transfer with financial aid to Chicago.

Good luck.

Sakpo

Well, if you think you're likely to continue to want to "just" want to be a high school teacher (I put just in quotation marks because I really don't want to insult high school teachers, it's not in any way my intention to indicate that that job is unimportant), I'd say you ought to definitely go with the state school. You'll probably need/want to go on to grad school (and going to your state school will allow you to be able to afford that more easily) and you probably don't really need your degrees to have lots of "snob value" to obtain work as a high school teacher (assuming you aren't aiming at heading off to some really fancy prep school or something). As an undergrad, the quality of education may not be very different, or at the state school it may well be superior. If you really excel at the state school (are in the top five percent or so), and decide you made the wrong choice, you could well be able to switch to U of Chicago or a comperable school.

If I were you, I'd look at both schools, and decide, as an undergrad, which one looks more likely to give you a better education. The state school may well come out on top, I doubt it'd come far behind U of Chicago. Then factor in the financial side of the equation, and do what makes sense.

Personally, I'd trade one of my legs for a chance to attend the U of Chicago, as a graduate student, studying Russian history. I'm afraid that's beyond my reach though, and I'm fine with that.

Chuck

I think that undergrad education is what you make of it, regardless of where you go. Given the choice between a state school and a more prestigious but hugely expensive one, I would advise the state school.

Or, look at it another way. Work hard at the state university, stand out, explore everything they have to offer. This makes you a much stronger candidate for a very prestigious grad school (which is far, far more important than undergrad) WITH financial aid.

Chuck

ohwilleke

Going to U of Chicago is a once in a lifetime chance that will pay dividends all your life (assuming you graduate alive, the Hyde Park is not a safe place). You will be exposed to some of the brightest fellow students and professors there are. There is no substitute for that.