<p>Kafkadream - Sure, there are academically weaker schools that also have floundering D1 programs, but the kids still party like there’s no tomorrow. What I was pointing out in my observations about sports (or other extra-curriculars) at Chicago is that the REASON why Chicago sports on the DIII level is - on the whole in terms of results - mediocre is because of the mantra of the college. As I said in my previous post, Chicago - by its structure and history - compels its students to be students FIRST and foremost. At the schools you mention that are weak academically and weak athletically, a LOT of students still attend the college to, well, have a really good time. Academics are a part of their lives, but especially at weaker schools, I don’t think the academic tradition is as emphatic. So you’ll still get thousands of kids who like to get drunk and watch their bad basketball team at George Mason or Northeastern or wherever. Again, whenever I participated in or watched sports at Chicago, my main thought is “here are some smart kids who happen to like doing X.” </p>
<p>Marcellad: You bring up some outstanding points. I completely agree with you, but I feel your assertions need to be qualified a bit. At Chicago, sports are a wonderful and enriching activity FOR THE athletes, but I just wouldn’t call certain teams or traditions a hallmark or signature of the institution. I remember that most of my athlete peers at Chicago had close ties to their team, they all practiced hard, and they all enjoyed their time together. It was a great experience for them. These sports, however, at the end of day, don’t really impact the institution as much, so there’s really not much accountability on the athletics front. So if Chicago is #65 or #20 or #85 in the Sears Cup rankings, no one really cares. On the other hand, at other schools, sports stand as a more of a signature of the institution. If Williams all of a sudden dropped to #65 in the Sears Cup rankings, or if Princeton’s crew and squash teams plummeted towards mediocrity in terms of poor results, you can bet heads would roll at those institutions. </p>
<p>At Chicago, as you said and I’ve said, you are a student-athlete with an emphasis on the STUDENT part of that phrase. This is because the sports teams don’t really serve as a hallmark of the institution. These teams provide the interested participants with a wonderful opportunity to be a true scholar-athlete, but I don’t think administrators really care much if the volleyball team is struggling or if the baseball team struggles. At other schools, the stakes are just higher. The Michigan football players are basically full-time athletes, as are the Princeton rowers or Duke basketball players, because these sports concretely augment the identity of their respective institutions. </p>
<p>With all this in mind, the nature of sport at Chicago vs. other places is different. At Chicago, you usually have a discrete group of supporters and athletes more or less playing for the good of the team. At other schools, you’re playing for the greater community, the good name of the school, for sometimes hundreds of thousands of alumni - so it becomes more of a spectacle. In this vein, I don’t think sports really permeates the overall student experience at Chicago. Even when I was at Penn, I went to some of the big ivy games - when Penn plays Princeton in basketball, or an ivy championship soccer game, and the stakes and quality is just a lot higher, and, accordingly, a more pleasing spectacle to watch and get involved in for an afternoon. People care about the result, alums come back to watch, it’s just a different experience. I’m sure for the athletes, there are a lot of drawbacks to this. Most of the athletes know they are at Penn or Princeton to play ball, not because of their academic abilities. At Chicago, most of the athletes coulda gotten into Chicago without as much sports experience.</p>
<p>So, in sum, there are certainly benefits and drawbacks to both approaches. I think the situation at Duke or Stanford leads to a more robust sense of school spirit and student involvement in sports on a macro level, but in a lot of ways, does not serve a particular athlete well in his/her attempts to be a balanced student-athlete. On the other end of the spectrum, the Chicago approach serves the athlete well, but sports don’t really impact the overall scene at Chicago in even remotely the same way. </p>
<p>So, for the prospective student-athlete, yes, by all means, consider Chicago carefully. For the student considering the student life offerings at Chicago, however, (as the OP was doing), please note that the Chicago academics-heavy approach lends to a generally more subdued scene. Again, in my two years at Penn, I had countless more “WOW” moments when I went to or participated in extra-curricular events. The student performances were generally better, the athletic competitions were more intense, and the school is known for a range of offerings outside of academics - from innovative a capella groups to watching future olympians compete at the Penn Relays to whatever else. When comparing these schools, then, I would say Chicago’s honed and focused approach to academics leads to a more enriching academic experience, whereas Penn’s environment features a more robust and entrenched (and traditional) social scene. </p>
<p>Again, this all depends on what a certain applicant may want. For me, I didn’t necessarily want the rah-rah lets get drunk together on the quad feeling, and I didn’t particularly care that we don’t have future professional athletes walking around Hyde Park. At times, I do wonder how life would have been if I participated in that, but I know myself - I don’t drink heavily at all, and the experience would probably grow stale very quickly for me. I much much prefer the more subdued atmosphere at Chicago, where I could do whatever I wanted, and there was no one particular emphasis on social life at U of C. On the other hand, one can certainly make a case that for most 18 yr olds, a college life filled with pulse-pounding parties and world-class concerts and the like makes for a better experience. To each his own - prospective students just need to know what they’re getting with Chicago. Penn, Duke, Emory, Wash U, Northwestern, etc etc. all have near-interchangeable experiences, but Chicago really is still quite distinct from most of its peers.</p>