<p>Today I had my interview for UChicago and it didn't go entirely peachy, though it is after all my first interview.</p>
<p>But anyway my interview was alright...I think I made a decent impression, but I didn't really feel that we connected and he did seem a little condescending, but whatever. </p>
<p>I showed a lot of enthusiasm for the school and told him straight up that it's my top choice. The guy seemed to refute all my reasons for wanting to go to UChicago, though: the quirky people, the core, intellectual environment, the sense of community.</p>
<p>He blatantly laughed at my "sense of community" comment coz he was like, "UofC doesn't baby you like the Ivies, you know." That REALLY alarmed me coz it really did seem like a tight knit place. Of course I don't expect them to "baby" me but I always got the impression that it's a very comfortable, nurturing place, and not cut throat. Can anyone confirm/refute this claim? Coz after the interviewer did say "well, it has changed since I was there."</p>
<p>I guess you just have to remember that the impression a college gives off through its PR is really nothing more or less than a reflection of what the top college officials want that college to be like (<em>usually</em>), and the kind of student they want to attract. That's worth quite a bit, in my opinion, but I would definitely talk to <em>current</em> students (and visit if at all possible, though I know it wasn't for me) to get more perspective.</p>
<p>I agree that you got a strange interviewer. Remember, he's one data point, and he probably didn't graduate within the last couple of years. It's true that the campus has changed a lot recently, or so older students and alums say.</p>
<p>You bring up an interesting point, though. I know someone who came from a small LAC who said that the U of C didn't feel friendly to her. I could argue both ways. The house system is an unusually nurturing environment for college, I think, and houses are usually very friendly and comfortable. The advising system is far better than that at most schools, so that's also a source of help. I'd put that in the "nurturing" category, I think. Outside of the house system, I wouldn't really call campus "tight knit." There isn't a lot of school spirit, and I think overall students are quite independent. These things do create a different atmosphere than what you'd probably find at Yale or many other schools. The students are not at all cut throat; there is almost no sense of competition that I've seen. Everyone is working only against themselves, and they're usually more than happy to go out of their way to help housemates and friends who need it. I feel very comfortable at the U of C, and I think most students feel similarly. So, I'd say your impression could be right or wrong. It's a topic that I've thought about because, before my friend made her comment, I had never considered the campus unfriendly. After reflecting on it, though, I could see why she felt that way, even though I don't quite feel the same way.</p>
<p>Edit: I'd be interested to see what other current students think about this.</p>
<p>It all depends on what you see as "friendly," and I have to agree with corranged on a lot here.</p>
<p>We don't have much of the warm and fuzzy "kumbaya" factor that I think a lot of liberal arts colleges tend to have outside of the house system. (I would say campuswide, there is no kumbaya-ness, but as a first-year and for all your years in housing, you will feel part of a community regardless of where you live).</p>
<p>I've noticed that when students swarm the quads between classes, they're often walking alone and not in groups. I could see somebody interpret this as "Oh, Chicago students are unfriendly, because they're not talking to each other between classes," but I interpret it as "Oh, Chicago students are individuals and are okay with being alone and lost in thought sometimes."</p>
<p>Overall, though, I think that Chicago is a place where students are unafraid to be themselves. A lot of us in high school "played normal," and we get to college, and suddenly normal's not there anymore. There's virtually no sense of social hierarchy; virtually no campuswide sense of status; virtually no campuswide sense of style. I find that all of these factors contribute to a sense of environment that is extremely welcoming for me. And it sounds like your alumni interviewer was just trying to claim some false sense of superiority of Chicago to other schools.</p>
<p>My other thought: since when has popular stereotype of the Ivy Leagues been one of handholding and nurturing?</p>
<p>As you yourself and corranged point out, your alumnus's view of the school largely depends on when he or she graduated. Probably the biggest jump would be if he or she graduated pre-2000 or post-2000 (if pre-2000, he or she probably wouldn't even recognize the campus), but even '05 graduates say that the school is improving from their days.</p>
<p>As a father of a second year student and a member of a family that has had graduates of Chicago over the years I can speak about the major changes that have occured at Chicago. First of all, the core has been modified to allow a wider range of course choices, particularly with regard to courses that emphasize western culture. Now, for example, you can study the ice age and global warming as a science core course and latin american history for a social science. Much more attention is being spent on student life with a modern food court at the Reynolds club, a new residential complex and a multitude of student activities and clubs that did not exist in prior years. Even sports are getting more attention with a magnificent new gym built in recent years and a membership in a league that includes Tufts, U of Rochester, Washington U,Brandeis and others. The arts are getting a lot more attention with an expensive new arts center getting built in the next couple of years, the Court theatre on campus and the Smart Museum being added to the Oriental museum as attractions on campus. There is also a new arts center in Hyde Park open to the University Community. There is a vibrancy on campus that can be felt. More diversity is being sought in students and the variety of types of people on campus is evident. While not a hard core party school, students still have plenty to enjoy on campus with concerts, theatre, film society and festivals happening throughout the year. Dinner parties are frequent and international festivals at International House are a draw as are a multitude of interesting speakers and forums.Of course, the City of Chicago offers all sorts of activities and I think that more students are partaking of its benefits, although it is still a bit of a trip to downtown and the north side. Yes there are nerds but there are also hipsters and there are everyday average kids. There are beautiful people and average people. I think that people who went to Chicago prior to 2000 would see a tremendous change both physically on the campus and well as socially and to some extent academically( It is still a great education, but perhaps somewhat more varied and open as to choices ).</p>
<p>I have two cousins, siblings, now 31 and 28 who graduated from Chicago 8 and 6 yers ago, and two children there now. Most of us spent Thanksgiving together, and there's no question that my children's experience of the university is much happier and more social than that of their cousins. A substantial number of current undergraduate dorms weren't in existence then, and social life seemed to be deader and more fragmented. </p>
<p>Some of that is due to personality, no doubt. One of my cousins was a Chicago-type math-physics nerd. He is a lovely person, but he is still a little awkward socially years later. His sister is/was gregarious and beautiful, and engaged in mainstream politics, but she felt isolated and lonely until she joined a sorority. "Isolated" and "lonely" are words I've never heard from my current-student kids. Their days are pretty chock-full of stuff to do and people to do them with, only some of which involves their classes.</p>
<p>My cousins rarely left the Chicago campus, and felt uncomfortable when they did. But they grew up in a small college town in Minnesota. My big-city kids and their friends go all over the city, and love it.</p>
<p>The way I put it is this: back in the day, you had to be willing to sacrifice a lot for the education that the U of C gave you-- social life. Extracurriculars. Sleep. Feeling part of a community. While I'm sure it was a worthwhile tradeoff for some, a balance is healthy (of course, what constitutes a "balance" is highly debatable and probably different for everybody).</p>
<p>Nowadays, there's no outside sacrifice for that education. Those who want to be connected to their community will be connected, will find other people who like doing what they like doing.</p>
<p>I was talking to an English professor (Prof. Strier) about this change, and Strier's been here for over thirty years, so he would know what the university was like then and now. He doesn't see a difference in the quality of student or the quality of discussion between then and now, but he does see a difference in how students handle themselves extracurricularly. The typical U of C student is academically focused, but probably has a few side hobbies that he or she maintains and uses to contribute to student life (music, sports, literary magazine, etc. etc. etc.) while the former U of C students tended to be singularly focused on academics.</p>