<p>I don’t know that I am well-educated enough to have gone to the University of Chicago. I just get to write it lots of checks, and to visit it periodically and buy dinner for some of its denizens.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>GoBlueJays, I’m both shocked and chagrined at the treatment you and your family received from the admissions dep’t. Like you said, you deserved better and I hope that the adcom people read your story and make improvements if not amends.</p>
<p>Not that it makes up for anything, but UChicago has seen a great deal of growth in applicants in a relatively short time and it’s not inconceivable that the adcom folks were caught off guard and unprepared for the increase. </p>
<p>However, considering that this growth was planned by the administration, there is really no excuse for dropping the ball like that.</p>
<p>I hope that your kids have a rewarding experience at their chosen schools –</p>
<p>At least in my experience, I think that the University of Chicago is one of the, if not the, worst administratively-run top schools in the nation. Things just don’t run as smoothly as they should. This includes the admissions office, dining halls, construction projects, even the website (as in cmore et al. that those on the outside don’t see). Chicago could do much better than this, and it’s a shame that there’s such mismanagement on so many fronts. I think these aspects are getting better, but the growth is slow.</p>
<p>JHS, thank you. I should have really said that I truly appreciate your thought out responses, regardless of educational background, I don’t mean to suggest that one has to be from U of C to act civilly. Sorry, my bad…And I empathize with the check-writing-dinner-buying role you have, I have to do the same in Baltimore ! Write on !</p>
<p>IloveU ofC, thank you for listening, I do hope it changes for the future, the school is quite a national and international draw…</p>
<p>phuriku,</p>
<p>The reason things don’t always run smoothly at UofC is because its administration is very lean compared to its peers. I don’t know why, but strangely, it is a point of pride with the place. A cultural thing I suppose.</p>
<p>@JHS: first let me say what I think a “general education” curriculum means, as opposed to a “core.” Chicago has a bit of both. Gen ed courses are intentionally NOT part of the the sequence for majors; they are not introductions to particular areas of inquiry. Typically they are interdisclinary, often problem-focused rather than dealing with methods and materials associated with particular discipinary training. </p>
<p>Gen ed courses may be “civilization” types of courses, or “social inquiry” types of courses, and perhaps an amalgam of subject matters (e.g. art, literature, philosophy, history) roled into a given course. In my own personal experience, that was what Hum 110 and Hum 210 did at Reed. </p>
<p>Chicago still has such gen ed courses. It has more of them on the books than Reed does. However, unlike Reed, in which ALL students take Hum 110 for a year (equivalent to about 12 semester credit-hours of “classics”), there is no single course at UChicago that EVERY student must take.</p>
<p>But then there’s Chicago’s “core,” which includes both ged ed courses and requirements in math, science, and language that DO qualify as foundational in particular majors or disciplines. Those other required courses are what are referred to as “distribution requirements” at many other colleges (you must take, say, 3 courses in the sciences, 3 in the social sciences, 2 years of language, etc. And they can be intro or more advanced courses in disciplines.)</p>
<p>Many years ago, I taught as a commuting adjunct professor at UChicago for a semester. Nobody in the department that I taught in had any connection to the “gen ed” courses. One or two were in “the core” in the sense that they offered courses that students might take to satisfy their core distribution requirements. I think the desire of faculty, perhaps especially junior faculty in the tenure stream, to teach in their discipline at undergraduate and graduate levels meant that they felt put upon if they were asked to teach a “gen ed” course.</p>
<p>For sure, I didn’t make a study of this, but that’s my general impression of how things work (or worked ca. 20 years ago) at UofC.</p>
<p>And I do see “gen ed” requirements falling out of favor nationally if this means courses that are outside of disciplines or are transdisciplinary and are meant to serve as foundational for first and second year students – not as interdisciplinary capstone courses for seniors. If by “gen ed” you are referring to what I have called “distribution requiremnts,” I agree with you: universities and colleges still want their student bodies to be exposed to or to demonstrate skills in certain areas (e.g., math, language). But this isn’t the same as “gen ed” as the term has traditionally been understood.</p>
<p>That’s very interesting, but almost the opposite of how I think the terms get used currently. I see “gen ed” used for distributional requirements all the time, and “core” used only where there are specific, usually transdisciplinary, usually non-major-qualifying courses everyone is required to take. “Gen ed” sometimes includes things like freshman seminars, too, which would fit your concept; they are extremely popular.</p>
<p>Your sense of the current Chicago program is maybe a little off, but you are right that it is a hybrid.</p>
<p>There are three sets of non-departmental, transdisciplinary (supposedly) courses: Hum[anities], Sosc[ial Sciences], and Civ[ilization]. One has to take three quarters of a single sequence of Sosc, at least two of a single sequence of Hum, and at least two of a single sequence of Civ. </p>
<p>Hum and Sosc each involve a limited menu of courses with substantially overlapping syllabi. So technically it’s not the case that all students ever have to take a single course, but it is absolutely the case that all students will have a very substantial overlap in what they have studied in Hum and Sosc with every other student, and I believe there are a bunch of texts that are, in fact, studied by everyone (among them the Iliad, Inferno, Wealth of Nations, some Marx, some Freud). Many sections of Hum and Sosc are taught by tenured professors, although they will rarely teach more than one quarter out of a sequence. No Hum or Sosc courses qualify for major credit anywhere.</p>
<p>Civ courses are all over the lot. Some are general survey courses, others very focused. They tend to look an awful lot like cultural history courses. Lots of them are taught by tenured faculty. I believe that many of them can qualify for major credit, as long as they are not also used to meet the Civ requirement.</p>
<p>Then there are arts classes, one or two quarters (must add up to four with Hum). These are not transdisciplinary, and can qualify for major credit if the core requirement has been satisfied with other courses. However, not any old arts classes qualify; only designated ones satisfy the core. Some of them are taught by tenured faculty – the one my daughter took certainly was (but not my son’s). (He liked his; she didn’t.)</p>
<p>Language and math are pure distributional requirements. You have to get credit for at least three quarters of a foreign language and two of calculus. You can test out of the requirement. The courses you take can be applied to a major.</p>
<p>Science is a hybrid. Everyone must take at least two quarters of physical science and two quarters of biological science. These requirements can be met by the standard introductory courses in biology, physics, or chemistry, or by special courses designed for non-science majors, some of which are “lite” versions of standard courses, some of which are interdisciplinary, and some of which are highly focused “topical” courses that drill down on a specific issue. I know many of the latter are taught by tenured faculty, and I think some of the others are as well. Regular science majors sometimes take the topics courses as electives, because they are interesting and may be taught by great faculty.</p>
<p>@hyeonjlee and phiruku: Your posts #251 and #252, respectively, are very insightful and well received.</p>
<p>@GoBlueJays: Your dismay towards Chicago is completely understandable. I sincerely hope that your daughters receive the proper treatment at many other fine institutions and matriculate into the college(s) of their choice.</p>
<p>I am posting these thoughts on behalf of another member who has personally contacted me. </p>
<p>Many prospective students may view the lack of undergraduate focus at Chicago as a
major drawback to the university. Chicago has approximately 10,000 graduate students versus 5,000 undergraduate students. But a large graduate student population does not necessarily decrease the quality of the education provided to the undergraduate students. In fact, in many respects, a sustained graduate focus can actually tremendously benefit the undergraduates.</p>
<p>Moreover, two of its most prominent science facilities received substantial support from the economic stimulus package recently. The Obama administration provided $750M to science laboratories, $50M (approximately 7% of the total) of which was provided to Fermilab and Argonne National Laboratory, two facilities directly managed by the University of Chicago.</p>
<p>you U of C guys have got to learn to get over Obama.He was only a lecturer at your law school, it’s not like he discovered the cure for cancer or wrote some tomes during his tenure at your esteemed institution…and he is now not highly thought of,( last approval rating = 40%, here we come, George W. !.. despite ( or especially because of ) that Nobel prize ( for what ? Getting us out of the economic /military/medical quagmire… hah !). He’s a patsy for the banks and the republicans. Read Paul Krugman’s NY Times blog. Your 84 other nobel laureates are much more worthy. And if Barry O’s admin did give 750 mill to the science dept, don’t forget…it came from the Chinese, whom our children’s children’s children’s children’s children will be paying back for decades to come. About the" Audacity of Hope"…Buy the book, sell the stock.</p>
<p>Mifune, I had not seen your post , thank you , it was very kind of you. My daughters are happy where they are, I always tell them to excel, and don’t look back. I don’t let my disdain for the administrative shortcomings of U of C spill over into my opinion of the academics, it truly is world class, and deserving of HYP status ( and vice versa). I think that the level of discourse from you and the other posters here speaks so much more of U of C than anything else, and I do hope U of C , or an equivalent teaching institution is in their futures…</p>
<p>^Thanks, I appreciate your comments! I will be very happy if Chicago is my eventual college destination.</p>
<p>But yes, despite my own politically left-of-center beliefs (with a few main exceptions), I do not see Obama as the world’s savior (nor is anyone) and what I stated in post #289 was not a political endorsement. But even with Obama’s relatively limited role with Chicago, I would not proceed to state that the other 84 Nobel laureates are much better embodiments of the school. Also, I am not quite sure regarding the message that you wish to communicate regarding the “$750 million from the Chinese.”</p>
<p>I would prefer that this NOT turn into the Politics forum. On the topic of Obama just being a “lecturer” at the law school, however – that’s very misleading. He was offered a tenure-track position a number of times, which he turned down. For many years the law school WAS his primary source of income, and he taught close to a full course load there. He had an office and participated in the life of the faculty, which is not common for adjuncts. His precise title (which I forget, something like “senior lecturer”) was shared by one other teacher there: Judge Richard Posner, of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Now, anyone who knows anything about the University of Chicago Law School knows that Posner was the dominant intellectual force on the faculty there for over 20 years, and to some extent remains the dominant intellectual force on the faculty there. Giving Obama the same official status as Posner speaks volumes about how highly he was regarded there. Not that Obama had as much influence as Posner, but more that he was someone who had the full respect of the faculty.</p>
<p>Three people to whom Obama was close as a law school faculty member have fairly prominent roles in his administration: Austan Goolsbee, Cass Sunstein, and Elena Kagan.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is not accurate. Neither lab is directly managed by UofC. Fermilab is managed by:
</p>
<p>Argonne is managed by UChicago Argonne, LLC , which was put in place when the contract was rebid a few years ago partly to address deficiencies in UofC’s past management of the lab.
Bringing together UofC and Jacobs was rather a shotgun wedding. </p>
<p>While both of these facilities benefit UofC, they are National Laboratories, open to any qualified scientist. Some scientists have joint appointments at UofC and Fermi or Argonne, but not that many, and probably no more than are associated with Northwestern, UI or UIC (but I have not checked, just guessing) I have some recent direct experience with both the management and science at Argonne, and can assure you that the cross-over to UofC is not that great.</p>
<p>Just a quick note on the Core. S1 took one of those non-major bio sequences and found it to be plenty of work and the second course really fascinating. It was taught by a very well known MD neurologist who included med students and from time-to-time his residents in the course. It was an extraordinary experience for him. The point is, even the so called non-science major course requirements are far from “rocks for jocks” courses. The Core is taken seriously. </p>
<p>The University has an interesting history of appointing faculty to College separately from their graduate departments. One can hold an appoint to a division and not to the College, or to the College and not to a division or department (rare). This was done to encourage camaraderie and cooperation between faculty of the College without as much departmental or turf influences entering into decisions about what was taught and why. This is one reason why over the years the College was a leader in developing and providing interdisciplinary courses and sequences. At one time this was considered quite revolutionary. Though more common now elsewhere, it is still a hallmark of the College. The University has always been the leader in defining liberal education (it even invented the “major”) and is likely to continue to be so.</p>
<p>Actually, since January 1, 2007, Fermilab has been a joint business enterprise of the University of Chicago and the Universities Research Association. Fermi Research Alliance (FRA) is an inclusive term to describe the partnership.</p>
<p>Argonne National Laboratory is managed by the University of Chicago and Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. for the US Department of Energy.</p>
<p>So yes, although the University of Chicago does not * exclusively * manage either, it shares a fair amount of the responsibility.</p>
<p>mifune, </p>
<p>you misunderstand partnerships like this. It is not correct to say that Chicago shares responsibility for the management. The FRA has UofC as a member. This mans UofC has one or more representative on the management board. Argonne is similar. </p>
<p>In practice, either entity (Argonne or Fermi) has accountability to DOE, who funds and has ultimate management responsibility for the labs. The reasons DOE does not directly manage, using these entities instead are complex and way beyond the scope of discussion here, but the impact of this approach is that UofC has no direct influence over the labs, and sees little benefit beyond what any other university could achieve. </p>
<p>Because UofC among others are the nearest major research unis, of course they get a disproportionate benefit than, say, University of Texas, but not by a huge amount.</p>
<p>The management for the national laboratories is somewhat explained in these two links. The University does share responsibility with other members, but does retain a special role it appears. The partnership for the Fermi Lab is between the University and the Universities Research Association of which the University is also member. A similar partnership exist for Argonne Lab.</p>
<p>[Argonne</a> Lab gets high marks from DOE](<a href=“http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/070301/argonnemarks.shtml]Argonne”>Argonne Lab gets high marks from DOE)
[The</a> University of Chicago Magazine](<a href=“http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0712/chicagojournal/fermi.shtml]The”>The University of Chicago Magazine)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Zimmer chairs the FRA Board of Directors (Fermi Lab) as well.</p>
<p>Please accept my apologies for my brief dalliance with the political side of things. I guess it’s because I’m not from U of C that I see Obama that way, and let’s just chalk it up to my lack of knowledge of his depth of involvement out there. Perhaps I’m a bit jealous, perhaps I just write too freely. </p>
<p>Mifune , I wish you the best in your academic travels ! Reading comments from posters with knowledge of U of C has certainly made me rethink my impressions. Compassion goes hand in hand with passion for one’s field of study and by implication, one’s alma mater, and I can see all that here. Sorry to get all sappy…</p>
<p>Gobluejay,</p>
<p>Your gracious attitude is very refreshing. Your negative experience with Chicago is a shame, and I hope they will improve upon that. But I liked the way you took other people’s clarification graciously.</p>
<p>I follow a few CC forums: parent forum plus a few school specific forums to collect information for my son. Though Chicago is a real reach for him, I come here occasionally. I see a real difference here in terms of the tone and direction of the discussion. Regular folks (adults and students who participate in adult discussion) are civil and knowledgeable, and present fact based reasoned argument even they clearly disagree. This is MUCH MORE than what I can say about some other forums where the regulars have no inhibitions about character assassination on any outsiders (e.g., potential candidates and their parents) who express concerns/negative sentiments about the school. I wonder if the general “sub culture” of the school is also reflected in the way people discuss and debate on the school forum. If that’s the case, I am thinking twice about a couple of schools that would be my son’s top choices.</p>
<p>Recently, I see some people who have nothing to do with Chicago are coming here to hurl cheap shots at Chicago - mainly those who don’t present well thought out arguments, but rather go on and on and on twisting and turning what others are saying on semantics with a clear goal to put down the school. Some people have A LOT of time on their hand. I am barely keeping up the vital information necessary to help my own kids.</p>