<p>I agree that the two aren’t mutually exclusive, but the definition of an intellectual school I operate with in these threads is a school whose environment is mainly conductive of academic discourse and not so much of the practical application of knowledge. Which in turn attracts students who believe that attaining/generating knowledge is (for now) all they need to be doing with their lives, and don’t think about the outside world too hard.</p>
<p>The more opportunities a school provides for its students to get out and do things, the more it encourages them to believe they can change the world right now, the less likely they are to preserve this attitude. In this sense, intellectualism as a school trait is the result of a very particular, sheltered sort of collective thinking. Of course there can be intellectual people at schools that encourage direct social engagement, and of course the opposite can also be true–there are plenty of vocal and dynamic personalities at more ‘intellectual’ schools; while this binary is unenforceable at the individual level, however, it is, imo, pretty obvious when it comes to looking at entire schools.</p>
<p>btw, it seems you thought I equated being intellectual with excelling academically, but that’s not what I meant. When I use this term, I’m referring to a specific attitude, not to intellectual ability or work ethic. Maybe I should have used the much simpler “bookish, nerdy, anti-social” to make myself clear.</p>
<p>You seem to be jumping the gun. By the same token, such does not *preclude *Duke or Stanford from being intellectual. It’s very possible for a university to have successful graduates in the tech industry or in finance, and still be intellectual.</p>
<p>I also think your definition of intellectual is very idiosyncratic and not in line with most people’s. No textbooks? That isn’t true even at supposedly “intellectual” colleges. And IMO it’s absolutely wrong to say that intellectualism = something impractical. Believe it or not, intellectualism has a strong presence even in engineering and science classes.</p>
<p>OK, I’m a simpleton - but you’re saying being an intellectual and desiring to support yourself someday can absolutely not co-exist? “bookish, nerdy, anti-social” describes a whole lot of engineering majors, who absolutely love to “over-burden themselves academically, talk about what they’re learning and live in the library.” And some of them are absolutely interested in this knowledge for it’s own sake. And does a person need to have a high level of intelligence to meet your standard of being an intellectual? Because honestly, in this day and age, I think to TRULY meet your criteria, the student is either a) not that bright, or b) a trust fund baby (or both…) The concept of “very particular, sheltered sort of collective thinking” seems really converse to any sort of real intellectualism, to me. But I’m no intellectual, so just MHO…</p>
<p>Well squidge, I think that’s unfair of you to assume that someone who fits ghostt’s definition of intellectual is either a trust fund baby or dumb. In fact, that assertion just proves our point. Just because someone does not choose a field of study in order to get a high paying job does not make them dumb. They choose not to get swallowed up in Western culture’s rat race of consumption and production.</p>
<p>I never mentioned high-paying job - just the ability to support one’s self. Big difference. Also just challenging that only certain areas of study can be intellectual.</p>
<p>Destinyhelp:" I’d just like a school where people care about ideas and learning, but also like to get plastered."</p>
<p>Sounds like you’ve got the Western consumption down just fine, just avoiding the production part. How you planning to pay for all that booze…? ;)</p>
There is a significant difference between encouraging someone to aim for a “high paying job” and encouraging someone majoring in less-than-lucrative fields to have an idea of what (s)he plans to do with it. </p>
<p>Let’s face it, a degree in something like classics simply isn’t all that practical. Doing internships and picking up relevant extracurriculars/volunteer experience will help immensely in the job search process. This is not anti-intellectual; it’s simply making sure you’re not saddled with debt you can’t pay off. I thoroughly agree with squidge; only the wealthy needn’t worry about getting a job at the end.</p>
<p>Because we’re giving our personal definitions of intellectual, I’ll add that mine would make “intellectual” and “partying” mutually exclusive. Intellectualism isn’t just how smart you are or how hard you study (when you’re mentally able to study), but it also includes an element of aspiring to better oneself through rational thought that just doesn’t co-exist with heavy drinking.</p>
<p>Therefore, it’s not about which schools are “Party/intellectual schools” but what their “party” students vs. “intellectual students” ratios are. Perhaps the OP would like a college that’s 50/50?</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd College in Claremont, CA and part of a 5 college consortium…the motto is to work hard and play hard…many school sponsored events throughout the year…lots of goofy fun</p>
<p>After some thinking, I think that the schools that probably best fit the party/intellectual label are going to be the large public Ivys like Texas, Cal Berkley, Wisconsin, etc. These schools are big enough to encompass intellectuals, ladder climbers, party animals, jocks, etc. </p>
<p>However to clarify, Wesleyan is what I had in mind when making this thread, so schools that fit their fun loving nature blended with intellectualism would be cool.</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd College is notorious for such. the school believes in playing hard and sponsors events all year long…they are part of a 5 campus consortium in Claremont, CA
Good Luck</p>