<p>mythmom, I felt the same way about Bard after visiting and reading about it. I feel like that's another place I'd be pretty happy at, although there are some big differences between it and Chicago. I like Chicago a lot more, but I really did like the atmosphere of Bard.</p>
<p>The admissions officer at Bard when I visited is married to a guy who works for Chicago admissions. She said that she once interviewed a kid whose first choice was Chicago, and then she called her husband and recommended the kid to him.</p>
<p>Not everyone that likes Chicago will like Bard, or everyone that like Bard will like Chicago, but there is some crossover appeal. At least for me there was. But I also hated Wesleyan when I visited, which is a place I figure most Chicago people would like.</p>
<p>That's kind of what I thought. Chicago attracts a LOT of different stripes, so I thought it would be a good thing to branch off a little bit.</p>
<p>Would somebody like to add to this running list, with additions?</p>
<p>I thought about Bard because that's what came into my mind when I thought "intellectual and weird." Bard is very, very arty, and that tie to Chicago is hysterical-- Bard's current president is also a U of C grad.</p>
<p>Vassar is pretty weird in its own way, and I imagine that a Chicagoan might feel comfortable there. A good friend attends.</p>
<p>Skidmore should also go on the list.</p>
<p>Emory is in Chicago's athletic conference and has a similar dynamic in terms of urban/neighborhood, and small undergrad/large graduate population. Again, maybe these similarities are not important to you, but when I looked at schools, they were important to me.</p>
<p>As for selectiviy, Bard is probably at least as self-selective as U.of Chicago and the best stats I have access to right now (Princeton Review on-line) shows Chicago accepts 38% of their applicants to Bard's 29%, even if Bard's students have lower "stats" themselves in terms of SAT, rank, and the usual metrics. PR gives Chicago an admissions-selectivity rating of 98 to Bard's 95. Nothing's a given out there today. </p>
<p>As a disclaimer, my DD is now at Bard but she was also accepted by two schools on JHS's competitive list (Wes, and Welles) as well as two even more selective schools, and chose Bard; self-selecting. BTW, PR's selectivity rating for Wes and Welles is 97 for both. On the Consensus Group's selectivity rankings, Chicago sits at 50th with both W's above it, as are Rice and Vassar.</p>
<p>I highly disagree. Chicago isn't necessarily above any of those schools, and to say so is ridiculous. Furthermore, why does Chicago always have to be compared to different schools? I'm tired of the general mentality that Chicago is better than most schools because it's in the top ten. This is why me and many of my friends felt that Chicago wasn't worth it-- the cutthroat (and perhaps superlative) nature of it all.</p>
<p>Oh yes, one more thing-- Wellesley, Carleton, Wesleyan, Vassar, and many LACs with low acceptance rates are certainly not safeties or targets for any UChicago applicants. Get a grip, people. If you know nothing about LACs, don't say anything. I'm not trying to be rude, but you're being judgmental. Schools like Wesleyan and Carleton are target-reaches for all top applicants, and many people seem to underestimate that fact.</p>
<p>Unalove has been most helpful overall on this board and I think it was a great idea to list schools that have some of the uncommon feel of U Chicago. It's going to be a tough year for admissions and one selective college may accept a student, when the others don't- I saw that happen last year with my older D's friends. So it's good to see there are other schools a U Chicago-obsessed kid (like my D) may be happy at. In fact, several of the schools she is applying to are on Unalove's list.</p>
<p>The Univ. of Chicago experience is most similiar to Swarthmore and Columbia-- both of which are harder to get into. Skidmore is almost the complete opposite of Chicago. Brown is the opposite of Chicago in many respects.</p>
<p>Here's an update of the original list, taking into consideration the comments. Please correct if I missed anything.</p>
<p>Bard *
Barnard *
Boston U
Brandeis
Bryn Mawr *
Carleton *
Carnegie Mellon *
Case Western
Colorado C
Denison
Emory *
Grinnell *
Johns Hopkins *
Kenyon
Lewis and Clark
Macalester *
McGill
Michigan
Mount Holyoke
New College of Florida
NYU
Oberlin *
Reed *
Rice *
Rochester
Skidmore
Smith
St. John’s College
University of Pittsburgh
University of Toronto
Vassar *
Wash U *
Wellesley *
Wesleyan *
Whitman C</p>
<p>I didn't really mean to offend or diminish with this list, I hope that's clear. I just started up a list of non-obvious alternatives to the U of C. Maybe in this day and age, and on these boards, the non-obvious is obvious. My calling these schools a match/safety was probably incorrect, and I don't like to think of myself as sitting on a "top ten" perch here. I just thought that the schools we refer to by single letters were the obvious comparisons.</p>
<p>Like all of you, I am anticipating another unpredictable admissions season, and I want the smart kids who don't get into Chicago to feel good about other schools out there. That's not to say that they're a breeze to get into compared to Chicago, that's not to say that they are "hidden gem" schools that nobody's ever heard of, that's not to say you'll get into them and you won't get in here, but it is to say that you should think about them in addition to thinking about us. It's just to say that there are other options that a college-bound high school student should know about.</p>
<p>The title of this thread is a misnomer. My apologies. I guess that's what's getting people worked up... I initially thought about only including schools like Pitt and Whitman, but then the list kept on growing.</p>
<p>Another school I can add on the less-selective range is Beloit College. Beloit's about three hours away from Chicago. It's highly intellectual and many a Chicagoan has dated a Beloiter.</p>
<p>I think the thread has merit, you can see that your original list wasn't far off just by those who are applying to some of those schools in addition to Chicago. It's also good to try to identify schools that are as selective as Chicago with the *. It's up to the applicants to determine by researching the schools to see if they are real match/safety or reaches though. Also, we never got the impression at Chicago this summer or even on this site, that U Chicagoan's are academically judgemental, in fact just the opposite! Anyway, here's the updated list adding Beloit:</p>
<p>Bard *
Barnard *
Beloit C
Boston U
Brandeis
Bryn Mawr *
Carleton *
Carnegie Mellon *
Case Western
Colorado C
Denison
Emory *
Grinnell *
Johns Hopkins *
Kenyon
Lewis and Clark
Macalester *
McGill
Michigan
Mount Holyoke
New College of Florida
NYU
Oberlin *
Reed *
Rice *
Rochester
Skidmore
Smith
St. John’s College
University of Pittsburgh
University of Toronto
Vassar *
Wash U *
Wellesley *
Wesleyan *
Whitman C</p>
<p>JMHO, but some of these choices are complete stretches.</p>
<p>Michigan? McGill? Rochester? Pitt?</p>
<p>any university, including a place like U of C, (heck, any college) is multidimensional in its attributes like location, culture, size and such. As a result, I'm sure one can find things in common among most colleges and universities in the country. So what? such lists are trivial.</p>
<p>It seems to me this approach would make much more sense if it were broken down by key attribute:</p>
<p>If you like Chicago's size, you should look at Rochester, CMU, Case
If you like the core, you should look at Columbia, St. Johns
If you like urban, look at....</p>
<p>Otherwise, with my knowledge of Chicago and some of these other places, it is hard for me to imagine the same kid being happy at a Chicago and a Pitt, or McGill. </p>
<p>I agree with Newmassdad as many of the listed schools have very little in common with Chicago---- especially Pitt, Colo. Coll., McGill & Toronto. Columbia, Swarthmore, Beloit & Reed have some strong similarities to U. of Chicago.</p>
<p>Pitt, McGill, and Toronto are all much larger than Chicago, and are public institutions, but they are all urban research universities. McGill has an honors program in liberal arts that would be attractive to Chicago types. Both McGill and Toronto have strong offerings in Classics and Philosophy, things that attract a lot of kids to Chicago. (One of my daughter's close friends at Chicago, who is completely classics-centric, at one point rated McGill above Harvard and Chicago. My son's most Chicago-like friend -- thoroughly intellectual, idiosyncratic, completely self-motivated, not a joiner, broad interests centering around Philosophy -- is very happy at Toronto.)</p>
<p>Colorado College: I read an essay by Greg Easterbrook about it a few years ago, and it sounded exactly like what people who like Chicago say about Chicago. It surprised me, too.</p>
<p>All of these places are different packages of qualities. I'm not a believer in "one perfect fit" -- each package has something to recommend it. Sometimes, the packages can be radically different, but be similar nonetheless. A great example of that is Brown and Chicago: polar opposites in curriculum design and in several other ways. But, except for my kids (who took an irrational dislike towards Brown), everyone they knew who applied to Chicago also applied to Brown, and vice versa (almost). I'm sure that's not true everywhere, but in our circles there is a high degree of correlation between people who are attracted to Chicago and people who are attracted to Brown, although what attracts those people about the schools may be different. Columbia is much more superficially similar to Chicago, but I sense that its psychic feel may be very different. And then there's something obvious, like St. John's. That's almost a reflexive choice (and it should be), but the similarity between the schools is really limited to one aspect of curriculum design, and the curricula couldn't be more different given that initial similarity. Yet I don't doubt that many students attracted to Chicago would also be attracted to St. John's.</p>
<p>I thought what unalove was trying to get at was a set of alternatives where there is some significant overlap on the Venn diagrams, obvious or not, including at least some schools that might qualify as safeties for people with reasonable prospects at Chicago. I think she succeeded pretty well.</p>
<p>Totally disagee. Academically speaking, Brown and Chicago are opposites as one has a highly structured core curriculum and the other has almost no structure. Pitt and Chicago-- there isn't a reasonable manner in which to address that. Colo. College is good for bright nature loving pot smokers. McGill classes are huge. Toronto is as impersonable as any school I know. Chicago is a very personal, highly intellectual school for gifted and hard working scholars. Reed and Colo. Coll. I can see as similiar to each other, but I doubt that a student who enjoys Chicago would be a good match for either. Any list that doesn,t include Swarthmore in the same vein as Chicago is incomplete. Chicago, as you may know, has more graduate students than undergraduates which makes it a very serious and scholarly atmosphere unlike that found at many of the listed schools. Ask recruiters at Chicago about the other listed schools.</p>
<p>I don't mean to offend anyone, but Chicago was actually not on the top of the charts for any of my friends. Many of them actually chose schools on that proposed list, as those schools tended to be more selective and to offer more to their needs. Chicago is a fantastic school, but these schools should not be given on a list. Applicants to Chicago should consider these ALONG with Chicago, not besides Chicago. Many are just as (if not more) selective than Chicago is. These schools are not alternatives to Chicago, but rather schools you should consider in case you don't end up liking Chicago in the end. I know that I didn't, so I chose Wesleyan.</p>
<p>unalove, by the way, I suggest that you don't propose a list to Chicago applicants-- I don't see many other top schools doing that, and I certainly don't think that you need to steer them in any direction. I'm not trying to be belligerent, but it seems as if you're playing college counselor.</p>
<p>I don't think unalove is trying to play counselor or steer people, rather the idea is to just open a discussion. Consideration of many schools from many angles can be interesting and sometimes helpful. Some applicants whom I know are just frozen in the process and lists can spark a way forward.</p>
<p>And showtunesguy89, your input is valued too.</p>
<p>Showtunesguy: I find many of the CC regulars who've posted here, unalove, JHS, newmassdad, mythmom and others spend a lot of time and consistently provide excellent insights. I personally don't like to see you discourage them to post their inputs.</p>
<p>I think everyone is saying the same thing. unalove loves her school; she wants others to have this experience and is trying to help them to it.</p>
<p>College match is mysterious and hard to account for preferences. One poster here loved Wesleyan; one didn't. Some love Chicago; some don't.</p>
<p>I probably wouldn't have made the same choice as either of my kids, and they wanted very different things (although they did have some overlaps on their lists), but each is where he/she needs to be.</p>
<p>It's wise to have many places to love with admissions so unpredictable. I can say for myself that I still feel a twinge when I think of the wonderful schools like Chicago, Bard, Brown, and Smith my kids passed up to attend their current schools.</p>