<p>I read in a book that they adhere to a traditional style of teaching, and thus is/was able to produce the most number of Nobel prize winners.</p>
<p>What exactly is this?</p>
<p>PS: Why does U-of-Chicago have such high acceptance rate? near 50%!!! and is economics major THAT brutal?</p>
<p>Well, from other posts you can see that acceptance rates are in the 30s now. And I dunno abotu traditional teaching styles, it seems to follow waht most other schools do with teaching a core curriculum.</p>
<p>There is a particular method of inquiry and argument that is taught throughout the Core at Chicago, often referred to as the "Chicago style of argument." One of the best descriptions I have seen is this post from a current Uof C students post:</p>
<p>There's a certain way of arguing, of making a clear case for your opinion and backing it up thoroughly It's basically characterized by a strict adherence to evidence and logic, with exploration via examples and questions. Basically, you must always construct a careful, step-by-step argument, you must always define and thoroughly understand your terms and the terms of your text, and you must be willing to apply your ideas to hypothetical situations and difficulties in interesting ways. Making irrelevant points, trying to argue without strong evidence, and making assumption without carefully defending them are all frowned upon mercilessly.</p>
<p>My S agreed with this description and described to me how this is introduced and emphasized across most of his courses. He must be prepared to contribute to a discussion at any time and the contribution must follow requirements stated above. Failure to do so is often met with unpleasantness. He loves it.</p>
<p>yeah, what idad said. that was my impression of the students from my visit.</p>
<p>oh gosh, that's kind of intimidating....though it is probably a very rewarding experience to put yourself through.</p>
<p>idad: What is the "U-of-C Three-Parter" in referring to question answers?</p>
<p>I don't know. I could speculate if it is referring to argument style, but it would still be speculation. I will ask S about the phrase the next chance I get.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There's a certain way of arguing, of making a clear case for your opinion and backing it up thoroughly
It's
basically characterized by a strict adherence to evidence and logic, with exploration via examples and questions. Basically, you must always construct a careful, step-by-step argument, you must always define and thoroughly understand your terms and the terms of your text, and you must be willing to apply your ideas to hypothetical situations and difficulties in interesting ways. Making irrelevant points, trying to argue without strong evidence, and making assumption without carefully defending them are all frowned upon mercilessly.
[/quote]
That's exactly what I have to do at my school. This isn't what you're asked to do in US high schools?</p>
<p>Interesting you should say that. On the whole, I would say, no it isn't often asked in most US high schools. Even though having experience in evidence based argument, my S, who had training in debate and extemporaneous argument, still found the argumentative rigor and command of the subject matter required a substantial jump-up from HS requirements. It is also differs in the way it permeates the academic culture as well.</p>
<p>idad-- As an American in the French curriculum since forever, I have to say that I am constantly amazed at how much more advanced we are in HS. French universities can hardly compare to those in the US (except for one or two, at best), but in terms of middle school and high school, we are at a completely different level. Students in our school who end up at Harvard barely have to work the first couple of years. That said, I am saddened that the US has these mindless multiple choice tests to measure academic ability.</p>
<p>If we don't use the type of arguments discussed above, we will constantly get Ds and Fs (which happens to some students). At the end of the year, we have exams which require that we are able to argue a topic in 4 hours time with only a question or fragmented sentence or a 15 lign text (philosophy, economics/social sciences, history/geography, english etc.). I have never had to deal with multiple choice before the ERBs and the SATs. We are not taught to understand this kind of testing.</p>
<p>Tests like the SATs teach students to be agreable, and teach them that there is only one right answer in analysing a text (in math, my argument is that math skills are hardly needed-- you must know tricks. Yes, tricks will help you in the real world...). We are taught that if we back up our analysis with concrete examples and valid arguments, we can get an excellent grade despite the orginiality of it.</p>
<p>I am also angry that I get no credit for having been in my school: all of our classes should technically count as honors, but most don't, and the SATs have put me at a huge disadvantage. But I have learned to think at a personal and critical level, which I wouldn't trade for Chicago or any other college.</p>
<p>^^ I think that's why UofC doesn't look at SAT scores that much. </p>
<p>I have to admit, despite being accepted, I'm rather afraid of being the stupid kid on campus. My school frowns upon new ideas or arguments, so I have a highly rudimentary experience in this area. I know that this is barely an excuse, but I still feel far behind those who go to better schools.</p>
<p><a href="in%20math,%20my%20argument%20is%20that%20math%20skills%20are%20hardly%20needed--%20you%20must%20know%20tricks.%20Yes,%20tricks%20will%20help%20you%20in%20the%20real%20world...">quote</a>.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wouldn't say what you're doing is math, what you're really doing are algorithms that have been proved and questioned for hundreds or maybe thousands of years. Math doesn't involve just numbers:</p>
<p>"A view, held by many mathematicians, is that mathematics is the body of knowledge justified by deductive reasoning, starting from axioms and definitions."</p>
<p>Thus, the analysis that you're talkign about that is used in other subjects also applies to math. I think that when many people say they don't like math, they really just don't like to do mindless algorithms or arithmetic, math is much deeper than just your basic algebra or calculus. </p>
<p>Man, please look up what math really is before you start to state the common misconceptions associated with math that mostly concern arithmetic, it isn't somethings that only concerns accountants, and it is definitely not a closed set with msot questions already answered.</p>
<p>^ Oh, I totally agree. I'm not sure if you understood what I meant: the SATs don't require math skills. Tricks are all you need to do well on the SATs. I'm not saying it's not a talent in itself (I cannot do it personally), but I just don't think it will get anyone far in life. The math I do at my schools is nothing like it. We do everything from scratch 10 times over and we are taught and understand the use of it. I actually like very abstract math that requires similar analysing capabilities as for the humanities and social sciences.</p>
<p>Andi-- I think if they accepted you, it means that they saw that you could keep up. I doubt you'll be the stupid one on campus.
I don't know... I've just always felt that I'm prepared for college and that I could definitely compete wherever I end up. My SATs happen not to prove that.</p>
<p>JBPH, your larger point is well taken comparing European secondary schools with American. The overall level is so much higher in Europe (west and east). Part of this has to do with selectivity of students who are completing or attempting to complete a university-destined education. European comprehensive secondary schools are not designed for all students (which isn't necessarily bad). There tend to be clearer vocational (i.e., non-university bound) options in European secondary schools. But I think higher percentages of secondary graduates tend to go on to college in U.S. than in most European countries.</p>
<p>That said, I think you've also caught onto another difference, and this has to do with "method" of instruction. But I'm not sure it's all one-sided to European advantage, because as you remark there's often a lot of rote repetition as the method of learning.</p>
<p>My last point: I think you've overstated how much the SAT math is just a game. While it's true that learning how to take these tests often involves learning tricks, I don't know anybody who achieved a very high score who didn't actually know math pretty darn well.</p>
<p>I think one finds that schools such as Chicago are very aware of curriculum difference among high schools, even those in France from which they may receive applications. The curriculum will be taken into account, and evidence of good "Chicago Style" skills should be clear in the essays. </p>
<p>As for Andi, you will find that you will be just fine.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The overall level is so much higher in Europe (west and east).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm going to have to wholeheartedly agree with this. My parents went to school in Europe, and they are always surprised at how much more they learned when they were my age -- not to mention how differently they were taught. According to them, there was a real emphasis on theory over there, whereas here, there is more of an emphasis on application. Indeed, I think the emphasis on application is so great that the theory is often overlooked. As for me, I have trouble applying theories that I don't understand. When I ask my parents questions, they teach me in the style that they were taught, and I find that I understand that much better than from my actual teachers. I understand them better because of that and because my parents are extremely intelligent. </p>
<p>Aaw, thanks guys. Hopefully you're right. >_<</p>
<p>Everyone feels like that here...</p>
<p>But seriously, we all come becuase we like to think, and you end up growing out of feeling bad becuase you do not feel like you know enough to feeling good about that fact becuase it encourages your thirst to learn.</p>
<p>Think of it as an advantage...you are more thirsty and more able to question what is percieved to be knowledge (it might not be true after all) than others that are coming who already seem very educated.</p>
<p>;-)</p>
<p>I studied in India for the first 11 years of my life, and school in the states was cake through middle school and into high school before the harder AP classes.</p>
<p>I have to agree with Jack. I can't do the SAT questions by tricks because I am unable to reduce mathematics to a series of 'tricks'. My parents made me take an SAT class, and it just helped me with the practice.</p>
<p>I think multiple choice tests were a horrible horrible horrible idea, but the way they are set up in AP Calc and AP bio makes you actually think.</p>
<p>I need to know the how and the why, and the 'thats just the way it is' answer really annoys me. I had a french teacher who did that, and that made me not take french the next sign up period. The teacher who i had next for french was much harder and challenged the class a LOT more, but I personally did better in her class because the challenge motivated me. I guess that's the reason i Love UChicago. Sometimes the journey means as much if not more than the answer.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I need to know the how and the why, and the 'thats just the way it is' answer really annoys me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>YEAH! My teachers get annoyed when I ask "why", though. Or they treat me like an idiot. Aurg, my school!</p>
<p>^ See, now I'm convinced you'll fit in perfectly at Chicago.</p>