Rx for Chicago: an action plan for the new president

<p>I have to agree with Byerly- that does seem pretty counter-intuitive.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen (I know someone who chose loyola over northwestern and chicago because he didn't want to work so hard) but I doubt that the majority of people who chose other schools are doing so for that reason.</p>

<p>"As a current student at Chicago, I can attest to the fact that 95% of my friends who applied to the ivies were waitlisted, and had they got in, would have gone there. Kids here, for the most part, are not happy here."</p>

<p>It is not surprising that a kid would be unhappy if he/she did not get in to their first choice. This is a fact of the college application process.</p>

<p>One assumption that is being made is that the kids that are accepted to the highly selective schools are the brightest students. This is not necessarily the case.</p>

<p>If one looks at the entire admissions process there are any number of high school valedictorians and students with perfect scores on their essays who are routinely rejected from these schools. </p>

<p>The fact that U of C is "easier" to get into yet provides an educational opportunity that is at least on par with any of these other schools is a major plus. </p>

<p>I am getting really tired of Ivy League people knocking this school.</p>

<p>What do people think of this proposal: shrink Chicago's undergraduate enrollment.</p>

<p>This would have several benefits. First, it would then be possible to fill the class with students who really are interested in the "life of the mind", as opposed to the many tag-alongers who are now in Chicago for its still-strong reputation, but would actually prefer to be pre-med or pre-business in some college more prestigious to the man on the street, more grade-inflated. Second, it would increase the selectivity of the university, which would make it more attractive even to those students interested in the "life of the mind," who now choose HYPS over Chicago simply because it is easier to defend the choice of a more selective university than the choice of a less selective university. Finally, since Chicago (all private colleges, I hear) lose money for each additional student they enroll, especially if the student is on financial aid, this would preserve the endowment too.</p>

<p>If there is excess capacity, expand the graduate/professional schools.</p>

<p>There is nothing that says a smaller university cannot be first-rate, especially if its mission is specialized. Like Caltech is to MIT, Chicago can be to Harvard.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Thank God for USNews.

[/quote]
What makes you think the USNews rankings are God's work?</p>

<p>"Second, it would increase the selectivity of the university, which would make it more attractive even to those students interested in the "life of the mind,""</p>

<p>Please explain the logic you are using in coming to this conclusion.</p>

<p>See if you agree with this:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp9901.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp9901.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Maybe in your part of the world, what's describe in the article does not hold. But in my part of the world, anecdotally at least, what is described in the article is emerging, in the past few years, as the sad truth.</p>

<p>It is time for some out-of-the-box thinking.</p>

<p>Chicago will not change its college size, it used to be smaller and it was recently increased, and it will not change its Core. Perhaps those less familiar with the school do not understand its place in American education. Chicago is considered to be perhaps the last truly great university in this country. It is informative to listen to the presidential press conference where those values are clearly stated (<a href="http://www-news.uchicago.edu/president/press-archive.shtml)%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www-news.uchicago.edu/president/press-archive.shtml)&lt;/a>, particularly telling is the report of the faculty representative of what others think of The University. If a student does not share those values the student should indeed look elsewhere or they may indeed end up feeling morose. For those that do share them, the feeling is exhilarating, and the pride of belonging to such an institution almost too much to contain. (For a look at those values see: <a href="http://iotu.uchicago.edu/levine.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://iotu.uchicago.edu/levine.html&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p>

<p>This why a lightening up of the Core in 1999 almost produced student riots, and why many alumni were opposed to the Ratner Athletic Center, and the Max Palevsky Dorms. Having said all that, I do believe making sure there are great strides to be made in building new dorms, performing arts centers, and dinning halls. New academic facilities are being built at a blistering pace, but I think more attention needs to be paid to remodeling some of the older facilities as well. There have been many improvements in marketing in recent years as well. The University is getting the word out that this is not your typical top tier school, this is a demanding academic environment where inquiry and rigorous debate are required at all levels, starting day one, ...but that it also has a keen sense of humor to go along with its more intensely academic side. This is what ultimately gives Chicago its self-selecting criteria, form the time the first post card arrives, until student decision day on May 1, the debate rages, fully informed, "Is this the life for me?" The University wants those who embrace it and love it for what it is, not for what they hope it to be, or what might have been. The school does not hide what it is, those that embrace it will be happy, those that come for prestige only will find it comes at a high price.</p>

<p>Keeping its values and maintaining its integrity in this day and age, many consider true out-of-the-box thinking. While others become me too universities, U of C, remains the uncommon, the one school that can still be refered to as "The University."</p>

<p>In the first sentence of the conclusion of the article that was linked, the premise that begins "Although . . . ." is nowhere demonstrated in the article. Higher education has long been highly stratified, but the basis of this stratification has shifted somewhat from class to "merit." I put "merit" in quote marks because what actually constitutes merit -- beyond GPA and test scores -- is subject to debate. And even the meaning of grades and test scores is subject to debate. </p>

<p>The article mentions that test scores do not well reflect intellectual or academic ability. The UofCal study a few years ago also showed that only about 20% of college success (first year college grades) could be explained statistically by test scores, or by test scores + high school grades. So any stratification of admissions based on test scores (even if it acted by an associative process as proposed but not proved in the article) does not necessarily sort students by intellectual ability or likely academic success.</p>

<p>When my son was applying to college, he was far more interested in the intellectual style of students than in their test scores. Several schools whose students had similar or higher aggregate test scores than Chicago's weren't at all interesting to him. If anything, there was a kind of negative association in his mind with such schools (even though he had the "numbers" to be competitive at any school).</p>

<p>And, if one believes somewhat higher test scores, prestige and grade inflation make for a happy student body one may want to read this:</p>

<p>Poll: Harvard Students Mostly Unhappy
Mar 2006</p>

<p>CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) - A long-held stereotype that Harvard undergraduates feel neglected by their professors and don't have as much fun as students at other colleges now has some data to back it up.</p>

<p>Student satisfaction at Harvard College ranks near the bottom of a group of 31 elite private schools, according to survey results outlined in a confidential memo obtained by The Boston Globe and reported in Tuesday's editions.</p>

<p>... The 21-page memo, from staff researchers at Harvard to academic deans, documents student dissatisfaction with faculty availability, quality of instruction, quality of advising, as well as the sense of community and social life on campus.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=104&sid=459269#%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=104&sid=459269#&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[Quote]
Byerly: What do you have against Professor Professor Leiter, and why? How do you know so much about him? I'm not saying your wrong with what your saying about him, but I think your reasoning would help.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>While I'm not Byerly, I will say that a lot of people question Professor Leiter's motivations. He is notorious for ranking the University of Texas Law School (where he teaches) higher than anyone else would rank the school.</p>

<p>Even the ranking mentioned in this thread is somewhat questionable in that he ranks the University of Texas on par with the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt, and above Georgetown and Notre Dame. These four universities are CC Top Universities while UT is not. U.S. News ranks these four schools at 18 through 23 while it ranks Texas at 52. Although I think Texas is an excellent school, it simply does not compare to these other institutions, at the undergraduate level, in terms of SAT scores or other measures of student selectivity. Professor Leiter tends to over-emphasize faculty quality and accord minimal weight to student quality.</p>

<p>Obviously, Professor Leiter would have more credibility in the rankings business if he maintained a degree of independence from the process.</p>

<p>At any rate, if you like him, he "will be a Visiting Professor at the University of Chicago Law School in fall 2006" <a href="http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/profile.php?id=bleiter%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/profile.php?id=bleiter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I predict even greater future rankings for the University of Chicago by Professor Leiter, especially if Chicago offers him a permanent position on its law faculty.</p>

<p>Whatever his biases, he is certainly accomplished. Looks like Chicago would be well served if he joins the faculty.</p>

<p>4thfloor </p>

<p>thanks for the link - but I have always had a dreadful time wading through economics papers, so I don't think I have internalized it very well. One of the issues that I have with economically based modeling of human behavior is that, in my part of the country, I live with all those counter examples ... including the husband who does astronomy (at a much lower rate of pay than nearly anything else he do) and the son that was so offended by Harvard's marketing that it never even made the wish list pile.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Even the ranking mentioned in this thread is somewhat questionable in that he ranks the University of Texas on par with the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt, and above Georgetown and Notre Dame. These four universities are CC Top Universities while UT is not. U.S. News ranks these four schools at 18 through 23 while it ranks Texas at 52.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>To a great extent, this is precisely Leiter's point. Personally, I think U Va, for example, has climbed the rankings largely due to its proximity to NYC (within a day's drive) and the resulting number of apps - leading to higher selectivity. </p>

<p>If you look at scholarly inputs and outputs, UTexas is a pretty good place, as are a whole bunch of other places that just happen to not fit USNWR rankings so well.</p>

<p>Another thought on USNWR rankings: They remind me of bond (investment) grading by S%P and others. Bond grades tend to follow pricing, not lead. This means, for example, that a drop in bond grade tends to occur AFTER the price of the bond has already dropped, so the grading change has no price effect. </p>

<p>What does this have to do with college rankings? It is interesting to note how much the rankings seem to follow the layperson's (i.e typical parent's) preconceived notions of "quality" and prestige, including changes in such. Why? Because if the rankings were too out of line, they would have no credibility, and not sell. So USNWR, who's ranking formulas are completely arbitrary, tinkers with the formula to get the answers it wants. </p>

<p>Byerly, Rebuttal??</p>

<p>I understand ... best wishes to your son at Chicago.</p>

<p>
[Quote]
If you look at scholarly inputs and outputs, UTexas is a pretty good place, as are a whole bunch of other places that just happen to not fit USNWR rankings so well.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>I have absolutely no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean. What do “scholarly inputs and outputs” mean to you?</p>

<p>As I previously stated, I believe that the University of Texas is an excellent school; however, I don’t believe most individuals would choose it over Virginia (for undergraduate studies) unless they wanted to pay in-state tuition or wanted to attend school in Texas. One might also choose Texas for a specific program that they offer, but overall, Virginia has a significantly stronger student body, a much better graduation rate, better funding, smaller classes, better student/faculty ratio, etc. Most people consider Virginia among the top three public schools in the country. Most would not include Texas in that category. Texas suffers from an excessively large student body and the state legislature’s crazy top 10% law.</p>

<p>I’m not suggesting that U.S. News is the authority on college rankings, but I do believe that they are not too far off since the public obviously accepts them. Or, as you say, “if the rankings were too out of line, they would have no credibility, and not sell.” I just cited them to show how different Leiter’s rankings are from a somewhat common perception. He offers precious little evidence to support his view and to discredit the common perception. Perhaps this explains why Leiter's rankings are not widely accepted.</p>

<p>I also disagree with you regarding U.S. News methodology; their rankings are clearly based on qualitative factors such as student faculty ratios, test scores, admission rates, graduation rates, etc. Perhaps you may not feel a particular factor is relevant, a particular factor should be weighted differently, or a different factor better measures quality; however, U.S. News uses a methodology, which is not arbitrary, and which it has not altered in recent years.</p>

<p>I agree that a school’s location along with a school’s endowment can have a significant impact on a school’s reputation and ranking. I believe that UVA benefits more from its proximity to the Washington DC area than the NYC area; however, being somewhat close to NYC can’t hurt. But you must also recognize that a lot of great schools compete for students in the New York market including the Ivy League schools, MIT, Duke, a number of top LACs, and even Chicago. On the other hand there are not that many quality schools competing with UT for students in Texas, a state with a larger population than New York. </p>

<p>When I initially posted, I did not intend to get involved in the debate going on in this thread; however, I will say:</p>

<p>I too think Chicago is a great school with excellent faculty and top programs (including economics and physics); however, I didn’t seriously consider the school since it didn’t seem to offer the right mix of academics and social life for me. In addition, Chicago’s reputation for grade deflation concerned me since I intend to apply to medical school upon graduation. I’m afraid that my perceptions of Chicago are more prevalent among my peers than many here are willing to acknowledge. </p>

<p>Some of the attitudes expressed in this thread bear an uncanny resemblance to those of General Motors executives over the past decades when they arrogantly ignored their competition and blindly clung to their old, tried and true, ways of conducting business. Obviously, to stay competitive in any industry, a competitor needs to know the market in which he competes, to closely monitor his competition, and to make adjustments.</p>

<p>I will also share a personal experience. I received an invitation to a Chicago presentation last year at an area hotel, which I attended. Instead of showing up with a spiffy Power Point presentation or a nice film, the admissions people showed up with an old-fashion slide projector. The slide projector was not working properly and it took them about twenty minutes to get the slide carrousel to move forward instead of backwards. Frankly, the slide show was worthless. After the slide show, they had a number of alumni introduce themselves and talk about their experiences at Chicago. The problem was these individuals graduated quite a while ago and talked about things that the admissions people thought were no longer relevant. They talked about the crime situation in a manner that made the admissions people cringe. The admissions people then had to state how the area has improved, etc. One got the feeling that the whole presentation was not well thought out or well coordinated. I don’t think anyone left the presentation feeling excited about the University of Chicago. I felt sorry for them – they really need to wok on these presentations. </p>

<p>On the other hand, I will say that the materials that they mailed to me were very nice and interesting.</p>

<p>Wow, what region were you in to get such a bad presentation. The one I got in Florida was quite good and well organized. It was no different from the one by Rice, Cornell, or Columbia--mostly just showing a bunch of pics of the college and the kids there. I think that a 15 minute presentation makes it hard for anyone to stand-out. The only presentation I saw where that happened was with the Brown presentation, which was witty, engaging, and informative, but I think that was due to the admissions officer that showed up rather than what the college planned out.</p>

<p>It was in the DC area, more specifically in Bethesda Maryland. Perhaps I would not have been so harsh on the slide presentation if we did not have to wait so long to see it, but there was nothing special about the pictures. A slide projector was not used in any of the other presentations that I attended.</p>

<p>quixotic, since you feel that the USNews rankings are based on clear criteria, I recommend that you consider this report by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) prepared in 1997. To my knowledge this is the only study that the USNews actually ever conducted in an effort to validate their methodology: <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/norc.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/norc.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>USNews basically rejected the report's fundamental criticisms, but said it was interested in making improvements (none of which actually addressed the key criticisms in the NORC study): <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/norc.cary.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/norc.cary.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Here is a link to Nicholas Thompson's 2000 critique of USNews published in Washington Monthly, in which he linked the NORC analysis:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_9_32/ai_65160614%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_9_32/ai_65160614&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"This and other small changes have made the rankings better and the editors have often been praised for their willingness to listen to criticism from universities, even as they are criticized for closing decisions about the rankings off from the rest of the U.S. News staff and creating a private fiefdom isolated from the rest of the magazine. According to one former senior reporter who worked on the rankings in the early '90s: "We were roped around the neck to get us to write the serious journalistic stories in the issue, but none of us had a clue how the rankings worked." According to another former staff writer who contributed to the "Best Colleges" issue: "The rankings are completely ridiculous. But they totally pay your salary."</p>

<p>Sad.</p>