<p>Well, as a non-current, non-student, I’ll say my piece.</p>
<p>I think the author misapprehends how generic his depiction of the University of Chicago’s uniqueness sounds, mainly of course because he isn’t familiar with any college other than the University of Chicago. The University of Chicago IS different, and DOES have a special culture, but its differences from its peer institutions are a lot less meaningful than many of you think. The kinds of feelings the author describes – people feel those things at Yale or Brown every day. There are socially awkward people at every elite institution . . . and fewer of them at Chicago than the author pretends (although more, perhaps, than at Harvard, “The Social Network” notwithstanding). The difference is that at Chicago they are treated as emblematic, and at Harvard no one is bothering to count them to make sure there (a) aren’t too many, but (b) aren’t so few that it looks like the admissions office has started to exclude them. There is snow lots of places other than Chicago, and I’ll bet the sophomoric line about how the cold reflects our state of mind is just as much a weird, idiosyncratic point of view at Chicago as it would be at Dartmouth. (They have the same snow and the same temperatures and wind chills at Northwestern, of course, and no one goes around pontificating about it.) Smart, ambitious students work hard everywhere. They do brag about it a little more at Chicago, and I think there are somewhat fewer people who opt out of that culture there than at some peer colleges, but we’re probably talking about single-digit percentage shifts. </p>
<p>The other things that maybe distinguish Chicago from peers is the weight of attention to classes vs. ECs, the extent to which people agree to debate politicized issues in a polite, academic, and non-ideological manner – not perfectly so, mind you, but more so than elsewhere – and somewhat more balance between liberal and conservative points of view. Also, of course, the near-universal mindset and experience of having a romantic attachment to the idea of the Core and mixed excitement and disappointment at the actual classes that comprise it. And the relative disdain for practical education vs. theory. All of those things are a matter of spicing, not a different cuisine altogether, and each element may be duplicated or exceeded elsewhere, but not altogether. (E.g., Columbia has the same Core ambivalence going on, even more uniformly, but almost completely lacks depoliticized debate.)</p>
<p>It is no cakewalk representing the University of Chicago in an admissions context. Behind you, there’s a mass of brilliant students and faculty, and everyone (everyone but the President and Trustees, that is) is screaming, “We love the University of Chicago for its special qualities! Tell everyone how special it is! Bring us more people like us!” And in front of you, there are masses of great students who would do well at the University, really make a contribution, and love all its special qualities just like the people already there. They are crying, “Does fun really come to die there? Is my roommate going to have Asperger’s? Does anyone ever have sex? Will gangbangers strip me naked and leave me to die in the cold? If my dreams of professional school don’t die first?”</p>
<p>Give 'em a break! They earn their salaries.</p>
