<p>Keep in mind that workload varies because what a student wants out of a class varies. </p>
<p>If you approach a core course as “something to get out of the way” and are willing to settle for an average grade, (either/or, perhaps), then you can probably get by without too much work. But, if you really want to sink your teeth into a course, whether because of the challenge/learning opportunity or because you want a better grade, then you will probably put a lot more effort and time into that course.</p>
<p>Keep in mind too that those that really excel in any course no doubt do so because the really engage the material, such that the “work” is not totally dreary work. Some kids indeed don’t think spending a Saturday night working on a course paper is a tremendous sacrifice - they just have a different priority scheme.</p>
<p>Understand that these differences are neither good nor bad. The “UofC alumni world” has plenty of room for everyone - from slacker to superstar. And much of the time no one cares which group you are in!</p>
<p>Aristotle - Quick question, when you say you were rejected by every other college you applied to, do you mainly mean HYPS and its immediate peers for selectivity (Brown, Columbia, and MIT), or do you also mean schools that that are more around Chicago’s selectivity range (Cornell, UPenn, Northwestern, Duke)? </p>
<p>Obviously, you don’t need to provide specifics, but when I was at Chicago, I met a bunch of kids who said the same thing (“I only came here because I was rejected at every single other college I applied to last winter”). When I pressed them a bit further on this, I found they usually only applied to the 6 most selective colleges in America and Chicago. Given the fact that I couldn’t ever dream of an acceptance to Harvard or Princeton, I found this kinda befuddling. </p>
<p>Again, I’d imagine that most Chicago students could also gain acceptance to Penn, Northwestern, etc. So I am curious to see how far the “I was rejected everywhere else so I just came here,” goes at Chicago today. </p>
<p>Finally, if you think Chicago isn’t as intellectual as promised, just wait until you spend some time at Chicago’s peer schools. I did my graduate work at one of Chicago’s peer schools, and professors often complained about undergrads TEXTING on their cell phones for entire class periods. Even in discussion seminars, a professor would be making a point, and you could see a half dozen students, just texting the class away. I don’t think Chicago’s anywhere near that level.</p>
<p>S1 spent a term at a “top Ivy” and reported quite a difference in intellectual environment between that campus and Chicago’s, at least from his point of view. He found that this extended from the classroom to the dining hall to the party scene. He found that most had a very professional/practical career focus and anything that deviated from that was not of much interest to them.</p>
<p>I have seen a bunch of kids texting during class here. Even during discussion based classes. Even sitting in the first few rows. It may be worse at other schools, but it’s still really annoying.</p>
<p>Writ - that is really annoying. I guess the general anti-intellectual slant has invaded all schools then - even Chicago?</p>
<p>I guess at Chicago you can still find at least some students who are actually interested in their studies. When I was at one of Chicago’s peers, I’d guess 85% of the students just wanted jobs/grad school placement.</p>
<p>I agree that there is luck in landing the right core classes, but self selection does play a big part (and may have hurt the OP). </p>
<p>Unfortunately, different sequences have developed reputations as either being easy or hard, especially so within the SOSC and HUM areas, with pernicious feedback effects at work. Although it will never happen, I would love to see SOSC and HUM instead merged into a canonical six quarter mega sequence for all students, and eliminate the petty divisional and ideological splits. Despite starting a massive fight over text and faculty selection, it would really invigorate the intellectual level of the college. Some of the offerings are simply becoming too narrow to hold students attention who dont select correctly up front (e.g. I will take mind because I am going to be biology major two months later, staring at article who gives a shi ). Meanwhile, I think such attitudes would be harder to develop if everyone read say, Marx or Freud, because 90% of students are willing to admit (even if begrudgingly) that these thinkers have had a massive impact on history.</p>
<p>Doesn’t everyone read Marx and Freud? I really had the impression that one way or another all of the SOSC sequences covered them (and Adam Smith, and Durkheim). And that all of the HUM sequences included parts of Genesis, the Iliad, and Plato. (With substantially more overlap among some of the sequences.) I am disappointed if that isn’t true.</p>
<p>JHS, I always had that impression, too, and it was S’s intent to cover that much territory. Just to clarify, he dropped Mind (sloppy editing on my part), not because he didn’t like the course, but because he wants a Core seminar/discussion class every quarter for as long as possible in his college career. </p>
<p>Uchicagoalum, Reed does something similar to the mega-sequence with its intro humanities course which, if I recall from the tour, all freshmen take together.</p>
<p>Parenthetically, before Child #1’s first year, it was apparently the norm to take SOSC 2nd year. But that year (3 years ago) the advisors switched somewhat en masse and started recommending that 1st years take HUM and SOSC together. In retrospect, my kid doesn’t think that was so good an idea – too much vague surveying, even though she rather liked SCS – and she says her advisor stopped pushing it this year.</p>
<p>I think it’s pretty clear that, as one professor told me, “some of the sequences just work better than others,” especially given the variability of the teaching skills. The lesson I would distill from my kids’ experience is that tried-and-true is the better bet, core-wise.</p>
<p>I remember reading (here?) that folks used to spread HUM and SOSC over two years, as well. S said his advisor still recommended taking both this fall, but did not have a problem with him dropping SOSC in the first week. There were considerations with other non-Core courses at that time, and so S touched base with his advisor several times early on.</p>
<p>S1 likes sosc, finds it stimulating demanding and has read Marx, Smith, Durkheim, and many others. He waited until 3rd year to take it. He began his 1st year with Mandarin, Calculus (151 series), Physics, and Greek Thought & Literature. He found it to be rather a challenge, but enjoyed it and did well. GT&L was his favorite followed by physics. I have to admit, from time-to-time, he would send (text) me pics snapped with his phone of his very entertaining (and quite distinguished) physics prof performing some crazy experiment or another.</p>
<p>There was a big shift in college advising while I was there. When I came in it was very loose academically. Really, it came across as a suicide / are you going to quit / are you socializing check, and very little more. Frankly, it struck me as a real waste of time and money. </p>
<p>In contrast, there was grumbling by first years when they introduced the stealth policy of requiring some core classes outside you major area in your first year (happened my fourth year when I was involved with orientation). Meaning the kid who wanted to take real analysis, computer science, honor physics, and chemistry their first year would have to at least try HUM or something.</p>
<p>When I was entering the College (fall 2006), my advisor told a group of us that she would not sign off on our classes unless we had chosen a HUM. It has become popular for reading/writing-oriented people to take HUM and SOSC together and for math/science-oriented people to take SOSC second year. I’m not saying that’s the best strategy for each student, but I think it works out okay.</p>
<p>wow, I really don’t like how you generalize your own experience with certain classes in UChicago to imply something applicable to the core itself and to everyone else.</p>
<p>First off, you’re not taking any hard physical science courses. If reading and writing come easy to you, then of course the classes you’re taking would seem overrated and underwhelming. Having personally taken Honors Calc and Physics Var B, I’d say that yes, the core is quite hard. for ME, and for you, something completely different as well.
“This is true”, but the point is that people can make the core as hard or as easy as they want, but that there are a lot of arbitrary factors that could influence one’s experience with the core (e.g. professor, class makeup, etc. Like right now, my physics class is hard as hell as compared to last quarter, because our new prof is much, much harder to please).
Also, how “hard” the core is is something completely relative to every individual. I know a 1st year taking 203 MATH (Analysis), Sosc, Hum and Civ and breezing through it, while others I know have course loads much less rigorous but find it very difficult (also, time management skills have a lot to do with this). To present a very extreme case, I know a girl who bled from her ears during finals week because of a combination of sleep deprivation and stress. She was a second year, taking core, math and econ classes. </p>
<p>Perhaps you came from a great, academically rigorous school (which I bet you did), but a lot of people here also come from public schools (e.g. me), so I think that some perspective is needed here. How “hard” the core is is going to be relative to every individual. Like every other top school there’s a huge standard deviation when it comes to “rigor” and the quality of the core. I too thought HUM (Greek Thought and Lit) was extremely lame, but since I’ve gotten a new professor this quarter who is absolutely amazing, knowledgeable and great at teaching the course, I now have a much more positive outlook on Humanities core classes here in UChicago. </p>
<p>So when you say “In short, I don’t think that the core courses are very stimulating or even interesting,” what you really mean is that the core courses and sections you’re currently taking are not very stimulating/interesting.</p>