<p>oliver: We know that, but it does exist in a more modern form at some American colleges (Columbia and Dartmouth would actually be considered somewhat intellectually intense. The others are fair comparison points however), even if not as much as it used to. And citing examples such as Bush going to Yale serves as a poor anecdote. Schools like that were probably more academically intense back when Bush attended (I mean, I think this is back when students studied a lot more per week). When you go to certain institutions, you can indeed feel and observe clear differences in the environment due to pre-dominant attitudes about coursework, learning, and things of that nature. </p>
<p>Some schools are gonna have more “hybrid types” than others (as in, more students that really want good grades, but also would enjoy to engage their coursework more deeply than required to earn the grade. Some schools will also have students that take what others would be considered academic risks or engage in research “just because” instead of to credentialize themselves). When I think of modern “college” intellectualism, I don’t think of someone sitting on the quad/lawn reading and discussing philosophy deeply with a friend of theirs. However, you could think of things that do indeed occur more frequently at some schools than others (like the impromptu/random play that may be enacted at Yale or Harvard yard. Basically, a culture that’s less ashamed of being somewhat nerdy). </p>
<p>The phenomenon has even been observed by those that go to places such as Duke when visiting such campuses (as in, they recognize the differences between these places and their own school which is considered high caliber). Read these articles; One opposes the idea that Duke should be more intellectually vibrant in context of social life and compares it to the Ivies (suggesting that such intellectual intensity within the social atmosphere is not desirable among Duke enrollees who had the option of choosing between some Ivies and Duke), and the other reflects on what Duke presents itself as and then discusses the contradictions between the presentation and actual nature of the school’s intellectual climate. They seemed in favor of integrating at least a little more intellectualism into Duke’s social life. The point is, such articles reveal that even those who attend high caliber institutions are aware of or are familiar with the intellectual climate at others and recognize that it is not the same. Whether they view the difference as favorable or unfavorable is another story, but they don’t deny such differences (not even faculty members deny differences. At Duke, in particular, this appears to be a highly debated topic in their history starting in the 90s):</p>
<p>[Students</a> beware! Duke wants to over-intellectualize your life! | The Chronicle](<a href=“http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2000/10/09/students-beware-duke-wants-over-intellectualize-your-life]Students”>http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2000/10/09/students-beware-duke-wants-over-intellectualize-your-life)</p>
<p>[Column:</a> Our imprisoning illusions | The Chronicle](<a href=“http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2003/04/22/column-our-imprisoning-illusions]Column:”>http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2003/04/22/column-our-imprisoning-illusions)</p>
<p>Again, I’ll concede that more traditional strains of intellectualism on college campuses have all but eroded (an article from a Yale graduate on the disadvantages of an elite education reveals this all so well), but to deny differences in climate among universities of similar caliber is naive in my opinion. No one is trying to say there is something wrong with such differences, just that they exist. There could be numerous reasons for such differences that go beyond the students themselves.</p>