<p>Do you think:
UCHicago = Ivies</p>
<p>No, not at all</p>
<p>Oh shush, I don’t think that’s what anyone is insinuating, least of all Nondorf.</p>
<p>Chicago is actually a better school than half of the Ivies and in some instances, considering whatever one’s career and academic ambitions may be, better than all eight . In economics, Chicago has won more Noble Prizes than Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and MIT combined and it also supports numerous world-class departments. Historically, Chicago may be lacking (it was not founded in the early seventeenth century), but intellectually it is at or near the very top.</p>
<p>Nah, from what I know, Nondorf came in and initially pushed for Chicago to become more “ivy-like,” but several members of the admissions office actually dissuaded him from going this route. Instead, the office is focusing a LOT more on creating the “friendly, welcoming” version of Chicago admissions. On this note, the office has focused more on traveling, outreach, establishing bonds with guidance counselors, etc. The school hasn’t really changed its message at all, just its delivery.</p>
<p>In any event, if the issue is Chicago becoming more Ivy-like, Jim Nondorf is the symptom, not the cause. Look at the guy who hired him, President Robert Zimmer (who has spent most of his career at Chicago, but with an all-important stint as Provost at Brown), and at the guys who hired HIM, the Board of Trustees. </p>
<p>Since Day 1, one of Zimmer’s themes has been that it’s time for Chicago to stop relegating itself to second-class status compared to ANY other university, that Chicago has the academic goods to compete head to head with Harvard or anywhere else, and it should. I imagine he said that when the Trustees interviewed him, too. And much of the vast improvement in the College’s image over the past 20 years is due to the ongoing efforts of a group of faculty and administrators in Zimmer’s cohort (notably College Dean John Boyer, who is now on his fourth president). And almost everything Boyer et al. have done in that period could be described as moving towards a more Ivy-like college.</p>
<p>That doesn’t mean that Chicago doesn’t choose some sort of “Chicago way” to compete, or that it loses its character completely. But it does mean that Chicago will be less different in the future than it is today, just as it is less different today than it was in 1990. Those are long-term trends, to which the institution seems fully committed, and by and large it is receiving plaudits for what it has done so far. Jim Nondorf is an employee hired to help, that’s all.</p>
<p>bccdhppy: I strongly, strongly agree with JHS. JHS, true to form, put it quite eloquently, and his basic gist holds true. Zimmer, upon entering office, demanded that Chicago looks to become the greatest university, anywhere. </p>
<p>What I appreciate about this move, however, is that Zimmer and his compatriots have more or less stayed true to the Chicago idea of what a university SHOULD be. There’s still a strong emphasis on academic inquiry and a commitment to high-level research. </p>
<p>On the other hand, if Zimmer truly wanted to make Chicago more “ivy-like,” rather than the best university possible, he would have to make several changes that it does not seem that Chicago will make. Changes such as:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>The school would need to emphasize and EXPAND the athletic program much more heavily, and make sports like crew, squash, and lacrosse DIII at the least. Maybe, like Williams, Chicago would need to create some DI offerings thrown into the mix, so they could engage in some competition with the ivies (just as Williams or Trinity play Princeton or Yale at squash). In the future, Chicago would need to contemplate becoming a DI AA school in football and have games against Harvard, Penn, etc. </p></li>
<li><p>Heavily emphasize the school’s “exit options” in terms of strength on the law and med school front. Right now, Chicago keeps these figures pretty close to the vest. Pretty much all the ivies veritably flaunt this kind of information. </p></li>
<li><p>Significantly expand the school’s career services office, and make success from a professional standpoint more of an institutional objective</p></li>
<li><p>Consider switching from a (more rigorous) trimester system to the (more traditional, less intense) semester system</p></li>
<li><p>Recruit even harder at prep schools and utilize athletics such as LAX, crew, or squash to lock in wealthy prep candidates</p></li>
<li><p>Lessen the U of C’s connection to Chicago and emphasizing the school’s strong connections with nyc or dc. (Right now, again, the school seems to be embracing its location in hyde park and chicago generally). </p></li>
<li><p>Contemplate perhaps having some sort of school-sponsored subsidy of the fraternity life on campus to kick start a more “generic” social scene. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>I don’t see any of these changes happening. Chicago has adopted the approach of becoming more selective and perhaps preferring a wealthier student body to a less privileged one, but these are just rational steps to make for a healthier institution. They don’t smack of the idiosyncracies present at so many ivy college (strange emphasis on relatively obscure sports, heavy influence of pre-professionalism generally and finance specifically, oftentimes lax academic standards, etc.). </p>
<p>So, I think Chicago is making rational steps to becoming a better university (more emphasis on fundraising, lower selectivity to improve the image of “elite-ness” etc), but, besides that, I don’t know if it’s become more “ivy-like.”</p>
<p>I hope to one day be able to lay out my thoughts as well as Cue7 just did.</p>
<p>Haha thank you lordofthespiderm, but trust me, I pale in comparison to many of my compatriots at Chicago, and to many of the Chicago enthusiasts on this board. </p>
<p>I will say, Chicago does emphasize and teach a structured, logical way to think very well. Coming in as a first year, I was pretty scattered and haphazard in my ability to present information well. Chicago does a great job in training you on that front, and if I’ve retained even 5% of what my professors and teachers emphasized, I’d be happy.</p>