<p>A few weeks ago, I received an email stating that Chicago's acceptance rate has plummeted to 8.8%. I know this is a controversial number which represents many things, but admittedly I was proud of the school and my status as an alumnus, and at the very least I think we're finally starting to get the recognition we deserve. It was, however, disheartening that more applicants would be deprived of everything UofC has to offer, and I immediately thought about my own experiences applying to college, how I felt after a rejection from MIT (my proverbial dream school at the time), how college has molded me, and just about everything in between. </p>
<p>So I want to share with you my opinions of the school - its strengths and weaknesses - as well as some background on myself. My intent is to be helpful, but I'm not the best writer, and I apologize if the tone is preachy, whiny, or cheesy. Also of course, everything is IMHO; I realize many students had different experiences which may be more relevant...this is just my own, and I may very well be wrong. If it's any consolation, this will probably be my last post, so you won't have to read my ramblings again.</p>
<p>As I said before, MIT was my goal for college, and after being deferred and then waitlisted, I was finally put out of my misery around May of senior year and prepared myself for Chicago. I was swoll. I had a pretty big ego, being top dog at my HS, and I thought I'd sealed the deal by winning some sci/math prizes whose recipients were usually shoo-ins. Looking back, I completely understand: at the time, I was incredibly immature, slightly petty, generally clueless, and my interview was an historic failure. I count my blessings now that UofC (which, as you know, has surpassed MIT in usnwr) took a chance on me. I guess they saw my academic potential, but even I couldn't stand my 18yo self. More importantly, for various reasons, I don't think I would done as well had I not gone to Chicago. </p>
<p>My first and second years, I wouldn't have known that. Honestly, I hated this school on a number of levels. Being socially awkward, I wasn't proactive in seeking out friends, and Chicago's environment isn't welcoming if, like me, you're introverted. Firstly, Hyde Park is just a terrible place with very little to do with the city. It's not a college town, and it's not a place where you can have a nice dinner, find a comfortable spot to walk around, and hang out. Secondly, there's just a weird party atmosphere. Certainly not everyone drinks, and if you don't establish yourself quickly as an outgoing type, it's hard to get your foot in the door. The ones who do seem to form a very exclusive social circle; maybe things have changed, but at the time some were so preoccupied with shedding themselves of the nerdy school image that they became pretentious and superficial. Which leads to small, crappy parties where everyone pretends to be cool. I can't speak for everyone, but personally, my social life has improved immensely since graduating.</p>
<p>Of course, you don't have to go to frats to make friends, and typically people interact in classes and EC activities. Except our schedules were so restrictive that it's pretty difficult to manage, and the school offered little support in this area...sponsored activities and events for undergraduates were a far cry from what I've seen at peer institutions. In general, services were poor: housing was unaccommodating, college advising was unknowledgable, careers services was a joke, medical and counseling were awful, and food was bad. </p>
<p>But the most painful aspect of Chicago was, and I believe still is, the academics. Forget about taking the most difficult courses in every subject. With the quarter system, you're constantly bombarded with exams and papers, and students take their studies incredibly seriously, working mostly independently. Combined with unsympathetic professors who don't engage in grade inflation, undergraduates were somewhat initially disadvantaged when applying to professional programs and jobs. This made life hell for me, as I, like many of you, was used to excelling in HS, and the level of competition at UofC was astounding. I don't mean that everyone was good at everything, but no matter where you looked, there was always a level that would challenge you, and I never stepped down from the challenge. And I'm sure you're all smart, but when your classmates put down 20 hours a week on a particular class, you'll be quickly left behind if you don't match their work ethic, regardless of how brilliant you may be. It was humbling and often left me wondering if I had the ability to succeed. </p>
<p>But it taught me how to think, and it prepared me for the real world. Towards the end of my second year, I began to realize, when comparing notes and stories with peers who'd gone to great schools like Northwestern, Penn, Harvard, and MIT, that I was not only learning more, but that I was learning to think for myself. This is mostly due to the academic atmosphere, and it's a large part of what makes Chicago unique. It's something that can't be replicated with endowment, history, number of Nobel prizewinners, or usnwr rankings. The football team's record, the number of Goldman Sachs internships, and the school's media attention may fluctuate, but academics will always remain the priority for both students and faculty. Professors won't coddle you. To go through as much material in a quarter as most do in a semester or more, they carefully present their information, giving you the tools you need, and leave much of the learning as readings or well-designed problems sets. And perhaps like me, you'll suffer at first for having learnt through rote memorization the first 12 years of your academic life, but eventually even I learned how to process information and come up with new ideas independently, much more valuable to me now than an extra 0.3 GPA points. You'll be immersed in an environment where your peers, antisocial as they might seem, more eagerly discuss their classes and research. That's not to say they did or should have collaborated on homework, but I never felt out-of-place having an intellectual conversation. </p>
<p>I'm now attending a graduate school whose name carries more prestige than UofC, but I don't think the undergraduate academic experience comes close. Here, the administration softens the transition from HS to college, and the professors are pressured into doling out feel-good grades and changing their courses to meet students' needs. It sounds great, but when professors don't have the flexibility to teach and test what they want, the quality of the course suffers. More importantly, they don't have the same respect for undergraduates as they did at UofC, where you're seen and treated as an adult. Here, senior faculty may be forced to teach undergraduate courses and advise undergraduate theses, but they can't be forced to take them seriously, and they don't feel comfortable pushing students in their classwork and research. Students seemed more focused on sports, extracurriculars, and their romantic lives than what they're being taught. And in turn, the administration diverts resources away from academics to those aspects. Speaking with friends and colleagues, this seems to be true almost everywhere - only Caltech and MIT seem to share the same relentless dedication to undergraduate academics as Chicago, and they don't have the benefit of offering a liberal arts education.</p>
<p>There are things UofC could have done better. Their career placement and networking opportunities lag those of a Harvard or Yale, research opportunities aren't as plentiful as in MIT, it's not as fun or intimate as a state school or liberal arts college, and Hyde Park will forever suck. But there's nowhere else you'll learn more, and I happen to think that's worth a lot in the long run, whether you go into academia, industry, politics, or the arts.</p>