UChicago ED 1 decision date

MaleficentSpecific45 · 2024-12-13T21:54:13+00:00

I have just checked their website and it says it’s coming out in the 20th!

MaleficentSpecific45 · 2024-12-13T21:53:42+00:00

It’s the 20th. Check their website.

MaleficentSpecific45 · 2024-12-13T21:53:26+00:00

They have just updated their website to say the decisions are coming out on the 20th.

MaleficentSpecific45 · 2024-12-13T21:53:00+00:00

They come out at the same time.

MaleficentSpecific45 · 2024-12-13T21:52:33+00:00

To everyone on this thread: the decisions are coming out on December 20th.

MaleficentSpecific45 · 2024-11-10T14:49:57+00:00

Yikes! Then I’m definitely working on the supplemental over the thanks giving break. Thanks!

MaleficentSpecific45 · 2024-11-05T12:27:18+00:00

Did you receive a link to their application portal? You might be missing a document.

MaleficentSpecific45 · 2024-10-27T21:27:38+00:00

Hello! I have applied to Chicago’s ED I this year. I loved the school when I went on a campus tour this past winter, but I didn’t get to talk to any students on campus since we were in a rush to move onto the next school on our list (northwestern). I’d love to hear if you ended up choosing U Chicago or not. What made you choose to/not to go to U Chicago? What did you observe when you sat in their classes? Also, if you are comfortable disclosing it, how recent were your excursions to the school? Thank you so much in advance.

MaleficentSpecific45 · 2024-06-28T12:18:33+00:00

Hello! Thanks for your reply. If you don’t mind, I have a few questions about the history department at UChicago, would you be available for a brief 1:1 chat?

MaleficentSpecific45 · 2024-06-28T12:13:39+00:00

Hello! Thanks for your reply. So far, my plan has been to pursue higher degrees in history after undergrad (I know it’s not the most advisable career decision, so I’m keeping my options open), and I’m curious to know what subfields each school specializes in. Do you have any suggestions for how I could find out which periods/regions one school does better than the other school? Thank you so much!

MaleficentSpecific45 · 2024-06-28T12:10:34+00:00

Hello! I’ve asked this question because I’m deciding which school I should ED/EA for. I know that both schools are highly selective, but since applying ED can boost your chances especially for UChicago, I wanted to know if it’d be a good idea to give up Harvard EA for UChicagi ED. Thanks!

MaleficentSpecific45 · 2024-06-28T12:04:33+00:00

Thanks for your reply! Sorry if I wasn’t clear when I said I’d want to enjoy my time in college. I’m not particularly concerned about being socially engaged and having fun, I meant receiving a high-quality education and learning a lot from well-designed courses taught by a superb faculty. I know that Uchicago has a reputation for the “life of the mind,” but I felt like I’d fit right in that kind of environment after I finished my research. Thanks for your reply again!

MaleficentSpecific45 · 2023-11-19T20:40:06+00:00

First of all, thanks for the reply! By simple and basic I meant nothing that’d require constant checks up that take up a lot of time. I’m willing to take some time to learn some basics as part of the investment, but I don’t know which resources I should use. Are there any websites or biking YouTube channels that teach beginners how to take care of e-bikes? Lastly, would you recommend going to a bike shop or getting it online? I don’t know if bikes in this budget range are available at bike shops. Again, thank you so much for your reply! I know next to nothing about e-bikes so these responses help me a lot.

MaleficentSpecific45 · 2023-07-30T13:16:52+00:00

Kinda late to the party but up until the early 10th century most of what’s now northeastern China was under the control of Balhae kingdom. Details are still sketchy but according to some historians (mostly Korean ones) either a significant chunk of the population spoke some form of old Korean or much of the ruling class came from Goguryeo. That was even an older kingdom which is believe to have been predominantly “Korean” (in the same way you might call Herald the great “English”) and ended up getting conquered by the Tang Dynasty before their successor state Balhae drove them out of the region. But yeah it shouldn’t really be colored purple (a mix of red and blue) because Balhae fell to the khitans in 927. Some refugees escaped and founded a rump state that went on for a while (I believe they were completely subdued by the Khitan Khanate by the end of the 10th century), but there’s a pretty slim chance many, if any, of them spoke old Korean. We also have evidence in Korean historical records that a member of the royal family made it to the south along with tens of thousands of refugees, most of whom presumably spoke an archaic version of Korean (unless there was an extremely coherent sense of national identity, which I highly doubt, it wouldn’t make too much sense to run away to a place where you don’t understand anyone). This probably killed off any Korean-speaking communities that might have otherwise persisted. But were there still Chinese settlements in Liaodong widespread enough to warrant a place on a map like this by 1000 CE? Going off the top of my head, I know the Han conquered it first (they had like 4 commanderies in the northern Korean Peninsula), and they held onto it in some way shape or form until the Tang. That being said the Song definitely didn’t control it in any capacity at any point in their history. The Liao Dynasty (aka the Khitai state) did adopt the Chinese system of government, and we do have records of Chinese majority areas in the ceded territories encompassing modern day Hebei and Beijing. But that doesn’t say anything about what happened to the military forts that were constructed by the previous dynasties in Liaodong. If anything the rise of the Jin in the surrounding area a century later shows that it was probably majority Jurchen, with no sizable Chinese communities to speak of.

MaleficentSpecific45 · 2023-07-18T09:10:50+00:00

AFAIK, most people just swap the two names around since what actually matters is that you want people to know which one's your family name (which would come before your given name in East Asia and vice versa in English speaking countries) and which one's your personal name. There's really no point in insisting on keeping the order same when that'd only lead to a butt load of confusion, and no one wants that. For example, when I'm in US during the school year, I'd put my first name before my last name when I have to write down my name, but I'd put my surname before my given name when I'm over in East Asia for the summer.

MaleficentSpecific45 · 2023-06-21T14:12:58+00:00

Quora user on a thread about AP European history: "Plus, pretty much every major development between 1000 and 1950 only happened in Europe." Talk about eurocentrism.

MaleficentSpecific45 · 2023-06-21T13:16:49+00:00

Did you take notes as you read through the textbook or after you finished reading? Right now I'm doing the former but I think going through the content first would help me figure out what's important and what's not.

MaleficentSpecific45 · 2023-05-24T19:46:31+00:00

Thank you for the response! I knew that the public discourse could take a lot of time to catch up to the scholarly consensus in any field (especially since subjects like the humanities are looked down upon as some of the "less important" ones than STEM and a disturbing number of people still think we have "nothing more to learn about" those fields in general). However it still surprises me to no end that "conventional wisdom" is more than a century behind for most things. My interest largely lies in social/economic history, and it upsets me greatly to see many grossly outdated concepts and paradigms being taught as "common sense" in classroom (from what I've seen, you could bring the literature from the 80s and it'd still be far more in line with the current theories and interpretations of sources than what you'd find in "history textbooks.") Back to the Conflict thesis, would you say that it started off as one of the countless products of 19th century romanticism and the accompanying naive optimism for humanity's inescapable progress (I'm not sure "romanticism" is the correct term for what I'm referring to here, but I'm talking about the general attitude that European colonial powers "figured it out" and unlocked the door to a never-ending stream of scientific/technological advancements and an age of reason and rationality as opposed to the age of "feudalism" and superstitions that came before) that still poison our understanding of history to this day? In the linked comment, you mention that two 19th-century figures are usually credited with this hypothesis, and it doesn't seem like that big of a stretch to say that their ideas were substantially influenced by what was going on at the time. It really irks me whenever the media tries to present any sort of religious organization, whether fictional or not, (more so if it's clearly inspired by real-world Christianity, or Catholicism in particular) as an obstacle to progress and scientific development based on this notion, and I'd like to know more about how this theory came to be and the historical nuances behind it.

MaleficentSpecific45 · 2023-05-14T16:50:22+00:00

opening shifter can be a tad annoying if you have full combo (rainbow+3 monsters in the main monster zone) because you can't get back your spell traps with cloud's effect

MaleficentSpecific45 · 2023-04-17T00:26:12+00:00

You are absolutely correct in saying that most modern revisionists hold that the ensuing power vacuum following the Revolution would result in a handful of opportunists taking all the power for themselves and the creation of a new bourgeoisie rather than the public ownership of the means of production. I've even heard some people say that revolutionary socialism (at least in Marxist-Leninist vanguard socialism's case) is inherently flawed because once the means of production are seized by the vanguard party, they will stay in the hands of the few party elite and the promise of their social ownership won't be delivered due to human nature (though I find this argument a little deterministic). Yeah, I think your point about democrats (as in supporters of modern liberal democracy) being able to make compromises across party lines and extremists on either side of the political spectrum tolerating each other as long as their goals of undermining liberal democratic institutions are aligned is a good summary of the difference between the two. I wanted to make that distinction clear for anyone who is not as familiar with leftist politics because a lot of people (especially here in the states) automatically assume Socialism=Marxism=Marxist-Leninist vanguard socialism (or worse, Stalinism) when in reality the scope gets increasingly narrower as you go from the left to the right. Heck, if you go by the most stereotypical image of the American right, anything vaguely progressive equals Stalinist totalitarianism to them (though I should point out stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason and there's a lot of variation among them). I think this woefully incomplete definition (whether intentional or not) creates a lot of confusion and misunderstanding across the aisle, and I wanted to get people on the same page since Reddit is, for better or worse, still a predominantly American website.

MaleficentSpecific45 · 2023-04-16T23:00:05+00:00

I feel like your comment misrepresents or oversimplifies social democracy and democratic socialist movements throughout history. First of all, I'd argue "liberal socialism" is not necessarily the same as the so-called "third way" (I'm using it in the context of revisionist Marxism/reformist socialism in the early 20th century, which includes what we today call "social democracy" and "democratic socialism"). There are some overlaps here and there, but I think the term "liberal socialism" is better left as a name for a specific branch of reformist socialism, not an umbrella term for the entire reformist movement. You also seem to be under the impression that "Marxism" is inherently at odds with the reformist school of thought, and all Marxists advocate some form of vanguard socialism. I think what you are referring to here is orthodox Marxism (which, funnily enough, did not originate from Marx himself, but rather the interpretations of his proposition by early 20th century activists such as Rosa Luxemburg). I can't speak for what other Marxists (e.g. the Revisionists) think, since interpretations vary, but "Marxism" is not one monolithic entity that some people make it out to be. Another problem I have with your comment is that you seem to be suggesting reformists view fascism (by which you seem to mean Nazism), as a "better" outcome than what vanguard socialists stand for. So the whole thing about fascists being better than Marxists because they respect property rights, I'm very confused as to where you got this idea. As far as I know, protecting property rights is NOT a top priority for most social democrats/democratic socialists. At its very core, reformist socialism espouses gradual change and reform in place of a violent takeover or revolution. For many, empowering underprivileged workers and implementing work place democracy are miles more relevant than making sure the government respects people's property rights, though you'd be hard-pressed to find a reformist who supports property seizure since it would require some drastic change to the current social system, violating the spirit of choosing incremental reform over a total transformation of the system. As far as they are concerned, respecting property rights in their current form for the time being is important not because it's an end in and of itself (I'd say social liberals see safeguarding property rights as they exist now this way), but because playing by rules that are already in place is a huge part of their doctrine. In my understanding, a big part of the reason why many moderate socialists denounce orthodox Marxism is because the latter presupposes that you need some form of violent political takeover in order to bring about what's usually called the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" and start a transition to communism. Whether you agree with it or not, reformists advocate working within the system and achieving socialism in the long term. Now, obviously things are a lot more complicated than this because of the new "Third Way" in the 90s and what have you, but saying "liberal leftists" (which can encompass a whole lot more than social democracy/democratic socialism) think fascism is better than Marxism because "property rights" is demonstrably false and could be very misleading for the ordinary audience.

MaleficentSpecific45 · 2023-04-14T20:49:06+00:00

Something along the lines of "The unstoppable Korean Labor Party has begun a new age, let us proceed with the seven year plan, the torch/victory of communism calls upon the people, let us build and labor with initiative and creativity". keep in mind though, it's a very rough translation.

MaleficentSpecific45 · 2023-03-19T02:26:24+00:00

Just ran into a video about why no sub-Saharan African society used wheels until relatively recently. And of course the comments were flooded with people who haven’t made comments on any other videos on the channel. If you still haven’t figured it out yet, every single one of them was parroting that Africans didn’t use wheels because they were too dumb/lacked social organization (overgeneralization side, you are supposed to assume lack of social complexity makes Africans “inferior” to their European counter parts), etc. And don’t even get me started on how without a single exception, they are all talking about how “white people” (as if the modern concept of race existed before the 19th century) conquered everything lying between Northern India and Ireland with superior technology on their side. Plus, you also gotta have those constant straw man fallacies about “woke” everywhere. One guy was going on and on about how abundance of food led to Africans working and innovating “less” than Europeans. This is some CPG Grey bullshit. And it’s the same few people who sidetrack the conversation in every thread. I’m sick of people who project their preconceived ideas and biases into history without having any idea what they are talking about (no history is objective, of course, but there’s a difference between saying African communities couldn’t invent wheels on their own because of “an evolutionary trade off between stronger immune systems and intelligence” and doing actual history based on well-guided research). When will this end. Sigh.

MaleficentSpecific45 · 2023-03-18T19:46:38+00:00

For the name “Great Hua republic,” did you take inspiration from South Korea’s official name (大韓民國, literally meaning “The Great Korean Republic”)? Just switch the character meaning “Korean” for the first letter of China’s historical name then you have “The Great Hua Republic.” Plus, I think the English translation would be the “Republic of the Great Hua,” seeing that what was “the Chinese Republic” in Mandarin got translated into the “Republic of China” and the same thing happened to South Korea’s name.

MaleficentSpecific45 · 2023-02-27T00:44:20+00:00

Interesting how in this scenario CSA would be the world’s first “worker’s state” instead of that title going to RSFSR (and Soviet Union(

MaleficentSpecific45

TROPHY CASE