<p>I like Uchicago's geek image and their passion for learning. Are there any other schools like it?</p>
<p>Swarthmore is probably the closest in both atmosphere and reputation.</p>
<p>Oberlin and Reed are similar in intellectualism, but they both are stoner-central schools and have less stellar (although still excellent) reputations.</p>
<p>i would agree with jpps1 on all accounts here. You are most likely to find UofC's intellectualism at a Liberal Arts College than at a university.. although I would submit that there are parts of Harvard, Yale and Princeton which are very intellectual and not just old-money driven.
But yeah, look mostly at LACs.. i would also recommend Grinnell, and of course Amherst and Williams (which are definitely on par with UofC in terms of reputation)</p>
<p>I am intrigued by much the same in a college =) I think the schools that have atmospheres most like UChicago's would be Swarthmore, Reed, and St. Johns College. Amherst and Williams are amazing schools, no doubt; but the vibe I found at both was much more mainstream and less "nerdy" than that of Swat or U of C.</p>
<p>I agree with all those LACs listed; additionally, the University closest to it would certainly be Columbia--similar Core courses, and overall "intellectualism" for its own sake feel to it.</p>
<p>I noticed a complete difference in campus atmosphere and feel between UChicago and Swat, and I visited both of them during the same week! Academics seemed to be top priority by far for UChi students, while Swatties seemed more "well-rounded" and interested in other nonacademic pursuits more than students at UChi. You can't rely on reputation; you have to visit these places and decide for yourself, but I will say that Swat and UChi share the reputation for intense academics and that the students are somewhat nerdy at each.</p>
<p>To me, the school most like Chicago is Columbia. Both have intensive core curriculums, and both are in major cities but still have legit campuses.</p>
<p>I am not sure how Swarthmore can be compared to UChicago. You mentioned the personality of the students at UChicago and you were directed to LAC's. That could be what you were looking for. On the other hand, Swarthmore is a suburban LAC with a total enrollment of 1500 and UChicago is a urban university with an enrollment of over 12000. I would get a guide like either Princeton Review's Top 357 Colleges or the Fiske Guide to Colleges or something else. The two guides mentioned above describe the personality and campus life of the listed colleges. </p>
<p>The guides indicate which colleges overlap with other colleges. For example, the overlaps for UChicago in Fiske are Harvard, Cornell, Stanford, Northwestern and Columbia. It isn't as good as visiting colleges, but it makes for interesting reading.</p>
<p>dufus3709: true, Swarthmore, et al cannot be compared to U Chicago in terms of size. They can be compared to it in terms of intellectual environment and types of students who are atracted to the place.</p>
<p>To wit, the above observations of ladylazarus : </p>
<p>"Amherst and Williams are amazing schools, no doubt; but the vibe I found at both was much more mainstream and less "nerdy" than that of Swat or U of C."</p>
<p>In my own view, most of the overlap schools you cited from the Fiske guide also have more of the "mainstream vibe". Including Columbia, which otherwise at least has a core curriculum in common with UC.</p>
<p>The OP expressed interest in UC for its "geek image and their passion for learning". Not for its size.</p>
<p>To the OP, I might suggest consider Carleton College as well.</p>
<p>Thanks. I do have no preference in size, but Swarthmore from my personal point of view seems to have a completely different atmosphere intellectually. One of my friends whose first choice is Swarthmore calimed that he would never apply to UChicago just because its so different. </p>
<p>The concept of the core curriculum came up and this is one of the factors that I love about UChicago. Are there any other schools besides UChicago and Columbia that have intensive core curriculums?</p>
<p>Edit: The reason why I don't find PR and the Fiske guides accurate in terms of finding schools like UChicago is that so many people use UChicago as a back-up to the ivies that its usually the ivies that are considered "similar" schools. I don't like UChicago becuase it can rival the ivies. I like it for the original reasons posted above.</p>
<p>I think you are right about the overlap schools for UChicago in the guides. Actually I was a little surprised by the overlaps and what you said would explain it. Emory in Atlanta has a serious core curriculum and the overall atmosphere on campus is one of "positive peer pressure". Most are oriented towards going onto grad school, but I think there is a love of learning for its own sake. It is not cutthroat. It is a Southern school (Atlanta) with a huge number of students from the Northeast. I can not speak to the geek factor. Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh might be another school to look at especially in engineering. The other posts went towards LAC's and my own predirection is to towards mid-size universities.</p>
<p>however, if one is to believe "Choosing the Right College," Swat is left-liberal in philosophy, which can be great if that persuasion fits you. However, a libertarian might find him/herself a study group of one at that school; it's just not fun being supply sider in a Keynesian econ class. OTOH, UofC is more politically diverse, with plenty of blue state types, as well as Milton Friedman wannabes. Reed would definitely have a political climate similar to Swat.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, a libertarian might find him/herself a study group of one at that school...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think that's accurate. I have a sneaking suspicion that there are more libertarians at Swarthmore than Republicans. One of the more visible, and well-liked, young professors is a "raging" libertarian. Swarthmore trots him out for speeches to "specs" during Ride the Tide and freshmen during orientation because he's an entertaining straight-shooter on issues of academics.</p>
<p>The school is very libertarian in its traditions and governance. Less is more when it comes to the administration. The students strongly endorse that and probably would endorse that same approach to government if any candidates were to ever offer "not meddling" as a platform. I haven't seen a candidate like that in my lifetime -- the two parties just choose to "meddle" in different aspects of our lives.</p>
<p>The OP said he was looking for a school with a strong core curriculum. I haven't looked up the LAC's being mentioned to make sure, but aren't you discussing schools that have a "design your own degree" mentality.</p>
<p>At schools with distribution requirements (i.e. 3 sciences, 3 humanities, 3 social sciences), there is nothing stopping a student from putting together a selection of courses to form a "core" curriculum (whatever that is).</p>
<p>At schools with no distribution requirements, there is nothing preventing a student from putting together a group of courses that would satisfy standard distribution requirements and/or a "core curriculum" (whatever that is).</p>
<p>In book like "The Right Guide to Colleges", the term core curriculum appears to be a euphemism for studying white Western European culture and history. That's fine; however, my experience watching a kid go through public high schools is that they get gracious plenty of that before heading off to college.</p>
<p>For example, "The Right Guide" complains that a course in Near East Muslim history or Chinese politics could satisfy a distribution requirement. However, it seem to me that either of those courses might be more revelant to the world our kids will live in than studying Christopher Columbus or George Washington for the fourth time.</p>
<p>I taught at UChicago, have good friends at Swarthmore, and have visited Reed. What is similar at all of them is what I like to call "addition by subtraction". Each of the colleges offers a fine education, with similarly qualified faculty (from the very same universities themselves), and similarly qualified and relatively well-heeled students (not much different, in fact than 50-75 other places, both LACs and uni.s.)</p>
<p>What is different is what they offer less of. There is less athletics and fewer athletes (though Swarthmore has a higher percentage of students playing varsity sports than Dartmouth), less music (performance), less theater, less applied art, and relatively less drinking and partying than at schools with similar faculty and students. Now before you jump on me, I would note that each of these places has some of all of the above, just less than you'd find at comparable institutions. Students choose these places because they like it that way, and want to be around other students who like it that way. The result is that these schools will predictably produce more folks who end up as college professors and fewer who end up in athletics (and I don't just mean athletes, but also athletic law and business, agents, etc.) or musical performance (or the arts generally speaking), and likely fewer in business than schools of equivalent quality. It has more to do with the self-selection of students going in than anything else (which I happen to think is GREAT, as students are making active choices.)</p>
<p>Chicago's core curriculum has some similarities to that at Scripps.</p>
<p>LOL:</p>
<p>My daughter selected colleges partly by eliminating almost all that had fraternities and every one that had big athletics programs of any kind!!</p>
<p>Actually my experience with public high schools is that 80% of the history classes covered Benjamin Banneker, Rosa Parks and others. There was almost nothing on George Washington or Abe Lincoln in his US History course, and so he took AP US History in 12th grade. Almost all of the books read in English class were on topics dealing with minorities. In 12th grade English, after reading "Their Eyes Were Watching God", the term paper was the "Harlem Project". One of the questions in the "Harlem Project" was to explain how communism was "better for blacks than America's democracy". The only other thing they covered during the entire semester was to read Hamlet. My S is white. The high school is outside Washington DC and is about 35% black, 35% hispanic, 15% asian and 15% white. The school's administration is mostly white, but they are liberal. My son compensated for the characteristics of the high school by studying on his own. For example, almost no classics of literature were read in the school and so he read them on his own. </p>
<p>I don't think that "core curriculum" is a code word for teaching "white European culture and history". The core curriculum at Emory covers seminars and writing, natural and mathematical sciences, social sciences, humanities, historical/cultural and international perspectives, and physical education. The social sciences and humanities areas have courses on African American, Gay/Lesbian, and gender studies. My S plans to complete his humanites courses studying Japanese literature.</p>
<p>By core curriculum, I definitely don't want to study just "white European culture and history". Core curriculum in my opinion is something that fits along with what dufus3709 was saying. I want my peers to have some common education with me, and I want to have a strong background in various subjects along with my major.</p>
<p>Thank you for recommending Emory. Its a University that I've never considered, and I'm now looking into it seriously.</p>
<p>Some people do pick colleges based on whether there is a core curriculum or not. Some people avoid a core curriculum because they don't want to have to take science or math. Others avoid it because they are bad at English and don't think an engineer needs to know about history. I think that whether or not a college has a core curriculum does affect the personality of the school. I don't mean that it is better or worse, but just that there is a different attitude. Perhaps a college with a strong core curriculum attracts people with not so much a "love of learning", but more a feeling that they have a duty to learn.</p>
<p>If this is one of the major things that you care about, then perhaps you should start another thread entitled "What colleges have a strong core curriculum?". It was a little hard to interpret your initial post. I hope I was helpful. That's why we do it.</p>
<p>Thanks dufus3709. My original post was about the intellectual atmosphere just in general, and I'd never even considered how important the concept of a core curriculum was to me. I think I want both people who want to learn and a strong core curriculum, but you've helped me to realize that. Thanks again.</p>