<p>drdom - I think the subpar administration results from the fact that - for the bulk of Chicago’s history - the College was a less-than-critical part of the institution. It’s really only in the past 7-10 years where the college has become more of a focal point of the school. Changes in administration and ethos of a school can take a very, very long time. For Brown, Yale, etc. the college has been critical for decades and decades. At Chicago, having the college be anything more than a secondary thought is a pretty new trend.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At 74 years old, I think it’s more likely he’ll die by the time you graduate law school.</p>
<p>Just saying.</p>
<p>^^^Don’t count on it. Supreme Court Justices tend to be a sturdy bunch.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, it isn’t a physics course, but the Global Warming class is something that one can take to satisfy the physical sciences requirements, and probably is the closest equivalent to “Rocks for Jocks” from what my son, an art history major, told me. He just took it this term, and got a good grade even though he only attended one class. (Class attendance wasn’t even required; last year’s lectures were taped and can be watched online; apparently they don’t change much from year to year.)</p>
<p>I don’t see anything wrong with a person who isn’t interested in math or science satisfying those requirements however they can. Even getting B’s and B+'s in those classes, it’s entirely possible to have a 3.6 or 3.7 GPA so long as one works hard and does very well in everything else. </p>
<p>(No offense intended, but I’m very thankful that my son has no interest in law school. And not because of this thread.)</p>
<p>Don’t feel too sad that you’re not going to Harvard Law School. It was a harsh, awful place when I was there, in all sorts of ways, and I haven’t run into that many more recent graduates who remember it fondly.</p>
<p>^ Thanks for the advice, but I’m not actually worried (well, not THAT worried) about fulfilling my physci requirements. Like many U of C students, I’m more interested in simply learning some basic physics. Unfortunately, it seems like I might have to take an easier physics course at some other university…which really sucks. I haven’t even taken conceptual physics in HS, so I’m definitely intimidated by a course that “so many people fail out of”.</p>
<p>When I took the Physics 130s sequence last year (this is the sequence in the ‘middle’ of the intro classes: of which there are 120s [non-calc based], 130s [calc-based], and 140s [calc-based honors]), I wasn’t aware that there were a lot of people that dropped out of it because I’m pretty sure that wasn’t the case. I think a number of people might have ‘dropped down’ into 120s after the first quarter because they just want an easier class, but the 130s is definitely a doable course with good teachers, so I wouldn’t worry about it. If the comment was about 140s, well then I’m not surprised – it’s the honors course and is meant to be challenging, just like all of the honors intro science courses offered here.</p>
<p>^ There’s a conceptual physics offered? I was under the impression that there were only calculus-based classes.</p>
<p>Cue7 - thanks for you last post. The college may be relatively less important at UChicago. However, all of their marketing and the speeches given at the accepted students weekend and at Rockefeller Chapel on day one would lead one (a parent) to believe the exact opposite. Its unfortunate that it has to be this way.</p>
<p>Law schools care mostly about the hard numbers, granted. And Chicago is slightly less inflated than some its peers (although these things are exaggerated, it’s 3.35-3.4), so it is at some disadvantage in law school admissions. However, to call this a major problem is silly. For one, small variations in GPAs simply aren’t that determinative outside of the top 3 schools - LSAT is king and will determine the range almost entirely. 170 3.7 will probably do the same as 170 3.5 (in the 7-10 range of schools). Similarly 172, 3.5 will probably do about the same as 172, 3.7 (in the 4-6 range of schools). Hell, you can get a 171. 2.9 and get into a top 14 school (Northwestern or Georgetown). The amount of people who lost out on getting into a top 14 school (the crucial cut-off) due to their GPA not being inflated 0.1 more is tiny. </p>
<p>One of the virtues of Chicago is that it preserves some rigor and integrity and this helps with uniqueness/reputation etc. Sacrificing this to give a slight boost to a small percentage of applicants among the small percentage of graduates who go to law school seems an overreaction.</p>
<p>@overachiever1992:</p>
<p>There are three levels of physics. 140s, 130s, and 120s.
140s = Honors. Physics/math majors. </p>
<p>130s: much more difficult and math-heavy than 120s. People in the class will have taken AP Physics. Many are physics majors. </p>
<p>120s: easier, less math, required of all biology majors, most of who don’t like math. Unfortunately for you most pre-meds will also opt to take this level to satisfy the physics requirement.</p>
<p>^ Thanks for the info. I’m thinking of taking the 120s sequence, but I’m guessing those premeds in there will distort the curve. I’m a bit confused though; premed courses are typically curved higher right (around a B?) versus “real” science courses for science majors (around a C?). Does that mean that even if I get a lot of gunners in my class I could still escape without too much damage to my GPA?</p>
<p>Premed courses aren’t curved higher. That’s why being a premed at Chicago tends to suck.</p>
<p>What science courses curve to a C? None that I’ve taken. [4th year Biology major]</p>
<p>^ Sorry, that was what my brother told me (he goes to a different college).</p>
<p>^^ Wow, I feel bad for all the premeds, especially with o-chem. I guess I’ll take a physics course elsewhere then.</p>
<p>Small caveat I want to add that I might have neglected to mention - from what I understand through the mutterings of some fairly senior faculty I’m close to, Dean Boyer has been working exceptionally hard to make the College the focus of the University, and, in the next few years, it will become (apparently) just that.</p>
<p>Take it with a grain of salt, but there are wheels spinning to improve some of the issues.</p>
<p>As far as I know, the College has been consistently profitable to the University over the last few years (from what I’ve read here on CC). If that is so, then it logical to think that issues will be addressed in order to keep the College happy. The University seems to be on an expansive mood: look at the new construction (new dorm last year, Mansueto Library due to be finished by Spring '11, new Theology bldg. going up on the East end of the MIdway). $100 million for Odyssey, $300 million for Booth-Chicago, $25 million for the Mansueto Library sure come in handy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As pessimistic as I am, I have to agree (mostly) with this point. In just a few years, I think that the College will be an element of the University that is just as valued as the graduate schools, if only because of the fact that the College is the largest determining factor of a university’s social prestige and image. Say what you will about Zimmer, but he knows how to run a university.</p>
<p>phuriku, I’m curious: why the pessimism? And about what, specifically: Uchicago, the College, or something else?</p>
<p>btw, I agree with you about Zimmer. He was the beneficiary of good timing, but most of his administrative moves have been very shrewd, imo.</p>
<p>@phuriku; I wouldn’t be so pessimistic.</p>
<p>As a part of my summer program, I had a chance to talk to Dean Boyer in a group of 25. He mentioned that it makes much better sense (financially) for the University to focus on the College in the current climate. I can elaborate more on what he said, but that was the basic argument.</p>
<p>@J’adoube: You forgot the Logan Art Center and whatever new building they are building over by the University hospital.</p>