The "New" UChicago

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
41

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s quite a shame; I knew the captain of the Shoreland team a few years back and they were gung-ho as could be. For those that don’t know, MacPierce and Breck put out fantastic performances at this year’s scav, rising in place for the second consecutive year in a row, so it’s not like Snitchcock and BJ were the only teams doing well.</p>

<p>I think what you say rings true for South, though (I’ve never heard anyone talking about ‘being from South’ as anything special). With regards to Max, my impression has been that the Max team is not as inclusive as some of the other teams are, in addition to the dorm being large in general. I know that both Snitchcock and BJ have had people from Max scavving for them instead of the Max team, for reasons like that.</p>

42

<ol>
<li>

</li>
</ol>

<p>Whether or not this is true to current practice at Chicago, this viewpoint certainly resonated to me as true to some extent on some college campuses at some points in time-- see “The Chosen” by Jerome Karabel for a parallel discussion of “character” and some illumination as to why the Jewish/Asian stereotype is “undesirable.”</p>

<ol>
<li> South is a new dorm still, and if it’s first-year heavy it has a harder time building a Scav strategy and leadership. Snitchcock is very intensely Scav, from O-Week on it’s all the first-years hear about, and their team is highly organized and specialized. I don’t think Scav is a good metric of overall nerdtacularity, though certainly when I was an undergrad my social networks weaved tightly across Scavvies from all teams, so it meant a lot more to me than just a few days of epic.</li>
</ol>

43

<p>There may be another reason why Chicago may be less pre-academic–and it is far from alone --Harvard has noticed the number of students going to graduate schools decline as well for example–as colleges admit students for whom Chicago (or Harvard or Columbia or…or…) is a huge step up from their socio-economic status as they are first generation college or URM (or both) the “prize” of the acceptance is the potential to leave their lower or lower-middle class life for a more prosperous future for themselves and their families. Given that such a economic change will occur in the professions and business careers, it stands to reason that such students would see the desire for economic security to have a higher value than classes which did not actively recruit talented students from all sectors of society.
It is height of naivet</p>

44

<p>That’s an important insight, etondad. I do think, however, that there are plenty of doctors’ children who are obsessed with mega-wealth these days, too. Practically everyone I know has some kind of professional degree, and it’s a constant topic of conversation that some of our kids are mercenary to an extent that embarrasses their parents, few of whom pursued material success for its own sake. Also, I think many talented kids from low-income backgrounds can be helped a lot by learning that there are thousands of ways to succeed, not just three or four, and that they don’t have to mutilate themselves to fit into a particular box.</p>

45

<p>Thought provoking post Etondad,</p>

<p>But isn’t it equally likely that first generation students who have lived in difficult economic circumstances would be more willing to choose careers in less remunerative fields than students who have lived amidst wealth and privilege all of their lives. I suspect that the ranking increase in USNWR has led to an influx of pre-professional kids from places like CA who previously would not have considered UC.</p>

46

<p>Etondad - it could also be true that UChicago (like many of its peer schools) has grown more economically homogeneous over time. As an example of this:</p>

<p>[Duke</a> draws ?rich kids of all colors? | The Chronicle](<a href=“http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/duke-draws-rich-kids-all-colors]Duke”>Duke draws ‘rich kids of all colors’ - The Chronicle)</p>

<p>I imagine UChicago could be quite similar.</p>

47

<p>Part of the problem must also be related to the cost of a college degree. It’s much harder for anyone, low income or not, to justify spending a lot of money on a degree that’s not necessarily a financial investment for the future. Even as a humanities major who doesn’t care about making a lot of money, I can’t help but feel a little guilty sometimes that I’m spending so much money on something that likely won’t give me a substantial monetary return. </p>

<p>I would also guess that the collective attitude towards the purpose of a college degree has shifted to view it much more as a tool of practicality. That’s why the first thing people ask when you say you’re an English or Classics major is often what you plan to do with your degree. Or why the comments pages for articles on majors, employable degrees etc. are nearly always filled with people criticizing those who chose to major in “unemployable” subjects. In some ways I think this shift in attitude is understandable. By and large the people responsible for increases in college attendance are people who wouldn’t have gone to college 30-40 years ago, and it’s a lot harder to justify majoring in something not related to a job for these people than it is for your traditional liberal arts students. They’re going to college to get a job when previously they would have just received technical training. Is it really an intuitive change to start teaching them Socrates rather than computer programming? But I think what happens is this attitude ends up working its way up to the very top, at least in part. For better or for worse, even the students entering HYP are coming in with a more practical idea of the purpose of education.</p>

48

<p>It is much easier to justify to ones’ self (and not care about others) if one is financially secure-- while I am sure that it does occur, I can imagine that if someone from modest financial circumstances were to say that she wished to study French Existential Philosophy, that she might encounter a bit of opprobrium from her family-- more so than someone who is a much more well off. </p>

<p>Look at the traditional perspectives of immigrant communities–Jewish earlier and now Southeast Asian and Asian now for whom medical school or another professional school is almost demanded by families. (“My son/daughter, the doctor” is a cliche in such groups.) One of my S’s friends, an Indian woman, introduces herself as the only Indian studying Classics in the University–and says that she is sure that this interest was what made the Ad Com take her–as she was so unusual. Again, of course this is a huge generalization – but as generalizations go, I think it holds…</p>

<p>It would be a fascinating study to compare various disciplines with the socio-economic groups that inhabit them–that could give some interesting insights–hey, if anyone is looking for a thesis topic, here it is!!!</p>

49

<p>^^dunbar, you are right about the fact that the universities as becoming more instrumental. I was just at a lunch with Drew Gilpin Faust, herself a Civil War historian before taking on the Harvard presidency, and she spoke about how students wanted to learn things to solve problems in the world (not necessarily for eleemosynary purposes, to be sure). I asked what about the glory of the universities is that they can be places that are not utilitarian or instrumentalist–what about the humanities? She replied that they were critical-- but then segway-ed into how such studies place these problems in a broader context (blah, blah, blah). I followed up by saying to her that I didn’t mean that at all-- I was wondering about the role of the university was the place where the joy of reading Xenophon was not that it would have ANY applicability at all-- but because the reading of Xenophon had an inherent value… She said–oh yes, that too-- but it was clear that such thinking was not where she was thinking Harvard was going-- or should go. I came away disillusioned. And the same can now be said about Chicago.</p>

<p>And of course you are so right JHS–I recall that at the end of my contracts course at HLS the professor said that he wanted to say something to us-- that as we would graduate from HLS we could do ANYTHING we wanted-- that no HLS grad starved unless they wanted too or became ill in someway–yet, yet, he said, that regardless of this fact that almost the entire class would do the same type of law–big firm rather than branching out. I don’t think it was because of economic reasons-- it is more a lemmings sort of thing-- if all of the “top” kids are doing X-Y-Z then to be considered not a failure I have to do the same-- and that it takes a fair amount of courage to say --No --not for me in the face of such peer pressure…–He was very right.</p>

50

<p>My guess is that the increased interest in finding a career where a UChicago student can make money is directly related to the changes in the economy that the current crops of students witnessed first hand over the past few years. My parent’s view of the economy and the need to pinch pennies was shaped by their growing up during the Depression. Today’s college student sees the growing inequality of income and wants desparately to be part of the 1% rather than the 99%</p>

51

<p>Continued @ JHS,</p>

<p>In your opinion, clearly, you think that Abbott’s statements were a “coherent insider’s account” of “things that the faculty sees as problems.” However, you are sugarcoating his words. Naturally, a high-up faculty member of a prestigious university would want to portray ‘major problems’ and then solve them like a hero. However, the results of the administration’s ‘problem-solving’ are yet to be seen in the future of higher education. Furthermore, because he is your kid’s “once and future recommenders,” one can see why you think so highly of him, but this does not mean that one should think highly of him generally.</p>

<p>You say that I am cherry-picking statements out of context, but in my initial statement I did not even mention Abbott’s name, nor was it intended to be strictly personal against him, nor were my statements unclear, irrelevant, or out-of-context. I was taking issue with the greater trend in higher education that led to the “New UChicago.” You decided to name-drop, to make your argument seem more impressive. And in doing so you artificially inflated your argument, as if UChicago is a wonderful and charming place with squirrels that are tame and respond lovingly to petting.</p>

<p>I reject your claims, rather cliche even for UChicago, that I have to be “a lot more clear about what [I’m] saying” or that I must “pay attention to what [my] source material is saying.” You seem to be suggesting, blindly, as does UChicago’s marketing materials, that anyone who has not received an education and been specially endorsed by such an institution has not truly learned how to make arguments or how to think clearly. And to suggest this is false. Very, very, very false.</p>

<p>You say: “There is nothing in Abbott’s discussion about higher education is seeking to profit off people’s desire to find and display their own intellectualism.” And here you show, forgive me, how little you understood that excerpt which you yourself quoted. Abbott /all but/ says this:</p>

<p>"[In the past] the University of Chicago pursued…a ‘spend down’ strategy… Basically, the university spent a substantial chunk of its endowment being an extremely unusual place [i.e. an ‘intellectual heaven’]… Wildly exciting, wildly alive [and other subjective, hyperbolic comments /in favor/ of said intellectual heaven]…It was also going broke… We [[implied:] have to make money] off of pure intellectualism [so as not to pursue a ‘spend down’ strategy i.e. going broke]."</p>

<p>So, to analyze: The university was not making money off of intellectualism. They learned the hard way that they needed to make money [because generally people won’t pay for you to do ‘whatever the hell you want’]. As a result, they are trying to ‘spin’ their formerly ill-fated intellectualism as a valuable commodity (to make money), with the help of their hedge-fund donators (paying for advertising, new buildings). Savvy? But “pure intellectualism” isn’t really worth anything in the first place…</p>

<p>And, above, I’ve made the argument that this approach isn’t necessarily going to win out, because they’re still selling the same [damn] thing, just under a new mask. And this is the same with all of higher education: Same product, new “spin” for the new decade. But I say: It’s the genuinely new products that win out (technology). I think this should be pretty clear…</p>

<p>Finally, I will say that I have indeed met Mr. Abbott and even taken a class with him. You seem to be assuming and hoping that I haven’t met him if that artificially strengthens your argument, but you are wrong. He’s a nice enough guy, but you are way exaggerating the aura that his personality should impress into a coldly rational and honest appraisal. Sorry to say, but he’s actually pretty lazy–and this, given his authority, is concerning–and he even suggests that his students “teach themselves the material.” Students, naive and ambitious early 20s, are in awe that this guy understands the system so well that he doesn’t even have to teach and that they’ve got to pick up the slack so that they can be like him some day. In short, students take this to be one of his interesting and admirable quirks, and therefore they are entertained and enthused. In retrospect, however, and especially given the current economy and the need to learn things that will be useful for one’s fellows, Abbott and the university which he plays a leading role in guiding, in my <em>humble opinion</em>, are only a giant money pit. The university was only too glad to pick up this, as you say, “patrician WASP” to bolster its institutional CV and attract others like him. But he’s hardly a genuinely valuable asset, nor is “pure intellectualism.” And you can suck up to this institution all you like. What you get out of it for the long term will really be up to them and not so much reflective of the work and value that you offer. Future students, be advised!</p>

<p>JHS, I am truly very glad for you and your kid if you feel you are getting your money’s worth and a ‘world-class education.’ However, only time will tell whether this ‘education’ yields anything but a momentary pleasure. Yet, make no mistake, I truly hope that we all can win in the end.</p>

52

<p>Just an anecdote to add to #48</p>

<p>I had dinner recently with a group of people who were all profs in some US university in some STEM area. Talk turned to our kids–the Americans had kids in college who were majoring in philosophy of science, creative writing, and history. The Southeast Asian prof said: “Well, this the difference between Americans and people from India: Americans let their kids major in whatever they want.”</p>

53

<p>

No, I don’t think this can be right. The change has to lie much deeper than events of the past few years in order to fundamentally alter the general expectation for a college degree. For one thing this change has already been taking place, well before the financial crisis. But also, you don’t get people like Drew Gilpin Faust suddenly talking about the practicality of education because of one crisis, and you don’t get students suddenly making the conscious decision that they need to earn a spot in the “1%.” My cynical guess is that the new, more “practical” view of a college education is directly linked to hypercapitalism and a generally greater emphasis on wealth.</p>

54

<p>The ironic thing about this focus on wealth is I doubt in the long-term taking business courses is the best way to achieve it. I suspect most top level CEOs at manufacturing companies are engineers or math, science (especially pharmaceuticals), or computer sci majors and at service companies and Wall Street ditto for math and science as well as the liberal arts, especially english and history. A business degree may help obtain a good job initially (what most of the surveys examine), but I suspect long-term the more rigorous majors that require high levels of critical thinking skills help people get to the top.</p>

55

<p>It seems to me that the “old” UChicago students are being judgmental. One doesnt have to be frumpy, unfashionable and unhygenic to engage in the life of the mind.</p>

<p>And… one doesn’t have to male, white or Midwestern either (which, is among the failings of UChicago, in my mind , which it has since fixed.) I absolutely love that brainy women and brainy minorities and brainy east/west coasters now have a higher preference for UChicago. The male, white and Midwestern demographics will just have to fairly compete for the open positions - I hear that they are expanding the undergrad class size anyway…</p>

56

<p>

At the same time, one doesn’t have to be frumpy, unfashionable, and unhygienic to bemoan the “new” UChicago, whatever “new” is taken to be. I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at here.</p>

57

<p>S1 attended Chicago and majored in one of those non-preprofessional disciplines, took many different courses, including one of his favorites, Conflict Theory and Aikido, which also could not be considered preprofessional. He now is employed in a job he loves in the professional/business world, publishes in academic journals, and recently presented at a Theory and Philosophy conference. He is constantly approached by recruiters from many businesses ranging from start-ups to very large firms. All this was made possible by the amazing liberal education he received at Chicago. I am not sure this would have happened if he signed on to an exclusively pre-professional track and stuck with it. I am not saying those with definite pre-professional interests should not be accommodated, only agreeing with Abbott that one should take advantage of what The University offers, and that the intellectualism found there can serve one well in all pursuits.</p>

58

<p>I understand this is an old thread. I am reactivating this topic with the hope that no one would mind because I am wondering if UChicago has made any further fundamental changes to shape the “New UChicago” since Cue7 started this classic thread.</p>

<p>My belief is that at the core, Chicago is still the intellectual powerhouse it has always been since the beginning of the founding years. The apparent change for the better is just that the University has made noticeable improvement on the College level such that the undergraduate students are enjoying the “Life of the Mind” in a more pleasant way. Due to such change, in addition to the rise of ranking of Chicago, people in the “market”, all of a sudden, are paying attention. </p>

<p>I’d like to hear what JHS and Cue7 et al have to say.</p>