<p>^ Brown and Chicago are very different on the surface--Chicago a little nerdier and quirkier, the students more stressed with a demanding workload and a challenging core curriculum; Brown cool and laid back with an "anything goes" open curriculum. But I do think there's an underlying similarity. Both strike me as deeply intellectual places, where students are deeply engaged in the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. At Brown they have the freedom to do that. At Chicago they really have no choice, because that's what's there, that's the sum and substance of student life. Brown students are smart but IMO they tend not to be the hyperachievers that get into HYPS. And in a way Chicago students aren't hyperachievers, either; they're highly accomplished, but in quirky ways, not the kids who spend their HS years burnishing their resumes with spectacular ECs with an eye toward gaining an edge in HYPS admissions. Both are also a little more LAC-ish than your typical research university. So I can see it. And my D can see it: Brown and Chicago are the only two research universities currently on her radar screen. The rest are all LACs.</p>
<p>I didn't mean that the types of people attracted to both are entirely different; after all, most elite universities will have statistically indiscernible student bodies. What I meant was that the approach of the universities towards curriculum as well as the perceived reputation of both are entirely different. Brown takes a much more liberal stance on what classes students can take as well as the classifications of "concentrations", while Chicago's is certainly a more structured course in that it has a Core,etc,.
Brown is also more alike an LAC while Chicago has more graduate/professional/research focus.</p>
<p>^ beefs, are you a "nifty nerd"? ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
^ beefs, are you a "nifty nerd"?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You bet =P.</p>
<p>Something I really love about Chicago is the freedom in the structure. That might sound like a complete paradox, but maybe making an analogy to poetry can help.</p>
<p>If Brown and Chicago were poems, Brown would undeniably be open verse and Chicago would probably be a sestina (or another poetry format with all sorts of crazy rules).</p>
<p>If you are a poet, you can arrange words in any way you please. You might find that you can best express yourself in a free and unstructured environment... or you might find that the rules give you a little bit extra, a sort of finesse, make you establish connections and realize intricacies. </p>
<p>If you are trying to write an expressive poem, you might also find that the rules help you towards a kind of freedom a lot more than the freedom to do your own things allows you.</p>
<p>One of the reasons Chicago caught my attention and stuck to me were these rules. The fact that I chose to go to a school with rules when I could have chosen to go to a school without them makes those rules much more meaningful to me, the same way a student might choose a school like BYU or Notre Dame (if we want to talk about another set of rules). Going back to the poetry analogy, Elizabeth Bishop and Frank O'Hara both wrote some sestinas, even though they were well aware that they could have used free verse instead.</p>
<p>But I would hesitate to think that Chicago's academic program is somehow "inflexible" or... negatively associated buzzword coming up... "conservative." The Core is adaptable to reflect the growing interests and need to learn about non-Western cultures, non-Western intellectual foundations, and the works of women, and as an undergraduate you can cobble together a self-designed major verrrry easily if you don't like what you see in the course catalog.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And in a way Chicago students aren't hyperachievers, either; they're highly accomplished, but in quirky ways, not the kids who spend their HS years burnishing their resumes with spectacular ECs with an eye toward gaining an edge in HYPS admissions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>bclintonk, I cannot begin to explain how much that summary describes me to a T. Though I am "intense" and "academic," I'm also very "relaxed" and "laid-back." Of all the things in the world that worry me and frustrate me, schoolwork doesn't make the list. I do it first because it's fun, and second because it might be useful. A lot of students here feel similarly.</p>
<p>I didn't end up applying to either actually, though I know I would have been very happy at either. I ended up choosing between Berkeley, Chicago, and Harvard. I wanted a place with lots of active research.</p>
<p>Wow, thanks for all the replies, everyone! All incredibly useful information.</p>
<p>Hm, by "nifty nerdiness" and "quirky intellectualism" I mean...well, unalove's post with poetry analogy is a perfect example (and of course it is, she's a UC student :D). I want to go to a college where references to sestinas and Frank O Hara are the norm (and maybe game theory and Cantor sets as well). </p>
<p>I'm also looking at Brown and Carleton, which also seem to fit my tastes. But they seem to fit too well, if that makes sense. I'm afraid I might get carried away with the liberalness of such environments. Chicago looks perfect to me because it is politically balanced. At schools like Brown, Carleton, and especially Wesleyan, everyone seems to be trying to out-liberal everyone else, to the point of narrowmindedness. I want to go to a school where my views will be challenged. Pursuit of truth and all that good stuff.</p>
<p>^^"everyone" is a big word. there is certainly a cadre of political activists at Wesleyan who seem to challenge everyone's beliefs. If for some reason you feel unchallenged from the other end of the political spectrum, I've seen other groups that are more conservative, principally at Dartmouth. Not sure they really add light or just more heat. Personally, I'd rather have one or the other rather than neither.</p>
<p>[
[quote]
At schools like Brown, Carleton, and especially Wesleyan, everyone seems to be trying to out-liberal everyone else, to the point of narrow-mindedness. I want to go to a school where my views will be challenged. Pursuit of truth and all that good stuff.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not sure if this is as true as you think--as a Wes student, I've met people from basically every side of the political spectrum (except for REALLY extreme moral conservatives), and most of these people are articulate about why they believe what they do—I’ve certainly felt challenged from both sides of the spectrum. And, from talking to a friend at Carleton, Carleton students are far less uber-liberal. </p>
<p>I say this only because Brown, Wes, and ESPECIALLY Carleton all pop to mind for me when someone says quirky intellectualism and nifty nerdiness. Again, ESPECIALLY Carleton—while, as I said, Wes (and Brown, as far as I know) have a wider range of opinions than you seem to think, they do have a lot of political activism and extreme alternative-ness compared to other schools, but I really think that Carelton, though of course liberal, is more like Swarthmore or Grinnell—that is, not as high a concentration of alternative/radical students as Wes/Brown/Oberlin, with a LOT of focus on intellectual pursuits. So, basically, I wouldn't worry about it too much :D</p>
<p>Oooh, I'm glad to hear that. Thanks, johnwesly and weskid. </p>
<p>Would a Cornell or UPenn student care to share their views on the level of nifty nerdiness or quirky intellectualism on their campus?</p>
<p>If you don't get responses, try moving into the Ivy League Forums for Cornell and Penn. But first, do a search for "Cornell intellectual" and "Penn intellectual"-- I'm sure this is a question that comes up rather often.</p>
<p>These past threads may be helpful:
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/cornell-university/500391-conflicted-confused.html?highlight=intellectual%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/cornell-university/500391-conflicted-confused.html?highlight=intellectual</a></p>