<p>hi, am international student who got accepted into chicago 2013!
how do you guys think chicago compares to
-nyu
-tufts
-berkeley
-georgetown sfs</p>
<p>in terms of academic rigour /internship opportunities /general student vibe?
also, does chicago award merit scholarships to students after their first year (ie, are there merit scholarships that one can apply for after freshman year if we do well)? and what are the chances of you getting one?</p>
<p>thanks so much!</p>
<p>I’ll just offer broad, not-necessarily-true stereotypes:</p>
<p>NYU–an exciting city. Good for artsy types and hipsters, but it’s a huge (and impersonal) school so you’ll find all sorts of people. The selectivity is a notch down from the others on your list. I know tons of people who go here, and none of them find the academics particularly difficult. </p>
<p>Tufts–Reportedly good if you want an intimate, LAC-ish feel. I know a guy who graduated from here, and he liked the academics. Good for international relations.</p>
<p>Berkeley–45% Asian. It’s huge and even more impersonal than NYU. Honestly, I don’t see any advantages of going to Berkeley over Chicago, which has much smaller classes and is just as much of a research powerhouse. Well, the weather’s better in California.</p>
<p>Georgetown SFS–this is a really good program. Georgetown is very preppy though. I don’t know any alumni, but I know people who visited/did programs there, and they say it attracts a lot of privileged preppy kids. Kind of weak as far as sciences go. Also, it’s probably a little more religious than your other schools. </p>
<p>Chicago–as I’m hopefully coming here, I have to root for this school =) Strong in just about everything, and famed for (maybe too much) academic rigor. There’s a core curriculum which some people find restrictive. Students supposedly really love academics. </p>
<p>As for internships, Washington D.C., Boston, Chicago, and New York are all going to offer plenty of opportunities. I say you should cut Berkeley and NYU out and focus on the other three.</p>
<p>How does chicago differ? Well, compared to these other schools, chicago sucks.</p>
<p>
rejected ■■■■■ is rejected
bitter ■■■■■ is bitter</p>
<p>You really think I’m just a bitter person who was rejected?</p>
<p>That, or the dunce from youtube, yes.</p>
<p>Speaking mostly to academics:</p>
<p>NYU Strong regional school (with national name recognition) in the same vein as Emory, UCLA, Notre Dame, etc. Diverse undergraduate programs are not terribly distinguished despite pockets of international excellence at the graduate level. On the other hand, consistently voted a dream school in terms of the overall college experience due to its location, despite not making the elite academics cut. </p>
<p>Tufts Effectively a strong regional LAC with some middling graduate programs attached. Like other non-AWSW LACs, picks up a lot of decent students from greater New England whose corresponding state schools are quite weak or outright poor, and thus cant afford them an education befitting of their intellect or drive. </p>
<p>Berkeley Definitely makes the selective admissions / elite academics cut in the eyes of employers and graduate admission committees. Hands down the most well regarded of the four listed, as its strength in subjects across the board begets international distinction. Super study AZN culture can be a perk or a downer, depending on what you are looking to achieve as an undergraduate. Good value proposition compared to places like Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, etc. if you have in state tuition. Also nice if you want to bounce around a bit before finding a major, since nearly every subject has a winning faculty. </p>
<p>Georgetown SFS Makes the selective admissions / elite academics cut in the eyes of employers (kind of brings up the rear), but the non-professional school academic establishment tends to hold Georgetown at large in low regard. Very weak MA / PhD programs detract from the schools stature given the shift in favor of research universities in the last decade. Quite decent place to go if you are planning to go on to a JD / MBA / MD, but would not choose it over Berkeley or Chicago if money is not involved. Goes deep into the classes of its private feeder schools over the taking the random high performer (in order to control the financial aid it has to pay out), meaning the students are hit or miss. SFS definitely gets the internal cream of the crop though.</p>
<p>One issue a current student complained to me about at Berkeley was the huge class size of many of the courses.</p>
<p>Well, I’m not the guy from youtube, though I do know who you are talking about (The one who keeps ordering people to work at Starbucks, right?) But I was most definitely NOT rejected, so you can stop thinking that. I speak from the voice of experience.</p>
<p>Hey, ■■■■■, (IHateUofC) we are not impressed! Go, slink back beneath that bridge you like so much!</p>
<p>Here’s something I wrote in another thread that maybe you all would find useful. This is not because I was rejected, but rather because I’ve just wasted the last four years of my life here, I deeply regret it, and I want to prevent you from making the same mistake.</p>
<p>Here’s my beef with U of C. I came here expecting it to be a place of profound ideas that would make me a better person by 1) exposing me to diverse world views, and 2) teaching me how to hone, refine and articulate my own.</p>
<p>Here’s the problem. Everyone has their world views and their ideas, but no one puts them into practice. The minute you try to actually DO something, every single person jumps down your throat. They all begin their remarks with “If your REALLY want to do xyz…” Everyone has such an elegant theory built up in their head that no course of action could ever effectively bring this platonic form down from heaven to earth. As such, people remain paralyzed because of their ideas and never actually LIVE life or DO anything productive. </p>
<p>This is the reason everyone is unhappy, because their actions can never match their precious perfect ideas. People need to learn how to balance thinking and action. Until they do, and until the school more effectively promotes this outlook, U of C will remain vastly inferior to all other peer institutions</p>
<p>Um, IHateUofC, or Ted Kaczynski or whatever your real name is, you make absolutely no sense. I sincerely doubt that you went thru four years at Chicago, or any college, actually.</p>
<p>Whatever bitternes is eating away at you will only get worse as you get older so best address those inner demons now.</p>
<p>In private. Just you and your therapist.</p>
<p>I regret you had this experience. My S loves the University and is actively trying to convince his brother to attend. He has found what he learned at Chicago to have helped him in many ways. He made a proposal to a major not-for-profit and was grilled by a group of board members and advisors. He felt he was able to put the skills learned at Chicago to immediate use in making his case and won a lucrative contract. A friend of mine attended and told me as he was leaving another person in attendance turned to him and said, “I can’t believe how that kid handled that room full of Ph.Ds, you could tell he attended the University of Chicago.” I asked him about it and he said it was not unlike what was required in his classes in Greek Thought & Literature, to quote him he said, “I felt during the moment of the presentation the same exhilaration I’ve experienced during rigorous discussion over Attic philosophy!” If that is not putting into action ones ideas and education, I don’t know what is.</p>
<p>idad, as impressive as your son’s performance was during that board meeting (and I truly mean that) it does not address my concerns with U of C. Your son was proposing and defending a theoretical course of action that was yet to be taken. Implementation and adaptability in the midst of implementation are two very different things, as is the recognition reality does not line up with theory.</p>
<p>I’m not saying your son is not capable of these things, but I will say that most u of c students are not. For them, the only real course of action that is proper is that narrow, virtually impossible to achieve subset that lines of with the perfect theories in their head. And most of the time that is impossible to achieve, and the students are supremely unhappy. I think this is the root of the “where fun comes to die” slogan, not the amount of work we get here.</p>
<p>Finally tk89, your insult isn’t even original. I’m sure it worked oh so perfectly in your head, but it has failed to apply in practice.</p>
<p>IHate: I appreciate your coming out of the closet as to what your complaint is, but from my perspective there are two enormous problems with it. First, one of the issues seems to be that you had ridiculous expectations going in, and you are angry about how far short of your expectations Chicago has fallen. But, guess what?, no institution would have come anywhere near meeting your expectations, because they were not realistic at all. (I, by the way, speak with a lot of experience of the “other peer institutions”.) </p>
<p>Second, the dynamic you describe – whenever someone wants actually to do something, others jump down his throat with theoretical objections – is a dynamic common to academic institutions the world over. Indeed, it’s a dynamic common to non-academic institutions, too. Ever watched someone try to do something like reforming the health care delivery system? The dialectic between theory and practice is a feature of human culture. Chicago didn’t invent it, Chicago isn’t the place where it is most virulent, and if you closed down the university tomorrow it would still be just as bad everywhere else. What’s more, if you do a little poking around, you may find that among peer institutions Chicago somewhat stands out for its attention to practicality in some respects. I’m not talking about actually accomplishing things – that’s not what academics are about – but there is a great deal of respect for the people who do actually accomplish things. There’s something of a crush on Chicago politics there – people are very willing to admire how effective they can be, despite their lack of purity from anyone’s standpoint. And of course you have the legacy of Leo Strauss and his cult of power. </p>
<p>One of the things I affirmatively like about Chicago, that separates it somewhat from other elite institutions, is that the doctrinists there seem to be a little less doctrinaire than elsewhere, because they actually spend time talking with one another and, more importantly, listening. For example, Harvard law professors communicate with one another mainly in the press, and you wouldn’t believe how much contempt they tend to have for the colleagues who disagree with them. At Chicago, liberals and conservative coexist in a very collegial environment, and actually adjust their positions to reflect things they have learned from one another. It’s not completely an accident that an ultra-conservative Chicago dean hired Barack Obama, or that he expressed confidence that Obama understands markets, or that Obama might in fact understand markets. </p>
<p>That’s the University of Chicago in action. It doesn’t automatically make you a better person in a couple of years. It doesn’t actually accomplish anything, if that’s all that happens. But if you mix it together with a few people who do want to accomplish things, and add a little luck, maybe the world gets better.</p>
<p>back to the OP:</p>
<p>One other factor to recognize is that the cost of living if you attended Gtwn would be far higher than if you attended UofC. I know from direct experience, having moved from Hyde Park to DC three years ago. This cost differential is true across the board, from housing to meals out to food costs. </p>
<p>Comparing Gtwn to UofC in terms of atmosphere and academics, they are two different worlds. As several have noted, one defines preppiness, the other defines anti-preppiness. One is a decent LAC with a few mediocre grad and professional programs tacked on. The other is an internationally recognized research university. Both offer an excellent education to most any undergrad, but with vary different flavors.</p>
<p>JHS: Well said.</p>
<p>My only point in posting was to demonstrate that individual students can have a quite different experience and quite different feelings about the University. S1 would not be anywhere else and he has had the opportunity to compare Chicago to some of its peers first hand. Perhaps it would be helpful to reread Abbott’s Aims of Education speech as well:[The</a> University of Chicago Magazine: October 2003](<a href=“http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0310/features/zen.shtml]The”>The University of Chicago Magazine: October 2003)</p>
<p>IHateUofC:</p>
<p>Well, at the very least, something that either I or idad said brought out more than your usual one-line ■■■■■.</p>
<p>That being said, I don’t believe that you are actually a student at the UofC. You complain in fairly predictable language that people don’t understand you and how there is this burden placed on the university to somehow make you a better person…huh? There is nothing specific in your complaints about the school or references to classes or teachers that show in any way that you attended UChicago.</p>
<p>Actually, you sound very much like a high school student TRYING to sound like a 4th year college student and that leads to a lamentable conclusion - you either failed to learn anything at college or you are ■■■■■■■■ the forums here for whatever personal reasons you may have.</p>
<p>Ultimately, if UChicago is as terrible as you say, and if we are to accept your claim that you’ve spent 4 years there, what conclusion can we draw other than that you are:</p>
<p>a) lying
b) dumb
c) masochistic
d) all of the above</p>
<p>My guess would be a d), but you probably knew that.</p>
<p>My comparison of you to Ted Kaczynski is not done facetiously. Both you and he show a tendency to place blame on other people for personal failings. You both express bitterness and harbor anger at the world for a number of perceived slights. There is a strange megalomania being displayed here that should concern you.</p>
<p>You want attention, in fact, are crying out for attention so I suggest you find it. See a professional and fix yourself before you waste more of your time on this Earth.</p>
<p>JHS - Very, very well said. I really enjoyed reading your post about the U of C. It reminded me of what I love the most about the U of C!</p>
<p>IhateUofC: I’ve heard the “this school is way too theoretical” criticism many times before, and I certainly think there is some merit to it. I think JHS’ succinct post serves as a good counter to your concerns though. </p>
<p>On a facetious note, did you guys know there’s a t-shirt at Chicago proclaiming: “That’s great in practice, but how does it work in THEORY?”. Chicago students oftentimes see that t-shirt and just kinda laugh. Just thought that adds a bit of a comical light to what we’re discussing here ;-).</p>
<p>It’s been a very long time since I’ve posted on these forums. Currently I’m a student at UoC, and regardless of any sentiments for or against IHate, and whether or not he is or is not a student, I do think that he has a legitimate complaint about how little people here put their theories into practice.</p>
<p>My viewpoint differs a little bit from IHate’s–he discusses how maybe he couldn’t do certain things because once he tries to implement a theory it is obstructed by the University. My response to that is of course that is going to happen, it would be bad if that did not happen–take the example of conducting a science experiment–the theory can work and be awesome, but performing the experiment to illustrate that theory can be a whole other ballgame. </p>
<p>My complaint about people just relying on theory is this:</p>
<p>People create wonderful well thought out provocative ideas here. They learn other famous and wonderful ideas. However, I feel that the student body here likes to hide behind their theories and ideas, and reframe from actually going out and doing certain things because they have somehow justified it in their head according to some theory.</p>
<p>What I do know is that theory is one thing, and action is another. People tend to be much more interesting and USEFUL when they have gone out and done stuff. Referring back to my example–what is better, knowing a scientific theory should exist, or actually being able to carry out some sort of experiment to show something/accomplish something?</p>
<p>Another example that I hope illustrates my point well (but I can’t refer to specific names because I forgot all of them–I’m no econ major so this isn’t up my ally) is when UoC economists and some Chicago businessman who is in charge of some sort of Chicago monetary policy were debating why the economy sucks right now. According to my friends who went to this panel, the businessman owned the debate, because all the UoC professors of economics were doing were saying that the businessman was completely wrong and sitting on their high horse because they had models and theory that contradicted the businessman’s claims. This guy instead just told them, well you may have your theory’s and models that say one thing, but I’ve actually done this for decades and have seen first hand that it is doing the opposite that works.</p>
<p>So people at UoC tend to DO nothing, they just think very pretty and powerful ideas. In that respect I agree with IHate.</p>
<p>I also think that it is one reason why the social life here is so amazingly atypical and looked at from the perspective of most of the population, horrific. People are too busy thinking, and therefore have less and less experience from actually doing things. This means going out and finding awesome places to hang out in the city, or throwing their own parties, or trying to actively meet new people: Being a student is passive–you are given things to think about, so you think about them. Likewise, the social life mostly works in the same way–the same cohort of people throw the apt parties, and the frats are a staple for a certain section of undergrads. However, there are never big social events or really any large social themes that are felt throughout the campus–because that would require putting a lot of social experience into practice, and it would require actually creating something new. Hey I know I’m *****ing about it, and at the same time am not going out there trying to start some sort of awesome/typical social scene on campus, but these are just my observations as a student. </p>
<p>Disclaimer: This has been long week, and if my post is unclear or makes no sense, I blame it on being tired.</p>