<p>A</a> question of character – The Chicago Maroon</p>
<p>These columns pop up in the Chicago Maroon once every few months. No other top school seems to be undergoing such a shift over such a short period of time. </p>
<p>(E.g. at Duke or wherever, there are never any articles about how the Class of 2015 is "so different" from the Class of 2012.)</p>
<p>Thanks for sharing.
Perhaps it is time for U of C to become more transparent with the changes in practice since the arrival of Nondorf.</p>
<p>I think the “fruits” of Nondorf’s labor will emerge ~3-5 years from now - when the current crop of admits are looking to apply to grad/professional schools. I imagine the savvier Nondorf admits will have considerably more success that past UChicago classes (who weren’t slouches by any means). </p>
<p>Interestingly, I wonder if there may be a slight dip in performance in the future for the more “academic” prizes that UChicago traditionally excels - such as Fulbright or Marshall scholarship production.</p>
<p>Good article, and I agree with the conclusion: “I believe that the real question is not whether the University should undergo this shift, but instead how the University can make this transition in the smoothest possible fashion.”</p>
<p>However, I believe that the only way to make a smooth transition is by keeping the alumni in the dark about certain things. UChicago alumni are a rowdy, intellectual bunch, and most of them would simply not support this move toward pre-professionalism, even if the University made it clear that this was the only way for UChicago to keep its place among its peers. I, for one, like the lack of transparency that has thus far characterized the Zimmer administration.</p>
<p>Cue7: You can see many examples of greatly intellectual students who are extremely interested in Chicago, and a few of them are on this board. If anything, Chicago has become more desirable in the minds of prospective intellectual students. I think it’s more that Chicago is replacing the more mediocre academia-inclined students of the past with more intelligent, pre-professional students nowadays.</p>
<p>Exactly how do you define “pre-professionalism”? When I think of that term, I see people that are only interested in going to a good college so that they can get a good job afterwards and be secure financially (many times, more than secure). I saw this attitude in one of the schools I was admitted to when I visited and it immediately turned me off. Despite the thread I started about law school statistics, I’m going to speak on behalf of myself and other future students with law school/med school/etc. that don’t see going to such places as one way tickets to a comfortable lifestyle (again, this is according to my understanding of pre-professionalism). I admit to being an idealist who thinks she can save the world through some profession related to IR, whether this be international law, policy, journalism, etc. I turned down places like the Georgetown School of Foreign Service, which is viewed often as the #1 school in IR for those interested in pursuing policy, in order to attend Chicago. I realized that no matter what I ended up doing later on in life, the unique education I received in Chicago would be both life changing in a personal way AND greatly help me excel in any future endeavors. In fact, I like to think that the education I will receive in Chicago will set me apart from people enrolled in more “pre-professional” programs by developing my critical thinking skills in such a manner that I will be able to tackle problems differently, in part because of a more well rounded grounding that will be supplemented by an intellectual environment. Is this why I’m attending though? No. Ultimately, I DID choose Chicago because of its “Life of the Mind” mantra, and because I would be doing myself a disservice to forgo the intellectual opportunities that would await me in order to emerge myself in a program that would essentially be a one way track to getting a job in the international scene. I admit that I took into consideration how much the school would help for future career prospects, but once I was assured that it could open the doors I wanted (as long as I work hard, I realize this), what made me accept the offer was remembering the conversations I had had with current students during the admitted students weekend, the classes offered by the Core, the prospect of Scav (seriously can’t wait for this) and all the fun I had writing the essays. </p>
<p>Well I’ve reached the conclusion of my rant, which I hope did not seem very contradictory. I guess what I want to convey is that maybe a more “pre-professional” outlook, in the sense that people are taking more into consideration career prospects, is not going to damage the school’s core values. Why does it have to be a give and take? Can’t the resources being offered, like Chicago in Careers, ADD on to the experience without taking away the wonderful things that make Chicago such a unique experience? I want to save the world, but that does not mean that I’ll do it at the expense of the school’s intellectual character. Maybe I’m just interpreting incorrectly what you mean about pre-professionalism, and I certainly wouldn’t know more about the current and/or past environments than you, but I feel like the people that are aspiring to “professional” pursuits are automatically being categorized as what I described at the beginning of the post…</p>
<p>I believe the life of the life and pre-professionalism can coexist beautifully. My son is as pre-professional as anyone gets. However, he is also an avid acolyte of the life of the mind religion. </p>
<p>When he was compiling the school list for application when he was a senior at HS, we (my husband and I) made a point of suggesting that U Chicago be included in the list, and my son apply EA. I felt that precisely because he is so pre-professional, he needs to go a school that really hones his intellect. Unlike those who go to a Ph.D. program, for him, the undergrad experience may be the only focused training for intellectual growth (I consider MBA programs to be just vocational training). As such, if anything, someone like him SHOULD receive the life of the mind education more than anyone who intends to go to a Ph.D. programs. </p>
<p>The scheme worked out beautifully. He is still 100% pre professional, but in a very thoughtful and intellectual way. He has changed his world view regarding what it means to be professionally successful. Not just how much $$$ he makes, but what kind of contribution he makes to the community and the world he lives in. He learned to define the meaning of success on his own terms rather than what other people shove down his throat. I believe this change is due to the education he is getting at U Chicago and the kind of peers he has surrounded himself with. </p>
<p>I hope more ambitious and worldly future leaders of the society get the kind of education you could get at U Chicago. The world would be a better place if our president, senators, and other politicians have better cultural and historical understanding so that they will not delude themselves into thinking that occupying other countries with thousands of years of proud history won’t be welcome by the native population. Ditto with the titans of the industry…</p>
<p>U Chicago’s changing student profile is nothing to be fearful about. The real issue is not “WHAT KIND OF” students are now becoming “normal” at U Chicago, but what kind of education they receive and what kind of intellectual and personal growth will come out of that education. I believe the life of the mind can enrich the world views of the pre-professionally inclined student body.</p>
<p>First of all, great article. I find myself agreeing completely with hyeonjlee. l will be attending uchicago next year as a first year and I see myself as exactly the student the article described. Ultimately, I wish to enter finance. I have a lot of interest in the field and frankly, I have a love for money and how it works. While I guess one could say I’m “preprofessional” in that I will be looking for a job in finance upon graduation, in no way do I dismiss the life of the mind. In fact, I’m excited to go through the core and immerse myself on highly theoretical classes. If anything, these experiences will help me in the work force and in life. I love the direction Nondorf seems to be taking uchicago, and I hope it ends up a place where pre professionalism and intellectualism can coexist and thrive.</p>
<p>I absolutely think that pre-professionalism and intellectualism (whatever these terms are - I’ll attempt to define them below) can co-exist very harmoniously.</p>
<p>First, let me attempt to define what seemed like “intellectualism” vs. “pre-professionalism” at UChicago, at least when I attended, and UChicago was at the apex of purely “intellectual” pursuits.</p>
<p>In general, intellectualism or scholarly pursuits at UChicago meant: eventual attainment of the PhD, followed by life as an academic. Other select pursuits were generally acceptable (work at a think tank, wonk for a newspaper or other publication, published author), but the general goal was attainment of the PhD en route to becoming a scholar. The PhD was fetishized and lauded above all else. </p>
<p>Pre-professionalism, then, meant pursuit of anything that didn’t lead to the PhD or suitably wonky sub-professions (work at a think tank, author, etc). </p>
<p>UChicago lauded the PhD because it was the unabashed incubator for future academics. That’s why UChicago students were referred to as “first years” “second years” etc - it denoted how many years into “study” you had. While schools like Penn focused on churning out baby white collar professionals, UChicago focused on producing future PhDs.</p>
<p>Now, I think the “New” UChicago is looking to marry intellectual pursuits with more practical ideals. This is great. My only issue, however, is that there should be some clear delineation of what the new purpose or goal of the college is. </p>
<p>Phuriku, you mention that UChicago is lacking transparency in an attempt to cloak initiatives from vociferous alumni. This may be the case, but please note, all Zimmer and Nondorf are doing is continuing the Sonnenschein initiatives from the 1990s. The alumni scorn and anger has already come and gone (see the events that led to Sonnenschein’s resignation). I think it’s perfectly fair now for UChicago to be more clear about what the goals of the college are.</p>
<p>To add to the argument, the current economic climate strongly veers against any attempts to have a purely “intellectual” (read: mini-PhD factory) schools exist. It’s simply bad sense to encourage students to go into a job market (the ivory tower) that is shrinking like crazy and declining as we speak. Alums can’t be too up in arms about the fact that the school doesn’t want to produce more PhDs in fields that are already super saturated.</p>
<p>First off, as a crusty(er) alum, I have to mention that by all means the second year writing this is a tool, or at least alumni of my vintage are stereotyped to think so. I mean, the kid applied to Chicago via common application and as a Nondorf kid… when I was in the College, admitting fewer than 50% of the class was a big deal! I still remember when offering study abroad was pretty controversial, as were investments in student life. </p>
<p>Now, to take issue with some of the article’s assertions:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, this was big news ten years ago. No correspondence with the Nondorf regime, possibly linked to the trending up in applications over time pre-Nondorf</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would argue that there’s nothing particularly innovative about the CCI programs other than new career services hires and good marketing. Good marketing can mean a lot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but Nondorf is also defining “yieldable.” His job is not only to attract the best and the brightest to apply, to assess their brightness and relative competence, but it’s also to determine fit and yield. </p>
<p>In other words, in a remarkable oversimplification, lets assume that Sally and Susie have the same academic profile. Sally is a three-sport athlete who is interested in pursuing engineering, which is her distinct academic focus… She’s passionate, committed to pursuits, and smart, but not academic. Susie is on her high school’s model UN team and part of her school’s philosophy club. Overall, she’s less extracurricularly active than Sally, spending more of her spare time reading The Atlantic and The New Yorker. She likes thinking about Chinese pop culture’s role in spreading cultural norms and ponders why instragram is so popular. She’s completely undecided when it comes to major-- she sees herself at the intersection of literature, anthropology, philosophy, political science, and economics.</p>
<p>I would argue that both Sally and Susie are desirable characters in the admissions world, and I would additionally argue that the University of Chicago benefits from admitting Susies, who are more closely aligned with the College’s mission and organization, than admitting Sallies, who, while desirable candidates, would not find a real home at the University of Chicago if they want to focus on engineering. If the University of Chicago admits too may Sallies, it will lose them to schools that Sally would be happier at: Cornell, Penn, Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, Vanderbilt, etc. etc. [i.e. schools with strong engineering programs and active work hard/party hard ethos] </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unsupported claim, especially considering that all of the above were available by the time this 50%+ admit rate alum graduated. Kids were even able to count internships as <em>gasp</em> course credit!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The fact that this kind of op-ed appears in some form or another several times a year suggests the contrary, if anything?</p>
<p>Too late to edit my first post, but just to clarify that it IS in Nondorf’s interest to admit students who like Chicago as it is, or many of them, anyway, though I guess he’s trying to have his cake and eat it too- bring in the readers, thinkers, AND the kids who do tons of things outside of the classroom, AND the kids who want to make a lot of money (so that they have capacity to give it back in alumni donations!!) perhaps to the expense of some additional intellectual brooding that could theoretically take place if there were fewer clubs and fewer kids who wanted nothing but to go into finance and felt for whatever reason that the University of Chicago was the best, exclusive, and unconditional tool to that success.</p>
<p>As a brooder, I’ve brooded that the even us brooders have improved quality of life when we’re surrounded by (some) people who do things other than brood all the time, because even a life of brooding isn’t as interesting when there’s only brooding to do. If I could have changed one thing about my college experience, it would have been my tendency to, well, sit and brood over do other activities. I imagine my brooder tendencies were probably clear when I applied to the College; I had one extracurricular activity that I pursued with some level of intensity and with some amount of time commitment and leadership attached, but it was nothing in comparison to the time I spent reading by myself. I went to a pretty sophisticated high school, and from there I got the sense that my extracurricular profile wouldn’t “cut it” at the Ivies, but that I’d look attracted to Chicago, Reed, and some other schools. Would the University of Chicago be as excellent a University of Chicago if everybody were me? Absolutely not.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I sympathize with those who feel like the University is trying too hard to be attractive for the wrong reasons even if it ends up admitting kids for the right ones… I still find the new website and visual branding very… un-Chicago. It’s too happy! And orange!</p>
<p>If I were to gander a real change that’s taken place, I’d really love to hear more about how the Odyssey Scholarship has (or has not) changed the life of the College. The gift was after my time, but I really wonder whether there’s more income diversity because of it, and if so, that’s a great bonus as well.</p>
<p>UChicagoalumna:</p>
<p>You say UChicago traditionally admitted more susie’s than well-rounded Sallies, as the Susies fit better with the College’s mission and organization.</p>
<p>Well now, that begs the question, what is UChicago’s current mission and purpose?</p>
<p>Do we have any evidence that the “mission and purpose,” whatever we define that to be, changed? Or is the school just putting lipstick on a pig, in a sense? Do more applications necessarily mean a fundamentally different method of application review? Aside from having higher average SAT/ACT scores, do we have evidence that a Nondorf admit any different from an O’Neill admit?</p>
<p>I would argue that as long as UChicago stays Division III, as long as students are invited to respond to the Uncommon Supplement questions, as long as students are continuing to take classes from J.Z. Smith, as long as traditions like Aims, Kuvia, and Scav are honored in some form, as long as Hyde Park still has bookstores open late, it is, for all intents and purposes, “the same place” it has always (or never) been.</p>
<p>UChicagoalumna:</p>
<p>We don’t have evidence because, as per usual, administrative initiatives and goals of the College lack transparency. </p>
<p>You mention that as long as UChicago stays DIII, JZ Smith keeps teaching, Kuvia still goes on, etc., the school will be the “same place” it has always been. </p>
<p>You also argue that the changes now could be putting lipstick on a pig.</p>
<p>Here’s what’s interesting to me: at some point, Scav, Kuvia, JZ Smith, etc. could be the lipstick on an entirely different pig. It’s difficult to discern, right now, whether all the initiatives are lipstick on the old pig, or if, at some point relatively soon, the old pig is switched out for an entirely new one, and the makeup is Scav, Kuvia, etc.</p>
<p>Your analysis could be right (new lipstick on the old pig) or the hypothetical I introduce above could very well be the goal. We simply don’t know.</p>
<p>I think we have plenty of hints in Robert Zimmer’s speeches, and in the Admissions department’s marketing materials, that the mission and purpose of the College is effectively to be what Harvard or Yale is – the best all-around, elitist, liberal arts educational experience possible, in or out of the classroom. With some idiosyncratic elements and emphases, and local color, but no less ambitious than they are. Put really simply, to be the undergraduate equivalent of the University’s graduate schools.</p>
<p>It’s hard to fault that too much. As the song goes, something’s lost and something’s gained in living every day. There’s some loss of unique character and a legitimate alternative to the madness that is Ivy League admissions – I will be eternally grateful for that, and sad that it may no longer be available. But I don’t think there’s much question that this tack serves the faculty and the long-term interests of the University. Seventy years or so ago, Chicago and Harvard diverged somewhat in how they defined their undergraduate education missions, and 40 years later I think experience had proved Harvard’s (and others’) path significantly more successful. Chicago has spent a generation correcting its course while trying to honor some of the elements that caused the difference in the first place. On the whole, it’s doing a pretty good job, and getting exactly the results it wants.</p>
<p>JHS said:</p>
<p>“That the mission and purpose of the College is effectively to be what Harvard or Yale is”</p>
<p>I agree completely, but heads certainly rolled when this new initiative took shape in the 1990s. For example, Hugo Sonnenschein was essentially fired for the “Princeton-ization” of UChicago:</p>
<p>[Shakespeare</a>, Einstein, and the Bottom Line: The Marketing of Higher Education - David L. Kirp - Google Books](<a href=“Shakespeare, Einstein, and the Bottom Line: The Marketing of Higher Education - David L. Kirp - Google Books”>Shakespeare, Einstein, and the Bottom Line: The Marketing of Higher Education - David L. Kirp - Google Books)</p>
<p>It’s funny, this wasn’t that long ago. Roughly about 6-7 years after Sonnenschein was booted in the late 90s, everyone realized that, hey, you know what? being as close to Harvard or Yale might not be too bad after all. These schools still produce plenty of legitimate academics, and also lead the way in other fields as well.</p>
<p>I think, essentially, JHS is right, but Zimmer has been much, much more careful in shrouding this purpose behind more innocuous (to U of C folks) speeches. Sonnenschein was more open in his legitimate criticisms that Harvard, Princeton, etc. were doing a better job. Zimmer rarely makes any such comparisons, and this generally appeases the navel-gazing alumni set.</p>
<p>“navel-gazing alumni set” <em>raises hand</em></p>
<p>Cue7, I suspect you may be correct, more correct than I’m willing to admit. I was attracted to Chicago because it was so anti-itself, so deeply self-deprecating, bitter and sarcastic, and that’s not really what I see now. Then again, my multiple Ivied family saw the inherent value and appeal of sending me to such a place (full-boat) while the whole sense of it could have really turned off great potential candidates whose family members didn’t understand the appeal. I remember Chicago’s admissions materials being something of a spoof of themselves, and it take a lot to appreciate that humor.</p>
<p>(Not that my family members ever understood the appeal, but they respected Chicago’s old position in the higher education landscape and found it a perfectly valid school to brag about my attending to others.)</p>
<p>We’ll always have St. John’s College and Reed?</p>
<p>Hah UChicagoalumna - there’s St. John’s, Reed, and don’t forget Shimer College right in Chicago.</p>
<p>Of course, of significant interest, when I applied to Chicago, many current students thought actively about St. John’s and Reed when they were applying. I heard a lot about St. John’s and Reed, and people discussed those schools as “miniature” UChicagos. I really don’t think those same comparisons are made today, which says quite a lot.</p>
<p>All this being said, while UChicago may be transitioning to the Harvard model, for students that want the more self-exploratory, expansive great books experience, Reed, St. John’s, Shimer, and perhaps a few others fit the bill, so there are still options out there. As I’ve said before, I don’t know if a mid-sized college can sustain itself on such a model.</p>
<p>I sincerely hope UChicago keeps its “life of the mind” focus. This is what distinguishes Chicago from Harvard and Yale. Emphasizing pre-professional concerns by watering down the Core will cause Chicago to lose its distinctiveness.</p>
<p>Does this mean that UChicago is/has been taking a different kind of class than before? As a potential candidate, that’s not really something I can be excited about. That fact that this school seemed so different from Harvard, Penn or similar schools was what appealed to me. How much are the incoming classes different from those of previous years?</p>
<p>Hah muckdogs and unforgiven - you guys need to relax. A lot of schools are pretty distinct from one another. For example, I think Harvard and Penn are actually quite distinct from one another, and schools like Yale or Brown certainly have an active intellectual atmosphere. </p>
<p>I think UChicago is changing from the place it used to be - namely, a place where the PhD was fetishized, and “blase” careers in finance or law (while popular) were not underscored. Now, UChicago is a much more diverse place, with a much broader range of perspectives and open interests found on campus - and I think this is a good development for a mid-sized university. UChicago is still definitely more “academic” than places like Penn or Duke, but it’s lost some of the navel gazing qualities that inhibited its growth in the 1980s and 1990s (where, for a while, the College was really, really struggling). </p>
<p>For a major university, this is healthy. If you’re really, really interested in a more singular life of the mind experience focused on the great books, look at St. Johns or Reed or Shimer or perhaps even Columbia (which has a more expansive core). </p>
<p>It’s simply not practical for a major research university concerned with a wide range of goals and initiatives to have a college thats a pre-phd/think tank factory. It’s great to have an active core of students who want to do this, but it’s not the only path out there.</p>