University Ethos at Stanford and Chicago

Parents Forum
163

There actually was a similar issue at UChicago not too long ago with Harald Uhlig at the Econ dept. It was a nothingburger but the twitter mob did try to deplatform him and take away his editor position on the JPE (one of the top economics journals in the world). Apparently they didn’t like his unflattering opinion regarding Defund the Police. UChicago responded completely appropriately: they investigated the formal accusations of racial discrimination by a former student of color, found them to be unsubstantiated, and that was that. The bar in this case was a bit higher: UChicago is famous for not censoring its faculty so it was necessary to come up with some incident demonstrating racial discrimination in the context of his work.

Read about it here from Wiki, and there’s a link to the NYT article (paywall):

## Controversy[edit]

In June 2020, using Twitter, Uhlig compared people who supported defunding the police to “flat-earthers and creationists”, due to the lack of scientific evidence that supports the movement, causing controversy, covered in The New York Times.[6] Since the publication, unverified allegations of discriminatory conduct have resurfaced.[7] He was temporarily placed on leave as editor at the Journal of Political Economy “pending a determination of the Board as to whether it would be appropriate for him to continue in that role given recent accusations of discriminatory conduct in a University classroom setting.”[8] He has since been reinstated after a finding that “there is not a basis for a further investigation or disciplinary proceeding”,[9] concluding that allegations against him were unfounded. His ties to the Chicago Federal Reserve, however, remain severed.[10]

1 Like
164

Returning back to ethos and what constitutes a good undergraduate education:

A few years back, I was generally very sympathetic to the view that forcing undergrads to study subjects that they have no interest in is authoritative and despotic.

But now, I have completely changed my view on this. I would like to share how I got here

When I was in high school and even here at UChicago, I sometimes ran into this notion that epistemology, truth and even language is all relative and is analyzed by individuals trapped in their cultural frameworks. Hence any one view is as rational or equally valid as any other and there is no objective way to assess and evaluate knowledge at all.

In other words, demanding evidence, formulating falsifiable hypothesis, looking for alternative explanations are all “hegemonic manifestations of power” and are no more valid than just saying “It’s is true for me based on my experiences”

When I first heard this viewpoint, I was flabbergasted but ill equipped to counter it or even think through how to process it. I had no tools to deal with this line of thinking

But now as I read Plato, Hobbes, Foucault, Derrida, Fanon, Said and many others, I have acquired a totally different set of tools, which have helped me understand their arguments, and then analyze their strengths and weaknesses as well as formulate my own thoughts on their work

I would never have known these authors, left to my own devices. I just didn’t have the wisdom to seek out their works. I would have taken some very superficial course in humanities or philosophy and exited college and would have been hit with this avalanche of reasoning that is now sweeping America and would have no useful tools to process it.

I am so thankful that UChicago basically said "We don’t care what your interests are, but we are not going to allow you to graduate from here and embarrass yourself in the real world. You will become knowledgeable in a broad variety of topics, enough to hold a reasonable and reasoned opinion on topics that will influence your life.

I have gone from a very laissez-faire view of education to becoming a big believer in strong and structured general education requirements because I don’t think my life experiences would have let me get the most benefit from a laissez-faire education approach

It has been a very stressful three quarters but I have grown so much here!!! I feel that my cognition has exploded by several orders of magnitude!! :scream:

4 Likes
165

Other places have uncritically adopted a “Derrida-inspired” “anything goes” philosophy of liberal ed. At UChicago they don’t do that. Instead they make you read and analyze Derrida!

With all the criticism of ED, I’m surprise no one’s picked up on how restrictive and choice-deprived the Core Curriculum really is. There has really only been one honest soul over the years who described it as an overpriced Great Books program and regretted participating.

Other universities offer a liberal education option but it’s an option. Students don’t have to take it - the degree with or without is the same. Thus, the temptation to avoid is pretty strong, and - anecdotally - I understand that the mindset on campus can be “why do all that work?” This will vary by institution, of course.

I asked this upthread - maybe I missed or overlooked the answer? - how many of Stanford’s undergraduates do SLE?

166

Only a small minority of students do SLE. There may be a max available space limitation since it involves living in a particular set of dorms.

It sounds like Stanford and many other colleges have a fundamentally different approach than Chicago. Stanford tries to admit students who have “intellectual vitality” and genuinely enjoy learning. The also try to admit students who will take advantage of Stanford’s many unique opportunities and resources. The admission system has applicant ratings related to both of these categories.

These many unique opportunities and resources include SLE, but are not limited to just SLE or just taking general ed requirements that have a reputation for being meaningful. They also include things like taking advantage of Stanford’s unique co-terminal masters, research opportunities, business/entrepreneurial opportunities, choosing to take classes outside of primary major, clubs including club teams, organizing something to assist community in EPA, studying abroad, working on Stanford’s solar car team, being editor of a newspaper that represents a unique niche area like the author of the article, etc. There are countless options, but Stanford forces students to do very few of them and instead admits students who are likely to take advantage of the many more available opportunities than were available during HS.

It’s been my observation that for the most part, students do take advantage of opportunities, even though only a small minority do SLE. These opportunities include, but are not limited to academic ones. For example, a much larger portion do things like pursue a minor in humanities. One of the 3 most common minors is a humanities field. As mentioned, co-terminal masters is another popular academic option that ~1/3 of undergrad students complete. Many students do research, or a double/joint major outside of primary field, or an honors thesis, etc.

I have no idea what portion of students read classical philosophical texts during their time at Stanford, but I expect it’s quite significant. I’m definitely a “techie” rather than “fuzzy” (Stanford terms), but even I took a class that involved reading Plato, Aristotle, and numerous other philosophers that I don’t recall. My main impression was philosophy wasn’t for me. However, I did find many other fields outside of my HS interests during my time at Stanford that I would have never planned on. For example, I much more enjoyed hearing Robert Sapolsky’s lectures about neuroendocrinology and stories about darting baboons in Africa, then measuring hormones corresponding to social behaviors. His texts are really enjoyable reading and surprisingly popular among non-students. Looking him up just now, I see he has new (to me) book called Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst, which I plan to purchase and read for fun.

1 Like
167

About 1/3 of the Class of '20 at UChicago graduated with more than one major, and for Winter '21 it appears that of all declared majors, about 70% are primary majors while 30% are secondary, tertiary, etc. So double or triple majoring at UChicago is common, though by no means the chosen path for the majority. In addition to the 5,400 or so declared majors, there are currently 643 declared minors. From what I can see, humanities takes up a little over a third of the minors, about 18.5% of primary majors, and about 20% of all majors (primary, secondary, tertiary, etc). I don’t count several subjects in that, by the way, as history, history of science, comparative race and ethnic studies, and some other ethnic studies are actually considered to be social sciences at UChicago.

The difference between UChicago and Stanford or many other places is that acquire expertise to be a techie AND a fuzzy. Regardless of your eventual major, double major, triple minor, E/C’s and internships, you still have a pretty hefty dose of a liberal education as the foundation.

Most top schools are able to admit people who genuinely enjoy learning and will take advantage of what that institution has to offer. College - particularly at the top - is transformative. Whether “intellectual vitality” “intellectual curiosity” or “inquisitiveness” or any other term defines their candidates, each institution knows exactly what it is looking for.

1 Like
168

When I’ve heard the terms, it most typically refers to major selection or the field(s) in which the student takes the bulk of their classes in as an upperclassmen, rather than the fields that the student is introduced to in freshmen core/general ed type classes. Stanford has made some effort to better integrate “fuzzy” and “techie” majors in recent years, such as the previous discussed CS+X, which integrated CS with a humanities major including a track for CS + classics. Stanford also offers some unique and popular IDP majors that combine the “fuzzy” and “techie” to some degree, such as Human Biology (used to be most popular major, before recent CS increase) and Science, Technology and Society (among top 10 most popular majors). More detail about these fields is below. The terms seems to be less commonly used today than when I attended, which is probably a good change for a variety of reasons, including sometimes having a negative connotation (for both terms) and encouraging a divide.

Human Biology – “Human Biology provides students with a broad, comprehensive, and rigorous introduction to the biological and behavioral sciences and their interrelationships through a sequence of common core courses. Students explore how this knowledge, in conjunction with studies in other disciplines, can be applied to formulate and evaluate health, environmental, and other policies and practices that influence human welfare”

Science, Technology, and Society – “One of the only majors at Stanford to offer both a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science degree, STS majors develop depth within two or three fields of study while fostering a broad understanding of the technical and social dimensions of science and technology. STS provides an arena for dialogue among students of engineering, humanities, the natural sciences and the social sciences: a common ground where ideas that transcend the divisions between fields are not merely envisioned, but practiced.”

That said, it can be difficult to be both a “fuzzy” and “techie”, particularly in engineering due to the large number of required classes, with a series of sequential prerequesites . These required prerequesites typically go beyond the type of STEM classes found in a core/general ed requirement, so it’s not just a matter of “acquiring expertise” in core/general ed requriement. If anything, a large number of required “core” classes might make scheduling the required foundation classes for engineering awkward, rather than serving a source for the “acquiring expertise” required for an engineering “techie” major .

For example, a flowchart for a Chemical Engineering major at Stanford is at https://stanford.app.box.com/s/i9ayleuxm0aw5p0t9oa9xoattllrkfjn . If a student decides to switch to Chem Eng later on and does not take a full year of math and chem foundation classes in freshman year, then they may not be able to catch up enough to finish a Chem Eng degree in 4 years since the sophomore year classes require the freshman math/chem, and the upperclassmen in-major classes require the sophomore classes. It would also be quite challenging to fit in a humanities major on top of all of the above courses and graduate in 4 years, unless the student started college with a lot of credits. Many Chem Engs also have other academic goals beyond just the bachelor’s, including things like pre-med, which can add further restrictions.

169

For the honor of UChicago I have to mention Indiana Jones and the Martian - stand-up guys with a distinctly scholarly bent. That’s our ethos! As a recent admit proclaimed, “Maroons, not baboons!”

Ok, but we also have to include Harry Burns and the lovable but “high-maintenance” Sally from When Harry Met Sally.

2 Likes
170

You’re not suggesting are you, @hebegebe , that there’s an element of quirkiness in the U of C typology? --Choose your weapons!

1 Like
171

I would agree with Data10 that Stanford would be difficult for someone to be a techie and a fuzzy. My DD was intrigued by that opportunity at UChicago where she will graduate in June in Molecular Engineering (Bio track) and Creative Writing. She is the kind of kid that reads On Writing, Memoir of the Craft by Stephen King on her own, while taking 5 courses split between engineering and creative writing. UChicago does not require the same amount of courses (albeit the requirements are increasing) that Stanford does for engineering which allows a greater flexibility in double majoring in the “fuzzy” fields.

1 Like
172

fuzzy-techie (when the techie is Engineering) is extremely difficult at pretty much every college. Earning a ABET in four years just does not allow for many non-STEM electives.

1 Like
173

ABET minimum is 1/4 math and natural science, 3/8 engineering science and engineering design. Many engineering programs have more technical course requirements than that. However, Stanford engineering majors appear to be right at the ABET minimum (or slightly less for those where it has dropped ABET accreditation), so that still leaves about 3/8 of the course work for non-technical courses if desired.

174

"but now as I read Plato, Hobbes, Foucault, Derrida, Fanon, S

I would respect the core curriculum more (not just Chicago, anywhere) if it also had an equal amount of emphasis on science and math. You can also learn a lot and get valuable tools by studying them.

Why do UChicago people keep name dropping philosophers?

175

UChicago has an equal emphasis on science and math in its core curriculum.

176

“Most top schools are able to admit people who genuinely enjoy learning and will take advantage of what that institution has to offer.”

Even top schools have students that are there because they want a job or career afterwards. Kids go to college for different reasons. Are you saying MIT or Cal Tech don’t have students that enjoy learning? The students there value learning as much as at Chicago, maybe more.

177

UChicago does not have equal emphasis, there’s more humanities and social sciences than math/science. And it’s watered down for non-stem majors, there’s a whole section on taking physical science for non-stem majors and avoiding calculus for non-stem. That is not an equal or as rigorous an emphasis. And these posts mentioning philosophers and not scientists is also indicative.

178

Ooh I know the answer to this one!

179

it was meant as a rhetorical question, but of course anyone’s welcome to answer.

“Thurston Howell III (Giligan’s Island).”

One of my favorite characters, thanks for bringing him up. His biggest insult would be to call someone a Yale man!

180

Sure, if you don’t consider the social sciences…science. I’m sure some Econ majors might disagree.

181

The Curriculum < University of Chicago Catalog describes the Chicago core curriculum.

It includes:

  • 6 courses of humanities, civilization studies, and arts
    • 2 course sequence in humanities
    • 2 course sequence in civilization studies
    • 1 course in arts
    • 1 any of the above
  • 6 courses of natural sciences and mathematical sciences (non-major, non-calculus courses allowed)
    • 2 course sequence in physical sciences
    • 2 course sequence in biological science
    • 1 course in mathematical sciences
    • 1 any of the above (or second calculus course if calculus is used for the mathematical sciences)
  • 3 course sequence in social sciences
182

Isn’t economics also known as the “dismal science”?