I’m planning on majoring in Economics with a possible double major or minor in Political Science or International Relations.
I’ve done my own personal list of pros and cons for each and I’m currently leaning towards Barnard, but I’d like to know your perspective on it. Everyone I’ve spoken to about it seems to turn the conversation into a “New York vs. Chicago” discussion
Outside of academics, I’m someone who needs to be able to have a social life, and I need to be surrounded by culture and opportunities.
Every bit of economics in the 20th century has gone through Chicago, either directly from the University or as a response to it. In the 1980s, the supply-side economics that has rippled throughout the US and much of the western world, had its intellectual basis at Chicago. The political counterpart to neoliberalism, neoconservatism, has had a large influence on US foreign policy, and much of the decisions made in Washington are still influenced by it. Guess where its basis is? Chicago. Economics majors at this school go through a highly quantitative track that sees economics as more of an applied science than the writing heavy subject it is at many other schools, and as a result, Chicago turns out some of the most well-trained mini economists every year. There is the Becker Friedman institute of Economics, the Department of Economics, the Booth School of Business - all of these entities of the University conduct interesting research that you can very easily get involved in! In addition, if you are looking at Political Science- a lot of what you read at Barnard will have originated from this university. Looking at the realist theory in IR? The man who came up with it, Mearsheimer, teaches the intro IR class at Chicago. Need I say more? For your intended majors, this should hardly even be a choice. It is not even a case of New York vs. Chicago. Chicago’s SPECIALTY are these majors, and it is damn good at them.
I cannot stress enough how outsized the University of Chicago’s influence has been - not as a function of its wealth and prestige, but more as a function of the intellectual climes that surround the University. Everyone here is encouraged to think with rigour. We read books not to criticise, or to blindly absorb the ideas within, but to see clearly, and to be able to form well rounded critiques of the material. I have never felt more alive than in my time here. Intellectually, this place sets me on fire. I chose to come to Chicago over Columbia (similar to your choice - Barnard), and I have never looked back.
Believe me, my best friend, a political philosophy major who studied under Bloom, told me all about it. But it’s one of those places where the degree carries a lot of weight in part because they don’t have affirmative action so it’s presumed you’re smart if you get in.
@samshabs – my daughter was a poli sci / IR major at Barnard. She had some amazing profs in her department – obviously got an excellent education. She didn’t study econ, so I can’t comment on that. She also turned down a spot at Chicago in favor of Barnard.
Anyway, no regrets at all on the academic front: daughter got an excellent education at Barnard, and has commented many times to me about her positive feelings about the rigor & quality of the education. She also had close relationships with many of the faculty, which was fostered in her major by the requirement of a senior thesis & seminar & colloquia courses.
Pick the school that’s the best fit for you and will you will thrive. Post #1 in this thread is a prime example of the sort of thing that was a turn-off for both me & my daughter about Chicago. D. wanted to be in a place where she could get a good education, but isn’t the pretentious type.
What are your specific career goals? That would be very important in this case because you might not require the hyper-intellectualism of Chicago.
Also, you might be able to afford living well and abundantly in NYC, unlike many students. If that’s true, then NYC doesn’t get any better for cultural opportunities.
The schools might, on the margin, attract somewhat different “types” of fellow students that you might fit in better or less better with.
Did you/can you do overnights at both schools? That might help. At least D2, who didn’t do so, thought it would have helped her, in retrospect. In terms of the above, and what it’s actually like living and being there.
There is plenty of culture in both cities, the question is how much of it will you be able to afford. And have time for. Chicago is likely less costly than New York, Yet likely still mostly unaffordable to someone without a trust fund who isn’t working. Talk is cheap though, see for yourself. Just look up on-line theater tickets (even discount) and movie tickets in each city. Most things of interest are a train ride in both cases. I could be wrong but probably even a longer ride for Chicago. Barnard kids of my recent familiarity were frequently going to bars downtown in Greenwich Village near NYU. Use MTA Trip Planner to see how long that would take. Ages ago when I Iived in Chicago the action was in North side neighborhoods like Lincoln Park; this may be all different now. Find out where people go now, and see where that is vs, Hyde Park. I’m sure Chicago has its own version of 'trip planner".
The schools have different requirements, regarding core, distribution, thesis, that may occupy different proportions of your total credits and you may have some preference about.
Suggest check Barnard catalog to detemine the extent to which major requirements must be met with courses actually offered at Barnard (as opposed to Columbia). If so, I imagine Chicago will likely have more. Though Economics might be harder there, and more mathematical. By reputation. Which is what you want if you want to go on and get a doctorate. But may not be what you want, if you don’t.
Chicago does have an excellent economics department that is world-famous, but it also has a particular focus/philosophy that might rub some students the wrong way. You have to fit in with Chicago School economics. Chicago does also have a lot of Nobel laureates…
…but you’re selecting an undergrad college. Not that these things are completely unimportant when choosing a college, but they have less influence on the every day life of an undergraduate student than they would if you were selecting a graduate program.
Besides, there are lots of accomplished professors at Columbia, too, and Barnard undergraduates can take classes in the Columbia economics department quite easily. Barnard has an economics and mathematics track if you want to go to grad school, and my understanding is that the math classes are all at Columbia in Columbia’s math department (Barnard and Columbia have a shared math department, it seems; clicking on the math course listing on Barnard’s website takes you to a listing of Columbia math classes). A quick look at the economics major requirements shows that, if she really wanted to, a Barnard economics major could substitute all of her Barnard economics classes with Columbia ones.
I agree with @calmom - you have to pick the right environment for YOU. Chicago is definitely a powerhouse university, but if you want a small women’s college that’s connected to a large research environment so you can enjoy the best of both worlds - a small, intimate undergrad body with the amenities of a large research university - then Barnard is the choice for you.
However, if you want a quirky, large, intellectual research university then Chicago could be the right choice! There are culture and opportunities at both. Really, it’s more about the lifestyle you want to have, and if you’re leaning towards Barnard you shouldn’t feel like you are disadvantaging yourself or something by going there.
Thank you everyone for your help! I appreciate you all putting in the time and effort to answer my question
At this point, I’m not really looking towards a career in academia, so UChicago might be less suited towards my aspirations according to what I’ve read and heard.
I’m sure both universities will offer me many opportunities, but I do think that New York is maybe more of a hub for most if not all of my interests, academic and otherwise, so that is definitely an advantage to Barnard. I’ve also hear that Barnard women take care of other Barnard women, so that coupled with the reputably amazing advising definitely draws me in.
Money isn’t an issue for me, so I will be able to live very comfortably in either city.
Thank you again for all of your comments, have a nice day!!
Not sure what your point is – in terms of course enrollment there is absolutely no difference in terms of which side of the street the course is given. Many intro level courses will be offered at both schools, often with the location being more dependent on which semester the student takes the course – for example, if the OP studies IR at Barnard, she most certainly will take International Politics (V1601). Unless thing change, if she takes that course in the fall, it will be at Barnard from Kimberly Marten (who is amazing). If she takes the course in the spring. If she takes the same course in the spring, it will be with Robert Jervis at Columbia (also well regarded). The “V” in the course numbering is an indication that the course is not tied to a specific school.
Virtually all of the courses in the OP’s areas of interests that are given at Columbia will be equally available to her as a Barnard student. In practice, my DD did not draw distinctions among the campuses when figuring out her schedule – she would look to see what courses seemed interesting, what would fit in her schedule, and she would use CULPA to get a sense of how students viewed the professor. Over time she gravitated more toward Barnard courses, but I think that was also a function of her developing close relationships with many faculty members.
Actually, you can substitute “liberal arts college” for “women’s college” – yes, Barnard is a women’s college but that is not what attracted my daughter. If anything that was an “in spite of” rather than a “because of” factor in her choice. But I think that my daughter definitely did appreciate the personal attention and the close relationships between faculty/students that are part of the attraction of a LAC – and that’s where there was a bigger contrast between her experience and that of her Columbia College classmates across the street.
In general, the Columbia faculty seemed to be somewhat less approachable than the Barnard faculty. Their teaching responsibilities could be part off the equation. At a research university, the faculty will be teaching graduate courses as well as undergrad, and there may be a tendency for the profs to focus more attention on the grad students. In the LAC environment, the focus is only on undergrads.
Obviously I can’t speak to Chicago --but that’s why the whole Nobel Laureate thing doesn’t mean much-- the question is, which profs are you going to work closely with? Typically those are going to be whoever is teaching smaller classes to undergrads. (Smaller because it’s hard to get to know a prof in a large lecture class - your relationships with profs will be formed in classes small enough to foster discussion and interaction between students and prof). Very often the profs who have achieved academic celebrity status have a reduced teaching load-- (so that they have more time available to attend to all of the other responsibilities their status entails) meaning less direct contact with students overall.
My point was, there could possibly be limitations on Columbia econ courses that would count towards the Barnard Econ major, and if so that would reduce the pool of economics courses to choose from.
But evidently, per #8 above, juillet checked, and there aren’t.
There certainly are such limitations going in the opposite direction. This is what it says on Columbia’s website for requirements for its Economics major:
“A major in economics requires a minimum of 9 lecture courses in economics, one senior seminar and 3 classes outside of the department (math and statistics). All majors must take a minimum of 5 of the 9 economics lecture courses in the Columbia Department of Economics. The remaining credits for economics lecture courses may come from AP (IB, GCE) Credits, Barnard elective courses (2000 or 3000 level), and Transfer credits (either taken before registering at Columbia or from study abroad).
At most one of the 3000 level core economics courses may be taken outside of the department (the course must be approved by the department- see transfer credit information online). The Barnard offerings of the economics core classes are NOT acceptable substitutes for the core requirements.”
It’s great that this isn’t true in the Barnard directions as well, but in light of above, which I had read about before, it was something worth checking IMO.
Both New York and Chicago will give you great opportunities to make a name for yourself in the city. However, if you’re leaning towards Barnard, I think you should stick with your gut.
