下载掌阅APP，畅读海量书库
立即打开
At UChicago, you are more than your GPA or test score.
Just as there are various ways to solve an equation, interpret a poem, or spike a volleyball, no single approach ensures a successful college application. That being said, mathematics has an order of operations, poems have a historical context, and you probably shouldn't spike a volleyball with your foot.
Applying to college can seem like a confusing process, but it doesn't have to be complete guesswork.
We look for bright students with an unquenchable thirst for knowledge and passion for learning. Show us how you maximized your high school experience and pursued opportunities to develop unique talents.
We want you to thrive at UChicago. Tell us who you are—in your own voice—not what you think we want to hear.
强烈的求知欲。 在录取条件中，学校明确提出要寻找那些“聪明的、对知识如饥似渴、对学习充满热情的学生”。芝加哥大学十分推崇以学生为主的课堂，这就更需要学习主动型的学生来推动和丰富课堂。这些人往往善于提问，敢于质疑，具有学术领导力。而对新知的渴求，对学习的热爱是一切的核心和起点。只有在这样的基础上，学生才会踏上披荆斩棘的奇异旅途，去探索，去发现，去创造。
创造力。 对于芝加哥大学来说，创造不仅是一个从无到有的过程，更是一种化腐朽为神奇的能力。创造可以是发明新事物，建立新项目，也可以是发现已知的有潜力的事物，帮助其实现应有的价值。创造力要求灵感，更要求广泛的知识积累和发现机遇的眼界，这都需要学生具有扎实的学习基础、灵活的头脑以及大无畏的勇气。
团队合作能力和领导力的完美兼容。 芝加哥大学在强调学术领导力的同时，也突出个人在团队中的融合和贡献。对于学生来说，如果学术领导力是成功导向和开启机遇的钥匙，体现个人主动性的魅力，那么团队合作就是推动力，是所有灵感和力量的叠加，将个人魅力扩大、发散。个人领导力需要个性的支撑，而团队合作能力则需要个人锋芒的适当隐藏，这两者并不冲突，并且能结合起来，帮助衡量一个学生的综合素质。
Question 1: How does the University of Chicago, as you know it now, satisfy your desire for a particular kind of learning, community, and future? Please address with some specificity your own wishes and how they relate to UChicago.
【类别】 选择原因型
【关键词】 satisfy your desire, learning, community, future, specificity, relate to UChicago
【题目翻译】 根据你目前对芝加哥大学的了解，这个大学怎样满足你对特定种类的学习、社区和未来的渴求？请详细说明你的愿望，以及它们与芝加哥大学有怎样的联系。
【题目分析】 根据题目内容，首先我们要弄清楚芝加哥大学是一所什么样的学校、它的优势领域和待开发领域、它的校园环境和文化氛围。这三个方面通常是最基本的择校影响因素，而这三个方面也是和你本人的条件一一对应的——你在哪个学科领域有优势，你有兴趣发展哪个学科方面的能力，你钟情于什么样的校园环境，你的价值观是否能和这个学校的师生产生共鸣——这是一个了解与匹配的过程。所以，你不仅要探寻芝加哥大学的现状，还要相对应地发掘自身的价值和需求，与之对应起来进行详细说明。在学术方面，你可以投奔它的优势领域，也可以用你的优势弥补它的劣势；在环境和文化氛围上，则免不了要提到你们有共同的气质和抱负，但你的加入会给学校的多样性注入活力。简单地说，就是要明确你的愿望或者职业目标是什么，为什么你觉得这所大学能助你实现它们？建议避免千篇一律的恭维。
All my life I have been searching for a soul shelter, a shelter for those who do not yield to common conventions or authorities, and for those who pursue the truth with full commitment and enthusiasm. I would rather define myself as an independent thinker characterized by “fire and ice”. On one hand, I observe the world and analyze inner connections from a neutral and unbiased perspective, for example, the connections between how a person behaves and what he/she believes. This type of neutrality assures that I can “interrogate” my subjects ruthlessly until I discover the truth. On the other hand, I love wisdom with a full heart and have devoted all my passion and energy to the pursuit of truth. When I was a child, I spent my days and nights studying the origin of the universe, even though my knowledge in this field was limited. As I grew, my passion for the “ultimate” truth did not diminish. I still seek for this truth in physics, history, and any other fields that seek to explain the world, with the passion of a burning fire. My “fire and ice” shapes me in becoming an independent thinker, always yearning for a soul shelter with the thinkers who share the same values as me.
The University of Chicago is just the place to find and develop this type of refuge. For decades it has taken a leading role in academia with its cutting-edge research in the natural and social sciences and the humanities. For example, the “Chicago School of Economics” changed the paradigm of economics studies worldwide, and greatly contributed to the development of market-oriented economics. The University of Chicago challenges its students with rigorous training and fully supports its students' academic explorations.
As my interests lie in various fields, I find the interdisciplinary program for History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science and Medicine extremely appealing for undergraduate study. I am passionate about studying the linkages between these fields that are seemingly disconnected from each other. The courses on Science, Culture, and Society in Western Civilization, Fundamentals of Cell and Molecular Biology, as well as Physics and Chemistry, will lay a broad and solid foundation for further exploration. I am ready to embrace the challenges that The University of Chicago will present to me. This independent thinker has found his soul shelter and is ready to devote himself to it.
作者开门见山，表达了自己一直在寻找灵魂栖息地的愿望。
接下来介绍自己作为冰火融合的独立思考者般的存在。“冰”是指自己能冷静客观地看待事物，平等中立；“火”是指自己对于真理从始至终的不懈追求。这两种状态让自己成长为一个独立的思考者，而寻找与自己意气相投的灵魂栖息所的愿望也同时强烈地存在着，进而过渡到芝加哥大学是如何与作者投契的部分——这里聚集着大量与作者相似的人。
紧接着，作者表达了自己对芝加哥大学的了解以及理解，并且具体提出了自己对于芝加哥大学某一专业的兴趣和追求。文章末尾坚定地表明自己已做好接受挑战的准备。
这篇文章的亮点在于作者充分突出了自己的特质，既向学校介绍了自己，也顺理成章地将“学校有大批与自己志同道合的人”作为选择芝加哥大学的理由，证明自己和学校相匹配，是一举两得、一石二鸟的绝佳方式。
Question 2 (Optional): Heisenberg claims that you cannot know both the position and momentum of an electron with total certainty. Choose two other concepts that cannot be known simultaneously and discuss the implications. (Do not consider yourself limited to the field of physics.)
【类别】 自由发挥型
【关键词】 two other concepts, cannot be known simultaneously, discuss the implications
【题目翻译】 海森堡（德国物理学家）曾说过，你不可能同时确切地知晓一个电子的确定的位置和动量（Uncertainty Principle不确定原理/测不准原理）。选择两个其他不可能同时知道的概念，并讨论其中的内涵（不限于物理领域）。
【题目分析】 首先，解题的关键是题干中的海森堡“不确定原理”，即微观粒子的位置和动量不能被同时确定，因为我们的观察是有限的，而不确定性的因素是无限的。就像原理中所说的那样，一切理解都是在准确与不准确之间挣扎。你可以由抽象的定理得出自己的理解，然后从自己的理解出发选择题材，解释其中的内涵。这其中并没有确定的标杆，唯一要求的是你的讨论必须能对应你由原理得出的结论，能自圆其说。并且不要忘了，无论写作什么样的题目，都要能最大程度表现你自己的个人特质，在这里则是表现你自己的知识积累、思考能力以及世界观、价值观。
It was midnight when I had a conversation with a friend who was heart-broken over love. With a sad voice, she pumped me for an answer to one question: “Isn't there true love? Can't two people get locked in love whole-heartedly?” I replied, “I vote ‘Yes' but the problem is that we never know whether our feeling is true or not. And when we finally realize what it is, maybe we would rather have already waved goodbye to it. ”
There lurks the true and ideal love in the world: it is critical to size up the truth, but by any common standard the intensity of love can only be valued to the extent to which one lover would sacrifice to his/her loved one. The more he/she would sacrifice for his/her lover, the more he/she loves her/him. This rule works because sacrifice demonstrates the depth of emotions. To make one's love clearly felt and understood, even true love can't necessarily foster sacrifice or even death. But without that sacrifice or death, no one can prove true love. So this rule breeds a paradox. Uncertain about the nature of one's love, we seek some proof. But once our loved one proves it, we may have lost him/her. Hard to comprehend, this is actually the paradox of love.
With regard to the certainty of sacrifice, we can't be assured either. Firstly, as was advocated by the 20th century scholar Derrida, language can be deceiving. In the past, a common view was that a language consists of words, positive entities which are put together to form a language system and thus acquire lexical relations one with another. But contrary to this traditional view, modern linguists hold that signs are arbitrary and conventional and that each is defined not by essential properties but by the differences that distinguish them from other signs. For example, when is a baby considered a person? When just a tiny zygote? A zygote with a signal detecting brain or a full-grown zygote? If someone blurts out the word true love to you, he/she should spell out just what he/she means. To what extent then does love depart from friendship, or love between parents and children? Secondly, his/her words may betray his/her real intentions. In literature and in real life, putting their hands upon Bible, a lot of people make oaths. Several years later, he/she might betray his/her lover and go to bed with another woman/man. Thirdly, the things he/she sacrifices matter. If he doesn't value life much and he/she sacrifices his/her life, this can't be regarded as compelling evidence of his/her love. Lastly, aside from accidents, is he/she seriously committed in thought to this notion of sacrifice for love? Sometimes a person, cutting his/her fingers as evidence of his/her love, would several days later be torn with regret that he/her had sacrificed for the wrong woman/man.
In sum, in love we can only harbor one thing: either their deep love or the knowledge that someone once loved us.
由开头朋友对自己提出的“世界上是否有真爱存在”的问题，作者引出一个悖论，由于爱的不确定性，我们希望看到爱人愿意奉献生命来证明真爱，然而当愿望达成，真爱被确切证明的同时，我们也失去了爱人。这个悖论是按照文章要求所提出的，我们不可确知，无法衡量的因素——爱。
接下来是作者提出的解释和理解。由“牺牲”这个词所承载的意义不确定性出发，引用解构语言学家德里达的观点，否定言语是中心并优先于文字的形而上学的观念，而提出文字是具有欺骗性的，并且解构“语言文字依附于言语”的意义。也就是说，词语本身是独立存在的，不存在先入为主的解释和概念。不仅如此，每一个事物的意义都是随着环境不断变化的，并没有确切的中心和意义。接下来，文章举例婴儿和成年人之间的界限不能由语言解释清楚，而只能模糊地界定，由此过渡到“爱”这个词所承载的意义可能随着时间的推移，随着主观情绪发生变化——每个时刻都有不同深浅的程度，甚至会被推翻。
最后得出结论，在“爱”这件事情上，我们唯一确知的东西就是我们所感受到的爱本身，或者是我们曾经被爱过的事实，而爱的真假、深浅、长短，都是“测不准”的。
文章的灵活和有趣之处在于，探讨是由题目介绍的物理学原理发起，作者首先用生活事件引出自己选择的题材——关于爱的讨论，然后由语言学上的知识进行解释，并大量举例说明，最后进行了感性的、生活性的总结。文章结合多种元素，既有自己对物理学知识的哲学性理解，也展示了自己在语言学方面的知识和哲学思考。一方面体现了自己的知识积累和运用能力，另一方面也体现了自己跨学科的逻辑思考能力。正中要点的是，芝加哥大学十分推崇这种跨学科的思考方式和研究能力，因此毫无疑问，这篇文章向招生官展示了一名相当优秀的中学生的形象。