"The Sense of Collective Identity at UChicago is Dormant"

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
1

<p>From this week's Maroon Newspaper:</p>

<p><a href="http://chicagomaroon.com/2014/04/04/letter-from-the-editors/"&gt;http://chicagomaroon.com/2014/04/04/letter-from-the-editors/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>While this article only represents the views of two students, it is disheartening, and they are probably not alone in holding this opinion. </p>

<p>The vehemence of the comments by two student leaders (the article writers are both Editors-in-Chief of the Maroon) demonstrate that the school still has a lot of ground to make up. Personally, as an older alum almost 20 years removed from the College, I'm disappointed to note that the critique many of my peers had still apparently resonate to some degree today. </p>

<p>In thinking about this matter, at the college level, connection through academics is ultimately insufficient glue. It pains me to say this, but after years away from the College, I just don't think it's enough. When I meet other alums, the conversation almost always steers toward our respective majors, favorite professors, experience with the core, etc. That's great, but it's not enough. </p>

<p>Contrast the unifiying academic themes with a generally disjointed student body, and critiques like the above will continue to arise. When I meet alums, our social experiences at the school will almost invariably differ. Some alums were obsessed with scav hunt and role playing games, others were invested in frat life, and still others were dedicated members of their college house. Diversity is great, but the social glue was weak. </p>

<p>Holding for a moment that there is some truth to the authors' premise, I think there are a multitude of reasons for this (some of which I've mentioned before):</p>

<p>1.) The house system is weak: The house system is too small - each house is ~100 students, and it doesn't accurately represent a cross section of the school at large. Houses, then, become more like tribes rather than reflective pockets of the larger student body. Alums often have allegiance to a house, but one house could have a completely different feel than another. There should be some diversity here, but there should be an espirit de corps that resonates through all the houses, and connect to the greater College. Houses of ~250-300 are preferable to ~100 students. Why has the college decided to make houses of small size? </p>

<p>2.) Impact of Non-Academic Groups have to Grow: the College has grown 30% in 10 years, but we still only have 19 sports teams, and square footage for student clubs have not really grown. The growth, in my opinion, hasn't been careful, smart growth - it's been a rush to get the College in line numerically with its peers. People at the school for reasons somewhat beyond academics have diminished - only 6-7% of the student are athletes, the number of legacies are still low (legacies often have a longer connection to a school), etc. We need higher critical masses of such groups. The reg is probably still more of a general social hub than the Reynolds Club. </p>

<p>3.) Growth of social traditions: the social events polarize at UChicago to too great an extent. Scav hunt is polarizing, and besides that, I can't really tell you what long-standing traditions the College has. Summer Breeze is more subdued at UChicago, the winter festival isn't that old, the lascivious student ball just restarted a few years ago, Ribs and Bibs, etc. are hardly ingrained student traditions. </p>

<p>At other colleges, certain events might face some polarization (e.g., at Penn, probably 1/4 of the students roll their eyes at Spring Fling, but for probably 70% of students, it's a fun weekend - and almost everyone goes once in their college career. Same goes for tossing toast on Franklin Field, "Hey Day," etc.)</p>

<p>At UChicago, I can't think of any memorable tradition (outside of semi-artificial ones that were created administratively and relatively recently - like Shake Day) where even 60% of the students say, that was great. At the ivies and other top schools, for better or worse, there are non-academic traditions that have traction in the student body. Most students at Harvard know the school has a crew team, and most at Stanford know the school has a football team. The same can't be said at UChicago. </p>

<p>4.) A lack of unifying social spaces outside the campus: Northwestern (for a long time) had the Keg, Penn has Smokes, Princeton has the Street (followed often by late-night food at WaWa convenience store). What UChicago social space rises to that same level of status? Jimmy's Woodlawn tap is polarizing - some students loved it, others thought it was a gloomy grad-student heavy bar. The Pub tends to be more of a graduate hangout. Where are the social spaces that all UChicago students frequent, and look back at fondly after college? The Med is a great restaurant, but it doesn't quite do the work of the spaces at other colleges mentioned above.</p>

<p>With the above in mind and agreeing with the premise that collective identity on campus could be improved, what can be done?</p>

2

<p>JHS - I greatly respect the opinions you’ve offerred on various boards over the years, but I think you are overreacting here, and perhaps not giving your University the benefit of the doubt.</p>

<p>Two student editors declaring, “As distinct from other top-tier U.S. universities, UChicago’s sense of collective identity is dormant, if not completely stillborn: Because of this, at some point, each and every one of us has borne injury”, does not make it so. Read the responses to the editorial to get a better idea of what I’m saying. Perhaps these writers were having a day brought on by winter blues? They are certainly human and subject to having a bad day.</p>

<p>The question, “Do you really need the Maroon” is unfortunate and self-pitying in my opinion. Who needs the Maroon? Well to begin with, the people who produce it. They work on the publication because they get a kick out of journalism or perhaps for other reasons, but it serves them as much as anyone. I do not know to what extent UChicago stakeholders rely on the paper but, as the replies to the editorial suggest, the editors and writers and others on the Maroon can serve themselves, their predecessors, and the future of the paper and the University by striving to make it better and more credible and excellent and ready for the next generation to take over and do the same.</p>

<p>As you well know, the unifying principles of UChicago are “rigorous inquiry” and “the life of the mind”. Most informed observers (people like you who are insiders and people like me who are semi-outsiders) know this. As an outsider with a son who is now an insider, I think it’s pretty special and worth preserving as a unifying theme.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I’m with you on the house system. I think the basics are in place to make something pretty good, and as far as I know, many students approve of the houses. But I think you’re right that the houses are maybe too small and for that reason perhaps there are too many of them. Perhaps the completion of the new residential facility will be a good time to think about the next evolution of the house system. </p>

3

<p>Kaukauna,</p>

<p>I agree, the two writers very well could be distant outliers to the general student sentiment about the school. </p>

<p>My greater issue is: “the life of the mind” is somewhat weak glue. It’s great if its PART of a unifying theme, but it may not be sufficient alone. My points above, then, relate to what can be done to improve the collective identity on campus. I don’t believe it’s dormant, as the article writers contend, just that it could be improved. </p>

4

<p>By the way way, I referred to you as JHS above. Sorry about that. You’re both very astute posters so at least it’s good company!</p>

5

<p>Relying on the Maroon’s (or any student paper’s) editors as a bellwether for the larger student body is a bit fraught. For this reader, the missing factor that stands between the College and true greatness is the capability to house enough undergraduates on campus. The absence of sufficient dormitory space has plagued the College throughout Chicago’s history. Dean Boyer illustrates the importance of this factor persuasively in a 2008 paper (<a href=“https://college.uchicago.edu/sites/college.uchicago.edu/files/attachments/Boyer_OccasionalPapers_V18.pdf”>https://college.uchicago.edu/sites/college.uchicago.edu/files/attachments/Boyer_OccasionalPapers_V18.pdf&lt;/a&gt;). Ironically, James Angell, who left Chicago because he couldn’t obtain permanent appointment as President, was eventually the Yale President who built the key parts of that fine institution’s College house system. More than sports teams or Shake Days, it would seem that bringing the students together is the key missing element. As an overall university, Chicago’s programs and quality scholarship are world-class. That the College isn’t quite held in the same regard probably has a lot to do with the housing situation. </p>

6

<p>ssn you know about the new dorm. What do you think? How far beyond this do they need to go? How would they do it? If I recall correctly, Cue hates the new dorm. I on the other hand think that its an exciting design for an urban campus like UChicago. You can’t build Yale style dorms because you just don’t have the same space.</p>

7

<p>Ssn: revamping housing was my #1 suggested change. I think a true revamp, though, would cost a LOT of money (think like $500M). Max P is an eye sore, the random dorms (breck, Maclean) are too small, and even North isn’t set up in a way that maximizes a good “house” feel - its essentially a couple high rise buildings housing students. </p>

<p>A structural change to expand each “house” would also be expensive. The house system now has common rooms and cloister/halls built for around 100. So, each house is about 100 people. Every dorm would need to be renovated (with expanded house common spaces) to accommodate larger core houses. </p>

<p>Some more moderate changes could be made (eg combining houses on two floors to create one larger house), but, along with those changes, I think the other points I list above - on aggregate - would improve student life. </p>

<p>Sports teams should increase because the size of the college has increased. Square footage for student clubs should increase for the same reason. Also as importantly, the school should seek to create more unifying social spaces right on/near campus. Jimmy’s isn’t cutting it, and the reg should not be a major student hub. Some hallmark traditions would help as well. When I meet someone from penn, I can almost guarantee you they went to fling at least once, and went to smokes or cavs (two bars on campus). Many alums will wax nostalgic about those events and places. Similarly, a student from brown will have gone to at least one sex power god party, me gone to a midnight organ recital. It’s rare I meet students from these schools who really hate these traditions. At uchicago, if I ask an alum about scav, there’s a chance I’ll be bombarded with a long discussion about some inane scav item, or treated to a scathing review of how weird and annoying scav is. </p>

<p>The administration has expanded the college, but the growth has been too fast, without due attention to some of the systemic problems (house system being #1) that still plague the school. The article writers are surely on the extreme end of the spectrum here, but the notion that uchicago collective identity (outside of academics) is weak is tenable. As I said earlier, the life of the mind can be part of - but not wholly - the unifying theme for the college. </p>

<p>It’s frustrating as an alum to see that some problems still persist. </p>

8

<p>Although Pierce had its fans, my view is that the new North Campus residence is a step in the right direction. My understanding is that the students like South Campus, so it appears that there’s the prospect of house continuity in a modern/large building. The same seems to be true at Max P (although I agree that it’s not very attractive). Because the school is building out to the south and west, a more radical proposal would be to move the faculty out and return Foster/Beecher/Kelly/Green to their original uses as dormitories. That wouldn’t add too many beds, but it would go a long way toward making the main quadrangle a vibrant hub for undergraduate life.</p>

9

<p>Put another way, there need to be mechanisms/spaces to get and keep uchicago students mingling. Now, houses operate a bit like tribes and aren’t reflective of the greater college community. At schools without great house systems, like penn, institutions like frats and big student clubs (and social spaces and events I mentioned above) bring people together. Uchicago doesn’t really have any of those features, and could make the social fabric a bit more frayed. </p>

<p>Any thoughts from current students? Outside of academics/life of the mind and related descriptors (like “weirdness” or “quirkiness” which can’t function as social glue), what are some of the unifying themes for the college?</p>

10

<p>Also, I should add, I think North is better than Pierce, and South is better than the old Shoreland dorm. Such sorely needed upgrades, though, are a far cry from actually paying top-drawer attention to the social livelihood of the class, and making sure there are enough spaces to keep students intermixing beyond and outside the classroom. </p>

11

<p>

I couldn’t agree more. How do students spend Friday and Saturday evenings? My feeling is that Hyde Park is such a sleepy neighborhood that they are “forced” to go to the city. From what I have heard and seen, choices are very limited in Hyde Park. Instead of intermixing they get dispersed all over the city.</p>

12

<p>Cue7’s long post is so much more thoughtful and specific than the self-important twaddle in the Maroon editorial. I am glad he thinks he knows what that key gnomic phrase meant, but I note that every student commentator on the Maroon website thought it was silly.</p>

<p>Anyway, a few comments, although it won’t surprise anyone that I hardly see this as the crisis that Cue7 does.</p>

<p>I agree completely on the house size issue. But the key is not only larger houses, it’s larger, four-year houses. Until recently, only Snitchcock has had a meaningful four-year retention rate. To keep kids for four years, you need to give them better rooms as seniors than they had as first-years, and facilities better than they can get elsewhere. That’s key to the Harvard and Yale house systems, and that remains a huge stumbling block everywhere else. It’s not that Chicago doesn’t have the space – it has tons of space – it’s that it’s really expensive to build four-year houses. I don’t think it’s going to happen.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, I think it’s ironic that Cue7 keeps using Penn as an example, when Penn (a) has a generally failed house system, too, but with much larger houses, and (b) houses only about half of its students in its own dorms, just like Chicago. It’s not a unified student body at all. There is great resentment of Wharton, and great disrespect towards Nursing. There is a constant undertow of resentment against people from the New York Metropolitan Area. I know a zillion Penn alums, and I have never heard anyone suggest that Smokey Joes’s was a key part of his college experience. Or that Spring Fling was somehow life-changing, identity forging. It’s roughly the same spring party they have everywhere – the one they call Summer Breeze at Chicago.</p>

<p>And . . . is he really serious about Wawa? Wawa is a regional convenience store chain. It’s a good one – better than the national chains – but that’s all it is, a good chain store. I’m glad it apparently adds so much to student life at Princeton, but that doesn’t make me think much of student life at Princeton.</p>

<p>My spouse and I met and fell in love at a college that has never been accused of having a dormant sense of identity, the one with the great residential houses, great traditions, great non-academic institutions. So, how many of those community-forging things did we have in common? Pretty much none. We were in the same college. In five semesters of overlap, we were never once at the same party. She never set foot in the college bar where I spent 2-3 evenings/week (around the corner from where she lived for a year). She went to one football game, ever. Where did we talk? The library, of course, just like most of our classmates, and just like our kids at Chicago. What did we talk about? The world, but also a lot about what we were studying. Academics were really important. We were in the same freshman core curriculum program and also a great internship program, in each case a year apart. </p>

<p>And the thing is, although we had very few things we shared, we have exactly the same feelings about the college, and so do my friends and her friends, two sets of people with hardly any connections other than us. When we were back for a big reunion of mine, she was stunned at how easy it was for her to talk to friends of mine whom she had barely met before, because there was a really strong sense of common identity, and it wasn’t based on stupid crap like Spring Fling, or bladderball, or Rudy’s. It was based on common intellectual experience, the same sort of thing that ought to – and I believe, does – provide a sense of common identity at Chicago.</p>

13

<p>Agree with most of what JHS says above. I spent some time at Penn, and don’t think that it’s a model for Chicago. One of the most important things that’s right about Chicago is that students share a fairly common (and quite rigorous) educational experience. Most members of the Class of 2014 likely own a well-thumbed volume of the Marx-Engels Reader, just like members of the Class of 1984 probably did. Similarly, at a multi-generational UofC alumni event, a mention of Kant, Weber, or Durkheim will generate a flash of recognition, even if it’s accompanied by a groan. In this regard, not having an undergraduate programs in business, engineering, nursing, hotel management, etc., is a positive virtue. Also a virtue, in my view, to continue to pursue athletics at a (suitably) low level. Athletic success comes at the expense of academic quality—any truthful person would have to admit that the bar must be lowered to ramp up in athletics. For instance, the whole purpose of the Ivies’ Academic Index concept is to ensure that the bar isn’t set too low. Similarly, touchstones like Jimmy’s Woodlawn Tap, Smokey Joe’s, etc., are ancillary and, at best, reinforce the experience (rather than create it). Not so sure, however, that Chicago “has tons of space.” Concomitant with its growth in size and popularity, Chicago seems to have struggled to find places to put undergraduates—some irony that College houses are in the New Graduate Resident Hall. I think that it is right to say that Chicago will never have a four-year house system that’s analogous to those at Yale/Harvard. It’s something of a historical artifact that Chicago is “neither fish nor fowl” when it comes to College housing—it has always been somewhere between a city commuter school (e.g. NYU, GWU) and a residential college school, with Yale as the most noteworthy example. May have something to do with the original conception of the University as one based on the German model—the College was originally something of a ne’er do-well stepchild of the University, while all the other peer schools began as colleges that subsequently grew into mighty universities. In any event, my view is that the key determinants of greatness (and success in wooing the very best students) boil down to two key factors: (1) the type and quality of the academic experience, and; (2) the personal relationships formed in housing (which, in turn, drive “spirit” and alumni fondness for their college experience). On item (1), it seems that Chicago takes a back seat to no one, even those that are currently shown more love in various ranking methodologies. Item (2) is where the university could make up some ground. While Chicago will never have a set of college quadrangles under the benevolent gaze of Harkness Tower, the administration’s current efforts to build more on-campus housing options exclusively for undergraduates (and not turfing them into I-House, etc.) seems to be a good step in the right direction. </p>

14

<p>It is interesting that at the university where I am a current faculty member, and which has all of Cue’s desired features (except the house system) in spades, the administration is putting in place some changes to create a shared academic experience for students: a (small) core. In my opinion, the shared academic experience is a unique strength of UChicago.</p>

<p>From what I have seen, the house system at UChicago, along with the shared experience of O-week, etc., does a great job of helping first year students get acclimated to the campus, both socially and academically. When they get to the second year, they pay it forward. Then they move out to make room for others. This isn’t as good as Harvard or Yale’s house system where everyone stays in for four years, but it still is a positive aspect of student life. Given a constant number of beds, I don’t particularly see how making the houses bigger would improve the situation significantly. And what does " houses operate like tribes" mean anyway, and so what?" </p>

<p>Cue7 argues that there need to be more non-academic groups like sports teams and frats. While these things may be fun and valuable for the individuals who participate in them, they do NOT contribute a collective experience, they take away from it–people involved in these activities just don’t have enough time for mingling and intermixing with other students. And why isn’t going into Chicago on the weekend a “collective experience” just as valid as spending time in a bar near campus? And what is wrong with STUDENTS hanging out in the library?</p>

<p>But I think the notion that a “collective experience” or “unifying theme” is so important is mistaken. What is more important is that individual students find a niche that nourishes them and helps them grow. It doesn’t, and can’t possibly mean that everyone has the same experience. And, of course, students, do need to take some responsibility for their own social lives. </p>

<p>Perhaps what is really meant by “sense of collective identity” is just old fashioned “school spirit”. If that is the case, I’ll point out that complaining about lack of school spirit rarely helps increase it.</p>

<p>p.s. Cue7–just because you can find two people with different opinions about a thing, doesn’t make it “polarizing”. </p>