Is Chicago’s core much different than Columbia’s? CC raves about its core and it seems that UofC does too.
The issue is that non-stem can get out of the more rigorous stem courses.
“The PHSC courses in the Physics category are PHSC 11100-11200 Modern Physics I-II, PHSC 11300 Everyday Physics, and PHSC 11400-11500 Life in the Universe I-II; PHSC 11600 Physics for Future Presidents: Fundamental Concepts and Applications, and PHSC 11700 Physics for Future Presidents: Energy and Sustainability; PHSC 11800 Physics and
Contemporary Architecture.”
That’s a pretty easy way to get out of real physics.
"All non-calculus options may be taken individually or, when available, as a sequence. All non-calculus options may be taken individually or, when available, as a sequence. "
Any core curriculum that allows non-calculus classes to be taken, is by definition, non-rigorous. I would call that fluff, but don’t want to offend the sensitive UC posters here.
2 Likes
You embedded an unsupported premise in your question. Mentioning philosophers and social and political theorists of personal interest and influence differs from name-dropping.
1 Like
I think it might be more difficult to make that simple delineation at UChicago, for a few reasons. One is that all of the Core sequences, including the fuzzy components, are considered to be pre-requisites for more advanced study. Second, for some majors - MEng (bio track) mentioned by @CU123 is a great example - the pre-reqs for the major comprise advanced sequences that satisfy gen-ed at UChicago but might count as “major” courses elsewhere. Third, at UChicago your major is one of three components, because you also have Core and free electives. Even the most techie majors take up fewer than 50% of your total required course credits. That tends to leave more room for double majors, minors, free electives, and so forth. One can double major in chem (14 courses) and English (13 courses). Is that person a techie or a fuzzy? It’s hard to tell! That’s why I prefer looking at the overall course of study. As a liberal-ed institution, UChicago encourages and even imposes more “fuzzy” on those who wish to stay techie, and vice versa. At other institutions, one may choose a well-balanced liberal education program, but is not required to. Thus, it’s easier to gravitate toward your wheel-house and stay there.
Interesting that Stanford only has a few majors that have the BA/BS option. I presume this means Chem, Physics, C/S etc can’t do a BA track. That will definitely attract those with a “tech-ed” rather than “lib-ed” preference. In contrast, UChicago’s Biochem, Comp. & Applied Math, and MEng are BS only, but Astro, Bio, Chem, C/S, Geophys, Math, Physics, Stats, etc. have both BA and BS options. That will probably attract someone with more of a “lib-ed” preference. Also, I’ve noticed that occasionally someone will be granted a BS in a humanities major such as Philosophy, so it appears that little is out of the theoretical realm of possibilities. This type of flexibility is very different from Stanford’s. Once you get past the general ed and are eligible for higher-level study, you have a lot of freedom to define the depth and breadth of your course of study.
Even removing ABET-Engineering from the equation, techie majors gravitating to UChicago are probably still more attracted to the study of fuzzy subjects than they are elsewhere. However, even at UChicago, double majoring isn’t the norm; no greater than about a third do so. So those majoring in Chem are still not very likely to double major in English or History. There’s a reason for that: most Chem majors are getting a BS not a BA. UChicago isn’t immune from overall trends: in keeping with the increased technical demands, the proportion of BS degrees granted in STEM majors at UChicago has notably increased just in the past few years. That sucks up a part of the schedule that otherwise would go to the in-depth study of poetry or philosophy. Guessing that’s one reason why the Minor program has proliferated in recent years; it allows you to squeeze in sub-specialty (be it tech or fuzz).
Saying you learned critical thinking from studying philosopers is one thing, naming specific philosophers is by definition, name dropping.
2 Likes
I never heard anyone who studies science dropping names of the great scientists in history to make his/her point.
1 Like
That’s not necessarily true. For example, at Caltech or MIT, the humnanties and social sciences requirements are at least as significant. I’ll use Caltech as an example because it’s on the same quarter system as UChicago so comparions are simpler (MIT’s is almost identical if one converts its semester courses to quarter courses using the 2:3 ratio).
- Humanities: a minimum of 4 courses (2 intro + 2 advanced)
- Social sciences: a minimum of 4 courses (2 intro + 2 advanced)
- 4 additional courses in either humanities or social sciences (including at least 1 additional writing intensive course)
1 Like
@1NJParent - we’ve had this discussion before. I think Cal-Tech’s gen-ed requirements are great. Haven’t looked into them: do they have the same wide variety of choices that you can get at MIT, for instance, or are they more like UChicago’s core-curriculum? The latter is an actual curriculum, not a wide breadth of choices allowing you to check a box (and perhaps default to your comfort zone). Also, you probably have this information: is there a foreign language requirement at either Cal-Tech or MIT? Guessing not, as they are tech institutes and not a liberal education program.
I don’t know of anywhere that uses Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica as a text for a Physics class. Even at a place that loves primary texts like UChicago.
Caltech’s small size dictates the frequency, and sometimes the breadth, of how its humanities and social sciences courses are offered. For example, if a student is interested in a particular humanity course, s/he may have to adjust her/his schedule to take it in the year it’s offered. Social sciences courses (such as econ courses) are generally offered much more frequently and consistently, but Caltech tends to choose depth over breadth (e.g. it emphasizes more quantitative aspects of economics and microeconomics, but little in macroeconomics). And that’s consistent with its philosophy on how it operates in sciences and engineering as well.
1 Like
They aren’t listed as prerequesites in the courses, and students can take STEM courses in their freshman and sophomore years, prior to completing the core. For example, the MolEng worksheet referenced below includes taking in major classes during 2nd year, before the students may have finished the core class. How is this different from other colleges that have “fuzzy” requirements to graduate, but aren’t listed as prreqs for STEM courses?
The UC website includes the following basic foundation out of major courses in their sample 4-year programs for MEng (Bio Track). The MEng major requires far more intro foundation STEM classes than does the core. The core does require some STEM foundation classes, so the MEng foundation requirements do encompass a small portion of the core requirements. This doesn’t strike me as especially unique. Many colleges have general ed requirements in math or science, and engineering majors satisfy that small portion of the general ed requirements via a few of their freshman intro foundation classes.
However, this does not mean that the core is helping engineering students fit their many required classes within 4 years. Taking a year of math, a year of chem, and a year of physics (as listed below) in addition to non-STEM core classes during freshman year sounds like it doesn’t allow much room for anything else.
Freshman Year
Math 18300, Math 18400, Math 18500 (Intro Math)
Chem 10100, Chem 10200, Chem 11300 (Intro Chem)
Physics 13100, Physics 13200, Physics 13300 (Intro Physics)
Sophomore Year
Math 18600
Bio 20186 (Intro Bio)
Chem 22000, Chem 22100 (Organic Chem)
Junior Year
Bio 20187 (Intro Bio)
Bio 20200 (Intro Biochem)
I expect that one can double major in Chem and English at any of the discussed colleges, and a few students probably do choose this combo. I mentioned engineering in my earlier example because engineering majors tend to have larger requirements. Chemical Engineering requirements are very different than Chemistry. Chicago only offers one engineering major and has only ~1% of students pursuing engineering (according to IPEDS), which makes this engineering limitation less of an issue than at other colleges that have a wider variety of engineering options and a larger portion of students choosing engineering.
I doubt that whether Chem, Physics, and CS have a BA track has much do with whether the college is attracting “techy” or “fuzzy” types. I think far more relevant is the available majors and what fields the school is known for among prospective students. For example, I mentioned earlier that Chicago doesn’t offer the most popular engineering majors (electrical, mechanical, etc.) or a general engineering major. This results in fewer techie engineering types choosing Chicago. Chicago also isn’t especially known for other types of tech including CS, so they don’t get as large a portion of techie CS students as most other highly selective privates, such as typical Ivies. The relative lack of “techies” contributes to a greater “non-techie” presence than various other colleges that have been discussed. A similar statement could made about many LACs.
In contrast Stanford is located in Silicon Valley and one of the best known schools for both CS and engineering, which results in both more techie CS types and more techie engineering types. The relative greater “techie” presence than other highly selective private colleges including Ivies contributes to a variety of the issues discussed in this thread.
1 Like
Of course non-major science is going to be “less rigorous” than major science. However, non-major science is also a lot more rigorous than you will find in the gen-ed requirements of other major institutions (with the exception of the tech institutes). That’s one of the points of this thread, as you will note if you read the original post:
I also found the student’s take on curriculum flexibility and the kinds of Humanities courses offered a very interesting contrast to UChicago where STEM students struggle with some hefty humanities requirements and Humanities majors persevere against Physical science requirements that often have them crying
Yes, but Stanford and other places don’t require calculus based-physics as part of their general ed either. And at UChicago those PHSC courses are still taught at a rigorous level and include a lab. They are a lot more work than your typical “gen ed” (excluding the tech institutes of course).
Columbia’s Core is probably the closest thing remaining to UChicago’s but it’s not as comprehensive, according to people I know who have compared the two.
Yes - in contrast to the Gay Science (poetry). Not to name-drop yet another philosopher but: Nietzsche. Oh, and Carlyle.
The methods of argument are different for science than they are for the humanities. Which would be more obvious if everyone had a more rigorous liberal education that touched on how the various disciplines actually think about a problem.
Also, many science research papers will often cite previous relevant works, including those of the “great scientists in history.” So will many department TGIF’s and other informal social events where they happen to be making small talk by discussing their work with one another. This is particularly true at UChicago, where many honestly don’t understand the difference.
If you have actually tried to understand the great writers and philsophers you will want to allude to them in formulating your own thoughts. You might do this playfully or you might do it more rigorously. This is hardly a forum for the latter, but it might be for the former. For those who don’t have any acquaintance with the past, who perhaps have contempt for it, such allusions can only be called “name dropping.” That’s telling you something about both their ability to read accurately and their attitude toward education generally.
1 Like
Newtonian physics.
“Can’t do a mike drop without Newton” - Aristotle
Sheldon Cooper did. Oops name dropped.
Are all of the core non-major science options “a lot more rigorous”? For example, it’s my understanding that the physical sciences for non-science core might be fulfilled by taking courses like the following. Maybe this type of course is more rigorous than the description suggests, but on the surface it doesn’t sound more rigorous than colleges requiring a freshman year intro to chem/physics type class as part of the core/general ed, like occurs at several other colleges. It also doesn’t sound like the type of class that would have “Humanities majors persevere against Physical science requirements that often have them crying”
1 Like
For pretty much every major, you need to have taken the Core component already. For MEng-bio, for instance, Gen Chem 1/2, Bio Fundamentals, and Math 183/84 all satisfy the Core for physical sciences, Bio sciences, and math. By the way, required physics sequence will also satisfy the physical sciences core; however, that’s taken within the major beginning in year 2. For Philosophy or English or other humanities, you must have completed the Humanities Core. For History over on the social sciences side, you may take a Civ sequence concurrently but you should have completed Core humanities and social sciences already. For Econ, you need Core Math. For higher level study in a foreign language you need to complete the intro level in that language. And so on.
Sometimes a pre-req isn’t spelled out explicitly because it’s already obvious that the student will complete the requirement immediately. First year registration for the first couple quarters is pretty limited. Edit to add: The College leaves the major’s pre-reqs up to the department to specify. They don’t dictate even to the students the order for the Core. Students are expected to read and understand how to progress toward degree completion and to finish up the Core within their first two years (sometimes Civ has to be put off depending on your major) and if they don’t they can run into roadblocks later on. Especially if they wait till fourth year to complete their Arts 
Yes, but two things keep changing with that major: 1) the number of requirements and 2) the number of enrollees. I expect that very few MEng majors going forward will have time for the creative writing double major, as @CU123’s D did. But maybe I’m underestimating the level of preparation and ability to skip ahead that these kids have coming in. And as I mentioned up thread, the number of students opting for the highly technical and specialized version of other STEM majors has really grown as well.
C/S is actually the 2nd most popular major on campus now and people are arriving specificallly to study C/S. Also MEng. However, UChicago won’t provide you with a techie culture even if you enroll in a techie major. Nor will it have a school of engineering at the undergraduate level. Those simple differences might keep tons of “techies” away. But the College does indeed attract more techies than it used to for those two - and other - STEM subjects. One needn’t be just a fuzzy to love the idea of a liberal education.