<p>Pretty much everything said thus far in this thread is somewhat true, except for the part about Berkeley having a clear prestige advantage over Chicago, and the part that implies that Berkeley classes are inherently worse than Chicago’s. They are both great, world-famous universities. Berkeley faces some challenges on the state-funding front, and has for some time, but it’s not going to turn into a second-rate institution any time soon. The issues about huge introductory classes at Berkeley and, with some majors, the difficulty of completing requirements within four years are real, but mainly require planning and some aggressiveness in looking out for yourself if you are in a huge major like Economics. Berkeley will cost the OP meaningfully less, but he should make certain to compare living expenses, too. (When I did that a few years ago, I thought it added $2,000+/year to the cost of UC-B vs. UChicago.) And at the end of the day, it all comes down to whether you like Chicago more than Berkeley at any price, and if so whether you are willing to pay $X/year (and to give up Berkeley’s comparative advantages) for whatever it is you like better about Chicago. </p>
<p>There’s no right or wrong answer to those questions. Both universities are more than adequate; both universities are in fact great, although they may have relative greatness differences in particular fields/majors. Each offers a completely different blend of extracurricular factors, and for California residents a meaningfully different price tag.</p>