U. of Chicago: Is University Strength Declining?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
1

There’s been a lot of talk about the surge in the College’s popularity but, as a bit of a thought experiment, I pose the question - is the University (overall) actually weaker across the board now than in the recent past? Some evidence that indicates the answer could be yes (organized by school division):

UChicago Medicine/Hospital System

The biggest decline seems to be here. Rankings are of course a rough barometer, but the results here are stark. In 2003, UChicago Hospitals ranked #14 overall, in the ballpark of Michigan, Stanford, U. of Penn, etc., and well ahead of Northwestern (which was unranked). In 2003, UChicago Hospitals was generally considered the preeminent hospital system in the Chicago-land area.

Now, in 2016, UChicago hospitals is unranked, and Northwestern Memorial is #8. They have almost flipped spots.

(Sources: http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20030718/2003-us-best-hospital-rankings#1 and http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20030718/2003-us-best-hospital-rankings#1)

Perhaps more worryingly, for a long time, cancer research/treatment was a big part of Chicago’s portfolio. In 2000, Chicago was SIXTH (#6) in the country for this specialty. In 2015, they had dropped to 34th.

(Source: http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/quality/best-50-cancer-hospitals-then-and-now-who-ranked-where-in-2000-compared-to-today.html)

This is a really big drop. Rumor is Northwestern has poached some of Chicago’s top researchers/docs, and Chicago has simply lost ground. Instead of being the frontrunner in Chicago, they’ve been pulled back considerably.

(The medical school’s ranking is still strong, but this is because - in a disappointing move, the school decided to REDUCE the number of medical students in its classes, despite the general notion of a doctor shortage.)

The success of a medical plant is now crucial to any major research university. Medical plants bring in big dollars, connect a school with a community, etc. The optics of the trauma center fight for Chicago hasn’t been good, either.

The hospital system has a lot of ground to make up - not just nationally, but in the city of Chicago.

The Law School

Like many schools, Chicago saw their LSAT averages decline, but, for the first time in a little while, there’s a gap in scoring between Columbia Law and Chicago Law. Columbia’s median LSAT is 172, Chicago’s is now 170, despite Chicago have a drastically smaller incoming class size. (Sources: Columbia and Chicago’s Entering Class Profile/FAQ pages.) Chicago’s median used to be 172.

Chicago’s production of Supreme Court clerks, a big brass ring in law, and sometimes a rough barometer of a school’s station, has fallen precipitously in recent years. From 1991 to 2005, Chicago produced a whopping 65 clerks (about 4-5 a year). From 2006 to 2016, Chicago produced 18 a year (1-2 a year). (Sources: http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/1991scotus_clerks.shtml and http://www.law.uchicago.edu/students/careerservices/clerkships.

(It’s US News ranking has held relatively steady at #4, but the gap between Chicago and it’s generally closest competitor, Columbia, seems to have widened.)

Chicago Booth Business School

Rankings-wise, the school is placing well, but it lost a tremendous dean, Edward Snyder, to Yale, and Snyder’s follow-up, Sunil Kumar, is leaving for Johns Hopkins. Also, as the B-school climate shifts more toward tech/entrepreneurship, Chicago is very much playing catch-up here. It’s always been strong in quant finance, but it is struggling to build the ecosystem found elsewhere (see: Stanford, Wharton’s burgeoning climate for tech/ent and the Pennovation center, the new Harvard innovation lab, etc.)

NIH Funding and Fundraising

Money is the lifeblood of any significant research institution. Chicago’s fundraising efforts, relative to its peers, has been flagging, and NIH funding is actually going down.

Re NIH funding - in 2006, Chicago’s medical school received $170M in funding (ranked #21 in the nation, not bad for a plant of its size). This was well above Northwestern, which received about $125M in funding. In 2016, the tables have turned significantly, NU now receives $220M in funding (18th in the nation), and Chicago’s funding actually went DOWN to $155M (down to #28 in the nation).

NIH funding usually links to the number of “big deal” faculty lab leaders (called Principal Investigators, or PIs) a university has. Prominent PIs can bring in a lot of NIH funding, which usually leads to publication of “big deal” research papers, which usually leads to higher (or sustained) levels of NIH funding. A decrease in NIH funding can signify a brain drain on the science end of campus.

(Sources: for 2006, see “Total NIH awards” data found here: http://www.brimr.org/NIH_Awards/2006/NIH_Awards_2006.htm and for 2015, see here: http://www.brimr.org/NIH_Awards/2015/NIH_Awards_2015.htm)

Similarly, in terms of fundraising, Chicago is in the midst of a $4.5B fundraising campaign. That sounds like a lot, doesn’t it? Well, it’s progressing slowly, especially when compared to other peers, AND it’s smaller than other campaigns. Harvard will raise about $8B (it’s already surpassed it’s $6.5B goal), Johns Hopkins recently increased their goal to $5B given momentum, and Northwestern’s $3.75B campaign looks to surpass their goal too. Chicago’s campaign looks to take a long time, and is flagging a bit.

Other Considerations

Of course, the University has made strides - student life is better, Hyde Park is better, new collaborations have emerged (with the Marine Biological Institute, Institute of Politics, etc.), and old ones have been maintained (e.g. Argonne). The points I raise above, however, are worrying - especially the trends for the medical plant and revenue streams.

Thoughts?

2

As an alum, I feel like the overwhelming majority of the changes in recent years have been extremely positive, but I know that there are some alums out there who feel like the UofC has lost something magical. I can’t help but think that there is some heavy mythologizing going on about the past.

I don’t see any sign of decline in the Law School - the number of supreme court clerks varies wildly from year to year because the sample size is so small. The only sure thing about SC clerks is that a huge percentage will come from Yale. The Business School is doing great. The non-professional grad schools remain the powerhouses the always were. It is possible that the Hospital has declined a bit, but that is just one piece of the puzzle.

Most of all, the College - the heart of the matter - is healthier and more appealing than it has been since Hutchins was the President. Applications have skyrocketed. Hyde Park is better, safer and more interesting, student life is better, housing is infinitely better, labs, libraries, heck - all of the campus facilities have greatly improved.

True - the endowment has not risen as quickly as some peers, but that is because the University chose to spend some of its money in ways that were greatly needed rather than just horde it forever. Yes, we do not have Harvard or Princeton’s endowment, but we never had that. A decade ago, the University had the 13th largest endowment in the USA. Now it has… the 14th largest endowment in the USA. The University still has, what 7.5 billion dollars to play with, and that is after all of the recent costly but necessary improvements? I think the endowment is going to be ok, especially given the ever more positive national profile of the College and the University as a whole, which will pay dividends down the road with larger numbers of alumni with far better memories of their time in Hyde Park than I or my friends ever had, alumni who are going to be much more inclined to give back to the school.

3

No stopping Booth’s ascent either.

It has overtaken Wharton overall, and is now tied with Stanford per USNews. Loss of Snyder was huge but it did not dampen the upwards momentum. Loss of Kumar will be net positive, once a replacement is found. Entrepreneurship has increased, tech hiring has increased, and it has the second biggest endowment of any business school in the world behind Harvard Business School. Still lagging with venture funded startups but its trajectory is upwards with the success of Polsky Center and Hyde Park Angels and the fact that second biggest alumni base is Silicon Valley/San Francisco.

4

Sunil Kumar left for JH to become Provost, a big promotion in the academic world which, if anything, I think reflects well on Booth and UChicago.

5

@ThankYouforHelp and others:

Thanks for your insightful responses! @ThankYouforHelp - note, I was NOT saying “something magical was lost,” about the University. Indeed, I think the “spirit” of the school is very much intact - intense but dignified academic dialogue abounds in Hyde Park.

Rather, I was approaching the question from a much more fundamental level - are the nuts and bolts necessary for a world-class (e.g. top 10 in world), big-impact research U in place? Current signs, mainly fundraising, endowment, and governmental funding - HUGE, HUGE components to a research U - point to no.

For those discussing endowment, please note, Chicago’s endowment management, really, is a cautionary tale. In 1928, Chicago’s endowment was ranked NUMBER TWO in the country (behind Harvard). In 1958, Chicago’s endowment was #3 (behind Harvard and Yale). In 1998, the endowment was #16 in the country - a huge drop. So, when you say having an endowment size of #14 or #15 in the country isn’t bad, it’s not great when the endowment was top 3-5 a couple generations ago.

(Source: https://magazine.uchicago.edu/9904/html/curriculum.htm)

Also, @ThankYouforHelp - you say that yes, perhaps the hospital is declining, but that’s one piece of the puzzle. I beg to differ. The hospital, for a major research U, often becomes one of the MOST vital parts of the institution. Look at any big fundraising campaign (Harvard’s, Columbia’s, Stanford’s, etc.) - sometimes as much as 40% of the fundraising goes toward the hospital/health system. For Penn’s past $4B campaign, I believe $1.5-1.8B went into the hospital system.

It’s one thing if the school of public policy or education (or even law and business) schools aren’t great. Having a pre-eminent hospital system slip to regional status is a big, big deal. Further, dropping NIH funding causes much more hand-wringing then most other signs of downward momentum.

Re the B-school, I haven’t followed Booth closely, but, in terms of forward-facing schools, Chicago is at a disadvantage here. It’s infrastructure for entrepreneurship, now THE hot thing amongst business schools - just isn’t great. The recalcitrance of the University to engage in “pre-professional” programming like engineering and a world-class comp sci dep’t are now coming back to haunt the institution. These components can actually assist b-schools, and it’s why Stanford, Harvard, Northwestern as well, and others are mounting big challenges. I should say, of all Chicago’s professional schools, Booth seems positioned fine, but more likely that it loses rather than gains ground given what all the other schools are doing.

Re the Law School, yes the sample size of clerks placed is small, which is why it’s helpful to look at a long period of time. The data reveals a golden age of Chicago’s sup. ct. clerk production - roughly 1991-2005. Chicago law produced an astounding 4-5 clerks a year. Then, from 2006-2016, this production plummeted to 1-2 a year. That’s a big drop.

Finally, re the other grad departments, I agree, Chicago’s core programs remain strong. What’s unfortunate, though, is that the FUTURE of programming doesn’t coincide with chicago’s strengths and existing programs. At one point, having significant, world-class departments in history, sociology, classics, etc. was a testament to a world-class school. Now, as interest in these programs ebbs, having a big-time STEM plant, and engineering, and computer science, is key. This doesn’t play to Chicago’s strengths, and positions the school to lose more ground to Stanford, Harvard, etc.

Remember, if you look at the long historical arc of the university, it was CREATED (by Rockefeller) to compete with Harvard, and given the initial resources to do so. For the first third of its history, it did just this - it was arguably the best (or second best) university in the country - wealthier than Yale, wealthier than Stanford, neck-and-neck with Harvard. Even looked at over the past 20 years, while the college has surged in popularity (for merited reasons), others parts of the U have quietly - but noticeably - declined, vis a vis its hard-charging peers.

(In response to all this, Chicago has tried to debt-finance its way to the top, but I don’t think such a strategy can result in a top-3 or 5 research U. Interested in hearing other viewpoints, though.)

I say all this as alum, again, mainly as a thought experiment here. Much of the publicity about the U has been positive (rising in the rankings, ties to Obama, lots of new initiatives and renewed community outreach, a beleaguered but good decision to open a trauma center, etc.). I assert that, if you pull back the veil, the picture is much muddier.

6

Greetings – I am a proud parent of a just accepted D to UChicago College class of 2021. As a Harvard College and Columbia Law graduate, I am surprised at the pessimism displayed by OP. Perhaps, it is the legendary half glass is empty UChicago (UC) mentality:). From my vantage point, UC together with Stanford have been the two key momentum institutions of the past decade. UC has had a meteoric rise in the rankings and is safely ensconced as a top elite powerhouse academic institution globally. It has in fact done better than many universities with larger endowments. Chicago Law School is now tied in 4th place with Columbia. I Booth is in second place with Stanford and ahead of Wharton. Only the medical school is a bit “low” in 11 th place. Candidly, the school that has been slipping is Columbia. Columbia Business School has slipped to 10th and below Yale for the first time. it is In 15-9th place for many academic subjects. Teachers College no longer the top school it was. Columbia Medical school at 7th etc. UC is ahead of Columbia in almost all disciplines in all key rankings (USNWR and world university rankings) , and Columbia has a couple Billion more in its endowment… For undergraduates, UC has become – dare I say it – sexy. UC has made a dramatic comeback at the College level and is now hot. The way I look at as overall institutions, Harvard and Stanford are the top two overall universities in the country. Chicago, Yale, Columbia and Princeton are the band bellow them, (MIT and Caltech are in their own different category) So cheer up OP – the future looks better than ever for UC.

7

I was interested in the Supreme Court clerk thing, because I am somewhat familiar with that world, and @Cue7 was right: 65 clerks over 15 years was an astonishing number for Chicago. On further inquiry, it turns out that 28 of those clerks came in only 4 years, 1993-1995 and 2004. The remaining 11 years in the period, Chicago averaged about 3 clerks per year, which was not so far out of line with its average for the previous decade, though still twice the rate of the last ten years. (The total number of clerks per year is 33-36.) My suspicion is that the wealth is being spread around more now. Columbia has had about the same number of clerks as Chicago the past 10 years, which is also pretty consistent with the past other than those mid-90s years. Another part of the difference is that Chief Justice Rehnquist consistently hired Chicago clerks (as did Scalia and Thomas), and Chief Justice Roberts has not had that pattern.

The only sure thing about Supreme Court clerks is that a huge percentage will come from Harvard. Yale will be second, and certainly has the largest percentage of its class clerking for the Supreme Court (usually 5-6 out of 170), but the greatest number almost always comes from Harvard.

8

The clerkship thing is only one of several criteria pertinent to law school quality and rankings. Most law students who are interested in corporate practice don’t pursue it al all. It does not pay and student loans looms large upon graduation. Clerkships make sense for folks who are interested in litigation and can afford it. Law school rankings have been constant for decades. The perennial top five are Yale, Harvard, Stanford. Columbia and Chicago. Yale is always the first. Harvard and Stanford and Chicago and Columbia frequently are tied. They are all platinum credential affording guaranteed multiple job opportunities for their graduates.

9

I have been pondering the question of UChicago’s position relative to its peers, like cue7 has mentioned its overall position as a university.

I think it is a solid top 10 in US and a borderline top 10 in the world.

From the four major rankings in the world Chicago is ranked 10, 10, 10, 13 most recently:

http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2016.html

http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2016

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2016/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings?int=a27a09

There are many flaws in those rankings but they apply to all of the universities being ranked so the comparisons make sense sort of.

Harvard, Stanford, MIT, and Cal Tech are consistently ranked higher than Chicago. Princeton is higher most of the time. Columbia and Berkley are split with Chicago, While Yale (surprising), Penn, Cornell, Duke are consistently lower than Chicago.

So Chicago should be out of top 5 (tied with Columbia and Berkley) in US. Plus Cambridge and Oxford it should be a boarder line top 10 in the world.

All of those rankings favor STEM. That may be the reason why Yale does not fare well. But Berkley should be a STEM power house. May be it is too big.

So yes, even Chicago has made tremendous strides over the past decade (specifically on its College), as a university it still lags with its peers of STEM power houses. I think both Harvard and Princeton have some best STEM programs in the world.

10

Being acouple spots below Harvard is hardly lagging behind. MIT and Caltech are sui generis. UChicago is aheadad of both in the college ranking and in fact ahead of Caltech quite substantially in college ranking. It is quite remarkable that UChicago is consistently highly ranked in all key disciplines and professional areas. If you exclude MIT and Caltech, Harvard and Stanford lead followed by Princeton and Chicago. But Princeton has no law, business or medical schools. Berkeley is great in certain fields and has low top ten law and business schools. Berkeley college ranking is low.

11

Clearly you dont know shit about entrepreneurship at Booth.

12

I agree with the sentiment though that not having a STEM college is a huge disadvantage to UChicago vs Stanford. No, Harvard Engineering or Princeton are not top-notch in STEM, not compared to the tipy top (MIT, Caltech, Stanford) or the other Top-5 (Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon)

But that is being addressed thru Molecular Engineering and Computer Science, which I think would be best if made into a “small, specialized high-tech and future-forward engineering college” in the next 5 years. They can add Data Science, Nuclear Engineering and Astro Engineering programs later.

13

As a proud alumnus of U of C GSB (we still go by those names) , I would caution everyone about reliance on any published ranking to determine the health of any university . Ranking is by definition subjective. IMHO QS and Times Higher Education are nothing but British propaganda. Only those two would put 4 British universities in the top 10. You simply cannot determine the state of a university based on those biased ranking.

When I was in GSB, quantitative methods in business was still regarded as outlandish and rational expectation in economics was being treated as crap. Fama and Lucas were still talking in class with a big chip on their shoulders. It took time for new and original ideas to be accepted. If you ranked GSB and Department of Economics based on their work then, the ranking probably would not go to the top because of the disdain towards their research back in 1970’s and 1980’s. But precisely that is what make U of C great: it is the relentless intellectual pursuit regardless of outside or layman opinion.

Don’t worry about the health of U of C based on ranking. Be more worried if U of C research output starts to sag. Unfortunately, unless you are really in that field, it is hard to discern whether the department work has deteriorated.

14

This is silly. The law school is stronger than Columbia currently (and the rankings at the top of law are extremely tight after Yale), Booth is doing better than it ever has, etc. But the really silly thing is that you ignore the PhD programs and the College, which is where the vast majority of students are. The College is in the best position in its history and many of the PhD programs - most dramatically political science and CS - are improving significantly. The Harris School is also rapidly improving and has positioned itself firmly as the “big data” public policy school, which is not a bad place to be in considering current trends.

15

The whole point is that even if you normalize the world university rankings for British bias and just go by their rankings of US Schools, Chicago is top 5 (or higher if you put MIT and Caltech in their own category.) The only British schools deserving a spot in the world’s top 10 are Cambridge and Oxford in that order.

16

If it was said Chicago was top 5 in the US in the last century I would have agreed.

Currently Harvard and Stanford are (should) ranked higher than Chicago as a university overall.

MIT is a comprehensive university with some excellent social science (Economics) and humanity (Linguistics) programs besides excellent STEM programs. So it should be considered in the same category as Chicago.

Cal Tech is small and focuses on STEM I do not have problem to put it into a separate category as Chicago.

Then we have Harvard, Stanford, and MIT are ranked higher. If you put Chicago in the top 5 I do not see a clear cut. The best I would do is to group Chicago with Princeton, Columbia, Berkeley, and Yale as top 4 to 8. We are talking about the overall university strength (per OP) Berkeley should be considered.

Then adding Cambridge and Oxford the group which Chicago is in is moved down to top 6 to 10 in the world.

17

We agree that Harvard and Stanford are the two top schools. MIT Does not have a law or medical school. It has no humanities so speak of or arts. It is not a comprehensive university. Columbia has seen a decline in rankings whereas UChicago has been in a consistent upswing, especially in College, Business and Law. UChicago is also an impactful global thought leader in several fields. Berkeley offers a horrendous undergraduate experience and its law and business schools are low top ten. The way I see it Harvard, Stanford, Cambridge and Oxford are the clear top 4. Chicago, Yale and Princeton follow. Then Columbia and Berkeley. These would be the top 9.

18

@eddi137 I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment.

Oxbridge do not have a strong engineering and computer science division. Nor do they have a huge impact in economics and business in the last 40 years. I would only put Cambridge in the top 10.

Harvard and Stanford are the clear overall leaders in the world now. Then in no particular order Chicago, Columbia, Yale , Princeton and UC Berkeley will form the next tier. I don’t mind adding UPenn to that group.

MIT and Caltech are in a special category. They are unsurpassed in what they are doing but they are generally limited in scope.

These will be my top 10.

What U of Chicago has done in the last 15 years is to significantly raise the profile of the College. In my days the College was almost an afterthought. The administration seemed to be far more interested in graduate divisions and professional schools.

19

Penn is never in any top ten list of world universities; rarely even in top twenty. The reason is that while penn has top three business and medical schools and a low top ten law school, its academic subjects are weak. It is a professional school, not an academic powerhouse and certainly not an elite global thought leader.

20

Oxford is a has been. Deterioration in the last 50 years is worse than Columbia. It is not a world top ten school.