University Ethos at Stanford and Chicago

I know I already posted this, but it bears repeating:

Might I remind members of the forum rules: “Our forum is expected to be a friendly and welcoming place, and one in which members can post without their motives, intelligence, or other personal characteristics being questioned by others."

Additionally, “College Confidential forums exist to discuss college admission and other topics of interest. It is not a place for contentious debate. If you find yourself repeating talking points, it might be time to step away and do something else. Some topics, such as politics, religion and moderation on the forums, lend themselves to debate. If a thread starts to get heated, it might be closed or heavily moderated.”

http://talk.qa.collegeconfidential.com/guidelines

Large parts of this thread have devolved into a conversation better suited for PM than informative for the community at large.

According to Chicago’s website, transfers need to fulfill the core requirements in addition to major requirements, yet rarely require more than an extra quarter to graduate beyond the standard 4 years. I wouldn’t assume it’s a strict x NU courses = y Chicago courses type conversion. I’d expect there is a more complex evaluation of specific courses and equivalency.

Similarly I don’t see anything in the NU transfer page implying that they will use a simple x NU courses = y Chicago courses type conversion. They mention that NU may grant 1 NU unit for 3 or 4 quarter hour courses taken elsewhere, which counts towards NU’s 45 unit graduation requirement. However, the page doesn’t mention giving more than 1 NU unit for classes taken at other colleges that are listed as >4 quarter hours at the other college.

I think you meant 21 not 35 but the number of quarter hours is indeed 105. So the UChicago student takes fewer courses but is farther along (by NU standards) than a NU student would be trying to transfer to Chicago. Yes, Core or certain gen eds and then major courses might be treated in a particular way. That’s the magic of the registrar’s office. However, “all else equal” (waving hands at the “particular” for a moment), it appears that a UChicago student is advantaged because designated quarter hours are higher. I’m wondering what that means exactly. Would NU agree that quarter hours should be higher for a UChicago course? Does that mean that UChicago courses are somehow distinct from NU courses? Or perhaps, getting to the general, that UChicago’s curriculum is treated differently than Northwestern’s?

Part of my confusion is that I don’t know why UChicago considers its course to amount to 5 quarter hours when everyone else seems to use 4 or thereabouts. (NB: I’m only considering other liberal ed program; for example, Weinberg rather than NU’s engineering school which might have a different system). UChicago’s been using 5 for all courses since 1962, according to the note on the page. There is no accompanying explanation. It’s just 5 hours. My kids were in courses of 3 - 5 contact hours weekly, depending on labs/tutorials/discussion sections. No one was consistently in a 5 hour course. This underscores some of the comments above that quarter hours might not be a reliable indicator of “rigor” unless it suggest higher amounts of homework as well. 10 hours per week seems about right but I’m sure this differs by student.

“What part of that discussion about essays was directed at UChicago?”

It was this part: “How does UChicago know that it is in the mind of an independent 17 year old at work, not that of a well trained professional.”

Perhaps my error in logic was in supposing that because you posed this as a question in relation to UChicago, you were actually willing to entertain an answer in relation to UChicago.

If Chicago courses are, on average 1.2 times as much work (and presumably content) as Northwestern courses (based on the stated equivalencies to quarter hour credits), and the Chicago student took 21 courses due to expected overloading in three out of six quarters (rather than 18 courses by taking all standard load quarters), then the Chicago student will be ahead on credits compared to most students at other universities, but not ahead on credits compared to students at other universities who take similar higher than standard loads (to reach 105 quarter credits in six quarters or 70 semester credits in four semesters).

Presumably, Chicago has decided that “one course” should have an amount of workload and content that is 1.2 times larger (on average) than what Northwestern puts in “one course” (on average), based on each school’s conversion to quarter hour credits.

Note that some colleges have more variable credit courses. For example, Stanford has courses ranging from 1 to 6 units (quarter hour credits). Presumably, they (and other schools that have similar varying amounts of credit per course) do not believe in force-fitting courses into a standard size in terms of workload and content, but sizing courses based on what they believe are useful sizes to slice up a larger amount of content into.

You took things out of context. Several of us were going back and forth about admission essays, the possibilities of inauthenticity of such essays, and the fairness of their large influences on admissions. My skepticism has been expressed many times before in various forums (if you care to search) and was never directed at any particular school. It was based on my knowledge of some of the professionals who provided such services. I don’t have any knowledge of whether these professionals are specialists in targeting any particular school, but my understanding is they were targeting well-known “elite” schools. Now, it’s in this context I asked @JBStillFlying, who is from UChicago, that how UChicago could tell whether the essays weren’t the works of a professional. It was a question, not a comment (or an accusation of UChicago). If you keep looking at everything through your colored lens, it’s little wonder that you view everything that isn’t high praise as an attack on UChicago.

1 Like

I ask only that my lenses be clear and clean and that discussion be free and full. We are on a thread that was started on the Chicago board by a current Chicago student and references Chicago and Stanford in its title. That is the context in which essays and the possibilities of fakery thereof came up. It’s especially pertinent at a school in which essays figure so importantly. You have a view that fakery is a real concern, you want to devalue essays accordingly, and you explicitly reference Chicago. I pushed back against this. It’s a disagreement. Meh. No need to invoke the rhetorical heavy artillery.

If you care to go back in this thread, I did not bring up the issue of essays. I joined the discussion to express my view on them and asked another poster from UChicago a question that you took completely out of context.

“grades are correlated with learning the material.”

The UChicago website says that students are bonded by a love of learning. Why would you need grades to motivate kids who are there for the sake of learning? I’m not saying eliminate grades, just make it the student’s choice. BTW, most other colleges would agree with your statement, but I thought UC was this unique, love of learning place, where minds are expanded, not for a grade but for a higher purpose!

This thread is an illustration of the love of argument that UChicago inspires!

3 Likes

Oh I think that’s an accurate statement, although there are debates on other forums about whether UChicago students today are as committed to “life of the mind” as their elders were in another generation. But it’s an odd claim that love of learning can be correlated with little to no measure of performance. I think MIT is an exception with their particular policy; in general, liberal P/NP/NC policies tend to be associated with lack of seriousness and with reduced effort, particularly in the liberal arts. It’s associated with doing C- work. I’d argue that to introduce such a policy would conflict with UChicago’s own goal of providing a rigorous liberal education.

UChicago does indeed allow for P/NP to be worked out by the instructor and the student, and it applies mostly to electives. Core courses, which really make up a good chunk of the students’ first couple of years, must be taken for a quality grade, and many of those courses are pre-reqs for study in the major, with additional academic performance thresholds there. Grade policies within the major are set by the academic departments overseeing the program; some may, indeed, allow for a P/NP or two but it’s not typical. My two kids are in non-STEM/non-Econ majors and neither allows for P/NP, although one of them says that a student may petition in “exceptional circumstances.”

The good type of argument!

Let me bring my personal perspective. In Europe, where I am from and where I did my studies, we entered university direct to major and got a thorough education in this major. All other reading for fun or personal education or culture was done outside school, in our (significant) spare time and according to everybody’s interests, without the need to pay 70+k per year. The Europeans I know are no less curious, informed, and interesting to talk to even if they did not study the ancient philosophers in depth. The college years were ones of my happiest, and I don’t remember anybody stressing very much or crying ever, except because they broke up with their boyfriend or girlfriend. Despite this lack of stress and overwork, my classmates came out extremely well prepared in their (STEM) fields and are all very successful here in the US, including in academia.
Based on the CS example upthread, UChicago requires their students to pursue a more in-depth curriculum in subjects that are not of prime interest to its students (STEM classes for Humanities and Humanities classes for STEM majors) at the expense of more thorough and/or professional preparation in the subject or general area they actually want to study. I don’t understand how this is a good thing. It seems to me that my son, who likes to learn but also likes to sleep and socialize like most 18-yr olds, is much better attending Stanford where he was accepted REA in December. Despite the duck syndrome, Stanford seems a little more balanced.

A more detailed comparison between CS at Chicago and Stanford is below. There appear to many differences between the degree requirements at the 2 schools, some of which are listed below. This comparison assumes the students has few AP or other credits from HS.

The general theme seems to be that Stanford requires more courses and a greater degree of minimum rigor in the fields more directly related to the CS major, including both CS/Eng classes and math/science foundation classes. For example, Stanford requires 7 CS courses in the student’s CS specialization area + a senior project. In contrast Chicago, does not require a specialization or senior project, and instead offers students the option to take 3 courses in a specialization area, if they want. Stanford requires 3-4 math courses besides calc, and Chicago requires 1 math course besides calc.

Rather than in-CS-major courses, Chicago appears to have the greater relative rigor in non-STEM general ed as part of their core. Chicago’s humanities and social science core sequences appear to be more restrictive than Stanford and likely offer fewer opportunities for a student looking for a less rigorous option. A Stanford freshman has the option to fulfill a good portion of general ed requirements by doing an intensive and highly rigorous residence based liberal arts program like SLE, but this isn’t required, and most students do not choose SLE. Stanford gives students far more flexibility in which courses he/she may take to fulfill most of the out-of-major general ed requirements.

Non-STEM General Ed

  • Stanford requires ~12 courses split up as 3 reasoning (1 applied/quant, 1 ethical, and 1 formal), 3 writing (2 general and 1 in major), ~2 social inquiry, and 1 each of foreign language, creative expression, diversity, and thinking matters
  • Chicago requires ~11 courses split up as 3 social sciences, 2 humanities, 2 civ, ~2 foreign language, 1 arts, 1 HCA elective

Math and Science Foundation + STEM General Ed

  • Math Foundation – Stanford requires 6-7 courses (~3 post calc), Chicago requires 3-4 courses (~1 post calc)*
  • Science Foundation – Stanford requires freshman physics + elective, Chicago requires 4 electives (2 physical science related + 2 bio related)
  • Other STEM Electives – Stanford general ed includes 2 classes in scientific method, 2 classes in interpretive inquiry, and technology in society; some of which may be combined with other requirements, Chicago requires 3 STEM electives for BS and 0 for BA

CS Depth/Specialization Area

  • Stanford requires 7 courses in specialization, Chicago specializations have 3 courses and are optional
  • The following specializations are only offered at Stanford – Artificial Intelligence, Biocomputation, Engineering, Graphics, Individually Designed
  • The following specializations are only offered at Chicago – Security, Machine Learning, Programming Languages

CS Senior Project – Required at Stanford, Not required at Chicago

Total Courses and % of Total Graduation Units by Field

  • CS/Eng-- Stanford requires ~16-17 courses (36%), Chicago requires ~12-13 courses (30%)*
  • Math – Stanford requires ~6-7 courses (15%), Chicago requires ~3-4 courses (8%)*
  • Science – Stanford requires ~3 courses (6%), Chicago requires ~4 courses (10%)
  • Other STEM Elective – Stanford requires ~2 courses (5%), Chicago requires ~3 for BS (7%) and ~0 for BA (0%)
  • Non-STEM General Ed – Stanford requires ~12 courses (~26%), Chicago requires ~11 (26%)
  • Unrestricted Electives (with few AP credits) – Stanford has ~6 courses (13%), Chicago has ~8 courses for BS (19%) and ~11 courses for BA (26%)

*Counting 1-2 “theory” courses as math rather than CS.

1 Like

A difference in CS content can also be seen in the requirements for the dual BS/MS degree program at each school. Such program at UChicago can be completed in 4 years, while a similar program at Stanford requires a minimum of 5 years.

There’s an assumption underlying these comparisons of course hours and numbers for a STEM student that needs to be examined. It is this: that larger numbers equate directly to better ultimate accomplishment in the field.

As a cautionary tale arguing against such an assumption consider the case of Paul Alivisatos, who took a chemistry BS at Chicago in 1981, a time when the Core was even more rigidly prescribed and of longer duration than it is today (and incidentally a time when student life was at its most austere). Alivisatos took the absolute minimum number of required courses for a major in chemistry. He has said that he considered several other majors and was attracted to several other fields, including ones in the humanities and social sciences, before settling on chemistry. It was really on the basis of a single course in physical chemistry, one he was urged to take by a friend, that he experienced the revelation of what was to be his destiny. He has gone on to scale the heights in his field, to have had a long professorial career at UCBerkeley, to have authored a multitude of publications, created twenty or more patents, won the highest prizes the chemical world has to offer, been shortlisted for the Nobel, and become Berkeley’s Provost - oh, and a couple of days ago he was appointed the next President of the University of Chicago. In his statement on the announcement of his appointment he pays tribute to the unique culture of his alma mater, where it all started for him and which he says he intends to perpetuate for the benefit of others like himself.

@Data10, that’s a sample of one, a single life of an extraordinary figure. I put it out there as another paradigm of how a life of accomplishment in STEM can begin. Let me put it this way: One youngster may have made a final decision about his or her course in life before ever coming to college. All else is either an adornment or even an irritation for that student, whose focus on the essential thing narrowed early. I do not argue here that that student has not thriven or may not be destined for a life of high accomplishment in the chosen field and for happiness and fulfilment generally. It’s one model in a pluralistic universe. Another sort of youngster, however, will come to college with eclectic interests and a restless mind, wanting more than casual exposure to the “best that has been thought and said” in many fields, a way of looking at the world through many lenses. That student too has a path to a life of accomplishment and happiness, but it will be a different one.

Either of my paradigmatical college students could thrive at either of Chicago or Stanford, but can there be any doubt about the magnetic pulls differently exerted on them by those different institutions? @Mumfromca wonderfully describes Stanford’s appeal. Others on this board have described Chicago’s. There’s room in my world for both those excellent institutions.

Life is very long and one’s college years are very short. The essential thing, as Aristotle would put it, is to make the right choice of a beginning and to do it for the right reason. Thereby we maximize in the ultimate course of our lives our unique human potentials, whatever they may be.

Fully agree with your statement that both are wonderful institutions. I think that some of the animus in this thread comes from the first post in which the originator picks out one article complaining about various perceived failings at Stanford possibly in order to bolster UChicago.

I agree about the animus, @itsallgood123 , but I don’t think it’s quite fair to attribute it to OP, whose interest was in a discussion of differences of ethos between the schools. In particular he/she referenced two very salient issues - free speech and curriculum. These are both big deals at Chicago. Illuminating comparisons could have been made to Stanford without the animus.

The original heat mostly came from reactions against the piece by the young Stanford writer - a long series of attacks on her writerly skills, the accuracy of her description of the Hoover controversy, and especially her conclusions and even her character in respect of her complaint over the deletion of fencing and other sports at Stanford. There was a lot of politics in those attacks. They had nothing to do with the OP’s question and nothing to do with the University of Chicago. Eventually we got round to a connection with Chicago. That discussion dealt intermittently with larger questions, but there was an awfully lot of bean-counting of courses and hours in order to bolster the boast of supremacy in “rigor”. This even, crazily, devolved at one point into whether a particular exam in a Chicago calculus class was up to snuff. There was animus in that discussion as well, but it was not that of the OP, who had asked us a question about ethos in two specified areas - free speech/academic freedom and “approaches to undergraduate education at two elite universities”. Sigh.

We have let the OP down, but all the same a lot of interesting territory has been covered in this thread. Some thin skins have been exposed along the way. That’s life. We are human here.

I do not think that it was an “innocent” post by the OP. It seemed to be an effort to denigrate Stanford and boost UChicago. I think that is source of the animus. Even though this was not the motivation of the vast majority of posts, the original tone set by the OP was an underlying factor.

Ageed that OP, a current Chicago student, was likely to have a preferred position as between the ethos of Stanford and that of Chicago on these two matters. So what? As this extended discussion has shown, some prefer one, some another.

As for the matter of “innocence”, I take it as a given that Chicago undergrads are a wised-up lot. It’s a highly overrated virtue in any event - fine in a convent or a court of law, not so great if a robust discussion is what you’re after. Maybe that’s another distinction between these schools (joke).