It is interesting to look back at all the worries and concerns folks had about the changes. I think it would be safe to say that the gamble paid off in all the major areas of concern namely: Selectivity, Yield, Retention Rates, Graduation rate, # of Applications, Flexibility etc.
Interestingly despite all the changes, when it comes to the “brand” of being an intellectually rigorous university because of its “Core” and other curricular features, I think notwithstanding the above fear, Chicago has retained that branding identity as evidenced by
Darth, thanks for finding and sharing the first article. It really provides a lot of historical perspective for some of us who are relative newcomers to UChicago.
@kaukauna You’re most welcome. It is interesting to read how uncertain people were of all the changes. Most were betting that the whole thing would be a disaster. Also interesting to note the generational divide among the faculty. It looks like Older faculty were dead against the changes.
I think this is the major difference between Columbia’s and Chicago’s core now. Chicago’s is a little more flexible. It does not dictate “what courses” a student takes, as long as he or she takes courses in “core areas”
What do readers think? Advantage or dis-advantage?
Thanks again Darth. The authors make good points, although some would argue that the changes they find harmful are in fact improvements. It would be interesting to hear from a poster whose involvement stretches from the present back to the 1980’s.
You could say that the University has embarked on a new phase which involves staking a leadership position in a Hyde Park and South Side renaissance. It’s an exciting thing, but also kind of risky.
When I look at Hyde Park and the South Side I see massive potential. Hyde Park is already pretty special. And while people usually refer to the South Side as “burned out” or “blighted” or some such word, I see a beautiful lake, wide straight streets and many interesting historical buildings. The Obama library could be a huge plus if it’s handled well.
To me, the University and and the South Side have the chance to do something comparable to what has happened in Harlem, if they don’t blow it. The homicides have to be brought under control and somehow all the kids of the South Side must have safe educational opportunities.
What could really help is great and courageous City leadership. On that point I am not so hopeful.
‘‘The verdict of what we are doing will come in 20 to 30 years,’’ he said. ‘‘Either they will say that this is when Chicago started going downhill or when it started to come together, when people started paying attention to it once again as the leader in undergraduate education.’’
It is still too early to tell even 17 years have passed since the change.
By some common metrics the College has improved significantly - application numbers, admission rate, yield rate, first-year retention rate, six-year graduation rate, rankings, etc.
I would like to see in another 10 to 15 years if the College can graduate (since 1998)
Same number (or more) of great scholars (thinkers) as the past 30 or so years
Same number (or more) of great authors (thinkers) as the past 30 or so years
More business leaders (doers) - the change definitely favors it
More political leaders (doers) - the change definitely favors it
Ultimately the verdict will be the graduates the College has educated. IMO the change should be very positive but time will tell.
I’d love to know what metric we’ll use to determine who is or isn’t a great scholar/author or a business/political leader.
Bernie Sanders could well count in the view of some (US senator, prominent presidential candidate), while others would judge him more a rabble-rouser than a leader.
Susan Sontag, most would agree, is a great author. Would the next E.L. James count? What about John Green? Where do we draw the line between “popular fiction” and “great writing?”
Great scholar, great author, business leader, political leader: these are rather fuzzy terms, and I’m not sure they can be used as in designing an objective metric to assess a university.
I was not aware that the College now provides 38.2% of the University’s tuition revenue. The Business school another 38.3%. The University has become very dependent on these two sources for operational expenses. Their success or failure will impact the University in a large way.
I would not be surprised if the University gradually moves to increase undergraduate enrollment to 7,000 like Stanford and aggressively courts international students who will pay full sticker price. There is rumor that they are considering new dorms for the South Campus. A new one is already being built on 55th street.
The next decade or so is going to be interesting for the College.
I tend to be skeptical of such criteria - the accolades list, for instance, includes members of the National Academy of Sciences - a group that includes about 1,900 scientists - as well as Rhodes Scholars (about 30 a year in the US), Fields Medal winners (less than 1 a year on average), and Nobel laureates. It’s hard to say where we should draw the line.
If Bernie Sanders counts (and I’d agree with you on that point), would Martin O’Malley (assuming he was a UChicago alumnus)? Looking at the Republican field, which offers a real spectrum, where do you draw the line between “political leader” and the rest of the pack?
Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and even Ben Carson or Donald Trump (shudder) would probably count. Jeb Bush is a former governor and a Bush, so I suppose we’d have to include him.
What about Chris Christie? Mike Huckabee?
Moving down the field, does Lindsey Graham count? George Pataki? Rick Santorum?
Do you rank Lawrence Lessig ahead of some of these others in terms of his influence, even if he’s dropped out of the race?
The Wikipedia article includes the likes of John Paul Stevens or Nate Silver, but also those like Rebecca Jarvis - a former Celebrity Apprentice contestant and journalist. Interesting person? Maybe. Great scholar? Business/political leader? I’m not so sure.
I think any attempt to quantify the prominence of a university’s alumni is futile, because it’s impossible to find an point where all will agree that you can draw the line between “great leader/thinker” and “ordinary alumnus.” I just don’t believe this is something quantifiable - it’s like trying to put a number on a school’s kindness or the number of “true friends” someone has.
I think every college is proud of its U.S. Senators and Representatives, cabinet secretaries, and governors, even those who are democratic socialists or affiliate themselves with the Tea Party. Significant electoral office is no small thing. Rick Santorum – to name someone I hate politically, and who has more or less fouled his nest as a Presidential candidate – is a very intelligent, very skilled person who did a lot of things right in order to be elected (and re-elected) a Senator from a state that often votes for Democrats in statewide elections. (But, heck, I think it’s OK for Princeton to be proud of Woodrow Wilson, and for Yale to be proud of George W. Bush and John C. Calhoun, while recognizing their considerable flaws.)
The original concern was if the change in 1998 would change the culture of the College - study body, atmosphere, rigorous, etc.
It is very difficult to measure a change has positive or negative or mixed impacts on broad areas. Someone uses self reported data like PayScale to measure a college alumni earning power. I would like to base on some hard fact.
The lists I threw out are some metrics which can measure the impact of change on the most accomplished alumni. Even if the lists are not very accurate but at least consistent (prior and after).
If we use those lists or others we can quantify, sort of, the impact before and after. The metrics are an aggregate which consists many small things. Although the raw data samples are very small such as prize winners or fellows of academy I believe the sum has a good sample size and is still meaningful. So we can compare the X number in the aggregate prior with the Y number in the aggregate after.
