You have no reading comprehension if you think curriculum in that context means the number of classes required for the major.
Dunno what alternate universe you’re living in where professors “use students as stooges or mouthpieces.” You come off as pretty clueless tbh, not helping that you’re a first year’s parent.
Like Hyde Snark, I really dgaf substantively, I’m out of here in a few months, but the university’s hypocrisy on the value of dialogue gets old.
“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.”
@phoenix1616 my sincere apologies for having triggered some very bad feelings. I hope the rest of your year goes better.
"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?”
“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.”
Okay.
What is the process of establishing a new major? From what I understand, it is
Did I miss a step where the full content of the proposed major should be detailed out to the maroon or college confidential so that the student body can vote on it in a plebiscite?
For me, students should indeed vote. BUT vote with their feet - enroll or not enroll in a major. If they choose to not enroll in the Business Econ major enmasse then it does not matter what major Booth, Econ or the Admin creates… but we all know that this will be very popular among students as a major (or a second major) so let’s not kid ourselves, the student body is not against this.
There’s a genuine argument to be made about sticking with the usual procedures for creating a new major, but that argument is not well-served when resistance to those procedures is misrepresented and caricatured. Neither the Maroon nor any of the students posting here have said anything suggesting that “the student body… vote on it in a plebiscite.” Reductio ad absurdum of opposing arguments is frowned on when it is used in the classroom.
Look, I am too far removed from the details of this matter to truly have an opinion on its merits. I would, however, very much like to see an open discussion of something that seems on its face to be very unprecedented and innovative for the University of Chicago. If it is not that at all, then the proponents should make that point. It may well be that what is being proposed is merely a systemization and rationalization of what more or less now exists. It may be more than that but also be a measured response to popular demand. It may have many beneficial effects of both an educational and practical nature. It may also be the case that the process detailed by @JBStillFlying and @FStratford is the perfectly correct one in the normal course of creating a major and should not be deviated from here. As has been said the mere fact of innovation (whether that of the introduction of such a consequential new major or that of opening up discussion of the new major) is not in itself an argument for or against anything. We don’t know until we can examine the substance.
Aristotle would say that we have to ask the question, what is the end for which this thing is being done? Is this step merely an administrative rationalization or is it a step that refocuses the nature of liberal education at the College and shapes the student body of the future? And if these things are so or could be so (but how do we know whether they’re so if no one is talking for the record?) then it’s no longer business as usual. It is worth a communal discussion, perhaps even a heated debate. There must be faculty who want this as well as students. Why should the administrators in question feel defensive about what they’re up to - especially if it is the case that “the student body is not against this”? Perhaps there is even the prospect of consensus. No plebiscites are being called for, just a good discussion about the meaning of liberal education of the sort the University of Chicago was once famous for.
@marlowe1, there is a real question about how many are “for” or “against”. According to the Maroon, “multiple” faculty have spoken about it but no one other than John List has an opinion on record unless I missed something. Unlike the Bannon visit, Obama Center, and other recent hot-button issues, this one doesn’t seem to have a petition going around. No one’s willing to sign their name. And the protest group that posted the flyers hasn’t come forward either - we really have no idea who they are or whether they are even part of the university community.
Transparency is understandable but let’s have it on both sides. Those with genuine concerns need to step forward, identify themselves, and explain their viewpoint. They are, after all, proposing a departure from normal procedures. Vague and anonymous calls for open dialogue while hiding behind the Maroon editorial board won’t do. If they want to use the Maroon as a forum - great. They should grant an interview.
Wow! What an interesting debate I have been missing . . . .
I’m just going to shove in a couple of collateral points.
http://catalog.yale.edu/dus/course-study-committee-majors/
There are three undergraduates on the committee, as well as untenured junior faculty. Forty years ago, my spouse was one of the undergraduates. It was a very big deal: certainly the most important formal point of contact between students and faculty. She (and everyone else) took it very, very seriously. I can’t tell that anything about the committee has changed since then. If you go to the website and click on the links, you will see that there is a public paper trail for what the committee does. There was plenty of debate and discussion, formal and informal, about the committee’s work throughout the university.
That’s not to say that @JBStillFlying is wrong that ultimately it’s up to the faculty (with perhaps some input from the administration) to determine curriculum, and that the stake undergraduates feel in the curriculum of the future is ultimately illusory. But the foregoing shows that it’s not universal practice to exclude undergraduates from the process.
@JBStillFlying The Maroon’s point, which I believe to be a good one, is to question how anyone can take an intelligent position of opposition (or support, for that matter) without knowledge of the details of the proposal. Perhaps that’s an evasion or is disingenuous, but why are you so certain that the editors are being manipulated by a shadowy faculty member? The Maroon position can certainly be questioned, though it seems eminently reasonable to me from my distant perspective and is very consistent with the desires of students from my day to the present to be involved in fundamental questions concerning the meaning and effect of a liberal education Chicago-style. So the position does not seem to call for a Svengali pulling strings behind the curtain. Nevertheless, opinions are never formed in a vacuum. It does certainly seem likely that the editors may have been doing what journalists are supposed to do and canvassing the views of faculty with some knowledge of what is going on in a matter of very obvious student interest. They may even have been approached by such an individual, as journalists from time immemorial have been approached. As Woodward and Bernstein were approached by Deep Throat. Who knows, but so what? Whatever the circumstances, if such a view of matters was out there (and how could it not be?) and if it struck the editors as a reasonable one and if it is therefore reflected in their editorial position, that wouldn’t make them into stooges or stalking horses. Undergrads may not be fully formed but they are not, at least at the University of Chicago, mindlessly acquiescent to anybody’s agenda.
I agree, however, that if there are faculty with opinions on this subject they ought to speak out without cover. That might take courage, I would suppose. Does the draught of Hemlock await any such speaker? Or merely a trip to Coventry?
@JBStillFlying There is a faculty petition, it has over a hundred signatures. The people behind the posters are hardly some secret clique, they’re just a group of undergrads. They post about it publicly on Facebook quite a bit. The posts about the announcement on the semi-public university Facebook groups, the primary means of student debate about campus matters, were very prolific. Once again, as a non-student, you probably don’t know what’s going on as much as you think you do.
@phoenix1616 where is the faculty petition? Will it be published? And why are the poster people anonymous? What’s the name of the public FB page? Details please, oh wise and knowledgable undegraduate! BTW, it’s probably a good idea for you students to keep the non-students (ie parents) in the loop. Many of them are going to be very interested in this issue, if not already.
I tried to post the Google doc link but it got blocked for moderation, you can find it linked on one of the Maroon articles. It’s been out for a month. The students in the group aren’t anonymous, they just don’t have much (if any) presence on the open internet. The Facebook groups that nearly all students are in are Overheard at UChicago and UChicago Memes for Theoretical Midwestern Teens, as well a the (less active) official university groups. If you don’t feel that you’re in the loop enough, I guess that’s a matter between you and your kid? It’s almost like publicity on university decisions is a good thing!
I think all opinions and observations have their places though. People who are more removed from the day-to-day offer perspectives that the people who are too entrenched in the situation may not see. All offer some valid arguments though, some of which have been interesting at times.
@JHS that’s interesting what you posted about Yale’s committee and the participation of undergrads - did any of them actually vote? Were they observers or committee discussants? I attended a very small LAC and we had something similar. There was an Academic Committee of students with an elected Chair and various student department reps. The faculty were great about allowing input, surveying of new ideas, etc. As an economics dept. rep I had many great conversations - and debates - with the dept. chair and other faculty about things like degree of math required, introduction of new electives, etc. It was a great experience and we, too, took if very seriously. We were also invited to sit in on faculty meetings discussing curriculum and so forth (I think those were at the division level in our college). But even in that small, wonderfully collaborative environment, we didn’t have a vote or a say in the meetings. We were listeners, not direct participants.
I know it seems far-fetched, but some of us have given the matter measured and objective thought and are upset by the conclusions.
With regards to the Public Policy major, since people are equating its “practical” skills with those business econ would teach, the Public Policy department requires that every student take one class on policy implementation. I put the odds of the business econ major including only one class on the minutiae of running a business at precisely zero.
In a similar vein, @JHS is correct about LLS; if the intent was to create an undergrad pre-law program, it would look very different. The LLS majors I know describe the major as a mix of the history, sociology, and theory of law - with only the barest hint of relevance to the actual teaching or practice of law.
As for campus sentiment about a business major, the number of econ majors is a very bad proxy for student sentiment in general. I know several econ majors who openly refer to the program as “selling out,” which is part of the major’s reputation in most UChicago crowds. The frat/finance bro is a trope of conversations among students, because these students are highly visible and make for a very tempting target, and the major’s image takes the occasional hit when our alumni break new ground in securities fraud (see: https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2018/2/23/alum-cryptocurrency-crime/). This is not the entirety of the major’s reputation, and may not even be the bulk of it, but I can assure you the growing number of econ majors hasn’t made the department more popular among nonmajors.
Pub pol is de facto just a mix of the content of Econ and poli sci, it’s not preprofessional any more than they are
“The Maroon’s point, which I believe to be a good one, is to question how anyone can take an intelligent position of opposition (or support, for that matter) without knowledge of the details of the proposal.”
“Perhaps that’s an evasion or is disingenuous, but why are you so certain that the editors are being manipulated by a shadowy faculty member?”
No one’s certain who these people are. That’s the point. Clearly some faculty are involved given what current students are posting here. Being wary of manipulation is just being prudent. The faculty would have different motives than the students and they are in a position of power and influence over the latter. There are several examples at other places where student demonstrations had a disgruntled faculty member or few at the core. UChicago isn’t somehow exempt from that temptation.
“The Maroon position can certainly be questioned, though it seems eminently reasonable to me from my distant perspective and is very consistent with the desires of students from my day to the present to be involved in fundamental questions concerning the meaning and effect of a liberal education Chicago-style. So the position does not seem to call for a Svengali pulling strings behind the curtain.”
Agreed. What’s interesting is how many of you are merely taking for granted that the admin is sorta doing exactly that. One side is rotten, the other noble. Which side is which depends on which side you - or I - happen to be on in this matter. In reality, the College probably did go about its business a bit more discretely than usual, and the other side likely does consist of a whole lotta folks who aren’t happy but unwilling to voice that publicly (NB @phoenix1616 says differently so see below).
“It does certainly seem likely that the editors may have been doing what journalists are supposed to do and canvassing the views of faculty with some knowledge of what is going on in a matter of very obvious student interest. They may even have been approached by such an individual, as journalists from time immemorial have been approached.”
Likely this is the case. The Maroon is bound by the ethics of journalism. The call would be to those parties expressing dissatisfaction to make their case openly and transparently. You can’t have a discussion with one side in the shadows.
“Whatever the circumstances, if such a view of matters was out there (and how could it not be?) and if it struck the editors as a reasonable one and if it is therefore reflected in their editorial position, that wouldn’t make them into stooges or stalking horses.”
Agreed. See above. Again, the call is on those parties, not the Maroon to “out” them.
“Undergrads may not be fully formed but they are not, at least at the University of Chicago, mindlessly acquiescent to anybody’s agenda”
Also agreed, but have any of them made a coherent case as to their own views or agenda? (NB - again see below for any change in that). Anger and grumbling is one thing - open debate quite another.
“I agree, however, that if there are faculty with opinions on this subject they ought to speak out without cover. That might take courage, I would suppose.”
“Does the draught of Hemlock await any such speaker? Or merely a trip to Coventry?”
I have yet to meet an opinionated faculty member unwilling to share his/her views on curriculum matters with those in charge. If faculty generally are declining to speak up now, it’s for reasons other than shadowy manipulation. Most likely they simply don’t think the community at large is privy to all the conversations that take place, even if the subject matter is Big News. That would hardly be a surprising development. We’ve all been in that boat at some point or other (of course that’s DIFFERENT!).
“I put the odds of the business econ major including only one class on the minutiae of running a business at precisely zero.”
@DunBoyer - you are the second student poster to mention the “minutiiae of running a business”. Do you even know what that means? Which Booth courses do this?
@phoenix1616 at 110 - please PM me that Google Doc. Thanks!
I just realized this, but Eero Arum, the ringleader of the poster hangers, wrote an op ed on the matter in the Maroon. They’re really not that shadowy or anonymous.
“Pub pol is de facto just a mix of the content of Econ and poli sci, it’s not preprofessional any more than they are”
@Phoenix1616, The PBPL classes are a heavy dose of pre-professional. College Catalog, remember!