Chicagoan exceptionalism

Yet more library posts, one from Will, one from Nick, and two from Phoebe. From Harvard Law, Nate flatters our "crazy-intense" egos. Finally, Andrew tries to round it all up and mosey off to the bar. This thing has gotten a bit out of hand.

For the record, we do like you. Andrew and I have said so repeatedly. U of C undergrads are the best kind of undergrad: they are nerdy and eccentric, plenty jaded, and they fetishize their books as much as the next grad. Ten years back, most of us who ended up as Chicago grad students (and most grad students at the most prestigious universities, I'm sure) were a lot like Chicago undergrads are now. Æsthetically and intellectually, in our heart-of-hearts, we were always 55 years old and just waiting for our chronology to catch up with our ontology.

It's not just me who says it. Both academically and financially U of C undergrads are a lot like their grad peers. While I can't find the data, I know from word-of-mouth that they're far morelikely than undegrads at other institutions to go on to careers in academia. And they're not as well off as students of other, less "intense" institutions. Remember this article from the University of Chicago Magazine a few months back?

Still, "we've never been known as a rich kids' school," Behnke says, noting Chicago's reputation for favoring intellectualism over wealth. Indeed, Chicago families earned less than the dozen-plus highly selective private universities in the 2002 survey as a whole. Among all the schools, 56 percent of freshmen's families garnered more than $100,000, including 17.5 percent over $250,000. "The really rich kids," Behnke jokes, "don't want to work this hard."

In any case, as Sina pointed out, all that anybody's asking for is to "please wear clothes and keep it down".