<p>I know it seems like a weird question, but after reading the prospectus, going on the tour, and talking to the admissions counselors (plus former students), it really seems like UC mainly focuses on the scholar student rather than the well-rounded one (charity work, extracurriculars, whatever).</p>
<p>I don't mean that they don't care about the well-rounded stuff, but does it seem to anyone else like they place a premium on learning and scholar students?</p>
<p>Undoubtedly they do, hence the school's atmosphere as an academic powerhouse that stresses theory in nearly every field it teaches. I don't the school tries to hide the fact that it's a lot easier to go through the core if you have a natural inclination towards learning (and that means plowing through the classics, learning how to prove a differential equation, taking a second language, etc.)</p>
<p>However it would be a mistake to say that this comes at the cost of other aspects of student life. Involvement in charity groups, political organizations, clubs etc. is highly encouraged. It's possible to stay in your room and study all the time, but the number of people who actually do that is very small indeed. All of the people I know are involved in community outreach, student organizations, lab research, etc. A good, well-rounded background is a huge bonus when applying to grad schools or employers.</p>
<p>Nice response Jack, thanks! </p>
<p>I was thinking more on the lines of admissions. Obviously it would be to any student's advantage to get involved in charities and clubs for grad school and employers, but er, I can't articulate it too well but it seems like for admissions that Chicago prefers:</p>
<p>Most Universities:
Academic-----|-----o-----|-----Extracurricular</p>
<p>Chicago:
Academic-----o-----|-----|-----Extracurricular</p>
<p>Last year's admissions blog had a discussion about ECs. U of C cares that you are engaged outside of academics but admissions doesn't tend to spend a ton of time picking apart your activities.</p>
<p>One of the things that puts Chicago apart from its more selective peers, I think, is involvement in ECs. (I'm talking about college itself, now, not admissions). In high school, I felt like I knew a lot of students who did 50 different things... now I only know a few who do 50 things. Most students have an EC or two that they do for fun (put on a fashion show, baking club, gymastics, dance, art, tutoring, community service, etc. etc. etc.) and they spend the rest of their free time on themselves.</p>
<p>Schools like Harvard in particular always seem to engineer their incoming classes in a way that they have bright kids both inside and outside of class. I can't imagine that Chicago puts that same premium on outside involvement, though, as glasses said, I'm sure they want to see that you do something outside the framework of the classroom.</p>
<p>Thanks glsses, I'll have to go look for that blog entry :)</p>
<p>It's our resident UC expert! Thanks Unalove.</p>
<p>This thread makes me feel a lot better. Some of my friends are applying and are the 50 EC type of people and I was getting worried about just having fencing and work experience.</p>
<p>It seems to me they could care less about you being the president of the French club and the like per se. Some schools do very much stress these matters, many of the Ivies clearly standing out, but I think Chicago takes a more instrumental approach. Really what it boils down to is whether or not you are socially adjusted enough to handle being in a demanding academic environment, where you will also have a fair amount of external requirements imposed on you (applying to jobs, basic errands, frequently a part time job). A healthy modicum of extracurricular activities implies that you can do so, since it proxies for not having mommy and daddy around as in high school. Indeed, I was amazed by the number of undergraduates that severely floundered in taking care of themselves, leading to negative academic consequences. Also, Chicago like any selective school tries to avoid the severely antisocial, since they tend not to contribute much to class nor do well when collaborative learning is required (such as in lab).</p>
<p>Actually, my experience with Chicago indicated that they did in fact look for a well rounded student and were not as concerned about the pure intellectual. My child had reasonable SAT scores and grades, but certainly in the mid 25% to 50% of students admitted to Chicago. However, she is a talented and experienced choral singer, played 4 instruments well, is a student of martial arts, active in community affairs and service and generally a well balanced kid all around. Chicago indicated to her that they liked this and they accepted her. She is now an honors student in her second year, loves the school and fits in really well. She is involved in two choirs, has an active social life and still finds time to study hard. So, I think that the school is changing somewhat and the old steretypes just don't fit the bill for everyone at the school or even a majority of the students.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I had several friends who successfully made the case that they were budding scholars of serious merit, and as far as ECs went, had only incidentally gone to a Latin or science competition since it was required for class, or were in National Honor Society since it was a natural output of their achievements. Not that they said it that way I am sure, but I presume it had to be painfully obvious from their applications they could give a ****, as they would say it, about this or that club. At the same time, they were also likely above the 75% range in terms of admittance by SAT. However, these same individuals were dinged across the board at places like Stanford, Berkley, MIT and Princeton, despite ending up at these schools with full funding for their graduate studies. I would argue that Chicago, along with perhaps Cal Tech and Oxbridge, is one of the few elite schools still willing to accept the pure intellectual alone. </p></li>
<li><p>Not to denigrate Choir or music in general - playing an instrument myself I recognize how wonderfully rewarding these activities can be - but there is a certain hierarchy of gunner ECs, with performing arts ranking rather low (unless you are going to summer music camp at the New England Conservatory or something). Over the top acts like trucking off to Africa at 17 to work in an AIDS camp (on your parents dime) or setting up a major civic organization de novo (even if it fail promptly) are becoming more and more the gold standard of ECs. Thankfully, I think Chicago still demands these brochure-page-filling, smiling gunners live up to its established intellectual standards.</p></li>
</ol>