@uocparent If they don’t enjoy this type of debate, U of C is probably not the right place for them ;).
The Core Strikes Back 
:
https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2018/2/23/let-get-business/
Really can’t recall any time that my own alma mater felt it had to consult the undergrads before changing or offering a major. Wouldn’t be surprised to find some disgruntled and/or disenfranchised faculty/instructor types behind this editorial. Using the students as your mouthpiece is an old trick that has been growing in popularity the past couple years (Mizzou being one of the more egregious examples).
The day that John List or Jim Nondorf is answerable to groups that can’t even spell correctly is the day we stop supporting the University of Chicago.
I think there is a big trend towards pre-professionalism at Chicago in the last decade or so with all the changes that have happened and the targeting of more prepsters. Case in point, Chicago undergrad has become a top 10 target school for investment banking according to the most recent WSO report published earlier this week. (#9 to be exact). That would have been unheard of during my parents time at the school a few decades back. http://www.businessinsider.com/investment-banking-recruiting-report-biggest-takeaways-2018-2
You have a sharper eye than me, @JBStillFlying - I couldn’t spot the misspelling. The editorial itself was kind of innocuous, I thought, and its central critique not unreasonable - the lack of clarity in communication. I detected no suggestion that there should be consultation of the student body, much less any objections in substance. Don’t they in fact take a swipe at opponents of the proposal when they say that “those outraged about the possibility do not even know what they are arguing over”? And it’s a bit mysterious that two members of the board recuse themselves, one for a reason that didn’t make much sense to me (previous coverage of the matter) and the other for no stated reason at all. Were these two among the outraged who failed to carry the rest of the board with them? Sounds like there’s a lack of consensus there, as there probably is in the student body itself.
In my day the Maroon Editorial Board once called for the impeachment of John F. Kennedy. (We all called it “The Moron”, yet compulsively read it.) At least this editorial takes on an issue closer to home, one in which students, whatever their ultimate position on the matter, have a real interest and reasonably ask for more information. I wonder whether the tamped down and noncommittal quality of the editorial is a good reflection of student opinion.
The Maroon was “the Moron” in our day as well, @marlowe1 (editorial on the “Nobel Peace Prize for Literature” one year being an example par excellence) and I wouldn’t put it past the editors to overlook a misspelling - but I actually wasn’t referring to them; rather, to those mysterious and unedited posters from my comment #7.
BTW, yes, they are suggesting there should be a consultation of the student body - for instance, this: "Most troublingly, most College students and faculty found out about the potential for a business economics major not from the University itself but from an anonymous poster campaign. When asked for comment by The Maroon, only then did John List, economics professor and department chair, confirm that they were discussing the possibility. "
And this: "Because of the confusion within the College Council and varying levels of candor with the student body, those outraged about the possibility do not even know what it is that they are arguing over. "
Why else would the undergrads need “more transparency” unless it’s to offer their views on the subject and/or demonstrate? Not that they don’t have that right, because the University has granted it via the free speech policy. But when it comes to “major” 
university decisions the student body isn’t exactly a stakeholder. They aren’t, for instance, part of the College Council - they have no vote. They may not like that fact, but so it be.
Again, wouldn’t be surprised if faculty are using the students to voice their own concerns or to manipulate the outcome. Will be interesting to see where this goes. Predict all the fuss is a big nothing-burger.
@marlowe1: totally agree that the recusals are themselves, lacking transparency! LOL. Perhaps those two disagree with the opinion. There well might be some students who are all for the bus. econ. major - for instance, current first years who were expecting to declare the major next year. Given the number of editors on the Marroon staff, it’s likely to be a more divided issue on campus than on the editorial board which seems united with the exception of those two recusals.
@Penn95 at #63 - your point seems reasonable, but Harvard College has been sending its graduates to Wall St. for a long time now w/o worrying about offering a pre-professional business major. Wall St. hires those kids in part due to connections and in part because they tend to be bright kids. Over the last several years, the same has been true for UChicago grads who have, till this point, been heading to Wall St. w/o the benefit of a pre-professional business major.
On the other hand, John List suggests that the econ. majors at UChicago are requesting a more applied track. From a prior Maroon article:
"John List, chairman of the Department of Economics, said the major would be ‘economics with a business flavor’ and would allow students an increased amount of specialization. According to List, the major would be ‘more applied in nature’ than the current economics major.
‘[The economics department has] roughly 25 to 27 percent of majors on campus’ List said. ‘When you get that large, it’s important to allow your students to have a voice.’ "
@JBStillFlying - I’m a little confused by your posts. On the one hand, you say that (per the John List quote) the student econ majors had a voice and drove (in part) the push to have a business econ major. On the other hand, you say that students shouldn’t be consulted or have a voice when it comes to college decisions re majors.
That’s discordant to me. Also, I’m entirely unclear why students shouldn’t be able to have more transparency, offer their voice, and/or demonstrate over these decisions. Some colleges give students a tremendous degree of choice and voice over these matters (I’m think of Brown, with its open curriculum and ability to design your own major).
Re the larger point - this just demonstrates the larger tension of what Chicago’s College should be. For so long, it was a theoretical place and an incubator for future academics/wonks. Part of the frustration here is that, I think, the admin/leadership has a fairly clear idea of what it wants the College to be. But, the admin plays hide the ball with students, so as to limit the demonstrations/protests over the changes.
(I always thought the goal should be: Chicago education with a Harvard brand. I think the actual goal is: to be the MIT of liberal arts with a healthy dose of Penn pre-professionalism. You can’t really fault the admin here - the business econ major will print money for the school. I could easily see an extra 2,000-3,000 kids applying from all over the world, just because of this program. From Nondorf’s perspective, Chicago could see 36k apps a year, a 6% accept rate, a 75% yield.)
Aside: just think if Chicago invested in undergrad engineering! With Nondorf’s magic, we could be talking 40k applications a year, maybe a 5% accept rate… that’s dangerously close to Stanford and Harvard territory!
Perhaps I’m being over-literal (or simply ignorant of university processes) but, @JBStillFlying , I still don’t see a demand for consultation in the four corners of this editorial or the passages you quoted - that is, in the sense of students seeking to be part of the deliberative process de jure. Isn’t it more the case that they just want sufficient knowledge to be able to debate among themselves and, yes, sound off to the administration in the time-honored way of students at all times at the U of C? The call for more information here might even be reflecting Chicago values in that weren’t we as students always being told such things as that opinion without knowledge is otiose? Can the demand for knowledge at Chicago ever be out of bounds? I suppose implicit in their request is a hope that their opinion could have some effect or at least that the administration will engage in conversation with its students in a way they have come to expect from their classroom profs, not with any expectation of equality but at least with respect. Socrates did not refuse to speak to his less enlightened interlocutors, treated them always with respect, examined their opinions with them - and ultimately brought them to a better way of thinking. Why not a little of that spirit outside the classroom but still within the precincts of the hallowed halls?
Welcome back @Cue7 . The wild rumpus has missed you. Tension, transition, definition, principles at war - that part of your take on things is certainly so, has always been so, at Chicago. However, I always read into your comments some notion of Chicago’s insufficiency vis a vis other schools, as if it were straining to make itself like one or other of them rather than evolving in its own way - as if there were only a limited number of never-changing items on the menu from which to choose rather than something sui generis being cooked up. That, I submit, is not the way to think about these things. I too would like to see the transparency you are advocating, but that doesn’t mean adopting the Brown model. Heaven forbid! I want a made-in-Chicago debate about that as about all other aspects of the Chicago educational mission. Please leave Harvard out of it!
“@JBStillFlying - I’m a little confused by your posts. On the one hand, you say that (per the John List quote) the student econ majors had a voice and drove (in part) the push to have a business econ major. On the other hand, you say that students shouldn’t be consulted or have a voice when it comes to college decisions re majors.”
You’ve brought up an interesting dichotomy. I have no strong opinion on whether the Econ. Dept. SHOULD take surveys or receive feedback from Econ. majors as to the relevance of their courses. As my own college did the same thing, that seems to be a best practice. Academic departments know how to run their business better than I, and - important! - better than the student body at large. If student feedback ultimately prompts the relevant faculty to propose a change - then that’s great. But that process of determining ultimate approval (the committee meetings and vote by the relevant body of faculty) tends not to be shared with the students for a variety of good reasons. It is, after all, a curriculum issue and the students are, despite their views, the least informed on that topic. If they WERE allowed to weigh in, you wouldn’t see Core Hum and Sosc. :))
That some faculty continue to inform students on the process for a variety of reasons (both well and ill-intentioned) doesn’t change the fact that the students, being the loudest voice, are also the least informed as to whether the College could truly offer a certain course or major. But faculty do have their motives and do whip up the students. BTW, they are also tight-lipped when it serves their interests. The big difference between this issue and other curriculum issues is that no one’s going to bother demonstrating over something like another humanities major, simply because 1) those who like to demonstrate will probably approve of the major and 2) everyone else is too busy. Oh, and 3) the numbers will be small so it wouldn’t impact the College at large.
“Also, I’m entirely unclear why students shouldn’t be able to have more transparency, offer their voice, and/or demonstrate over these decisions. Some colleges give students a tremendous degree of choice and voice over these matters (I’m think of Brown, with its open curriculum and ability to design your own major).”
Students certainly CAN demonstrate over these decisions at UChicago. Given that the Brown Daily Herald published an article last year about the toll that activism is taking on coursework, grades and student health, not sure that school is a model of Best Practices; we certainly don’t see a lot of other uni’s emulating that degree of “openness”. Be that as it may, if students feel they are better off at a place like Brown, why are they at UChicago? (The latter has a slightly different history and culture).
“Re the larger point - this just demonstrates the larger tension of what Chicago’s College should be. For so long, it was a theoretical place and an incubator for future academics/wonks. Part of the frustration here is that, I think, the admin/leadership has a fairly clear idea of what it wants the College to be. But, the admin plays hide the ball with students, so as to limit the demonstrations/protests over the changes.”
Could be - because maybe the College realizes that the coursework is tough and providing students an open venue for weighing in on every decision is not only a colossal waste of students’ time but contrary to the mission of the College. Do they want students there for their activist voices or to gain some wisdom and knowledge? If the latter, all evidence points to the classroom not the Quad. Someone should have demanded that those posters come down till they are at least spelled correctly. 
“I always thought the goal should be: Chicago education with a Harvard brand . . . Aside: just think if Chicago invested in undergrad engineering! With Nondorf’s magic, we could be talking 40k applications a year, maybe a 5% accept rate… that’s dangerously close to Stanford and Harvard territory!”
Harvard again. You guys continually miss the point on why they are offering the Bus. Econ. major. Did you know that, unlike Harvard, UChicago Econ. doesn’t offer a Corp. Fin. course? Harvard includes a “Financial Wizard” track for their econ. majors - it’s in the handbook. Ec. 1723 and 1745 are deemed enormously practical for those heading to Wall St. I love Prof. Alverez at UChicago but he doesn’t teach from the same perspective - he is a Macro Theory guy, NOT a Wall St. guy. UChicago econ is simply more theoretical than other top schools, including Harvard (for some tracks). That’s not going to change. This is a huge reason why they are offering the Bus. Econ. major. List isn’t going to turn the Econ. department into a mini B-School when they have the resources elsewhere on campus. Bus. Econ. surely will increase the attractiveness of the College, but it also takes pressure off their signature program to allow it to stick to what it does best.
“Perhaps I’m being over-literal (or simply ignorant of university processes) but, @JBStillFlying , I still don’t see a demand for consultation in the four corners of this editorial or the passages you quoted - that is, in the sense of students seeking to be part of the deliberative process de jure. Isn’t it more the case that they just want sufficient knowledge to be able to debate among themselves and, yes, sound off to the administration in the time-honored way of students at all times at the U of C?”
@marlowe1: do you recall being notified as an undergraduate when the College was looking at adding a major or two? These decisions go on all the time (or are, at least, discussed quite frequently). How many of them do you recall from your College years?
I never seen such a sense of entitlement from students, getting rid of a major , yes, students are stakeholders, adding a major, not so much.
Stirring the pot a bit more - and this is just speculation:
Booth is a big player at the university level. B-school grad programs are starting to experience a bit of what happened to law schools - declining enrollment. (Of course Booth as a tippy-top grad program probably doesn’t have to worry about this as much . . . ). If you want to expand, and you are a big player, why wouldn’t you propose an undergraduate business major? Booth doesn’t need the College’s permission for this - A BBA or BS.B or B.Bus is a separate degree program.
Was the College worried about this?
Edit to add: In other words, did this possibility prompt a “joint-venture” to satisfy both a desire to expand (Booth) and protect the newly-won selective ranking of the College? After all, imagine what would happen if a good number of applicants were admitted to the College as their “second choice” because they couldn’t get into Booth.
I insist on the distinction between information and input. The former doesn’t entail the latter, but I think they’re being conflated here. Student demonstrations is surely a straw man - 1968 it is not. If you don’t accept the Socratic analogy, how about thinking of it as consumer sampling? The fact that it hasn’t been done before ought not to be a fatal objection - not at the University of Chicago!
@JBStillFlying - your posts smack a little of paternalism to me (e.g. “we [the faculty] know the structure in which you should learn, and you [the students] don’t have a say in aforesaid structure.”
And yes, I know (and experienced) a more heavy-handed Chicago core, where there was less student choice and perhaps even more paternalism in the approach (“you should learn what we tell you to learn, and it’ll take up about 50% of your time in college”).
Note, though, that it appears Chicago’s student voices have never been stronger, or more influential in changing the array of courses offered. Say a bunch of undergrad chicago econ majors in 1988 said they wanted a “business economics major” - what do you think the faculty would have said then?
Also, when you say “the faculty” should make the ultimate decision on changes in major - who do you identify as “the faculty”? From what I can see, an institution almost entirely devoted to teaching grad/professional students (Booth) has a sizable role in determining what could end up being the most popular undergrad major at Chicago. Should we have medical school faculty determining how Chicago undergrad teaches science courses? What about Chicago Law faculty starting a “law school 101” major at the undergrad?
I have a sense this ultimate decision won’t come down to a group of wizened men (primarily men) gathering around a table to determine what’s best pedagogically for the College. There are other influential power players at the table vying for this, too.
And the above isn’t a bad thing - it’s reality. But let’s not pretend there is some wise and clean cut group of “faculty,” upon which this decision rests, and that a healthy dose of activism would harm this process in some way.
Because, say what you will about Brown, an article or two about activism’s impact on their Open Curriculum does not match the very real protests surrounding a Chicago education - protests that have occurred (on and off - esp. heated in the late 90s) for some time.
“If you don’t accept the Socratic analogy, how about thinking of it as consumer sampling?”
Well, then it IS input! And btw, did Socrates apply his method outside the classroom or inside? (“classroom” being a figurative term here, as I imagine his discourses with his students taking place outside on a beautiful Greek afternoon, with the sky as blue as the Mediterranean).
“The fact that it hasn’t been done before ought not to be a fatal objection - not at the University of Chicago!”
There are lots of things that haven’t been done before at the University of Chicago. That shouldn’t be a criterion for policy. The one thing that UChicago doesn’t do is “wing it”.
"your posts smack a little of paternalism to me (e.g. “we [the faculty] know the structure in which you should learn, and you [the students] don’t have a say in aforesaid structure.”
Yup - more an “alma mater” than a pater.
“And yes, I know (and experienced) a more heavy-handed Chicago core, where there was less student choice and perhaps even more paternalism in the approach (“you should learn what we tell you to learn, and it’ll take up about 50% of your time in college”).”
And who was ultimately responsible for changing that - the College or the student body?
“Note, though, that it appears Chicago’s student voices have never been stronger, or more influential in changing the array of courses offered. Say a bunch of undergrad chicago econ majors in 1988 said they wanted a “business economics major” - what do you think the faculty would have said then?”
There may well have been! But if the time wasn’t right, then the time wasn’t right. Note that these conversations happen all the time among the faculty - THEY are the ones ultimately responsible, with approval from the College and/or university, for introducing the new major. After all, they need to be the ones devising curriculum and teaching the courses and who are in charge of the program over the long term. Those students whose voices want to be heard and who wish to be informed - are there four years. Perhaps it’s that shorter-term commitment of the student body as a direct stakeholder or consumer that prompts the faculty not to be sharing every conversation they have with the students.
“Also, when you say “the faculty” should make the ultimate decision on changes in major - who do you identify as “the faculty”? From what I can see, an institution almost entirely devoted to teaching grad/professional students (Booth) has a sizable role in determining what could end up being the most popular undergrad major at Chicago. Should we have medical school faculty determining how Chicago undergrad teaches science courses? What about Chicago Law faculty starting a “law school 101” major at the undergrad?”
Faculty Council is probably made up of a good representation from the College - and after they vote “yay” it probably has to go to the President of the university for ultimate approval - or perhaps to the provost first.
And they probably DO have medical faculty influencing the College Bio Sciences major. After all, those are heavily linked to satisfactory pre-reqs for Med School. And isn’t the division of Bio Sciences and Medicine the SAME division?
“I have a sense this ultimate decision won’t come down to a group of wizened men (primarily men) gathering around a table to determine what’s best pedagogically for the College. There are other influential power players at the table vying for this, too.”
Unless the College changes the norms for determining a new major, it will remain with the College Council for voting up or down. After that it may have to clear higher hurdles, as I’ve noted above. None of that has anything to do with influential power players other than the provost and pres. Of course, I did comment earlier about Booth perhaps making waves about introducing it’s own undergrad. bus. program. THAT’s not out of the realm of possibilities. You’d be amazed at how many conflicts and deals are taken care of in offices behind closed doors before anything comes up for a vote.
“But let’s not pretend there is some wise and clean cut group of “faculty,” upon which this decision rests, and that a healthy dose of activism would harm this process in some way.”
Uh - If I’ve EVER represented college decision making as something other than cold hard self-interest, please point me to it. And there IS activism - there will always be. It’s UChicago, after all! But even children in a family that consults them on every big decision aren’t privy to ALL the conversations of the parents. That Pater/mater thing again
“Because, say what you will about Brown, an article or two about activism’s impact on their Open Curriculum does not match the very real protests surrounding a Chicago education - protests that have occurred (on and off - esp. heated in the late 90s) for some time.”
It’s UChicago! (see above). There is a respectable history of protests and, very occasionally, suspensions. Where would we be without it?
Also, @Cue7 - your comment about “wizened men (primarily men)” making the decisions is interesting. Given that the Bus. Econ. major will likely attract more women to the course of study, are you somehow implying that this decision will NOT benefit women? If so, what should women major in, in your view?
“What about Chicago Law faculty starting a “law school 101” major at the undergrad?”
Isn’t that how LLS got started? Or am I misremembering @JHS’s explanation of this?