40% acceptance rate?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
41

<p>idad - selecting students who “value the life of the mind above all else” was precisely one of the reasons why Chicago’s college was in such dire straits during the 1980s and 1990s. I was at Chicago toward the tail end of the “true” life of the mind years, and from what I observed, there was a lot of discontentment at the College, and a lot of a love/hate relationship with the school. Maybe there are some other Chicago grads from the 80s and 90s on this board that would like to talk about this? From my experience, the height of the life of the mind years left a lot of students frustrated with some other aspects of their experience at Chicago. </p>

<p>From pretty much all I can gather, Chicago’s College now is a much healthier, vibrant place now than it was during my time at the U of C. Chicago’s been actively remaking the college since as far back as 1999, and Zimmer’s probably upped the ante in the past 4-5 years. By all accounts I know, while the college is somewhat more pre-professional, the faculty seem happy with the level of their students, and the students have many more resources at their disposal today than a decade ago. Rest assured, if the faculty had some reason to be frustrated with the students, we’d all hear about it. </p>

<p>Again, the way Chicago’s going now makes the most sense from an institutional perspective. I really, really don’t think the days of 65% accept rate and significant discontentment on campus is the way to go. Yes at that time, the level of learning was superb, but kids were really frustrated by other aspects of their education - Chicago was known as a grinding, cold place, and that’s not necessarily a good thing.</p>

42

<p>I think that the impact of faculty on the application process is much more substantial than what some may think. In high schools it is possible to get impressive GPA’s, SAT scores, class ranks by memorizing a lot (hard work). However at UChicago memorization does not seem to be the way to impress a faculty that does not have the reputation of handing out A’s abundantly anyhow. High achievers who have reached their status by memorizing a lot are more inclined to bypass UChicago for fear of becoming a B or a C student. I know quite a few of them. I also know students who were less successful in high school but who would have fitted extremely well at UChicago. I am talking about the students in need of true academic challenges, under-achievers who can be found everywhere (even at the most prestigious high schools). As long as the faculty does not change its philosophy, I am not overly worried about UChicago changing a lot. It may even change for the better if they know ways to find the academically talented under-achievers in high schools.</p>

43

<p>It is exactly those talented underachievers in high school that I fear the new approach to admissions may deny a Chicago experience to. My child was admitted to Chicago just before Zimmer came in. She was bored in high school so she did not live up to her potential, although she was a good student, but not exemplary. She poured her efforts into a performing arts extracurricular where she was passionate and had leadership roles. She was also passionate about attending the U of Chicago and the academic challenge she felt she needed. Well, she was admitted, has excelled in all ways at Chicago and has contributed greatly to the schools performing arts organizations. She has studied abroad, has had two prestigious internships and has even gotten belts in martial arts. It has been a win/win situation for the school and for her. Would she be admitted today under present admission or future admission standards? Maybe not and that would be a terrible loss for everyone. I do hope that the school will continue to look at the whole person and what makes Chicago so special and not bow to mere numbers.</p>

44

<p>^^^Yup.<br>
S1 has a friend at H and describes it as a soulless place. Is not happy with the level of intellectual discourse and envies S’s opportunities.</p>

<p>S1 has his moments about Chicago vs. MIT, but at the end of the day, he says it comes down to this: he is able to take courses with folks who are intellectually passionate in areas he knows very little about, and that is something he felt was unique to Chicago and the undergrad experience. He felt he’d be challenged to push his boundaries at Chicago, and felt this was an important personal goal for him. He knows what he’ll be doing in grad school, and <em>that</em> level of intellectual inquiry will happen then, though in fairness he gets to pursue a good bit of it independently at Chicago.</p>

<p>My fervent hope is that Chicago will continue to identify “life of the mind” applicants and those who dare to get Bs in the pursuit of learning.</p>

45

<p>It’s obviously hard to quantify how much of the “life of the mind” will remain at Chicago, but I truly think that as long as Chicago continues to accept bright, ambitious students, 4 years of exposure to the Chicago faculty and their passion will keep the life of the mind legacy alive at the U of C.</p>

<p>On the note about how the U of C should still “take chances” on certain applicants, please note that this approach cuts both ways. A bunch of kids from my high school went to U of C, and my year, Chicago clearly took a chance on two of the applicants - two of my good friends with subpar SAT scores and some clear academic weaknesses, but also with strong passion for certain subjects and a good deal of potential. Within two years at Chicago, one of these guys dropped out, the other was never able to finish - even after 6 years of attempting to do so. </p>

<p>Again, institutions are risk averse, and it makes more sense, when the opportunity presents itself, to go with the sure deal rather than to take chances. Furthermore, Chicago “taking chances” may have been more of the result of NEEDING warm bodies to fill seats rather than an institutional directive to do so. </p>

<p>All that being said, I think Chicago does the absolute best job of molding talent through four years of liberal arts training. Historically, Chicago’s classes were weaker and less polished than the classes at Harvard or Brown or Amherst, but if you look at output (number of Rhodes scholars and fulbrights won, etc.), Chicago did a very good job with less. Now I’m curious to see how Chicago will do when it’s on roughly equal footing with most of its peers from the starting gate.</p>

46

<p>I saw the 2013 stats today (I got them from the big college fair in my city partially sponsored by my school). The ACT middle 50% was 29-34. That’s up from 28-33 a year ago if I am correct. So I don’t think that this whole “increasing the number of applicants is going to lessen the ‘Life of the Mind’ motif.” If anything, it will draw in stronger applicants who, while appreciating learning and education like the UChicago of old , are also very conscious of their futures and can rival the likes of HYPSM. I think the ACT is a perfect example. You don’t get much better stats than 29-34… but if I had to venture a guess, I would say that the class of 2014 will increase to 30-34.</p>

47

<p>Oh no, I hope not! I’m 29 :(</p>

48

<p>It is not attracting more students that is at issue, but attracting those that are not typically first and foremost careerists. A career will typically follow, but the exploration of ideas needs to take precedence. Attracting those who do not share that view (and of course they have in the past to some extent), no matter what there scores, would be a detriment to the historical mission of this unique institution. It was the bland and very common tenor of the letter that caught my attention and occasioned the original post. I would be very very pleased to find mine and other’s concern do be misplaced.</p>

49

<p>Very true, idad, but I think someone made the point earlier that the faculty of the UofC are, so to say, the “keepers of the spirit.” I think that this is true… to a degree. If the UofC does begin to admit more and more “careerists” they will soon find out that their professors are not going to give the top grade to the person who knows the most, but to the person who learns the most. And hopefully they will adapt to that kind of thinking. However, I do not find a problem with a college student who knows what they want to do with their life, or where they want to go to grad school, etc. It is those who work for the GRADE, not for the LEARNING that I have a problem with. And they will learn, maybe not at UChicago but at least in grad school or at their first job, that the person who is rewarded is rewarded because they work the hardest and care about their activity. </p>

<p>That being said, I am also unhappy with the ACT increase because I have a 33 :(.</p>

50

<p>"… “In order to focus on our core competency and core mission, we decided to focus on the market segment that is the best strategic fit…”</p>

<p>hyeonjlee, if you know marketing, you must also know that an organization must balance market segment competitiveness with market segment size. </p>

<p>The more UofC moves in a mainstream direction, the more it becomes one more option in a crowded segment, and an option disadvantaged by poor name recognition (i.e. not a “prestige” name), midwestern location, financial aid limits and so forth. Maybe they get more apps, but maybe the yield even drops due to more competition.</p>

<p>contrast that with the status quo, where UofC has little competition in its segment.</p>

<p>Cue7 may respond by saying they had poor results a few years back. But more recent years suggest that the poor results were not due to how the segment was defined, but due to the execution - that is to say, lack of attention to the college. Without changing its defined market segment, college stats have improved markedly in recent years. </p>

<p>I would go so far as to say that Zimmer’s efforts will backfire. UofC will see a rise in applications, but a drop in yield as it becomes just another top 20 college to apply to. Maybe the faculty will revolt, too, when they find a sea of faces more interested in high GPA than an intellectual challenge?</p>

51

<p>“Without changing its defined market segment, college stats have improved markedly in recent years.”</p>

<p>Wait, hasn’t the U of C changed its defined market segment in recent years? I thought that’s exactly what Zimmer (and his two predecessors, Sonnenschein and Randel) have been doing for at least the past 6-7 years. If you read “Shakespeare, Einstein, and the Bottom line,” professor David Kirp argues that, as far back as 1999, Chicago started modulating its admissions practices. </p>

<p>In fact, this book is now on google: [Shakespeare</a>, Einstein, and the … - Google Books](<a href=“Shakespeare, Einstein, and the Bottom Line: The Marketing of Higher Education - David L. Kirp - Google Books”>Shakespeare, Einstein, and the Bottom Line: The Marketing of Higher Education - David L. Kirp - Google Books)</p>

<p>For those of you that are interested, start reading by around Pg. 17 or so, and read how then director of ug enrollment Michael Behnke relied on a McKinsey study and a “kit bag of marketing tools.” He polished up the marketing materials - in the “Life of the Mind” brochure, you’d find more pictures of students “juggling and playing football” rather than being buried in books. </p>

<p>The change has been going on for quite some time, and really, with only positive net results. You may have minor tremors down the way, such as when Chicago modified their Core in the late 90s, but an outright faculty revolt at this point is very, very unlikely. The push to make Chicago more “mainstream” has been going on with considerable success for the better part of a decade. </p>

<p>Also, while I apologize for this article’s rough language, look how a U of C grad from the height of the “life of the mind” period describes the college now: </p>

<p>[Uncommon</a> Interview: TuckerMax - The Chicago Maroon](<a href=“Quartet-in-residence again awes the Mandel faithful – Chicago Maroon”>Quartet-in-residence again awes the Mandel faithful – Chicago Maroon)</p>

<p>Finally, with the rise in number of very talented high school applicants, I think there may be enougn to go around at all the top 15 or so top schools. Moreover, if Chicago is smart about its recruiting (i.e. not just focus heavily on the east coast where Chicago will lose the home turf advantage to Harvard, Brown, UPenn, etc.), I don’t think yield is going to be that big an issue.</p>

<p>I think stating that Zimmer’s goals will “backfire” is too extreme. For the past 10 years, Zimmer’s approach has basically been happening, with no signs of significant harm to the College. If anything, all signs point to Zimmer’s plan continuing along an upward trajectory.</p>

52

<p>Again, increasing the visibility of the product and making life on campus better for students does not necessarily mean one abandons the market that makes the product unique. Dell sells more computers than Apple, but Apple made the most of its niche and now is far more profitable. It has never succumbed to the me too approach, and has recently grown to own 90% of the $1000 and up, high-margin, notebook market. UofC, has I believe, been successful in the past few years doing the same type of thing. Moving to be another Dell, or Ivy school, is a path to eventual blandness, and an eventual loss of market share. Beyond that, it is that special mission that Chicago has always had, that dedication to at least try to be one of the last “pure universities” that is at risk. </p>

<p>As Don Levine described so well in the opening of his great discussion, “On the Genius of this Place”

</code></pre>

<p>[The</a> Idea of the University Colloquium: Donald N. Levine](<a href=“http://iotu.uchicago.edu/levine.html]The”>The Idea of the University Colloquium: Donald N. Levine)</p>

53

<p>This entire tangent of discussion sprouted from the quotations of Nondorf’s letter to prospective students. Lets be careful to not assume too much about this. If Nondorf goes on to radically revise the Chicago admissions webpage, and totally changes the Chicago info sessions, then maybe we can talk. </p>

<p>I’m sure ten years ago, Chicago Alums who saw the “Life of the Mind” brochure filled with pictures of students juggling and playing football may have quirked their eye brows too, but it didn’t lead to disasters in the college. </p>

<p>Also, arguing the other side, if Chicago went the more conventional route of seeking leaders and having more ivy-like admissions, would Chicago really become that anonymous? From my estimation, there are maybe only a half-dozen research universities that boast stronger financial resources than Chicago, and maybe only 3-4 with a more accomplished faculty. Yes, the midwest is a harder sell, but who knows? If Chicago targets students more creatively (i.e. recruit harder in areas where students might be more inclined to travel - i.e. the southeast or by solidifying its rep in the midwest), it could achieve success on this point. A successful 2016 bid for the Olympics could give the city an entirely new coat of polish. </p>

<p>Again, Zimmer’s goal is to make the U of C the best university - not just the best trainer of academics or the best incubator of nobel prize talent, but the best university around (with all that title would connote). This means producing leaders across all fields, not just academia. Traditionally, American universities have focused on this broader goal, and I think it’s fine for a school with the resources and horsepower of Chicago to begin its climb to become the best university around. </p>

<p>Finally, idad, the school did more than just increase the visibility of its product in the late 90s. The nature of the “product” has changed - perhaps because of the overflow from the ivies or whatnot, Chicago today has a different feel than Chicago in the past. The students are generally more pre-professional. There’s more grade inflation. The core is not as rigid. The school has kept its basic values, but the feel of the place is quite different. Put another way, Chicago in the past had something of the notion of being the Gotham of top colleges - a dark, intense place. I’m happy the college is stepping out of that a bit now, and that it continues to do so in the future.</p>

<p>Maybe this is a bit of blasphemy, but I don’t know if Chicago is a complete world apart from other similarly situated (in mantra) elites. Sure, Chicago is different from the pre-professional beehives that are Duke and UPenn, but is a Chicago student’s experience terribly different from other schools where actual learning is still valued (i.e. a Yale or a Brown or a Rice)? If anything, now, there is more homogeneity on the upper rungs.</p>

54

<p>As am I. Rigor does not have to equal torture.</p>

55

<p>idad - I have a sense we’re more or less on the same page. I don’t think either of us wants to see Chicago spring an engineering and nursing school and go the UPenn or Duke route, but at the same time, having a happier and more content student body seems to be a worthwhile goal. If, down the road, Chicago students tend to have a bit more of the enthusiasm and vibrancy, I think the changes will be for the better.</p>

<p>Also, lets not underestimate how much it would take to make Chicago the sort of place we’d all abhor. Very active, targeted recruiting, perhaps school investment in frat life to make the school suitably fratty (there seems to be a correlation between fratty-ness and pre-professionalism, if you take Duke, UPenn, Northwestern, and Cornell as examples of more pre-professional schools), a clear re-structuring of the school’s mission, etc etc…</p>

56

<p>Warning:</p>

<p>FLAME ON</p>

<p>If you substitute “life of mind hardcore acolytes” and “careerists” with whatever ethnic, racial, religious group members, would you EVER say:</p>

<p>***** we really want to admit mostly Jews (Christians, Muslims, Baptists, Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Asians, whatever, choose your bigotry). Admitting individuals with different religious beliefs coming from different ethnic groups will dilute our core mission and value and turn us into just a Ivy look alike or wannabe*****</p>

<p>FLAME OFF</p>

<p>I just can’t believe that we are using the word “careerist” as if it were some kind of a four letter dirty word. This thread is starting to sound like an idealogical war between the moral absolutists with purest values and bottom sucking cultural relativists like myself with no spine. Most of us on this thread probably reside in a somewhat left of the center region politically (based on the sentiments expressed), and we all value “diversity” in thinking, race, religion, and general attitudes. Yet, here, when we are discussing the need for a student body with diverse values, goals, and aspirations, we are starting to sound like an academic version of Taliban. </p>

<p>I strongly believe that great universities thrive by accommodating the needs of the future hardcore academicians, aspiring captains of the industry, and yes, even soul crushing future politicians a la Darth Vadar. That diversity, in my mind, is what makes the community intellectually challenging and dynamic, and encourages each and every student to reexamine their cherished beliefs and value systems and learn from each other.</p>

<p>Besides, do universities live on ether and cosmic energy created through some kind of mythic mental processes of the great minds alone? Or, do they also need a group of really successful donors who can fund need based scholarships for a lot of brilliant young minds who will go on and pursue the life of mind without having to worry about paying for the tuition with the money they don’t have? Come to think of it, didn’t Rockerfeller give something like $750M (current value) to create U Chicago? Is he not an ultimate careerist and capitalist?</p>

<p>I also very much like the “life of mind” focus and intellectual rigor aspect of U Chicago. That’s why I happily let my son turn down a full ride scholarship worth well over $50K. Instead, he is going to Chicago - full pay. My son wants to join the investment banking firm right after graduation. Yes, he is THE DREADED CAREERIST. In fact, that’s why I think Chicago education is even more important to him than a kid who wants to become a professor. Precisely because he is such a careerist, I want this “life of a mind” Chicago education to give him a proper balance between utilities and values - so that instead of turning into something like Madoff, he can be more like Buffet who is willing to leave most of his wealth to society, rather than his children. Wouldn’t you rather have your future President of USA educated in Chicago so that she can have a proper sense of her mission in the grand scheme of cultural evolution and human development? So that she understands the historical perspective enough that any Western power lording over the local population in the Middle East would ignite a fierce resistance? So that she understands that the loaded term like “crusade” will conjure up the demonic image of the West in the minds of the Muslims and jeopardize her mission? What makes you think that the only proper role of a mind is to pursue knowledge for the sake of knowledge?</p>

<p>On a more practical side with immediate relevancy, I do NOT see why some people here equate the attempt to broaden the appeal of Chicago to a wider body of students to the “cheapening and coarsening of basic Chicago moral fibers”. I strongly believe a lot more students who would have been a perfect fit for Chicago are currently not applying to Chicago due to a weaker presence it occupies in the minds of top notch students. The idea that you can limit your market exposure and thus create a willing group of customers who are interested in trying your product is plainly absurd. In my son’s amazing HS where 30-40 % of the kids wind up in Top 20 universities, only three even bothered to apply to Chicago, and I know these kids, they are my son’s friends. Many of the would have been a perfect fit for Chicago. Chicago needs to reach out to these kids by whatever means. In the end, it will create a much strong student body who will embrace the its values and graduate as promising members of the leaders who will go on and make a difference with the values they learned in Chicago.</p>

57

<p>hyeonjlee - at least when I was at Chicago, “careerist” was certainly a taboo word. More than any other school, Chicago peddles scholarship - its the chief coin of the realm in Hyde Park. Where else would you get a school with t-shirts that say, “that’s great in practice, but how does it work in theory??”. </p>

<p>Chicago continually goes through upheaval when it adapts with the time (e.g. in the late 90s, when it broadened the core to include classes covering stuff not in the western canon). </p>

<p>Traditionally, Chicago always scoffed at producing politicians or oil barons or rowers. Chicago, the hutchins-era acolytes believed, was for academics, and academics alone. At least when I was at Chicago, there was a peculiar elitism present at the school. This is evidenced still by murmurs of what Obama is doing. Professors say, not so tongue in cheek, that Obama is on a “leave of absence” to pursue one of the “maybe 2 or 3 jobs” more critical than a teacher at the U of C. </p>

<p>At least when I was at Chicago, there was a kind of academic dogma present at the school: that scholarship and learning matters more than anything else. It was why, at convocation, only professors were allowed to give the speech, and President Clinton was apparently rejected the first time he wanted to come give the grad speech at Chicago. Outside of the econ majors, everyone wanted to be a poet, a physicist, or wanted to transfer to Harvard or Yale. </p>

<p>Again, it was an unparalleled learning environment, and it did indeed make me a better writer and a more discerning reader. (While these posts may indicate otherwise, my writing was atrocious before I went through the Chicago gauntlet.) At the same time, I don’t know if people on this board really know what a cooky place Chicago was back in the day. I actually think the Tucker Max interview in the Chicago Maroon (that I linked above) summed it up pretty well. </p>

<p>It’s why I think many recent Chicago graduates are happy with where the school is going. It’s also why you didn’t see a huge outcry or NY times op-eds after Chicago went to the common app.</p>

58

<p>“He polished up the marketing materials - in the “Life of the Mind” brochure, you’d find more pictures of students “juggling and playing football” rather than being buried in books.”</p>

<p>In case you never took a marketing class, this describes the execution of an existing strategy, not a change of market segment. </p>

<p>Whatever the reason/objective, Zimmer’s efforts have the real prospect of re-defining UofC’s target segment (educational strategy, if you will) in ways in which it cannot successfully compete. </p>

<p>Take financial resources: While Chicago ranks 11 ( based on most recent data) in total endowment, it ranks 15 in per student endowment ( <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/644898-2008-nacubo-endowment-data-now-public.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/644898-2008-nacubo-endowment-data-now-public.html&lt;/a&gt; ) . Worse for the College is that the funds go much more to grad student support than to undergrad support. Let us not forget too that the reason behind both the increase in College enrollment and the attendant revamping of admissions was to generate more profit, since UofC makes a profit on undergrad education. Where do the profits go? You guessed it - not to more “life of the mind” but to the betterment of the grad schools. </p>

<p>The contrast between UofC and other elites such as Harvard with regard to finances could not be greater. At Harvard, FAS, the parent of Harvard College, has by far the richest endowment. Within FAS, HC raises most of the funds. I have less knowledge of Yale, Pton or Stanford, but suspect the same thing applies. </p>

<p>Many of the elites, especially if you include LAC, can and do spend far more per student on undergrad education. </p>

<p>So, back to my earlier point: The more Zimmer moves the College toward an “image” like the other elites, the more it stands to lose in head to head competition on these measures:</p>

<ul>
<li> financial resources, especially financial aid.<br></li>
<li> reputation. (except maybe against Penn? :slight_smile: ) Even folks in Chicago think UofC is a state U, not knowing the difference between UofC, UIC and sometimes CSU.</li>
<li> location - doubly handicapped by being urban in a so-so neighborhood (hyde park will never be Cambridge or Palo Alto), and by being in a city widely perceived to be in fly-over country. Ever try to go shopping in Hyde Park?<br></li>
</ul>

<p>So those of you who think it a good idea for UofC to become more mainstream and increase yield to boot, please tell me how it will compete on any of these factors against any of its elite college peers?</p>

59

<p>Newmassdad - Of course I never took a marketing class - I went to U of C! ;-)</p>

<p>Perhaps you’re right, Zimmer may be engaging in a failing battle to make Chicago more mainstream. Do you or others, however, remember the furor in the late 90s caused by Behnke’s change in the marketing materials and the “watering-down” of the Core Curriculum? Alums wrote long op-eds in the NY Times, the Chicago Tribune wrote articles entitled: “The University of Chicago: The Northwestern of Chicago’s South Side,” and students held protests on the quads. If you read a bit farther into Kirp’s work, many argued that while the cover of Chicago’s marketing brochures said “Life of the mind,” the actual brochure itself: “verged on deception, and the depiction was like fingernails on the blackboard to many in Hyde Park. As one student sarcastically noted in the student newspaper, ‘I’m proud to report that there are more references to alcohol and fraternities in the viewbook of the University of Chicago then there is in the brochure for Brown University.’”</p>

<p>At least at the time from what I remember, many saw Behnke’s and Sonnenschein’s actions as a real change in the market targeted, and not just execution of an existing strategy. By all accounts as well, soon after these materials went out to students, the composition of the student body changed. Sure, it was still Chicago, but there was a difference in atmosphere. So, by what I can remember, this all happened about a decade ago in a more dramatic fashion. Here, Nondorf sent out a more generic letter to prospectives. Then, Behnke etc. radically changed all the marketing materials and the administration restructured the core. The latter actions seem more significant to me. </p>

<p>On another note, in terms of finances, from what I can see in the chart you produced, Chicago ranks #9 in financial resources for research universities (I’m assuming here that LACs and research unis can be separated). If you take out more specialized research universities such as MIT and Caltech (which certainly don’t share Chicago’s liberal arts mission), Chicago is #7, and decently ahead of Duke, Columbia, Penn, Northwestern, Brown, etc etc. Combine this with the fact that Chicago has perhaps a top-5 faculty, and you get a school that I’d hardly find to be an anonymous member of the mainstream top 20. Also, if anything, I think the grasp of east coast universities is weaker now than it has been in the mid-20th century, and other areas of the US offer high concentrations of top-level academic talent. </p>

<p>Finally, perhaps we disagree on what Chicago’s goal should be. I draw ire for this on this board, but I don’t really see Chicago as a peer school for Harvard, Yale, etc. As I’ve said before, I consider those schools to be a cut above, and have a bit of deference toward them. Rather, I consider Chicago’s peer schools to be places such as Columbia, Duke, Penn, and Northwestern - prominent, top-class research universities with excellent colleges. It would be my goal for Chicago to compete more favorably with this group of schools, rather than to worry about what going mainstream would do in Chicago’s competition with Harvard et al. </p>

<p>Would you disagree that by becoming more “mainstream,” Chicago would lose footing to the peers I mentioned? If anything, Chicago’s already in a better position of most of the peers I mentioned, save for perhaps Columbia. Also, as I’ve said above, I don’t think enrolling a group of more “mainstream” students would make Chicago a carbon copy of Penn or Duke - the Chicago students still have to run the gauntlet provided by the Chicago faculty. </p>

<p>Finally, again, lets not get ahead of ourselves in terms of what Zimmer is trying to do. He has mentioned an interest in enrolling more future leaders at Chicago, and Nondorf made mention in his letter of the strong opportunities - not JUST in academia - that exist for Chicago graduates. This hardly seems revolutionary to me.</p>

60

<p>Well Cue7, thats all fine and well in practice, but how does it work in theory? :)</p>