<p>So, although the author said that the last place he wanted any of his writing to end up was being "dissected on CollegeConfidential.com", I think this article is very well-written and should be shared. I like that it does not get bogged down in the 'changes that CommonApp has brought' or other endless controversies and just focuses on an aspect that is important, but ignored. I for one know that I was disappointed by my visit to the admissions office after I got in, and it was only through a combination of sitting in on the classes as well as talking to former students/reading stuff online that I was able to see Chicago more clearly. Current students, thoughts? </p>
<p>Well, as a non-current, non-student, I’ll say my piece.</p>
<p>I think the author misapprehends how generic his depiction of the University of Chicago’s uniqueness sounds, mainly of course because he isn’t familiar with any college other than the University of Chicago. The University of Chicago IS different, and DOES have a special culture, but its differences from its peer institutions are a lot less meaningful than many of you think. The kinds of feelings the author describes – people feel those things at Yale or Brown every day. There are socially awkward people at every elite institution . . . and fewer of them at Chicago than the author pretends (although more, perhaps, than at Harvard, “The Social Network” notwithstanding). The difference is that at Chicago they are treated as emblematic, and at Harvard no one is bothering to count them to make sure there (a) aren’t too many, but (b) aren’t so few that it looks like the admissions office has started to exclude them. There is snow lots of places other than Chicago, and I’ll bet the sophomoric line about how the cold reflects our state of mind is just as much a weird, idiosyncratic point of view at Chicago as it would be at Dartmouth. (They have the same snow and the same temperatures and wind chills at Northwestern, of course, and no one goes around pontificating about it.) Smart, ambitious students work hard everywhere. They do brag about it a little more at Chicago, and I think there are somewhat fewer people who opt out of that culture there than at some peer colleges, but we’re probably talking about single-digit percentage shifts. </p>
<p>The other things that maybe distinguish Chicago from peers is the weight of attention to classes vs. ECs, the extent to which people agree to debate politicized issues in a polite, academic, and non-ideological manner – not perfectly so, mind you, but more so than elsewhere – and somewhat more balance between liberal and conservative points of view. Also, of course, the near-universal mindset and experience of having a romantic attachment to the idea of the Core and mixed excitement and disappointment at the actual classes that comprise it. And the relative disdain for practical education vs. theory. All of those things are a matter of spicing, not a different cuisine altogether, and each element may be duplicated or exceeded elsewhere, but not altogether. (E.g., Columbia has the same Core ambivalence going on, even more uniformly, but almost completely lacks depoliticized debate.)</p>
<p>It is no cakewalk representing the University of Chicago in an admissions context. Behind you, there’s a mass of brilliant students and faculty, and everyone (everyone but the President and Trustees, that is) is screaming, “We love the University of Chicago for its special qualities! Tell everyone how special it is! Bring us more people like us!” And in front of you, there are masses of great students who would do well at the University, really make a contribution, and love all its special qualities just like the people already there. They are crying, “Does fun really come to die there? Is my roommate going to have Asperger’s? Does anyone ever have sex? Will gangbangers strip me naked and leave me to die in the cold? If my dreams of professional school don’t die first?”</p>
<p>Give 'em a break! They earn their salaries.</p>
<p>
Anyone want to answer those for me? :D</p>
<p>Yes, yes, no, and yes.</p>
<p>Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go study for midterms and weep into my pillow.</p>
<p>
This is the humor that I like. 
I believe that there will be no change in “specialness.”</p>
<p>On a semi-related note, I don’t think he addressed the actual marketing materials of the admissions department, which are pretty important. Although people here complained last year about being flooded, most of it really stood out to me (particularly one that had a caffeine molecule on it with a list of coffee shops on campus, as well as PSAC’s Insider Guide). I took a look at some of the new ones this year when I went to a PSAC session and while they definitely emphasize athletics/RSOs more I still thought they went a bit beyond the generic college viewbook. I guess one of the reasons that I strongly believe in the marketing campaign is because I did not hear about Chicago until the end of junior year, when my friend who applied (ended up going to Duke) said she didn’t find the school too appealing. I could have very easily passed it off if I hadn’t received that postcard with the caffeine molecule, as none of my counselors and teachers had even suggested Chicago to me. It’s a clear exaggeration to say that I would not have heard about Chicago & its ‘uniqueness’, in any sense of the word, without that one postcard, but it does make me wonder… </p>
<p>@ Haavain: Wanted to let you know that I’ve quoted your reply to “Is this really where fun comes to die?” countless times on campus. :P</p>
<p>^ Haha. Well, I’m glad it left an impression.</p>
<p>For an indication of how current students feel, check out the only two comments on that article. Pretty representative.</p>