The experience of an Ivy reject

blossom · December 7, 2009, 3:48pm

We must be really dumb and naive.

We toured Chicago and every member of my family loved it. It clearly wasn’t right for each kid-- and only one had it on the short list- but we all loved it.

For every tour we took where the guide bragged about parties where everyone gets naked and wasted (I don’t recall in which order) and for every tour we took where the guide talked about which frats attract the hottest girls, and for every tour we took where the guide was instructed not to allow the parents to see the inside of a dorm (not an actual room, but just inside the entrance-way, probably because the bucket, mop, and sterilizing equpiment by the door made it hard to ignore that someone, very soon, would be mopping up someone else’s body fluids) it was nice for once to be on a college campus where students didn’t seem embarrased to be at college to learn.

Are there studious kids everywhere? For sure. Does every college in America have an English Department or a Philosophy Department or an Economics Department? Yup again. But since our society seems obsessed with having fun or being cool or being popular, the message we got at almost every college we visited was, “come here and you’ll be cool and popular and have fun”.

So we loved Chicago. I don’t care how cynical it is. Go visit the three colleges closest to your home some random day and then come tell me how cynical it is. My state legislature cares more about our flagship’s basketball stadium than about its chemistry labs, and more HS seniors in our community plan to major in “beer pong” than anything else once they get there.

So get off your high horse. It’s nice to find a college that doesn’t apologize for being an institution of learning. And I have no axe to grind- nobody went to or plans to go to Chicago in my family- but I say more power to them.

1sokkermom · December 7, 2009, 3:53pm

“Deep Thinkers” and “intellectual” students can be found even at campuses that have good sports teams and a few fraternities. A well balanced student can also be intellectual and a deep thinker. He (or she) can also thrive socially in any situation.

A true “intellect” does not need to be surrounded only by other “intellects” in order to thrive and develop, either intellectually or emotionally.

JHS · December 7, 2009, 3:55pm

mummom, I have been trying to stay out of this, but I do have to object to the “deeply cynical” line. In my experience – which may be outdated because of the changing of the guard – Chicago was the one university whose marketing did not aim at being all things to all people, and instead gave a pretty accurate picture of the character of the institution. (Which is not for everyone, and in fact is probably not for most people, even most very smart people. Admirable as it is, the Life of the Mind stuff DOES constantly risk slopping over into pretentiousness. Most people would rather drive nails through their own flesh than sit in a Chicago Hum seminar week after week and listen to the Junior Intellectuals work on their moves.)

Every university talks about its commitment to intellectual inquiry. But, as my kid once commented, holding up a glossy mailer from the University of Connecticut, “Nothing says ‘commitment to intellectual inquiry’ like a giant picture of a kid wearing a dog suit.” I admired the way Chicago’s marketing materials actually helped students figure out whether they would enjoy being there or not. The fact that you and your family were turned off can perhaps be counted as a success story for a non-cynical marketing strategy.

DonnaL · December 7, 2009, 4:13pm

Well put.

Mummom, I don’t know where you teach high school, but you’ve obviously just been unlucky. I think being an “intellectual” has a lot more to do with what kind of mind you have and what your enthusiasms are, than how old you are or how much you’ve accomplished.

I have no doubt that there are many, many students at any “elite” college (including the Ivy League) who are both brilliant and intensely enthusiastic about academics. I don’t think the students at Chicago are any smarter than at those places. I do think the prevalence of intense enthusiasm about academics is higher at Chicago than at most other schools.

Almost every time he calls me, my son mentions to me how happy he is academically – not simply because of the professors, who are wonderful, but because of the other students. He attended the 5th-ranked public high school in New Jersey, and there were lots of smart kids there who went to good schools, but they weren’t like the kids he meets now. Kids who like talking about the things he likes to talk about, that he’s liked talking about since he was about 4. Kids he gets, who get him. I think Chicago is perfect for him, and have no doubt that he’s happier there than he would have been had he ended up at Yale (which wasn’t really that interested in, because he knew he’d like Chicago a whole lot more than New Haven. I can’t argue with that!)

Although, in classic “good old days” fashion, my son is already complaining that the first-year class seems to have a few too many “dudebro” types (a type I instantly recognized from my days at Yale, even though that word didn’t exist back then!), and blames it on the adoption of the Common App.

MomofWildChild · December 7, 2009, 4:16pm

I think it helps, though. It’s a lot easier and more validating to have somewhat of a critical mass of those types of people around you.

1sokkermom · December 7, 2009, 4:24pm

^ Maybe. But I also believe that college is preparation for the “real” world. Unless one plans to devote a life to academia, they will not always be surrounded by intense “intellectual” thinkers, or those who label themselves as such. Those who can thrive in “mixed company” may be the ones who are ultimately “smarter”. They will need no validation.

I would much prefer that my kids experience life, rather than simply ponder the meaning of such in an artificially segregated environment.

collegealum314 · December 7, 2009, 4:27pm

They’ll have plenty of time to “experience life.” And if someone is partial to intellectual discussion and doesn’t satiate that in college, they may be less disciplined about being practical after college. It’s like telling an athlete to buckle down and study all of the time instead of indulging in a sport because he/she won’t play a sport for a living.

There is a time and a place for everything.

DonnaL · December 7, 2009, 4:28pm

Absolutely, MOWC.

And 1sokkermom, don’t kid yourself that most kids at Chicago fit the “socially awkward nerd” stereotype and can’t thrive in different kinds of social situations. I’ve met enough of them to know that that just isn’t true. It certainly isn’t true of my son; he was very awkward socially with his peers when he was young (not with adults, though), but in the last few years that’s changed tremendously.

1sokkermom · December 7, 2009, 4:34pm

DonnaL,

…And my S graduated from a (Top 10) University that has been criticized on cc as being somewhat “non-intellectual”. He is one of the most mature, intelligent people I know. (And I would say that even if he were not my son. ;))

He was able to enjoy his college experience AND develop his intellect.

Perhaps the two are not as mutually exclusive as some would like to believe.

SWHarborfan · December 7, 2009, 4:46pm

Frankly, having been a grad. student at the much-coveted Harvard, I have more and the utmost respect for Univ. of Chicago–they pick the true intellectuals (which is distinct from being purely academic) of the world.

Crazy to take one’s egos from acceptances. I was a very inconsistent high school student in the days (late 80s) when you could get into top-notch institutions with either very high SATs or very high GPAs. Harvard would not have looked at me, once, and would have deposited me, quickly, in the repository of rejects. I went on to graduate Phi Beta Kappa from one of the most elite schools in the country and do a Fulbright Scholarship. I am currently finishing a novella for which I have agent representation.

The point is not to brag about me so much (I certainly wasn’t brag-worthy in high school like your amazing daughter) but to make the point that there are amazing candidates who may be overlooked or, as in the (reported) case of Stanford and Brown, their spaces, some of them, may be devoted to the offspring of captains of industry and celebs, who are not all that qualified. Of course, such institutions admit kids like yours (and mine).

Living well is the best revenge. Congrats to your wonderful daughter.

P.S. And I believe that most of the devastation around college rejection is about the kid’s channelling the parents’ hyperbolic investment in where the child goes–bragging rights, a good enough CV, etc. My belief is that if a parent wants their kid at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, so desperately, the parent should apply.

Columbia_Student · December 7, 2009, 5:06pm

I was wondering this myself before you asked this question so that we all can be in the same plane.

idad · December 7, 2009, 5:23pm

Someone who says, “That’s all fine and well in practice, but how does it work in theory?” (A U of C t-shirt).

Hekau · December 7, 2009, 5:26pm

"Hekau: potential vs. accomplishment is exactly what I was differentiating between. "

Yeah, I was too. Have you no interest in history? Most of our cherished poets, writers, scientists, and mathfiends have been young sprouts.

I can tell you that I know youths that take my breathe away. As a teacher, if you know none…it speaks more to your failing.

bovertine · December 7, 2009, 5:36pm

I would say all of us were young sprouts at some point in our life.

But I don’t know of many with major accomplishments under the age of 18. Could you enlighten me with about 10 or 20, since you say here “most”.

The seed is there, but I believe most make their major accomplishments in their early twenties or later.

noimagination · December 7, 2009, 6:08pm

But just as I expect high school athletes to spend some time studying, I would likewise expect an “intellectual” to spend some time considering reality.

hyeonjlee · December 7, 2009, 6:39pm

Just as one is likely to find plenty of intellectually leaning students in any good university, the single minded focus on intellectual perfection at U Chicago is also grossly exaggerated. S1 empathetically tells me that the fun did not come to die at Chicago contrary to the popular myth. Why he is SO SURE, I don’t want to know But then again, he is one of those “common app” twits (class of 2013: the first student body with common app).

So, don’t worry, be happy :)

bclintonk · December 7, 2009, 7:05pm

I don’t know about “most,” but here are a few:

William Cullen Bryant, poet, published a critically and popularly acclaimed book of political satire at the age of 14, and may have written his most famous poem, “Thanatopsis,” at the age of 17, though the date is disputed.

Frederic Chopin, composer and pianist, began composing at 7 and was producing path-breaking compositions for piano by his teens.

Bobby Fisher, chess champion, won the U.S. Chess championship at 14 and achieved the title of Grandmaster at the age of 15.

Hugo Grotius, jurist and international law theorist, entered the University of Leiden at the age of 11 and published his first scholarly book at 14.

Jascha Heifetz, violinist, made his public debut at 7 and gave concerts all over Europe by the time he was in his teens, drawing 25,000 to an outdoor concert in St. Petersburg when he was 10.

Michael Keerney, biochemist, graduated high school at 6, college at 10, and earned a master’s degree at 14. By 16, he was teaching at Vanderbilt.

Saul Kripke, philosopher and logician, wrote his first completeness theorem in modal logic at the age of 17 and by 19 while a sophomore at Harvard was teaching a graduate-level logic course at MIT. (According to legend, Kripke’s father wrote to Prof. W.V.O. Quine at Harvard, then considered the world’s foremost logician, while Saul was still in high school, asking, “Dear Prof. Quine, I can’t make sense of all these chicken-scratchings; is my son mad or a genius?” Quine is said to have written back a one-sentence reply: "Dear Rabbi Kripke, Your son is a genius. Sincerely, W.V.O. Quine).

Yo-Yo Ma, cellist, began performing publicly at 5 and performed for President John F. Kennedy at the age of 7.

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, composer, composed and performed for the Royal Court from the age of 5 and produced several successful operas while still in his early teens.

Blaise Pascal, mathematician and philosopher, wrote a path-breaking mathematical paper establishing what is now known as Pascal’s Theorem at the age of 16. and invented what may have been the first mechanical calculator at the age of 18.

Jean Piaget, psychologist, began his academic studies as a biologist and published several serious scientific papers while still in high school, one as early as the age of 10.

Pablo Picasso, artist, painted several major Realist works at the age of 14, was painting in a Symbolist style by 16, and had advanced to his Modernist stage by the age of 18.

Norbert Wiener, mathematician and the founder of cybernetics, earned a Ph.D. from Harvard at 18 for a famous dissertation on mathematical logic establishing that relational mathematics can be grounded in set theory and therefore does not need its own unique foundational axioms.

noimagination · December 7, 2009, 7:16pm

That was pretty much my point.

idad · December 7, 2009, 8:07pm

As said before, it is not about whether or not all students or a particular student is this or that. I doubt all Harvard students end up as leaders, or engage in leadership activities on campus, but there is the “mission of the school” and the culture being promoted. Chicago has a mission that sets it apart from some of its peers, just as peers such as Harvard are set apart from Chicago. One will find intellectuals at Harvard and leaders at Chicago, and even leader intellectuals (I’ll reserve judgment on intellectual leaders ). One will also find drunken fraternity parties at all of them for that matter. There is, however, a difference in mission and campus culture. Some schools are more similar in their missions than are others, that is all, and that this is true should be celebrated and I hope, maintained.

If one reads the inaugural addresses of incoming presidents who are doing their best to connect to the past while forming a vision for the future mission of their schools the differences (and of course some similarities) stand out. Here are two good examples:

U of C president Bob Zimmer from his inaugural address:

And yet, many of us connected to this university feel that we might just as easily have been there—that going back to the University in its early days, or in fact at any time since its inception, we would know unmistakably that we were at the University of Chicago.

Why is this? The University of Chicago, from its very inception, has been driven by a singular focus on inquiry—with a firm belief in the value of open, rigorous, and intense inquiry and a common understanding that this must be the defining feature of this university. Everything about the University of Chicago that we recognize as distinctive flows from this commitment:

Our belief that argumentation rather than deference is the route to clarity;

Our insistence that arguments stand or fall on their merits, not the background, position, or fame of the proponent;

Our flexible organization that fosters rigorous and imaginative analysis of complex problems from multiple perspectives;

Our education that embeds learning in a culture of intense inquiry and analysis, thereby offering the most empowering education to students irrespective of the path they may ultimately take;

Our commitment to attract the most original agenda-setting faculty and students who can most benefit from and contribute to our environment;

Our recognition that our important contributions to society rest on the power of our ideas and the openness of our environment to developing and testing ideas.

These enduring values and fundamental principles of the University have shaped our culture and have informed generations of faculty, students, and administrators. They are so visible, so deeply embedded, and they so define our environment, in the past as well as the present, that with all the tangible changes in the University between convocations 1 and 487, we believe we would recognize this university at any time in its history. At the University of Chicago, we know who we are as an institution.

And from Penn president Amy Guttmann’s speech:

Our University has long advanced the idea that democracy depends on well-informed, public-minded citizens from all walks of life. Benjamin Franklin rightly believed that it was our job to educate students to become that kind of citizen. And educate, Penn does, and does well.

As you know, many Penn alumni have made their mark on history. Yet we have never had a Penn alum as president of the United States – unless you count William Henry Harrison, who studied medicine at Penn for four months in 1791.

Fifty years later, Harrison stood hatless and coatless under snowfall to deliver a presidential inaugural address that ran for two hours.

I don’t intend to follow in his footsteps. Harrison did manage to keep his promise not to seek a second term: He caught pneumonia and died one month later. I suspect he would have done better to complete his Penn education.

One day, I predict, Penn will claim a far wiser president. And I know that we will all be proud of her!

But securing bragging rights for Penn in the Oval Office is far less important than educating great future leaders. It was the idea of connecting higher education to this higher purpose that drove Franklin to help found the University of Pennsylvania.

hyeonjlee · December 7, 2009, 8:26pm

Depending on which phase of a manic depressive cycle I am at swinging from wild optimism to dire pessimism about the future of our society, I am either mildly amused or alarmed at subtle and not so subtle anti intellectualism prevalent in popular culture.

Just look at all the existing stereotypes and derogatory terms: eggheads, nerds, propeller heads, awkward intellectuals, etc. Between me and my H, we speak about 6-7 languages, have relatives in three continents and worked overseas for a few years. Nowhere else have I encountered such sentiments. The words and slangs listed above do not even exist in other languages we are familiar with, period.

In other cultures we are familiar with, the image of smart, brainy, intellectual guys is of those guys that get the girls, not the ones who are beaten up by the bullies and lose the girls. Of course, for women, it does not work that way since, I learned, sexism is a far more durable and common phenomenon than anti intellectualism - it is a true international common bond, only the degree is different.

During the election season, no politician wants to be described as being an intellectual. Being called “professor like” is a death sentence. Meanwhile, an apparent lack of intellect and intelligence is embraced as being “down to earth” and “just like one of us”. Why in the world would you NOT demand that the person who has one finger on a nuclear switch be equipped with the very best and highest level of intellect and intelligence that will guide him/her to assess the situation best on top of all the other essential leadership qualities?

Where is it written that being an intellectual is not compatible with being socially graceful, empathetic, charismatic? No other culture I am familiar with has such a caricature of intellectuals like the American one.

Even on CC, I sense a measure of anti intellectualism and it’s dismaying. I am surprised to hear a statement from a teacher who claims she has not encountered a student she would describe as an intellectual or highly intellectually leaning. If someone confesses that in her 20 years as a music teacher, she has never encountered a gifted musician, would we just say “Oh shucks, there is no such a thing as a naturally gifted musician”, or should we wonder whether this teacher even has an ability to appreciate a musical gift when she sees one. How about a phys ed teacher or a coach who claims that in 20 years, he has never encountered an gifted athlete? Surely, based on pure statistical odds, in 20 years of teaching in a school of at least moderate size, one WOULD encounter at least a few gifted intellectual, musician, athlete… This kind of a statement says much more about the person who says it, than the existence or absence of such talents.

Given the prevailing popular culture, a place like U Chicago, a safe haven for unapologetic intellectuals, is a cherished institution. I say clearly: YES I WANT MY SON TO BE AN INTELLECTUAL. If you call me an elitist for having this attitude, I will wear the badge proudly.

Thread		Replies	Views
I feel like such a failure Applying to College	138	349	April 16, 2021
As Rejections keep rolling in What do you tell your Honor student? Admission Stories	287	1148	April 18, 2021
Parents: Advice Needed Desperately! Parent Cafe	44	63	April 14, 2021
Schemed by the Ivies Applying to College	65	193	April 16, 2021
Helping kids and families shed their Ivy-worship Parent Cafe	104	2116	April 14, 2021

The experience of an Ivy reject

Related topics

CONNECT WITH US