I’m still not hearing how that is different from other colleges for the discussed engineering/“techie” type major. It sounds like you only need to take the usual math/science foundation portion of the core before taking the in-major classes for an engineering-type major. Most other colleges that offer an engineering major also have a series of math/science foundation courses for that major. At other colleges, you take the engineering/science foundations in earlier years, then take then in major engineering classes in later years. Students also generally do non-STEM general ed requirements in earlier years, although they aren’t prereqs for the engineering classes, like the math/science foundation courses are.
A comparison of bachelor’s degree recipients that majored in CS at highly selective colleges. I am using the most recent IPEDS year. Most colleges will be a few % higher today, due an increase in CS major nearly everywhere over the past few years. I am defining highly selective as <=30% admit rate and >= 28 25th percentile ACT.
Chicago had a lower % CS than all Ivies, the overwhelming majority of LACs that meet this criteria, and all colleges that are considered similarly selective to Chicago. CS does not appear to be a popular major compared to peers, nor is Chicago particularly known for CS/engineering/tech.
In math or sciences, one proves his/her points, not by “dropping names”, but by either infallible logic or by repetitive experimental confirmations without any exception (any exception, however minor, would invalidate an argument or conclusion). In physics, for example, researchers to this date are still testing Einstein’s general relativity hoping to detect any discrepancy, even though it has been tested to incredible precision in many different ways for more than a century. No name in science is sacred. Humanities don’t have similar rigor. The lack of rigor in humanities (and to a lesser degree in social sciences) is actually the reason many students, who are talented in both, turn to study STEM rather than humanities (or social sciences).
I think you forgot the rest of the description: Students taking this course will become better-informed citizens by learning to identify chemistry concepts in current news articles and evaluate claims made in them against a background of scientific knowledge. Where existing background knowledge is insufficient, students will learn to read resources such as scientific journal articles and semi-technical review articles to provide the necessary context to evaluate information presented to them in the media they consume everyday. Translation of these concepts in relation to media claims pushes chemistry into application to everyday systems and phenomena. Lecture topics in the course will be selected to provide a baseline of chemical literacy upon which the students will build with their own reading and research. “Hands-on” laboratory demonstrations will give the students the opportunity to deepen their understanding of lecture topics through application and collaborative work. This course will culminate in a writing piece and presentation critiquing a news article on a chemistry-related topic for accuracy, providing a corrected interpretation of the relevant scientific results
So, while I guess you have to be there to understand just how “rigorous” the course might or might not be, based on the inclusion of the science literature, the lab work and the accumulation of chemistry literacy in general, this is probably “more” than your typical non-major gen ed science course - which, btw, typically doesn’t include much chemistry, much in the way of journal articles, and may not even include a lab If it’s an intro chem sequence for a major, of course, that’s a different story.
Btw, the chemistry department does allow you to complete the sequence with some of the major courses or a 5 on the AP Chem exam, followed by 121 or another substitute.
From what I know of the Phsc sequences they are pretty good. I have no familiarity with the chem sequences but am familiar with the physics and the astrophysics. I’m just going off what others have told me, but in these non-major intro courses it’s not the math that will trip you up - it’s the theory. A humanities kid who is being forced to think outside the comfort box might find it to be a challenge. And there’s little room to blow the course off or sub out for something you like better. You have to take what’s available when it’s available (for instance, Phsc 121 isn’t available at all this academic year) and in the order specified because the concepts are cumulative. And even if they are “non major” they are still serious courses that impart an understanding of physical science thinking and require a good bit of work for the grade. Like any course, they will have curve-busters but my kid’s MEST (Phsc 126) was curved around a B- a few years ago. So it’s possible that some have turned on the water works, even for those “easy” Phsc courses
It is possible for physics to be more difficult with less math if the concepts taught would require more math to be more understandable. But that does not mean that the student will learn the physics better than in a course using the math, assuming that the student knows the math.
I think the difference might be that UChicago has genuine courses in the Core but, rather than being a distribution requirement that you can basically take any time during your four years, they have the specific purpose of laying the groundwork for more advanced study later on. Timing might not be distinct, but the design and purpose of the curriculum might.
Chicago’s a moving target on the C/S and the rate of change might out-pace those Ivies to which it is most similar. I wouldn’t be comparing UChicago’s majors to at least eight of schools 1 - 9 LOL. BTW, where does Yale rank?
That could be - we see that for Econ all the time; math’y people struggle with the non-mathematical moving around of supply and demand curves in your typical Economics course. But I would argue that those courses are good for teaching “physics thinking” or even “econ thinking.” There are people who disagree with me. But that’s off topic. The relevant topic is what is available to the humanities majors for “science” at UChicago vs other places (including Stanford). Based on my perusal of the course catalog at the latter, I believe that those courses at Stanford are lighter.
However, at least the science sequences include the option of taking those for non-majors which are not intended or suitable as prerequisites for more advanced courses in those subjects for those intending to major in them.
This is different from MIT, where all of its core science courses (in its General Institute Requirements) are suitable as prerequisites for more advanced courses in the majors. The courses for the humanities, arts, and social studies requirement also appear to be suitable for students in those majors (i.e. there do not appear to be “history/literature/philosophy/etc. for non-majors” courses).
I think a lot of this is true, but a big part of that downfall in the humanities seems to be correlated with the ongoing attack on the so-called “Western Canon.” So the irony might be that tossing out the “sacred” has dumbed down the discipline! If the authors are no longer relevant, then they should be replaced with those who are. If such a replacement causes students to avoid the major and employers to be less than impressed with the critical thinking skills of those graduates, then perhaps that’s a hint that something has gone wrong. Either the texts are no longer thought provoking, or the methods for introducing and defending your point of view are no longer taught. I don’t think that STEM is completely immune to these trends, by the way. Sacred cows exist in all fields of study.
Fortunately as far as UChicago is concerned, the purpose of the hum sequence is to introduce students to rigor in humanistic thinking. This is why so many struggle in those courses. From which other schools do we hear complaints that the humanities gen ed requirement is “tough?” To me that’s a sign that UChicago is actually doing something right.
Ah yes, but that means, for instance, that your social science gen ed at MIT can be intro to microeconomics. At UChicago Intro to Micro is perfectly fine for more study in economics but not very insightful if you are looking for something more generalized in the area of social thought/development of social science thinking - and of course, writing. For that the Sosc Core is more useful and will touch on subjects and texts that Intro to Micro simply can’t do. I totally agree that the some of the science core seemingly has ‘dead ends’ w/r/t the major since UChicago requires that you start at a higher level for the latter, but that has more to do with the pace of those major intro courses. For instance, the first physics sequence runs faster at UChicago than it does at MIT, although by mid 2nd year both schools are at the same spot in the major. I can’t answer why that is, but that’s how the department likes to run it. So UChicago has three sequences for Physics as a result: Major Physics, Premed Physics, and Non-Major Physics. All satisfy the physical sciences core. Furthermore, those non-major science core courses are actually required if you wish to take additional science as an elective (which many students do). Example: my D, a history major, was able to take another bio course last year “for fun” because she had completed her (non-major) core biology course, which was a pre-req.
Edit to add: MIT’s program of study isn’t “better” or “worse” than UChicago’s. MIT is a technical institute. UChicago is a liberal program of education. They have overlaps in terms of majors, rigorous courses, and brainy students. But they are distinct schools from one another.
I only listed the top 15 rather to avoid making an unnecessarily long post. Yale was 30th at a little over 7% CS, making it the Ivy with the fewest CS majors.
Like the CS list, I only listed the few sentences rather than the full page to avoid making an unnecessarily long post. It sounds like it could be a fun class to take that might have real world usefulness for many students, but the description doesn’t sound like one students will remember as especially rigorous or challenging to me. Of course we are just guessing. We won’t know how rigorous the class us without more information than just the class description, but I see no reason to assume it’s the type of class that will result in “Humanities majors persevere against Physical science requirements that often have them crying ”
It’s far from the only example. PHSC 10800. Earth as a Planet seems to be one of the more common choices… or at least common enough that people have discussed it and uploaded course materials. Example midterm questions are at Practice questions - PHSC 10800: Earth as a Planet Midterm Sample Questions 1) The composition of - Studocu . Some example midterm questions from the link are quoted below. Again I did not post all questions forspace reasons. The midterm questions are more like what I’d expect form a HS class than a college class . The description, the midterm, and comments from students who have taken the class all do not give a perception of being especially rigorous or challenging to me, certainly not a class that will leave humanities majors crying.
PHSC 10800: Earth as a Planet: Midterm Sample Questions Multiple Choice Section
1 . The composition of other stars can be determined by measuring the amount of radiant energy we receive at different wavelengths and looking for gaps or wavelengths where little-to-no energy is received on Earth. This method is called:
a) Luminosity
b) Spectroscopy
c) Thermometry
d) Relativity
Calculation Section
6. An alien species comes to Earth and asks you to convert the average distance from the Earth to Sun into units they can work with. In their units: 5 meters = 2 teef, 1 teef = 6 dray, and 2000 dray = 1 elim. How many elims is it from the Earth to the Sun?
Chicago is not unique here. Lots of colleges have physics for physics majors, physics for biology majors and pre-meds, and physics for poets, any of which can satisfy a physical science core or general education requirement.
MIT’s HASS requirement does require a concentration (including some advanced level work) as well as breadth. It takes up 8 semester-long courses total, versus Chicago’s 9 quarter-long courses total in humanities and social sciences. So it requires more volume and some more advanced level work, but is less structured than Chicago’s multiple sequence requirements.
This doesn’t surprise me. UChicago might be closer to Yale than to some of the other Ivies in terms of the overall program of study.
But @Data10 you are a techie so you wouldn’t be taking that course. Based on what you said upthread a few days ago, you might be able to relate better to the first part of OP’s statement where STEM students struggl(ing) with some hefty humanities requirements is mentioned.
Regarding Phsc 108, can’t answer about that one as I’m not familiar with the geophysical portion of the Phsc courses. I wouldn’t trust midterms posted on the internet, however - just a word of caution there. You might not be aware of this but some C/S students got in a heap of doo doo at the end of autumn quarter for working together on a similar website to the one you posted. Apparently they violated the very explicitly published rules against sharing.
I’d also add that as you are not a humanities major, you are probably not competent authority on the topic of what is difficult for a humanities major. See my comment above about that. Suffice to say that both sides can struggle when forced to leave their comfort zone. To bring the conversation back to its original topic, that’s what the comparison was about.
Sure. I like that. They need to add Physics for Social Scientists, some of whom might have enough math to be bored in Physics for Poets but find Physics for Bio Majors to be too much work
Not sure that MIT is less structured at the advanced level, however. UChicago is pretty flexible once you get past the Core. They actually don’t require that you do anything more “advanced” than your major and whatever caps that off - for instance, a BA thesis or research project. (those seem to be required for many if not most of the majors; some will have options for intensity, etc.). Electives are totally your choice. Pretty typical for a liberal arts program.
People that haven’t attended UChicago know this, but the UC grads think they’re unique.
“I’d also add that as you are not a humanities major, you are probably not competent authority on the topic of what is difficult for a humanities major.”
a big LOL there, that hasn’t stopped you from giving opinions on every subject regardless of your major. What is your major @JBStillFlying
“MIT’s program of study isn’t “better” or “worse” than UChicago’s.”
You keep posting things like this, but nobody really believe you. I would seriously stop with this denigration of places like MIT and Stanford to make Chicago look good.
“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.”
I don’t have any contempt for the past, it’s just that the past is not exclusively philosophers.
“This is why so many struggle in those courses. From which other schools do we hear complaints that the humanities gen ed requirement is “tough?” To me that’s a sign that UChicago is actually doing something right.”
First off, why is it always about humanities requirements? Berkeley’s Chem classes are notoriously tough, because that’s a weed out course for pre-med. I know kids at Cal Tech who don’t complain, are you saying they’re taking fluffy math? You’d be the first.
Whether the student who uploaded the midterm questions violated Chicago’s honor code or not is a separate issue from whether the midterm questions are accurate. It appears to be genuine material from the class, so I would expect the midterm questions are accurate.
My post said "I see no reason to assume it’s the type of class that will result in Humanities majors persevere against Physical science requirements that often have them crying ”. You are also probably not a competent authority on whether the above course would make a humanities major cry or corresponding degree of challenge. I see no reason to assume that is the case and assume that the comments from actual kids who have taken the linked class and what appears to be genuine midterm questions all must be inaccurate. I’m sure it is possible to take highly rigorous intro freshman type classes, if a student chooses to, and I’m sure many students do choose to. However, the same is true for many other colleges.
UChicago’s Gen Chem sequence is also very tough and weeds people out. You need it for Premed and a bunch of sciences. As many are science majors or thinking of premed, there’s significant opportunity to hear of struggles and complaints about it every year. I don’t believe that the gen chem sequence necessarily generates a larger number of struggles and complaints than Core Hum, but the problem with Hum is that there is no where else to go; you can’t drop down to an “easier” level of Hum like you can for the science, and you really can’t drop the course entirely because it’s required your first two quarters. Also, Hum I is only taught in the autumn. Of course, switching out of major science means changing your planned major, but that’s probably a good thing to do at that point.
You are correct, I am not a competent authority about Phsc 108, as I mentioned upthread. However, in looking up the course evals for the recent year (these are genuine, by the way), apparently this course uses Calculus. Math is determined by your placement, and the majority of the College does take calculus so it shouldn’t be a big deal. But you never know. Non-STEM kids at UChicago will typically start off with Hum, Sosc, Math and either a physical or biological science in their first couple of quarters (usually taking 12 courses in their first year). Even the top kids will need to devote many hours to study and manage their time carefully to make that work well. There is always the opportunity to take highly rigorous courses at a top university. The question is whether there is the opportunity NOT to take highly rigorous courses. Much harder to get away with that at UChicago than other places. Some courses are going to be more difficult than others ie will take up more of your time, mental energy, etc. But all of them are going to have a pretty hefty workload and require a good deal of effort each week.
@Data10, I have heard that if one takes AP Physics 1 or AP Chem, then Phsc courses in the astro, physics or chemistry sequences should be fine in terms of challenge; if you keep your attention focused on your school work then you should probably do well (assuming you understood the material in AP). Obviously, the pace is faster in college. If you really are interested in all these Phsc courses and the rigors of each one, you might consider tracking down the current syllabi, as they will be able to provide you more information on content.
I’ve heard from more than one student that the real issue at UChicago isn’t the rigor of this or that course. Yes, some sequences seem to generate commentary more than others. For instance, no one complains or even mentions the Arts core; when asked everyone seems to love it. Not too demanding, lots of choices, etc. Chem and Hum are singled out for being “gruelling” and for people deciding they really don’t like any of either. However, despite these loud testimonials, the reality is that most students should be able to do the work for the courses they selected, and do it well. The most common complaint is that they just needed more time. It’s a pretty relentless pace and a fairly big adjustment in the first year (sometimes two).
Chicago is unique in some ways, not so unique in others. Something like that could be said of every school. Its unique features are loved by some, disliked or even loathed by others. It is also worth pointing out common elements and comparing and testing claims of uniqueness.
When I read the fascinating granular discussion going on between @Data10 and @JBStillFlying I do definitely have a sense of each of them building up and delineating detail by detail pictures of two unique schools. Each prefers a particular model and advocates for it. However, they are not talking past each other and are not dispensing slogans and discussion-killing epithets. They are having an evidence-driven exchange. Bravo. I am an interested and increasingly well-informed auditor of their discussion.
To say that we Chicagoans are uniquely bent on denigrating other schools is simply a canard. We are advocates, yes, of a Chicago education and the Chicago ethos, which we say is very “different” (if the word “unique” is seen as too strong) from that of other schools. There are those on this board who have used other terms - “rigid”, “watered down” (insofar as the science component), devoted to “name-dropping” of irrelevant old texts in the humanities. I ask you to consider the inconsistency of applying those denigratory terms and at the same time telling us that a Chicago education is no different from any other and that we are the denigrators.
I am happy to let Stanford be Stanford. Its advocates on this board are welcome in my book to trumpet its virtues. They do appear to me to be mainly on the technical side, but that’s also okay in my book. What I question is the further step some of them seem determined to take to make these differences in the schools into a sort of culture war between the sciences and the humanities.
There’s room in my world for every sort of excellence in human endeavour. However, here are some humans truths: All institutions have their limitations, all have their individual histories, all have their cultures. To love one more than another is also human. Though I fear a certain accusation I will say that Burke on that subject is instructive, and Mill also has something to say. I must take my stand: The old texts are the ones with evergreen substance and power.
I was curious and looked up the humanities and social studies courses offered at Caltech. What I learned is that, in addition to study abroad programs, Caltech has an exchange program with U Chicago. In part this is because both schools are on a quarter system. It would be interesting to hear from a student who spent months on both campuses.
If it’s an intro chem sequence for a major, of course, that’s a different story.
Suffice to say that both sides can struggle when forced to leave their comfort zone. To bring the conversation back to its original topic, that’s what the comparison was about.