<p>So, I've heard a lot of great things about UChicago--enough that I am now a member of the class of 2019 (Gap year wooo!). But, I have to know (since I always like to know what can be fixed), what weaknesses do you think UChicago can improve on?</p>
<p>I think I have two major complaints:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I lived in a dorm without air conditioning. When it was really cold, the furnace made the room warm. When it was really hot, I was screwed.</p></li>
<li><p>The core can be a pain in the ass. For example, one needs to take between one and two core art/drama/music classes. The thing is, only certain classes count for the core. So if I wanted to take an upper divisional art history class to take something interesting and suited for the core, I can’t. I understand the need for some core sequences (viz. Sosc and Hum) but the fact that I can’t take a random class of interest and make sure it counts for the core is rather annoying. Luckily, I got into a class that I am both incredibly interested in and that counts for the core–many cannot say the same unfortunately. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Minor compaints:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The dining food is meh. It’s passable but nothing spectacular.</p></li>
<li><p>Hyde Park food is meh. There aren’t that many good places and you’ll get tired rather quickly. Luckily, downtown is easy to access, although it does take about 30-40 minutes to get into the Loop via public transport.</p></li>
<li><p>Whoever designed the drainage system in Hyde Park needs to have his/her head chopped off. Expect feet of water in the streets after heavy rain.</p></li>
</ol>
<hr>
<p>Overall, my first year at the university was the best of my life by miles. Even my major complaints did not really matter given the absolute awesomeness that was UChicago. Great professors (for the most part), great classes (for the most part), great friends, and a great time (for the most part.) Congrats and have fun. </p>
<p>From what I have heard from friends and others, Uchicago is an awesome school. And it is in one of the best cities in the world. which is why its my first choice. Hopefully I see you as a member of the class of 2019. Have a nice gap year </p>
<p>I would try to admit fewer students who pose questions like this one! </p>
<p>I’m just kidding. I mean no offense :)</p>
<p>hevydevy’s comment on the Core is spot-on. There are too many random classes that students have to take that aren’t interesting, and a lot of them are crowded and a pain to register for.</p>
<p>For instance, when I was in the university, I had to take 2 bio courses that were boring and uninformative. I also had to take an uninspired art history class. 3 years later, I don’t remember anything from those courses.</p>
<p>The Core should be more flexible - 2/3 HUM, 2/3 SOSC, 2 CIV, 3 MATH, 3 SCI (allowing students the option to take biology in place of physics/chemistry). This would save students 3-4 credits hours to take more appealing courses while still ensuring everyone a very solid basic education.</p>
<p>^ So you’re proposing a shift towards distribution requirements? Wouldn’t that compromise Chicago’s very essence?</p>
<p>He/she is not advocating for distribution requirements but rather just fewer classes needed to satisfy the core. Hum, sosc, and civ would remain and just fewer math/sci/art. Makes sense to me. </p>
<p>When people think of UChicago’s famed Core, they are really only talking about Hum, Sosc, and Civ. The math, science, and art classes end up working like constrained distribution requirements anyway so requiring fewer would make life easier.</p>
<p>Edit: Hell, civ is also basically a distribution requirement too. Hum and Sosc are The Core classes.</p>
<p>If anything, I would be in favor of making the Math/PhySci distribution requirements into true Core Classes and require all students to take a rigorous Calculus or intro Physics/Chemistry course. (Originally, this was how the Core was structured, but a few escape routes were introduced when some of the less math-prone students weren’t able to pass Calculus.)</p>
<p>The purpose of the Core is to make students think rigorously, both philosophically and scientifically. In my experience, HUM/SOSC does this very effectively. Calculus and the introductory physical science courses are also useful in that regard. But Bio/Art/Civ are just normal courses where students accumulate (in many cases, incoherent) groups of factoids about the respective fields. Now, I think Civ is necessary because students need to be more internationally-minded in our world’s globalized society/economy. In contrast, the Bio/Art requirements strike me as a half-assed attempt to make the Core encompass as many fields as possible. In reality, the requirements exist as a financial boon to the respective departments (each department receives a certain amount of funding based on the number of students it enrolls in its Core classes) and doesn’t contribute to students’ actual mental development. That’s why I’m in support of removing such fields from the course requirements, or in the case of Bio, allowing appropriately rigorous classes to count in place of the standard PhySci Core courses.</p>
<p>I would also support making the science core more rigorous and also more along the lines of the way other core courses are designed–emphasize a way of thinking and constructing and deconstructing arguments rather than teaching facts. And ideally, I think it should be a course that all students take, not just non-science majors. Humanities majors still have to take hum, social science majors still have to take soc, so why do bio majors just get to take their major classes in place of the core? What I always liked about the hum/soc/civ courses is that they were designed as a foundation for thinking and writing, not just as a sampler in a field, and that all students were taking the same courses. I’d love there to be a core science course that emphasizes reading and analyzing scientific texts, from classic texts to modern research papers and science journalism. Maybe it could also involve recreating and discussing classic experiments. I’d say this kind of course would be more valuable for non-majors and also a good foundation for science majors. I don’t have high hopes for this kind of thing ever happening, though. It seems like the core is more likely to be weakened than strengthened.</p>
<p>My civ sequence was actually the best set of courses I took and was definitely not just a collection of factoids. I think about ideas that I learned about in those courses often in my day to day life. Those courses built nicely on my soc courses and made reference to a number of the same thinkers and texts. I understand that not all civ sequences are as good, though, and unfortunately the specific sequence I took is no longer offered (African Civ in South Africa). </p>
<p>Does anybody know why they got rid of the swim test? I always thought that was a good idea.</p>
<p>U Chicago used to be in the Big Ten. D1 sports programs don’t hurt the academic reps of schools like Stanford, Duke and Northwestern… and they provide a lot of fun and school spirit/camaraderie. Imagine if U Chicago joined the Big Ten once again. You’d have an instant rivalry with Northwestern and rivalries would develop with UW, UMich and Illinois.</p>
<p>U Chicago is great academically already. Add Big Ten sports and increase the capacity for fun by a factor of at least the square root of seven.</p>
<p>Bwah-ha-ha… and how would you get D1 athletes to come and compete with the pool of students at U of Chicago? You can’t “add BIg 10 sports” and find enough Big 10 caliber athletes who could come to U of C and graduate. There are SOME D1 athletes who could succeed there, but not enough to actually field teams. And the student body at U of C seems for the most part to be spectacularly uninterested in big time sports. But I guess you could complete the transition of U of C to ‘just like every other large research university’ that started with the switch to the Common App a few years ago and the resulting flood of prestige-hound applicants (who admissions can no longer distinguish from actual intellectuals applying) by making the transition to D1 sports, too.</p>
<p>@prezbucky Based on what I’ve heard about the more… traditional alumni, I doubt that would go very far. That said, I think I’d like to be able to watch UChicago play… but that would take a while. </p>
<p>I’d imagine you’d see a D1 timetable like this:</p>
<p>Year 1-3</p>
<p>D1 in most non-revenue-generating sports–maybe making the crew team Varsity and moving it to D1.</p>
<p>Year 4-6</p>
<p>D1 (but not B10) in Basketball/Baseball; Groundwork laid for new Football stadium.</p>
<p>Year 6-9</p>
<p>New stadium completed; Possible entry into B10 for Basket and Baseball; Football becomes D1 (Horizon League, most likely).</p>
<p>Year 10-12</p>
<p>Football moves to B10.</p>
<p>@intparent Northwestern has managed to do it; and, to be frank, they’re one of our peer schools (though I say that with a slight feeling that I’m wrong). TBH, they’re the worst in the B10, but they’re not awful. </p>
<p>A better example is a school that is equal or (arguably) better than UChicago: Stanford, who has one of the best football teams in the country and whom no-one would argue has sacrificed academics for athletics. Honestly, it’s this kind of thought (the ‘oh god athletics will trounce academics’) that defined the UChicago undergraduate model in its darkest age–and caused the whole 60% acceptance rate kerfluffle that no Maroon looks on with nostalgia.</p>
<p>Northwestern has NEVER been considered an intellectual peer school with U of C (in their dreams). </p>
<p>Ooooh, alternative idea: take Vandy’s old Magnolia league idea and recreate it to include the south and the midwest, say: Vandy, Northwestern, Chicago, Wake, Hopkins, and a couple other D1 schools from weaker conferences. You could still call it the Magnolia league (though that doesn’t work for the more northern schools).</p>
<p>(Yes, I know this will never happen.)</p>
<p>DI athletics programs really have very little to do with the academic part of a university. They are more like affiliated university departments with their own funding source (most of the time) with semi-professional athletes whose main job is their sport and who at best create a source of school spirit for the normal student. </p>
<p>IMHO the hate that’s being directed towards Northwestern is completely unwarranted. It’s a fantastic school. It doesn’t deserve such derision. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So there are two things wrong with this in the same sentence as U of Chicago. (1) as far as i can tell, there has historically been pretty much no interest in “school spirit” – not sure if that is changing with the ‘new wave’, but at least in the past I think no one would have gone to games! And (2) again, historically, U of C has not attracted the “normal student”. I say this as the parent of a kid who would have been perfect for the “old” U of C, but found her accepted students visit very disappointing last year – both her dorm hosts and many of her peer accepted students were “obnoxious strivers” (her words after the visit). </p>
<p>Regarding Northwester, I don’t mean to denigrate it. But Enrico Fermi wasn’t going to do his work at Northwestern. They have a much stronger pre-professional bent there, and are not historically known as the type of strong intellectual community that U of C has been known for.</p>
<p>Maybe you can tell my perspective on U of Chicago and how to “improve” it. It used to be a unique place, and now is doing its best to blend in with every other university. The changes to push to catch Yale in the rankings has also pushed aside much of U of C’s uniqueness.</p>
<p>Agree that nothing is served by saying unflattering things about other schools in order to pump yourself up. My own comments about DI athletics were generic in nature and not directed at any particular school. </p>
<p>I just think that it’s gotten out of balance and frankly it’s the athletes who suffer having to put in 20+ hours a week with no prospect of future earnings except for a very few. </p>
<p>I think the Ivies come the closest to achieving the balance between being the best you can be on the field / court / etc and the classrooom / lab. </p>
<p>It was mentioned up thread, Stanford is the most successful athletic school in the country having won the Director’s Cup for 2 straight decades and counting. I’d also say Stanford is doing quite well on the academic front, they are the model in my opinion in this regard.</p>