Brown v. U of Chicago

<p>So as far as academics go, and majoring in Anthropology.... which one would you guys say is better overall?</p>

<p>Well, for one, tell us if you prefer one of the most renowned core curriculum around or one of the most requirement-less curriculum around. </p>

<p>I prefer Chicago because I think open curriculum is a joke, but that's just m.e.</p>

<p>open curriculum a joke? some of us know already what we do/don't want to study. i would love to not have to ever take a science class again.</p>

<p>all i know is that both schools seem to have good stuff, but then again i just did a quick google search.</p>

<p>You should take ranking systems with a grain of salt, but for what it's worth, ARWU has UChicago's social sciences grad programs ranked as the second highest in the world, behind Harvard.
[url=<a href=""&gt;]field[/url&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p>

<p>brown will be more fun. but the education you receive will be more rigorous at chicago.</p>

open curriculum a joke? some of us know already what we do/don't want to study. i would love to not have to ever take a science class again.


<p>This is precisely why it's a joke. With the open curriculum, you never have to go out of your comfort zone. You never have to confront the fact that it's important to gain knowledge from many areas, to get exposed to many different modes of thought. You think I enjoyed my writing classes? But I'll be the first to admit I learned a lot from them, regardless of enjoyment. </p>

<p>But like I said, it's just me.</p>

<p>Chicago has many strong departments, but Anthropology is one of the strongest.
The FSP Index ranks its graduate department at #4; NRC-95 had it tied for #1.
NRC-95 had Brown at #44. I don't know about Brown's FSP ranking; the FSP site only shows the top 10.</p>

<p>NRC</a> Rankings in Anthropology
FSP</a> Index Top Performing Individual Programs</p>

<p>Chicago also is very strong in 2 related disciplines: Sociology (FSP #9; NRC-95 #1) and Linguistics (FSP #4; NRC-95 #6). Brown is strong in Sociology (FSP #8; NRC-95 #38). Brown's Linguistics program is not in the FSP top 10 so I don't know its rank (in the NRC-95 it was #20).</p>

<p>These are graduate rankings. There are no comparable undergraduate department rankings, but in many cases faculty will teach at both levels. Consider this information as factors but not necessarily decisive ones.</p>

<p>There are good arguments for either the Core or OC approach. Brown and Chicago do each approach justice. Anthro is, inherently, rather interdisciplinary (so even without the Core you're almost guaranteed a broad education, though it's nice to experience the shared exposure to classic texts you get at Chicago).</p>

<p>Anthro is inherently fun, too. Right?</p>

<p>From what I have seen, both of these colleges encourage you to learn and explore the academic fields, though their approach to this common goal are polar opposites. As other posters have mentioned, you need to ask yourself what kind of experience you are looking for. The core will restrict you to choose one or more classes from a list of options that are required for you to take. In a sense, this resembles the lunch special menus of an oriental restaurant: choose one appetizer, choose one soup, choose one main course, choose one dessert, etc... On the other hand, Brown does not "require" you to take any classes, but expects you to pursue what you are passionate in. Another noticeable quality of the Brown education is the option to take classes pass/fail.</p>

<p>I agree with tk. Overall the universities are comparable for undergraduate education, but Chicago absolutely blows Brown away for cultural anthropology. The two are on a more level footing for anthropological archaeology, with Chicago still having a distinct edge. Both are quite weak in biological anthropology.</p>

<p>The anthropology program at Chicago maintains close ties with the Field Museum. Brown has the Haffenreffer Museum...which, while decent, is not exactly on the same scale.</p>

<p>The dismissive nature of earlier posters on the Open Curriculum should serve as a reminder that quite often high school students are not mature enough to critically engage the system in which they exist. Open Curriculum schools require an additional level of awareness of your education which can be both empowering and serve as a major learning experience in and of itself, however, it also can be a complete disaster if you're not equipped or prepared to take on that responsibility and awareness.</p>

<p>I don't think the Open Curriculum is better for most people, however, I think those who are able and eager to take part in that system can gain as much if not more from it than any other curricular structure.</p>

<p>What are my chances to get into either of these schools?</p>

<p>SAT: M-650, CR-690, W-750, total- 2090
SAT IIs: World History-780, U.S. History- 770</p>

<p>APs: Gov., Euro., Stat. (respectively: 4,5, 3). I will be taking Calc AB next year</p>

<p>IBs: French 3 HL, History of the Americas HL, Literature HL, Art HL, World Lit. HL, Math Methods SL, and Physics SL</p>

<p>Senior Courses: IB French 4 HL, IB 20th Cent. World Topics HL, IB Lit HL, IB Art HL , IB Math Methods SL, IB Theory of Knowledge, AP Calc AB, Journalism IV</p>

<p>Current Class Rank: 11/228
GPA: 4
Extra-curricular: President-Model UN, Captain-Academic Team, Lead Attorney-Mock Trial, Young Democrats, Biotech Research, Epilepsy Foundation, School Tutor, Editor in Chief Central Post online</p>

<p>Maj. Awards: 2009 Discover Scholar ( winner of $30,000 and one of ten students out of an applicant pool of 16,000 that was chosen)</p>

<p>School: inner city magnet public school in Macon, GA
Male and Indian</p>

<p>Recs lined up- 3 teachers and a PhD. (good)</p>

<p>I personally think Brown's open curriculum is a huge selling point of the school. Most prereqs that one doesn't want to take generally don't result in much learning and can lead to cheap "waste of space, resources, and time" ways to fulfill them. But that's just the way I like to learn. For that reason and many others, I would pick Brown in a heartbeat over Chicago (and many other schools) without hesitating a second-notwithstanding its supposed relative weakness (compared to Chicago) in what you wish to major in. Though OP, IMO your SATs are sort of on the low side for both schools and most of their peers so you might want to retake.</p>

<p>If you feel that the Open Curriculum is a joke, then clearly it is not appropriate for you. If you are the type of student who will never go out of your comfort zone unless you are forced to do so by requirements, then, again, it's not for you. The types of students for whom the Open Curriculum is designed are those who relish the idea of taking risks, and who prefer to do it on their own terms. I would guess that very few people at Brown (naturally, not everyone), only stick to their own comfort levels. These are the innovators, the explorers, the true thinkers who find the motivation within themselves to learn. Those who would call this philosophy of education "jokes," need to look elsewhere for their schools. This would be too much of a structural challenge for them. It's good that you know yourself this well.</p>

What are my chances to get into either of these schools?


<p>Semi-educated guess? At least 1 in 5 for Brown, at least 2 in 5 for Chicago, and at least 3 in 5 for one of the two if you apply to both. Maybe a little higher. Or even a lot higher. The trouble is, we don't know the stats of rejected students at either school.</p>

<p>Your profile looks great. But there are simply too many kids to admit with similarly strong stats. So a lot may depend on how well you can make your case in the essays.</p>

<p>Pick one or two more "reach" schools, 2 or 3 good match schools. There are quite a few in either category with strong anthro and related departments. Then you are likely to get into an excellent school, it's just hard to predict which one.</p>

I don't think the Open Curriculum is better for most people, however, I think those who are able and eager to take part in that system can gain as much if not more from it than any other curricular structure.


<p>20 years ago or more, I think the Core curriculum would have been the best model for the best students. Today, I'm inclined to agree with ModestMelody. The idea that there is a common body of knowledge that all educated people should share is no longer broadly accepted (unfortunately, IMHO). With a good modern scientific education (and no "core"), one can play a leading role in the modern economy and have a satisfying intellectual life. Playing an active role in shaping that education adds value to it. </p>

<p>Though in fact at Chicago, one can enter the New Collegiate Division, sort of a forerunner to the Open Curriculum concept. But not without doing the Core first.</p>