What are hum classes? Are they like Freshman Seminars or something?
@waddups the core requires three sequences of seminars with heavy reading requirements. They are
Hum - humanities core, you read books and analyze the text
Sosc - social sciences core, you read books and analyze the societal implications
Civ - civilization core, you read books and analyze the historical background and perspective
There’s other parts of the core but that’s the meat of it.
Jumping on this thread as another uchi first year in case anyone has biology-specific questions, especially about research and the different bio major tracks.
And yeah, just seconding what everyone else has said, there are lots of people here who are very smart and passionate and it really comes through when you talk to them. It’s very normal and expected to spend a lot of your time studying. I’ve found that being in one of the more accelerated/brutal courses actually helps you form friendships because you have people who know your pain and understand why you’re staying in for the evening to read journal articles about gene editing instead of going out.
Bio question – how/when do you see work in a lab fitting in with your courseload?
Great thread, BTW – thanks!
@exacademic I’m actually going to start in a lab at the beginning of winter quarter (in like four weeks, omg), which is pretty much the earliest that people start lab work as first years. I’m only going to be putting in a few hours a week-- maybe 4 or so-- for this quarter, since I’m also adding a 4th class, and I’ll scale up as the year goes on depending on how much time my coursework takes up. It’s very well understood among PIs that the priority for undergrads is classes, so they don’t expect us to prioritize lab work over getting work done, which is why a lot of people spend less time in the lab during the year and then work full-time over the summer. There’s a dedicated fellowship program with a stipend for 1st and 2nd years doing summer biology research that’s the department’s way of supporting that kind of full-time summer work.
I hope that answers your question!
Yes, quite thoroughly! Thanks.
Thanks to every who has replied! Imo, a good way to truly understand student life in college (or any life in most places) is to analyze a person’s reflection of favorites and dislikes. It’s a no-brainer, but everytime I do it, I always feel like I’m going away with something incredible.
@HydeSnark
@tawsch I think I’m going to exploit the “Ask anything” part of this discussion. :)) UChicago sounds like the perfect match to my personality, an institution that promotes analytical thinking mixed with creativity plus I love the idea of the Core Program, though I’ll have to visit it to truly decide. The problem is getting in. I’ve done my admission research and have filled most of my checkpoints, but the problem is I go to a school with many passionate, determined geniuses. How does one stand out in a crowd of 30 or so talented people?
So my question is, especially in terms of grades, work diligence, extracurriculars, and outside of school activities:
What is UChicago looking for?
@JessiqueL Read these. I’m like 99% sure they apply for us as well and they should answer all your questions.
http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/whats_the_big_deal_about_402
http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/applying_sideways
http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/no_chance
Colleges have no incentive to make the admissions process more transparent. There are several simple ways each school can make this process less stressful and more insightful for the applicants, but almost none of them do. The air of mystery around who gets in and who doesn’t fuels their popularity and number of applicants.
Here are a few ways colleges can help.
Make detailed analysis of the applicant pool available by various metrics. Don’t just release profile of admitted students. That is only part of the story
After each admission cycle release a good sample size of anonymous application profiles and walk prospective students through how honestly the College arrived at the decision.
Give clear probability indicators on what will hinder applicant chances for admission
Which college does any of this today?
Places like UT Austin, with automatic acceptance based on class rank (or, at some schools, test scores and GPA) stand out to me as reasonably transparent.
Of course, if someone suffers from a rare disease that can be cured only with some extract of the Ivy leaf, and chooses schools accordingly, that isn’t much help.
I have come to disbelieve most of the “official tips” published by the schools. They are useful to some degree, but don’t really shed any light on your real chances.
Nobody in his or her right mind will tell you things like
“Listen, if you are a Asian, we expect you to have higher SAT scores. Sorry. We will probably rank and stack you against other Asians. The published SAT score ranges are very different for applicants based on their race”
or
“We have our favorite schools. If you look at our applicant pool, these feeder schools have an admit rate that is vastly different from your average public school applicant. If you want to improve your chances to come here, here is the list of top ten feeder schools for our college. Go to one of these”
or
“Your ability to pay, is definitely in our minds, even when we say we are need blind, we can’t really offer seats to every qualified needy student”
or
“Choice of major, geography etc, that we often tell you does not matter, actually does matter. We cannot have a lopsided class all from the northeast, and all interested in Pre-Med and Economics. Our faculty expects a certain number of odd ball majors in the admitted list of students”
or
“Here is a list of extracurricular activities that we just roll our eyes to, because honestly, we don’t consider them anything special”. Don’t waste your time doing them.
or
“Yeah, I know we always say there is no minimum cut-off for SAT scores and GPA, and while that is technically true, if you don’t have xxx GPA and yy SAT scores as a minimum, your chances of getting in are less than 5%, You can try, and maybe you will get in, but I would not bet on it”
or…
You get the idea.
The incentives for applicants and the incentives for the Colleges are not at all aligned. Applicants want and need maximum transparency and disclosure so that they are not wasting their time and effort on schools where they don’t stand a chance.
Colleges, unless forced by law ( like Texas public universities) want to be chased by the most number of applicants and maximum flexibility in admitting students.
It is indeed a sad state of affairs.
@JessiqueL To be completely honest, when I applied to UChicago I was probably near the bottom of the pack, academically speaking, yet I was accepted early. Like yeah I had APs and a decent gpa and a decent SAT, but nothing stellar. Nothing was perfect, and everything was probably average or slightly below average (in the context of UChicago’s applicant pool). For example, I got a C in sophomore year history and a B in junior year AP physics. Nothing outstanding. I wasn’t nationally, or even locally, renown in any of my extracurriculars - I just did what I enjoyed and did my best at them.
I think what got me into UChicago was my passion for the school and the way I presented myself in my essays. This school was my top choice by FAR, and I made sure that the admissions counselors knew that when reading my application. I think I even wrote in my “why uchicago” essay that if ED was an option I would take it, but since EA was the next best I would just have to wait until I heard back to commit. I also showed them how I looked at the world, and why that view point was both unique and valuable in a discussion setting. It’s important that the school you apply to knows that both you and the university will gain something from your attendance, and that they will remain an important part of your life far after you graduate (cough cough, alumni donations). You don’t need to write about some awful hardship you underwent, or that sports game you won even though your leg was broken. You just need to show them who you really are, and tell them why this person will be an excellent addition to the student body. Chicago likes their students to be creative, open, and curious, so let those aspects of you shine in your essays.
This being said, there is 0 guarantee when it comes to admission to a school like Chicago. The smartest kid in my physics class was deferred early then waitlisted, yet he is clearly the most intelligent student in the room. You just have to put your best foot forward and hope they like what they see enough to let you in over some other equally qualified kid.
Regarding the Honors Analysis chatter at the beginning of the thread (as, believe it or not, this sort of “I fully expect to place into Honors Analysis” goes on like clockwork every year):
For everyone who has crushed Calc AB/BC in high school and may have taken multivariable calc on the side (which is the “next” course at a lot of colleges) and is thus understandably under the impression that they are headed for Honors Analysis (Math 207-209) as opposed to some course called “Honors Calculus” in their first years. (“I just took two years of Advanced Placement Calculus! I definitely do not need any course called ‘Honors Calculus.’”)
Unless you have taken at least one, if not several, rigorous courses in proof-based math — not just taken them, but done very well in them, truly grasped the subject, and enjoyed it — you will likely not be among the handful of first years who place into Honors Analysis, and that is not a defeat whatsoever. Most UChicago math majors take Honors Calc their first years anyway. It bears precious little resemblance to Calc AB/BC, multivariable calc, or any math you have done in which the answers to questions have actual numerals in them.
As someone said above, just trust the placement test. I would highly advise against studying 20-40 hours of Spivak on the side in the hopes that you place into 207, as it’s kindddda of an indicator that, even if you did place in, you would not do well. Keep in mind: UChicago is one of the elite colleges for math, so regardless of work you have done before, no courses you have previously taken before will likely be at the same level of both instruction and expectation. And isn’t that exciting?
Btw, if you’re still itching to take Honors Analysis, great — get As in Honors Calc your first year (not an easy feat at all) and you will be able to enroll in Honors Analysis your second year. But I have known plenty of math majors who have gone on to great things despite never taking Honors Analysis at all (and instead take “Regular” Analysis — 203/204/205 – their second years).
Hi. I was wondering if anyone knew much and could comment about the Institute of Politics.
I don’t expect to be able to just place in, by any means. I’m studying Spivak and eventually Rudin because that’s what interests me.
I’m a bit confused about what you said, regarding the studying 20-40 hours of Spivak. Are you implying people in HA never had to learn what’s in Spivak, and just knew it?
Nevermind, I skipped over the part about placement test. Oops!
The logic, if I’m understanding this correctly, is that if it takes you 20-40 hours of studying to scrape past the required level on the placement test, you’re not going to do well in HA as a first-year. The people who will do well in HA should be able to place into it without too much work.
Yeah, I misread and thought he meant that if you take 20-40 hours learning Spivak, you won’t do well. He was talking about cramming for the placement test, I thought he just meant in general.
Does legacy status help at all in admissions?
I’m pretty sure. I hope so