@jhchicago - to your definitions of “intellectual” I’d also add the following from Merriam-Webster: “given to study, reflection, and speculation, engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect.”
And don’t overlook the classic definition: “Anyone able to hear the William Tell Overture without thinking of the Lone Ranger.”
On a more serious note, the noun “an intellectual”, as distinguished from the adjective “intellectual”, has about it a connotation of ridiculousness and pomposity. Perhaps for that reason no one calls himself an intellectual. That would be too much like Fredo’s “I’m smart, you know.”
When used to describe someone else it might have attached to it an uncomplimentary adjective, like “pretentious” or “pointy-headed”. That’s not because a true intellectual is any more puffed up or high and mighty than anyone else but because there’s something just a little uncanny about someone who tries to actually think about things and understand them for their own sake (the best I can do for a definition). Such people tend to think different thoughts and arrive at different conclusions from the rest of us. That makes them seem either a bit foolish or a bit dangerous, or a bit of both, and we don’t quite believe they’re not doing this to put the rest of us down (hence “pretentious”) or, more benignly, that they’re not simply dreamy cranks and eccentrics (hence “pointy-headed”).
Such types are by no means exclusive to the University of Chicago, but there might be a greater density of them there, both in the student body and the faculty. This could be part of the explanation for the UCDS they tend to induce in certain onlookers.
@marlowe1 is right to point out that “intellectual” is a term that does not have unqualifiedly positive connotations. I prefer the word “philosopher” even though it may at first sound even more pompous than “intellectual.” Plato beautifully explains how a true lover of wisdom is a person who lacks wisdom. Love implies a desire and a longing for something that one does yet possess. There is a humility among people who love to think not shared by all who are considered “intellectuals.” I found that UofC left us impressed with what we don’t know - that we learned how ignorant we really are.
Thanks to everyone for your thoughts on the meanings of intellectual. As expected, opinions vary as one pointed out it is “a term that does not have unqualifiedly positive connotations” while someone else used it in totally positive sense and some others mostly associated it with certain subjects and simultaneously disqualify other fields. Interestingly the definitions all point to a character or trait of use of intellect to understand complex subject, use intellect rather than emotion to solve problem.
In light of the introduction of more pre-professional majors in U Chicago and the positive/negative reaction it has received, it might be worthwhile to refresh on the definition and recognize that many those pre-professional students are just as intellectual, to study, reflect and engaged in activity requiring the creative use of intellect, just not on the traditional (maybe too old way) subjects such as history, literature, philosophy, etc. It is indeed more intellectually challenging to cure small-cell lung cancer than coming up with 5 different ways of interpreting a battle fought in 1738. Time has changed and U Chicago does not live in the bubble. Being practical and action-oriented does not contradict with being intellectual. They complement each other.
@jhchicago “the definitions all point to a character or trait of use of intellect to understand complex subjects”
I think that is true, but there’s also the trait of using the intellect to recognize the complexity of a subject that people mistakenly think is simple. I’ve heard remarked that UofC makes everything complicated, which I consider high praise. Noticing complexity where none was thought to exist allows us to recognize our ignorance - often the first step for both the practical and theoretical advancement across many subject areas.
The false intellectualism that one hopes we avoid was satirically portrayed by another UofC grad: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/opinion/brooks-the-thought-leader.html.
“In light of the introduction of more pre-professional majors in U Chicago and the positive/negative reaction it has received, it might be worthwhile to refresh on the definition and recognize that many those pre-professional students are just as intellectual, to study, reflect and engaged in activity requiring the creative use of intellect, just not on the traditional (maybe too old way) subjects such as history, literature, philosophy, etc.”
- Who exactly has posted that, say, molecular engineering is a 'non-intellectual' major? There have been two 'preprofessional' majors in recent years criticized for being a tad 'lightweight' relative to their meatier relatives, and those are Law, Lettters & Society and Business Economics. Some of the criticism seems valid there. But the rest, including 'direct-to-job-market' subjects like Stats or C/S or 'direct-to-professional-school' tracks such as "pre-med" are generally recognized to be fairly challenging programs of study.
Also, it should be pointed out that the major is only about 1/3 of your total coursework at UChicago. The entire liberal arts experience is supposed to be intellectually challenging; perhaps in part because you are required to get out of your comfort zone and take a variety of Core and other courses.
“It is indeed more intellectually challenging to cure small-cell lung cancer than coming up with 5 different ways of interpreting a battle fought in 1738.”
- Interestingly, I know many natural scientists who are simply befuddled at the thought of writing a history paper. But that's beside the point. This comparison is a bit off. All intellectually challenging pursuits will likely have practical and action-oriented outcomes - even the deep historical dive into the Battle of 1738. The goal there, for instance, might be to impact the way that military leaders think out and conduct their future campaigns. And all intellectually challenging pursuits will depend on the realm of ideas (biological modeling or historiography) as well as the necessary footwork (lab or primary source analysis). Furthermore, neither endeavor is achieved in a vacuum but will rely on - or might even contradict - significant amounts of prior research. And I'll bet that both the historian and the biologist find their work interesting and intellectually challenging.
“Time has changed and U Chicago does not live in the bubble. Being practical and action-oriented does not contradict with being intellectual. They complement each other.”
- That's true, but UChicago hasn't exactly had an over-representation of, say, anthropology majors at the expense of future biologists! The two most popular majors 30 years ago were Biology and Economics and remain the same today (however, C/S may overtake Bio as the 2nd most popular major before long). The social sciences - representing a mix of 'practical and action-oriented' majors as well as 'not-so-much,' represent about 45% of last spring's graduates. The physical sciences, another 25% (the most popular major there being Math as opposed to Chem). The Humanities and New Collegiate Divisions (19%) actually beat out the Bio division (11%). So it's not clear at all that students are clamoring specifically for 'practical and action-oriented' majors. Either that, or they seem to believe that plenty of other majors not-so-obviously 'action-oriented' have a useful end as well.
@JBStillFlying: Good you were able to find those posts that contain “lightweight” statements . Why would some majors be deemed “lightweight”? Light weight/meatier in what? Isn’t it a bit like judging a person by his/her last name? Intellectual is a personal trait, not a categorization by field of study. There are intellectual and not so intellectual people in history, in philosophy, in engineering, in medicine, in law and in business economics. Let’s give them equal and fair acceptance and respect.
@jhchicago - good questions and commentary! First off, IMO any hue and cry over ‘preprofessional majors’ at UChicago - and there has been some on the UChicago CC threads as well as on campus - is much ado about nothing. UChicago provides an intellectually-sound liberal arts education any way you look at it and it’s going to be hard to get out of having a fairly rigorous curriculum (at the very least) regardless of what major you choose. Second, I don’t subscribe to the notion that professional degrees at the undergraduate level signal an “easier” or less intellectually satisfying curriculum. Quite the opposite - they tend to be more selective than most liberal arts programs and usually impose a fairly demanding curriculum on their students (especially at the selective universities). So I tend to agree with most of what you’ve written upthread.
Now, about the two majors I mentioned above. Disclosure: this is my opinion and others may disagree. If so, I hope they weigh in as well.
-
Business economics is a track of the economics major that requires no calculus or higher-level economic theory. Think of Engineering w/o the calculus pre-req and minus some of those harder upper div. engineering courses - that’s Business Economics. You don’t need this major to access courses at Booth, although you probably get a higher level of access in this track. However, it’s not the business courses that make it less rigorous (Booth is plenty rigorous!) - it’s the lack of math and higher-level theory. Now, a couple of things to keep in mind: a) it’s certainly possible to take higher level courses and still be a bus. econ. major, as you indicated. One needn’t opt for the easy path just because it’s offered. b) this fall a whole lot of kids kick starting their bus. econ. with “easy” Econ 100 (Principles of Micro) got a nasty shock; a good number had to drop or switch to pass/fail. That sounds like Econ 100 has become a ‘weeder’ course - perhaps the economics equivalent to Comprehensive Gen. Chem LOL. So it’s still not “easy” even though it’s “easier” than the regular track.
-
Law, Letters and Society, an interdisciplinary, “restricted entry” major designed to attract academically strong first-year students interested in law school . . . . just seems to be falling flat. Anecdotally, I’ve heard more feedback about the lack of rigor than otherwise. Also, it appears that the numbers enrolled don’t even match the 25 or so per year who are supposed to be admitted so not sure what’s happening there. With the exception of one proprietary “legal” seminar taught by law school faculty, the courses seem to be open to non-majors it so it’s not like you are missing out on anything by NOT majoring in LLS. UChicago is famous for interdisciplinary courses of study and there is a very challenging, self-directed major by the name of Fundamentals for those truly craving a deep dive into the intersectional realm of social sciences and humanities. (Check out the recent thread on the UChicago forum). Or you can major in a real subject like History or Philosophy - both highly-regarded departments - and supplement with plenty of LLS courses if those interest you. LLS on its own just seems designed mainly to provide “access” to the law school rather than a top intellectual experience. EDIT to add: of course, again, like with business economics one can spruce it up. That’s the advantage of a liberal arts program AND the quarter system: plenty of options to supplement your studies.
I simply can’t take the word “philosopher” seriously. I immediately think of Mel Brooks in History of the World, Part I, where he is a down on his luck Philosopher, who is trying to get unemployment:
^^lol. Or the ‘sit down’ philosopher, Rodin’s The Thinker:
http://www.musee-rodin.fr/en/collections/sculptures/thinker-0
Some things don’t change: in 423 B.C. a comic playwright, Aristophanes, depicted Socrates as an arrogant doofus a bit like Mel Brooks’s Philosopher, with his head in the clouds (the play is called “The Clouds”), talks to himself, listens to no one, and runs a special school called “The Thinking Institute”, which is burnt to the ground by a god-fearing ordinary citizen. Socrates got the draft of hemlock a few years later, perhaps administered by some in the audience. Mel Brooks got cut off the dole. @Machiavelli1532 , beware calling yourself a philosopher!
@marlowe1 Yet, but Plato exacted his revenge on Aristophanes with his appearance in the Symposium. Also, there is low risk in promoting the virtues of a philosophic life in an anonymous forum, almost like one concealed as an Athenian stranger 
Perhaps being a sufficienly machiavellian philosopher would keep you on the dole and off the hemlock.
Forget stand-up vs. sit-down “philosophers.” I give you Jesse the Mind:
Touche, @Machiavelli1532 , but Plato nevertheless gave Aristophanes a fine rousing speech of great poetic power that is also darn funny. That bit about the mighty creature split by the gods into two halves, each seeking reunion with the other, is pretty good - poignant but also shrewd as observation - even if nowhere near scaling the Platonic heaven of pure intellect. Even Socrates in the Symposium is kind of a good sport as philosophers go. Not many are able to drink and philosophize at once and then walk away at dawn with a clear head. Well, I saw it happen at “Jimmy’s” a time or two.
As someone who post MBA spent over 20 years in finance in various industries and have friends who work from PE to tech , I can provide some perspectives of the meatiness requirement of business economics.
As qualified by a member above, “meatiness” is measured by the level of math and eco class. I can affirmatively tell you 90% of those fields require no more than pre-calc and micro/macro is sufficient foundation for all subject matters. Finance is half math and half judgement/execution. For those 5% firms that heavily utilize quant model, they prefer to hire Math PhDs because they deem any eco major is too lightweighted in math.
^ @jhchicago, I’m sure you have lots of experience in the finance industry, but you are simply wrong that one doesn’t need Calc. to understand economic or financial theory. Calculus is a pretty basic math sequence for understanding economics or any of its applications (such as finance).
I, too, worked in finance for several years. After getting my MBA I joined a firm that did some pretty sophisticated financial modeling. Even our entry-level financial analysts had to be able to pick up those skills sets. A basic knowledge of higher math was the minimum requirement for that job. Edit to add: Execution is critical as well, as you point out; those applied business courses would obviously help in developing that ability.
UChicago has always taught a rigorous undergraduate economics curriculum, and the math and formalized theory learned in both the regular and data science tracks tend to make those graduates particularly well suited to some of the more challenging and prestigious jobs in tech, finance, management consulting, etc. However, I will agree with you that the majority of business-oriented jobs will not be in that realm. It’s possible that the Business Economics track will prepare graduates for a broader array of entry positions in Corporate America, including finance, accounting or marketing positions at a Fortune 500. Perhaps the major was designed with that outcome in mind.
Here is what U Chicago says about its Business Economics major:
The specialization in business economics is organized around the fundamental economic theory and empirical methods that students interested in pursuing careers in the private sector, the non-profit sector, and the public sector (among others) will find useful in carrying out their day-to-day tasks.
Wharton, Harvard and Stanford graduates do just fine, if not better, in “some of the more challenging and prestigious jobs in tech, finance, management consulting, etc.”, without the math and formalized theory learned in both the U Chicago regular and data science . Maybe the cause or the driving force is not " the math and formalized theory learned in both the regular and data science".
It seems the Business Eco major is properly scaled and scoped with regards to its designed outcome as outlined above and comparable with the similar programs in other comparable high end institutions.
It seems philosophy major without the “meatier” math and eco theory is accepted norm. On the flip side, one would agree a philosopher with A in Real Analysis or even a Fields Medal is nice to have, but unnecessary for the major.
Here is a student article on the major:
https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2019/10/14/new-business-econ-specialization-betters-uchicago/
^ That Maroon article writer is in error, as you don’t have to take Calc. II - or Calc. I for that matter - in order to major in Bus. Econ. It’s not listed as a pre-req.
Let’s make sure we understand the issue here: it’s not the presence of business courses or a ‘preprofessional’ track. It’s a GOOD thing, IMO, that UChicago has offered business economics as a course of study. It’s the lack of Calculus that makes it “light.” A Bus. Econ. major shouldn’t have to take Real Analysis. But they should have to take Calc. as a pre-req just like the other tracks, simply because that level of mathematical thinking and knowledge is an essential component of ALL economics courses, even the applied ones. A course or two of linear algebra and computer science couldn’t hurt, either.
Do Harvard or Stanford economics majors get to skip calculus? That’s news to me! A quick perusal of Wharton’s basic undergraduate curriculum demonstrates that familiarity with basic differentiation and integration techniques, at a bare minimum, are required. Wouldn’t expect Wharton, of all places, to be going “light” on the math!
My very undistinguished LAC many years ago required that I take Calc. and Linear Algebra in order to major in Economics, and as a stats TA I could tell when someone who didn’t have the requisite math just wasn’t going to make it and would need to switch majors. BTW, I also had access to business courses as an elective so was well-versed in things like risk-adjusted rates of return and the M-M Theorum before graduating from college.
There’s plenty of room in the bus. econ major and in the UChicago undergraduate curriculum in general for a few math courses starting with Calculus. It’s actually deceptive for the College not to require that sequence at the very least when upper div. courses open to the business track assume that knowledge and even require it for a pre-req with the other tracks. Does the instructor now have to “dumb down” the lecture because some bus. econ. kids are in the room? Or is it the case that bus. econ. really does need calculus but it’s not disclosed for some odd reason? Neither speculation is particularly hopeful.