UChicago should refuse to belong to any club that would have it as a member.
^^ Yes, Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.
UChicago is a school that half of you don’t know half as well you as you should like; and is liked by less than half of you half as well as it deserves.
Five years ago, or 10 years, the cross-admit numbers wouldn’t have been anywhere near that.
Actually, back in 2013, UChicago beat Princeton in these cross admits, and it is reflected in the 2013 “parchment rankings”.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
That was not the OP’s purpose of this thread. No need to hijack this thread with a prestige discussion that’s been done to death elsewhere. Post deleted along with several responses.
It’s interesting to see that the responses here are very concerned with tiers and prestige etc. My immediate takeaway wasn’t about UChicago’s prestige but rather whether the aggressive admissions policies are chasing away people who would be a good fit at the school and attracting people chasing prestige and being a bad fit for the school. I was really excited when I first got accepted to UChi, but over the years I wondered why 80% of the students there even attended it with their incessant attacks on the core pedagogical foundations of this university, especially the rigor. It would seem to be that, with higher selectivity, the cohorts should be a better fit with the university each year, but a lot of alumni instead think that the university is dumbing down due to market demands by students who are not actually interested in the same thing the college is interested in. So even as it plummets to 5.9% or reach higher yields I’m not very optimistic the actual cohort quality (in terms of fit, not innate intelligence) will actually improve despite the “15 points increase” in SAT scores.
@Skyrior You raise a valid point. I have mixed feelings about whether UChicago is attracting students with a poor fit. UChicago is a unique place, and that’s what makes the University so special. And some campus trends like greek life gives me pause.
On the other hand, as a parent of an incoming freshman, I want UChicago students to have ample time to explore and experience personal growth – try club sports, try a bunch of student organizations and clubs and see what sticks, explore the neighborhoods, volunteer, get a part time job, go to lectures, movie nights, and performances, etc. I think having the time to do these things is important, and it’s really important that kids don’t burn out.
My kid currently attends an academically rigorous prep school. Although he loves it, I have seen him repeatedly forgo other enrichment opportunities (and vacations) because of academic demands. I am hoping that UChicago can find a way to maintain (update?) its unique culture and environment while allowing students some space and time to pursue non-scholarly opportunities and interests.
@Skyrior - Given that UChicago has recently increased the allowed course load to five per quarter in order to accomodate student needs and demand, it would appear that cohort quality is just fine. However, you are welcome to peruse the College catalog to compare the Core and major requirements to those from your day, so that you can either verify your perceptions, or change them.
Core and major requirements are hardly indicative of increase or decrease in rigor, but if you want to go that route, sure. Mind, which is a newer SOSC, has routinely been derided as the easy cop-out SOSC. SSI teaches nothing about social science theory and is instead for STEM majors who dread writing and reading classics an easy way out by focusing on coding - something they already master. Honors Econ used to be the standard econ track. Now they’re adding Business Econ which simply does not teach you any proper economic theory. Because of the lack of mathematics, the pedagogy in the Business Econ track handwave a lot of rigorous arguments away in favor of only an intuitive understanding of economic phenomenon, something that the 200s have, on top of the rigorous argumentation. So basically you learn less, need less rigor, and frankly have a far easier time. One interesting anecdote for those who don’t believe that Business Econ isn’t as rigorous or isn’t easier: I know of two guys (from my friend) who are taking Business Econ because they, and I quote verbatim “suck at math,” in their own words. It’s a choice for the incapable, not the capable. Maybe one day they’ll even start teaching Austrian economics.
Anyways, I can go on with examples but I will stop here because, again, course and major requirements are hardly indicative of anything. “Basic Functional Analysis” here, for example is more advanced than a func analysis course in most undergrads.
@Lucy11 at #66 - my husband and I were grad students at the University of Chicago, and I personally knew several who had been through the College before the changes to the Core and the increase in College size. We are also long-time friends with an alum of College from the same time period. I haven’t picked his brain for insights into whether the College has “dumbed down” anything. However, I know that he’s about as enthusiastic about the place as he was during his time here.
Students who attend UChicago who are a poor fit aren’t happy at UChicago. The pace is simply to brisk, and the workload too demanding for those not craving that sort of challenge. So, if there is a poor fit, you’d see it in the numbers: transfer-out rates, completion rates, those sorts of stats. Instead, what we see are numbers that were only wishful thinking 30-35 years ago. So it’s pretty clear that they are choosing students who are actually a significantly BETTER fit than back then.
Greek life has been at the university since I lived near campus in the 80’s. I believe it had been there a long while before then.
@Lucy11 The courses at UChi are still rigorous if your son wishes to take those. I’m extremely biased because I’m interested in academia - which UChicago is partially renowned for (sending kids to academia) - and I obviously wish that UChicago stays on that track but the market forces are changing UChicago to try to attract future lawyers, innovators, and presidents. More than just future academics. That’s a good thing to most, but I personally don’t think it’s possible for them to balance both well. The quality of courses hasn’t necessarily suffered if you still intend on taking the most rigorous ones, but there will be people who go into an Honors class and freeride on others’ homeworks and complain that they are getting a B (not even that bad a grade in an Honors class) when they don’t actually understand the material.
There is plenty of time for socializing and the likes. The “where fun comes to die” cliche is unwarranted. However, good time management and work ethic are must haves. A lot of students drown here not because of lack of intelligence but because of bad time management or poor work ethic.
“Core and major requirements are hardly indicative of increase or decrease in rigor, but if you want to go that route, sure.”
- Why wouldn't they be? You should be able to look at your Core and major from yesteryear and figure out whether they are teaching it the same or not. Syllabi are easy to find on the internet.
“Mind, which is a newer SOSC, has routinely been derided as the easy cop-out SOSC.”
- I've heard the same. Have no basis of comparison. My kid took Classics and I believe that's pretty much the same.
“SSI teaches nothing about social science theory and is instead for STEM majors who dread writing and reading classics an easy way out by focusing on coding - something they already master.”
- Here I have to disagree, based on what I've seen of that sequence when my daughter was registering two years ago. But perhaps you are aware of specific areas where it falls short? What are they?
“Honors Econ used to be the standard econ track. Now they’re adding Business Econ which simply does not teach you any proper economic theory.”
- This is not quite accurate. The standard track hasn't changed over time (my husband taught 200 once upon a time) - can't recall whether real analysis was required at the time because college students coming into PhD econ programs typically didn't have it. I'm guessing they've added that. Honors is at a faster pace. Business economics is certainly a step below if they don't require 200/201/202. But . . . you can always take it. Bus Econ within the economics department was not their Plan A. It was supposed to be a separate major.
“Because of the lack of mathematics, the pedagogy in the Business Econ track handwave a lot of rigorous arguments away in favor of only an intuitive understanding of economic phenomenon, something that the 200s have, on top of the rigorous argumentation. So basically you learn less, need less rigor, and frankly have a far easier time.”
-Can’t argue there.
“One interesting anecdote for those who don’t believe that Business Econ isn’t as rigorous or isn’t easier: I know of two guys (from my friend) who are taking Business Econ because they, and I quote verbatim “suck at math,” in their own words. It’s a choice for the incapable, not the capable. Maybe one day they’ll even start teaching Austrian economics.”
- Yeah, economics without Calculus is definitely dumbed down.
“Anyways, I can go on with examples but I will stop here because, again, course and major requirements are hardly indicative of anything. “Basic Functional Analysis” here, for example is more advanced than a func analysis course in most undergrads.”
- The question is whether Functional Analysis is dumbed down from the days when you were on campus. My guess is "no". Econ is the perfect example of a major where the mathematics has only become more rigorous over time and there are plenty more. So in a good number of majors, my guess is that the rigor is at par or even more than in your day. However, my kids aren't STEM majors so I can't be sure. While UChicago now offers three calculus sequences and plenty of kids are now taking 130's, not sure that's a sign of dumbing things down. For instance, those taking 130's might also be taking a notably higher course load than kids used to. If students are still loading up their academic calendar with lots of classes, then the spirit of intellectual inquiry is still alive and well. That's why I'm wondering whether the worry is worth the effort.
@Lucy11 My D’s HS experience was similar - she had to forgo significant opportunities due to her academic and extracurricular demands. She is a first year and her experience has been great. She gets more sleep than she did in high school, loves her classes and classmates (she has taken mostly Core - Sosc, Hum, Calc, and Core Bio/Phy Sci) and has found time for SO many other things including exploring Chicago neighborhoods. If her experience is any indication, the school has definitely
found an amazing balance.
@JBStillFlying When assessing something as vague as whether the spirit of intellectual inquiry is still alive and well, obviously no one can produce any definite answer. Obviously, I have no decisive data to push my point, because there probably isn’t anyone who took classes 20 years ago and retook the same classes today. Professors generally try not to comment on this other than the most outspoken ones (and they argue in both directions). So all we have is anecdotal and hand-wavey arguments, which I hope is fine.
---- 5th Course
It is obviously very welcome that they dropped the increased costs of a 5th course. However, right now, next to no one takes that option. You still need to sign a petition like previously. The price was a major deterrent, but the removal of that deterrent doesn’t seem to have actually encouraged significantly more people to take a 5th course. Most people are already struggling with 4. So despite the policy change, the student population has not really embraced it; it is a de facto non-change.
---- Mind
This is going to be very subjective, but first we can probably agree that the focus in Mind is less “social science” and more “psychology.” A popular, and less controversial opinion, is that Self and Power really change how you view the world, while Mind does that to a lesser extent. I would further argue that it is easier. Mind focuses on the origins of modern psychology, particularly early psychoanalysis - mainly Freud, Jung, et al. I’ve read Freud and Jung, though obviously not exhaustively, and they are significantly easier than anything from Marx, which is required in Classics and Self (not sure about Power). Marx’s writings were very dense and hard to follow. Being assigned 200 pages of Marx for the week is significantly harder than being assigned 200 pages of Freud or of Jung. Unlike the “three core SOSC’s,” Mind also has a lecture component, which allows for passive engagement, while in the traditional SOSC classes you are expected to discuss denser texts and share insights with the whole class, meaning that you not only have to understand the material, but you also have to synthesize your own thoughts on it, in contrast to Mind.
Beyond early psychoanalysis, Mind also focuses on pretty soft econ and psych studies, though being a Core sequence, it does not expect you to be at the level of a psychology or economics major. It’s presented in a highly non-rigorous way as a result. The “core SOSC’s,” on the other hand, often dive you right into the hard texts of their fields. In Self, for example, you read the entirety of Kapital Vol. 1, Manuscripts of 1844, The German Ideology, Critique of Philosophy of Right, Communist Manifesto in 2~3 weeks, and then are expected to understand the underlying philosophy etc. I don’t think anything in Mind is harder. But again, this is subjective.
However, to any who might be reading this, this is a less controversial opinion: Your worldview will really be changed by taking the three core SOSC’s because you are reading some of the greatest minds in history and their best works. Mind and SSI no doubt feature top-notch scholars, but you’re reading more of normal science than paradigm shifts.
---- Econ
While I don’t know what the regular sequence is like, the Honors sequence now is (purported to be) at the same difficulty as the regular sequence ~10 years ago. I’ll admit that it is hard to tease out the variables and something as difficulty is hard to assess. Which is why I don’t believe that reading the syllabi does anything; with the same syllabus you can either create an extremely hard course with final questions that no one can answer, or create an easy course with 70% of the grade coming from easy problem sets. So personally I assess it by looking at final questions.
200: Currently Lima (who is a phenomenal professor) teaches this, and people have said that the finals 10 years ago (~2009) in regular Econ were the same difficulty as the ones in 2017/2018 in Honors Econ. This either means Honors has not dumbed down and regular was simply too hard; or that Honors dumbed down and regular was at an appropriate level. It is still not trivial though. Either way there is a decrease in difficulty; whether it is to a more appropriate level of difficulty or whether it is to below an appropriate level is anyone’s guess.
201: Different profs teach this. The main sequence (winter) is currently taught by Fang who is widely regarded as easy. People actually go down to the regular sequence because Honors 201 isn’t hard enough (I don’t understand the logic, but there you go)
202: Still regarded as the notoriously hard quarter.
---- Functional Analysis & Calc
My point here isn’t that functional analysis is harder or easier than other colleges. My point is that it’s hard to assess the difficulty by looking at the course catalog or even the syllabus. The name misleads and doesn’t lead to an accurate portrayal of the difficulty. Similarly, the syllabus doesn’t tell you how hard a final is or what the grading distribution looks like.
I also disagree that if students are loading up their academic calendar with lots of classes, then the spirit of intellectual inquiry is alive and well. Personally if I were to assess intellectual inquiry I’d look at multiple outside variables. How often does the student read works outside of but relating to their classes? Are the classes they are taking actually difficult, or are they taking easy classes in order to maintain a good GPA? Do they try to actually make the most out of the liberal arts philosophy in UChi? Or do they take classes within their comfort zone (such as SSI for people who already know how to code)?
Anyways I’ll admit I’m biased. In my undergrad time here (which wasn’t that long ago) I honestly was surprised by the lack of intellectual curiosity and excessive focus on pragmatic concerns (which again, isn’t a bad thing) that many of my peers display. My close friends (mostly people who all want to go to grad school) had the same impression. But for someone who cares too much about academia perhaps anything pragmatic looks like a lack of intellectual curiosity, and I don’t necessarily want to impose my worldview onto UChicago, but I do believe it is definitely changing, for the better to most people, but at the risk of shifting its identity permanently.
Also, recent news like shifting away from the quarter system and the Business Econ major has not really convinced me that this school is still upholding its rigor. I don’t mean that rigor at the top level has dropped by the way. Rather, what I’m suggesting that if you do not wish to excessively focus on academic pursuits, you have far more options than what you have decades ago, which is a good thing. This reeks of ivory-tower-ness and is basically segregation, but I really don’t like that this also leads, indirectly, to more students who don’t actually care about academic pursuits going into Honors classes for reasons I cannot fathom. I was pretty annoyed at seeing students argue with professors for grades or trying to take a section with the easiest professor that teaches the least when the other option is slightly harsher but teaches you far more. It kind of shattered my conception of UChicago as a school where students are really in it for the academic pursuits, but whatever.
“Professors generally try not to comment on this other than the most outspoken ones (and they argue in both directions)”
- Most tenure/tenure track profs - particularly those in rigorous subjects - are outspoken about academic trends LOL.
“It is obviously very welcome that they dropped the increased costs of a 5th course. However, right now, next to no one takes that option. You still need to sign a petition like previously. The price was a major deterrent, but the removal of that deterrent doesn’t seem to have actually encouraged significantly more people to take a 5th course. Most people are already struggling with 4. So despite the policy change, the student population has not really embraced it; it is a de facto non-change.”
- 5th course option was just made available this year. A bit early to be pronouncing it as a non-change. Most students wouldn't be taking five courses, of course - to me that's insane. But if most people are "struggling" with four courses, doesn't that suggest rigor rather than otherwise?
“Your worldview will really be changed by taking the three core SOSC’s because you are reading some of the greatest minds in history and their best works. Mind and SSI no doubt feature top-notch scholars, but you’re reading more of normal science than paradigm shifts.”
- Reasonable people can differ on this one. Personally, I agree with you. But those taking SSI get excellent methodological training in social science thinking from more contemporary sources, and some of those sources have shifted a few paradigms as well.
Econ 200/201/202 will prepare you for a PhD program in economics whether you take honors or the standard sequence. Agree that whether some of the rigor from the standard sequence has been shifted to honors is probably difficult to assess - by anyone, including those who claim that the standard sequence is a tad easier now (unless it’s a long-term instructor who says that). One point in your favor is that a whole lot of kids take Econ now and it makes sense to offer a broad range of options w/r/t “rigor” (most who major in econ don’t go on to PhD programs). On the other hand, long-time instructors there know exactly how the program has been retooled over the years and my information is based on their input. If students are declaring it to be “easier”, they might be better prepared and more math-oriented than students ten years ago.
“How often does the student read works outside of but relating to their classes? Are the classes they are taking actually difficult, or are they taking easy classes in order to maintain a good GPA? Do they try to actually make the most out of the liberal arts philosophy in UChi? Or do they take classes within their comfort zone (such as SSI for people who already know how to code)?”
Perhaps the measure should be a relative one (ie UChicago vs. other top schools, rather than UChicago now vs. 10 or 30 years ago). GPA’s are increasing everywhere and UChicago is no exception. The students coming in have stronger stats relative to other top colleges than they used to, so by those objective measures UChicago is attracting and admitting “higher quality” students; part of the GPA increase might well reflect that trend. But there could also be grade inflation and the opportunity to take “easier” courses. Perhaps course selection allows for easier choices relative to student ability now. Anecdotally, my D seems to have lots of classmates who do, in fact, take advantage of the liberal arts philosophy, and my son it heading there in the fall to do the same. I’d argue it’s hard NOT to take advantage of the liberal arts philosophy when you are forced to take 1/3 of your courses as Core, and another third as electives. Perhaps there are too many double majors, but double majoring was popular in my day at my own LAC, so doubt that’s changed much over the years.
Your concerns about UChicago shifting its identity make sense - it’s something many on these threads have discussed. The potential shift to semesters might be another indication of that, by the way. My D doesn’t want that to happen.
@Skyrior , I am enjoying your friendly debate with JB.
On the perennial issue of the changes in U of C culture, your take, even if it’s not the only one, is worth hearing, and we generally don’t hear enough voices of your sort on this board - arguing in favor of the old undiluted intensity, even an element of suffering, as part of the ur-Chicago experience. Not the whole of it, but an essential part. I believe JB is generally right in holding that the essential spirit still exists. And others have argued that a bit of water in that old wine was necessary to preserve it. In any event you seem to have survived the undiluted version of the ordeal pretty well and emerged as an advocate of it. That’s welcome news.
The decrease in the required number of core courses (21 to 18, at least the in last round of reductions?) is one thing. The idea that there are weaker options for SOSC and HUM (and maybe CIV too?) is more concerning for at least two reasons. Having large numbers of students who aren’t intellectually curious and capable dilutes the experience for those who are, in classes and in socializing in Houses, RSOs, etc. And kids who aren’t unusually well-informed can stumble into the wrong classes. A student might reasonably assume when she comes to Chicago and signs up for core classes that all will provide what she is seeking in “Chicago” education. My DD is a non-STEM major and for all non-STEM options wanted to be in intellectually challenging classes (mostly small discussion seminars) with other students who were interested in the material. Fortunately, I had done enough reading on CC, and been given enough advice from a couple of CC posters, that I was able to steer her toward the “classic” HUM and SOSC classes. Fortunate because In one of those mandatory quarterly meetings with her advisor (someone doing the job for the first time), she was told to take Mind, simply because she mentioned that she’d liked AP Psychology. What a waste that would have been. I wonder how many students are informed when they make class selections, especially for HUM and a first-year SOSC sequence.
The SAT / ACT scores mean something, but remember that the SAT scores at least, are going up with the post-2016 SAT anyway.
Two things to keep in mind with Parchment
-
It is cumulative - They don’t show year over year trends. It will take a long time, if ever for the old data to be overwritten by new data, so any changes in cross admit trends will be mixed in with old cross admit data, making it quite useless to measure trends
-
Any ED (any Ivy having ED) vs EA (Chicago) battles that involved Chicago will also be represented there, which makes the cross admit data highly misleading. The student in these cases would be obligated to go to the ED school and thus really does not have a choice
The only way to really measure cross admit data is if we have a RD vs RD cross admit filter to see what is going on and there is no such public information available right now
Having said that, I would bet that Chicago will actually start doing worse in the parchment data going forward. Before there was ED1 and ED2, the EA and RD pool had more students who had stronger affinity towards UChicago and when they had admit choices let’s say with UPenn or Columbia or Duke in the RD round, those students could be reasonably assumed to look at Chicago seriously. So the win ratio in Chicago’s favor was higher. Now though, all those students have probably been siphoned off into the ED1/ED2 rounds so the EA and RD pools are left with less enthusiastic candidates, so any cross admit battles with the other schools is going to produce poorer results. The ED1/ED2 students will not have any cross admit opportunities and so will not be present in the cross admit pool anymore.
@surelyhuman ED at any school assumes first choice so I don’t see the point in comparing ED vs EA and then say it’s misleading. BTW parchment is worthless, and statistically not valid at all. The only people that have valid data are the universities themselves and generally they don’t release it.