<p>For someone who is used to working hard and values learning, but still wants to balance a social life, play guitar, get into some clubs, get enough sleep, which one of these will best suit that balance? </p>
<p>Academics are my primary concern in college, but I don't want to stay shelled up in the library for days and days. </p>
<p>So in terms of rigor, which one of these is most grueling?</p>
<p>I've also read that Cornell is more "unnecessarily" difficult, and its academics does not help you learn as much as Chicago or Swarthmore does. Is this true? I also hear they have a lot of cutthroat pre-meds, a culture I'd like to avoid.</p>
<p>Is MIT's rigor different than the others in that it's VERY math/theoretical based, while like Chicago and Swarthmore, which has more of an emphasis on humanities, would give you more reading and writing?</p>
<p>One conclusion I came to, when I accompanied D1 on her college-scouting trips, is there really is no “free lunch”. At all the schools that had high reputations for academics, the students we spoke with seemed to be working very hard.</p>
<p>I attended Cornell, and my daughter goes there now. Though most people there work hard, it is my impression that the workload and intensity varies significantly by field of studies. I majored in the sciences, and they were indeed very tough for me. But then, I am not that smart (relatively speaking). My daughter is a social sciences/ humanities major, she works hard there as well, but seems to be far less stressed than I was. She has time for lots of extracurriculars and an active social life. (She plays guitar too, and some of her friends are in a band there). But she is also smarter than me. People who are there now on CC point out that Cornell’s intensity reputation was borne long ago, in my generation and previously, and there has been substantial grade inflation since then. But it is still (generally, with variation depending on program) a relatively demanding school.</p>
<p>One thing a Chicago alum asserted some time ago on CC is that at Chicago there is no way to duck its rigorous standards, but at Cornell, due to its various diverse programs and colleges, you can reduce the workload. He saw that at as a realtive deficiency of Cornell vs. chicago, he perceived a “badge of honor” guaranteed for the Chicago graduate for necessarily successfully coping with these challenges. I don’t agree, I think the ability to more closely match the likely work intensity level to what you desire to handle is an asset. It will still be plenty challenging enough, nevertheless.</p>
<p>From what I could glean, in the intro sciences Cornell seems easier than MIT, unless you don’t want it to be. Cornell can be about that tough, if you want it to be and you can hack it, by choosing to take the 'advanced sections" of certain intro courses. But these 'advanced" sections are the standard levels at MIT. This impression may be wrong, however. But it seemed to me that, again, at Cornell there was some ability to manage the degree of rigor.</p>
<p>My impression is Swarthmore academics would be much like Chicago’s, or Cornell’s if you want it to be.</p>
<p>You asked which is more rigorous, not whether any of them are “out of the question”.
Whether any are “out of the question” may depend on fit, and your abilities.
Honestly you need to visit and assess for yourself.
Failing that, there are some ex-MIT students,and possibly current ones, who post on CC.</p>
<p>There’s no easier or more difficult path here for all comers. The major you choose, haw fast you choose to advance through that major, the supporting cast for that major you choose, the number of credits per term/classes per term you choose is highly variable and manipulable at all of these schools. They, in my mind, can be made fairly equally challenging. To the idiot savant of sci/math who can’t write an English sentence more than 4 words long - yeah, Chicago may be more challenging. To the math challenged future econ major, well, maybe MIT is not where you want to be. Overall, don’t see a winner/loser here.</p>
<p>Chicago is often a different flavor of grueling, due to its quarter system (I believe the other three are on semester). Basically, our standard academic year is composed of three quarters instead of two quarters, with the normal student taking three or four classes a quarter rather than five or six on semester. What this means is that at any given time, you only have to worry about three or four classes’ worth of work. To accommodate, the pace of material covered is faster, in order to fit 15 weeks worth of classes into 10. Therefore, Chicago would be good if you prefer focusing on a few topics intensely, versus juggling many different classes simultaneously.</p>
<p>Realistically, though, Chicago (and I’m sure any of the other schools listed) can be as easy or as hard as you want it to be. If you come in with AP credit, take a lot of 3 class quarters, and/or avoid doubling up on reading/writing classes and lab classes, Chicago can be very manageable.</p>
<p>And don’t worry about not having time for socializing/sleep. You sound like me, if you substitute bass for guitar, and my academics are doing just fine. Chill :)</p>
<p>I’m not sure if you are talking about your (20-30 year ago) experience or your D’s. But my D, graduated last May (May '10), said she worked very hard at Cornell. She had a “so called” easy major and a very “difficult” minor. She graduated w/ a 3.99 and now has a job that is very difficult to get and basically impossible unless you graduate from an Ivy, MIT, Standford, Duke and a few top LA’s.</p>
<p>Her close friend in HS got into MIT. She was lower class ranked than my D and had lower SAT’s. My D was also awarded many more scholarships than this young lady. This young lady is now in graduate school at MIT. Another of D’s fellow HS grads got into Standford and was also lower ranked and had lower SAT’s.</p>
<p>So my point is, if you are good enough for one of these top schools, you are good enough for them all. There isn’t really a major difference, in general, between the students. A 2140 and 2200 is not a big difference.</p>
<p>I specifically had in mind intro physics;as an ex-physics major I tried to gauge the levels of the courses at the various schools my kids were looking at by checking out the texts in the bookstores when there was dead time on the tours. when I checked some years ago, I think when D1 was looking at schools, MIT was using Kleppner & Kolenkow for Introductory Mechanics. Cornell’s basic physics for engineers & scientists course was using either Halliday & Resnick or Sears, Zemansky & Young, either way these are “easier” texts requiring a lower level of calculus proficiency. Their “advanced” section was using Kleppner & Kolenkow. Which is an advanced book with very hard problems. </p>
<p>It was the same when I was attending. At that time, first year E&M at some few schools used the Berkeley physics series Electricity & Magnetism book written by Purcell. Cornell used that text in its “advanced” level of the intro course. The “standard” intro course most people (and I) took used Halliday & Resnick (ie a little lower level).</p>
<p>I also saw Kleppner & Kolenkow was being used at Swarthmore when we toured there, but I didn’t check what level course it was for.</p>
<p>“There isn’t really a major difference, in general, between the students.”</p>
<p>I assume you are just throwing in this opinion as an aside, since it is OT as nobody on this thread mentioned squat about the students. As I understood it, the question pertained to the relative rigor of the coursework, nothing else. But perhaps I misunderstood something.</p>
<p>my dad went to MIT for undergrad and eventually got a PhD from mit in mech eng. I think he really feels like he missed out on certain social aspects. when my uncle was talking about his time at stonybrook my dad said longingly, “i think I needed a little stonybrook back then!” when I expressed interest in applying to MIT he was supportive but did not encourage me at all - fwiw, I didn’t end up applying.</p>
<p>quote from my dad: “mit teaches you a very logical way of thinking that makes you socially ■■■■■■■■”. in some ways that sounds romantic (and appealing to the male ego, perhaps) but remember you only get one life</p>
<p>As a counterpoint, my D is a senior at MIT and would not change anything if she had to do again. </p>
<p>Sure, she worked very hard but she also had a very active social life with her sorority, volunteered at several hospitals, did research in a world class lab every semester since sophomore year and took one third of all her classes in the humanities. She worked hard during the week but never from Friday evening until Sunday afternoon. </p>
<p>The toughest was probably the first year when she had to adjust to the heavy workload. They call it drinking from the fire-hose. It is not for the faint of heart and you need a fair amount of resilience to accept the fact that however good you were in high school, there are plenty of students better than you at MIT. At the same time, the atmosphere is very collaborative as most first year students take the same core classes. You never feel you compete against others just against yourself. The pace does not slow down after freshman year but by that time you are mostly taking classes in your major of choice. My D was also premed and one good thing is that she was done with all requirements by the end of sophomore year since most of them were also part of the general institute requirements (GIRs). She took her MCATs at the end of sophomore year and could then focus on her area of interest which was neuroscience. She loved the research and even took several graduate level classes taught by Nobel laureates, where she was treated just the same as the graduate students.</p>
<p>It is definitely not easy to get a high GPA at MIT, but at the same time, the med schools she interviewed with seemed to take the relative difficulty of the MIT curriculum into account. </p>
<p>What she really feels she has learned during these 4 years is general problem solving. She feels confident tackling any time of problem and is not afraid of failure.</p>