I think Dennis Hutchinson started LLS to very much NOT be Law School 101, @JBStillFlying
@Cue7 - oh, sorry, I misunderstood what “The program is designed to develop the student’s analytical skills to enable informed and critical examination of law broadly construed” actually meant. *
- Taken from LLS course description.
By the way, @Cue7, Bus. Econ. isn’t the same thing as first year at Booth MBA.
Here is a list of the members of the College Council:
https://sof.uchicago.edu/page/members-11
To my great surprise I can’t find John List’s name there. Also there is no one representing the Law School and Booth. There is one professor from Medical School and one from Harris. Judging from the surface (as I don’t know how the inner dynamics of the College Council works), you can’t really say the professional schools have an undue influence on the College Council. It looks like faculties from the four divisions (Humanities, Social Sciences, Physical Sciences and Biological Sciences) are still calling the shots. Consequently, you can argue that installing a new major with a more pre-professional flavor may just be facing the realities of college education in 2018.
Assuming List and Booth faculty WERE on the Council, they’d obviously have to recuse themselves from the vote.
Harris is probably there due to the Public Policy Studies major. Wouldn’t the undergrad. program be over in the School of Public Policy? And while we haven’t discussed, isn’t Public Policy Studies, in effect, also a pre-professional major?
84
@JBStillFlying You can look up the link I listed at #83. That list was published in October 2017. There was no one from Booth or Law School on the list.
I will start another thread on this topic. But this is one of my pet peeve on CC: U of C is more than just The College. Yes, I know this whole website is called College Confidential, not University Confidential. But The College does not exist in isolation from the rest of the university. I am not advocating abandonment of the Core or any extreme position. Nonetheless, I would like to think The College should not build a wall around itself from the rest of the university. If The College can draw on the strength of Divinity School or SSA (using examples of two professional schools whose graduates typically do not make big bucks), why not?
“You can look up the link I listed at #83. That list was published in October 2017. There was no one from Booth or Law School on the list.”
@85bears46 - no argument from me - Law or Booth at this point seem completely independent of the College, so that would make total sense that they aren’t part of the College Council. Different from PP or Medical (which is part of the integrated Bio. Sciences division) which, apparently, do have some say via their foray into the undergrad. curricula.
IMHO, no one would be complaining about Div or SSA offering undergrad programs. The numbers would simply be too small to matter so the experiment would seem “low cost”. And has anyone complained about Public Policy Studies with it’s 80 grads or 367 (first and second) majors? Nah. This isn’t about “pre-professional” - it’s about BOOTH. There are already over 1,000* Econ majors in the College and the detractors simply don’t want any more - in any form. Particularly in connection with BOOTH.
*886 first, 140 second, 5 third.
@JBStillFlying In response to #76…
This new major must be being designed with some idea of its meeting a need that students have been expressing. So the designers have already got a certain kind of input (call it the benign sort). Why would they close the door against getting a bit more of that sort by way of a response to the actual details they have in mind? The “input” I intended to shut off (call it the malign sort) was any sort of actual voice in decision-making. Let the light shine in, then let the squawks be heard! That’s another way of saying “Crescat scienta vita excolatur”.
While not every deliberation of administrators needs to be made public, this one just seems important and impactful enough that it would be the wise thing - I’ll call it the Socratic thing - to do. Where better to discuss the question of whether a departure of this sort comports with the meaning of a liberal education than in the community of the whole that constitutes the students and faculty of the University of Chicago?
I don’t believe Socrates would have made a distinction between “inside” and “outside” the classroom, metaphorical or otherwise. If he had gone in for that sort of sophistry, he might have spared himself the drink of Hemlock! We have progressed, I dare to hope.
I don’t say that a thing never having been done before constitutes an argument in its favor, merely that it doesn’t constitute an argument against it.
“This new major must be being designed with some idea of its meeting a need that students have been expressing. So the designers have already got a certain kind of input (call it the benign sort). Why would they close the door against getting a bit more of that sort by way of a response to the actual details they have in mind?”
As mentioned earlier, these discussions happen all the time, both informally and formally. If the university were to have a policy of “openness and transparency” whenever a new major is being voted on, they would really need to make sure that happens for all majors. Highly doubt that’s been the history and if someone recalls the Maroon calling for more transparency for decisions regarding other pre-professional studies, please - post that here! Suspect there’s not much there, but you never know.
“The “input” I intended to shut off (call it the malign sort) was any sort of actual voice in decision-making. Let the light shine in, then let the squawks be heard! That’s another way of saying “Crescat scienta vita excolatur”.”
“Let Knowledge grow and so Life enrich” (sorry, my Latin’s a tad rusty) - all for that! Isn’t that best found - from the student’s standpoint - in the normal business of academic exploration? And aren’t the normal feedback processes such as quarter-end teacher and course reviews sufficient input? Should the university also give a heads up when a favorite teacher is up for tenure or course/major is up for overhaul - sort of a “last chance to get your opinions in, whether or not you had that instructor or took that course?” Or should the big decisions on things like hiring, tenure, curriculum, etc. best be left to those who run the department, or the College, or the University? As much as students would LOVE a say in running the joint, that’s just not going to happen - probably with very good reason!
“While not every deliberation of administrators needs to be made public, this one just seems important and impactful enough that it would be the wise thing - I’ll call it the Socratic thing - to do. Where better to discuss the question of whether a departure of this sort comports with the meaning of a liberal education than in the community of the whole that constitutes the students and faculty of the University of Chicago?”
Sure - in the spirit of the moment when feelings are strong it seems somehow “important” and “impactful”. But the University has a way of dealing with these controversial changes. They make them, then re-assess periodically to see if they are working and consistent within the mission of the College as a liberal arts institution. Isn’t that better - much more scientific, if you will - than a bunch of strong, emotions dictating what should happen?
“I don’t say that a thing never having been done before constitutes an argument in its favor, merely that it doesn’t constitute an argument against it.”
Absolutely agree! The University or College shouldn’t be superstitious or lethargic about change. There’s really been no evidence of late that they are. They’ve made PLENTY of changes in the past 10 or so years!
BTW, @marlowe1, regarding the “closed vs. open door”:
No one should have any issue with the devisers of a new major getting proper feedback along the way. My understanding is that List has been working on this with various committees for awhile now. He’s likely juggling many balls at once as he tries to intersect the needs of the students, the College, the university, and Booth. There’s no point in making incomplete announcements when something may well change - such publicity compromises both those on the Council who favor the plan AND those who may not. Both might feel pressure to change their vote based on the prevailing winds of opinion and strong feeling rather than on an objective review of the issues and freedom of frank discussion, considering all factors. No one’s going to fault the Maroon for publishing what faculty are choosing to blab - it’s their job to get the scoop, after all. But that doesn’t mean List or anyone else is under compulsion to blab as well. The vote was postponed while the committee does more work and exploration. That seems fair. They hopefully will be left in peace to do the needed additional work.
@JBStillFlying I’m not sure why you find the idea that students would get upset that the most controversial change to the College in recent history is being debated entirely in secret odd. A change to the curriculum which has the potential to fairly radically alter the culture and admissions profile of the school is of course of interest to students. In fact, I can’t think of another change to the curriculum that would have comparable impact besides further gutting the Core.
No idea why you think this is a stalking horse for some faculty member - knowing who’s on the Maroon, I would be shocked if they didn’t publish an op ed. I don’t think you get how unpopular the admin is.
Note also that even most of the faculty were kept in the dark before the Maroon published the story. Presumably your paternalism doesn’t cover them as well.
x
“I’m not sure why you find the idea that students would get upset that the most controversial change to the College in recent history is being debated entirely in secret odd. A change to the curriculum which has the potential to fairly radically alter the culture and admissions profile of the school is of course of interest to students. In fact, I can’t think of another change to the curriculum that would have comparable impact besides further gutting the Core.”
Whoa - it replaced admitting via ED? That IS controversial!!
All jesting aside, it’s the fact that some students are ‘upset’ that makes it so necessary to proceed using measured and objective criteria. Very few decisions are made prudently based on upset feelings. And, of course, other students are NOT going to be upset. So that has to be taken into account, if we are going off of feelings. @marlowe1 would say “let the debates begin” but - what would they debate? Liking or not liking a program is hardly a thoughtful platform. Isn’t it better to see what the Council has voted on, and THEN voice an opinion?
And again, if after a few years the program needs overhauling, it’s highly likely they’d be able to accomplish that. They’ve dropped majors before.
There has been no long term evidence that “gutting the core” so far has been a bad idea. The technical requirements for many majors, particularly in the STEM fields, have changed. UChicago had a decision to make - adjust to meet the current technical demands, or continue to flounder as a College. Hardly a difficult decision to make, regardless of the pain and discomfort caused at the time.
As for the faculty - gee, how could they NOT know? Aren’t they the ones who make up the College Council? If some complainers weren’t tipped off by their colleagues - well, that’s between them all. I’m sure they had their reasons 
Now, are some faculty behind the current complaint? Sure - because some probably figure their departments stand to lose by it. They could be right - or they could be jockeying to keep their sphere of influence. Who knows? Who cares? Whether this benefits the College is a bigger issue than some disgruntled faculty.
I’m very much aware of how unpopular the admin. is to certain students and perhaps even to certain faculty. Tell me - how has that impacted ANYTHING that the College has done in recent years?
At #75 @Cue7 said that when he was an undergrad in the nineties he experienced the Core as heavy-handed, paternalistic and simply too time-consuming in a college education. His general point of view corresponded well with what I was hearing when I returned to the school once during those years and dropped in serendipitously for breakfast at BJ. I schmoozed with a group of eight or ten kids sitting at the Chamberlin House table, all of whom, it seemed, were more or less unhappy with having to do the Core. I put this observation together with Cue’s testimony, and I conclude that student activism of that period on the matter of curriculum and student life might well have taken the form of advocating for a dilution and de-emphasis of the Core, introduction of more choice within it and more choice generally, accompanied by an upgrading facilities, dorms and the amenities of student life.
What surprised me about that was the way it flipped the perspective of me and my cohorts of the early sixties. Our emotional allegiance was to the Hutchins College, which was dead and gone but which in our minds represented the undiluted ideal - one which we knew or suspected was being undermined by the administration of the day with its murky and undisclosed plans for “Princetonization”. One instance of this was the reinstitution of football. Hence the sit-in on the 50-yard line. Hence the many rumors that the administration was favoring all-American types in the admissions process. We were militantly against all this and in support of all those things that seemed to our counterparts a few years later to be dreary paternalistic obstacles to self-fulfilment. Many fighting faiths have vanished almost overnight. That seemed to be one of them.
However, no faith ever dies completely. My sense is that this older vision has somewhat revived in recent years, ironically at a time which saw the introduction of the very changes that we of the sixties feared and fretted about. The Core is regularly spoken about with pride on this board, and it seems to be a real attraction for prospective students. Am I reading this correctly? It would be interesting to hear from current students as to the present climate on campus as to these matters. Amongst activists on this subject, is it the activism of Cue7’s cohort of the nineties or those of my cohort of the sixties - or something altogether different from either of these? And how do these activists regard the introduction of the new business major - as a further liberation from the old retrograde paternalism of the bad old days, or as an innovation threatening to destroy everything good and distinct about the College?
@marlowe1 - What? The fears of ivy-fication were around 50+ years ago? Had no idea. Perhaps this is something that is ingrained into the Chicago psyche and re-activates every generation or so.
@Cue7’s opinion on the Core, juxtaposed to that of @phoenix1616 at #90, presents yet another potential UChicago psychological trait. When you have it all, it becomes “heavy-handed” and “time-consuming”; when it’s scaled back, you lament its “gutting”. This love-hate relationship with the Core has probably existed since it was first imposed on the student body. Some current students admit that Hum and Sosc are hard to endure, but teach you invaluable thinking and writing skills.
For the record, my kid wouldn’t have chosen the Bio sequence if given a choice; however, she understands how invaluable all these required classes are. Not sure if she’s completely fatigued yet with Sosc. She seems to enjoy Hum most of all. Very much looking forward to three-quarters of Civ beginning this fall.
Any student who wants to emulate the old Core can always take those extra classes as electives. Of course, a keen interest in what OTHER students want to take seems to be the current subject on this thread. With that in mind, it’s probably a good time to re-iterate that “Bus. Econ” is NOT the same thing as a Business degree, which would be a distinct degree program altogether - i.e., one that isn’t offered through the College. “Bus. Econ.” is a proposed College Major coming up for vote in the College Council - it is 100% a College Program of Study (just like any other major) and students so embarking on this Program of Study must conform their course selections to meet the College Curriculum requirements. What are those? Well, pretty much what all undergrads have to take: 1500 credits of Core, 300 credits of a FL, 800-1800 credits of electives and 900-1900 credits of your major. Those are the specs in the College Catalog, which itself is a GREAT resource for “those outraged about the possibility (but) do not even know what it is that they are arguing over”. Perhaps reading the Catalog will even resolve some of the outrage and confusion. Too bad the Maroon failed to mention it.
“what would they debate? Liking or not liking a program is hardly a thoughtful platform. Isn’t it better to see what the Council has voted on, and THEN voice an opinion?”
Presumably, there are reasons for liking or disliking a program that are worthy of debate. Waiting until a decision has been made is obviously too late for any meaningful transparency. You’re not that dumb.
“As for the faculty - gee, how could they NOT know? Aren’t they the ones who make up the College Council?”
Even the College Council didn’t feel they knew enough about the program composition to evaluate it, as Ada Palmer told the Maroon. From what I’ve heard from a prof who’s on it, the whole thing was very hush hush. It’s been very secret compared to, say, the debates over Law Letters, which is obviously a far smaller program.
“Students so embarking on this Program of Study must conform their course selections to meet the College Curriculum requirements. What are those? Well, pretty much what all undergrads have to take: 1500 credits of Core, 300 credits of a FL, 800-1800 credits of electives and 900-1900 credits of your major. Those are the specs in the College Catalog, which itself is a GREAT resource for “those outraged about the possibility (but) do not even know what it is that they are arguing over”. Perhaps reading the Catalog will even resolve some of the outrage and confusion.”
If you’re this clueless, you probably shouldn’t be commenting. Duh, everyone knows that already. It doesn’t tell anyone anything about the content of the major, which is what the debate is over. Will it expand the number of business classes offered to undergraduates? Will it require students to complete the bulk of the econ major? Will it require metrics and math methods for econ? Will there be an experiential component like ME?
@phoenix1616 why are you so hyped up about a major? If you don’t like it don’t take it.
Please be careful about faculty using you as a stooge or a mouthpiece. That some faculty are relying on sympathetic and emotional students to make their case is actually manipulative and might even violate an ethics code. Hopefully you aren’t relying on that prof for a grade or anything.
And while it’s great that YOU are aware of the college curriculum, not so the Maroon: “Given that the business economics major may constitute a departure from the College’s traditional curriculum, one would imagine that the College Council would want to communicate a clear idea of what is at stake.“. There’s no such departure. Everyone has the same set of curriculum requirements. So either the Maroon is being clueless or lying.
Check the outrage, @phoenix1616 - it doesn’t make you appear intelligent. Take a deep breath, wait for the College Council, then let your voice be heard. No, it won’t be too late because down the road the admin might come to agree with you. This is about more than your personal four year experience.
Check your condescension, it doesn’t make you appear intelligence
Is it really so ridiculous for people outside of Levi Hall to have any input or opinions? They’re rushing this through behind closed doors because they know it’s contentious and as usual the administration is all for “open dialogue” until it might go a way they don’t like
@HydeSnark why is it contentious?
Because some people argue that the purpose of a university education isn’t to learn the minutiae of the practical, day to day running of a business but instead to learn theory - and practical knowledge can wait until you’re employed and learning in the field. Before you start writing a massive ten paragraph response explaining why you disagree with that and you think actually UChicago really should have a business econ major - great, whatever. Personally, I’m totally ambivalent. I don’t care one way or another.
But it’s not a great look for the University Administration to try to sneak this through and obfuscate. Clearly, some people are angry. It’s “manipulative” and might “violate an ethics code” to listen to them? Yeah, sure. Making decisions behind closed doors and shrugging off anyone else’s opinion is status quo for the administration and plenty of people are angry about it.