<p>The real thing that separates Chicago from the Ivy league? Sports. The impact of sports? A lot of students at the ivy league schools who are waaaay below their non athlete fellow students academically. Chicago also does not give a legacy bump.</p>
<p>So, I suspect you will find less of an academic tail (on the lower end) at Chicago than at most of the ivies.</p>
<p>The lack of sports may also be a disadvantage for some.</p>
<p>/just saying</p>
<p>I think Chicago already does a good job of marketing itself. I've gotten information from them for the past two years and was always intrigued with what they sent me, including a course catalog and a packet called "Life of the Mind." </p>
<p>US News rankings mean jack anyway.</p>
<p>I'm not sure if I would get in so I don't know why I am depending Chicago. I think all Universities should be like Chicago. If you want to play sports, there should be sporting academies that you could join. A university should be a place for thinking, not sports! Too bad money corrupted the whole system.</p>
<p>I have to say that it is very disappointing that Chicago has a weak DIII program, especially with Northwestern right across the city. It has nothing to do with me wanting to play, but rather you look at students at Yale, painting their faces blue and getting really psyched up for the Yale-Harvard games, and well, that's school spirit, that's something that should be part of college. While I'm sure I'd have a great time at Chicago, I'd always regret not having a true "home" team to follow.</p>
<p>Let me clarify my comments. I think sports are important - intramurals should be available. What I don't agree with is the use of spectator sports as a symbol of the value of a university. Why should I, as an academic student, care about going to a school with winning teams?</p>
<p>Yeah the no big sports factor of U Chicago is something that I'll have to get over if I attend. But in a city with 5 major sports teams, and other D1 schools to root for such as Northwestern and DePaul, there will be plenty of other options to satisfy my sports appetite if I attend Chicago.</p>
<p>For newmassdad: a school with a Division I team helps to foster school spirit. It would give me a sense of pride if they were winning, and as an alumni, I'd have a team to root on. It's just as much part of the college "experience" as frats or pizza at 3AM.</p>
<p>Personally, the DIII nature of chicago is one thing I really like. First, it means that if you want to play a varsity sport, you can (and without a huge commitment). Second, it takes away the bull***** that comes athletic scholarships letting in othewise ineligible students. </p>
<p>It's going to be nice next year when there arent a bunch of idoit football players running around thinking they own the place (at my school it really dumb as they have not won a single game for the past 2 years). Its going to be cool to be somewhere where this is still great competition in sports--only it will come from house intramurals and such.</p>
<p>i agree that athletic scholarships are bs. Any form of entertainment professions should be separated from formal universities. Art, sports, film, etc should all be out. They should be separate entities. Of course I enjoy them, I could study art and draw art, but i'm not going to spend my life creating art.</p>
<p>Just a note - even though schools don't give athletic scholarships does not mean they don't recruit. The Ivies are the most obvious example - while they can't give scholarships (IIRC it's part of the League's rules), they certainly recruit their fair share of students. While DIII schools typically don't recruit heavily like DI schools, athletes who are good can still be favored if they contact the coaches and such - I know someone who was "recruited" like this for soccer at Chicago, although chances are that he would have gotten in anyway.</p>
<p>As for sports and school spirit, at many schools sports aren't huge - even some DI schools. Northwestern has a large party scene, but its teams are usually at the bottom of the conference. Columbia's teams are typically at the bottom of the Ivy League, but people are still proud that they went there; MIT, Emory, Rice, CalTech, JHU (except lacrosse), Wash. U, et. al. are all DIII, and those schools are fine. That's not to say that it isn't cool to have a good team, though - I live in North Carolina, people here live and breathe for the ACC :P.</p>
<p>"Art, sports, film, etc should all be out."</p>
<p>Well sports arent a part of the acedemics, but the rest of that is crazy talk. Art and film are just as solid as literature (being film is a presentation of literature and well...art history anybody?). Real Film classes run just like lit classes with the same levels of analysis and the such. What about theater? The plays are definately works of literature, but the preformance aspect is what really differentiates plays. To even be considered a formal university, a school almost HAS to have studies in these areas.</p>
<p>Man, do ANY of you guys watch sports?</p>
<p>Hell, I'm Canadian and I get the feeling I care more about NCAA Football than any of you...</p>
<p>Nope, only boxing, kickboxing, muaythai, judo, UFC, or anything that envolves real skills. But culturally, i'm not an American because I'm an immigrant.</p>
<p>pro sports have never really attracted me...it just seems like such a waste of money. The players are getting to do something they love (and happens to be tons of little kids dream jobs). What ever happened to doing something you love because you love it (or even settle for a few hundred thousand a year).</p>
<p>So much of it seems to be such a waste of taxpayer money. Even though we have a perfectly good stadium here in MN, the owners wanted a new one...but instead of using their own money to build it, they spent TONS of money paying lobbiests to try and convince congress to have taxpayers pay for it. When they decided it wasnt working and stopped most of the lobbying, I discovered how much they had been spending and realized that if they had invested their millions rather than trying to lobby congress, they would be well on their way to a new stadium.</p>
<p>"pro sports have never really attracted me...it just seems like such a waste of money. The players are getting to do something they love (and happens to be tons of little kids dream jobs). What ever happened to doing something you love because you love it (or even settle for a few hundred thousand a year)."</p>
<p>Man, I hate when people do this.</p>
<p>Look at it this way--these players are the star employees of companies that are worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Without them, the companies would go bankrupt. They are paid according to what teams can afford--in some cases, yes, they are paid too much (in the case of hockey). However, if they truly were overpaid, every team would be operating in the red, and that is clearly not the case. All but two football teams made money last year, and I'm confident that more than half of baseball and basketball teams turned profits as well.</p>
<p>After all, who deserves the money more? The owners, who do nothing, or the players?</p>
<p>The lack of sports at Chicago is one of the things that attracted me to the place. I'm am horrible at sports (although I do enjoy losing; nothing funnier than laughing at yourself after a particularly horrible race) I'd just feel out of place at a university like Stanford where the student-athlete percentage is about 90%.</p>
<p>I agree with newmassdad. Let's have sports institutions and academic institutions, but please, let's not get carried away with molding the two together.</p>
<p>"For newmassdad: a school with a Division I team helps to foster school spirit. It would give me a sense of pride if they were winning, and as an alumni, I'd have a team to root on. It's just as much part of the college "experience" as frats or pizza at 3AM"</p>
<p>I'm glad there are places for folks who think like this. I wonder why the author is wasting his time on a Chicago board.</p>
<p>Needless to say, there are multiple schools of thought regarding the role of athletics in higher ed. Some feel like jpps1, and that puzzles me. After all, why should a U be in the professional entertainment business. And that's what div 1 sports is about. Look at the money spent on facilities, coaching, recruiting etc. And little of it benefits the non recruited athlete. Even at Harvard, there are althetic facilities (the nicest, of course!) reserved for varsity athletes. No mere mortals are allowed in.</p>
<p>Personally, I live in a town that has won more pro championships than any other in the past few years - 3 superbowls, one world series. I could care less. I would rather DO something than watch. I'm just glad this area did not tax itself for new pro facilities like so many towns did.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some feel like jpps1, and that puzzles me. After all, why should a U be in the professional entertainment business. And that's what div 1 sports is about.
[/quote]
hmm ... true for football and basketball ... I'm not so sure that DI lacrosse, swimmers, wrestlers, track, softball, squash, tennis, golf, etc, etc players would buy that statement. I am saddened by how DI college football and basketball have turned into a money grub. But the other sports and the other divisions pursue sports for very different reasons (as schools run deficits for all other sports) ... and I certainly think sports has a place at colleges ... keeping fit and pursuing learning have been seen as pillars of a complete person for thousands of years.</p>
<p>Seriously, if you don't think you can balance academics and athletics, then I feel pretty bad for you. Especially for newmassdad, who seems to believe that anyone who does not spend every waking hour thinking about school doesn't belong at Chicago. Absolutely ridiculous, and I feel bad if you push your child(ren) like that as well.</p>
<p>It's sad how one-tracked a lot of the people on this board seem to be.</p>