<p>While it is indeed true that one will find intellectuals at most schools, and rigorous, difficult coursework at many, the quality which most defines an intellectual college is is not just an acceptance of things intellectual, but a culture based on it above anything else. A school where inquiry, argument. and the exploration of ideas is valued above ALL else. There is but one such school so committed and that is The University of Chicago, it stands alone (though Reed and Swarthmore are in the neighborhood).</p>
<p>I think that the OP put out a pretty good list and St. Johns is a good addition to that list.</p>
<p>The OP mentioned a nerdy summer camp feel, which of course makes me think of CTY. I will say, though, that the vast majority of my CTY friends did not go/are not going to a school known for its intellectualism. Most of them are going to Ivies and other great schools, but few of them are looking for intellectualism. They’re just looking for smart peers, which I think is what CTY is really about as well.
I will say that a LOT of my CTY friends have chosen to go to Dartmouth and not participate heavily in the party scene. I do feel like that could be a great option for those looking for a strong community/alumni network and smart students who are willing to look outside the mainstream for their friends and social network.</p>
<p>The colleges I visited which felt the most intellectual to me were UChicago and Grinnell. YMMV.</p>
<p>I would not include St. John’s on the list.</p>
<p>Their approach to science and math should put it out of the running.</p>
<p>I think it might also depend on what you liked about CTY. I think for those who liked wearing bathrobes on Thursdays and the like and are science inclined - someplace like Caltech or MIT with some pretty quirky traditions might be a good place.</p>
<p>
Isn’t their motto “where fun goes to die” ? :)</p>
<p><a href=“BTW,%20when%20I%20was%20told%20that%20I%20would%20probably%20teach%20French–a%20language%20I%20do%20not%20read,%20and%20told%20them%20so–I%20was%20told%20not%20to%20worry,%20just%20be%203%20lessons%20ahead%20of%20the%20class%20and%20I%20would%20be%20fine…egad!”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree that this sounds weird, but it is consistent with St. John’s College’s philosophy and makes sense in context. Their classes are not teacher-to-student transfers of knowledge. They view the authors of the Great Books as the teachers, and the facilitator’s role is not to teach the subject so much as it is to moderate the discussion as the students explore the material.</p>
<p>I’m not saying that SJC is the best college, only that it is the most intellectual, i.e., devoted to learning for learning’s sake, with no vocational or professional concerns.</p>
<p><a href=“BTW,%20when%20I%20was%20told%20that%20I%20would%20probably%20teach%20French–a%20language%20I%20do%20not%20read,%20and%20told%20them%20so–I%20was%20told%20not%20to%20worry,%20just%20be%203%20lessons%20ahead%20of%20the%20class%20and%20I%20would%20be%20fine…egad!”>quote</a>
[/quote]
I don’t have a problem with St. John’s philosophy (as an option, not for me!) for the most part, but teaching a language by the book and not with a native speaker is just nuts.</p>
<p>Here’s something scary though, my dh taught med students histology - a course he’d never taken - literally by staying a few lessons ahead of the students. Luckily they taught the labs in pairs and he was paired with someone more experienced. And also luckily he was not responsible for all the lectures though he ran the course.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is a difference between a chalk-and-talk model and letting students build their knowledge without EXPERT guidance. After all, why do we need (great and dedicated) teachers if our only need would amount to stacks of books and a decent librarian? It is obvious that the discussion leader needs to know the subject to be a competent leader. There is only one possible qualification of expecting someone to teach French by learning enough to stayi three weeks ahead of the class, and the term is … disgraceful. </p>
<p>In a world where students make choices based on different teaching models, a student should expect better than amateurish teaching. After all, why even bother with a teacher when a school could simply find a TA and give him Rosetta Stone tapes. </p>
<p>Fwiw, this is NOT a critic of St John’s; it is a critic of condoning the practice described by the earlier post and pretending that it represents an acceptable education model. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With all due respect, that depends ENTIRELY on one’s definition of the terms intellectuals and intellectualism. Does being iintellectual intimates that the only interest should be to study disciplines that do not have concrete and tangible applications? </p>
<p>Let’s look at SOME of the definitions for intellectualism:</p>
<p>A. Development of power to think: the development and use of the ability to think, reason, and understand
B. Philosophy belief that knowledge comes from reasoning: the doctrine that all that can truly be called knowledge is derived from reasoning </p>
<p>So, here we have terms such as thinking and reasoning. Is that something that is hardly seen at some colleges and drips from the walls at others? </p>
<p>Again, it is ALL about one’s own interpretation and … bias.</p>
<p>Does everyone realize that every instructor at St. John’s is expected to teach every discipline (not sure if that means every actual course)?</p>
<p>Thanks for all the input. While it certainly belongs on a short list of intellectual schools, St. Johns College’s seemingly complete preoccupation with the Classics is more exotic than I am willing to pay for.</p>
<p>Left to his own devices, I think DS2 would major in comparative religions/philosophy. I have told him I prefer him to choose something that offered a bit higher prospect of paying a living wage, and get a philosophy minor. Consistent with that, I think he would be happier at a more intellectual school than at a preppy/jocky/party school.</p>
<p>By contrast, DS1 is a rising junior at a mid-tier LAC. While he is bright enough, he doesn’t put any more effort or thought into coursework or intellectualism than is needed. He is happy where he is at. But his little bro is different–he BEGS us to let him spend his own money on Rosetta Stone software so that he can self study languages. He has generated the kind of numbers that mean that adcoms will have to do more than scoff at his applications (4.0 UW, 2360 SATI, 2270 SATII, 36 ACT). So my time here on CC is largely geared to tapping into the collective experience about a different set of schools than I thought I would need to understand, with the added complication of being two timezones away from many of them.</p>
<p>In reviewing this, it may seem like I am being hugely directive in the process and perhaps I am. But based on EFC calculators, DS2’s undergrad is going to cost me more than $100k, and no way does my personality allow me to be passive regarding an expense that enormous.</p>
<p>harvard and caltech are certainly NOT on the list.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interestingly enough, the chasm might not be as profound as one imagine between the two “worlds,” and not necessarily totally exclusive.</p>
<p>For instance, here is a school (a different UT) that probably qualifies for at least two qualifiers from the “preppy/jocky/party” list </p>
<p>Yet, scratch the surface, and you find a gem of a program in the form of the Plan II: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Plan</a> II Honors Program, UT Austin](<a href=“Plan II Honors Program | Liberal Arts | UT - Austin”>Plan II Honors Program | Liberal Arts | UT - Austin)</p>
<p>If this is everything one applicant with incredibly high stats might want? Probably not, but it offers a decent option, and perhaps one at a price point that is attractive. </p>
<p>Lastly, with the current ease of building majors today, it is not impossible to combine courses in religious studies, ethics, philosophy with more mundane courses such as economics or even finance. And, although this might be yet another alternative that might be viewed as suffering from the “dumb jock, heavy partier preppy” syndrome, here is another example:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Claremont</a> McKenna College](<a href=“http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/ppe/]Claremont”>http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/ppe/)</p>
<p>The point here is not to “push” such schools or programs. The idea is to share that programs that appeal to self-declared intellectuals are available almost everywhere, and that it would be a mistake to include or exclude the options based on a quick and dirty analysis, or speculative hearsay.</p>
<p>Reed, Chicago, Swarthmore, St. John’s (MD/NM), Deep Springs (all male).</p>
<p>For perspective, the most selective of these five is also the smallest and IMO -the- most intellectual: DS. It’s also a unique experience open to only half the population and involves much more than just academic learning.</p>
<p>Carleton and Oberlin are among my favorite LACs–and I was looking for intellectual SLACs–but they are not quite distinctive enough to make my top 5 list. Based on anecdotal evidence, I think Yale is possibly a smidge more intellectual than the rest of HYPS–especially if you’re interested in Directed Studies, which I agree tends to attract intellectuals to Yale even if similar programs are offered at other schools, e.g. Stanford SLE–but I wouldn’t be willing to back up that assertion as I would for my personal top 5.</p>
<p>UT84321: Is your S currently attending a Telluride program? If so, you can PM me for more specific anecdotal information on the above.</p>
<p>
This is a really great example of why I would not consider MOST colleges to be in contention for “most intellectual.” Oldfort’s D1 has a reasonable point, but some students actually do want that non-stop level of intellectual intensity. I love the way mousegray put it, which so perfectly describes my TASP experience–</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But I also agree with xiggi that the way this question is posed–repeatedly, on CC–is naively ineffective. For one, way too many people equate “intellectual” with intelligent, smart, academic, scholarly, studious, brainy, etc. Similarly, an “intellectual college” is not the same as a college with an abundance of intellectual peers.</p>
<p>IMO you can be all of the latter adjectives without being intellectual; in many cases, you can be MORE intelligent than someone who is more intellectual than you (if one assumes that intelligence can be crudely compared).</p>
<p>Wrt to the college search, it’s much easier to start with other attributes and then narrow down your list by investigating the individual atmospheres of each college. For example: I chose Swarthmore in large part for its intellectual atmosphere, but I would never in a hundred lifetimes attend St. John’s or Deep Springs (even if it went coed). And I ultimately decided not to apply to Reed or UChicago for reasons unrelated to intellectualism.</p>
<p>K–
Good to see a post from you.</p>
<p>We have developed a college list based on the conventional broad set of criteria. But I am just mulling around bumping a few off/on or up/down based on this vague–and potentially naive–criteria of the epistemic community. After all, my son seems to be having the sort of transformative experience that summer enrichment programs should aspire to, so it is silly to think that our June list will be the same as our September list. I threw out this broad question hoping to pick up a name or two that we might have omitted or glossed over in our sorting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. And I find nothing more tiresome than an unintelligent intellectual. Not referring you, of course, Keil.</p>
<p>"Exactly. And I find nothing more tiresome than an unintelligent intellectual. Not referring you, of course, Keil. "</p>
<p>Except for intelligent people who are resolutely anti-intellectual. I am biased that way.</p>
<p>Keil raises an important point.</p>
<p>There are lots of very intelligent people who have no interest in intellectual conversations.</p>
<p>And there are some who are not sufficiently intelligent to be interesting when they attempt to be intellectual.</p>
<p>One last clarification about the St. John’s curriculum, and then back to our scheduled programming.</p>
<p>The language courses at St. John’s are not intended to produce fluent speakers, but rather to enable students to read well enough to read certain classics in their original languages. Still, I agree that having a non-fluent speaker teach others is a bit of a stretch, but then, I’m not sure what else a college can do when they only have a couple hundred students. Full-time faculty in each language doesn’t seem to be an option; teachers who can remain three chapters ahead of the students may be the best they can hope for.</p>
<p>Anyway, the students seem to think it works.</p>
<p>I do believe the intellectual-vs.-intelligent distinction applies to St. John’s; surely they’re not getting the most intelligent students in the country, even if they are getting some of the most intellectual. The two are not the same.</p>
<p>Re: St. John’s</p>
<p>JHS- You’ll have to justify your claim that the great books are “anti-intellectual.” The most important thinkers of the last century-Heidegger, Klein, Derrida, and Gadamer just to name a few-were also preoccupied with the classics. And it’s not as if the “great books” collectively espouse any particular doctrine or philosophical program. It makes no difference whether you are devoting yourself to the deconstruction of western “onto-theology” or whether you want to salvage a viable classicism from the ashes of enlightenment thought, a return to the ancients is the thing most needful and, as it happens, the boring anglophone approach to academic philosophy appears to be breathing its last breaths. Maybe american philosophy departments will, in the next epoch, be more hospitable to a “history of thought” approach.
The new left (and I’m speaking as a frustrated man of the left) might think that it has ventured beyond the horizon of “hegemonic” western thought, but as long as their intellectual power continues to be borrowed from the likes of Foucault, Kojeve, and Rorty, it will remain ensconced within the prism of of the western tradition.</p>
<p>etondad- Despite what you might think, we do not unthinkingly mythologize the great books. Such a claim is nonsensical as long as thinkers as divergent from one another as Hume, Kant, Locke, and Marx are all included in the same program of study. If I love Kant, I will necessarily have problems with Hume, but I will come to see that the epistemological quarrel between the two is fundamental and that the dispute is still playing itself out in contemporary thought.
It’s also important to realize that st. john’s is NOT thomas aquinas college. Our approach to these issues and texts has has more in common with phenomenology than it does with neo-thomism.</p>
<p>It is the belief that the text stand outside of history, so to speak, that gave (gives?) me the pause. To have no historical/social context for the writing is to see them as “revealed” knowledge, regardless of one’s religion orientation. To also ignore the work of major commentators is to, again, act as if one has a “sola scriptura” approach (so more Luther than Thomas). As a psychoanalyst I have read the Standard Edition but I have also read Melanie Klein, Anna Freud and Heinz Kohut’s understanding of Freud all of which have been invaluable in grasping nuance and alternative strains of thought–and having sat in a bunch of seminars at SJC I do not think these thinkers’ ideas on the primary text get reproduced in each seminar anew by the students. To see Freud as outside of historical/social/moral/philosophical context, to have no knowledge of his biography makes his writings almost unintelligible–yet when I asked the senior tutors who were interviewing me if such information was either made available to the students or brought to play, they told me–and I kid you not–that such information would “contaminate” the discussion. I know that the students at SJC love ideas and my discussions with them outside of class when I interviewed were wonderful, but the curriculum does not provide the best education for them. It is Bionian–ah, but then as one doesn’t read Bion as a commentator on Freud, does that make sense? And why isn’t there a library for an interested student to be able to find and read Bion, for example? If the set of the Great Books are enough, they can be ordered on line and read on one’s own–much cheaper. Sorry to be so harsh but there is a cult around SJC that I find puzzling --and this is from someone who thought before I visited there that I wanted to teach at SJC.</p>