<p>I have a DS who made the same choice btwn the same two wonderful options you have. If you want the ‘why’ in detail, send me a PM. Simply, he’s at Chicago because he believed he would struggle more there - and felt that that struggle was essential to his concept of learning.</p>
<p>Arcadia,</p>
<p>Of course I’ve eaten at Middlebury, but you’re right, and astute. I haven’t sat in on any classes (have, however, at Chicago). You’d be surprised, though, at what old codgers who once were college professors can glean, especially if one of their favorite things to do is relive past glories by chatting up random students on college campuses. (yeah, I know, get a life.) Granted, some of my “knowledge” is anecdotal (hearsay, Scalia would contend, and inadmissable), but it’s from first person sources.</p>
<p>Don’t have time now for a thorough response (and we’ve got to stop meeting like this), but yes, my sense of it, too, is that Middlebury “offers a more well-rounded and balanced college experience in general,” though I might add “typical” as an important qualifier of “college experience,” whereas the UChicago experience is not typical of other top schools, it is distinctive. Whether “distinctive” for better or worse is for individuals to decide based on their value systems. I also agree about the degree of “social polish” and would add that Midd kids are, on average, arguably better looking and certainly better dressed. If that’s what the OP values most, decision made.</p>
<p>My beef has never been with the virtues of Middlebury, which are many. It’s just that now that I have some skin in the game (as a UC parent), I don’t like seeing UChicago misrepresented and misunderstood, especially since it does a disservice to those posters looking to learn enough to make an informed decision. </p>
<p>Interestingly enough, I held similar views about UC when my son began thinking about where to apply. As a lapsed academic whose information base was more dated than I realized, I arrogantly thought that Chicago was where you went for your doctorate or professional degree. It wasn’t even on the radar screen as an undergraduate institution. Fortunately, a trusted high school teacher and Columbia alum told our son he thought Chicago worth looking at for fit when said son, a rabid New Yorker, told him Columbia was choice #1. We looked, visited (twice), and it’s proven to be a very good decision for him. It certainly wouldn’t be for everybody capable of getting in.</p>
<p>Now, about this “fun goes to die” thing. God, it’s become like whack-a-mole. How many times do those with sufficient knowledge (current students, parents, alumni) have to debunk this myth? I’ll make a few points per some of those you make and then replay the response I made to you on the UC forum (which is what led me to the Middlebury forum in the first place).</p>
<ul>
<li> Chicago students are smart, too, and they also play broomball, pickup as well as intramural, along with Frisbee, beer pong, and all the other stuff college kids do these days.</li>
<li> Chicago doesn’t have Mead Chapel, but it does have Rockefeller Cathedral, a special place in its own right when you can’t hop over to Europe, and with the second largest organ in the world.</li>
<li> No aurora borealis at Chicago, but I must say, the city setting on Lake Michigan is also pretty special, particularly in mid-winter when those students hardy enough are participating in Kuvia/Kangeiko, a weeklong dawn ordeal of calisthenics and yoga as the price for seeing the sun rise over the lake. Then you get a T-shirt. </li>
<li> Undergraduates most definitely do not get lost in the shuffle. The liberal arts college within the research university has its own strong and clear integrity and sense of identity (much like the case at Harvard and Yale) that is only bolstered by synergistic relationships with the grad programs. </li>
<li> Students are generally competitive with themselves, collaborative with each other, and the fact that the coursework is, in your words, “so demanding” for a student body with a 1400-1560 median SAT is only further evidence of the quality, as well as rigor, of the education. </li>
<li> Now, to return to the place where fun goes to die, and replay a point I assume you read, as it was addressed to you, but for some reason choose not to credit:<br></li>
</ul>
<p>Arcadia,
I’ll make again a point that’s often been made in these threads when posters raise the spectre of “fun comes to die” as a knock against UChicago: you do realize that that studiously self-deprecating slogan (dreamed up by a house to make a few bucks selling gear) is but one of many examples of the kind of humor one tends to find among the UC student body. Those who appreciate the joke will probably “get” Chicago and be comfortable with its student body. Those who don’t may not. Nothing wrong with being self-selective.</p>
<p>The kernel of reality (but not truth) in the slogan is that the UC education is more rigorous than most, leaving somewhat less time for non-academic pursuits. However, students come to UC because they value and enjoy academic pursuits, and are happy to let these bleed into their “non-academic” life. It’s not a negative; it’s what draws them to UC, so that’s fun, too, at least for them. btw, Middlebury, as a top LAC, is no walk in the park either.</p>
<p>But here is the important point: most of them also enjoy having other kinds of fun, too (even drinking at frat parties), for which there is more than ample opportunity and, generally, sufficient time. </p>
<p>Do think about it – 5000+ young men and women with normal hormone levels living together within a resource-rich 15,000 student research university located in a world-class city with all its attractions. Even if the university didn’t accommodate ~400 RSOs, film screenings 7 nights a week through DOC films, plays, concerts, and so on, UC kids would have fun. What’s amazed me, observing as a parent, is just how much how many of them do in addition to their admittedly demanding course work.</p>
<p>END OF EXCERPT</p>
<p>Sorry the response was so long (if you’re still reading), even if it isn’t thorough with respect to your post. Hadn’t planned it that way, but now, I’m going to call an end to this, at least from my side. I’ve made the points I think worth making, and do need to return to my regular channel. Hopefully the OP has seen enough from us and others to make the decision.</p>
<p>And, he would totally dispute that the focus in the college is NOT on the undergrads, or that the student body is competitive in any negative sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Replace “UChicago” with “Middlebury” and “parent” with “alum,” and you have my sentiments exactly.</p>
<p>Just when I thought it was safe to go back in the water . . . I must be enjoying this for some perverse reason, or I’d simply stop responding. Too much time on my hands as a retiree, I guess.</p>
<p>Arcadia,
Since you’re quoting my post in your response, the language implies that the school at issue is being misrepresented and misunderstood. Question: do you believe I’ve been misrepresenting or misunderstanding Middlebury (which was my sense of your position and some others wrt UChicago – hence my let’s-set-the-record-straight posts)? If so, I think you got me wrong, but would be glad to be pointed at the comments I made that give you this impression. I believe I’ve been in stated agreement with all the positive (and deservedly so) descriptions offered up on behalf of Middlebury. Of course, we’ve let ourselves stray off topic from the needs of the OP in posting the original question – very self-indulgent of us both.</p>
<p>If instead, your sentiments, which I somehow captured “exactly” (except for some terms needing replacement), refer back to a much earlier post where you noted the Rodney Dangerfield syndrome that afflicted both schools, I believe we’re done with our little contretemps, although I’d note that the issue you raised back when isn’t so much misrepresentation and misunderstanding as lack of awareness. Fortunately, for the populations that should matter to college aspirants and students–decision makers on applicants to top line employers, particularly in the IB and Consulting spheres, as well as top graduate and professional school programs – both schools are well and fairly known, and their graduates meet with much success.</p>
<p>So, are we still at odds or have we reached a state of violent agreement?</p>
<p>Sorry Spike, I couldn’t let this go. Five years ago the acceptance rate at Chicago was 40%, it’s dropped a lot over the past few years, but that has more to do with their campaign to attract more applicants than anything else. Don’t believe the Hype! Five years ago at Middlebury the acceptance rate was virtually the same as it is today. </p>
<p>Your original post on the difference in average SAT score was based on the fact that Chicago’s average scores were almost 100 points higher than Midd’s which means, according to you, they’re not in the same class (note that the previous year the difference was a statistically insignificant 40 points, and because Midd is much smaller will experience greater swings in average scores). By that standard, UChicago is not in the same class as Harvey Mudd or WUSTL and neither Johns Hopkins nor UC Berkeley would be considered to be in the same class as UChicago. My point, as others have said, is that at this level, those are small differences and should not be determining factors. Fit is most important here. Which, on a certain level, appears to your point too. I just object to your claim that UChicago is in a different class than Midd.</p>