<p>My S is a second year at the University of Chicago and I really haven’t seen what you are talking about. Is the Core rigorous…yes. Are they required to do “graduate” level research as first years’…no. My S went to a highly respected, very competitive public high school. He was very prepared for college, whether at the U of C or otherwise. He took 4 courses each quarter his first year. He fulfilled his math, foreign language and humanities requirements, as well as the physical and life science requirements. Generally speaking math and science classes had regular tests, problem sets and quizzes and humanities classes had several papers.The classes were, for the most part, small and he had great contact with his professors. As for social life and extracurriculars…he’s involved in more things than he ever did in high school. He’s got great friends, and is enjoying it immensely. The kids who seemed to find it toughest there are the pure science majors…but that seems to be the case almost anywhere. Pre-med is pre-med. What is hard to get used to is the quarter schedule. You start and before you know it, midterms are upon you. Finish those and you’re on the way to finals. Is a midsize research U on the quarter system right for everyone? No, but I’m just not sure Chicago’s as different as it’s reputation implies.</p>
<p>mstee–
“what I remember about Chicago, mostly, was very selective readings (not vast quantities), and discussions, endless discussions of the ideas therein.”</p>
<p>Oh, this sounds promising… S loves nothing more than a discussion about ideas…</p>
<p>And, yes, S did visit and kick the tires (overnight, on-campus interview, tour, admissions talk) and felt Chicago was right for him, but comments on this thread have spooked me a bit. I’m not sure I want him coming home at Christmas next year “drained” and gasping. He loves learning and the Core excites him but he’s a skinny reed and prone to migraines already… so not much there to drain.</p>
<p>Whoa, whoa yourself, newmassdad. Sorry, but I don’t think you got <em>my</em> point, actually, nor did mini.</p>
<p>Obviously students who prefer Chicago like the work level. I just think that those who have not yet decided, need to know what they’re in for, especially relative to the particular major he or she might be thinking of, but additionally, take a look, if you’re thinking about Chicago – at their breadth requirements, which also exceed those of many extremely rigorous schools. My D, yes, did take C off of her list, but until recently but she & I were extremely enthusiastic about this U, so the conclusions I’ve come to about it are actually quite recent & based on 3.5 yrs of cumulative info gathered carefully.</p>
<p>I did not “forget anything” about the “cognitive development” aspects you named, most of which are actually not cognitive but psychological development of the late adolescent, as you enumerated them. And I’m extremely happy for those, including anyone’s S’s and D’s here, who have indeed found an “esprit de corps” of students at C. (Not part of “cognitive development,” nor is “being prone to exaggeration.” Those are both psychological aspects of adolescence.) But the esprit de corps you mention does conflict with reports from other parents here, though, who have reported “isolation” & “lack of sense of community” at Chicago. They said it, I didn’t, but that would certainly be a logical outcome if your brain is cemented to books maybe 18-19 hrs./day. What I can tell you is that the Chicago freshman I described above was not in the least prone to exaggeration; she was poised, moderated, very self-controlled, & if anything, was straining against admitting the amt. of reading at Chicago, vs. her mere 17-hr day at a high-profile, demanding college prep high school. She had “no life” at Chicago.</p>
<p>Mini, yes, I agree (about available choices & about “kicking the tires,”) & I have not “missed the point.” However, just as there is a middle-school near me that for some odd reason prides itself on giving college-level (& amounts of) work to average 7th-graders – & burning them out by age 13 – I don’t find it to be an optimal educational model to do equivalently for a college freshman, either. There are plenty of colleges that are intense, demanding, challenging. Swarthmore is, the Ivies are, UCBerkeley is. They are not less so than Chicago, by the way. But Chicago seems to position itself as if volume of assignments equals excellence. That is objectively incorrect. That’s not just “my opinion.” There are some religious high schools near us that assign volumes of homework; their educational product is inferior to what my Ds are receiving in a less religious private high school with tighter, more targeted homework assignments. The two different educational products are objectively verifiable via the differing intellectual facility of their graduates, as well as college admissions. To say that Chicago is a “harder” college because it assigns more work, is simply false. (I’ve heard that from people.) You (Chicago) require your students to spend measurably more time in many, maybe most of your courses, than some other colleges do, perhaps even than many Ivies do. That may or may not produce more incisive thinking, more brilliant writing, more cutting-edge research.</p>
<p>Mom of 2inCA, I’ve PM’ed you.</p>
<p>I haven’t been around UChicago recently, so I’m talking out of turn. I HAVE been around Reed. At Reed, the difference was not actually in the amount of assigned work, but the student fetishism of expecting themselves, and everyone around them, to do more. Not just the assigned readings, but the recommended readings. Not just the recommended readings, but those they could find themselves in journals, etc. Even the jokes, and the campus rituals, are organized around this reality. Frankly, as much as we really wanted to like it (or at least wanted my d. to like it, so she could stay closer to home), we thought it was spooky. We noted that, relative to other places, it took its toll on art, music, theater, dance, sports, junior years abroad, community service, etc. Not that they didn’t have 'em - they did, but most of the students made other choices that had to do with books. </p>
<p>It wouldn’t be a way I would want to spend four years. But I also saw many students who were very enthusiastic about their choice, almost as if they had been waiting for books for the past decade! For them it was indeed the right choice, almost the obvious one. The students there (and at Chicago) aren’t any brighter than those at 50-100 other schools, but they tend to self-select to this orientation, and are encouraged by their Administrations to do so, and I can’t see anything wrong with that.</p>
<p><<cemented to=“” books=“” maybe=“” 18-19=“” hrs.=“” day=“”>></cemented></p>
<p>Is this true?? Typical? As a propective political science major, S was hoping to get an internship and participate in the Debate Club or newspaper or radio station, etc…</p>
<p>“She strained to spin her words to sound as if she was having a little bit of fun, but her face & voice said otherwise…But Chicago seems to position itself as if volume of assignments equals excellence. That is objectively incorrect. That’s not just “my opinion.”…” </p>
<p>Anyone other than me see a logical inconsistency here? </p>
<p>I’m not sure where Epiphany gets information - generalize from ONE student?</p>
<p>“None of the panelists have represented Ivies;” or MIT…these kids are so busy, they can’t even make it back for a panel.</p>
<p>
Was this the quote nmd?</p>
<p>Some speculations about intensity at Chicago:
One factor, as one poster pointed out, is the quarter system. It seems as though the quarter has hardly begun that midterms are upon students, then term papers and finals. It can be argued that other universities have a quarter system, too, but they don’t have the same reputation of being the place where the fun comes to die. This leads to a second factor: weather. From what I understand, most of the universities on the quarter system are in CA. Even if the workload is high, it must feel different to be able to study outdoors --or not study at all. In Chicago, however, much of the winter has to be spent indoors. Still another factor: the core curriculum. This enables students to discuss the same books that were assigned for courses they all took, instead of a movie they’ve just seen. So the classroom atmosphere spills out into the social scene in a way that does not happen at colleges that do not have core curricula. Finally, another factor. Chicago students are a self-selected lot who are not afraid to work hard and who love to discuss ideas.<br>
The Chicago students I have met are very happy with their education. They also happen to be a very impressive lot.</p>
<p>My S does not now, nor has ever spent 18-19 hours /day studying anything…he works on the paper, makes movies, found time to be in a play and yes, does his work. He played frisbee last year, went to tournaments, gets into the city regularly and takes advantage of all the movies, lectures exhibits C has to offer. Are there weeks where he has hundreds of pages of reading to do…of course, that’s college. But with a few exceptional time periods (and probably somewhat due to leaving things til the last minute) he hasn’t been overwhelmed by the quantity of work. Is it hard, yes…does schoolwork overwhelm life and eliminate the possibility of a rounded, fun college experience…not in our experience. But if the feel isn’t right, it’s not right. That’s what’s great about the visiting, checking things out process. If it doesn’t feel right, you move on to something else.
However, for those of you whose kids have been or will be accepted and are contemplating going to the U of C…it’s a great place.</p>
<p>marite, good observations, especially about the common discussion due to all reading the same books. This is a plus in our eyes.</p>
<p>runnersmom, thank you! This is what I was hoping to hear.</p>
<p>momof2inca,
I have not heard that about poli sci majors. In fact I have heard the poli sci program recommended strongly at Chicago. I have heard the over-the-top reading volumes for the interdisciplinary Humanities majors (again, with the quantity of that being more than similar/identical majors at other rigorous top-level colleges), as well as Engl Lit., History, & a few other majors.</p>
<p>mini,
I liked your post about Reed. And I also agree with you about the logic of choosing a campus that a student <em>believes</em> is attracting students with the same priorities as oneself. Naturally the assumption about such similarity may or may not pan out in the end, but more importantly, the interpretation of those priorities can differ. This is my “issue,” as mstee says, about Chicago.</p>
<p>Overall, I like the school. I’ve posted a # of positive comments about the school. What I do not like about any college is a claim of exclusivity. No, applying to Chicago, and/or being accepted to Chicago, does NOT prove that you “love learning” more than the next person. I don’t remember whether it was the Dean of Admissions who made the comment about “only 1,100 [or whatever] students who love learning…” etc. And students who go to Ivies & major publics do not love learning? What an obnoxious thing to say. Juxtapose that comment with the clear preference of Chicago to “pile on” in its humanities dept’s on a level with many graduate schools, add to that the directly reported experience of Chicago freshmen, <em>plural</em> (newmassdad), & the logical picture one gets is that U of Chicago equates volumes of assignments with love of learning. That “equation” should not be dignified with a response.</p>
<p>And actually, here is what some of you are doing who object to my supposed “issues” with Chicago. (I have about two, & I’ve already stated them, no need to infer them as being more mysterious than they are. No hidden agendas here.) You are shooting the messenger. I am telling you what many Chicagoan undergrads say about their own school,& I am reading from the website requirements, & I am reading from a very lengthy undergrad application, & I am reading what some CC’ers say about UChicago, who have gone there. There’s nothing that I do or don’t “want to hear” (mstee). If the above sources are inaccurate, then I suggest that all those sources stop misrepresenting. If you don’t mean to assign a graduate level of work to your undergrads, stop assigning it. If the workload isn’t overwhelming for a very capable student, stop misrepresenting the level of work. Say what you mean. Project what you mean. Market yourself how you mean to. My D did not apply to a number of colleges that mentioned in their brochures only spectator sports, community service, and “fun.” Maybe these colleges had fine academics; if so, we never knew it, so they never got her app. </p>
<p>People can only respond to what is communicated to them. I am hardly the only or the first person to reply to the “over-the-top” amt of work which Chicago seems to have a reputation for. That is why it is called “reputation.” You cannot have it both ways. Either this reputation is deserved & accurate, or it is some degree of exaggeration which I did not invent. Either most Chicago students are academic grinds who don’t need much of a non-academic life, or that picture is unfair, & the administration should work hard to correct it if they want to attract other types.</p>
<p>marite,
I found your assessment of the weather factor interesting & helpful, vis-a-vis the quarter system. (BTW, in CA I have found the quarter system not much less intense than it would probably be in cold weather – high school & college, but I can certainly see your point.) I am not, however, more impressed with Chicago students, or graduates, than students & graduates from other selective colleges. I would put them on the same plane, not “more” in love with discussions, etc. than students at Carleton, Grinnell, Princeton, Rice, Oberlin, UCLA, etc. For example, students in other colleges who are in Great Books programs, Directed Studies programs, etc., also “read the same books,” which promotes dynamic discussion, etc.</p>
<p>There are plenty of “pure” academic-types who choose not to apply to, or attend, U of Chicago. Those students are or will be at those “other” schools, where they will bring their “love of learning” to <em>those</em> student bodies.</p>
<p>And perhaps some of you see where I’m going with this. Frankly, I think we should not be arguing with each other, because I think we respect each other & each other’s children, & I know that I respect the whole complex & difficult decision-making process & the rest of the parents here who support their students in this. But don’t you think a little of these misunderstandings, misrepresentations, unearned reputations – whatever you want to call it – goes back to the marketing problem that was referred to on a diff. thread?</p>
<p>Flattery is certainly one of the tools used by college administrations to manipulate applicants to apply to their own institutions, & all colleges & U’s do this to some degree or a great degree. To say or imply that U of Chicago students “love learning” more than non-Ch. students is one way that the admin. can encourage applicants who at least want to believe that Chicago students are a special elite class of people, etc. – whether or not there is the least bit of objective evidence for that. Then that flattery becomes self-flattery at some point.</p>
<p>Again, definitions & semantics may be the keys here. It depends on how you define “love of learning.” Would that mean to read practically a whole small library for each subject studied? Or would it mean to read more selectively, develop a brilliant new thesis, & develop that into a publishable paper, mentored by a faculty member with learned credentials? When someone says “Chicago is harder” [than other colleges], do you really mean that Chicago’s Engl Lit dept is “harder” than U.C. Berkeley’s? (I seriously doubt that.) Or do you just mean that their undergrad reading list in a particular area is longer than a similar undergrad course at Berkeley, but Berkeley’s course may demand a level of writing & scholarship & insight easily as advanced, or more so, than Chicago.</p>
<p>epiphany:</p>
<p>I interpreted the admission dean’s comments in a non-exclusive manner, ie., all they need is to identify 1,100 students who love learning. I did not take it to mean that they would be the only ones who loved learning. </p>
<p>I have met many graduates of Chicago from different departments; I have been impressed by their degree of intellectualism. It does not mean that students at other schools do not work hard or are not as bright. But Chicago does seem to attract a certain kind of students and foster a certain intellectual atmosphere. Reed is another one who comes to mind. I also think that having a common core promotes discussion over meals in a way that mere distribution requirements do not. Columbia is another such school, but the location in NYC may tempt students away from campus. </p>
<p>My S, by the way, did not apply to Chicago, but for reasons wholly unrelated to the workload per se.</p>
<p>marite,
A number of colleges have core curricula that promote discussion. Some of these programs one can apply to from the “inside,” after acceptance; some are those one gets pre-selected for; still others one applies to from the outside as an Honors route or Honors division of some kind – such as a smaller, selective college within a larger U. Therefore, I don’t find Chicago particulary special or unusual in this regard, relative to the promotion of discussion.</p>
<p>Among the many Chicago applicants & students I have known (some for quite a long time – 7 to 11 yrs), & others that I have known less long (3-4years), it happens to be that only one of them strikes me as especially intellectual. This is the danger in making generalizations from anecdotal observation – whether those generalizations are positive or negative about a school, esp. when juxtaposed with someone else’s experience – such as yours, which contradict mine.</p>
<p>Plenty of people on CC have claimed that they know of many applicants to Ivies who are “prestige whores” but not particularly interested in working hard once getting there. I, on the other hand, know only one such person among the many highly intellectual academics I know who have applied to those schools, who so far have impressed me more than the Chicago applicants have.</p>
<p>That’s why I really object to comparative statements about schools (or their student bodies) that are all within the same range of challenge, in which I would include U of Chicago, Ivies, many LACs, prominent publics, etc.</p>
<p>Many students just as intellectual as probably those you have met at Chicago, merely prefer to include non-cerebral areas of accomplishment at their colleges of choice (the performing arts, for example, or creative endeavors – which might be a continuance of earlier accomplishment). It’s not even fair to call these areas “non-cerebral,” because what I really mean is, “outside of class assignments.” Many very “cerebral” Ivy & LAC students initiate clubs & activities that are quite rarefied & very intellectually demanding, such as certain types of literary magazines, Classics organizations, etc. And although there may be a social benefit to these, the students are originating this activity for intellectual reasons primarily. They merely don’t want all their intellectual endeavors to spring directly from their undergraduate assignments. Possibly they seek U’s other than Chicago because they believe they’ll find more such opportunities at such places, not because they will work less there, or find the curriculum “easier.” </p>
<p>I’m not saying you do this, but calling a student “intellectual” because he or she is gung-ho about reading assignments – whether core or non-core – is a limited definition of “intellectual,” in my book. My D and her friends don’t need reading lists – recommended, extra credit, primary lists, secondary lists, whatever – to get them reading & discussing. They do this informally all the time, including starting specialty book clubs & other groups of mutual interest from the pure intellectualism that movitates them. I call such people true intellectuals as well, & yet none of them has applied to Chicago.</p>
<p>I just think that some of these comparative claims are promoted by colleges for the purpose of encouraging the Wars Between the Colleges that have been noted so often on CC by parents & students.</p>
<p>Epiphany,</p>
<p>The reason some of us take issue with your comments is that statements like “I am telling you what many Chicagoan undergrads say about their own school,& I am reading from the website requirements, & I am reading from a very lengthy undergrad application, & I am reading what some CC’ers say about UChicago, who have gone there.” or “If the above sources are inaccurate, then I suggest that all those sources stop misrepresenting. If you don’t mean to assign a graduate level of work to your undergrads, stop assigning it. If the workload isn’t overwhelming for a very capable student, stop misrepresenting the level of work.” are completely inconsistent with our own extensive experience.</p>
<p>Yes, you can find an occassional student who is overwhelmed by the work. You can even find that at a state U - just talk to an engineering major. But I think most of us do not overreact to an odd outlier.</p>
<p>Then again, maybe there is a geographical factor? Maybe kids in your area are overwhelmed? You yourself said you don’t even get feedback from the ivy kids. </p>
<p>So, I repeat, your comments are just so far removed from the observations of the rest of us that they step over the bounds to bashing, and for that I am sad, as I expect better judgement from posters here. Yes, we exchange comments and share our views, but we rarely accuse a specific administration of distortion or dishonesty, as you suggest above: “To say or imply that U of Chicago students “love learning” more than non-Ch. students is one way that the admin. can encourage applicants who at least want to believe that Chicago students are a special elite class of people, etc. – whether or not there is the least bit of objective evidence for that.”</p>
<p>This is getting heated, but I just wanted to put my 2 cents in. My daughter is a freshman at the University of Chicago. Yes, some of her classes are demanding – but her professors don’t impose demands she is not willing to meet. Are her assignments graduate level? Yes, some are – and she likes it that way. She studies about the same amount she studied in high school, and her social life is fuller than it was in high school. She goes on regular outings with friends – in fact, she goes to downtown Chicago nearly every weekend. Her professors pay a lot of attention to her, and she feels great about their interest in what she has to say. She has no qualms about the core – she’s enjoying her current humanities and bio classes. I’ll probably go down in flames for this, but I see a tendency among some – parents and kids alike – to denegrate schools that they have eliminated from their lists for very personal reasons. So you have decided that a particular school isn’t right for your child? Big deal! It might be perfect for others. There is no single “good” school. It reminds me of the saying, “There is only one beautiful child and every mother has it.”</p>
<p>Epiphany:
I have met graduates from many top schools, both Ivies, top state Us such as Berkeley and Michigan, and top LACs. That is the basis of my knowledge and comparisons. I know several academics who sent their child to Chicago. One of them told me that Chicago is the school that academics like to send their children to.</p>
<p>I do not define intellectualism as being willing to read the assignments (though I know plenty of students who do not). It’s more a case of relishing reading Wittgenstein or Adorno or Murakami or whoever else is assigned and relishing sharing one’s reactions to the readings even outside of class. It’s very different from sitting around discussing movies or even what community service one is engaged in. I don’t know graduates of St John’s but I would imagine something of this atmosphere could be found there, too.</p>
<p>Chicago is not for everybody. Obviously, it is not a good fit for your child (nor, it turns out, mine). But I don’t understand your reason for running it down.</p>
<p>I wish I’d gotten into this debate earlier on. So much has been said about schools I know and care a lot about. But I want to make one comparison. Reed is a lot more intense than Chicago. The “culture” of putting academics way ahead of other interests emanates from the faculty and the demands of the curriculum itself but also gets passed down from generation to generation of students as part of Reed’s learning culture.</p>
<p>I think the idea that undergraduates are working at graduate level is far more true of Reed than of Chicago. Reed even imitates the doctoral “comprehensive” or “prelim” exams with its “junior quals,” and it caps off the experience by requiring every student to write a senior thesis. Chicago doesn’t have such exams, nor does it require a thesis of all students but only of those who wish to graduate with honors in their major or field of concentration. (They can graduate “with general honors” without having written a thesis.)</p>
<p>Reed doesn’t claim to have a “core” curriculum but of course it has it Hum 110 and the Hum 200-level alternatives; otherwise, it just has distribution requirements. Chicago has a “core” but it’s not really a “common” core because unlike at Reed no single course is required of all students. I believe this difference alone leads to a different intellectual experience: whereas Reedies have a common language of discourse built from their experience studying the classics in their Hum 110 course (equivalent to 4 courses), Chicago students do not all connect with one another as well. This may be partly because of the size – Chicago’s first-year class is about 4 times the size of Reed’s.</p>
<p>But what the two colleges share is that students are encouraged to work and think on their own – a great deal – and to develop ideas and conduct research independently. They come out with an ability to reason, conduct research, and write. And they may develop deep knowledge of a subject. But really at neither of these schools is a student doing graduate-level work – with perhaps a few exceptions, these students aren’t ready after 4 years to conduct professional level research in their major fields. They need a couple of years of actual graduate training in their specialty before they can do that.</p>
<p>(I attended Reed; my son attended Chicago. I taught as a visiting prof. at Chicago one semester as well some years ago.)</p>
<p>Reading this discussion made me wonder about graduation rates at UC. Their 4 year graduation rate is 82%, just slightly below Harvard’s. National 4 year grad rate for all colleges hovers about 47% If it really is the “place fun goes to die” wouldn’t you expect that they’d have a much lower grad rate?</p>
<p>Carolyn–I’ve got to run, but I was thinking the same thing!</p>