I toured UChicago last week and really loved it. The core curriculum really appealed to me especially and I love Chicago as a city. Unfortunately UChicago is an extremely competitive school to get into and they also don’t offer engineering other than their upcoming molecular engineering program. Are there any other schools that are in/near a big city, have a core curriculum sort of thing, and a bit less competitive than UChicago?
Reed & Swarthmore (still pretty competitive) come to mind.
USC in Los Angeles
USC has a very different vibe and culture though, so keep that in mind.
Qwerty568 what do you mean by different vibe and culture?
perhaps Rice University
@objecthood USC, with all due respect, is nothing like UChicago. In fact, I can’t think of two schools so disparate in description. While, both are in urban areas, there are a plethora of differences. UChicago is on the same level of the top Ivy plus schools, and while USC has made great strides in the last 10-15 years, I know of no academic that places them on the same level. SC has a much different student population, although much improved from the university of spoiled children moniker of yesteryear, there are still plenty of affluent rich kid, in which Greek life is central. Further, it is a major major sports school, and UChicago is much more known for its incredibly stout and competitive academics. Finally, SC is much more diverse than UChicago, 35 to about 49…
In short, while they are both great schools, they are very very distinct …
Reed doesn’t have engineering.
If you are looking for the same type of academic intensity, you might look at Harvey Mudd (my physics major kid turned down U of C for Mudd a couple of years ago, and is super happy at Mudd). She did love Chicago, but Mudd was the place for her. It is not in the city of LA, but the city is accessible via some kind of rail system or zip car. However, it is not really less competitive to get into than U of C. Swarthmore is mentioned above, my D was also admitted there. Again, not really less competitive than U of C for admission, unfortunately.
i don’t think USC has a vibe and culture anything like U of C’s…
Sorry, it is hard to come up with schools that are much like U of C, it is sort of unique.
Agree that USC is nothing like U Chicago. Take a look a Johns Hopkins. It’s only slightly less competitive than U Chicago and it doesn’t have a core, but a similar urban vibe, excellent STEM, and better weather might make it worth considering.
Columbia is pretty different, but it does have a Core and its engineering programs (Fu Foundation) are strong.
And if you are underwhelmed by UChicago’s engineering program, Swarthmore’s general engineering program is not going to make you v happy either.
Columbia and Cornell, for its academics although not urban, come to mind.
Okay, the Columbia suggestions are not helpful. “a bit less competitive than UChicago?”
I would say CMU, but not sure if in the concerned departments they are any less competitive…
Columbia is the closest peer school to uchicago in core curriculum & vibe, but it has an engineering school. However, it’s equally selective. For a lower reach school, consider tufts. It has a similar vibe to uchicago…quirky, smart kids; is near a great city but has its own distinct campus; doesn’t have a core but has serious distribution requirements; and has a school of engineering.
Chicago is my top choice for me (Rising Senior).
While there are plenty of schools in/near urban areas that have core curriculum, I don’t think you’ll find many with similar atmospheres to Chicago, something that I think sets it apart. That said, it might not be a bad idea to just look at some of the schools in Chicago’s athletic division, the UAA aka the Egghead Eight. Some have that somewhat quirkier vibe you may be going for. Brandeis, WUStL, and Rochester were all schools that I thought had a lot of merit. While they are still very selective (WUStL is around 15%), Brandeis and Rochester are considerably easier to get into, more in the 30-40% range.
So schools that reject more students are better? Why
“So schools that reject more students are better?”
Where was that said on this thread?
Virtually every poster in this thread is quoting admit rates as a way of comparing schools.
Do you believe that schools that reject more students are better?
No, @ClarinetDad16, we’re saying that the schools most like U Chicago are often inherently competitive because one of the biggest aspects of its culture is academic intensity and a deep-rooted love of learning for learning’s sake, as evidenced by an extremely extensive core curriculum. Those characteristics tend to be more present at schools with either highly self-selecting applicant pools (for example, Reed College) or at highly selective schools (Swarthmore, Columbia). Furthermore, the student specifically asked for schools that are easier to get into than U Chicago. Admit rates are one way of seeing if a school that is mentioned is reasonably easier to get into than Chicago, which is why the percentages are being brought up so much. Nowhere on this thread does anybody say that more competitive or selective schools are inherently better, just that they tend to have more in common with U Chicago. I don’t think anybody on this website over the age of 16 would argue that a low admit rate equals a great school.