<p>I have taught at a number of universities, all first rate research universities. I have never enjoyed teaching as much as I did at Chicago. The students believed in engaging in intellectual discussion and learning--they had chosen Chicago for that reason. They also sometimes griped about their social life. But most found good friends and good experiences. I actually saw students talking about their ideas outside of class!</p>
<p>Wow, thank you for posting this. It's nice to have an honest comparison. Chicago is definitely my first choice.</p>
<p>Heh. Now I know why I chose to apply and will attend if accepted.</p>
<p>Ivyalumni, what exactly are the universities where you've taught? I'm sure Chicago isn't the only school where students were discussing ideas outside of class. Also, you really have to be clear on what you mean by "the best students". If by best you mean most interested as a whole, I'd probably agree. But if you mean most intellectually gifted or well-rounded, I'd strongly disagree. Numbers suggest otherwise. There are bound to be interested students at every school, but there is probably a larger porportion of them at Chicago than just about anywhere in the country.</p>
<p>I would list the unversities but I don't want to turn this into a comparison of one unversity versus the other (enough of that happens on other threads). Suffice to say the places I mentioned were all listed among the CC top research universities and include one of the most selective universities in the country. </p>
<p>It was not that the students were less gifted at the other universities, but rather that they were less interested in intellectual discussions both within and outside of class. </p>
<p>I think the common core (which was one thing I taught in) was a big part of this, by bringing together all the students from all prospective majors in small seminars. I've heard of similar programs at other places but not one that involves such a large part of student's time.</p>
<p>Since reading CC for some time now, I have been wondering about something. Are some of those "elite" colleges inadvertently selecting for students who are creating an anti-intellectual atmosphere? It occurs to me that many of these students arrive at these elite places because of excellent gamesmanship - by entering the correct competitions, taking the right courses, etc. It has occured to me that a critical mass of these students on a campus might not create an intellectual environment. I read often here on CC how at one of those places, students spend 20-30 hours per week on ECs! If they are doing that, where do they have time to immerse themselves in Plato or discuss the Illiad? It is just not possible.
It seems to me that Chicago does not select for students who are into Ecs, but who truly want to learn. Maybe that is why students at Chicago have time to take part in intellectual discussions.</p>
<p>Well, I spend 20-30 hours a week on ECs and have plenty of time to engage in discussions. I think that you're overstating the problem of ECs. ECs are supposed to show that kids can be renaissance "people" if you will and can be engaged in everything from music to sports to academics. I'm pretty sure that no school wants people that are only engaged in philosophy and academics. And I'm pretty sure every other college selects many of its students because they want to learn. And learning does not just invovle debate on greek epics or Locke's theories or anything academic. Learning invovles nearly everything we do, and I have to say that Chicago and all other colleges want people who are inspired, who want to change the world, and who aren't lazy.</p>
<p>I have had a similar experience to ivyalumni. My S attends, but I was biased toward Chicago long before he was born. It is not necessarily that the students come in brighter, are more in love with learning (though many are), or with more potential, etc., but that Chicago has an almost immediate effect on its students; it profoundly shapes those wonderful entry qualities each student possesses into the type of intellectually inquiring person ivyalumni describes. It is not that one does not find instances of this at other places, but at Chicago it is pervasive. It is a quality of the school, not only of an individual, it is the University's identity. </p>
<p>What is more, the University has had from its inception this characteristic. For example, from THE IDEA OF THE UNIVERSITY, TAKE ONE: ON THE GENIUS OF THIS PLACE by Donald N. Levine (<a href="http://iotu.uchicago.edu/levine.html%5B/url%5D):">http://iotu.uchicago.edu/levine.html):</a></p>
<p>...Or consult the Faculty Handbook of 1999, citing the words of the Faculty Committee for a Year of Reflection: </p>
<p>Chicago has developed a celebrated--some would say notorious--brand of academic civility. It is a place where one is always in principle allowed to pose the hardest question possible--of a student, a teacher, or a colleague--and feel entitled to expect gratitude rather than resentment for one's effort. </p>
<p>And of course, we find an abundance of such conceits in the orations of our administrators. Indeed, an entire book of selections from papers of our first eight chief executives is entitled, yes,
The Idea of the University of Chicago (Murphy and Bruckner, eds.1976). From that copious source I limit myself to a few lines by Robert Maynard Hutchins: What is it that makes the University of Chicago a great educational institution? It is the intense, strenuous, and constant intellectual activity of the place. . . . We like to think that the air is electric, and that from it the student derives an intellectual stimulation that lasts the rest of his life. (40) </p>
<p>And these:
The University of Chicago has never cared very much about respectability. It has insisted on distinction. Neither its faculty nor its trustees would be interested in it on any other terms. If the time comes when it is impossible for this university to set standards in education and to make significant contributions to the advancement of knowledge, there is no reason for its existence. (39-40) </p>
<p>Love of diversity, quest for individuality, zest for questioning, lavish freedom, electric intellectuality, concern for human welfare, openness to thoughtful change, disdain for respectability, breadth of discourse--the list is long, and could be grown longer...</p>
<p>Now contrast this description with Malcolm Gladwell's description of what historically drove the identity of some other top tier universities <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/printables/critics/051010crat_atlarge%5B/url%5D">http://www.newyorker.com/printables/critics/051010crat_atlarge</a>.</p>
<p>The University of Chicago is quite unique, and those of us who have been in a position to compare, have seen the difference. The self-selectivity of the University's students is maintained by those who understand this difference and fully embrace it, for once one decides to attend, there is little chance of escaping it.</p>
<p>This is why I love UofC. My parents don't understand why I don't like HYPS and why I call them shallow in comparison with UofC, but I'm glad at least some people do.</p>
<p>Holla!! True dat.</p>
<p>yay Chicago!</p>
<p>amen to that. i was meeting with this professor who is helping me edit my college stuff and told him that chicago was my clear cut first choice and all that, even though he was a rice alum and all that. so his best friend is the rice admissions dean and he calls him up and says while i'm there, chicago is a damn fine school that i would be glad a student chooses over rice. =)</p>
<p>Hi all,</p>
<p>I moved to Chicago from Singapore to finish my last 2 years of HS, and the intellectual environment in the U of Chicago sounds a lot like that of my previous HS (i.e. stimulating, enriching discussions with other students both in and out of class). This is something that I really cherished (and miss). I have fairly decent SAT scores (CR: 740, M: 740, W: 670) and was previously looking at HYPS with U of Illinois Urbana-Champaign as my safety. That is, until I saw this thread :). </p>
<p>I have a few questions if you don't mind:</p>
<ol>
<li>How does U of Chicago match up against other schools in the area e.g. UIUC, UofI Chicago, Northwestern, Purdue, Notre Dame?</li>
<li>I'm hoping to do a double degree, one in Music, specifically piano. Does U of Chicago have a good music program? BTW I am currently studying under a fantastic teacher at Chicago Music Institute.</li>
<li>What fields of study are U of Chicago good for?</li>
</ol>
<ol>
<li>UofC blows them out of the water. Completely. UIUC was my safety too, btw. </li>
<li>Double degrees at UofC are hard to manage, and you might have to spend 5 years there if you decide to do it. I don't know how good the music program is.</li>
<li>UChicago is good for everything academic -- like I said, I don't know about music. It doesn't have an engineering program, though. Personally, I consider that a good thing. :></li>
</ol>
<ol>
<li><p>It depends on what programs your into as to which school is the best. But overall its a close race between Northwestern and Chicago. Chicago is more intimate while Northwestern has a wider variety of programs and lots more people. Location is also a different with Northwestern in the suburbs of Chicago and Uof C on the soutside and much closer to dowtown. Those are the only two schools I know a lot about sicne I'm applying to them.</p></li>
<li><p>I think you can continue taking lessons with your current teacher if you go to either Northwestern or Chicago (you would have to talk to the schools about the specifics) but I don't think Chicago has a very good music program. Northwestern has a music school and Notre Dame is also supposed to be very good for music (I'm a pianist, so I have some inkling about it).</p></li>
<li><p>It has a good foreign languages program, espcially in the classics and Euro languages. It's math and physics are very good, many nobel laureates. Its economics program is also excellent, tied for first with many others. I think any program that is at Chicago is quite good. And if it isn't good, most likely there is no program for it.</p></li>
</ol>
<ol>
<li>How does U of Chicago match up against other schools in the area e.g. UIUC, UofI Chicago, Northwestern, Purdue, Notre Dame?
As far as area schools go, it really depends on your subject matter and the approach you prefer. Chicago is far more theory orientated. It doesn't offer any of the applied fields. Generally, the local state schools are VERY good in more applied fields- engineering, business, premed (U of I UC) (U of M, ANN ARBOR) (U of W, Madison). Chicago is the best for a well rounded liberal arts degree. Northwestern, like the state schools, tends to be more pre-professional- but if you really want to go into journalism or theater or something- it's a really great school for that.<br></li>
<li>I believe U of C is best known for the social sciences. But you will certainly get an excellent education in any area of the liberal arts.</li>
</ol>
<ol>
<li>You can major in music at Chicago, but there is no music school, so you cannot major in music performance. Northwestern has an amazing school of music.</li>
</ol>
<p>ahhh... team work</p>