<p>reflectivemom:</p>
<p>I’ll give as honest an outsider’s perspective on Harvard vs. Chicago as I can. I think Harvard is a place that is chock-full of bright, intellectual students with a variety of interests who love to ponder, research, discuss any/all of them and who, in the eyes of most of those who know them, are focused, achieving, and often (but not always) competitive (but not necessarily in a cut-throat way at all). The vast majority of the students I’ve met at Chicago are exactly the same way, the only major difference being that few if any of them were accepted at Harvard (in some, but not most cases, because they did not apply). The similarities between the students at the two schools far, far outweigh the differences, and by and large I believe there are very few students who would be happy at one and not at the other.</p>
<p>Around here, Harvard has the reputation of looking for very glossy, perfect students, with lots of visible, verifiable achievements. I think that’s not entirely true (and not entirely true here, either), but I think it is true that Harvard has a lot of such students, more perhaps than anywhere else. Other people on CC would say the same thing about Yale, and see Harvard as more willing to take risks. I think the presence of such students in high concentration at Harvard creates the potential for anxiety among its students in a number of ways – how can I measure up? how can I stay on top? – but only some of them are really oppressed by it. It’s probably not more harmful than the slightly different brand of anxiety incubated at colleges where a certain percentage of students have been traumatized by rejection at their “dream schools” and walk around with big chips on their shoulders. (That’s certainly not unknown at Chicago, although Chicago seems relatively free of it compared to some other schools.)</p>
<p>In another thread, interesteddad parsed through various presidential statements at Chicago, Yale, and Harvard to prove that Chicago really does not value “leadership” as an educational objective (or admissions criterion) to anywhere near the same extent as Yale and Harvard. He convinced me he was right, but it’s important to remember that the differences are relative, not absolute. There are lots of “leader” types at Chicago, and not everyone at Harvard was founding something all the time. I do believe that many Harvard students feel more plugged in to the Establishment than most Chicago students do. At Chicago, real power (even in the city of Chicago) seems elsewhere; students feel they are smart and well-educated, but must go out into the world and find their way. I think at Harvard more students have a sense – maybe too much of a sense – that the paths to power and success are clearly marked for them, and that they are part of a continuous stream of Harvardians setting foot to them.</p>
<p>That does NOT mean, by the way, that they are all conventional, or money-grubbers, and making conventional, money-grubbing choices. I know several recent Harvard graduates who are (or were until recently) free-lance journalists scrabbling hand-to-mouth for assignments. The fact is, however, that none of them doubted their ability to succeed, they had lots of models for how to do it, and using contacts and networking was second nature to them. (These were not, by the way, Crimson alumni who really had a leg up in the journalism world.) My daughter at Chicago is trying to do something similar, and she has gotten more practical advice from her Harvard (and Yale) contacts than anyone at Chicago seems to have offered.</p>
<p>When I think through the kids I know who have been accepted at Harvard in the past decade – 20 or so – I can’t think of more than one “pure dreamer” type – and the one who may qualify is the one I know least. Not all of them are dog-eat-dog competitors or #1 at everything – although a couple of them are – but most of them managed to rack up some impressive achievements beyond their grades and test scores, and all of them – every single one – was someone seen by his or her teachers and peers as being impressive beyond the norm even for very smart, achieving students. That includes all of the legacies – all the legacies I’ve known at Harvard have also been admitted to equally selective non-legacy schools. I haven’t known any recruited athletes there, though, or centimillionaires. (Now that I think of it, I know of one recruited athlete accepted this year who, while very smart, might be an exception to everything I just said. However, I don’t know the kid well enough to say for sure.)</p>
<p>One of the valuable purposes Harvard serves is to give kids like that a chance to be normal for a few years. Some of them have never had the experience of being surrounded by actual peers, and none of them has had the experience of having that many peers. Chicago serves the same function, by the way, except that the median student is significantly less polished, and no one takes seriously the possibility that the kid in the room next door may actually be President or Secretary of State someday.</p>