Comments from a first year

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
21

<p>If you need that challenge to make you feel happy and satisfied, and you can't find challenge within simpler material for yourself, then you're probably never going to reach your ideal.</p>

<p>Everything you've listed are steps you've taken externally to challenge yourself, but you need to do some of that work yourself. What do you internally to challenge yourself? A critical, active thinker who wants to be engaged should be able to intellectually engage himself in some way given almost any prompt. You can't just sit there in class and wait to be engaged or challenged or enlightened; you need to find the things that interest and excite you by yourself and then actively seek out further information on those things. You should be able to engage yourself when provided with all the right tools.</p>

22

<p>
[quote]
I was planning on getting a Classics minor/major to find some way to challenge myself, but after taking a year of Accelerated Latin, I realized that the Classics department had watered down their courses to a laughably low standard.

[/quote]

Then meander on over to the NELC department. I don't think you'll find Akkadian with Stolper, Sumerian with Woods, or Hittite with van den Hout quite as easy. :eek:</p>

23

<p>CesareBorgia: </p>

<p>Given what you've found is there another school you wish you'd attended?</p>

<p>And, are these other posters off base with the advice they've given you? I was curious and looked back at some of your earlier posts. I was pretty surprised to see that you'd gotten a 5 on the Calculus BC AP exam, but then placed yourself down a (seems to me) big step for first-year math. Was that a mistake?</p>

24

<p>"-The most significant problem at UChicago, however, is the student body. For the most part, it simply is not intellectually engaging."</p>

<p>hmm.. I'm not a college student yet, but from what I've heard from people who are, it seems that if the students at the University of Chicago aren't engaging.. students anywhere probably aren't to your standards either. The truth is, this is real life, and it doesn't matter where we go, there are always going to be a handful of people who want to discuss "intellectual" things while the majority prefers something more "common." I don't think that there are many (any) real intellectual havens in this world.</p>

25

<p>corranged,
Of course, I can go to Eckhart, pick up a few books on stochastic calculus (which I did yesterday), and challenge myself. This, however, is besides the point. I am discussing the University's ability to challenge me, not my ability to challenge myself.</p>

<p>warblersrule86,
A friend of mine (who incidentally also went to Exeter) took Sumerian and Hittite, and found them both to be easier than Latin & Greek at UChicago. Also, I am taking 4 classes and TA'ng another this term, so I don't exactly have space.</p>

<p>Seashore,
Though UChicago fails to live up to its hype as a place for the, "life of the mind," I would hazard that no other school (excepting perhaps Deep Springs, Swat & Pton) would either. Also, high school AP BC math is calculator based computation, while proof based math is, of course, completely different.</p>

<p>blindkite,
My point is that Exeter is a real intellectual haven. I disagree with phuriku's statement.</p>

26

<ul>
<li>pretentious, properly-formatted screen name</li>
<li>namedroppin' exeter and comparing a high school to a university</li>
<li>stating that another's opinion (phuriko's) is objectively "wrong"</li>
<li>hasn't taken most of the classes that he is complaining about and seems willing to substitute friends' opinions for actual experience</li>
</ul>

<p>i dunno man i'd take you more seriously if you didn't come off as closeted and elitist, i mean college kids come in all types and it's like you want socratic philosopher-students or something... maybe nasa is hiring</p>

27

<p>
[quote]
Also, high school AP BC math is calculator based computation, while proof based math is, of course, completely different.

[/quote]
I'm sorry, but this just does not compute.</p>

<p>You say Exeter is a "real intellectual haven". But then you say high school AP BC math is "calculator based computation". </p>

<p>Yet most kids with a 5 on the BC AP exam go into 153 or place into the 160 series. Some even place out of all math. Yet you, product of "intellectual heaven", place about as low as one can go.</p>

<p>So, if Exeter were really so great intellectually, why didn't it prepare you better for the rigors of higher math? Or was the school so focused on teaching to the test (calculator based computation) that it lost sight of any higher intellectual goals?</p>

<p>Maybe the real problem here is that Exeter never taught you what real intellectual life is about? Exeter obviously never taught you that real learning is something YOU do, not get fed by someone else, otherwise you never would hae made your amazing statement in post 25 about the University's ability to challenge you.</p>

<p>I hope you don't let too many of these attitudes leach outside these boards. If you do, I fear you may be due for some sad disappointments when grad school recs. are written. Faculty don't too often like students who expect the faculty to do all the work. Rather, they prefer students who move ahead on their own and come back to challenge the faculty member. Those are the stars.</p>

28

<p>Sorry to beat up on you, but I am also confused.</p>

<p>My D also attended a high school that was an intellectual haven/heaven. She didn't even take Calc BC but easily placed into 153 with a warm invitation, even strong pressure, to join the 160 series.</p>

<p>So far (just one week into it), I can't say that she's finding Chicago at all difficult, but she has commented that there's a significant group of people who "think they know everything." I hope most of those students get over it before they've lost a lot of opportunities.</p>

29

<p>"she has commented that there's a significant group of people who "think they know everything."</p>

<p>Hah, welcome to UChicago (and acadamia in general...) :)</p>

30

<p>Haha, true. UChicagoans and grad students can come off as a snarky, bitter, self-important bunch.</p>

<p>To be honest, I don't find UChicago that difficult either, but I understand that I'm a sort of academic masochist by birth who does not particularly care whether or not she does well in class, but rather likes to be there. Grad and professional schools are probably not on my horizon (i.e. I think law school sounds as pleasant as a root canal), and the job field I'll end up with is probably a low-paying one that I could have had had I went to Nowheresville State. In fact, I almost ended up at Nowheresville State, because it was a heck of a lot cheaper than this place and had the academic and social offerings I was looking for. I did not expect Chicago to be anything for me or do anything for me, other than create the preconditions for some learnin'.</p>

<p>I also knew that I would much, much, much, much rather be in the company of kids who thought they knew everything than kids who pretended they knew nothing. Though my high school was academically rigorous, students played dumb outside of class because that was "cool." It bothered me to no end.</p>

31

<p>

A Sophist rather than a Socrates, eh?</p>

<p>CesareBorgia- Good to hear. Maybe my problem is trying to take them all at once. :rolleyes: I just remembered- you were accepted to Chicago RD the same time I was. I thought your SN sounded familiar.</p>

32

<p>newmassdad,
I never took math past 11th grade at Exeter, so I only made it to AP BC. Proof classes start after AP BC, and I was more interested in other classes.
Also, keep in mind that the 160s are largely useless. Everything in the 160s is done much more rigorously (or made irrelevant) in 203/207. For example, the Riemann integral largely gets chucked out the window for the much more powerful Lebesgue integral, etc. Indeed, 203/207 usually starts from ZFC set theory or a Dedekind/Cauchy construction of the reals.</p>

<p>Again, keep in mind that I am judging the university's ability to challenge me, not my own ability to challenge myself.</p>

<p>Also, I don't need any "grad school recs" When I go looking for a job, my resume should suffice.</p>

33

<p>"I also knew that I would much, much, much, much rather be in the company of kids who thought they knew everything than kids who pretended they knew nothing."</p>

<p>true THAT i'd rather listen to a pretentious kid in tight jeans talk about deerhoof and kurosawa than a college bro in plaid shorts talk about dave matthews band and will ferrel anyday. i'll forgive chicago kids for their conceitedness because they still are way more fun and interesting to be around than kids at any other school i've ever been to. that's just my opinion, though.</p>

34

<p>
[quote]
Also, keep in mind that the 160s are largely useless. Everything in the 160s is done much more rigorously (or made irrelevant) in 203/207. For example, the Riemann integral largely gets chucked out the window for the much more powerful Lebesgue integral, etc.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's an interesting viewpoint (and one that I have held in the past), but I'd disagree. It's like saying that learning gravity is pointless because we can always make gravity into the more complicated thing that it actually is (namely, the curvature of space-time). The point of learning gravity is not necessarily to give the student a completely correct view of it, but to have the student be able to visualize/conceptualize it. Imagine if 161 started out with the definition of the limit with respect to metric spaces instead of the Euclidean metric, which is much easier for the student to grasp the general idea with. It would be mass confusion. So even if the course material isn't exactly completely correctly or will be generalized later in your studies, it's often very useful and essential to having a proper idea of the subject.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Indeed, 203/207 usually starts from ZFC set theory or a Dedekind/Cauchy construction of the reals.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm taking 207 as a freshman this quarter, and our professor declared that a prerequisite. Our first real lecture was today, and we began measure theory. We weren't supposed to start measure theory/functional analysis/fourier analysis until 208, but Ryzhik is insane and thinks we can cover it all in 207. :/</p>

<p>
[quote]
hmm.. I'm not a college student yet, but from what I've heard from people who are, it seems that if the students at the University of Chicago aren't engaging.. students anywhere probably aren't to your standards either. The truth is, this is real life, and it doesn't matter where we go, there are always going to be a handful of people who want to discuss "intellectual" things while the majority prefers something more "common." I don't think that there are many (any) real intellectual havens in this world.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree. On the other hand, I would like to sit on a few Harvard or Princeton (perhaps even Caltech) classes for a day to see how things differ elsewhere. From what I've seen, though, Chicago classes (at least in the areas I'm interested in) are considerably more advanced than their H(arvard)P(rinceton)C(altech) counterparts.</p>

<p>And for the record, with the entrance of the upperclassmen in the past few days, I've seen how the "real" UChicago student acts, and it's pretty amusing. I'm much more pleased with the environment now that they've been brought into the mix. Freshmen aren't too bad, though. They'll learn eventually. (I've actually met a lot of extremely intelligent freshmen; it's just that there seem to be more party-type, unintellectual freshmen than there are of the upperclassmen.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
-I was planning on getting a Classics minor/major to find some way to challenge myself, but after taking a year of Accelerated Latin, I realized that the Classics department had watered down their courses to a laughably low standard.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is what I have discovered about another certain language department (that I'm not going to mention). I thought I'd come in and be able to speak fluently with other students and when I attempt to, all I get is a "Huh?" Also, the class is supposed to be taught primarily in this language, but I'd say that no more than 75% of the class is taught in the language, and what is taught in the language is incredibly easy.</p>

35

<p>Warblersrule, Socrates knew that he knew nothing, he didn't pretend he knew nothing. Difference :-)</p>

<p>I think the kids in the Crazy 8 and friends (Ivy League plus another elite schools) are as smart/smarter than Chicagoans, but there seems to be this incredible need to lay low on the nerd factor/ ability to bring up academics outside of school. It has always seemed to me to be the extreme exception that kids from another school discuss their coursework, what they're reading, what they're thinking about (a suspicion more or less confirmed by my nerdtastic friends at Ivies).</p>

<p>I'm not going to pretend that we're intellectual all the time (believe me, we're not), but I've never been in an environment that has been so receptive and abiding to the magnetic sway of conversation from YouTube videos to the Iliad to gossip and back again.</p>

36

<p>That's actually very similar to a comment my daughter made her first year after visiting a bunch of friends at other colleges: no one ever talked about what they were studying/reading. It sort of cured her of any regret she had about choosing Chicago. Bear in mind that in Chicago terms she and her friends are slacker-bohemians. But they are all fundamentally intellectual kids, and it doesn't take much for their conversation to veer from "Is twee dead?" to the Frankfurt School.</p>

37

<p>
[quote]
Unfortunately, you are incorrect. I went to Exeter ('05), and UChicago has never been nearly as challenging or intellectually engaging.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It is interesting to see how an honest statement like that from one of Chicago's own can not even be discussed reasonably. This is what he gets instead:</p>

<p>
[quote]
If you took easy classes for easy grades, don't blame the school.

[/quote]

[quote]
If you need that challenge to make you feel happy and satisfied, and you can't find challenge within simpler material for yourself, then you're probably never going to reach your ideal.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>and of course, the usual from lovely, jack

[quote]
- pretentious, properly-formatted screen name
- namedroppin' exeter and comparing a high school to a university
- stating that another's opinion (phuriko's) is objectively "wrong"
- hasn't taken most of the classes that he is complaining about and seems willing to substitute friends' opinions for actual experience</p>

<p>i dunno man i'd take you more seriously if you didn't come off as closeted and elitist, i mean college kids come in all types and it's like you want socratic philosopher-students or something... maybe nasa is hiring

[/quote]
</p>

<p>or this one,</p>

<p>
[quote]
I hope you don't let too many of these attitudes leach outside these boards. If you do, I fear you may be due for some sad disappointments when grad school recs. are written. Faculty don't too often like students who expect the faculty to do all the work. Rather, they prefer students who move ahead on their own and come back to challenge the faculty member. Those are the stars.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If someone (even a Chicago student) does not find U Chicago student body intellectually stimulating and engaging, why can't you people respect that opinion or impression? It is up to the individual and it is not the end of the world you know. No wonder you guys have a reputation for being so defensive. The most innocuous comment in this forum can become a very unpleasant argument where you feel the very foundation of the University is being ravaged. (unalove the exception, btw)</p>

<p>Go and hang out at Rush and Division for a while...Relax. The world is "reading" you know...</p>

38

<p>Searchingon,</p>

<p>You are either a prospie or 1st year, I bet.</p>

<p>It may take a while for you to learn: 1. what critical reading is, even as applied to online postings and 2. that Chicago learning is about discussion, testing hypotheses and yes, disagreement.</p>

<p>FWIW, CB's newest comments can perhaps best be understood by also looking at earlier posts by the same person.</p>

<p>To summarize, it is not the message we're disagreeing with. It is that the message itself is inconsistent with other information, and inconsistent with the experience of most other posters here. </p>

<p>For example, most of us could understand a challenge complaint from someone taking honors analysis or even the 160 series calc. These are the most challenging Chicago offers. But to hear such a complaint from someone who took one of the easiest math sequences does not make sense. The complaint makes even less sense when we learn that the same person received a 5 in the BC calc class, but blames their low math placement on weaknesses of their HS (which is claimed to be among the best in the land!). On top of that, to denigrate a math series that most consider too challenging as "largely useless" and then to say "I am judging the university's ability to challenge me, not my own ability to challenge myself." tells many of us that this poster has a very different concept of what education is about. And THAT calls into question the reliability of their criticism.</p>

<p>For a person to "find U Chicago student body intellectually stimulating and engaging," implies a willingness to engage others, not merely letting others "challenge me." I suspect most folks, (and I'd put the U in this category) would tire of such a game quickly.</p>

<p>In fact, it seems to me, after reading other CB posts, that CB is mostly interested in getting a high status high paying job after graduation, not in learning. And CB views high grades and academic honors mostly as tools to that goa. That is, of course, a goal shared by a good number of other students, and a fine choice in its own right. But it is not a goal that gives much emphasis to learning for knowledge's sake, and not a goal that is core to U. Chicago's approach to education. </p>

<p>Maybe this discordance accounts for the difference in perspective?</p>

39

<p>


</p>

<p>Why? Because he/she saw through your ad hominem remarks?</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Obviously, all other complaints are completely without merit. God forbid opinions be judged on their own merit, rather than on the merit of the people who profess them.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Obviously, by revealed preference, the mere fact that I chose UofC shows that I value learning (wisdom not knowledge) over a "high paying job."</p>

40

<p>
[quote]
Obviously, by revealed preference, the mere fact that I chose UofC shows that I value learning (wisdom not knowledge) over a "high paying job."

[/quote]
OR, that UofC was the most prestigious choice available to CB (having been rejected by all the ivies, perhaps?) in spite of its obvious focus on learning and wisdom.</p>

<p>But it really does not matter, CB. Please make the best of the opportunities you have. And if my comments seemed offensive to you, I apologize. I was probably a bit too strong in my response.</p>

<p>cheers and good luck.</p>