What is unique about UChicago is that it convinced at least some of its students and those affiliated with it (some of whom in turn want to convince others) that it’s somehow uniquely rigorous because of its core curriculum and quarter system, and that it’s somehow superior because it’s the last bastion of academic freedoms, even though none of them is true. How else can one explain the existence of this thread (and many other like it in the UChicago forum)? Denigration of other schools seems to be uniquely associated with the UChicago forum (this thread came out of that forum), as no one in other forums, AFAIK, does this to UChicago or other schools.
Rigor is relative. Challenges students face are relative to the strength of these same students. Cliches like “where fun goes to die” are the creations of the relatively weaker students on the campus.
Actually, there have been “aggressive boosters” of other colleges* on the forums who tend to denigrate other colleges in comparison, or get insulting to other posters if any of their claims is questioned. I.e. the above is not unique to Chicago either.
There is also “boosterism” about classes of colleges (e.g. LACs or highly ranked colleges), although it seems to be less aggressive but more common.
@1NJParent makes a number of statements disdainful of Chicago. Disdain is fine. Institutions like individuals are defined by their enemies as much as by their friends. However, let me understand what you are saying here:
That Chicago is unique in trumpeting what it imagines to be its particular virtues. --Do no other schools do this about their own virtues? What’s the problem with this exactly?
That Chicago claims to be uniquely rigorous? --More rigorous than MIT or Caltech? No Chicago partisan would say that. We would say that Chicago is both rigorous and unique, true, but not unique on account of being rigorous.
That the quarter system and the Core are the reasons for the rigor at Chicago. --It has been argued that the quarter system amplifies the rigor (Dean Boyer believes this), but no one says it’s the sole source. And the existence of the Core is not argued by anyone to be the source of the rigor. Its rationale is entirely different and is based on a philosophy of education.
That Chicago believes itself to be “superior” because it is “the last bastion of academic freedom.” --Superior in what sense? Generally, or in the quality of academic freedom? There’s no connection of that quality to the idea of generalized superiority (whatever that might mean), and nobody would argue for Chicago’s superiority in that general sense. Yes, some of us do take pride in the matter of academic freedom and free speech, as reflected in Chicago’s history, in the Chicago Statement (which has been picked up by many other schools) and by Chicago’s pre-eminent ranking by FIRE and in other surveys. It would be hard to deny that Chicago is specially known for this, not merely as claimed by its adherents but even by those who dislike it and the Chicago Statement. Do you deny this? Or are you simply opposed to Chicago’s policies and its Statement? Whether or not we are “the last bastion” we would be happy to be joined by other universities (as those adopting the Chicago Statement have in fact done) at this particular bastion.
How can one explain the existence of this thread? --Easy, it was started by a current Chicago student who wanted to hear what we thought on the question he/she put up for discussion as to the Chicago ethos. Thoughts about schools is surely what cc is all about. Anyone bored with any particular subject matter is free to ignore it. Anyone disagreeing with statements made is free to chime in, but, if so, should be prepared to face replies and discussion.
That Chicago posters are unique in denigrating other schools. --Examples please. I see nothing of this, rather the contlrary. I do agree that discussions on the Chicago board uniquely attract Chicago detractors. Somehow we Chicagoans give offense. I have often wondered why. One thing I have, however, never seen: a Chicago poster visit other boards to denigrate those schools. The converse of that happens routinely.
The challenge is that the “discussion” becomes debate. And the points being made in the “discussion” have been made ad infinitum on other UChicago thread by many of the same posters. Of the 223 comments in this thread, 111 are by 3 posters, none of whom is the OP. When the comments just be one a back-and-forth debate between a couple of posters, that conversation often lends itself better to PM.
I’ve seen that as well. My guess is that resources such as Argonne and Fermi Lab would be the attraction. Contrasting points of view would be edifying, such as when @rleaman chimed in.
My guess is that anyone still tuning in at this point is doing so because they are genuinely interested in the conversation and comparison. That includes you, @1NJParent. A slight correction, however, as denigrating other schools is probably against the TOS and our esteemed judge hasn’t called that foul. My best guess as to why this level of detailed comparison might not exist in other forums is that no one cares enough or has enough information to do so. UChicago always compares itself to other places. It is that insecure (or “restless” as I’ve heard a trustee comment). I think it would be very bad news if it stopped doing so.
I agree with some of this. “Where Fun Comes to Die” was coined a generation ago and was an instant hit. The College has been through a ton of change since then - notably, admission rate, yield, retention, four-year grad rate, quality of matriculant, professional prospects, Core, E/C’s, res halls, arts center, gym, athletics, and so forth. Also dollar milkshakes on the quad (Wednesdays only) and average GPA. And yet it’s STILL known as the place Where Fun Comes to Die. It’s very hard to shake off a slogan that so perfectly describes the culture, if not the actual experience.
Edit to add: In fact, “Where Fun Comes to Die” might very neatly summarize the ethos of UChicago. Thoughts?
Even without the sports (assuming one considers it a sport) angle being discussed any longer, an entertaining thread nonetheless. As mentioned on some other thread, “butts in seats.” Same “butts” as SkiEurope previously stated.
Every time I read one of these “Chicago vs World (MIT/Stanford/CalTech)” threads I get a deja vu feeling.
I prefer Where Fun sheds its fragility to Where Fun Comes to Die
I think it conveys that there can be a different kind of fun in a rigorous college experience. This kind of fun is similar to the lasting joy one gets when one scales the peak of a tough mountain to discover a beauty that cannot be experienced at the foothill of that same mountain
The OP said “STEM students [at Chicago] struggle with some hefty humanities requirements and Humanities majors persevere against Physical science requirements that often have them crying.”
Has this debate established that Chicago singularly challenges STEM and humanities students to a point of leaving them crying?
If so, how does that ordeal benefit them? Employers and grad schools highly value it to the point that Chicago grads have better graduation outcomes or better outcomes in the long term (financial and/or in terms of leadership)?
Chicago doesn’t require taking calculus during HS for admission. Instead they say 3-4 years math with “pre-calculus recommended.” So Chicago cannot assume all students in an intro freshman general ed type class have taken calculus. Instead if students in such a class need to know calculus, it’s a safe bet that this requirement would be mentioned somewhere, such as in the prereqs or course description. However, the discussed course can be taken by humanities majors without any listed prereqs including calculus, and calculus is not mentioned in either the course description or syllabus. Instead the syllabus says, “Students should have familiarity with algebra , geometry, and trigonometry.” Consistent with this, the available exam questions did not use calculus or any math beyond typical HS level.
I’ve highlighted these 2 courses, but there are many others. The point is while I don’t doubt that it is possible to take rigorous intro general ed classes, that’s not the only path through the general ed requirements. Articles from students + posts on forums suggest a good portion of students do try to choose among the options that have reputation for being easiest. A similar could be made for most schools that have flexible intro general ed requirements, rather than requiring a narrow sequence of specific courses. Of course at most schools, when students talk about their most rigorous or challenging courses, they do not mention intro general ed classes. The more challenging and rigorous classes tend to the be the upper level ones.
So you must equate criticism of those @ucbalumnus termed “aggressive boosters” who feel the need to denigrate schools like Stanford or Harvard (but never other “lower”-tier schools) so that UChicago can be compared more favorably to them, with distain toward UChicago itself. There isn’t such equivalence, is there? Quoting great philosophers isn’t the same as not committing such basic logical fallacy, is it?
Anecdotally I can give you an example of some of the “rigor” in humanities, again from my own DD’s experience. Requirement was 3 short stories for a creative writing class of 25 pages in length. Professor decided that one of her “shorts” should be a novella of 80 pages, and now that its a novella should be expanded into a novel. Seriously a novel? Mind you this is for one class while still taking 2 other engineering courses and 2 electives. Rigor is sought out, and can be found at Stanford or UChicago or most of those schools that we consider “elite”. Two quotes I’ll give you from my DD.
“I don’t know why I always choose the hard path, but for some reason I always do” That might be an encapsulation of the UChicago ethos.
“My professor wrote me an email concerned about my well being after reading my novella…no, I just like writing horror in some detail.”
Sorry, @1NJParent , but I’m not following the convolutions of your surmise about what you think I ought to consider disdainful in what another poster seems to have said about what he thinks certain Chicago boosters have said about Stanford or Harvard but not about schools that he or you or these supposed Chicago boosters judge to be lower tier schools. Have I got that right?
That’s a bit indirect for my feeble brain. When it comes to disdain I prefer a full-bodied version direct and to the point. Sorry to disappoint you, but what a learned judge once said about pornography applies equally to disdain: “I know it when I see it.”
@tristatecoog , I wouldn’t take too literally the tales that UChicago kids like to tell about the stresses and strains of undergraduate life. Kvetching and carrying on about these things is part of the culture. As @surelyhuman is suggesting, those moans and groans are the precursors to the pride of achievement that comes in learning really hard things, especially things that don’t come naturally to you. As the Greeks told us long ago, striving to overcome defeat and transcending one’s own limitations is the supreme source of human joyfulness. All athletes know this. Recruits in boot camp know it too. It has always been a major trope of student life at Chicago, a school that has never been known for doing things with nonchalance or the appearance of ease. We leave all that decorative graceful stuff to Princeton!
In short, the thread hasn’t established anything of the sort.
This is an interesting contrast with the perceived “ethos” of the two schools. Stanford is known for the “Stanford Duck Syndrome,” which means that rather than talking about extreme stresses and strains of undergrad life, many Stanford students keep it hidden. Stanford students look calm and peaceful on the surface, but are furiously paddling to stay afloat in a less visible way.
There have been many articles about the Stanford duck syndrome, such as the Daily article at Duck syndrome and a culture of misery which has statements like, "While everyone seems to be smoothly moving along, everyone also seems to be simultaneously working themselves to death. " There is even a stopduck.stanford.edu sub-section of the main Stanford website, with pictures of ducks at https://duckstop.stanford.edu/why-does-duck-stop-here .
Of course both perceived “ethos” probably only represent a minority of students and are in no way reflective of the college as a whole, and probably have more to do with external perception of the schools. I’m sure you can find both types of students at nearly any highly selective college.
Marlowe: with all due respect to Dean Boyer, approximately 25% of colleges/Unis are on a quarter system, which includes teh likes of top privates like Stanford, Northwestern and Dartmouth, and publics like UCLA. (fwiw: Dartmouth’s D-Plan is unique.) That said a quarter system can definitely more stressful (as there is no time to get sick) and whether that makes it appear more rigorous is prolly a personal thing, not necessarily affecting most (IMO).
Like many schools, UChicago conducts math placement exams which all must take, regardless of their math preparation. Your ultimate placement is determined by your placement exam, your AP scores (if applicable) and your high school academic performance in Math.
Below are the Autumn 2020 Math Core enrollments. For simplicity I’ve excluded the computer science portion (669 enrolled) as those will also include 2nd years taking the course for the major (but cannot be double counted as both major and Core; the C/S major requires Calc I and II as a pre-req). I’ve also excluded Stats 220 (244 enrolled) because it requires Calc I. I included Math 183: Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences, since Physics and MEng majors start with that right away, and passing 183 and 184 will also fulfill the Math Core. 183 is invite only, as is 161 (honors calc I).
Studies in Math I: 16
Calc I (131): 310
Calc I (150’s): 317
Calc II (150’s): 561
Calc I (160’s): 164 (correction 230 incl. IBL)
Math 183: 136
Total: 1,504 (correction 1,570)
Total Class of '24 Enrollment: 1,848
Total: Calc II and higher: 861 (correction 927)
Total 150’s and higher: 1,178 (correction 1,244)
Total: 130’s and lower: 326
Calc 130’s: Elementary Functions and Calculus, is the sequence requiring reinforcement with pre-calc and is for those who haven’t had Calc or had poor prep (or poor AP and placement test performance). 150’s is the standard (and most popular) sequence. My son, a hum kid who took AP Calc AB, placed into 152, which continues to be the most popular placement. 152 and very likely 151 will require at least regular calc prep from high school. So it’s safe to say that the majority of UChicago students are coming in with Calc. I think it’s very nice of them not to scare away those students who don’t have that confident preparation, because there is a place for them too. But the overwhelming number are very well-prepared for higher math in college.
It’s either professor choice or an oversight. Wouldn’t be the first time for either. As practically everyone would already be enrolled at least in Calc 130’s concurrently, and most have already had some exposure to calculus in high school, it should be no big deal. Calculus is pretty basic math Most “pre-reqs” I’ve noticed are needed because you are moving beyond. Seeing an application of Calculus isn’t quite the same thing. When I was in college (not UChicago) and taking Intro Micro Econ (no pre-reqs), it was pretty obvious that we were learning an application of the math subject I was taking concurrently: differential calculus. I hadn’t even had pre-calc in high school so was pretty remedial.
Well, at least that’s consistent. I understand that MEST (Phsc 126) has upped the math a bit - and of course it appears that this might have happened with the recent version of Phsc 108, despite the course descriptions and the exam you found on the internet from a couple years ago. Nevertheless, the courses weren’t designed to be major courses but to engage the student with scientific thinking. Keep the “lower math” through applied calculus in the course and impart the laws and theories of the subject at hand. That should keep everyone plenty occupied, even those humanities majors! By the way, the proper comparison is what a humanities major must take at UChicago vs. elsewhere (see below for a discusion of Stanford).
Of course they do! LOL. Most students, however, are enrolled in PLENTY of “rigorous” courses, if by “rigorous” you are implying major or premed track (which are the other choices for your core Phy Sci). In fact, enrollments in these more “rigorous” courses swamp Phsc by more than 2:1! (Autumn 2020 enrollments). Phsc is definitely “easier” than Mechanics or Gen Chem, but it evens out in the wash because Hum is easier than Hum/Sosc, and Media Aesthetics is easier than Phil Per or Greece and Rome. In the end, both groups are taking a pretty rigorous schedule and having a transformative experience, even if it’s not easy all the time.
Stanford and other universities have far more choices for gen ed science than does UChicago. Stanford alone had dozens of distinct subjects to choose from in Autumn Quarter for Scientific Methods and Analysis (the science gen ed), while UChicago had nine.
The way I’d go about looking at this detail would be to compare, say, Stanford’s Chem 25: Science in the News with UChicago’s Phsc 121: Chemistry in Everyday Media. They sound very similar - perhaps even the same overall design. However, Chem 25 has no lab and unless I’m mistaken, a 4-5 on AP Chem will place you out of more science Gen Eds than at UChicago, where 4 gets you nothing and a 5 allows you to sub in Phsc 121 for the second part of the sequence. I would conclude from these comparisons that Phsc 121 is actually more rigorous than Chem 25. Both, however, read technical literature, which is good. I do believe that Chem 25 might be a tad lighter there as well, based on the course descriptions. But that’s probably getting a bit nit-picky.
I think this is a key UChicago difference. GPA’s are known to increase once you are past the Core.
151’s catalog description says “Students entering this sequence are to have mastered appropriate precalculus material and, in many cases, have had some previous experience with calculus in high school or elsewhere.” I.e. precalculus is the actual prerequisite, although some (not necessarily all) have had calculus in high school (but did not score high enough on AP or other placement tests to get advanced placement, or think (not always correctly) that repeating their AP credit will lead to an “easy A”). This is not all that different from calculus 1 courses at many other universities.
It is probably true at most highly selective universities that a large portion of entering frosh had calculus in high school, whether or not they had a high enough AP or other score to get advanced placement beyond calculus 1. However (with the exception of Caltech and Harvey Mudd and maybe MIT), they likely have some students who have only completed precalculus in high school so that the appropriate math course for them is calculus 1. They also presumably have some students whose precalculus knowledge is weak enough that they offer precalculus (e.g. Princeton MAT 100) or “calculus 1 with precalculus review” (e.g. Chicago Math 131-132-133, Harvard Math Ma and Mb) courses.
GPAs increasing at higher class levels is probably not unusual at universities, for a few reasons:
New frosh must make the adjustment from heavily supervised high school to college where they must manage their own time and motivation to do school work. Some stumble here and come out with mediocre frosh year GPAs.
The worst GPA students tend to drop out or get dismissed, removing them from higher class levels.
Frosh may also be taking more general education requirements that are not in their areas of academic strength.
At higher class levels, students are taking more courses in their majors, presumably the subjects that they are strongest and most interested in.
Most “pre-reqs” I’ve noticed are needed because you are moving beyond. Seeing an application of Calculus isn’t quite the same thing. When I was in college (not UChicago) and taking Intro Micro Econ (no pre-reqs), it was pretty obvious that we were learning an application of the math subject I was taking concurrently: differential calculus. I hadn’t even had pre-calc in high school so was pretty remedial.