<p>After following this thread for its entire 12 pages I decided to chime in…as the parent of a U of C student, Class of 2007. From my humble perspective I don’t think Chicago necessarily wants the kind of kid who finds it “fun” to respond to these prompts, just the kind of kid who’s willing. Are the introductions perhaps overly wordy and yes, maybe pretentious? Possibly…but the crux of the matter is that the prompts themselves are different and a student must be willing to take on that challenge, work their way through the intros and respond to question posed. What we have found is that there is an entire spectrum of Chicago students…many who would’ve been happy almost anywhere and some who would only have been happy in the Chicago environment. Having 1 other child in college and another starting the application process, I can say that the difference I see at Chicago is a differing level of intensity. That is not to say that such an atmosphere doesn’t exist elsewhere, I’m sure it does, but it most certainly exists at Chicago. It was the only tour during which we probably spent more time in a classroom than walking the campus. It was the only tour that specifically spelled out the core curriculum, acknowledged the seemingly onerous, specific (particulary in math and science) requirements and how one might fill them. It was also the only information session that excited my D (the rising HS senior) with the level of interest they seem to have in individual students. Now she may, or may not apply, having nothing to do with the essay prompts. Could she be successful there…probably. Would she be happy, I don’t know. Her brother, on the other hand, couldn’t see himself anywhere else. This isn’t about who’s right and who’s wrong, or even about what the Chicago admissions office is looking for in a student. I think it’s about a college looking for kids who are willing to accept and rise to the challenge during a difficult and stressful time (admissions season)…because honestly, that is often what college is all about. This is just the U of C way of going about that search.</p>
<p>I agree with much of what runnersmom said.<br>
The essay prompts are only one part of the set of considerations for an applicant (and for Uof C).
Some students will find the prompts stimulating, others will be turned off by them. However, I doubt that many students are so completely turned off by the prompts that they will not apply to UofC if they are attracted by other aspects of the UofC experience. UofC is sufficiently different from other colleges that some students will be attracted to it, and some not; hence the importance of spelling out the core curriculum and the nature of the requirements. Students are more likely to be deterred from applying by UofC’s reputation for being the place “where fun comes to die” or by its core curriculum.<br>
I am not persuaded that UofC’s essay prompts identify students attracted to its intellectualism better than the Common App prompts; many students who apply to UofC also apply to HYP–all 3 of them use the Common App (whose prompts could do with revamping as they are incredibly bland and boring). Many of these applicants are cross-admits. So, whether they use the Common App prompts or the UofC prompts, cross-admits are able to show aspects of themselves that are attractive to the adcoms of all these institutions. If the cross-admits choose HYP over UofC, as I believe most do, they do so for a variety of factors (weather, location, prestige), some more valid than others. But the UofC’s adcom must have considered them a good enough fit for UofC to admit them in the first place. And whatever the students thought of the essay prompts, they must have liked UofC enough in the first placed to take the trouble to apply, essay and all.</p>
<p>calmom, actually my question is to idad, since he raised it; you didn’t, & I would like to hear what he meant by his statement. (Rather than have you interpret his statement.) Secondly, you did not answer the question you “quoted,” as it was a partial quote, and the key to the question is in the entire question, beginning with “that would <em>not</em> be attractive (etc.)…” When a comparative statement is made, I like to know the basis of the comparison, from the person making the comparison.</p>
<p>But as I thought (speaking of theory), there is a logical fallacy here. There is an interpretation by some that the degree of intellectual interest in Chicago’s essay prompts is a measure of that future student’s interest in, engagement with, success with, contribution to, Chicago’s “life of the mind.” Again, I’d like to see some evidence of such supposed connections. Do those people mean that the substance of the lectures is only or mainly about questions such as occur on the essay prompts, or that they University has a “left field” approach to mastery of the considerable (may I add) subject matter which they are known for? I seriously doubt that. Or is there an assumption that out of class, Chicago students talk – not about the kinds of academic questions that students from other upper-tier U’s talk about – but about subjects & issues that absolutely no other U.S. college student would be interested in?</p>
<p>As to theory, let me clue a few people in. I assure you that any student who would be really interested in the following departments at Berkeley is already in bed with theory, big time: Political Science, Mathematics, Philosophy, English Lit., Sociology. Some of those departments approach refined abstraction at times. (That’s for starters.) The same holds true for Film Studies at Bard, for which you’d better be <em>married</em> to theory. The same holds true for Engl. Lit both at Brown and at Berkeley, for which you’d best be quite interested in semiotics & be well versed in that, even as an undergrad. The same holds true for Philosophy at Princeton, for Art History at Yale & Williams.</p>
<p>It dismays me to see such profound ignorance on the part of adults, regarding the vast array of options to pursue a Life of the Mind in the United States of America, in its many higher institutions. A comment widely heard from Europeans regarding our colleges is the abundance of options here, precisely for these rarefied pursuits.</p>
<p>What I think <em>can</em> be said, however, is that U of Ch. applicants are not mainly attending college as non-academic recreation – whereas at some “traditional” style colleges & U’s, with their culture of football games, frats, & the like, one can always find a core group (in some cases very small) of students who are there mainly to party, to sport, etc. But that is a statement with very limited parameters & implications. </p>
<p>Marite is dead-on in the comment about cross-admits. Just another reason why the either/or arguments are absurd.</p>
<p>“Your repeated argument simply proves my point: Chicago doesn’t want students who suffer apoplexy when they read the questions on the common application.”</p>
<p>Here you go again: whoever does not like the Chicago’s prompts must be an intellectual midget risking apoplexy at the slightest mental exercise. </p>
<p>That makes all the sense in the world.</p>
<p>epiphany: As you will notice in my various posts I talked about distributions of students, not discrete categories. Chicago has no engineering, is short on applied math, no undergrad business school, no performance arts degrees, not hotel management, etc. But that is only part of the story. </p>
<p>There is a pervasive Chicago style of inquiry that cuts across most classes. Will one find some classes with out it? Yes. Will one find other schools that have it, at least some of the time?, also yes. But, there remains an intensity of inquiry into the “why” that extends beyond the assignments and across the curriculum. My S who took courses from well known profs at another top school, and lived and worked with the students from that school said there was a remarkable difference in atmosphere and approach. He provided numerous examples, in and out of class, of the differences, which I will not go into detail here except to say he said he realized for the first time how different Chicago was and how “theoretical.” He was taking science courses and found the level of inquiry into the why of the underlying assumptions to be far less than is typical at Chicago, the students looked pained when it was brought up, in discussions he found that he had to “work in” his arguments, evidence, and rationales, whereas at Chicago he would have been expected to provide them up front, and in his words, “even if the person you are talking to agrees with what you are saying.” This is true in class, in course discussions or labs, in the dinning hall, and at parties. This atmosphere defines the school, and is shared by its community.</p>
<p>Nowhere is it stated that those differences were better, just that there were real differences. My S did quite well in those courses and if he had never experienced Chicago, he may have thrived and been happy there. Conversely, many at that school would have certainly flourished at Chicago. The issue is that Chicago wants to make those differences as clear as it can (for the reasons stated in the last paragraph of the quote below); and, the essay prompts are, as I noted earlier, but one of the many vehicles it uses to do so.</p>
<p>This quote by James Chandler, part of which was posted earlier, I think says it best:</p>
<p>It is often said in these precincts that this University is distinguished from most others because it has so powerful an idea of itself. I once thought this sort of talk was just the stuff of local legend, but Ive learned better since. It is in fact a view of the place that is widely shared in higher education, well beyond these walls. But just what is the idea of the University of Chicago?</p>
<p>…A few years ago, for a special faculty report, I was asked to do just that. Begging your indulgence, Id like to read a short passage from what I wrote then, in slightly redacted form:</p>
<p>We at the University take pride in our ability to explain ourselves, to give the reasons why we are investigating what we are investigating, and for the manner and means we are using to do so. The other side of this coin is a conspicuous emphasis on the question as a form of discourse. The University 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 ones effort. This trait is frequently noted (not always approvingly) by scholars from other institutions who visit us. We have a reputation as a testing site for new arguments. When Max Weber wrote about the scholars obsession with devils advocacy, he could have been talking about the University of Chicago. </p>
<p>This dedication to the interrogative mode, I concluded, is what makes the place so stressful for those who dont share its values and so exhilarating for those who do.</p>
<p><a href=“University of Chicago News”>University of Chicago News;
<p>Also see: <a href=“http://iotu.uchicago.edu/levine.html[/url]”>http://iotu.uchicago.edu/levine.html</a></p>
<p>idad:</p>
<p>The question is : “different from what?” Many of the things you say about Chicago would apply equally well to many other institutions of higher learning. S decided, for example, not to apply to Brown, despite the great welcome he got from both profs and students, because its strength in math was in applied math, and its strength in physics was experimental rather than theoretical physics. In fact, the Chairman of the Physics Dept. made no bone about telling him he should be applying to Harvard.
The purpose of sections in lecture classes is not to rehash the readings or even clarify what profs said in lectures, but to interrogate the readings and to discuss issues raised by them. This is true at HYP as much as at Chicago. </p>
<p>I recall a young friend of mine who was rather disgruntled that Harvard was not offering classes in how to play music (he wanted to continue learning how to play the harpsichord); its approach, he grumbled, was too theoretical. That was nearly 20 years ago. Only in the last couple of years has Harvard addressed grumbles such as this, by launching a joint degree with NEC. A student has to apply to both the College and to NEC to be admitted into the program.</p>
<p>idad, Again I thank you for your reasoned, civil, well-thought-out reply. And I am not in a position to evaluate your S’s experience with one group of college students at college X vs. those at Chicago. I don’t know what the other college is, whether it can truly compare with Chicago (i.e., makes similar claims to rigor, etc.), and most importantly (to me), what program or course of study that was. As I’m sure you’ve seen, not all dept’s in all Universities are created equal. There are some State schools in many States which have particular stand-out programs (Penn State, Florida State come to mind) in one or more subjects – programs which outshine, outproduce, are more selective, draw better students than similar courses of study in many Privates. So it is difficult to validate his subjective impression of the experience you relate, let alone juxtapose that against a biased summary of a UofC insider that you quoted. (In determining just how “real” those “differences” are.)</p>
<p>I’m thrilled that Uof C supports & maintains a “pervasive spirit of inquiry that cuts across most classes.” But you don’t think other Colleges & U’s of similar stature do? (Or more importantly, that none of the others do, since that is often the argument I hear just generally from UofC enthusiasts.)</p>
<p>I have tried to illustrate the difference as best I can, perhaps one has to experience it. My S certainly saw the difference. I do not want to get into direct school comparisons, but is was at one of the top Ivy schools mentioned where S was frankly shocked at how great a difference there was, he was not looking for it nor was he expecting it. It is simply that the approach to the subject matter was quite different, by the teaching staff and the students. The questioning accepted, the topics addressed, the intensity of argument, etc., especially in the sections, is what made the differences so stark.</p>
<p>My experience as an educator bears out idad’s characterization of Chicago. I’ve taught hundreds of students who have gone on to elite schools, and there’s just no doubt that Chicago attracts kids with bookish, academic minds, the type of student who thinks in the ways idad describes. The Ivies draw these kinds of kids as well, of course, but the kids who attend HYPS represent a much wider array of types, including the recruited athlete, the pre-professional, etc. Notice that I didn’t say that the kids who attend Chicago are in any way brighter–in fact, they’re not–but if my experience is any reflection of wider patterns, I don’t doubt that the concentration of “intellectual” kids at Chicago means that the school has a distinctive ethos that differs from that of other, more diverse insitutions. And the idea of ethos is key here. Idad is not saying that the “style of inquiry” at Chicago is unique, just that its pervasiveness there defines the spirit and feel of the school.</p>
<p>spoonyj,
I don’t think I’ve ever disagreed that the HYP’s attract a wider array of students than Chicago does – an array including those with penetrating, inquiring minds, those with employment/“connection” motivations primarily, those with family-pleasing motivations, etc. So it sounds as if it might be a question of a concentration of “inquiring mind” types at Chicago vs. top Ivies. I’ll buy that. But I guess my D is just lucky, then, as she seems to have met virtually a monopoly of inquiring, penetrating like-minded individuals at a non-Chicago U. (She is not an athlete or a clubby type, so she’s less inclined to hang out with social wannabes; perhaps that’s why her peer population is skewed toward inquiring minds.)</p>
<p>Keep in mind, though, the possible many claims of monopoly on the spirit of inquiry. Consider, for example, the following:
“Through sustained engagement with the works of great thinkers and through genuine discussion with peers,students at St. John’s College cultivate habits of mind that will last a lifetime: a deepened capacity for reflective thought, an appreciation of the persisting questions of human existence, an abiding love of serious conversation, and a lasting love of inquiry.”
<a href=“Concrete CMS Is An Open Source Content Management System For Teams”>Concrete CMS Is An Open Source Content Management System For Teams;
<p>I don’t think the issue of whether or not Chicago has a unique environment will be settled here, or for that mater anywhere. The issue is not so much as to whether or not it exists, but that the faculty, administration, and students think it does. And, as a result, the school tries to communicate that notion (or perhaps group hallucination or delusion) to prospective students, via its essay prompts and other means.</p>
<p>What’s with all the straw men? I don’t think any of the Chicago partisans here (myself included) have argued that there are NO other colleges where an intellectually-inclined student can be happy, or where theory is appreciated. Come on, that would be absurd.</p>
<p>To play with some of the concepts being batted around here: Chicago is a unique institution. Harvard is a unique institution. Yale, etc. . . . And none of them is all THAT unique. What they share is undoubtedly much more significant than the slight differences in institutional character that make each unique. Each of them arguably does SOMETHING better than any of the others, or combines several things better. But that “better” may be measurable only in microns, and which things it is best to be better in is a matter of personal judgment.</p>
<p>I am sure there are very few students at Chicago who would be unhappy at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or Columbia (and few who would not jump at the chance to find out). As a practical matter, Chicago is not luring many students away from those schools. (It has plenty of students who, for various reasons, did not apply to all or to any of them. My UChicago D applied to only two of those schools; my S intends to apply to UChicago and only two of them; my D’s best friend at school applied to none of them and chose Chicago over Stanford.) It is enough to say that Chicago offers a similar intellectual environment. </p>
<p>There are lots of other schools, too, that can offer that kind of stimulation, certainly including those mentioned in the last few posts. Each one of those schools offers a particular package of qualities, and a rational student can decide to prefer any one of them to the others. (Both of my kids, for instance, rate Chicago above Penn, Brown, Duke, Dartmouth, and SWAMP, for example, although they know lots of people, including their parents, who would disagree with them on some or all of those schools.) Moreover, just because Chicago may be especially configured for nerdy, intellectual kids doesn’t mean that a nerdy, intellectual kid might not be happy any number of places. If my nerdy, intellectual S winds up “having” to attend a school to which he would prefer Chicago, it is not likely to be a tragedy, just as it will be no tragedy if he winds up attending Chicago rather than a school he would prefer to it. There are a lot of fine colleges; Chicago is one of them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, there is a strong historical connection between the University of Chicago and St. John’s College.</p>
<p>epiphany,</p>
<p>I don’t see how the St. John’s quotation claims a monopoly on the spirit of inquiry. It states a set of ideals, but it doesn’t claim that only at St. John’s can one enjoy “sustained engagement with the works of great thinkers and…genuine discussion with peers.” That said, I do agree that one of the risks of attending a place like Chicago or St. John’s is assuming that your school is one of the last bastions of intellectual seriousness. I know because I went to one these schools. Fortunately, I didn’t encounter much of that sort of provincialism. When I was a student at Reed, I decided to spend a year seeing how the other half lived. I took classes at two large public universities: UC-Santa Barbara and the University of Kansas. The faculty and administration at Reed were very supportive of my decision, and when I returned, no one seemed to think that I had wasted a year at schools where serious intellectual inquiry could not be had. That’s good–because they would have been wrong. The big public universities had very different vibes compared to Reed–and to each other–but I had great classes at both.</p>
<p>Geesh. I’m not sure if the circles here (as in circular reasoning…) are gettig smaller or larger. I can tell you that very few people, including one parent of a current student who is an alum himself, really cares what is going on with the prompt, or what is “different” about UofC.</p>
<p>As they say about real estate, every property is different. So are colleges. Those differences can be easy or hard to articulate, but it doesn’t matter. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, buyer or applicant/matriculant.</p>
<p>Heck, UofC is just a college. It’s a decent one. It has some less common approaches, like the core and its reduced grade inflation, etc. Some like it, some don’t. </p>
<p>And life moves on…</p>
<p>There are several different issues here. I don’t doubt that sections in different schools work out differently. In fact, they work out different within the same school, and even the same class. One TF at Harvard told me that she taught two sections of the same class back to back and the dynamics of the sections were totally different, with one consistently better prepared, more engaged, and so forth than the other. This is in fact, a common experience for TFs who teach multiple sections of the same course.
Some students will be attracted by UofC’s core curriculum, others will find it more restrictive (S was worried that scheduling issues would hamper his progress in math; he did not object to the core curriculum per se). Some like the quarter system; others don’t. I think that the combination of a common core curriculum and the quarter system which leads to exams and papers at a more rapid rate than the semester system gives UofC its aura of intellectualism and intensity. It is possible for students to engage in discussions of a particular book outside class since so many have read the same book; it is less likely if students have read different books or taken courses in totally different subjects.<br>
I don’t know how many students are attracted by the possibility of such discussion as opposed to the core curriculum itself. At any rate, this is a far cry from the quality of the essay prompts.</p>
<p>NMD:</p>
<p>But isn’t it fun discussing? That’s what Chicago is supposed to do best. A common set of readings (CC posts), and off we go! :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, I assure you, the students at Chicago do, even if they don’t go around articulating it all day. The only knowledge of other schools’ atmospheres I have is from my friends, but with respect to the atmosphere at Chicago, idad’s description is the most accurate so far. It isn’t that the intellectual atmosphere doesn’t have its niche at other schools, but rather that it is all-pervasive at Chicago, from the classroom to the dorm rooms. A friend of mine is at Reed and he says it is similar there, but my friends elsewhere tell me different stories. Like James Chandler said, everyone heres all these stories about Chicago and the Life of the Mind. The surprising thing is that they’re true.</p>
<p>Chicago has a lot to offer and it would be an overstatement to say that ones reactions to the essay prompts should make or break ones decision to apply. Many economics majors, for example, apply solely because Chicago and world-class economics are practically synonymous. Everything else is an after-thought.</p>
<p>But the essays, being selected from student submissions, have to reflect something about Chicago. We already have one post detailing the rationale for one of the essay prompts. And given that the essays are one of the most important parts of the application process it would be absurd to say that ones reaction is irrelevant. When someone reacts with absolute disdain upon reading the essay prompts, well, be warned: there will be plenty more where that came from at Chicago. </p>
<p>As I said in my first response, though, strong reactions can produce strong essays. The school is about questioning, questioning, questioning, and so they definitely welcome essays which question the worth of the essay prompts themselves. In the sense that the prompts invite intense open-ended questioning (e.g., “play what’s not there”) I think they reflect perfectly the ideals of the University. Some don’t see this, I suppose, and instead the application winds up in the garbage can. These same people probably have the hubris to see it as Chicago’s loss. I see it as theirs.</p>
<p>I agree that “there are several issues here.” To me, one of the important elements in evaluating the quality of the student body is to differentiate inquiry within and without the classroom. In that respect, marite brings up an excellent point about a common reading list. Again, not dissimilar to St. John’s which has that feature as well, which promotes spill-over after hours.</p>
<p>But as to inquiry within, perhaps one reason I’m confused about the “specialness” aspect is that quite frankly I experienced this repeatedly at Berkeley, <em>within</em> the classroom, and in lower division. (We didn’t have common reading lists.) The difference was, Berkeley didn’t advertise that fact. (To my memory) Yet we were expected to have an attitude of inquiry & of intellectual rigor, and much was demanded when it came to intellectualism. Perhaps that was not true of all majors, all departments, all profs, but “pervasive inquiry across all classes” I did indeed experience. It prepared me superbly for grad school.</p>
<p>OTOH, one can now see the advantages (to promoting inquiry) of common reading lists, etc. </p>
<p>So actually, NMD, as protracted as the discussion has been so far, I’ve learned a lot & a number of things have been clarified. I probably don’t agree with some of the remaining perceptions, but at least I understand them now, & I hope that’s what CC’s for, among other things.</p>