Provost leaves for Chicago

Colleges and Universities A-Z Brown University
1

<p>Dear Members of the Brown Community,</p>

<p>Today, the Presidential Search Committee of the University of Chicago</p>

<p>is recommending to its Board of Trustees that Brown’s Provost, Robert</p>

<p>J. Zimmer, be elected the 13th President of the University of Chicago,</p>

<p>effective July 1, 2006. The Board will act on the recommendation at a</p>

<p>special meeting on Friday, March 10. I am certain all members of the</p>

<p>community will join me in congratulating Bob on his new position.</p>

<p>Bob, an accomplished scholar and administrator, came to Brown from the</p>

<p>University of Chicago in July 2002 to serve as the University’s ninth</p>

<p>provost. Since his arrival, he has been integral to the development</p>

<p>and implementation of the Plan for Academic Enrichment, and has made</p>

<p>important contributions to the academic life of the University. Under</p>

<p>his leadership and guidance, we have expanded the faculty and</p>

<p>strengthened our multidisciplinary programs through initiatives like</p>

<p>the Environmental Change Initiative, the Initiative in Spatial</p>

<p>Structures in the Social Sciences, the Center for Computational</p>

<p>Molecular Biology, and the Cogut Center for the Humanities. Bob</p>

<p>championed partnerships with institutions like the Marine Biological</p>

<p>Laboratory (MBL) at Woods Hole and oversaw the development of new</p>

<p>agreements between the Medical School and our affiliated teaching</p>

<p>hospitals. Undergraduate, graduate, and medical students will benefit</p>

<p>greatly from the improvement of facilities undertaken during his term</p>

<p>as provost. His leadership and commitment to Brown faculty, students</p>

<p>and staff will be missed.</p>

2

<p>good for him. it's flattering that the University of Chicago chose Brown's provost over Harvard President Larry Summers to be at their healm</p>

3

<p>Who is going to take his spot?</p>

4

<p>No it's not... no University in their right mind would hire Larry Summers right now. Plus, his resignation was really recent; there's no way the UChicago search committee would have even been considering him.</p>

5

<p>Besides Zimmer has TWO Harvard degrees, while Larry Summers has only one!</p>

<p>Chicago seems to have made the safe choice - a former long-time administrator, now 60, who will be unlikely to rock the boat.</p>

6

<p>Which is pretty dumb, considering "rocking the boat" is exactly what Chicago could use</p>

7

<p>I believe the saying: "Don't fix what ain't broke" applies here. Why would rocking the boat be good?</p>

8

<p>Considering the quality of the academics at Chicago, I'd say that its admissions numbers are far below what they should be.</p>

9

<p>ohnoes -- that's partially because it's a self-selecting pool of kids that applies to UChicago. Think about it. How many kids apply to Harvard just to "get their name out there" or "just to see if they can get in"? People generally don't apply to Chicago unless they're serious about the school, and so their admit rates are higher but their students are much stronger than schools with similar acceptance rates.</p>

<p>But yes, Chicago is easier to get into than a lot of schools with comparable academic programs.</p>

10

<p>Yeah, but how is that an excuse? The point is Chicago <em>shouldn't</em> be a "self-selecting" (ie, not that well known to the general public in more realistic terms) school. If more students applied it could do nothing but help, especially considering how many of the students who apply to Chicago, if anything, don't seem that serious about the school (Chicago has quite a low yield rate) and just use it as a backup. The school has been content for far too long with parading around under the "self-selecting" motto instead of making a conscious effort to publicize the school. It certainly didn't seem to hurt WUSTL.</p>

11

<p>Just wondering: what does the Provost do?</p>

12

<p>Chief academic officer; sometimes surrogate president in absence of CEO.</p>

13

<p>the provost is second in command of the university, after the president</p>

<p>they are like the chief academic officer, the "dean" of the deans</p>

<p>among other things, he or she is responsible for making resource allocations from the university budget</p>

14

<p>I have always been bemused by the explanation that Chicago's app numbers are lower than you might expect because the pool is "self-selecting" - meaning, one assumes, that only people <em>really</em> interested in Chicago bother applying, as opposed to the shallow status seekers who toss random apps at Harvard, Yale, etc.</p>

<p>This line makes no sense to me. If the Chicago applicants are so damn "self-selecting", why is it that a substantial fraction of those Chicago <em>admits</em> tend to "select" some other school if they have a choice.</p>

<p>No.</p>

<p>Chicago, like it or not, is a "second choice school" - albeit not for those with mediocre SAT scores and no academic aspirations to speak of.</p>

<p>I think they should start adopting more of the app and yield-boosting techniques for which Penn, Caltech and WUStL are famous: more and better advertiing, maximum push to tie people up via binding ED, and/or strategic use of "merit aid" - ie tuition rake-offs - to undercut HYPS etc on price.</p>

<hr>

<p>On the "Provost" job: at Brown, as a most schools which have utilized this title, the incumbent's job is to actually run the place while the president is off fundraising, speechifying, etc.</p>

15

<p>Think of the President as the school's representative to the outside world, and the Provost as the main authority for the innter workings of the school.</p>

<p>Zimmer is a cool guy. It'll be be sad to lose him and his family.</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
Chicago, like it or not, is a "second choice school"

[/quote]

Assuming this is true, why would it benefit from drumming up more applications, investing in merit aid to those who do not need it, and switching to ED? </p>

<p>Would any of these make it a better university? How about devoting those resources to the library, the labs, smaller classes, more tutorials, more innovative programs... All of these would improve on the already high quality of education, while denying admission to a larger number of students would not. It is possible that its reputation as extremely challenging and not much fun would keep its application numbers and yield low, even if the education became even better than it is.</p>

17

<p>Uh, ever hear of WUSTL? Marketing obviously helped increase their popularity. Chicago's academics are fine right now, it's the image of the university which needs to be improved.</p>

18

<p>Again, why? How does drumming up a larger number of applicants help the University deliver a better education to the students who attend?</p>

<p>Among academics Chicago has a terrific reputation. How would getting more applications from students who will not be admitted make the ones who are there any better off?</p>

19

<p>Uh, it doesn't, but it does improve the University's recognition, which causes more students to apply, thus making admissions more competitive, strengthening the student body, and improving the school's reputation. What kind of logic says that advertising only draws crappy students? Again, I point to WUSTL, which has seen a massive rise in SAT scores, indicating that not only are more students applying, but the ones applying are of higher quality. Do you think WUSTL's advertising blitz has done "nothing" for the university, and that aiming for a stronger student body does nothing for the school?</p>

20

<p>what Chicago needs are more top students who <em>want</em> to be there, rather than so many who are there only because they didn't get into their first choice school. The RD yield rate is very low.</p>

<p>The result will be higher morale, a happier campus - one more appealing to future applicants.</p>

<p>Look at Penn, a chronis "second choice school" for years, which decided to flog ED to the max, increasing the fraction of matriculants for whom, if only strategically, Penn was their first choice. </p>

<p>The result has been a rise in apparent selectivity, and a leap to #4 in the USNews rankings, ahead of both Stanford and Duke, no less!</p>

<p>This kind of success builds on itself.</p>

<p>IMHO, the admissions operation at Chicago has been grossly mishandled by the incumbent. With some canny maneuvering, Chicago could become a top 5 school.</p>