<p>I’m not exactly sure what I want to study/major in, but I do know that it will be something regarding social sciences. I’m currently thinking about anthropology (cultural and archaeological). </p>
<p>I know that both Chicago and Columbia are great–sometimes similar–schools, but I would love to know more. Do any of you know which school is better in regards to the social sciences, excluding economics? Also, which school better suits someone who is undecided and without a concentration preference?</p>
<p>If archaeology, wow just go to UChicago, best program ever, really cool professors that take you with them on digs of dinosaurs, no question about it.</p>
<p>For other social sciences, there isn’t a huge difference as one isn’t obviously better than the other. If you think that you have a good chance of not doing archaeology consider Columbia because New York is a better ‘scene’ than Chicago but that’s just my opinion.</p>
<p>In terms of workload though Chicago/MIT/Harvard have much ‘stronger/intense’ curricula than Columbia though so that is something to consider.</p>
<p>Don’t know about H…it’s supposed to be easy grade-wise. I have heard Columbia’s difficulty is on par with UoC’s, plus they also have a Core that’s more restrictive.</p>
<p>Two great choices. If you included Economics I would strongly recommend UChicago, but otherwise UChicago’s lead in Social Sciences wouldn’t be enough to base a decision on. I’ve heard some great things about UChicago’s archaeology department (Paul Sereno, Oriental Institute) and some quick googling revealed that it is ranked among the worlds top archaeology departments (Columbia didn’t feature in most lists)…
Good luck deciding!</p>
<p>UChicago’s archaeology program is great, both in the anthro department and outside it. Our ancient Near Eastern program is arguably one of the best in the world and not just in archaeology. Not to mention, there is no place like the Oriental Institute Archives for ANE research.</p>
<p>I’m not that familiar with UChicago’s anthropology program, but as I understand it, we are particularly strong in cultural anthropology. If you want any more information on the NELC program at Chicago though, shoot me a PM.</p>
<p>Both schools have excellent reputations in the social sciences, especially anthropology. Perhaps in the early twentieth century Columbia and Berkeley were the preeminent places to study anthro, but from the mid-century until the end of the twentieth century, no school in the world had a stronger reputation or program in cultural anthropology than the U of C. In my opinion, the field has splintered somewhat since the turn of the century, and a number of Chicago’s preeminent anthropologists have either retired or moved to other universities. </p>
<p>But if you are looking for an undergraduate experience that will ground you in the intellectual and philosophical bases for social science, there is near seamless transition from the social science and humanities sequences of the core and the anthro curriculum, as well as the curricula in sociology and history. In fact, the core of the graduate anthro program, a year-long sequence called “systems,” has been described as soc core on steroids. </p>
<p>Archaeology is a different story: Indiana Jones mythology aside, at the U of C, it is divided up among different departments and programs. Paul Sereno, of course, specializes in dinosaurs. Other folks work on ancient civilizations, especially in the middle east. There are certainly classical archaeologists; but my impression is that this aspect of Chicago is not incredibly strong (Ian Morris moved to Stanford years ago). And there used to be some people who worked on hominid evolution. </p>
<p>Bottom line: If you are unsure what direction you want to take in the social sciences, and are interested in anthropology or archaeology the U of C is probably ideal for you. On the other hand, you almost certainly can find what you are looking for at Columbia too.</p>
<p>Both schools are excellent in the social sciences. Chicago probably has the edge in anthro, but I don’t think it’s significant enough to choose solely based on this (especially since you are undecided). I would visit and choose based on fit.</p>