<p>I am planning on being a poly sci major, are ^^^you saying that its one of the stronger majors or one of the weaker ones?</p>
<p>Pretty much all the majors at Chicago are strong. You won't find "weak" departments at any top 10 school. Except maybe Comp sci at Chicago >< =D</p>
<p>i plan on being a polisci major as well. I honestly don't have any basis for saying that their department is strong. I would agree with beefs in saying that their department is not going to be "weak". I do know that they have one of the top ten best political science grad schools. So that must help to some extent. </p>
<p>I would guess that once everything works itself out I will be more likely to do econ. Why waste the opportunity to study at the premier econ institution?</p>
<p>In academic circles UChicago is considered Magistra Magistrorum. That says it all.</p>
<p>The Chicago name elicits different reactions from different populations. I think it's fair to say that the kind of people who care whether or not you went to an elite school will know Chicago and its reputation very well. </p>
<p>I would agree with beefs that almost all majors are universally strong. (If you have criteria for what constitutes a "strong" program, that might be helpful). I would also point out that you shouldn't <em>expect</em> yourself to get all A's or to always aim for the A. Sometimes the grade will be out of reach for you, and that's fine. If everybody always gets A's, then the quality of the A loses its meaning.</p>
<p>That said, I've never felt myself to be the victim of "grade deflation."</p>
<p>Beefs, depends on what you want from a comp sci department. If you are into the theory end of things, it is quite excellent. BTW, Chicago is sending a team to the World Finals of the International Collegiate Programming Competition this year.</p>
<p>I'm hijacking this thread. (gimme yo money) sorry.</p>
<p>what does it mean in terms of education to have the department more theoretical? what do it mean to my ability post graduation? If I want to attend law school or a polisci grad school is chicago's department helpful? </p>
<p>I'll put this in context. I want to work inside campaigns. basically my goal is to be david axlerod. (he went to chicago. so maybe this answers itself) Is chicago good in that sense?</p>
<p>Chicago is a research institution. 'Theoretical' means that you will not learn many applications to your work. It will prepare you for graduate school, so that you may do research in abstract topics -- this is really what research's primary focus is on anyway.</p>
<p>Of course, there will be a few who won't go on to graduate school, so what's the point of a Chicago education if there's no prestige factor? It all lies in the fact that Chicago is one of the few remaining institutions that teaches its students how to think. It will teach you how to make logical arguments, how to communicate your ideas effectively, and how to make rational decisions. This is what differentiates a Chicago education from an Ivy education. </p>
<p>Take the math department here, for instance. Even in our lowest calculus, delta-epsilon proofs are taught. Other schools, who have probably misinterpreted the goals of a Core education, do require calculus -- but the calculus that teaches nothing more than methods of calculation. If you never again have to do calculus again in your life (which is probable for most non-science majors), what exactly is the point of knowing methods of calculation? On the other hand, Chicago calculus follows a very axiomatic and theoretical approach. Methods aren't particularly stressed - the part that is stressed is the way you think about calculus. That calculus isn't just a collection of methods - it's a logical argument created to tackle important problems in real life. That without this systematic construction, calculus could not even have been created. That solid definitions and axioms are necessary to argue anything. This is what Chicago calculus teaches. So while your peers at other institutions may argue that your education is pointless, know that your education is one of the only extant educations that still teaches its students how to think, and that the education of methods received by your peers will ultimately be of little use to them.</p>
<p>^ Wow! I think we're probably going to accept this kid's application! (Lest anyone think that your basic Chicago math guy can't rock an essay.)</p>
<p>Phuriku, all kidding aside, that is one beautiful set of paragraphs. Except for the gratuitous swipe at "an Ivy education" -- I suspect you might have learned to think a little at Harvard, too. (I suspect you might have learned to think a little at South Podunk State, too. Some people are built like that.)</p>
<p>Prospies: Forget the pretty buildings, fun rolling over and playing dead, and the possibility that your paper will be trashed by the favorite grad student of a real, live Nobel Prize winner. ^ That's the big pro of Chicago: being part of a community where people feel that passionate about educating themselves.</p>
<p>Now back to Fastfood's question: One of my cousins went to Chicago and majored in political science. She returned to her hometown afterwards and set up a successful congressional campaign for her high school history teacher. She spent almost a year as his only staff person, raised all the money to pay herself and others, then recruited a pro to be her boss. Learning the theory doesn't keep you from going out and doing stuff.</p>
<p>Phuriku -- that post should be stickied or put in the Chicago FAQ or something. Awesome. I love that Chicago loves people who think with both sides of the brain.</p>
<p>JHS: Where did the boss go to school?</p>
<p>But anyway, I guess I fear being way over my head and not actually benefiting from the learning to "think" style of education. I really like the sound of Chicago, but I don't know if it's really a fit. </p>
<p>I think I would consider myself someone like Ferris Bueller, but instead of singing in parades I pull 5s on Calc BC AP tests. Would the intense intellectualism just be overwhelming for me? I love to learn new things, but I also like a healthy dose of relaxation. Maybe I have a skewed view of things, but it seems to me that places like Yale, while still being academically excellent, would have a student body that is more outgoing and willing too let loose every now and then. I don't mean drinking and parties, because I'm not into that, but just being able to relax.</p>
<p>Trust me, my favorite Chicago students do plenty of relaxing. Well, at least one of them does, the other maybe bit off more than was easily chewable last quarter. But it was ECs, not class or library time. And thanks to Hulu that one is suspiciously current on certain TV shows for someone who claims to be busy all the time.</p>
<p>You have to remember that the "fun comes to die" bit is a joke. Loose gets let every day at Chicago, as it does almost anywhere you make a bunch of 18-22 year-olds live and work together and excuse them from talking much to anyone not in their age group. Also, Yale is where my wife and I went to college, and there is very little difference as to the fabric of student life we had there and what our kids have at Chicago. Yes, the average Yale student is probably more outgoing and social, but I doubt that would be true about the median Yale student vs. the median Chicago student. And Yale almost certainly has more people interested in careers in mainstream politics. But the similarities between the two colleges far outweigh the differences.</p>
<p><em>looking at phuriku's post</em> somebody took 160s math.</p>
<p>I personally believe that Uchicago truly is one of the last remaining academic institutions in the nation that truly teaches one to think, but don't think that this means that Uchicago doesn't have a party scene or is too tense to relax or have fun. This is college, after all. </p>
<p>Are people here tense? I would say that as a general stereotype, no. There are a lot of extremes (it's a student body of over two thousand, after all—generalizations aren't going to be all-encompassing), but take, for example, two of my housemates who, during finals week, decided to take a break in order to figure out how to fit each other into laundry machines (they failed). Snell-Hitchcock also has this thing where during finals week (I believe?) they play hide and go seek in the bookstacks at the Regenstein Library. And of course there's SCAVHUNT (can't wait for that!). </p>
<p>In fact, I think the thing is that people here are so used to working intensely that it “chills them out,” if you know what I mean. They become so used to it that it doesn't bother them, whereas if someone else who isn't used to the type of rigor Uchi imposes on its students experienced the workload we have to go through for a day, they'd freak out. </p>
<p>Also, another pro that I especially like about Uchi: people enroll here not expecting to get straight A's, so it contributes to the very noncompetitive atmosphere here. People here are usually very nice, interesting and very approachable. I feel like I could make friends with almost anyone on campus (well, except for the obnoxious "That Kids"). </p>
<p>(Possible) Cons: there are no vocational majors (engineering, journalism, architecture, etc.).
Since it is UChi's philosophy that an education is not meant to prepare you for some greater end (like a job) but is rather intrinsically meaningful, the education you receive is rather abstract and lacks the type of practicality you'd probably receive elsewhere.
Dating may be difficult since the schoolwork is so immense. (UChi is academic boot camp, my friend, not eHarmony (although eHarmony did buy UChi's algorithm for matching roommates and exploited it to make a profit. Cool, huh?))
UChi's campus is rather insular and has an "ivory tower" sort of atmosphere (it really surprised ME, for one, to have come back to my hometown and realize gas prices were so low). This may be a good/bad thing.
Math professors are somewhat terrible at teaching.
The wind.</p>
<p>Despite all of the possible cons, however, I would not have chosen to go to any other school.</p>
<p>To correct a couple trivial mistakes in bohbeep's posts: </p>
<ol>
<li><p>There are about 5,000 undergraduates at Chicago. Yes, that's more than 2,000, so she wasn't actually wrong, but scale matters. Williams has more than 2,000 students. Chicago is a lot bigger than that.</p></li>
<li><p>I don't think phuriku spent any time in 160s math.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
I think I would consider myself someone like Ferris Bueller, but instead of singing in parades I pull 5s on Calc BC AP tests.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The fact that you said that makes me say, "Oh, you'll be perfect here."</p>
<p>This is interesting: a lot of outsiders read Chicago as "intense" because students tend to be a) interested in schoolwork, b) motivated to work hard, and c) good at it. Personally, I see Chicago as very chill, at least compared to my high school culture, which was one of straight A's and eating disorders and one that shuttled tons of kids off to Ivies every year.</p>
<p>I think we on these boards (and I'm not alone in this, I'll grant that) tend to engage a little too much in Chicago exceptionalism. We're so into talking about how we're different and why we're different that we kind of overlook the fact that about 75% of the time we're similar to the kids you'd find at any other elite institution. What remains unusual, I believe, is that the quality of academic life is the primary draw, but I think a university that ONLY had an academic life would be a pretty sad one, and one I personally wouldn't want to be a part of.</p>
<p>I've met a lot of kids here who appear so laid-back and goofy that you begin to ask yourself, "How did they get in...." only to realize that, Ferris Bueller-style, they're academic superstars who can do it for fun and just aren't into being uppity or letting other people know how smart they are. But get them in a conversation about physics, or biology, or literature, and....</p>
<p>For the grade deflation factor, don't companies and grad school recognize that Uchicago deflates grades? (Thus a Chicago B is worth an A at let's say, Northwestern) or is that something I just made up?</p>
<p>Thank you for the information JHS and unalove. You are such a valuable resource on these boards. :)</p>
<p>una, what you said put the whole "intensity" issue into context. So really it isn't an "issue" after all.</p>
<p>JHS, do you think that a Chicago education is appropriate for someone who wants to be in the political mainstream? Maybe appropriate isn't the best word, but optimal?</p>
<p>fastfood: I don't know any school that has a major in "political mainstream." I imagine that your connections are going to be vital. If you went to Chicago, the onus would be on you to find opportunities to get involved politically in the neighborhood and in the city (hint: there are lots of them). The school that undeniably surpasses Chicago in this regard is Harvard (lots of political connections, Kennedy School bringing in amazing speakers, etc. plus the city of Boston.) and probably Yale as well.</p>
<p>If your goal is to be David Axelrod or somebody like him, I suggest you research what he did to get where he is, and to look up other Axelrod-esque political figures to see what they did, how they did it, and also where they went to school. </p>
<p>paragonlife: I really don't know. For a lot of grad schools, the rigor, the GPA, the standardized tests, and soft factors play in, so even though you might have a lower GPA than another candidate that's not the only thing involved. </p>
<p>For academic grad schools, I believe Chicago students have an enormous advantage, first because the school is extremely recognized in many fields, second because students have the opportunities to get close to important people who can write recommendations and can take rigorous classes and write interesting and informed statements of purpose, and third because you'll be used to working with high expectations.</p>
<p>For a job that looks at your GPA as part of the equation, it might not be as high as another candidate's GPA, but again, the 3.9 kid won't always win the job over the 3.7 kid and the 3.7 kid over the 3.5 kid and the 3.5 kid over the 3.3 kid, etc. just like in admissions the 2400 kid doesn't always win over the 2200 kid. There are a lot of factors in between. And in my experience and the experiences of my friends, the GPA has not held us back from what we have wanted to do. And I'm under the suspicion that a lot of my friends have stellar GPA's-- I don't know absolutely, because we don't talk about these things, but by the job opportunities they've gotten I assume that they have some way impressive numbers poking out on their resume. So this idea that everybody has a low GPA at Chicago is false.</p>
<p>All politics starts out as local. If you want to be in mainstream politics in Boston, what's optimal is probably BC or BU. I remember one of my Yale classmates despondent when he was accepted at Harvard Law School but rejected at Texas. He wanted to go into politics in Texas, and thought that not having either of his degrees from UT would disqualify him. (Instead, he married a former editor-in-chief of the Texas Law Review, and now he's an appellate judge.) In Chicago, Northwestern or DePaul are probably the optimal launching pads. Flagship state u's work almost everywhere, as long as you stay in-state.</p>
<p>So there's no place (other than maybe Chile) where Chicago is the best platform from which to get into politics. It doesn't have a huge local network of alumni ward leaders; no one takes its student politics seriously enough to have them translate into the real world. </p>
<p>So what? If you are smart, and work hard, and have some luck, none of that matters. What matters is what you learn, and how you apply it. And for all the reasons given above, Chicago is pretty darn good on those scores.</p>
<p>Are other places better? Probably. Coming out of Chicago, you are unlikely to land the kind of job one of my Yale friends got straight out of college, speechwriting for a Presidential candidate and later Vice President (and beyond). But, then, even if you go to Yale, there's no assurance that you will be in Skull & Bones (as he was), and there's no assurance that a fellow Bonesman will be gearing up to run for President right when you are looking for a job. (I'd say after 2004 the country is pretty sick of Bonesmen.)</p>