Ha - most aren’t given a day’s notice on the prompt. But they are not given 10 years either.
George RR Martin attended NU. I wonder if that accounts for it.
I think we were just counting up number of courses required? No doubt both a “typical” MIT student and a “typical” UChicago student go above and beyond:
6 math and Science for both
8 Hass vs 9 Hum/Sosc/Civ/Arts
4 CI requirements absorbed by the Hass and the major requirements vs integrated communication in both Core and major at UChicago - a wash.
2 more M&S “electives” vs. up to three F/L courses, depending on where you place.
IDK, @1NJ - looks like about the same number of requirements overall, just different fields to reflect the unique focus of each institution. Agree or disagree?
Your math is way off. You still seem to think an MIT semester is equivalent to a UChicago quarter. If that’s what you believe, why don’t you compare UChicago with Caltech, both on the same quarter system?
On these forums, one of the reasons people want to go to supposedly well-endowed private colleges is so that they will not have trouble getting their desired courses at a public college that is fitting the maximum possible number of students into its capacity.
Were they always 19 person seminars, or were they made to be 19 when they wanted to raised the profile and ranking of the school? (19 is the largest number of students in the smallest class size bucket used for USNWR rankings.)
MIT’s general graduation requirements are listed at General Institute Requirements < MIT .
- 17 GIR subjects = 204 MIT units = 68 semester hours
- 8 HASS subjects = 96 MIT units = 32 semester hours
- 9 science/math subjects = 108 MIT units = 36 semester hours
- 180-198 MIT units beyond GIR = 60-66 semester hours
total 384-402 MIT units = 128-134 semester hours
So HASS is 25% with a low unit major, 23.9% with a high unit major.
Using Chicago’s 1 course = 3+1/3 semester hours, the 6 humanities and 3 social science courses in the Core make up 30 semester hours. The 42 courses to graduate is equivalent to 140 semester hours. So the Chicago core makes up 21.4% of the total. Chicago also has a 3 course foreign language requirement, although some students have it fulfilled by test results (e.g. AP). A student who does have to take it will take the equivalent of 40 semester hours of humanities, social science, and foreign language for the requirements which then make up 28.6% of the total.
Good catch.
Yep. Like Cal Berkeley in 1946, UChicago also had a junior and senior college (or lower and upper divisions) where the former was basically general education for purposes of developing the skills of intellectual inquiry and preparing students for more advanced and specialized study. As the University of CA catalog explains, the purpose of the lower division is to fulfill pre-reqs as well as “establishing a basis for that breadth of culture which will give him a realization of the methods and results of some of the more important types of intellectual endeavor, and a mental perspective that will aid him in reaching sound judgements.” The gen eds then seem the same as they are today - except that Military Science and Tactics unit.
I’d favor comparing requirements for students within the same majors. CS is the only major that is especially popular at all discussed schools, so I’ll use CS as an example. I also compared to Caltech and Stanford, which use the quarter system. However, the conversion system does not appear to be any more obvious between colleges using the quarter system than it is for quarter vs semester since the different colleges have different meanings for their unit notations. I did not include credit for HS classes, such as AP, which are often significant.
That said the general pattern appears to be Chicago requires the fewest STEM (CS major + core STEM) classes and a similar humanities+sciences total, resulting in a larger percentage of classes being unrestricted electives – 21% electives at Chicago vs 13-16% electives at the other 3 schools. However, there is a difference between quality and quantity. As discussed, Chicago humanities + SS core courses may be more restrictive, offering fewer opportunities for a student looking for less rigor than the others. MIT and Caltech appear to have a more restrictive STEM core than Chicago + Stanford, offering fewer opportunities for a student looking for less rigor.
While taking classes outside of their primary field of study is unsettling for some students, I’d expect that the most rigorous and challenging courses at all of these schools were typically upperclassmen advanced classes, rather than intro freshman core classes. So I don’t think looking at intro freshman general ed requirements alone is a good way to evaluate rigor of the respective colleges.
CS at Chicago (“quarter courses” indicates 100 units, assuming min 42 courses)
For Major: ~16 quarter courses
Core STEM (includes prereqs for major): ~6 quarter courses
Core Humanities + SS: ~11 quarter courses (26%) (assuming 2 FL)
Unrestricted Electives: ~9 quarter courses (21%)
CS at MIT (VI-3) (“sem subjects” indicates 12 unit course)
For Major (includes core communications): ~14 sem subjects = ~21 quarter courses
Core STEM (includes prereqs for major): ~9 sem subjects = ~13.5 quarter courses
Core Humanities + SS: ~8 sem subjects = ~12 quarter courses (22%)
Unrestricted Electives: ~6 sem subjects = ~9 quarter courses (16%)
CS at Caltech (assuming “quarter course” ~= 9 units)
For Major: ~25 quarter courses
Core STEM (includes prereqs for major): ~13 quarter courses
Core Humanities + SS: ~12 quarter courses (20%)
Core PE: 1 quarter course
Unrestricted Electives: ~8 quarter courses (14%)
CS at Stanford (assuming “quarter course” ~= 4 units)
For Major (includes writing in major core): ~24 quarter courses
Core STEM: ~2-3 quarter courses
Core Humanities + SS: ~12-13 quarter courses (28%)
Unrestricted Electives: ~6 quarter courses (13%)
1 Like
Hum and Sosc have always been small seminar format - keep in mind that the College is 2x the size it was 30 years ago so 19 might be a higher number of enrollment than it used to be! Core Math is also fairly small - around 25 to 30 - so multiple sections of that too. Edit to add: Just noticed that GIR Bio at MIT might control admission via lottery. So I guess other top schools have wildly popular courses too and can’t take everyone.
Yes - I think you can just show all this by using units at MIT and credits at UChicago. It comes out the same 
I will say that it’s very hard to waive that F/L requirement (used to be much easier but they tightened it up when my D matriculated). Accreditation exams will need to be paired with an upper level course, AP needs to be a 5 and the languages there are limited to the standard six. Most students take at least one course of a F/L; a good number take two because it’s pretty easy to place into 102 if you’ve taken some high school language but the placement test gets exponentially harder as you progress. So add at least one to two courses. I believe that it evens out, as I explained to @1NJParent above.
This isn’t quite accurate:
Apples to apples comparison has to be the BS degree which is 1700 credits, or 17 quarter courses not 16 (see below).
Also, you need to add the F/L requirement (to Stanford as well?) which will be up to another 300 credits or 3 courses. Most will take 1-2 quarter courses to fulfill.
So that will leave 8 - 9 quarter courses of unrestricted electives. Tied with MIT (on an equivalency basis).
http://collegecatalog.uchicago.edu/thecollege/computerscience/
The Chicago CS page states that the math and science requirements duplicate with the core requirements, as quoted below. I listed “Core STEM” and “For Major” in separate categories rather than double counting, just as I did for the other schools. I treated BA vs BS like different CS concentrations for other schools – I took the midpoint of the range. This midpoint is 15.5, which I rounded up to 16. However, that is a fair point about the foreign language. I edited the post to add FL.
Yes, I do believe this is true for Hass at the very least - in perusing some of the courses I know that UChicago covers the same material in a quarter. (Keep in mind that Hass includes major courses; the Core does not. Therefore the pace might be disparate between the two schools for this reason alone). The reason that UChicago was comfortable reducing the number of Core courses by a third back in the late 90’s was that those subjects were already accelerated so, in effect they were reducing three semesters’ worth of material down to two. As College Dean John Boyer explains in his History of the University: “Given that Chicago’s quarter system functioned, with the heavy workloads imposed by many professors, almost like the semester system at other top colleges, the proponents of the plan believed that there would be no net loss of intellectual “intensity.” Indeed, to the extent that the new curriculum would allow students to take a few more advanced or graduate-level courses as free electives, the result might even be a bolstering of the College’s famed academic rigor.” Boyer, John W… The University of Chicago . University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.
(It should be noted that UChicago just reduced the number of weeks in the term from 10 to 9 but will not be reducing course load. So it’s not clear that you can take a simple ratio between UChicago and any other school as if pace doesn’t change. At UChicago, it does.)
I haven’t looked through Bio or Chem. However, I did review the physics curriculum between the two schools, as I mentioned many weeks ago (and I thought on this thread as well just lately). UChicago starts faster and seems to cover more in the 130’s sequence than MIT does that first year in 8.01 and 8.02. For those in the major, the two programs even out about midway through second year so MIT catches up but quick. But for core Physics (ie 131/132), it appears that UChicago runs at a faster pace, which is why I counted it as roughly equivalent. MIT doesn’t have non-major levels of physical or bio sciences so nothing to compare there and we meta-analyzed math already. UChicago has Math and Science tracks that are not as rigorous as MIT or Cal Tech, for very obvious reasons (it’s a liberal ed, and not a science ed, college). However, the comparisons I have made for those courses that actually can be compared show that UChicago runs at a pretty fast clip. That’s why I’m comfortable comparing requirements as is. MIT is a fantastic school - tops in the world for math and science education. It runs at the pace that is appropriate to the talents and skills of those who attend. UChicago, as a top liberal arts college with a distinct Core Curriculum, does the same.
You mentioned Cal Tech: it’s is in the ball-park for non-Stem as a percentage of total units needed for graduation. This has probably already been calculated upthread but I’m calculating it to be about 21-22%: (36*3)/(486-515 total units).
I also notice that Cal Tech has a lower homework:class time ratio than UChicago (2:1) but expects you to take more classes each term (5-6 rather than 3-4). I’m thinking that the amount of weekly homework and study comes out about even for both schools. UChicago is probably around 35-40 hours of homework and study per week.
You asked again - what’s the difference between fulfilling your non-STEM in two vs. four years? Well, here’s a question for you: knowing that you will need to spend 35+ hours on homework every week (and it goes up in Weeks 4, 7, and 10), what are you willing to spend that time on for your first two years of college? Because at UChicago, non-STEM eats up a lot more of your time those first two years than it does at either MIT or Cal Tech. If that wouldn’t bother you in the least, then you might be a liberal ed person at heart. If it’s a big turn off, you would be better off sticking with the science schools. Same applies to your son.
You should not take the midpoint of a range. Let me clearly state once more: a BS requires 17 courses. It states so in the catalog. The other schools are BS only. There is no duplication of core and major requirements. You must fill six of Math and Science. For the BS this means you must choose a major physical science sequence (ie Chem 111+, Physics 131+ etc), the first two of which will be your physical sciences core (for the major, they are pre-reqs but don’t count as major courses). You may choose a non-major Bio core sequence. The reason they have that explanation is that for the BA you do not need to choose a major physical sciences sequence for your physical sciences core. You can, but you don’t need to. Any Phsc non-major sequence is fine. They want you to have a heads up before you choose your physical sciences core sequence so you don’t mess up and choose Chemistry of Food and Big Problems and then try for the BS in Computer Science 
Let me state clearly once more. I tried to use a consistent methodology among all schools. This methodology includes taking the midpoint of all the different possible CS curriculum options. For Chicago, these options include BA and BS. I rounded up 15.5 to 16. Yes, it’s possible to be 1 higher than 16 at 17, with the highest units curriculum option. Some of the other colleges, would be higher, if I chose the highest units curriculum option. If you think it’s more fair to add 1 for Chicago with the BS option, but not choose the highest units curriculum option for any other schools, feel free to make an updated list that does so.
I think you may have misunderstood my post. I was referring to the CS page from the bulletin you linked. It lists the following in the summary of units section – CS requires 400 units in general education + 1400-1700 units in major. I am listing the 400 units general ed in the “Core STEM” category and not duplicating anything in the “For Major” category (even though both are mentioned as requirements on the linked CS major page of the bulletin), just as I did not double count for the other schools. For example, the calculus courses are prereqs, and as stated in the bulletin, "Both the BA and BS in computer science require fulfillment of the general education requirement in the mathematical sciences by completing an approved two-quarter calculus sequence." Like the other schools, I am not double counting required calculus core foundation requirements in multiple categories.
It’s not a question of “highest.” It’s a question of keeping the degree constant across the different schools. There’s a difference between a degree option and a curricular option. Not sure what you were seeing for the other schools but I’d think you’d want to keep it simple and just look at the four-year BS program since that is the default degree. If you must average within that in order to account for specific subspecialties so be it - your call. But the degree should be consistent. I like your approach here, btw. Good way to compare the schools. And I know it’s only a point so matters little in reality - somewhere else it might matter more which is why I brought it up.
OK that’s fine. as long as you aren’t double counting or duplicating anything LOL. I see what you mean. Yes, it appears there’s a “duplication” because UChicago views its Core a tad differently than do other schools. Some core is required for the C/S major even though it won’t count as a major course. That’s because there are a variety of Core physical science sequences you can take. They want to make sure you take the correct one because even if it doesn’t count toward the major, it’s still required for the major, as a pre-req for higher level major courses. I think you see that so no biggie.
It has more to do with differences in how math/science fundamentals for CS are classified at different schools. For example, Stanford classifies them as “major requirements” and calls them as such in some areas of the bulletin. In retrospect, I think it makes more sense to separate these math/science foundation from CS for all of the schools, making the totals as listed below. I am putting Chicago’s theory sequence in this foundation math group, rather than CS/Eng major courses. I realize the bulletin groups it differently. I put this same set of math theory courses in the math/science category for the other schools as well.
CS at Chicago (“quarter courses” indicates 100 units, assuming min 42 courses)
Major Courses: ~13 quarter courses (31%) (14 with BA, 14 with BS)
Foundation STEM: ~9 quarter courses (6 core, 3 non core) (21%)
Core Humanities + SS: ~11 quarter courses (26%) (assuming 2 FL)
Unrestricted Electives: ~9 quarter courses (21%)
CS at MIT (VI-3) (“sem subjects” indicates 12 unit course)
Major Courses: ~13 sem subjects = ~20.5 quarter courses (35%)
Foundation STEM: ~10 sem subjects = ~15 quarter courses (27%)
Core Humanities + SS: ~8 sem subjects = ~12 quarter courses (22%)
Unrestricted Electives: ~6 sem subjects = ~9 quarter courses (16%)
CS at Caltech (assuming “quarter course” ~= 9 units)
Major Courses: ~23 quarter courses (39%)
Foundation STEM – 16 quarter courses (13 core, 3 non-core) (27%)
Core Humanities + SS: ~12 quarter courses (20%)
Core PE: 1 quarter course
Unrestricted Electives: ~8 quarter courses (14%)
CS at Stanford (assuming “quarter course” ~= 4 units)
Major Courses: ~16 quarter courses (36%)
Foundation STEM: ~12 quarter courses (2-3 core, 10 non-core) (27%)
Core Humanities + SS: ~12-13 quarter courses (28%)
Unrestricted Electives: ~5 quarter courses (11%)
This may be the source of that incredulous belief some from UChicago apparently have that a UChicago quarter is equivalent to an MIT semester. They’ve been brainwashed!
If that’s what you believe, you may also believe that there’s a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
The estimates for the amount of hours spent on homeworks are just estimates. They’re dependent on the academic strength of the students. Stronger students would spend less time and weaker ones would spend more. Many, if not most, UChicago STEM students (not to mention its non-STEM students) would likely fail at Caltech because of the rigor and pace of its courses.
Your logic is baffling. Some students, including and even more likely STEM students, would think getting those H/SS requirements out of the way would make their lives easier, so they could concentrate on the courses in their majors. That’s probably the reason why Caltech, for example, mandates that the writing-intensive courses have to be spread out (at least one every year).
1 Like
It’s a telling comment that “some students, including and even more likely STEM students, would think getting those H/SS requirements out of the way would make their lives easier.”
That’s undoubtedly true for some students, and especially those who choose high-octane science-intense schools. However, there is an entirely different kind of student, more likely to choose Chicago knowing what that means (i.e. taking the Core), for whom these H/SS studies are not a bug but a feature. An old apartment-mate of mine at the U of C was like that. The guy was an utterly brilliant math prodigy, tops in math at Chicago during his time, who went on to have a very significant professorial and writerly career, friend and colleague of the likes of John Milnor and others of that stature, and himself became Chairman of the Math Department of a very fine school. Yet my old friend’s favorite of all his courses at Chicago was the classic Core requirement, History of Western Civilization as taught by Karl Weintraub.
I am not suggesting that STEM kids can only cultivate a lively interest in the humanities and social sciences by taking the Core. However, I do suggest that it exerts a gravitational pull on those who have those interests. Chicago might be particularly well-suited to such kids given its own strength in STEM (minus engineering), which will mean that at this school there will be many highly ambitious science-oriented kids who will want to take classes and form friendships with the equally many ambitious kids who are primarily oriented toward the humanities and social sciences. Sometimes paths will cross over. But all will share the Core and will share in what one old Chicago hand has called “the great conversation” that is generated by reading common foundational texts (as once upon a time I, distinctly not a mathematician, was able to do with my brilliant mathematical friend).
As to whether quarters equal semesters, we really need the testimony of those who have attended institutions on both those systems. I attended Chicago, but I also taught at three semestered institutions thereafter. Some of the semestered courses undoubtedly expanded the volume of the material covered. Some did not. At Chicago I took quarter-long courses in Tolstoy and Dickens. The former covered virtually all that author’s works, the latter about half of them. Each required a paper. Those courses would have fit more than snugly into a full semester at any other institution. Likewise of a survey course such as “English Prose of the 18th Century.” Of course the overall effect is that even when the material expands to the larger scope of a semester the student simply reads a bit more of, say, “The Poetry of Edmund Spenser” than he or she would have read in a quarter, but of course that means that cumulatively less time is left for the many other topics, periods, and writers that compose the large body of one’s interests. Of one thing I can attest, as many here have attested: When four papers must be delivered in four separate courses at the end of three 10-week periods during which that reseach and writing must be done while covering thousands of pages of text, the experience is, well, bracing. The procrustean bed of a 10-week quarter will do that to you. The simple mathematics of the situation is that more papers will be required over the course of a year that has three termination points and comprises twelve courses than one with two points and eight courses.
These are my observations as a student of literature. Perhaps it is different in other fields. This discussion really requires human testimony more than it does number crunching. In any event it is not quite adequate to write off any particular belief by calling it “incredulous” (sic).
That’s a rather uncritical takeaway. UChicago and MIT are different schools and the general ed components are but one portion of the degree. Furthermore, when you compare humanities specialities, MIT has a different purpose for offering these, has a different level of commitment to some of those academic resources, and is simply not renowned for most of its non-STEM (Econ, Poly Sci and Psych being three exceptions). Too bad, too, because one of my favorite US historians was on faculty there before her untimely death.
Here’s an example: MIT’s philosophy department is less diverse in terms of research interests, notably committed to supporting the science-focus of the institution, etc. That will be apparent in everything from course selection to the perspectives of your classmates. That does not mean that you wouldn’t receive a decent philosophy education at MIT. But it would be a distinct experience from what you would receive at UChicago, where they’ve built a comprehensive and diverse department that touches on every aspect of Western Philosophy, where a wider variety of academic interests will be enrolled along with you, and where the inquiry is based on a foundation of and preparation in humanistic thought because Hum is required before you can enroll in philosophy courses. That’s an example of why someone who’s enthusiastic about the humanities is far more likely to apply to UChicago than MIT. To paraphrase @marlowe1, let MIT be MIT. It’s not necessary to turn it into “the best” liberal arts program around!
Perhaps you’d see that disparity if everyone takes the same course, but surely Cal-Tech allows a bit more diversity in course selection than that (realizing that first year Core is pretty uniform). Schools probably have a good idea of homework time requirements among their students. And of course that ratio would be an average . . .
Speculating on the academic performance of one group of students at the other’s school would be an uncritical assertion - at best. One can speculate that most Cal Tech students are not looking for hefty humanities requirements nor are most UChicago students looking for the high level of science specialization offered at Cal Tech. They are distinct from one another. As Cal Tech has an exchange program with UChicago perhaps someone who’s been at both places can shed some light on this topic, as another poster proposed earlier.
Actually, the reason might be that they see writing as a skill requiring development over time, the way that other schools do, and want students to get enough experience writing in their major. I doubt it’s because Cal Tech kids are rushing to take all their writing in the first two years. Isn’t the freshman writing requirement hefty enough?
Maybe I missed it but didn’t catch that all the “writing intensives” had to be spread out, although 72 units must be evenly divided between humanities (usually writing intensive) and social science (may or may not be, depending on the subject). The last 36 will allow you to focus on more non-writing-intensive courses should you choose that. I find it interesting that freshmen at Cal Tech have to do a writing placement test and may get tracked to lower-level courses as a result. That doesn’t happen at UChicago as those base skills are expected to be there, and Hum and Sosc have more complex goals than just “writing” (as many excellent high school writers have discovered).
I think that Cal Tech and MIT have fine non-STEM requirements for their degree programs. One distinction is that, unlike the UChicago Core, those intro humanities courses are taught at a less difficult level/pace. For instance, Ancient Greek Philosophy focuses just on Plato’s Republic rather than introducing the wealth of texts, only a few of which need be selected for critical inquiry on the origins of western philosophical and political thought. Student both in first year Hum and in Intro to Philosophy: Ancient Philosophy (Hum is a pre-req) would be treating this subject with more rigor. It’s analogous to a non-major STEM course; introduces useful information but, of necessity, taught at a watered-down level.
Back to timing: I do have a different take, based in part on those I know who chose to apply to and attend MIT. They didn’t care to spend a good chunk of their first two years in non-STEM, to put it mildly. What excited them was the amount of heavy math and science emphasis from the beginning. HASS requirements are fine - easy to handle - but the real reason they are/were there (one has since moved on to do a PhD in engineering) was the science foundation. In contrast, my kids chose to apply to and attend UChicago because of its liberal ed foundation. Different schools.