Anyone with any objective views about Chicago, please??

<p>Here is some objective stuff for you to ponder:</p>

<p>Stats of Admitted Classes:
<a href="http://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/level3.asp?id=377%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/level3.asp?id=377&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>UChicago Facts:
<a href="http://www-news.uchicago.edu/resources/facts/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www-news.uchicago.edu/resources/facts/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Notable Alums:
<a href="http://www-news.uchicago.edu/resources/alumni/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www-news.uchicago.edu/resources/alumni/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Princeton Review's Take on UChicago:
<a href="http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/profiles/schoolsays.asp?category=1&listing=1023043&LTID=1&intbucketid=%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/profiles/schoolsays.asp?category=1&listing=1023043&LTID=1&intbucketid=&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>ENJOY!</p>

<p>PS- You come to a College's forum specifically for SUBJECTIVE views on a school, not quantifiable scientific facts (ie- objective views). I too would love to thank idad, corranged, ohio_mom et al for sharing their opinions. Your opinions have been very useful in my formulating my own perspectives on University of Chicago.</p>

<p>^^^ I do not come to a College's forum specifically for SUBJECTIVE views on a school...may be YOU DO. I thank corranged, idad and ohio_mom for their dedication and loyalty.</p>

<p>I just read this thread. Like everyone else, I am annoyed by serchingon's attitude, and bemused at the notion that anything here would be truly objective. However, "subjective" does not in any way imply dishonest or in bad faith. When I read what jack, or corranged, or amykins writes here, there is no question in my mind that they attend the same college my child does, and that they are representing their experience fairly and honestly, even though their experience and their reactions to it differ in some small and large ways from my daughter's. (Idad . . . well, he can be a bit of a homer . . . ) I have also seen plenty of things critical of the University of Chicago here, and have written some of them. I really don't know what the hell serchingon's problem is, and I would love to know what the radically different views of his purported PM correspondents are.</p>

<p>In the end -- and assuming he is not merely a troll -- what serchingon seems to want is someone to say a few things critical of Chicago, or to display some difference of opinion. So I will:</p>

<p>-- By and large, her Core classes, other than Sosc, have been a disappointment to my daughter. I have quoted her line in several posts: "They place people into six different levels of math, so that someone like me doesn't hold back people who already know a lot and who care about it. I wish they had at least two levels of reading, so that I didn't have to sit in class with kids who have no idea how to read poetry, don't believe there is any reason why they should learn, and feel privileged to take up my class time expressing their hostility to the whole idea. I've been there and done that -- it was called 'high school'." My daughter really liked the idea of the Core -- it was one of the reasons she chose to go to Chicago. She did really like her Sosc sequence, in part because she didn't know as much going in, and in part I think because her Sosc sequence was more mainstream than the Hum sequence she chose. She is not excited about Civ offerings or PhysSci, and the math and Bio she had to take will haunt her transcript forever. (Curiously, she still likes the idea of General Education, even though she hates taking math and science classes.)</p>

<p>-- The dorms are not exciting. Max P -- who thought that was a good idea? And I can't imagine living in The Shoreland and being assigned to eat at BJ. If you wanted to have breakfast before an 8:30 class, you'd have to be out the door by 7, and I bet few kids are. At least those people probably don't gain a lot of weight their freshman year. </p>

<p>The lack of good dorm space for upperclassmen, and of good dining halls that are reasonably convenient to the dorms, is an annoying barrier to a better quality of student life. On the other hand, the ubiquitous, idiosyncratic coffee shops are great, and the off-campus housing is pretty good.</p>

<p>-- Hyde Park lacks amenities. Compared to the other urban universities with which I am familiar -- Harvard, Columbia, NYU, Penn, Yale, Berkeley, UCLA, Brown -- Chicago's immediate neighborhood is really underwhelming in terms of shops, restaurants, bars, stuff to do. They should detail someone to study what Penn has done in the past decade.</p>

<p>Chicago itself, of course, is great. Maybe not as great as NYC, London, or Paris (but less expensive) or Boston (from a college-student standpoint), but pretty darn great. </p>

<p>-- Chicago has a decent public transportation system. But the University of Chicago is not terribly well-served by it. The major arteries are located well east and west of the main campus area, and the only El stop that is walking distance from anything is in a neighborhood marginal enough to keep kids from using it. The 55 Bus, which crosses the campus on the east-west axis, is really useful (it goes right to Midway, and to good connections for the Loop), but maddeningly unreliable.</p>

<p>-- I've never raised indie-rock-loving teenagers anywhere other than Philadelphia, so I don't know much about cities other than Philadelphia and Chicago. But shows here are much cheaper than in Chicago, and are much more likely to be open to 18-20 year-olds. </p>

<p>-- The Maroon does not compare well with the student newspapers at competitive institutions. Publishing 18 or 19 issues a quarter clearly strains everyone's capacity. </p>

<p>-- Corranged is very high on the Fundamentals major. My daughter thinks the presence of more than a few Fundamentals majors in any room is a good argument for not sitting down there.</p>

<p>Which goes to a more "fundamental" issue: All that stuff about the kids at Chicago being genuinely intellectual kids is absolutely true from everything I've seen -- and what I've seen recently tends to be the bohemian-slacker quadrant of the student body. But if you get a bunch of intellectual teenagers together, a certain number of them are going to score fairly high on the insufferability scale, especially until they stop thinking of themselves as the Only Intelligent Being For Miles Around. That is also absolutely true at Chicago. If insufferable, pretentious intellectual teenagers really bother you, you may not be happy at Chicago. It's not at all true that everyone there, or even a majority, are insufferable or pretentious, but there are more insuffeable, pretentious kids than at most other colleges, and no one at Chicago beats them up or gives them wedgies. Most of them tone themselves down eventually; some not for a loooooong time.</p>

<p>There are insufferable, pretentious kids at HYP, too, but (a) they tend to be a little smoother about it, (b) they are probably a little less concentrated, and (c) people there sometimes do beat them up, sort of. What you don't see at Chicago, compared to HYP, is every other kid planning his future Presidential campaign.</p>

<p>-- Chicago isn't the only school that draws intellectual kids, or where they can be happy. It probably has the greatest concentration of them, since they're not diluted much with big-time athletes, politicians, or frat boys. Almost every school has a decent number of them, and the "elite" schools have lots. Every kid I know at Chicago would have been perfectly happy at HYP (or Brown, Columbia, Swarthmore, Reed . . . ), and most of the kids I know at those schools would have been perfectly happy at Chicago. I don't think the educational experience it offers is really much different from that of those other schools.</p>

<p>^^^Well, above all thank you for the invested time. I am sure I am not the only one who will appreciate the "difference of opinion" which does not necessarily translate into "to say a few things critical of Chicago". I think the editorializing comments about your annoyance with "serchingon's attitude", the "knowing what the hell serchingon's problem is" and the "-- and assuming he is not merely a troll --" were certainly unnecessary but....I guess, you just could not resist.</p>

<p>serchingon does not have a problem and as far as any troll considerations .....I won't go there. It is not worth it. Every one can make their own interpretations. I have made my own about you and the others but I am not as offensive as some of you persist on being.</p>

<p>Perhaps you do not realize that for the most part this forum looks like a brochure sent by the University or their website. That was not the reason I came in here. I have already seen both. I was interested in diverse opinions, not necessarily the "oficial line" I thought I kept on reading. </p>

<p>I have learned a few things. I have learned that a lot of people think that it is impossible to be objective; that some students and parents come to the site to be reassured and to have their preconceived notions about the university reaffirmed; that some people are very quick to make awfully wrong assumptions about others and that it is tough to accept being criticized; among other things....</p>

<p>You say that
[quote]
Every kid I know at Chicago would have been perfectly happy at HYP (or Brown, Columbia, Swarthmore, Reed . . . ), and most of the kids I know at those schools would have been perfectly happy at Chicago.

[/quote]
and that seems like a big contradiction from what it is usually said in here. What happens to the "fit" ? I disagree with you, but that's besides the point of this thread. We are all entitled to our own opinions. Maybe we should start another one on that.</p>

<p>As far as "loving to know what the radically different views of his purported PM correspondents are", I would tell you that I have been tempted to post them a few times, but realizing that a civil discussion here is nearly impossible, I decided against it. I have been called a "weirdo" already in another thread where I had not even participated....so who knows.... maybe I made all that up. You seem to be insinuating that yourself, and I really could not care less.</p>

<p>BTW, I have also learned that eventhough I have asked for it many times, some people can not "Let This Thread Die" !!!!!</p>

<p>JHS,</p>

<p>I really appreciated your post. Maybe readers on the thread are questioning the validity of my (or corranged's, or jack's, or any other student's) comments because they are overwhelmingly positive, but I really, really do love this school, for many reasons. That doesn't mean it's perfect, as you pointed out.</p>

<p>I have a hard time making criticisms, partially because every criticism can be turned into a positive in some way. While I would dislike living in the Shoreland myself for exactly those reasons, some students love the off-campus feel of the dorm as well as the large rooms. I do agree that Hyde Park retail is lacking, but the fact that I got a survey from the university asking me what I thought about retail in Hyde Park speaks well for the university-- they recognize that there's a dearth of college-student-friendly shopping and they are trying to improve on it. To spin that into a positive... it means that I'm in downtown Chicago much more often. My Northwestern friends, who have the resources of Evanston, don't need to go to the loop to go shopping at the Gap or go to Chipotle and a newly-released movie, while I do. I did, however, want an urban school when I applied to colleges, and I love that I'm in the city as often as I am.</p>

<p>As far as Core goes, as well as the "typical" class, I must admit that I've come across some students who are clearly not interested in the material. What does amaze me, though, is the number of students who are. I think I've posted before about my experiences in honors classes at a top high school, where I was not necessarily the best student, but always the one who "said something." Here, there have been four or five students in a class of twenty or so who always "say something," and time and again I'm floored. That does mean that there are ten or fifteen students that don't wow me consistently, but considering that I'm taking either required classes or elective-y classes this quarter, I think it's quite impressive. I imagine that as I finish up core and start taking more intense and more focused classes, class quality and the interest of students will go up.</p>

<p>... I also often ask myself how my experience now would compare with my experience at another school. Knowing myself, I'm sure I'd be just as happy at any other school, including my state school. If I weren't at Chicago, I would be making the experience work for me. Why I ended up choosing Chicago over any other school, though, was because I figured that at other colleges, I would have to do some scavenging to find the students I wanted to be with and the classes I wanted to take, whereas at Chicago, that experience was standardized and I wouldn't have to spend any time searching for it.</p>

<p>JHS: Well let's just let me say I spent 15 years at U of C; they had to pry me out with a crowbar. I guess that qualifies as a bit of a homer. I was able to during that time to see many undergrad classes come and go and taught or TA'd for some of them. My kid goes there and we speak regularly. My youngest, now in HS, may end up there, so I like to keep abreast of what is developing. I know and interact with many alumni from many different eras as well. There is just something "Chicago" about the place, and this is what I often try to communicate. </p>

<p>I have, over the years, worked with students in a variety of capacities, usually research oriented, from many of Chicago's peer schools. I have met many many outstanding young people, and also believe that many would have been very happy at Chicago and that Chicago kids would have been very happy at where they were from. I think what is often overlooked in the discussions of fit, is the notion of fitted. That is, students become fitted to their environment more often than they find an environment into which they fit. I don't think that there is too much difference between students at the outset, but at some schools, perhaps not all, a culture exists, a meme in Dawkins' terminology, that tends to select certain patterns of commonality that come to define the distinctive qualities of a school and its student body. I am not sure the question should always be, "Is this school a fit?", but rather, does one want to develop the qualities that tend to describe its inhabitants. Once at a school, I believe most come under its "spell" and become fitted to its culture, and in doing so learn to love it (though of course, there are exceptions). Chicago may be somewhat unique in having such a strong meme, a shared "idea" of the place. It is not building the leaders of tomorrow (though it will produce many), it is not the preparation for professional school (though many will quite successfully become doctors, business people, and lawyers), and it is not having a great books or a well rounded educational experience (though that is readily available). It is, first and foremost, that there is an unyielding commitment to open and rigorous inquiry as its primary value. Everything else flows from that.</p>

<p>Great post, Amy. I was thinking many of the things you wrong as I read JHS's post, particularly with regards to the recent survey we got about Hyde Park.</p>

<p>For a couple things that Amy didn't re-address, I will say that I personally would rather be around some people who are intellectually pretentious than be around people who are pretentious about money, power, or family (which is what I was around growing up). Having said that, those especially pretentious people are "beat up." They are called on their points, asked hard questions, and forced to back down or defend their arguments. After being beaten down by upperclassmen a few times at the dining hall, most students learn not to inflate their intellectual ability. Those who don't change are usually widely recognized as arrogant and obnoxious. Obivously obnoxious people exist at every school; we just have our own brand of it. On a school-wide level, there is a pretentiousness and pride, just as there is at Harvard, Yale, RISD, Juilliard, and a number of other schools at the top of their disciplines. </p>

<p>I've liked my core classes. Maybe I've just been lucky with them. I'm currently in hum, sosc, and civ, so I know that side pretty well. I didn't like my first quarter sosc professor, but I love the professor we've had since. My hum professors have all been different, and I've liked them all. The last two have been particularly good as well as eager to reach out and connect with students even after classes are over. My hum or sosc courses haven't really had a problem with a "that kid." Almost everybody participates, including the math major who on the first day of hum first quarter looked scared out of his mind and very, very lost. I've found most comments by students to be valuable, even if they are from students who are better at math and science because their points tend to be interesting and different than what typical English majors would normally bring up. I'm not crazy about my civ course. The readings are interesting, but the professors wanted a discussion course and got placed in a lecture hall set-up, so discussion tends to be question and answer. There are three students who speak the most (I am not one of them), and one is a "that kid." My math professor was fine. I didn't pay attention in class, but he seemed like a nice guy. </p>

<p>As for Fundamentals, well, it's a good major for me. I am thoughtful, judgmental, and curious. I like that the program is committed to addressing one great text a quarter so that it can be encorporated into one's thoughts and truly deepen one's understanding in a way that a fast reading is incapable of doing. I like that it addresses questions that are often at the foundation of life because I feel that thinking about humanity is vital to living well. I like that it requires deep and engaging conversation with texts, authors, professors, students, and outside disciplines. I, personally, trust that I can go in any direction I want to with a Fundamentals background because of my particular skills and strengths as well as my elective courses and work experience. I can always go back and study economics or take courses in anthropology, but I have the opportunity to discuss great texts with interested students and professors; that is something that I will never have again. </p>

<p>Of course, I don't go around discussing these "big questions" in my house lounge, which may be what your daughter encountered. I like to hang out with my friends, spend time with my girlfriend, go to movies, get drunk, play music, sleep, party, and whatever else--I have never been called a "nerd" in my life (a UChicago rarity, it seems). If someone doesn't want to spend time with me solely because of my choice of major, that's their problem. I think that Fundamentals is a powerful program that allows a small number of students the chance to engage in a high level of academic discourse with some of the brightest people who I will probably ever meet, people who have devoted themselves to intellectual questions and pursuit. I think that it is a fantastic way for me to spend my undergraduate education.</p>

<p>idad: I agree completely about "fit" (and I apologize for teasing you about being a homer). But I do disagree somewhat about the uniqueness of Chicago's "meme". </p>

<p>I think my daughter's intellectual experience at Chicago is a lot more similar than dissimilar to the experience my wife and I had at Yale almost 30 years ago. The "commitment to open and rigorous inquiry" is pretty much the same, and so is the talking about Kant and Marx while in one's cups. The Core provides a somewhat more unifying experience, but English 25 (which neither of us took, because we were in Directed Studies) did much the same thing for my classmates, and there were some classes so many people took that they became part of the currency of daily conversation. (I never took Vin Scully's History of Art class, but I went to a few of the lectures, and I knew on a day-to-day basis what he was covering because it was so much in the air.)</p>

<p>What was different was residential colleges (real ones that worked, not hypothetical ones), football games, music (many more people doing it), drama (ditto -- although the difference is not as great), and a much greater sense of entitlement: We felt very intensely that we were part of the Establishment, or cheek-by-jowl with it, and that it was our responsibility to engage with it. We also had much fancier internships. None of that was indispensible, but none of it was bad, either.</p>

<p>I know that I would have been perfectly happy at Chicago. It is a place where people are excited by ideas, and share that with one another. That is what was indispensible about my undergraduate experience, and that's what I'm glad my children are/will be getting at Chicago. That's the point of a university.</p>

<p>Serchingon didn't read my post too carefully, though. I didn't claim that every elite institution is nearly interchangeable with Chicago; my list was finite and non-random. There are other great universities where one can get a great undergraduate education -- lots of 'em, in fact -- but not so many where there is the same sense of shared intellectual inquiry among the students (and faculty, for that matter). </p>

<p>Saturday night, we gave a birthday dinner for an old friend. Among the young adults there were two kids who had just returned from their first years at Duke and Amherst, respectively, and one who is about to start at Chicago. These kids have known each other literally since birth. They are all completely engaged in what they are doing, and none of them could see him- or herself at either of the other's institution. They're probably wrong about that -- if they all switched places, they would probably still all be happy. But they don't want to switch places. The kid at Duke is very smart, wants to be challenged, etc., but he wouldn't be caught dead having an "intellectual" discussion, and cities make him nervous. The kid at Amherst values intimacy above everything. My son longs for Scav Hunt and people to talk about the implied religious visions of various manga with, he made it through high school without ever attending a sporting event that he didn't participate in, and he would feel withered if he couldn't take public transportation to a cool restaurant somewhere, or see opera, or hang out with real tap dancers.</p>

<p>corranged: As far as I can tell, my daughter likes the idea of Fundamentals, too, and lots of the classes are attractive to her. But I think she feels that the major attracts a certain type of politically and culturally conservative student -- the late, lamented FountainSiren would be a prime example -- who are often less tolerant of her interests than she of theirs, and who aren't content to like something without making it a moral imperative. (She likes classics and Great Books, but ultimately she's more turned on by Now and Hip, including the Now and Hip of bygone days.) I don't know whether you are like that at all. I don't think she boycotts individual Fundamentals majors; she likes plenty of them. It's more that experience has taught her that a Fundamentals crowd is not going to be a congenial environment for her.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think my daughter's intellectual experience at Chicago is a lot more similar than dissimilar to the experience my wife and I had at Yale almost 30 years ago.

[/quote]
JHS, I really don't mean this to come out the way it's going to (so I apologize in advance), but do you think that there has been a change in education in the last 30 years? I'm sincerely curious. One of my professors described Fundamentals as being very much like what an English major used to be. Ever since she said that, I have wondered a little about whether and how education, as a whole, has changed in those years. The U of C certainly has changed and now admits more students (which had a large effect on the school), but it consciously keeps education largely theoretical and question/discussion based. Now my father went to college almost 50 years ago, so I don't know much about the college experience of you young dads. I can imagine, however, that Yale and other schools committed to liberal education were perhaps more similar to Chicago then than they are now. I know almost nothing about Yale, but I do know that many adults I talk to, particularly teachers, laud the education that Chicago has today as being more similar to their educations in the past than the education their alma mater schools provide today (a matter of transition and change--not necessarily improvement/disprovement). I also know some parents who have commented, sometimes in my presence and sometimes just to my father, on the difference of type, breadth, and level of education between their child at Chicago and their child at another top school, though not necessarily an institution on your list.</p>

<p>I do agree with you and Idad about the fit issue. I almost went to Notre Dame. That is a school for which I would not be a conventional fit, as I'm sure you can tell, JHS. I do think, though, that I could be socially and educationally successful. It would be different, and I would be different coming out of there, but I think I could do it and do pretty fine. If I think I would do fine at Notre Dame, I certainly think I would do OK at any of those schools you mentioned!</p>

<p>

I should think so. My favorite author earned a BA and PhD in NELC from Chicago before she was 22, something that would hardly be possible today. :eek:</p>

<p>JHS: No problem with the teasing, it gave me a needed chuckle. As to the differences vs. similarities, I agree that there is inquiry and all things intellectual at many schools, just as there is pre-professionalism and leaders being trained at Chicago. It is just the unrelenting emphasis on the former which I believe makes Chicago different, even from great schools such as Yale. I believe if you asked each of the University's presidents what defines their particular school above all else, Chicago's president Zimmer would respond as I did (this isn't quite fair, I heard him do so when asked, see also <a href="http://president.uchicago.edu/speeches/inaugural.shtml)%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://president.uchicago.edu/speeches/inaugural.shtml)&lt;/a>, and Yale president, Levin, would say something about it being where students learn to lead and to serve as global citizens (which he has in an open letter <a href="http://www.yale.edu/opa/president/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.yale.edu/opa/president/&lt;/a>, and in more detail here <a href="http://www.yale.edu/opa/president/speeches/19961104.html)%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.yale.edu/opa/president/speeches/19961104.html)&lt;/a>. This does, I believe, define a fundamental "meme" at each school and both have their role and are of equal importance.</p>

<p>Thank you, JHS...Your participation was much needed.</p>

<p>Just so you all know, JHS PM'd me about my questions. He's not just ignoring me. :)</p>

<p>That was a really interesting post iDad. I never thought of things that way, but now that I am, it makes perfect sense.</p>

<p>I, too, thank you, idad. That is a great post.</p>

<p>It's funny, though. For me (not for everyone), my Yale education's relationship to leadership and professionalism was practically Confucian -- I might have equally well studied calligraphy for four years, in the hope that the experience of beauty and attention to detail would make me a better Imperial official. Whereas I always saw Chicago as a place where Leo Strauss was stamping out acolytes who aspired to nothing less than ruling the world, with the power of their intellect and ideas, if possible, but if not with B-52s and Minutemen.</p>

<p>Anyone with any objective views about Chicago, please?? </p>

<p>U Chicago is a very good school, with academics that rank among the best in the world and a student body that is serious about learning, located in a wonderful city that is cold in the winter.</p>

<p>tommybill, it could not have been better said !!!!!</p>

<p>There are several trees on campus.</p>

<p>I know, and more than an ass too!</p>

<p>??? what of the ass ???</p>