<p>I have a sense that Zimmer is not all that connected to undergrads, so I ask:</p>
<p>Does Zimmer show up for many undergrad functions?</p>
<p>Did Zimmer appear at Family Weekend last fall? He did not the previous year, whereas his predecessor held receptions for parents.</p>
<p>I ask because he seems to have been "MIA" for a number of recognition events for undergrads this past year, and seems to be unaware of who has done what.</p>
<p>At the opening ceremony for undergrads, I shook his hand, but I had to make him look up to do it. Whereas Ted O'Neill and some other serious figures were standing around chatting with students, Zimmer was reading some report. When I see him around campus, he's always in his business suit either alone or in conversation with others in business suits -- seems kind of inappropriate for him to be in charge of such an institution. Regardless, does a university president really need to be in touch with the students to be successful? As long as he's doing things to please the students, then I'd say yes. However, all of his moves thus far seem like either really smart actions that will benefit the university or movements that will increase his own personal prestige as university president.</p>
<p>I've seen Zimmer walking around a bunch of times. On paper, I think he's committed to listening to student voices (acting on them might be another issue) and I think he could, if he wanted to, do a much better job of being the "I'm here for you" president than he is right now.</p>
<p>His primary goal seems to be to enter Chicago into the public consciousness, along with Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford, Princeton, etc. Personally, I think this is not a worthwhile goal, though some pretty sweet things have happened under his tenure and he seems good at cultivating major gifts (Odyssey gift, library, Milton Friedman institute, arts center, etc.)</p>
<p>He has recently been holding a series of meetings with undergrads. Chicago</a> Maroon | Zimmer continues open forum series</p>
<p>I don't remember seeing Zimmer at Family Weekend, but he was certainly at Convocation, and I heard him speak to a group of parents a few weeks ago. At the latter, I was much, much more impressed with him than I had been in the past. He was personable, earnest, articulate, and focused. Most of the formal communications I have seen of his have been stilted, a little rambling, and full of carefully coded, but not exactly intelligible, phrasing.</p>
<p>I'm not sure Zimmer's gifts include a whole lot of charisma and pleasure in holding meetings. I do think he has a deep connection to the University and its history, and a pretty clear vision of what it should be doing now. He also seems like (a) a good manager, and (b) someone who is very skilled at politics at the faculty and Board of Trustees levels -- and not just superficially skilled, as in manipulating people to get his own way, but leading groups of people he doesn't control with lots of conflicting ideas and agendas. At the end of the day, those are more important constituencies to any university president than students or alumni.</p>
<p>You rarely get the whole package in a leader at any level, at least not right away. If Zimmer is 80% or 90% of the whole package, that would be plenty for a great presidency. And perhaps he will grow into greater ease and openness in dealing with students.</p>
<p>I think unalove is being a little unfair in saying that his "primary goal" is to increase Chicago's PR, although she's certainly right that PR is on his short list. He is not so crass as this, but I sense that one of his overriding principles is that Chicago is one of the great universities of the world, and ought to act like it. And, more importantly, should be striving to be, not merely good, but great, and cutting edge, in what it undertakes. Is that more like HYPS? Sure. Is there really an alternative?</p>
<p>I also have a sense that, because of John Boyer's strength, undergraduate issues are more or less off Zimmer's plate, except for really big stuff. The more I learn about Chicago, the more impressed I am with Boyer. He can come across as pedantic and awkward, but his track record in making the college a better, happier, more vibrant place is pretty awesome, and his commitment to that process is very deep and very thoughtful. Does anyone know of another college Dean whose tenure has spanned four different university presidencies? In and of itself, that speaks to the regard in which he is held by the Powers That Be, and I have a sense that the issues that matter most to undergraduates are primarily in his bailiwick.</p>
<p>I ask because the U had a reception last December for Rhodes and Marshall winners - even flew winners in from out of town. Boyer was there. Tom Rosenbaum (provost) showed up. But no Zimmer.</p>
<p>Flash forward to the awards dinner this past week. One of the winners introduced themselves to Zimmer, who had no idea who the person was. One would expect, I think, that the Prez, one who wants to increase the U's visiblility, would at least be conscious of the students who have done the most to increase U visibility. But sadly, that is not the case.</p>
<p>It seems to me that he is taking the U back to the days where the focus was mostly on the graduate and research programs. We don't pay much attention to these things on these boards, but I see discussion of them in many other places. I also see the performance of the U's PR function, from the press office to Chicago magazine, and continue to be amazed at how light the coverage is of undergraduate accomplishments. yes, lots of "fluff' pieces, but whereas every book ever published by a faculty member, as well as their major papers are covered, nary a mention of undergrad publications or performance.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>OK, Zimmer should probably be able to recognize Chicago's Rhodes winners. Especially the cute ones. His bad.</p></li>
<li><p>I don't have the sense that Chicago promotes undergraduate accomplishments less than other research universities. Undergraduates don't usually have a lot of promotable accomplishments -- life-saving medical techniques, Fields Medals, multimillion-dollar research programs, or even publications. And I have a sense that the historic differences in Chicago admissions vs. HYPS means that, yes, Chicago undergraduates are less likely to start and get some new initiative off the ground and less likely to promote it if they do. That's a little bit the flip side of focusing on the life of the mind vs. future presidential candidates.</p></li>
<li><p>But you should tell them that. I'll bet they aren't aware of it.</p></li>
<li><p>I am certain that Zimmer does not want to take the University back to the days where the college was neglected. In terms of big projects, the college has gotten more than its share in the past decade (with the b-school), so it's not very surprising that the pendulum is swinging the other way a bit. And I do believe that he thinks the graduate/research programs should lead the way, and that it's impossible to have a strong college without world-class academic graduate programs. He wants to be more like Harvard or Stanford, not more like Georgetown.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I think his focus on the graduate programs makes sense, since they clearly are make or break for research universities in the next century. In contrast, the schools that all invested heavily in their undergraduate programs during the mid 20th century are now being forced to undergo significant and in some cases acrimonious institutional changes. Georgetown, Dartmouth, Brown and Rice all come to mind, and I think its fair to say that these universities were better regarded than Penn, Cornell or JHU in the 50s when the BA from a private school was a ticket in itself (and graduate studies seemed relatively esoteric). UChicago is also particularly good at reaping the trickledown effect to undergraduates allowing UGs to take graduate courses, having the strongest doctoral candidate and hence TAs, excellent faculty willing to teach undergraduates, strong recruitment and professional connections which really is a key element in the case for expansive graduate initiatives. </p>
<p>The only thing I think Chicago should get more into is advertising. I think its worthwhile when, for example, the school has more Hays-Fulbright winners than any other school for the 20th or so year running, to put a full page add in the NYT, WoPo, WSJ, etc. The GSB has started doing this with regular placements in the Economist, but they rarely highlight students accomplishments rather than simply starting some programs availability. While they are costly, these ads most directly reach out to opinion makers that the school wants to connect with regarding its image. I am always amazed of how off beat some high level individuals perceptions of the place are (its only good at economics, it does nothing in the applied sciences, no one particularly famous outside of academia ever went there, no major companies get their start). </p>
<p>The press office is killer though. There was a poster in the GSB I saw the other day that said Chicago, behind Harvard and Stanford, is the third most common citation source for major dailys when referring to research (i.e. Professor X of the University of Chicago recent work on
).
.</p>
<p>JHS,</p>
<p>Chicago is MUCH worse than its peers in promoting undergrad achievement. </p>
<p>To use an example, most schools issue press releases when undergrads win major awards like the Goldwater. Chicago does not. For example, when a kid I know well won a few years ago, I emailed the press office to find out why. The person handling the college, admittedly new on the job, never even thought of it and asked me if other places put out news pieces. And to say "Undergraduates don't usually have a lot of promotable accomplishments --" is just not true. They win Rhodes, Marshall, Truman, Gates etc. every year. they also do notable things as undergrads. </p>
<p>It seems to be a Chicago tradition to just not talk about achievement. (like Lake Woebegon?) They only have one level of graduation honors. Jr PBK inductees are only identified in the Chronicle undergrad awards edition, and even there not identified as juniors. etc. </p>
<p>Many competing institutions are in the news because they do trumpet their undergrad's accomplishments. Maybe that is part of why they are better known.</p>
<p>BTW, comparing Chicago to Georgetown, Dartmouth et al, schools with weak grad programs (if any) is really not a fair comparison.</p>
<p>Chicago magazine now comes with "The Core" undergraduate mini-mag. I haven't read through the whole thing, but I was highly amused to see a lot of people I know featured in it, but it was more of an undergraduate lifestyle focus than an undergraduate accomplishment focus:</p>
<p>The</a> Core: College Magazine of the University of Chicago </p>
<p>The news office could definitely do a lot more with championing the strength of our undergrads. I mean, they don't even need to do anything other than publicize what's already been done.</p>
<p>And getting back to an earlier statement, I heartily agree that Dean Boyer is an amazing, amazing, amazing figure in the University.</p>
<p>newmassdad: I dunno. </p>
<p>Based on the on-line archives, it looks like Chicago stopped issuing press releases on the Goldwater at some point (maybe no winners for a few years?), and then started back up again a few weeks after the conversation you describe in 2006. Effusive press releases were issued (late) that year, and the last two years. I compared them to the equivalent press releases of my alma mater, and Chicago's were twice as long and twice as enthusiastic. Brand X was very formulaic: these kids, where they're from, year in the college, what they're researching, what a Goldwater is. </p>
<p>Pretty much same thing for Rhodes. (As to which Chicago never stopped issuing press releases.) Brand X DOES have a cumulative chart of ## of major scholarship winners on its website, but that chart also indicates that
Brand X didn't bother keeping records of anything other than Rhodeses until the mid-80s (something that may bother my Marshall-winning female friends who weren't even eligible for the Rhodes in the mid-70s).</p>
<p>As for junior PBK, at my college the only way it was publicized was with a single sheet of paper on the bulletin board in my dorm, showing people in THAT dorm who had been elected. If you wanted to know who had been elected from other dorms, you had to go to their common rooms and look. It never occurred to me that it should receive more publicity than that.</p>
<p>I worked for the Brand X press office. They put little blurbs on Rhodes winners and top academic honors winners in the glossy magazine every year. That was it. No pictures. No press conferences. Obviously, that was the Pleistocene Era, but it forms the basis of my expectations.</p>