<p>O Kermit, what fabulous examples of quirkiness! Thank you!</p>
<p>Brings to mind the advice to the graduates by the speaker at my daughter's graduation from art college: "Don't Be Normal." It was such excellent advice for a bunch of artists. I think it's pretty apt advice for many smart and creative people.</p>
<p>If one follows the history of U of C one will see what O'Neill means. Chicago is known, and has always been known, for a particular approach to undergraduate education. By understanding what that is, and expressing how one fits into it, one chooses Chicago. Further, if one looks at the student decision thread, one will see many students with very high "scores" rejected, while others with similar or lower scores are accepted. They can usually tell the students who are likely to be a fit versus those looking for an Ivy back-up. Once admitted, the full realization of what a Chicago education involves sets in. At that time many decide it is not really what they are after even though they made the case that they did in their application. Those who finally decide a "life of the mind" is indeed the life they seek, go to Chicago. Others who seek name recognition may chose an Ivy, or as the data from formal research studies show, most chose so-called lessor schools. The pool that is finally admitted has done a great deal of soul searching, and has made the commitment, not based on popularity or prestige, but on what they know to be one of the greatest academic challenges anyone can face. My S, who had Chicago as his clear first choice, had to wrestle with this issue once admitted. Once the reality of the decision stared him in the face, his decision became even more difficult. Was he truly prepared for the Chicago challenge? He had many fine alternatives. There was no attempt by the University to sugarcoat the experience. In the end, he, and he alone, made the choice for the U of C lifestyle. This is what Ted O'Neill means when he says "...we simply made it possible for you to choose us."</p>
<p>the simple truth is that the only way a school can allow a student to choose them is if they acept them first. it is quite irrefutable that uchi allows at least 40% of their applicants to choose them and sadly over 60% of those elect not to choose them. that is the only formal study that counts. of course there are a lot of students with high scores rejected by uchi, just look at some of the posters on this board with their high scores and little personality. if uchi doesn't reject those, then it would be a sad state of affairs for uchi. it's just that oneill and uchi apologists go through all these contortions to explain why their school is so undesirable...or better yet...why other schools are so much more desirable than uchi. how can any admissions dean say with a straight face that they make their decisions without regard to how the class makeup will be? i'll tell you how. they are tacitly saying that they will accept as many ivy type eligibles as they can just to maintain their high student body sat and gpa scores so that they won't plummet in the us news rankings. who cares if the class is skewed towards self centered grade grubbers. a previous poster gave examples of the types of kids at uchi and frankly, they sound pretentious at best and frighteningly abnormal at worse. yes, i agree that the reason why over 65% of the admits choose to go elsewhere is that they don't want to deal with the work at uchi. why should they put up with all the nonsense of the quarter system or the socially incomplete student body or the war zone surroundings at uchi when there are better alternatives elsewhere? it appears to me that the majority of the uchi admits would rather attend a university that is much more well rounded in atmosphere and student body. As a result of this, uchi has no choice but to accept whoever they can and try to maintain a facade of selectability at a rate of 40% or higher. any less and uchi won't be able to fill their class and let's face it, uchi isn't that large to begin with. so i don't envy oneill. on the one hand, he has to keep the stats up to perputuate future applications, yet he can't raise his yield, so he must keep accepting 40%+ of the apps thus keeping uchi out of the "very selective" college catagory (or is it the "highly selective" college group? well, whichever is the one that hyps, aws, duke, brown, dartmouth, middlebury, pomona etc. are in). look, uchi is what uchi is. it's a very respected, highly demanding university that is great, but not on the same level as those other schools and is considered a safety school to most if ot all of the applicants to the most selective colleges in america. yes, columbia and penn may be safety schools to hyps as well, and cornell and duke may be safeties to columbia and penn and so on down the line. being a safety school isn't a smear. it's just what it is to others. the numbers don't lie.</p>
<p>The fact remains that U of C has many fewer applicants than most of its peers. Those with the numbers, who apply to other less rigorous schools, are selected out from the outset. This reduced applicant pool makes the acceptance rate higher. Chicago's "yield" is worse then some and better than others (e.g. Swarthmore has a 26% yield, also known for having a rigorous curriculum). It has been pretty clearly established that it is the rigor of the academics that guides most students' decision as to whether or not to attend, adding further selection. </p>
<p>Ted O'Neill is not as concerned with the school's ranking as much as he is in finding the right students for the college. He resisted the ED movement, with Chicago leading the way on non-binding EA, though it would have immediately improved the so-called selectivity and yield statistics.</p>
<p>The students at Chicago are driven by a love of learning, and their commitment to that is what separates from the others. Having said that, they are not a bunch of cloistered nerds. That characterization is nonsense. It certainly does not apply to my S and his friends. As far as Hyde park is concerned, it is quite nice, not a war zone at all, though still part of a large city. The area immediately north of the school is rapidly becoming one of the city's most desired neighborhoods. The area south of campus remains a problem, but students seldom have any reason to go there.</p>
<p>Chicago is very comfortable with its stature, others may argue about it, but Chicago doesn't much care. Take a look at the group that gets together to set the educational agenda for issues confronting the top schools. This group is called the Ivy Deans, the members: Chicago, the Ivies, Stanford & MIT. Chicago knows its role in American higher education is that of a leader, the others know it as well.</p>
<p>Look, beyond the question of defending Chicago, it is important for seniors to realize that there is a significant difference in institutional personalities--not just in the goals and practices of the universities themselves but also in the undergraduate student body at each place. College selection is not just a matter of taking the next step down on the scores ladder. Students who think that way are liable to be miserable with their choice. Harvard students are higher achieving, more well-rounded, and more conventional than their peers. Fine. Students who fit that profile and are priviliged enough to be admitted will enjoy their time in Boston. My less conventional friends complained that it was the most boring four years of their life and they hated everyone they met. Similarly, Columbia students tend to be more 'sophisticated' than other Ivy Leaguers. I spent most of my freshman year at Columbia in trendy clubs and restaurants or shopping for bizarre music with a bunch of likeminded NYC prep school brats before I realized that own my priorities were different than I had thought. Likewise, Chicago kids are not exactly cloistered nerds but they are frankly less well-rounded and much less image conscious than the students I know from, say, Yale. I don't personally think it's "pretentious" or "lame" to spend Sunday night sitting on the porch drinking beer and arguing about whether or not Paul Tillich was a heretic. But if you looked down on the 'nerds' and other enthusiasts in your high school, you will probably be unhappy at Chicago. People have to make their choices with both eyes open and some serious self-reflection. Chicago's reputation can look out for itself. It's not as if M.I.T. has suffered a loss of national respect for <em>it's</em> 'nerdy' student body.</p>
<p>I'm curious, where is the study that determined "the profile" of students at the Universities mentioned? The student many considered lacking most in social skills and quite introverted went to Harvard from my S's class. Do they have an attic somewhere where they hide those not matching the stereotype? </p>
<p>Over many years I have worked with students from all the universities mentioned, I saw no real "social" difference (well, some from Stanford had tans) in the students from any of the schools.</p>
<p>i agree that uchi knows its role in higher american education. i also believe that uchi may be a leader in that role. i also know that its standing amongst most students applying to very competitive colleges is that it is america's saftey school to the ivy's. on the other hand, so are most other schools. it's just that uchi people can't deal with that whilst others can. one can argue about how students self select uchi, but the fact remains that after gaining admittance, over 60% of accepted students relegate uchi to the "thanks but no thanks" pile thereby forcing uchi to accept more applicants than the most selective schools just to fill their class. it is a credit to uchi that it retains its sterling reputation despite having to accept almost anyone and everyone with a live sat and gpa pulse. for the dean to say that he lets the class "form" itself is ridiculous. all schools need to fill a class with diversity, whether it be racial, economical, gender or athletic. no formal or informal study is needed, yield is an indicator of how a school is percieved. swarthmore can also be viewed as a safety school for the ivys or probably amherst or williams, more likely, because of their reputation for being rigorous. noone at swarthmore whines that they're on a par with williams and amherst. noone at swarthmore constantly says that their s has friends who chose swarthmore over williams and noone at swarthmore needs to keep explaining the schools role in higher education. they are secure with themselves about their place and standing. it's the uchi people who have an ivy inferiority complex or maybe not all uchi people, maybe just one.</p>
<p>I am glad to see a consensus emerge. I agree many who consider UChicago and feel they can handle the rigor, also apply to other schools including Ivy's. Those that don't feel the rigor and lifestyle is for them don't. There is no mystery in this, and that single fact is what makes the initial applicant pool less than many others. Chicago is not an Ivy, nor does it want to be, nor in my opinion should it be, it is a unique institution that offers a type of education most, including the Ivy's do not. </p>
<p>Also, the many schools cited here either as preferable to U of C based on yield have either ED or SCEA programs that Chicago views as unfair to students. Everyone knows these programs pad the yield rates. Chicago could improve its yield by at least 50% if it went to these methods, would that mean that it suddenly became a better more sought after school? If one doubts these changes are possible see: <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200109/fallows%5B/url%5D">http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200109/fallows</a>. Even Harvard has succumbed to the yield pressure and has gone to SCEA with the result a record yield.</p>
<p>No Ivy inferiority complex is needed, nor a need to argue by simple firmly stated assertion, facts and logic presented to counter unsupported assertion, though obviously irritating to some, are enough.</p>
<p>BnB, you keep repeating the same mantra, obsessed with percentages of this and that and missing the point that the admissions process is not about percentages and rates but instead about what kinds of students end up enrolling at Chicago and what happens to them during their time there and afterwards.</p>
<p>I think Kermit has a reasonable point of view, and that's to focus on the fact that Chicago does attract a fair number of more quirky students. But he's careful not to lump all Chicago students, not even all dorky ones, into a single category, whereas all you seem to be able to focus on is the "Ivy reject" label.</p>
<p>When I look at the admission rates of different schools, I look at them from the perspective of someone who is trying to do admissions. How large is the pool of applicants, how qualified are they to complete the program here, how many can be self-financing, which ones of them have unusual profiles or particular interests that would really be served well by our program, and so on. By the very evidence of the "stats" of those who actually do enroll and the success of the graduates of the university, Chicago is finding an excellent set of students to fill out its entering classes each year.</p>
<p>When my son was looking for colleges, he was looking for schools where he would be challenged to "think" and where the prevailing culture among students valued intellectual inquiry highly. I attended such a school, and I understand very well what it means on a practical level: you make choices every day about how to spend your time, and you almost always give higher priority to your academic work over socializing, sports, etc. That said, even at a school such as Chicago there's a "three ring circus" of activities going on every day, between music, theater, public lectures, political events, sporting events, and so on, including parties. Most students there keep their coursework and research projects pretty high on their agenda, and the courses are demanding, but most also partake of events in the other rings on a regular basis (and some spend large amounts of their time in them).</p>
<p>Chicago doesn't have a "ring" that occupies students at many schools that are said to have a high "school spirit": big-time NCAA intercollegiate sports. This was a choice that Chicago made some 40-50 years ago, when it left the "Big Ten" and opened up a spot for Michigan State to join. (But it does have D-III teams in several sports.) This was a consideration in my son's decisions about attending college. He chose Chicago in part because the city had big-time professional sports, his greatest passion and now the focus of his full-time job as a writer/analyst. In the job he had for the first few years after graduation (economic analysis and consulting with a major national firm), he ran into graduates from many universities and it was then that he really came to understand the quality of the education that he had received at Chicago. After graduating he began to see that this experience made a difference later in his style of thinking, his continued interests outside of work, and so on. While in a sense he was drawn to Chicago because of what he perceived to be its culture, that style was reinforced later and he values it even more now than he did when he was enrolled.</p>
<p>this has to be one of the most informative forums i have ever seen... its great to get such in- depth opinion on UChicago for a prospective student...</p>
<p>mackinaw: i appreciate your pov and i am happy that your s and idad's s feel uchi is the ideal place for them. no doubt that they will be successful in whatever endeavors they should ultimately choose. my question is,what happened to the other 65%+ that said no to uchi when offered a spot? did they apply, get accepted then realize uchi was so much more rigorous than they thought when they applied 3 months earlier? i tend to doubt that. the premise of my argument is only that most accepted applicants, not all, use uchi as a safety school. the problem with me stating that is that my assertion is taken as slap against the school and the students themselves. facts and articles are provided to rebut my assertions, but the facts presented and those articles only deal with either the quality of the uchi education or possibly its prestige, but never really refute my basic premise. yes are the individual cases where a student accepted to an ivy institution would accept uchi, but where examples of that were presented, the poster did concede that money played into the equation and that those students did view uchi as their safety. i am happy for uchi that both your son and idad's son turned down their ivy acceptances for uchi. if more students do this, then maybe uchi wouldn't no longer be the caddy to the ivy's.</p>
<p>btw, swarthmore doesn't have a 26% yield. they may have a 26% accept rate, but their yield is closer to 40%. where are these facts coming from? 26% yield?</p>
<p>BlacknBlue, I am an unbiased prospective student; your argument is terrible.</p>
<p>"the premise of my argument is only that most accepted applicants, not all, use uchi as a safety school"
Where did you get that information? </p>
<p>"my question is,what happened to the other 65%+ that said no to uchi when offered a spot?"
Good question. Where did you get your answer?</p>
<p>"the problem with me stating that is that my assertion is taken as slap against the school and the students themselves."
No, the problem is, you are too presumptuous.</p>
<p>"facts and articles are provided to rebut my assertions, but the facts presented and those articles only deal with either the quality of the uchi education or possibly its prestige, but never really refute my basic premise."
Did you present any articles to support your premise?</p>
<p>"yes are the individual cases where a student accepted to an ivy institution would accept uchi, but where examples of that were presented, the poster did concede that money played into the equation and that those students did view uchi as their safety."
Yes, but you collected that information from 3 terse statements on an internet forum.</p>
<p>"i am happy for uchi that both your son and idad's son turned down their ivy acceptances for uchi. if more students do this, then maybe uchi wouldn't no longer be the caddy to the ivy's."
How do you know that there are not more students that do that?</p>
<p>Do you have any hard evidence, perhaps a formal survey that you can present to me to prove your point? Otherwise, I would have to judge your arguments a combination of ad hominem, false cause, and hasty generalizations.</p>
<p>I think Black and Blue might be right and that is a very sad thing. I was perusing the College Admissions boards and they are full of students making admissions choices for strange and superficial reasons. Keeping in mind that the kind of student who is obsessively checking and comparing scores on the internet is probably not entirely representative of the application pool, there still seem to be a strong minority of students who are just trying to get into the 'best' school they can get into. </p>
<p>On the topic of college profiles: I think it should be obvious that there are number of objective factors sorting different types of students into different schools. For instance, the type of student who generally gets into Harvard: gets a nearly perfect score on their S.A.T.s, maintains straight As at an excellent school, has excelled in a balanced program featuring both A.P. history courses and A.P. German, for instance, and A.P. Calculus/Physics, and is the president of at least one 'club' or 'activity,' probably two or more. No social misfit or non-conformist can maintain that sort of profile for four years. Whatever she might have been like growing up, a school-bound Harvard admit is almost definately well-rounded, articulate or possessing some other leadership quality, conventional in her goals, and brilliant. </p>
<p>Any college bound senior has also been told by their G.C. that Yale is more interested in non-conformist brilliance. You can drop Calculus to take your second A.P. language and still get into Yale. In fact it will probably be considered a plus, ect.</p>
<p>Finally, as someone who ran quite a few inter-collegiate conferences at various schools and has therefore 'networked' with an absurd number of undergraduate students: I have to admit that there are plenty of students who don't fit the profile of the college they have chosen. And most of them are miserable. Sure, you can be a role-playing, pot smoking, Anne Rice reader at Columbia. But your peers are going to think you are strange. Why not attend one of the cooler and smaller L.A.C.s where you will find friends and be blissful? </p>
<p>There isn't really that much of a different in the merits of the undergraduate preparation attainable with a little work at a strong L.A.C. and Harvard unless you are doing graduate level astro-physics. It's not as if any of my Harvard friends ever actually talked to their famous professors for more than ten minutes at a time... Why not pick a place where you will fit in, be happy, and get the marks that you will need to get into graduate school, medical school, or law school? And as far as the job market goes, I've seen a number of articles on the declining professional value of a Harvard undergraduate degree so, seriously, don't sweat it. In fact, the only undergraduate preparation that really puts you head and shoulders above the rest is a University of Chicago degree...Just kidding.</p>
<p>Really finally, my husband (who just graduated from Chicago with me) says it is important to point out that University of Chicago students are not closeted weirdos: they are good looking, sex loving, substance friendly geeks. They go out plenty. They just go out to strange and sleazy jazz bars or tour the Museum of Jesus at the local Bible College. In fact, he points out: they are a lot like graduate students everywhere. And I second this with all the authority of a Hyde Parker with years and years of University of Chicago undergraduate babysitters, tutors, friends, and colleagues. I don't think anyone who is seriously considering Chicago will be put off by this description.</p>
<p>This thread has been interesting and as a former student from the UofC I would like to weigh in on several of the issues raised. (As a rather tangential aside, the constant reference to the University of Chicago as UChi simply grates on my ears, I have no idea why you made up that nickname but the students and alumni refer to it as the UofC).</p>
<p>Unfortunately, several of the posters here have already set an aggressive tone that puts those who want to discuss UofC into an apologetic position (the non-Ivy shame! Shame!) Im going to try and escape that debate and negative framework by restarting this conversation on what are my own grounds and I believe UofCs. </p>
<p>Ill start with a joke. </p>
<p>A Harvard student walks into an interview and acts as if he owns the entire room. </p>
<p>A Dartmouth student walks into an interview and acts as if he someday will own the entire room. </p>
<p>A University of Chicago student walks into an interview and re-arranges the furniture. </p>
<p>The joke has to make one smile and as our professor of logic and philosophy and part time stand up comedian Ted Cohen points out, a joke is only funny if it reflects a socially unacceptable truth. </p>
<p>Do University of Chicago students see themselves as the best? Damn straight. And with good reason too. </p>
<p>Two very interesting articles that everyone on this thread should read have recently appeared. One is a New Yorker article discussing Harvard and The Ivy Leagues rather repulsive past (and present) system of admissions. The article can be found here: <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/critics/content/articles/051010crat_atlarge%5B/url%5D">http://www.newyorker.com/critics/content/articles/051010crat_atlarge</a> (Be forewarned, the first few paragraphs of the article are pretty terrible, skip them or push through it.)</p>
<p>In short (for those who inevitably will not read the article) it is an historical examination of the Ivy Leagues current admission policy, how it was framed and begun by Harvard in the 1920s in order to prevent so many of those damned Jews and Catholics and (in the future) Blacks and Asians, from attending and ruining their precious (and pretentious) atmosphere of the elite WASP supermen. (This issue has come up again and again for those who think it is ancient history most recently when Harvard was sued, and lost, in the 1980s.) When Harvard opened up its doors to an objective academic framework for admission at the turn of the 20th century, the result was a very diversified student pool, with an exceptionally large Jewish student body. Well, they couldnt have that, and so began the process we have all come to know of interviews, athletics, essays, pictures, checking off of ones ethnic background, and so on. A way to have quotas but not let anyone know you have quotas. Smart but ugly women would come to find that Harvards doors were closed, no joke, check out the article. (The article also references UofC in contrast to Harvard, with its open admission policy based on brains backing up ONeills claim that he has no idea of the make up of the class till he sees it. A concept, that BNB is unable to believe, which is more an indication of his prejudice than UofCs.) </p>
<p>Another interesting article from a Harvard undergrad in the Harvard Crimson can be found here <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=509107%5B/url%5D">http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=509107</a>. Check out the misuse of the word disinterested. Pretty funny, I thought thats what editors are for. But that isnt the point. The point is that the student points out the major reason that we at the UofC think we are far ahead of just about any and every other school out there. </p>
<p>So what makes UofC so great? Ill address that in my next post tomorrow. Youll just have to wait till then </p>
<p>Tom, we've read those. Nobody here is going to be holding their breath til tomorrow. But like everyone else here you have a right to express your POV. My only substantive comment is that I just don't know a lot of Chicago students who walk around with an air of superiority about them. Most of them just aren't climbers, and so aren't into putting down other schools (well, except maybe Northwestern. . .).</p>
<p>Okay, I think this will be my last post on C.C. I have writing samples to prepare and this shameless alma mater promoting is addictive. However, one last comment before I try to go cold turkey. </p>
<p>First, I think it was pretty obvious that Tom was joking around about how great Chicago is in comparison to Harvard. I have certainly heard plenty of Harvard jokes from Chicago students. Although I have never actually heard anyone mention Northwestern... I don't think this is a 'climbing' vein of humor. I think it speaks to three aspects of the Chicago experience.</p>
<p>1) About a quarter of my friends turned down an Ivy for Chicago. Others didn't even apply to an Ivy, opting for places like St. Johns College and other Chicago-like programs. This is more difficult to do than many parents can remember. I myself had the moral courage to turn down Yale when I knew it wasn't for me but couldn't resist the super smart-super hip Columbia scene. Come on. These kids are giving up a lot of superficial prestige among their peers and a hell of a 'smart kids unite' social scene so that they can have the privilege of working their butts off for four years and still end up with a lower G.P.A. than many of the students at the schools they might have attended. Let them (us) make a few Harvard jokes. </p>
<p>2) Do you have any idea how irritating it is to go to a school that only academics and wall street mavens have ever heard of? My husband recently came home from a job interview grinding his teeth because the interviewer had been extremely condescending. It seems that he was under the mistaken impression that the 'University of Chicago' was a local community college. (Apparently the person who had winnowed the applications and the interviewer were not the same person...) That is a cute story. Once. Or maybe twice. But it will happen to you at least once a month for the rest of your life unless you go into academics or finance. </p>
<p>3) I have heard the Chicago-Ivy comparison from disinterested (used correctly) bystanders, as well. Recently, a post-doc at my current graduate program (an excellent one if that matters for the evaluation of the story) and I were having lunch together and after a lot of small talk he had two questions he obviously felt were embarassing but nevertheless interesting as hell: a) Was J.Z. Smith as weird as he looked? (No.) b) Was Chicago really as hard as everyone said it was...? And he went on to discuss how others talked about the program in comparison with, say, Harvard or his own alma mater (which was nothing to sneeze at).</p>
<p>Finally, why do chat boards bring out the snippiness in people? I can well believe that most people on this list receive the New Yorker at home. But, seriously, who on earth reads the Harvard Crimson cover to cover? I for one will openly admit that I hadn't seen the Crimson article and found it frightening.</p>
<p>ok, since i seem to be the focal point of this particular thread, i would like to answer some of questions that mattr posed to me. before i do that though, i need to again express my view that uchi does a wonderful job educating its students. i will also say, again, that it is a world class institution. i will add that i would rather be stuck in a room full of uchi students than harvard students (but with all frankness, i would hang with yalies in a heartbeat, those people are wicked funny).</p>
<p>now, it seems that mattr wants to know why i say uchi is a safety school. it is a safety school for ivy caliber students, not a safety school for community college caliber students. that's not a terrible thing to say about uchi, is it? now why do i say what i say? YIELD. whether a school is considered a saftey school by other students is hard to discern without querying every student who turned down uchi. yield gives a general indication of the status of a school by the number of accepted students that actually enroll. is it scientific? of course not, but that is how yield is used in the industry. </p>
<p>mattr asks how i answered my own question of where the other 65% went. i don't know, otherwise i wouldn't ask it. or maybe i was just being rhetorical in which case, the other 65% probably went to an ivy (just kidding...well, maybe not). of the 35% that did accept, a percentage probably chose uchi over an ivy because of a) the money or b) an ivy wasn't for them afterall. the bulk of the 35% that did enroll, i speculate, are great students but not ivy caliber students (and so what. that doesn't mean ivy caliber students are nicer or more ambitious, it just means that ivy caliber students got higher sat's and gpa's and did wonderful things in high school. they just peaked early, that's all)</p>
<p>mattr also wants me to cite articles and studies to back up my claims. i would love to, but i cannot. why? who would actually go out and antagonize an entire nation of achievers by saying that they attended an ivy safety school? also who would commission any kind of study that uchi is an ivy safety? the ivy's wouldn't, i'm sure they don't particulary care that much about uchi. uchi itself wouldn't commission this study for fear that it would confirm everything i assert. so mattr has got me there. i stand alone with nothing but uchi's yield figures.</p>
<p>i have asserted in this thread and others that the uchi apologists just don't read or at least they don't understand what they read. when i say that "if more students like......," i didn't say that those two boys were the only ones, i said "if more students...."</p>
<p>lastly, it appears that mattr would be an ideal uchi person, look how defensive he is already...and he's not a student yet. btw, i could also make the argument that almost every other school in the nation and some in canada are also ivy safety schools. it's just that the students and their parents at those other schools aren't so touchy about it. they're a bit more secure with the understanding that just because one attends an ivy doesn't make them a better or more successful person.</p>
<p>Why To Attend the UofC Part II </p>
<p>First, let me start by saying that nothing that I nor any other student, alumnus, or self proclaimed expert on this or any other site can replace the nature of first hand experience. </p>
<p>I understand that many students are perhaps at an economic disadvantage and cant afford to go visit the schools they are interested in, but I would encourage your, implore you, to find a way to visit the schools youve been accepted to before you make your decision. Yes, it costs money, but you are about to make a four year (or more) investment, an enormous amount of time, energy, and money. Nothing replaces the experience of walking around the campus, speaking with other students, professors, and sitting in on classes. </p>
<p>I nearly stayed at an Ivy on the East Coast without visiting UofC. Then my principal found out I hadn't visited and sat down and talked with me for 15 minutes during lunch (at a school of 2,500 students - 15 minutes is an eternity) and, as he was also an alumnus from UofC, begged me to go visit before deciding. I did, and am o so glad that I listened to him. I nearly made a horrible decision. </p>
<p>That being said, I am also not posting this to argue or engage parents, or the experts on the site. This is exclusively for the benefit of prospective students. After this post, I believe I will not post anymore, as these forums always turn into shouting matches and ad hominum attacks. This thread has been no exception. To the prospective students at UofC, here is what I as a former student have to offer you in advice </p>
<p>It is ironic the comparisons that have been forced on those supporting UofC as a FIRST CHOICE. I have only once in my entire stay at UofC met a student who was a whiner, who wanted to have been somewhere else. And he didnt want to be in an ivy, he wanted to be in Stanford, and after working his butt off for a year, he easily made the transfer. I have never, not once, met a student who wanted to be at an ivy and was at UofC as a backup. Quite the opposite, I have met many a Harvard and Columbia student who have transferred to UofC. </p>
<p>The idea that UofC is a backup is simply absurd. Anyone who is going to a top 10 school better think the school they are going to is the best. For the amount of time and money they are about to invest, theyd be nuts to make such an investment if they thought otherwise. Notice that in the Harvard article I linked to earlier, the student there also claims in the first sentence, we are the best. He has good reason to say so, as does UofC, and frankly, its lame to go to one of the top 10 schools as a back up. They are all unique and tend to fit different types of students and people and have different programs and focuses. </p>
<p>There are several strengths that are unique about UofC. They have boasted 73 Nobel Prize winners, more than I believe all other NATIONS excluding the United States (youll have to double check me on that fact, but either way, its a lot). What makes this statistic unique from say, Harvard, which also boasts an amazing staff, is that one actually has ACCESS to the staff at UofC. The Crimson article points out emphatically how this is NOT true at Harvard, and this is a common complaint at most of the Ivys. UofC has the second lowest professor to student ratio (only CalTech has a better one), and you dont just have access to second rate professors, and the new grad students etc. You have access, from your very first class, to world class teachers. In all my classes at UofC I only had two classes that even used teaching assistants, one being calculus (with minimal TA exposure) and one of the five bio classes I took (and the TA was great, and the professor was always readily available as well). </p>
<p>The idea that UofC doesnt stack up, its ludicrous. Look at the grad school programs. UofC has the number one to number five programs in nearly every department, just look at the lists. Law school, theology, philosophy, English, political science, economics, etc. Why does this impact you as an undergraduate? Because UofC is one of the only schools where you have immediate access to grad school classes. By your second year you can be nearly exclusively in graduate school courses. It is an amazing experience. </p>
<p>The focus of UofC is also different than that of most of the Ivys (with the notable exception of Columbia). Why are you attending college? This needs to be an important question. Is it so you can get ahead? Then go to an Ivy. Is it so you can push your limits in the sciences, math, or other such disciplines? Then go to CalTech or MIT. Is it to become a professional and be your average (nothing wrong with that) American? Then go to your Stat University. Is it because you value a general education in the humanities a truly liberal education the basis for a proper democracy and free thinking society? Then go to UofC, Columbia, or St. Johns College. They are the only three schools that still have a core that is not a joke, that has a truly great books program at the center of their studies, and that fosters cooperative learning efforts, not competitive ones. </p>
<p>John Dewey, one of the founding educators at the UofC (and no surprise, also involved at Columbia), gave some excellent lectures on what is the aim of education at a liberal university. These books are available today and are rather short, and worth reading for students considering UofC or Columbia. To take but one quote to serve as an example of the focus of the UofC, What the best and wisest person wants for his own child, that must the community want for all of its children. Any other ideal for our schools is narrow and unlovely; acted upon, it destroys our democracy. (The School and Society). Dewey was interested in developing the entire human being, not just the mind qua mind. He wanted to apply psychological development to education. And this has been the UofC tradition ever since. The UofC is about molding you into a good human being and citizen. </p>
<p>As such, it also fosters a cooperative atmosphere. Dewey talks about this as well, but for reasons of length I won't go into it. The point is, when your performance isn't relative to others, so that helping one another is seen as 'cheating' but instead the common end is the 'good' or wisdom, a cooperative learning effort emerges. And this is exactly what the UofC does. Especially in graduate school, this is not a small thing, where most of the top programs have *****y (sorry for the use of the word, but it is the best word) students and teachers always trying to one up each other. Unpleasant. I've never witnessed such behavior at UofC. Never. </p>
<p>They dont have specific molds, whether you come out thinking A or B is not important. What is important is that you THINK, and do so critically, in CHOOSING A or B. It is the process that is key at UofC. And the life of the mind is not simply an academic ivory tower, but rather a way of life, a community of peers and I believe lovers, and is expected to impact the way you live. </p>
<p>The atmosphere there is unique. Many of my friends who chose to go to Ivys and spent a quarter with me at UofC regretted THEIR decision, because the UofC was so amazing in creating this intellectual and moral atmosphere. </p>
<p>And despite what some of the parents here have said in defense of their children, UofC students ARE dorks. That doesnt mean they arent cool in their own way, or that they are socially awkward. Perhaps mine, and Kermits definition of dorks needs to be clarified. It is more about the way they do things then what they do. Sure, we have parties, and sure we go to bars, go bowling, sex, drugs, etc. But by and large, all the social activities are centered around seriously heavy discussions. These arent students who are schizophrenic, and talk about the merits of Nietzsche versus Kierkegaard in the classroom but not when going out. The life of the mind is a way of living, and it carries over to all activities. I fondly remember watching Iron Chef on the TV in the lounge in my dorm of 150 students, and discussing various political or philosophical issues while we watched. Thats just the type of school it is. </p>
<p>Amy Kass, one of the best educators around, at UofC or elsewhere, was so excited and happy when they ranked UofC dead last for party schools three years ago. Some of the administrators were upset, worried, how will this effect our student body. She replied, Are you nuts!? This guarantees that we get the kind of students we want. This will help our future. Or as one of the famous UofC T-shirts says, Where fun comes to die. We have fun, dont get me wrong, but, well, hopefully you know get the point. </p>
<p>Is everyone like that? Of course not, but just about. I think all of 5% of the students are involved in the Greek system, and even there, as someone who helped start one of the fraternities on campus, these arent your typical frats. </p>
<p>What else can I say? Because it is such a school, the life of the mind, the level of racism, anti-Semitism, and other such hateful outlooks by the student body and professors is nearly non-existent (also worth noting Columbia, as the other famous school with a core and life of the mind, clearly does not have quotas given the enormous percentage of their students with Asians, Jews, and Blacks - the most diversified Ivy school). The student body is awesome. No other word for it. Many of the students are religious, from a large variety of backgrounds, but even those who arent religious they are old school liberals. They have a commitment to a moral outlook that is also religious in its own sense. The number of honest, rigorous, serious liberals and secular moralists and humanists that I have met at UofC, its inspiring. Signing off, Tom.</p>
<p>Wait, one last thing. First of all, technically speaking, BnB is right. Chicago is definitely an Ivy safety. It is also a reach school for any number of kids applying to L.A.C.s and state schools. I think the people who reject Chicago fall into both categories. As I said, it's going to be hard to turn down the HYPs to go to Chicago. Antecdotal evidence aside, I seriously doubt that most students do it. But I am sure a lot of students who got into easier, and less prestigious, schools also chose them. Why not get money, attention, and straight As at --- State if you can, is probably their reasoning. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, although obviously I am rooting for Chicago. To be fair, however, Ivy League kids get 'merit' money in various forms at Chicago. Generally speaking, however, Chicago financial aid is not overly generous although it is certainly fair and Chicago is an expensive school. I don't know that I would put my parents into debt to go there. So, Chicago gets rejected for lots of reasons. </p>
<p>Secondly, there is certainly a special collaborative approach to education at Chicago. I've been friends and study partners with graduate students, for instance, since I started taking Chicago classes in high school. And that isn't unusual. In fact, on a grosser note, the marriage rate between faculty at various points in their career and students at different levels was through the roof until Chicago finally put a stop to it five years ago with some sort of official policy. It wasn't that creepy old men abound at Chicago or anything. It was just that faculty, staff, and students work together much more closely at Chicago than they do at many other schools. When the new official policy was put in place the kids at the University High School laughed their (our) heads off because half of us wouldn't have been born if Chicago had been stricter twenty years ago... </p>
<p>So that's it for me guys. You will hopefully be attending an Ivy League safety school next year. But it will be an unusual and gratifying experience. Yah, Chicago!</p>