and there are some very interesting footnotes in this book on what the Harvard administration thought of the University of Chicago’s admission policies. Harvard thought that Hutchins was crazy and the administration argued strongly for not “over intellectualizing” Harvard as Chicago had done by focusing on only recruiting “smart academically gifted students”. They also felt that Chicago pulling out of the Big Ten was a huge mistake
Harvard wanted to have a well rounded student body, hugely favoring legacy and prep school kids and exclude Jewish kids or keep their numbers low in the mid 30’s.
There is also some detailed description of the Alum revolt at Yale and Princeton over legacy admissions in the 60’s and 70’s. The alum groups were pretty powerful and even managed to get rid of some administrators who wanted to move away from giving a larger preference to legacies.
In late 1970’s Yale at one stage started admitting legacies at 50% when the general admit rate was around 20%
Does anybody know how Chicago’s board of trustees is different from these other colleges. It looks as if Alumni groups have more of a say on who becomes a trustee at these schools than at Chicago? For example, I think at Yale, six of the sixteen trustees are elected by Alums. Chicago’s board seems larger, 55 trustees and only other Board members seem to be able to vote on future board members. This would seem to isolate the Board and consequently the University from “Current Alumni group priorities and views”
Looks like very different approach on governance which would affect culture at the university right? Would love to have somebody more knowledgeable on this topic shed some light on this subject
Also, what are your thoughts on pros and cons of each model?
This is an interesting question! We need @HydeSnark for this discussion so I hope he returns. And then a great source on the history of the University’s governance is, of course, John Boyer.
Alums having their say in this manner can be an advantage. Yale, for instance, is facing an “intervention” from a group of alums concerned about the school’s possible abandonment of its own principles supporting free expression. Right now there’s a campaign going on to get one of them elected to the board:
Boards, councils, and nations can get really bad outcomes when the governing position isn’t open to a broader vote. However, most if not all private and public corporations choose their directors and trustees in this manner so it is a pretty common model.
For the most part, UChicago’s board consists of influential alums and/or benefactors who have given sizable donations. Some, like Trott, are both. Not sure of the exact makeup in Hutchins’ day but Boyer’s two works - the University’s history as well as the shorter work on academic freedom at UChicago - will shed some light there. The Hutchins era is particularly fascinating when you consider the timing of his administration, the lasting effects of his leadership (both the good and the bad) and, of course, his influence over the trustees. It’s an interesting case study on whether the university’s board would have been better off during that time period with some fresh voices elected from the outside.
One final thought is that you might need a very strong and engaged alumnae network in order to open up elections to the group and make an impact. UChicago is just starting to focus on this task. Historically, alumnae giving and level of engagement has been fairly pathetic. No Harvard or Yale there. On the other hand, we need to remember that UChicago is that same age now that Harvard was when George Washington visited. The US as a nation didn’t even exist yet. Adding UChicago’s age to Yale’s founding year puts us at 1828. So those other institutions have a bit of a head start.
“However, most if not all private and public corporations choose their directors and trustees in this manner so it is a pretty common model.”
Actually, this isn’t entirely accurate so correcting. The board members of a stock corporation are voted on by the shareholders. However, the nominations are put forth by the board. For public corporations, most shareholders are technically “outside” of the corporation’s governing board. However, privately held corporations (ie stock doesn’t trade on the public market) will typically include majority owners on the board itself. Thus, the shareholder vote is also a board vote. However, they are still supposed to be voting as shareholders and not board members. I think that’s the standard, legal form of procedure. Other forms of organization will have different legal procedures.
The practical result is that if a majority of a board of directors or trustees wants Mr. or Ms. X to join, that will happen. But the procedure for some corporations is going to be open to an outside vote in the end.
I was at Yale in the late 70s; I can tell you that it did not feel overrun with legacies. They were there, of course, and some of them were among the weakest students. But some weren’t. And for non-legacy me, having the legacies around made me feel like I was getting into a club with some history and tradition, which I appreciated.
Three very interrelated things happened around 1970 that changed the legacy situation a lot: First, the children of the very large post-war GI Bill classes started to apply in numbers. Second, Yale started admitting women, which essentially doubled the number of potential legacy candidates overnight. Third, Yale expanded its class size significantly to accommodate co-education.
In the end, I think legacy admissions had a lot to do with the success of co-education. Yale faced a near-revolt among alumni when it started admitting women. It took a few years for it to sink in with alumni furious about co-education that maybe their daughters and granddaughters could go to Yale, too. When that happened, the furor about co-education evaporated overnight. At first the admissions office was not taking any academic risks with women, and only admitting those who were super-qualified. But by the end of the decade female legacies were applying in droves, and it was clear that the sky wasn’t going to fall if some woman was admitted and got Cs. Giving Yale fathers a stake in their daughters’ education was good for Yale and good for the world, but they had to admit a bunch of daughters for it to work.
Alumni-elected trustees at Yale are great people, but the process is about as democratic as elections in the PRC. We are given a choice between two candidates, both of whom have been carefully vetted and selected, so that it’s hard to decide. Do I want the African climate-change activist or the scientist who has been wheelchair bound since birth? I am sure the gatemasters know from experience which of the candidates the alumni will choose (usually, I think, the younger, more female of them).
Two people with whom I was friendly in college are on the Yale Corporation. One is a Bain Capital guy, who has given tens, maybe hundreds of millions to the university. He has an appointed seat. The other is a really nice person – a cop’s daughter who wanted to be a nurse when she grew up, and is now the CEO of a hospital system in her hometown. She is an alumni representative.
Chicago has always had a lot more non-alumni on the board than Yale. (I am not sure Yale has any.) Chicago always wanted to be an organ of the Establishment in the Windy City, and I think it has always solicited some of them to be Board members. The Board Chair when my kids were there was an alumnus of Hampshire and Stanford Law School, but a civic leader in Chicago. That doesn’t happen at Yale.
^ Could be wrong but my impression is that a sizable number of Chicago trustees are now alums. Perhaps someone will count it up and post
Both my kids are double legacy at UChicago but both are also way ahead of at least me in terms of academic ability. I seriously doubt that any non-legacy student who brushes with them comes away feeling like they’ve made it into some “club” - unless it’s the Club for Brainiacs. And fortunately, anyone is welcome to get a feel for the history and tradition of the place (such as exists). Legacies - or even alums - not needed for that. There’s a benefit to (still) being young. In fact, the Development Office is probably still encouraging its donors to “make history” at this point.
When I was a graduate student at the U of C in the late 1970’s most of the trustees (probably 75-80%) were non alumni business leaders in Chicago and/or members of leading families (Field, Swift, etc) In 1976 Robert Renenker (CEO of Esmark the successor to Swift) was elected to be the first alumni Chair of the Board of Trustees. Now most trustees and almost all Trustee Chairs are alumni
looks like five plus Zimmer (out of 50 trustees) are not alums.
@85bears46 looks like Sandy Grossman is a trustee. Ever take a class from him? That guy used to scare the you-know-what out the PhD econ students. By the mid-80’s he had left for Princeton (and now runs a hedge fund company) but the stories remained. He was legendary. And now he’s a trustee.
^ They must be on board with the Tuition Model of revenue growth The College is currently the largest division/school of the university, and you have to spend money now to make money later.
My Dad tells me that more than who is on the Board, the big difference is how the board gets elected or confirmed at Chicago compared to the other schools like his alma mater Harvard or Yale or Princeton. I think for the Chicago board, alums get no say in the matter. Other Board members decide who else gets on the board.
So younger and more progressive alums cannot stage a coup and get a bunch of board members elected that could fundamentally alter the priorities of the administration within five years. My guess is that if there were a lot of alum appointed trustees on Chicago’s board, the postures of the college towards free speech and other controversial issues for example may have been very different.
There is no way for younger Chicago alums who might want to change directions or the school’s priorities to get any say on the Chicago board and this may be the reason, Chicago is in some ways so different from other schools right now.
Not sure how this may affect Chicago in the long run, but right now, as an outsider looking in, I feel it may be the reason the administration is a little more moderate and little less likely to pander to current students and their activism. President Zimmer can just “No” to the students or not worry about making a huge “faux pas” like Lawrence Summers made at Harvard by making some controversial statement and risk losing his job because a young alum dominated board loses confidence in him.
For the honor of UChicago College alumni I counted those on the Board - nineteen. Several also have professional or advanced degrees from the University. Almost all of them (except David Brooks) have business credentials. (I suppose Brooks is expected to tip his hat to his alma mater occasionally in his columns.)
Boards of Trustees have to worry about the practicalities of operating a great University. A business orientation is to be expected. However, I would hope that these nineteen will remember with gratitude and pleasure the excitement and stimulation of the College as they knew it and will accordingly be voices resisting any measures that would threaten its peculiar ethos. I have to believe that Chicago alumni are like their Harvard or Yale counterparts in wanting to preserve the best in the traditions of their respective alma maters. That impulse isn’t wrong in itself - it all depends on whether those traditions are worth preserving. The traditions that @surelyhuman refers to at the University of Chicago are worth it!
Just to be clear, I am talking about how Alums get on the Board of trustees at Chicago, not if Alums are on the board. I would think any university would want a lot of Alums on the board. The question is which alums and what their orientation is towards the University and how much say they should have in the way the ship is steered. I think Chicago has decided that only successful alums who have the admiration and approval of the current board will be allowed to get on the board. That limits the power of alum and student rabble-rousers who can quickly overwhelm and change the very nature of the university by capturing enough seats on the board
@surelyhuman is correct that the UChicago board is entirely self-perpetuating. They can change that at any time, I suppose. Not sure that the alumnae network has the infrastructure to “vet” candidates “appropriately.” Boards don’t want mavericks - they want “team players.” That’s true for all of them. So, as @JHS indicated, the candidates aren’t likely to be the types mentioned in that Yale article I linked above. It’d be great if they were, but they aren’t likely to be.
But even if the board were sufficiently open-minded to hear out a maverick, the vote-on coalition is very small on any university board. The large majority of the trustee positions at the Harvards and Yales and Princetons remain appointed. Stanford’s alum rep. is an appointment of candidates vetted and suggested by the alumnae association. So the appointeds still wield the main decision-making.
Finally, this might be true for all great universities, but being appointed a trustee comes with a price. I believe that UChicago has a smaller board by at least a few positions than some of these other places. Unless they increased the number of spots to allow vote-ons, pretty much every one of those 49 spots (other than the president’s) means dollars lost for the university.
Larry Summers - interesting example to bring up. There’s actually a back story there and anyone is welcome to look it up. Here’s the Crimson’s account: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/2/10/tawdry-shleifer-affair-stokes-faculty-anger/ From what I’ve heard (all 2nd hand, of course), the board hated Summer’s guts over this. The university paid damages and they might have lost a couple of significant benefactors. So Summers’ politically incorrect comment was just the catalyst needed to remove him. BTW, Schleifer was on faculty at UChicago for a bit before moving East
I thought all members of the board, regardless of whether they are nominated or elected had “voting” powers. For example for Yale
If alumni fellows have voting rights, then having 6 out of 16 is not a trivial number and can sway how the board views issues right? Am i wrong on this? Do only nominated board members have voting rights?
@JBStillFlying A colorful an detailed account of Summers’ experience at Harvard is documented in the book “Harvard Rules: The Struggle for the Soul of the World’s Most Powerful University”
I sure hope Chicago’s administration and faculty intrigues are not similar to the ones described in this book.
As I research the school list I should apply to, couple of books that I really liked are:
“Chosen” by Jerome Karabel, Dean Boyer’s “The University of Chicago: A History” and “Harvard Rules” by Richard Bradley
I get emails periodically asking for recommendations for appointment to the Board of Trustees. No doubt I am being asked for no better reason than that I am a (very) modest annual donor to the College. I assume that recommendations come from many quarters, are screened by a committee of the Board, and ultimately some three or four persons (or such number as may be required to fill whatever vacancies may exist) are put forward for formal acceptance by the Board. There may be a bit of lobbying in that process, and no doubt some are courted and some rejected. By the time the recommendations get to the entirety of the Board it is a fait accompli.
I have never heard of an organized effort by alums to place on the Board an advocate for a particular policy. That wouldn’t be such a bad thing, in my opinion. Someone who has reason and eloquence on his side should have a shot at this university of all others at getting a hearing and a thoughtful consideration on the merits of a disputed policy. Yet in the end a Board is a little democracy in which every member of it gets a vote. The maverick will have to bring over a majority to his side. In fact I believe it is a pretty rare case in which unanimity is not achieved.
Certainly the Trustees voted unanimously once upon a time to take perhaps the single most controversial action ever taken by the College - withdrawal from varsity sports. That was either a Board with guts and vision or it was one that could not resist the arguments and eloquence of Robert Maynard Hutchins.
Oh I didn’t mean it that way. I was thinking that there may be generational differences in priorities and views among the alum population.
I was thinking that a board member who is 35 years old may have very different views than a board member who is 60
It would be interesting to see if elected alum board members tend to skew younger than nominated board members because that may mean that elected board members may reflect the generational priorities of their voters and may tend to push the board and the university in a different direction?
@marlowe1 at #17 I wonder if it was the latter - I get the feeling that Hutchins had an almost hypnotic power over that board!! Also, I wonder if we’ve been getting invitations to suggest trustees and just have tossed them out with the other junk mail. I’ll have to watch for that.
@surelyhuman yes, all trustees have voting rights once on the board, unless an honorary member perhaps. Zimmer’s position as pres. is “ex officio” but I think he still votes.
My point was that any alums elected by the alumnae association are a small group compared to the appointed positions. So if, say, the AA was staging some sort of intervention or wanted to make a statement and elected a younger group whose goals for the university differed from the appointed positions (most of whom were 60+ let’s say), they’d still be in the minority even if they voted lockstep with one another. Not sure if a unanimous vote is needed - hadn’t thought of that - but I suppose that might muck things up if so. Any board can foresee that and make sure that the vote doesn’t have to be unanimous merely by amending the by-laws before adding the seats eligible to be elected by alums.
My impression - and it may be cynical - is that boards allow elected trustees mainly to placate the AA. They may have the same sway in trustee decisions that alumnae interviews of candidates for admission have with the Admissions Dept. Not much, but it’s nice to have the input.
