<p>My son loves Chicago, but isn't a fan of the core. Any info is appreciated.</p>
<p>The core is one of my favorite things about Chicago. It keeps my dad from forcing me to take all math/science classes, and the core requirements really aren’t that bad. It also justifies taking a bunch of hum/sosc courses when you’re applying to science grad school and demonstrates how there is depth and breadth in your education. Overall, core = amazing. Who wouldn’t want to read a book a week and get class credit for it? (that wasn’t even sarcastic).</p>
<p>If your son doesn’t like the core, maybe he should consider another university, because the core is uchicago’s thing. It’s their calling card, you know? My friend who has very similar stats to me complained about the core and asked if there was getting out of it to the Chicago rep. Guess who got in and who didn’t. The core is a big reason why people go to Chicago. If you can’t at lest tolerate it, you might want to check out the open curriculum of Brown or some other college with little to no gen ed requirements.</p>
<p>I am a math major, and before I came to Chicago, I had no interest at all in the Core. For me, subjects like SOSC, HUM, and CIV were useless to me and my career. I had even gone through such classes at my boarding school and disliked them.</p>
<p>When I started taking these classes at Chicago, however, I loved them. They teach you a way of thinking that is appropriate and mandatory if you are going to be a true “intellectual”. First of all, having been exposed to the material, I don’t think anyone can say that they are well-educated if they don’t understand the fundamentals of Western thought (Locke, Hobbes, Marx, Foucault, etc). I also don’t think that anyone who fails to understand these modes of thought is capable of appropriately participating in a democracy.</p>
<p>CIV, HUM, PHSC, BIO, and ART are a bit less mandatory for anyone in academia, but these are still vital, especially the former three, to forming individuals who are well-rounded intellectually.</p>
<p>The Core is not composed of phony general education courses. They are difficult and stress logic and rationality. They are not created for the purpose of merely creating well-rounded individuals; they are created to teach students how to think appropriately. Of course, all high school students think they already have the ability to think well, but in my opinion, very few if any actually do. Having taken a large part of the Core and having received As in most of these classes, I can still hardly claim to know how to think properly, although courses in my second major should help me with this task.</p>
<p>Ultimately, however, even if Core classes are difficult, it is not particularly hard to get As. In fact, most people here get better grades in Core classes than they get in their majors. It’s a method of teaching students how to think logically in a non-stressful atmosphere. As an example, I had a teacher in my Greek Thought and Literature class that pretty much tore apart my papers, both in writing style and in my use of logic. The number of red marks on my papers was astounding, to the extent that I almost took offense that he disliked my papers so much. In the end, however, I received an A in the class, and ended up learning a lot about writing.</p>
<p>Therefore, even if you don’t like the subject matter, it’s a good way to learn good logic, which you will need in any life path you eventually choose.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That doesn’t help you get into a science grad school (directly). That helps you reach the ideal of education - gaining critical thinking abilities and seeing the world in a rational manner which could, indirectly, help you get into a science grad school. Also, don’t force your son to take courses in any specific discipline; that’s just flat out idiotic and controlling in my humble opinion.</p>
<p>Anyways, if your son likes everything else about UChicago then I would encourage him to still go. I always found that though you may not like the subject-matter of a certain discipline (class, whatever), the way in which it tackles the issues that it attempts to overcome and understand are useful for a student of any discipline. This is so because it can help you approach the problems in your focused discipline in a new manner. As such, it enhances your intellectual creativity and hence your effectiveness in overcoming seemingly insurmountable problems in your discipline. </p>
<p>Of course, none of that helps you out as a student, I guess. Anyways, you have four years to learn whatever you want; why only learn one material from one discipline? Surely, the open curriculum of Brown can allow you to learn whatever you want but the Core is set up in such a way that guides you to get the ‘fullest’ well-rounded education. It isn’t necessary, per se, but it has the potential to give you the intellectual spark that you need in order to value knowledge and methods gained from disciplines, as opposed from knowledge of only your specialized discipline/major/whatever. Humanities and social sciences courses in the Core aren’t like your moronic and unnecessary humanities and social sciences courses in high school. While the wording may be strong, you have to realize that the courses in college are vastly different in their approach to learning than your typical HS courses and the core immerses you into this - perhaps causing a change in your intellectual passion. In other words, the Core could be the intellectual kick in the rear that you need to actually realize the value of, well, the Core. Also, I found that the classes offered by the Core are much more interesting than a lot of the courses you could take at other universities; regardless of their gen-ed requirements.</p>
<p>Anyways, I just realized that I meant to go to the University of Michigan - Ann Arbor forum and somehow managed to go to the University of Chicago forum. God dammit.</p>
<p>edit i guess: Probably better to read what phuriku said than what I said - just a heads up.</p>
<p>motion, can you just make a clean break with chicago. kthnxbi</p>
<p>^ Geez, he was giving his opinion, which had quite a few valid points.</p>
<p>Anyway, I think phuriku has great advice on this, and I probably can’t say much since I am biased toward the core and have not taken it. I’m sure people like unalove have posted on the core before, if the OP wants to search the forum.</p>
<p>It’s more that he’s been a real pain when it comes to blaming AA and calling Chicago reps liars because people who got in had good SAT scores. He just pops up everywhere… and he’s not even going to go to Chicago.</p>
<p>How does that justify calling him out when he is making a logical, useful point on this thread?</p>
<p>Maybe I took offense at him insulting my father.</p>
<p>He wasn’t talking about your father specifically - anyway, the point is, everyone should take time to fully read what people are posting before slapping a judgment onto them.</p>
<p>Thanks for unfairly judging me. I read his post.</p>
<p>Here’s an additional data point to address the OP’s question. My son is a second year who also chose Chicago despite, rather than because of, the Core. Now that he’s pretty much done with it (he has one more quarter of SOSC to go), he has mixed feelings about the Core (mostly because of mixed experiences with teachers and because there are so many other courses he would have liked to have taken had he had an additional open slot in his schedule) but is still very happy about being a student at Chicago.</p>
<p>My data points – two kids, somewhat different experiences with a lot of overlap:</p>
<p>Kid #1: Chose Chicago in part because of the Core; she believed in it philosophically. In practice, she had mixed feelings about it. Hated HUM because she was tired of sitting in literature classes with science students who were contemptuous about studying literature – that was just high school all over again, as far as she was concerned. Hated taking math and science, even though she thought she should; wished her science courses had been more “real”, but barely considered taking real science next to pre-meds. Art was a mixed bag; CIV a broad survey course she was happy to take to fill in gaps in her knowledge but not particularly stimulating. And she loved SOSC (like phuriku) – introduced her to all kinds of new ideas, and changed the way she did everything.</p>
<p>Kid #2: Liked the idea of the Core because it deferred having to specialize – and he really resented the idea that he was going to have to specialize eventually. Generally had hated hated high school literature courses, but loved HUM – at the time, “the best course I have ever taken” – and the writing instructor helped his writing immensely. Had a mixed experience with SOSC – really disliked the teacher 1st and 3rd quarters, but had a famous full professor 2nd quarter whom he loved, and eventually he chose to major in one of the fields they were studying then. Loved his CIV, which was focused, somewhat obscure, and off-the-wall. Art was OK, something he might have taken as a pure elective, but hardly life-changing. And math/science was no prob since at the time he was doing that anyway.</p>
<p>They both really appreciated that thanks to the core of the Core all of their college friends shared a pretty sophisticated set of concepts that they could use to analyze and to discuss things without wondering what each other was talking about, no matter what their primary field of interest was.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m a supporter of AA and have attempted to argue for it in various posts on this forum and have not blamed any of my rejections on such a policy. You’re the one who blames AA for many things. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never called them liars because people who got in had good SAT scores. I called them liars because they have lied about admissions decisions release dates and various other things (the EA decisions fiasco comes to mind). As well, you cannot deny that there was a correlation between SAT scores and admittance. Obviously no one gets in on the sole basis of his/her SAT score but those with higher SAT scores seemed to be admitted at a higher rate during EA - more so than in previous years (based on the SAT ranges). Again, I don’t recall saying that there was ever causation, only correlation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never insulted your father. I insulted, indirectly, the actions of your father. I do not see how one can justifiably coerce one’s son/daughter to do certain things once one’s son/daughter attend a university. I don’t know your father; I never meant to insult him. I simply was stating that I believed that it was idiotic and controlling to dictate to one’s son/daughter what classes s/he ought to take. While the usage of the word ‘idiotic’ may have been too emotionally charged, controlling was an apt word in that situation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why do I have to go to UChicago or have been admitted in order to post here? I accidentally (I was serious about that last sentence) ran across this thread and felt as though I could be a somewhat useful contributor to the OP so I posted. Apparently, since I was rejected, anything on this forum that I say must be utterly useless and therefore I ought to not post here anymore. Apparently. Honestly, I don’t see our point here.</p>
<p>However, kitkatkatie, do not respond to this as you (and now I) have managed to divert this thread from its original intent and to continue such useless debate would only be disrespectful to the OP.</p>
<p>
wt.f? he was making a valid point. if you’re ticked at what he said to you take it to pm instead of randomly throwing insults at posts he makes. if anything you should make a clean break</p>
<p>if anything uchicago should either get rid of the fluff classes in the core-- restricting HUM and SOSC to only the classics, or get rid of the core entirely.</p>
<p>As a current student, I have mixed feelings about the Core. I really like the diversity in it, but it could use some work. The math and science requirements don’t really get enough attention from the College, which either makes them needlessly difficult or needlessly boring. I’ve personally found that getting an A in Core courses requires a level of perfection that I can’t really achieve, which is frustrating. I really enjoy the readings for HUMA and SOSC, but writing the papers can be difficult, and I feel like I’ve still not written one paper that a professor has liked.</p>
<p>I probably wouldn’t have picked a different school, even if I had the knowledge that I do now about the Core. I’ve already seen some of the benefits of a rigorous Core at my campus job, and I wouldn’t want to sacrifice that. The Core could be improved by making a more fair AP credit policy, since it is currently heavily biased against math and science majors. Also, the amount of subjectivity in the grading of HUMA, SOSC, and CIV classes could always use some work. But in my opinion, the Core is better than having no requirements at all, which is what many schools are doing now.</p>
<p>i agree with you that AP credits could be more fair, but there’s nothing that really can be done for the subjectivity portion of HUM and SOSC, which is something that really bugs me too.</p>
<p>My son is a 08 graduate of UC. He was ambivalent about the core when he started and its biggest proponent when he left. Many of his friends had similar views. He is a humanities kid (double majored in english and classics), and he was introduced to subjects that he never would have elected to take but found to be amazingly interesting. It opened his eyes up to subjects that were not in his comfort zone and stretched his mind. I was jealous of the range of intellectual/academic pursuits he enjoyed.</p>
<p>wheatbread, thanks for further misdirecting the thread, you really contributed nothing to the discussion.</p>
<p>To the OP,</p>
<p>As far as the core classes go, it seems like both SOSC and HUM have classes for people who are really into the core and people who just want to get through it. For example, you have media aesthetics versus greek thought and literature. Both classes are cool, but GTL is more in line with traditional reading of old texts and writing papers, whereas Media is more in line with a film studies type of class. Same goes for SOSC.</p>
<p>If you don’t like the core, you can always take the less core-ish classes offered. You do have to take a core class, but it doesn’t have to be intensive on the papers, and book-a-week reading schedule.</p>
<p>So, there are options. You don’t have to take the core the same way as everyone else; you can personalize it a bit. This isn’t like Columbia where everyone has to take the same base set of classes… there is choice.</p>
<p>There’s a good discussion thread on the facebook group for Chicago 2014 you might want to check out. In fact, there are a lot of threads there that would be helpful to anyone making college decisions.</p>
<p>Good luck!</p>