After a hiatus from the site, I again have too much time on my hands, and it looks like this forum’s greatest hits are back: course registration, questions about the Core, stuff do do besides studying, post-graduation options outside the PhD track. And so on.
All good questions. This one is a little more fun.
Current students and alums (College, grad school, whatever), what class/classes provided the best experience (define this how you will) of your time at UChicago?
“Classics of Western Literature”, a small class taught by Stuart Tave on the first floor of the Classics Building. It included readings in Homer, Virgil, Dante, Rabelais, Montaigne, Cervantes, Moliere and a few others. Tave had a direct way of getting to the point and illustrating it from the text so as to fix it memorably in your mind. You could become civilized in 10 weeks of that course. Tave was a small man who spoke incisively but not pompously. He radiated not merely erudition but a sense that these mighty works held timeless truths about the human condition. He was also tolerant - at least he tolerated me puffing on a cigar and emitting an expressive cloud of smoke as I pondered the fate of Achilles, who knew he would achieve fame but die young.
While at I was Booth, Fama’s 1st year PhD finance course was definitely up there as a favorite for many of us. Have no clue what it was called - similar to now, courses back then were known primarily by course number. Fama taught a two parter - 301 and 302, I believe. Fall and Spring. You received no grade till the spring; therefore, during winter job interviews for the summer market I had only two grades under my belt instead of the usual three. However, no one had a problem with that, given the reason!
The class was very full - obviously with all the 1st year PhD students hoping to pass the finance prelim but also with a good number of MBA kids as well. We covered a ton of academic papers on asset pricing. I got to learn what an “event study” was. Fama himself was always cheerful, personable, and thorough. A great teacher. Certainly not above a witty remark or two (once, for instance, assuring a stunned and skeptical PhD student that what he had just performed at the chalkboard was not “magic” but was, in fact, “algebra”). I totally enjoyed this challenging class. The opportunity to take PhD courses while in the MBA program was one of the reasons I was thrilled to study at Booth. Such allowances are far more common now among the top schools than they were back then. UChicago was definitely a trend-setter.
@marlowe1 there were definitely smokers among the faculty in the late 80’s - early 90’s but by the time I was at Booth the rules must have changed about smoking in class. No one lit up except for a legendary prof. or two in far away divisions located who knows where on campus (I occupied a very small portion of the quadrangles), and probably only in front of PhD candidates who wouldn’t dare complain for fear of antagonizing the thesis committee. Never saw a student smoke in class, but of course there was lots of smoking in that basement bar at Ida Noyes.
Current student in the College here. (B.S. Econ/C.S.)
I really loved Classics of Social & Political Thought, which is a CORE SOSC requirement. I enjoyed reading the texts ranging from Plato’s Republic to Rousseau’s Social Contract and culminating with Du Bois “The Souls of Black Folk.” I had amazing professors (Lampert & Little) that made the class discussions engaging.
CS154 is probably the most intellectually challenging course I’ve taken. Econ 200 with Lima was also very enjoyable.
UChicago '14 here.
I liked my Korean language class the best, hehehe.
In terms of content classes, I liked Math 199 - introduction to analysis. It was a well-taught class and even though it was hard as steel balls for me (I ended up getting a B in the class, but I’m damn proud of that B) I thoroughly enjoyed it. It also just goes to show why you shouldn’t fear getting a B in an interesting class in college - that class was almost life changing for me, helping to boost my confidence in myself and believe that I can persevere through challenges. Imagine if I’d dropped that class for fear of a B!
Another good class would be Intro to Micro Econ (I forget the course code) with John List - specifically with John List, the one with Sanderson wasn’t quite as nice in my opinion. List is a hotshot in economics and is sharp as a whip. Even if you don’t major in economics, his class was excellent to take.
Also, I’m now a political science PhD candidate. I kind of wish I took more political science classes at UChicago.
MBA from GSB in mid 1980’s.
I had to dig deep in my personal archive to find the course catalog of years long gone by 
I took classes from both GSB and Dept. of Economics. Here are my favorites:
Econ 331 Theory of Income, Employment and the Price Level. This would be the equivalent of first graduate macroeconomic class for other top Econ. departments. But as Professor Sherwin Rosen somewhat haughtily proclaimed: at U of C there was no micro or macroeconomics. Macroeconomics was for the Keynesian who didn’t know how to use price theory to derive a general equilibrium model to study the whole economy 
Why was this class great for me? Two words: Robert Lucas. By then Rational Expectation had became a dominant force in the macroeconomic research. Reading Professor Lucas’s work, you almost could hear him screaming at the Keynesian “How stupid can you guys be?”. Naturally, before I went to his first lecture at the Social Science Research Building, I kind of expect him to be abrasive and unrelenting in criticisms of the Keynesian model. Instead I found him mild manner and reasonable. He wrote down in succinct details about his model and was very tolerant of student input (even including “that kid”). He made smart comments without being dogmatic. And he was humble too. He openly admitted that he was nowhere as mathematical advanced in his models as the then faculty members of the U of Minnesota Econ. Department (think Prescott, Sargent, Wallace, Hansen, etc.). I can no longer remember 90% of his class but he did inspire me to be passionate in your belief without being personally offensive.
I did not have the same experience of Business 432/433/435 Theory of Financial Decision I, II, & III as @JBStillFlying had. I found Professor Gene Fama a bit too arrogant for my taste. Also I found Professor Merton Miller’s over-subscripted Business 333 Corporation Finance lacking in focus. To me this corresponds to the long held truth: great researchers do not necessarily imply that they are great teachers.
To my utter surprise, the class I still remember up to now is Professor Robert Blattberg’s Business 350 Marketing Management. This being an U of C MBA class, even marketing management had a lot of theories in it. Nonetheless, Professor Blattberg’s common sense wisdom filtered throughout the whole course. I learned so much from him than many other Nobel Prize Laureates on GSB faculty. Professor Blattberg only stayed in GSB for less than a decade before going back to the marketing powerhouse Kellogg School. I was lucky to have him. His class taught me another lesson: unexpected treasure can be found in places if you look hard enough and have an open mind.
@85Bears46 I’m wondering if we took the same Fama sequence? I definitely didn’t take anything from him in winter quarter because that’s when I took all the stuff I was forced to take (marketing, decision science, etc). The two parts were autumn and spring. I think that was the name of the course, however: Theory of Financial Decisions. Lots of Fama/French papers, correct? You probably have the course numberings correct- for some reason I thought it was 301 and 302 but perhaps that was Becker/Rosen/Townsend over in Econ LOL
@JBStillFlying Oh my, you have superb memory. I am looking at the course description of Econ. Dept. Here are the basic courses: 300 (Scheinkman) 301 (Becker, Rosen) and 302 (Townsend).
I think Fama taught Theory of Financial Decision I & II and French taught III. But I may be totally wrong there.
@85bears46 you are joggin’ the ole’ noggin’ regarding that finance course. I think Fama went on sabbatical to CA(?) that winter quarter so MBA’s and PhD’s had him in Fall and Spring (Parts I and III?) and the PhD’s also took something in the winter (part II?) with another prof. who, I suppose, could have been Ken French although I simply don’t remember.
To be honest I had to consult someone who was intimately familiar with Econ 301 and 302 to make sure I had the names correct! IIRC the sequence for “Micro” was 300 (Cobb-Douglas and other production functions, Nash Equilibria), 301 (consumer choice and price theory, hedonic pricing etc.) and 302 (general equilibium). The “macro” sequence was 330 (Cochrane) 331 (Lucas) and 332 (Hansen). I mention prof. rather than course title or topic because they weren’t truly “macro” as you pointed out. Everyone pretty much taught what they wanted to. Hansen and Townesend, for instance, both taught general equilibrium - each just had his own way of doing so based on particular research and theoretical work.
Looking back at these the posts, it’s clear that certain classes and profs will just stand out as particularly memorable and the knowledge gained went beyond the course content. Wish I had had a better Marketing prof. My one marketing course was completely unmemorable except for the occasional case study on something like Sara Lee Baked Goods - we’d usually have to hit the Medici for carrot cake afterwards!
@LoveMYSP - my son (would be class of '23) is interested in Poli. Sci. but I’m also going to tune him into Chicago’s Committee on Social Thought just in case he’s looking for something a bit more open-ended. What was your undergrad. major at UChicago?
@Foolsgold345 my D (class of '21) also did Classics and loved it - different profs but the same content. Definitely a favorite of hers last year but she was very excited about Core Hum and Sosc. to begin with.
My major was East Asian Languages and Civilizations.
It’s been a while since I went to UChicago, so I’m not familiar with the committee on social thought. Just did a quick search - is it a major? If so, if I may offer my thoughts, as someone who did an interdisciplinary major at UChicago, I must let you know that it is very difficult to find employment that directly uses the skills of that major. I do not remember exact numbers, but something like half of the students in my major my year did not have some sort of offer for after graduation. It’s not to say don’t do it, but just to be aware of this before going in.
@LoveMYSP I think the actual major is called “Fundamentals” now. Not sure if that’s for him but it’s worth letting him know about it, in case he sparks to the idea.
I was saying the same thing to my son last night about lack of employability! But I see grad school in his future more than I see him working for The Man right out of college. So we’ll have to see. He’d be in a liberal arts program for the intangibles anyway - not merely to pick up skills. He’s kind of dismissed business and engineering as not quite what he’s looking for intellectually.
The Committee on Social Thought (or Fundamentals, if that’s the undergrad version) is a very distinct UChicago thing. You would be getting a hell of a ride with some of the most distinguished profs Chicago has to offer. In years gone by those profs might have included J.M. Coetzee, Saul Bellow, David Grene, Karl Weintraub, Allan Bloom, James Redfield and Herman Sinaiko, among many others. It’s a department unique to Chicago that people in the academic world know, take notice of and are impressed by. Even the nebulous employability factor is part of its aura. You are showing that thought and ideas are the things that matter to you. Of course you wouldn’t opt for anything like that unless thought and ideas DO matter to you, and you might be suggesting in so opting that you are going to take the path less trodden in the academic world. Still, I have to believe that that degree would be impressive if grad school is your destiny, and I could also see it as a good basis for law school. It is hard core ur-Chicago.
@JBStillFlying I see! Well, as long as your son is passionate about it, and you all know what you’re getting into, go for it. Best of luck!
@marlowe1 yes, absolutely. It sounds like a great major as preparation for law school or grad school, but I just wanted to point out direct employability after college would be challenging. It wouldn’t be impossible, tho, and it could be well worth the challenge.
The one guy I know who did Committee on Social Thought was one of the very first students after it had been introduced to the undergrads. His focus was on Political Philosophy. He then went on to obtain a master’s in History and taught at a state uni. for a bit. Then he went on and got a PhD in Theology! Along the way he and his wife had a few children. He ended up working for a think tank before being hired away to run an educational institution. They aren’t 1%'ers but I don’t think he was ever unemployed. He and his family live in a perfectly respectable neighborhood with the kids, the minivan, the dog, etc. And he loves his job. Just one data point regarding the Committee on Social Thought. It’s not for everyone. I don’t think most go into it thinking about how much money they’ll make - they probably go for the intellectual challenge.
One of my kid’s ex-girlfriends did Fundamentals. The relationship didn’t last long enough for me to know exactly what she did with it – it’s something of a roll-your-own major – but I know she was gainfully, even lavishly, employed after graduation. If you choose a major like that, and you want to be employed after college (vs. going to graduate school), you just have to be thoughtful and deliberate about your elective choices and making certain you get some kind of internship/track record in the field you want to pursue.
BA Biology here. Fav class was Karl Weintraubs West Civ class which I took on a lark as a 4th year. Waited in registration line for a different class (don’t remember what that was) then saw this was still open when I got to the front so signed up. The course sharpened my thinking in terms of how to critically read texts, both primary and secondary, and this has left a lasting impact in the intervening decades of my life.
DD, current math major, says Analysis is so far her favorite. Challenging and not helpful to her GPA, but glad she’s putting learning ahead of any numerical metric :D. She also liked Classics of Political Thought.
It’s funny: I really have little idea which classes Kid #1 liked most, although I know a couple that were important to her. I tended to hear a lot more about the classes she disliked. One class that made a difference for her (and I think she liked it, too) was a seminar on long-form Modernist poetry (think William Carlos Williams’ Paterson or Wallace Stevens’ Notes Toward A Supreme Fiction). It was her first upper-level literature course, and one of the grad students she met in the course became a meaningful mentor for her.
I know a lot about what Kid #2’s favorite classes were. He loved his Human Being and Citizen section, which was taught by a grad student who defended his thesis during the year, and had a skilled, compassionate writing tutor from the Div School who made a huge difference in my kid’s ability to write. His Sociology Department senior seminar with Andrew Abbott – ostensibly on library research – was also deeply life-shaping. Everyone enjoyed it so much that Abbott continued meeting with them for an extra quarter. It’s also where his relationship with his future spouse developed from acquaintance to actual friendship, so that kind of gives it an extra ooomph in memory. And he really enjoyed his Core Arts History of Music class.
Martha Nussbaum’s Emotion, Reason, and Law class. Hard to get consent into as an undergrad, harder reading load, and even harder exam. But Nussbaum is one of the university’s crown jewels and she’s also an incredible teacher. Soul-crushing but in a good way.
John Mearsheimer’s classes are in a similar category, though they’re easier in all respects.