<p>I really like the liberal arts style program of UChicago. Can someone describe the academic experiecne at Rice University? Is it similar to UChicago?</p>
<p>Probably the closest undergraduate program to Chicago is Swarthmore, despite the fact that the latter has no graduate school.</p>
<p>What exactly do you like about the liberal arts style program at Chicago? If you like that style, then why not apply to liberal arts colleges?</p>
<p>Reed College is also similar.</p>
<p>as is Columbia. Fact is Chicago’s “core” is modeled on Columbia’s core.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/612879-if-not-chicago-then.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-chicago/612879-if-not-chicago-then.html</a></p>
<p>It really depends on what you’re looking for. Reed is a different kind of “similar” to Chicago than Columbia.</p>
<p>Similar in the sense that the general requirements, or in UChicago’s case the “core”, will allow students to try a little bit of everything without suffering in the future because they did not focus on their major their freshman year. The reason why I am avoiding “liberal arts” colleges is because I dislike the “you can try any course you want” style (I don’t want to end up trying everything and graduating in 6 years). I have found Swarthmore and Columbia to be the most similar (but Columbia is dissimilar in its acceptance rate). I have searched the forums and have seen the thread about colleges similar to UChicago, but their list did not have the similarities that I was looking for. I am looking for colleges and universities with core curriculums from multiple disciplines, similar acceptance rates (between 10-40%), similar student bodies (intellectual and quirky crowd rather than a jock crowd), and similar diversity. Great examples: Reed, Swarthmore,and Columbia.
I would also like to know if Rice fits those qualifications since I cannot determine this information from their website alone.</p>
<p>umm…help</p>
<p>I honestly don’t get what the obsession with UChicago on this board is.
Yeah, sure they have a cool core-curriculum IF you are into that stuff, and their campus is collegiate gothic, but at the end of the day, I can’t see how it instills so much passion from students who’ve never gone to a single day of school there.</p>
<p>They must have a really kickass marketing team.</p>
<p>^ Better physics and econ than JHU and Chicago > Baltimore… jealous? ;)</p>
<p>^ better medicine, actually HAS engineering, writing, english, and proximity to everything :)</p>
<p>plus better weather and food :)</p>
<p>nope lol. actually, more like surprised and curious lol. I lived in Chicago for 8 years, and the university has such a bad reputation for being a killjoy in the city.</p>
<p>
Most locals never seem to appreciate the resources right in their backyard.</p>
<p>A Berkeley prof has recently said Berkeley should do away with athletics like Chicago did and focus on academics. I don’t want Berkeley to become a “killjoy” though…Chicagoans are big on their sports, perhaps that’s why they view UofC as a “killjoy”.</p>
<p>Many schools are similar to Chicago in one way or another, but when you add together several of its essential features, you come up with a fairly distinct identity. I think those features include:</p>
<ul>
<li>the flexible Core (which offers much freedom of choice in the individual course sequences)</li>
<li>the emphasis on primary source materials and near exclusion of textbooks</li>
<li>the emphasis on Socratic instruction, small class discussion with seats in a circle, and a sometimes rather badgering teaching style (if that has not mellowed in recent years)</li>
<li>the relationship between the College and the graduate divisions (there are majors but no separate undergraduate departments per se, just “the College”, to which undergraduate instructors are appointed; this was to discourage parochial loyalties and encourage interdisciplinary work on hard problems that lack tidy boundaries)</li>
<li>the integrated campus architecture, designed as a metaphor for the interconnections of knowledge</li>
<li>the exclusion of pre-professional majors (business, engineering, etc.)</li>
<li>the relative absence of serious intercollegiate sports or “class crafting” for extracurricular balance </li>
<li>respect verging on hero-worship for a few people who’ve had the strongest influence on the school (especially Robert Maynard Hutchins, the President who banned football)</li>
</ul>
<p>So, the University of Chicago is a little like the Apple Computer of universities. Historically, it did not just grow like topsy in response to market forces. It was designed. The design flows from a clear, single-minded mission focus: to encourage knowledge, just for the sake of enriching life, not to advance separate political, moral, or career goals. Virtually everything important about the school (from the annual Aims of Education address for new students, to the alumni magazine) seems to be designed mainly for that purpose. That’s the ideal as I understand it anyway. The daily reality may not entirely live up to that but I do think its most attractive characteristics are more than marketing hype.</p>
<p>yale and columbia</p>
<p>“So, the University of Chicago is a little like the Apple Computer of universities.”
I LOVE LOVE LOVE this quote!! It is absolutely spot on! [So sad son wasn’t happy there and ended up transferring out…sniff]</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I highly disagree.
I often hear quips here about the marketing from WUSTL…but my sister is a senior now…and during the 3 months before the common app deadline…I KID YOU NOT…she received 6 publications and mailings from the University of Chicago. Two of these mailings were the size of a small novel. I’m not sure if she submitted herself to the mailing list, but either way, it’s ridiculous. WashU sent her 3…</p>
<p>marketing is a HUGE part of the new found appeal of UofC. </p>
<p>and on the previous remark on UofChicago being a killjoy: I guess it’s not so much that they don’t have sports as that the people you meet there and that you meet at Northwestern seem to be very different…maybe it’s just the atmosphere…idk…and maybe it’s changed in these past few years…but I remember being creeped out by how socially awkward my tour guides (yes, I toured multiple times) were. And these people are supposed to represent the best and brightest of the student body!</p>
<p>Then don’t go there, hope2getrice. Problem solved! Different strokes for different folks and all.</p>
<p>Swarthmore</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>I went to Chicago during their open house, and during the sample lecture there were MULTIPLE kids taking detailed notes…on a SAMPLE lecture. I knew right there it wasn’t the school for me</p>