<p>I’m asking because I have a cousin, a h.s. freshman, who is thinking on applying said that she overheard that “University of Chicago isn’t much of a undergraduate institution.” I was intrigued by this accusation because I always thought on that level UC excelled.</p>
<p>It used to be more focused on graduate stuff and have a very small number of undergrads [something like 2000 maybe] but that’s changed recently and it’s comparable to other schools. It’s always given a good undergraduate education but before some of the other aspects of undergraduate life were lacking but that’s largely changed.</p>
<p>Chicago has one of the most rigorous undergraduate programs around. I’m an alum of the college and in my job, I regularly interview recent Ph.D.'s from Chicago. To a person, they all comment on the “intensity” of the undergraduate program. While Chicago is trying hard to shed it’s “where fun goes to die” reputation, it didn’t get that reputation because it admitted classes of complete nerds, but rather because the curriculum was so tough that most people didn’t have time for a lot of partying. I’m not sure where your cousin got this information, but it sounds way off.</p>
<p>@ swamp: It was from a Northwestern graduate so it might explain it.</p>
<p>^ lol, that’s like asking a Red Sox fan what they think of the Yankees.</p>
<p>^^ Or, to bring it closer to home, asking a Cubs fan what he/she thinks about the White Sox.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>this is like asking if Obama is the first black president in USA.</p>
<p>Based on what I hear from my son (now a third year), it’s not just that the program is rigorous: we all know that. What really impressed me is that well renowned faculty members are willing so spend so much time engaging undergraduate students. As a first year (lowest on the totem pole), he had no problem getting hours worth of air time with his faculty members - as much as he wanted.</p>
<p>My son’s term papers are sometimes returned with comments from the faculty that is longer than his original paper (no, it’s not because his work is shoddy. We are talking about papers that got him A’s). He could stop by and talk with the faculty members (not TA’s) for hours. One faculty member tutored him for an afternoon and waived two course sequence prerequisite for an advanced course which my son thought he could only audit because he did not have the mandatory prerequisite courses under his belt). It goes on and on.</p>
<p>If you are looking for solid undergrad education, it will be hard to beat U Chicago. In other matters, Chicago may not be a good fit for you (certainly not those who think big time sports and vibrant Greek scenes are part of a well rounded undergrad campus experience)</p>
<p>MidWest, your post is particularly interesting to me as a former academic with a son who is currently a second year. When, back in his sophomore year of high school, he (and so, we, his parents) began to engage in earnest with the question of where to apply, UChicago wasn’t on any of our radar screens. In my son’s case this was understandable. After all, what does a 15-year old know (a parent’s perspective, of course). However, I fancied I knew something about the higher education game. </p>
<p>I had always admired “Chicago” (as we called it in my day) as the pre-eminent producer of smart and extremely well educated academics, those who had been tested and formed in a crucible hotter and more intense, on average, than that provided by the programs even at HYP. Chicago produced academics and thought leaders and intellectuals and people devoted first and foremost to the “life of the mind.” And that notwithstanding, those with the personalities and the ambition to succeed in the secular world, although arguably a smaller % of the Chicago crop than were emerging from other top programs, did so. They certainly had the chops.</p>
<p>But undergraduate? It wasn’t so much that it didn’t have a reputation for being a top flight program and degree, as that it didn’t have a reputation. We (certainly I) just didn’t think of Chicago in those terms. Thank goodness for a favorite history teacher who told my son, based on the kind of kid he was, and is, that he should look at Chicago, that it might be an even better fit for him than Columbia, at the time our family’s collective front runner. And this from a man whose undergraduate degree was from Columbia. We started to do some research and the rest is history. And, for the record, and not that he wouldn’t have been happy and successful elsewhere, but the fit seems perfect, socially and academically. </p>
<p>And speaking of socially, let me amplify what many others in this forum have expressed: unlike the gloomier days of two and three decades ago, today and, perhaps increasingly tomorrow, UChicago provides the almost total package. The kids have fun, part of that fun even being to tease the world outside about being the place where fun comes to die. They’re a good crop, perhaps less homogenous in “type” than found in other top schools (homogeneity and diversity being not the same thing). Certainly UChicago is a place where it’s not uncool, but nor is it required, to be a nerd, and the campus vibe is low on mean-spiritedness. While the students do need to, and largely want to, work hard at their studies, which may take a little time away from what is available for strictly and only superficial or meretricious conversations and getting blotto most nights of the week, those who want to (and that’s most of them) are richly engaged with the wealth of extracurricular opportunities presented by the school and the city of Chicago itself. Even my son, who never did this in high school nor did he seem inclined to, goes to frat parties on the weekends and drinks. But, yeah, even there some, not all, of the conversations are substantive, from what he tells us, and it’s not considered de rigeur to get blue-blind paralytic drunk. </p>
<p>My qualification above “almost the total package” is with respect to the sports scene. Many play intramural sports. Some of the varsity teams are competitive in DIII, some aren’t particularly. Those on the school teams appear to be quite committed and to have developed a deep camaraderie, though that seems to be in addition to, rather than in lieu of, their identity as students at a fine university. However, the teams are generally under-supported by student rooters, even the very successful ones, which is a shame. Why not take in a game or a meet with your mates? Net, if a Duke-level basketball team or a Stanford-level athletics program or the buzz of tradition around a Harvard-Yale or Amherst-Williams football game is important enough to someone, he or she will need to seek it elsewhere. </p>
<p>A final bit of editorializing: UChicago’s reputation as an undergraduate institution still has not caught up to what it is deserving of, although that continues to change for the better. My sense is that the quality of education (= ability to think critically and well and to organize and express that thinking clearly and persuasively as well as to be in comprehensive and solid command of the content of academic fields studied) at UChicago is such that, on average, its students emerge at a high level of accomplishment built into the undergraduate experience in, as it were, the nature of things. By contrast, at other top schools, HYP and the very best LACs included, such a superior outcome, while certainly possible and perhaps not that uncommon, nonetheless requires a real commitment on the part of the student to obtain it. It’s not “fluoridated into the water,” so to speak. There is no substitute for being a member of the HYP club. None. There is also no substitute for a UChicago undergraduate education</p>
<p>I guess I have to tell my cousin to stop listening to the N’western graduate, but further statements agrees with UMTYMP student: </p>
<p>“UC isn’t geared towards UG, it is more of a graduate institution, sure people go their for undergrad, but the UG pop there was smaller than my high school. This alone would make the odds go down considerably considering they only have a bit over 1000 entering freshman per year which is a recent development.”</p>
<p>I guess, referring to my original post, what the guy meant by much was small, not so much the quality.</p>
<p>Just for comparison, the undergraduate headcount at Chicago (~5,500) is about the same or slightly larger than that of Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, Tufts, and MIT. So size isn’t the issue.</p>
<p>There was a point at which the college was down to around 2,000, but that was 40 years ago. It was around 3,500 20 years ago, and increased to its current size from 4,000 over the period 2004-2009.</p>
<p>I just want to give a word of moderation: hyeonj’s son’s account is not typical. I think the undergrad opportunities here are great. But students at the very top such as her s (who sounds quite brilliant) will of course get more attention from profs</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And for anybody interested in understanding U of C’s reputation throughout history, the gradual increase in the size of the College is <em>crucial.</em> </p>
<p>In other words, Chicago garnered its “where fun comes to die” reputation at a time when College enrollment was at a low compared to the graduate student population and when the size of the College was low compared to peer institutions. Why is this relevant? </p>
<p>Because almost all undergraduates at almost all institutions in the United States are having a more fun time with their educational experiences than almost all graduate students at almost all institutions in the United States. Undergraduates are able to bask in the rhetoric of “finding themselves” and “work hard, party hard” while graduate students are burdened with the expectations of outcomes, whether those outcomes be BigLaw or research funding. Being a graduate student at Yale, Stanford, Duke, or Michigan is not the same as being an undergrad there… believe me. </p>
<p>So, in other words, I’m arriving at the opinion that the increase in College enrollment could be one of the larger if not the largest contributing factor to the change in the institution’s feel.</p>
<p>Yeah, just having more students on campus brings more ‘life’ and activity. I’m assuming concentrating the dorms a bit closer to campus rather than strung out all around the neighborhood also increases interaction and improves the social life.</p>
<p>By the way, if you have any interest in seeing more details on how the college has grown over since 2003, you can check out the quarterly enrollment reports at:</p>
<p>[Office</a> of the Registrar](<a href=“http://registrar.uchicago.edu/statistics/]Office”>Data & Reporting | University Registrar)</p>
<p>To piggyback on hyeonjlee’s post (and DoinSchool’s post), my son is a second year at UChicago and he has a similar experience to hyeonjlee’s son. The experiences she posts are not atypical – my son is very bright, but then that describes just about every kid at UChicago.</p>
<p>The interaction between faculty and students is fantastic – and the school is a perfect fit for my son. He definitely has a good time – frat parties, hanging out with friends, etc – but academics come first.</p>
<p>Top 3 in world’s Arts and Humanities universities</p>
<p>[Top</a> Universities for Arts & Humanities 2011-2012](<a href=“http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/arts-and-humanities.html]Top”>http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/arts-and-humanities.html)</p>
<p>^ Right, I just want to point out that it’s entirely possible that the U of C could be admitting the same type and quality of students today as it was twenty years ago and still there would be a difference in the feel of the place due to the expanded size of the college.</p>
<p>I get a little annoyed when I see “UChicago has lots its quirky, nerdy soul” kinds of posts, first because that kind of thing is near impossible to quantify and second because I don’t think it’s true or untrue. The University has never been the BMOC’s plum choice but that also doesn’t mean it’s the exact opposite of that, either. </p>
<p>I’ll be honest and say that I don’t take those rankings that seriously.</p>
<p>Hey, thanks for all the contributions to this thread. I appreciate it.</p>
<p>Im not even sorry for saying this. This is a dumb post. Your source is a hs freshie that knows nothing about college, nor university statistics. I can’t believe you listened to her. It’s like me saying Stanford isnt a good school.</p>
<p>^ Not really dumb since the freshman heard it through someone else. I’m just inquiring in hopes of getting perspectives from those who are more familiar with the school. The average American probably has heard of Stanford, not so much University of Chicago.</p>