<p>As I’m an alum from the 90s, ObjectivePerson’s criticisms certainly ring true for a certain band of UChicago alums, and I believe these criticisms definitely resonate with many members of my cohort. Students felt the school was a cold, isolating place, where the administration cared very little about student growth, and the college was almost an afterthought at times.</p>
<p>My issue, though, is Objectiveperson’s criticisms don’t seem to capture UChicago today. If for nothing else, they’ve brought in a dean of admissions who seems quite focused on attracting more “well-rounded” individuals in the first place, which means that these students will most likely continue to pursue such activities during their college years. </p>
<p>Additionally, the administration seems to heed student requests for a type of infrastructure that does not immediately remained embedded in traditional academia. The Logan Arts Center is an example of this, as is the fact that the university is investing to bring various retail and entertainment options (a new movie theater, restaurants, etc.) into the area, as is the fact that the University now allows its students to take practical (e.g. accounting, marketing, etc.) classes at UChicago’s professional schools. </p>
<p>Again, I think Objectiveperson’s claims have merit, but they seem outdated. This would be akin to a Penn graduate from the 90s talking about how the school was letting its facilities go to waste and was refusing to engage with West Philadelphia. This was certainly the case in the 80s/90s, but has changed markedly since that time.</p>
<p>I forgot how terrible College Confidential is. I’ve been enjoying UChicago and totally forgot that inferiority complexes about college decisions were a thing.</p>
<p>Ohhh… University of Chicago. Do I get instate tuition?</p>
<p>
The day 2+2 = 5. Or did you want me to tell you more about how I think it’s amazing that you can get a 2300 *and<a href=“gasp!”>/i</a> “party” at the same time. I also don’t understand how you’re a “fan” of the Chicago School of Economics. That’s like someone saying they’re a fan of geometry. Were you stimulated by Capitalism and Freedom? By Sowell? Are you a fan of Fama?</p>
<p>On a more serious and less sarcastic note, I think you’ll be disappointed if economics, by itself, is the reason you go to Chicago over, say, Princeton or Harvard (if even you get the opportunity to make this choice). After a point, the number of Nobel Laureates on campus stops mattering, and all peer universities have that critical mass…</p>
<p>
That’s equally pretentious, for an undergrad. If you’re asked where you’re studying you just say it. If you don’t tell someone that just makes clear that you think “it’s going to create distance” which creates even more distance. None of the kids I know at these schools do that at an undergrad level.</p>
<p>My Dad, who went to Harvard for grad school, when asked, says that he went to Virginia Tech. It’s true. There’s nothing wrong with not wanting to say, but when you don’t have anything else to say, it’s somewhat odd.</p>
<p>This is all assuming that they are asked the question in the first place. If they are not it’s moot.</p>
<p>I wondered what ever happened to the OP. He sent me some really odd messages expressing his supposed concern over my “social behavior problems” and worries that a future employer won’t hire an “overwheening [sic], socially disabled child” like me and that the backlash to his thread was the result of our misunderstanding of his post.</p>
<p>Chicago is fun. I’m applying to Urbana for ME. Honestly I’m not worried about people telling me it’s all corn fields. I’m gonna be doing what a ME major does… STUDY. I’m not worried about being trapped in Urbana. I lived 15 of my life not straying any farther than the boarder of my somewhat suburban home town which other than for vacation, or highly occasional visit to the city.</p>
<p>I am quite sure ‘objectiveperson’ is a productive person; but constant bashing Chicago is exhausting and unproductive, wouldn’t you say. Please move on and have a happy life.</p>
<p>I’d have to second objectiveperson. There is a palpable sense of insecurity on this forum. You don’t hear Stanford or MIT or Cal Tech kids constantly comparing themselves to the Ivies. They don’t need to because they know they’re on par with the Ivies, and so should we. So please everyone, stop with the comparisons. </p>
<p>Having said that, I do think this will pass in time. Everyone just needs to be patient. Chicago is currently undergoing one of the most transformative changes in its history, and the effects of these changes will be fully realized in a decade or so. In the meantime, we’re all stuck in an identity crisis of sorts.</p>
<p>I am a bit confused here.
WHY in one million years would you even consider U Chicago feeling the way you do about long cold winters ???: OMG - What am I misssing here ???
Forget about it !</p>
<p>Honestly, I’m in love with Chicago school of economics. I have been libertarian in all my life and when I watched every single ‘justice’ lecture by Michael Sandel (Harvard professor), I totally fell in love. So many libertarian economists came from Chicago school of econ. My only personal alternatives that I would seriously consider would be Stanford and MIT, just because of their other aspects of the university.</p>
<p>Steven Levitt is a recipient of one of the highest awards in his field (the John Bates Clark Medal). He also has received UChicago’s highest award for outstanding undergraduate teaching:
[1998</a> QUANTRELL AWARD: Steven Levitt](<a href=“http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/980528/levitt.shtml]1998”>1998 QUANTRELL AWARD: Steven Levitt)
Unfortunately, he currently is not teaching any courses. Great professors, like great stocks … and perhaps great colleges … often are best discovered on the up-swing.</p>