<p>I have had a similar experience to ivyalumni. My S attends, but I was biased toward Chicago long before he was born. It is not necessarily that the students come in brighter, are more in love with learning (though many are), or with more potential, etc., but that Chicago has an almost immediate effect on its students; it profoundly shapes those wonderful entry qualities each student possesses into the type of intellectually inquiring person ivyalumni describes. It is not that one does not find instances of this at other places, but at Chicago it is pervasive. It is a quality of the school, not only of an individual, it is the University’s identity. </p>
<p>What is more, the University has had from its inception this characteristic. For example, from THE IDEA OF THE UNIVERSITY, TAKE ONE: ON THE GENIUS OF THIS PLACE by Donald N. Levine (<a href=“http://iotu.uchicago.edu/levine.html[/url]):”>The Idea of the University Colloquium: Donald N. Levine):</a></p>
<p>…Or consult the Faculty Handbook of 1999, citing the words of the Faculty Committee for a Year of Reflection: </p>
<p>Chicago has developed a celebrated–some would say notorious–brand of academic civility. It is a place where one is always in principle allowed to pose the hardest question possible–of a student, a teacher, or a colleague–and feel entitled to expect gratitude rather than resentment for one’s effort. </p>
<p>And of course, we find an abundance of such conceits in the orations of our administrators. Indeed, an entire book of selections from papers of our first eight chief executives is entitled, yes,
The Idea of the University of Chicago (Murphy and Bruckner, eds.1976). From that copious source I limit myself to a few lines by Robert Maynard Hutchins: What is it that makes the University of Chicago a great educational institution? It is the intense, strenuous, and constant intellectual activity of the place. . . . We like to think that the air is electric, and that from it the student derives an intellectual stimulation that lasts the rest of his life. (40) </p>
<p>And these:
The University of Chicago has never cared very much about respectability. It has insisted on distinction. Neither its faculty nor its trustees would be interested in it on any other terms. If the time comes when it is impossible for this university to set standards in education and to make significant contributions to the advancement of knowledge, there is no reason for its existence. (39-40) </p>
<p>Love of diversity, quest for individuality, zest for questioning, lavish freedom, electric intellectuality, concern for human welfare, openness to thoughtful change, disdain for respectability, breadth of discourse–the list is long, and could be grown longer…</p>
<p>Now contrast this description with Malcolm Gladwell’s description of what historically drove the identity of some other top tier universities <a href=“http://www.newyorker.com/printables/critics/051010crat_atlarge[/url]”>http://www.newyorker.com/printables/critics/051010crat_atlarge</a>.</p>
<p>The University of Chicago is quite unique, and those of us who have been in a position to compare, have seen the difference. The self-selectivity of the University’s students is maintained by those who understand this difference and fully embrace it, for once one decides to attend, there is little chance of escaping it.</p>