<p>Mackinaw:
Agree with you! I've met fewer Reedies, but one person I consider an intellectual powerhouse transferred from Chicago to Reed. I haven't asked why, though.</p>
<p>nmd,
Your post #35 is such a disconnect from most of the statements I've made. You seem to read posts quite hurriedly & disconnectedly or out-of-context. I said a lot of nice things about Chicago, including repeatedly putting it right up there with all the other fine schools. Nor was I bashing -- except in the most inclusive sense of criticizing <em>all</em> colleges for pandering to the ego in an attempt to get more applicants in the pool, etc. -- via marketing, PR, other vehicles. If you haven't read these posts, or arent' interested in this general topic that applies to all colleges, including Chicago, then you're bound to take my comments out of that context in which I did inbed them. That fact, & it is a fact, has been noted by many more people than me, much earlier than me, on many more threads on College Confidential than this one. If you do not like to be told or reminded of that, you should save your wrath or discomfort for posters who have made much stronger assertions about this than myself. ALL colleges have a "spin" of one kind or another. I don't think it's a matter of deliberate "dishonesty," as you say, or even distortion. But I think that colleges do feed young egos & parental egos as part & parcel of their marketing attempts.</p>
<p>My citing websites, applications, official literature, lists of requirements, etc., & personal reports back from Chicago students themselves was not even collectively any attempt to "prove" that only a fanatically studious person would attend U of Ch. It was only an answer to the general question that seemed to be raised, Where in the world was I getting my information, & how dare I imply that Chicago students have a significant workload, beyond what many undergrads have at equally selective schools? Reputations come from somewhere; sometimes those reputations are justified, sometimes not. What you're telling me is that what's on their web pages, what's in their literature, & what is reported back from many freshmen, is in fact a distortion, even if not meant to be. If so, I don't think it is I who is doing a disservice to U of Chicago, or "bashing" them. I think it is Chicago who is doing that disservice to the public if such an impresssion contradicts, as you say, your own "extensive" experience.</p>
<p>This is one reason that College Confidential exists: to correct such misinformation. I don't see that as "sad." I see that as a positive correction.</p>
<p>You seem to have strong geographical prejudices. I said nothing about "kids in my area being overwhelmed." (What's THAT about?) Nor did I ever say anything close to, "I don't even get feedback from the ivy kids." That was absolutely nowhere in my posts. Quite the opposite, in fact. Some West Coast people are quite in touch with MidWest & East Coast schools. We are regularly informed -- or apparently you believe, misinformed (& I respect your difference of opinion) -- about U of Chicago from several people who go there. A grad of my D's h.s. regularly e-mails. People who visit U of Ch. from our territory report back on their impressions.</p>
<p>Sillystring,
I don't think you need to wax dramatic about it. I'm not going to "shoot you down in flames" because of your (very broad) statement about a "tendency...to denigrate schools that have been eliminated from lists." I haven't done this; you won't find it. In fact, as I think I PM'ed to someone else, I was actually regretful that my D didn't keep Chicago on her list. For a long time I regretted that -- possibly because my D has for some time been doing graduate level work in several of her demanding h.s. classes -- esp. those classes that are taught by teachers with doctorates in those fields. Also, Chicago has specific academic programs of interest to her. I still have mixed feelings about her decision, but I can see now her reasons for doing so, which do not pertain, BTW, to the supposed workload, ultimately.
Unlike you, I see the opposite, though. I see the need by some parents, esp., to set up comparisons & contrasts between "harder," "stronger," more "academic," and "more intellectual" colleges (which naturally their S's & D's will be attending) versus those rejected schools, which would be all the colleges (in this case, the non-U of Ch. schools) that our "less academic" students are going to. Nonsense. And if you think I'm making it up, there's another post that showed up here that repeats that just one more time, in case my D and other (poor) non-Chicagoans haven't gotten it yet: Chicago is "the" (not "a") school that "academics" (I guess that would be the universe of academics?) "like to send their children to."</p>
<p>Marite, I am not "running Chicago down." I am "running down" the really offensive insinuation of Chicago's academic & intellectual superiority to all the other 4-year institutions in this country. It is just not believable. My D and her friends "relish sharing reactions to the readings even outside of class," as I'll bet many of the other CC's kids do, too. And many of theirs are also not going to Chicago. Chicago does not have a patent on intellectual curiosity.</p>
<p>Geez. Give up the Superiority Trip already. We get it. Some of you seem to think your kids are better than ours, & that Chicago is a superior education to what ours have chosen. THAT is what is "sad."</p>
<p>"I am "running down" the really offensive insinuation of Chicago's academic & intellectual superiority to all the other 4-year institutions in this country....Geez. Give up the Superiority Trip already. We get it. Some of you seem to think your kids are better than ours, & that Chicago is a superior education to what ours have chosen."</p>
<p>Where did THIS come from? "superiority"? </p>
<p>Geesh.</p>
<p>I'll second that, newmassdad. Geesh.</p>
<p>I'll third the Geesh.</p>
<p>don't have time to sort through all of them, which is just as well, because I've dominated too much here, which was never my original intention. However, to number a couple, Posts #33 and #37 I would include in the citation. (Because you see even though students at other schools may be "just as bright," Ch. attracts a certain type, etc.). Um, those same "types" are abundantly present at other top schools. I don't care whether anyone who is a Chicago alum or with a child at Chicago believes that to be true; that's completely immaterial to me. Delude yourselves all you want into thinking Chicago attracts such an oh-so-different (read, superior level) student. If you are not such a parent, fine, this doesn't apply to you. There are parents here who keep communicating this, though. Oh, and BTW, my D was recruited for quite awhile by U of Ch., intensively, & just this academic year. That would be academic recruitment, not athletic recruitment. People who choose not to go there are not passing it up because they can't make the grade, don't want to study hard, etc. There are brilliant science majors who choose not to attend because of Chicago's particular science programs; there are students who don't care for the city of Chicago or partic. other things about the campus. Many who choose to go elsewhere are intellectually deep thinkers, oriented toward graduate level work, capable of original research, & have abundant, outside-of-class intellectual curiosity. This "type of student" phrase that Chicago supposedly "attracts" seems to be a code-phrase for some "elite" (not) appeal that keeps getting contrasted with non-Chicago students, & I just don't like the tone, that's all.
I will grant you, every single person's child/children here is unique, blessedly so. But Chicago is not unique in terms of its level of academic challenge, versus the other top US schools. Nor are the intellectual capabilities of its undergrads in some stratospheric galaxy above other undergrad students. I don't buy it.</p>
<p>I agree that there is a sort of snobbery about Chicago's intellectualism. I like Chicago very much, but it doesn't have the corner on intellectualism, and I thought that was Epiphany's initial point. We all know that there are some very astute and intellectual people at Claremont McKenna, and Vanderbilt, and Harvard. I can vouch for Princeton, where the junior independent work and senior theses are requirements, where I know my kid regularly commiserates about the incredible lectures available in such abundance that it is literally impossible to attend them all, and where the faculty are so active interdiciplinarily in the sciences, music, poetry, etc etc, that they are as involved in the life of the campus as are the students, and not only in book learning. </p>
<p>I don't disagree that Chicago is an intellectual place, but there are lots of others, and there are intellectual people who, with their own active and brilliant minds, are enhancing their own campuses all over the place. The danger is in presenting to kids who are intellectual that only a couple colleges are for true intellectuals, when we all know this is not true. CC is a great place to exchange viewpoints. I appreciate all of yours, and learn from them all of them.</p>
<p>I love you, cricket. Thank you!!!</p>
<p>I was feeling so alone. Let's continue to hope that those many "incredible" places to which you allude will continue to inspire. Given college admissions competition, we parents of still high-schoolers need all the intellectually challenging (& diversely so) institutions as possible, with the enrollment pressures, the selectivity, and all.</p>
<p>mackinaw,
as to your earlier post about Reed & Chicago. I don't mean to be offensive, but hello: Doesn't any reputable college of stature encourage kids to "think & work on their own," including developing independent research? I don't see how this makes Reed or Chicago special, unique, etc. It seems to me that is one of the sine qua nons of the college student experience, universally.</p>
<p>Now, if Chicago (or Reed) has succeeded in convincing their students, or their applicants, that this universal college experience (intellectual independence) is unique to either of their institutions, they have more successful marketers & PR people than even I believed, & those people could make a bundle in private business. Wow.</p>
<p>SillyString...I really appreciate the comments of a parent of a current student. As a parent of a "hopefully future" U0fC student, I have to say your perspective and others here is very welcome to me. We are looking for a campus where learning and the "love of learning" is the focus. My S has looked his entire life for an atmosphere like that...not one with a large greek/preppy/sports-oriented student body. He truly wants to go (yearns to go) to school to learn, not just from class and outside work and research, but maybe, even mostly from the students that surround him. Chicago IMHO has just got a different feel about it and my S immediately felt at home there. He heard from a friend how different Northwestern was as a comparison, so he never visited the campus. It is a good school, bright kids, but a very different feel...different focus. I'm not the most articulate, but I DO feel that schools like Swarthmore, Reed, and Chicago are on a somewhat different level of intellectual intensity overall than other schools. The Ivies are great but different, and I don't think they are what we are looking for.</p>
<p>Although my daughter attends the University of Chicago and is very happy there, I have never espoused the belief that is is better than all other schools. It is simply right for some students and not right for others. Truth be told, Chicago was not my first choice for her, but she was the one going to college, not me. She made her selection and is very happy with it. As I have said elsewhere, she recently told me she can't imagine any school that would be more "right" for her than UChicago. </p>
<p>My only complaint is a tendency of some individuals on CC -- and this is not specific to this thread -- to use their posts as a forum to justify their own decisions. You see it on the Ivy boards (no education can compare to an Ivy league education). You see in on the financial aid boards (parents who won't shell out $40,000 a year for their child's education are selfish/parents who do are are foolish). You see it on individual college boards (I have decided that xx school is right for me, hence it is the best school in the world/I have decided that xx school is not right for me, hence is irreparably flawed). </p>
<p>Like Cricket, I believe CC is a great place to exchange viewpoints. However, a certain "ick factor" sets in when an "I'm right and I'm going to pound my point home until I win the argument" mentality enters into the discussions. </p>
<p>Epiphany et al: Chicago isn't for everyone. I don't think anyone here believes students who elect not to attend are demonstrating a lack of commitment to scholarly pursuits. In my view, UChicago does attract certain types of students, and the qualities that inspire those students to attend UC are the same qualities that enable them to succeed at any other university. As I have said, my daughter does not find the school to be a "grind" and she does not study any more than she studied in high school. Yes, Chicago likes to bill itself as "the place where fun goes to die." In many ways, though, the motto instills in students a sense of pride and belonging -- and it's something they perpetuate, partly in fun.</p>
<p>KDos -- We posted at the same time. You made some great points.</p>
<p>epiph: "Doesn't any reputable college . . . ." No, they aren't all that demanding of all students.</p>
<p>Mackinaw beat me to it.</p>
<p>U/Chicago is an absolutely terrific school...and my D never even considered it. So there.
For absolute intellectual rigor, I rate Chicago very very highly. Note that this does not mean "best college for all students." Even very very bright students.</p>
<p>Okay, coming into this late, and no personal connections of any nature, positive or negative, towards UC. But I definitely read those comments,and the more recent ones, as running Chicago down.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the strand I see running through all your comments: "what makes them think they're all such smarty pants; kids at other schools are just as smart". Well, having had two kids at other schools, I have never found any comment about UC here or otherwise implying my kids or any other students are somehow lacking. I think you're reading that in where it isn't there, and that seems to be the source of the reaction you're getting from so many posters.</p>
<p>I think epiphany is getting such a strong reaction because she voiced her opinion very frankly, without the usual CC daintiness. Some parents whose children are very happy at Chicago and parents whose children are about to enroll took offense. Apparently epiphany hit some hot buttons. I don't pretend to be an expert based on a two day visit. I will say that my daughter's host is happy at Chicago, but she did tell my daughter that she finds the school lopsided and that many students are somewhat socially inept and overly invested in their intellectual strengths. She has a group of friends who she considers more with it, and she is very excited about her work. My daughter has concluded that she could be happy at Chicago if she takes the same approach. She also has concluded that she might be happier at a LAC. I'm not criticizing the group she found off-putting; they are very gifted and make tremendous contributions. She just likes to be with more social people. I'll give you an example of an encounter that turned her off. She said the tour guide praised Chicago to the skies, citing the off-cited list of Nobel Prize winners and the many experts in their fields. He then boasted that he picked Chicago and that he had many choices, including Harvard. "My Dad was a Harvard dean's best man, and we have many connections at Harvard, etc." He just seemed to take inordinate pride in his intellectual abilities and to lack the social graces or emotional maturity to know that it is not cool to brag about your connections. I actuallly can see my son making some of these same gaffes, and he would not have been put off by these things. Our love for our children and loyalty to/worries about their choices makes us all mother wolves at times. I have been surprised at the depth of feeling expressed in this thread. Some of you are intellectual powerhouses, and when you start analyzing all the nuances of opinions expressed on the board, you blow me away. I enjoy your fine minds. Hope we can conclude that Chicago is a fine institution, great for some, but not for all.</p>
<p>Like I said, though, I have no connections of any kind to Chicago, no axes to grind, yet I heard the same over-the-top-ness. </p>
<p>I don't think you need to be "dainty" in order to avoid a very faint hint of querulousness.</p>
<p>I'm coming in late too, but here's my two cents
Chicago admints about 3000 students for a class of about 1000 students. That means about 2000 "highly intellectual" students are going elsewhere. I'm speculating here, but I bet the majority of those 2000 "highly intellectual" students are choosing to attend the Ivies, if they've been accepted.</p>
<p>BTW: Chicago is #1 or #2 of my daughter's college choices. She's only considering one Ivy, even though I made her to apply to 3 others. My daughter is into this "life of the mind" schtick, but I think its pretentious. I insisted that she visit all her schools to see what the social scene was like. </p>
<p>Many of the colleges have visiting programs where prospective students can spend a night or two in a dorm with a student. If a college that interests you doesn't have such a program, you can probably dig up a student who won't mind sharing his/her room for a few nights. You can ask you college guidance counselor for the names of kids that are attending colleges that interest you.</p>
<p>My daughter always arranged her visits so that she could spend all day thursday, friday, and saturday at the schools. She slept over thursday, friday, and saturday nights. She attended classes, and then went to the clubs that interested her.</p>
<p>I can assure you that there are "normal" (whatever that means) kids everywhere, including Chicago.</p>
<p>Some of the kids in Chicago did strike me as highly intelletual .. but that's not the same thing as intelligent. I'm going to go down in flames for this, but the truly intelligent one's were the one's that knew how to talk to me - a non-intellectual. Those were the students who were gracious and kind and made my daughter feel welcome. I met only two so-called "intellectual" students when we visited Chicago, and had they been representative of the student population, my daughter would have nixed the school from the get-go. Here's another thing for which I'm going to get flamed ... those two kids were weird. Not eccentric ... weird.</p>
<p>The reason it pays to go on Thursday/Friday is because the week is winding down at that point, and kids have room to breathe. It was not until Thursday night that we really saw the social scene at Chicago (I never stayed friday and saturday .. that was her time). I was told there is not much of a social scene the rest of the week, because kids are studying. What's wrong with that? Grownups, when do you have a chance to unwind and see your friends and family?</p>
<p>While I have many impressions of Chicago, the impression that stays with me is a nice one. My daugher and I attended a rehearsal for an acappella choir on Thursday night. The lovely chorus of voices remains a beautiful lasting impression.</p>
<p>One last thing ... colleges always put their best students fowards to represent them on the official visits. That's why its important to stay for a few days, sleep over. But I want to say that the student that most impressed me was the representative from NYU .. non-Ivy, non-cc top 25. He was both highly intelligent and "intellectual", but he was one of the most charming and articulate people I have ever met. Charming and articulate, people skills, ambition and hard work ... in the long run, that's what makes people successful.</p>
<p>I'm like Garland. No personal connection of any kind, except noticing the kind of students C produces. I also think that posters confuse intelligent and intellectual, individual students and school atmosphere. As for social graces, intellectual/ intelligent individuals can be socially inept (file under "Larry Summers"). Students who pride themselves on their intellect may not be socially attractive (ask any high schooler who's accused of being a nerd).</p>
<p>You know, you would think that colleges would choose their most "presentable" students as tour guides, but we had some bad guides at Hampshire, Amherst, and Chicago. I kind of like that, because they were guileless and told some tales out of school. At Hampshire we were told how the administration had kids living on balconies because they overbooked, and the guide laughed at the library. At Kenyon a girl told us how boring and bleak life is in the winter, and she admitted the kids drink more than the admin likes. Another kid shared how great his study abroad was--all the classes were pass/fail, so he could devote time to studying pub crawling. Gotta love 'em.</p>
<p>Patty, what's "presentable" in a guide may be in the eye of the beholder; and what makes a guide effective may not be that they are "presentable" or even typical of the students at the college.</p>
<p>We loved our perky guide at Oberlin even through perky is not how I would describe Oberlin students. We admired the spunk of our Colby guide who was almost ready to break down doors so that we could see what we wanted to see, but Colby students are not known as spunky. We were totally turned off by our Williams guide who, in some ways, epitomized the things we didn't find attractive about Williams (e.g., jockiness) and didn't seem to have answers to questions about things that we did find attractive (the faculty, academics).</p>
<p>We never let the demeanor of a tour guide affect our evaluation of a college. But we did hope that the guides could provide access to some kinds of information.</p>
<p>Hey guys, let's play nice in the CC sandbox. It is true that we can't help but identify with our children to some extent - the mother/father-bear-fight impulses come up at any perceived 'threat' to their survival (in this case, the many-levels-diluted 'slight' that some posters have demonstrated on this thread). A growl is sufficient and is understood by all, the bear paw slap is overkill. </p>
<p>I would bet that most of the students referred to here are not nearly as touchy - my son, for example, has labeled me as a higher education fanatic, and views all of my CC activities with affectionate contempt. (He's right, of course. CC is seductive though, and I can resist anything but temptation). I have no skin in this game (yet - S applied RD) so there is no mother bear response trigger - I'm grateful for the informed opinions on both sides of this issue. </p>
<p>Working hard, for its own sake, has some intrinsic value as a welcome-to-the-real-world glimpse and as a test of character. If by 'working hard' we are referring to exacting academic standards, and an expectation by the college that the student welcomes the opportunity and will therefore do what it takes to maximize it, I'm all for it. Genuine intellectual challenges are priceless developmental opportunities. </p>
<p>If we are referring to how much work outside of class is assigned, e.g., School A tends to require five 20-page papers for a humanities course versus School B which tends to require one, this can be debated. How much work (number of pages read, papers written, labs attended, etc.) is enough to demonstrate mastery?' Reminds me of William Hurt's character in Body Heat - "Mattie was absolutely ruthless. She would do what was necessary." All subject areas are open-ended, and never learned or mastered to the maximum possible degree over the course of any lifetime. So unless you apply outcomes to the consideration of 'how much is enough,' such as job placement or acceptance to grad/prof programs, it is hard to measure what is 'necessary' or 'sufficient.'</p>
<p>There is a strong subjective component to this decision, as the attraction to one style of academic environment or another varies with the student. Some may have worlds of potential and also recognize that they need to be pushed to fulfill that potential - the five 20-page papers. Others may place a higher priority on a balanced life and feel confident that they can get what they need in a lower workload environment - one 20-page paper. </p>
<p>At S's independent middle school, the educational guidelines were to demonstrate learning by an emphasis on output. This meant lots of homework - from two to four hours a night, depending on the student's work speed. Since he had come from a Montessori elementary school that required virtually no homework, I viewed the school's approach as a mechanism to over-correct his output expectations for a few years. However, when I saw much of the work did not extend conceptual learning, but was in fact 'busy work,' I developed a negative attitude towards the school's approach. S's high school, on the other hand does not believe in loading them up with lots of homework, and the teachers mostly don't (with the exception of AP Calc B/C and AP Chem last year). S adapted to both approachs, prefers the latter (more time for rehearsals).</p>
<p>In our professions, although we may enjoy our work and keep abreast of the latest developments, most of us just 'do what is necessary' to solve the problems, produce the products/briefs/whatever, and meet deadlines. Birds don't eat themselves to death, horses don't run themselves to death, water finds its own level.</p>