<p>While I do agree with the analogy, I’ll have to disagree with some statements.</p>
<p>Kids who go to NYU’s Stern and UPenn’s Wharton for undergrad don’t sit in an office desk as suck ups and lapdogs working for the big boss. A lot of them are CEO’s and very high up in company’s and not <em>just</em> cube monkey’s.</p>
<p>Theoretical is very helpful, but the line between theoretical and practical becomes blurred. The truth is that if someone tells you that the derivative of 2x is 2 (practical shortcut), you don’t have to sit there and do an entire limit problem to find the derivative. I think as far as the sciences also go, UChicago has a connatation of making great scientists and lab workers who HAVE to deal with the theoretical, entrepreneurs are practical the use the theoretically proven and invest in something that is practical for students.</p>
<p>Chicago teaches you to think for yourself by yourself, and it has this reputation above its peer institutions which is a wonderful thing. While many University’s don’t have this air about them, a lot of LAC’s do.</p>
<p>Feli, I do like your analogy and I think it has some realism to it, but I think your portrayal is extremely overexaggerated.</p>
<p>That’s like saying Chicago science grads are good only as lab rats since they can only deal with the theoretical, this we all know is not true. </p>
<p>Chicago does very well, but so do other schools.</p>