<p>Yah unalove really hits the nail on the head - Chicago is just NOT a “warm, cuddly, fuzzy wuzzy” college. It’s - rightly, I think - known for being a bit colder, bit more distant type of place. Kids don’t gather and bond around massive bonfires or binge drink while tubing down a river as a class (i.e. Dartmouth), or ski down a slope as a class to receive their degrees (i.e. Middlebury, I think). </p>
<p>For me, I really didn’t want a fuzzy wuzzy sorta college at all. I guess coming from my background with two parents who went through the european educational system, they saw all the coddling that goes on at certain LACs and whatnot, and were just puzzled by it. They didn’t understand why an entire institution would be devoted entirely to kids from 18-22 yrs old. It was just confusing to them. </p>
<p>Also, just as unalove said, the actual classes themselves operate at a really high level, and somehow, just seemed really pure. There was no coddling (much the opposite), and you were tested and proven based on the strength of your ideas. It was refreshing for me, but I wouldn’t describe most faculty at Chicago as “approachable.” Yes, they teach at a very high level, as idad demonstrated in his post, but there’s a difference between highly competent, effective teaching, and approachability. Chicago does nothing to inculcate the lovey dovey atmosphere you find at some LACs, and I really like that about the school.</p>