U. of Chicago: Is University Strength Declining?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
101

@Poplicola, your points #2 and #3 on post #97 are very interesting - taken together, they hint that BSD struggles to understand how to run a reasonably cost-effective division and has caught a bit of flack from Zimmer as a result. If the scientists can’t even propose reasonable funding given the relevance of their research, what kind of budget were they submitting to the president’s office? No wonder the cost-cutters are now in charge.

Bio-med is a field that produces a vast amount of social good and takes oodles of money to maintain successfully. (Labs and related faciliites cost a lot more than chalkboards, is the short way to think about that). They are also potential money-pits and every university president knows that. Sounds like there was some dysfunction prior to Zimmer arriving on the scene? (Dysfunction in an academic division usually exists for a long while before it goes into crisis-mode). Could it be that BSD faculty just have a long history of producing lower quality research for dollars spent than do other comparable divisions at other top uni’s? If so, then fighting with Zimmer or with the department head isn’t going to help the cause any nor is blaming the inability to receive outside funding on poor support going to increase funding. If all the signals - both from the university and from the outside - point to a problem with the quality of faculty and research staff, then the responsibility of a turnaround lies squarely with those individuals. Not surprised that they would be the ones who are “unnerved” by the changes. BTW, UChicago can’t be the only institution that invests in “lucrative” research, especially in this age of cost-cutting.

If the best faculty are leaving, then the division will continue to slide in reputation and rankings (classic Lemons Problem - the ones left are the ones who can’t generate a decent-enough outside offer - or any offer at all). Therefore, especially if those guys are staying local or in the Midwest (Rush, NU, Mayo, etc.) the university can easily match the offer monetarily (can’t do much for those leaving for the better climate of Cali.). However, if “not the best” faculty are leaving, that frees up funds to hire younger faculty who have been trained in the newer “cost-conscience” environment and who are used to producing research given those tighter constraints. So exiting faculty in an under-performing division may not be a bad thing at all. A lot depends on who is leaving, where they are in their career, and where they are going (in terms of reputation of the other place).

102

Very surprising to see Mayo ranked so low per ranking site earlier in three. How is this possible ?

103

@FStratford

What do you mean Chicago hasn’t been number one or number 5? For most of its history (until probably the mid-1960s), it was one of America’s top 2-3 universities, and one of the wealthiest. So, that you now consider it a “scrappy underdog” is cute. Let’s brush some luster off your optimistic posts: what do you think led to the drop out of the very top?

(Into the 1970s, for example, Chicago’s endowment was top 3 - behind only Harvard and Yale, as seen here in the yellow timeline: https://magazine.uchicago.edu/9904/html/curriculum.htm, and compared to Yale’s data, found here on p.2 of this report: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55db7b87e4b0dca22fba2438/t/578e4282e58c629352d75c10/1468940932043/Yale_Endowment_09.pdf)

Also, re bsd/med why just look at student outcomes? Why not also look at faculty output? Why not also look at hospital output (e.g. strength of various clinical departments)? Why is your view here so myopic?

Also, @JBStillFlying - you argue that the problem could be the bio sciences division, rather than any administrative issues. The issue there, though, is that through the 90s and into the 2000s, Chicago actually did a tremendous job securing NIH funding on a per capita basis, and most of its divisions were ranked quite high (UChicago Hospitals, for example, was in the top 20 in the nation).

For instance, Chicago was #8 in NIH per capita funding, as seen here: https://books.google.com/books?id=Eii-MTm3TYwC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=nih+funding+best+faculty+per+capita+ranking+university+of+chicago&source=bl&ots=69CxtCzLOk&sig=LRMlVwVm6ywDipc_fv4ZMdtIXn4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjikPnfh6fUAhUISyYKHRLVAQwQ6AEIRjAG#v=onepage&q=nih%20funding%20best%20faculty%20per%20capita%20ranking%20university%20of%20chicago&f=false

(Go to Table 5.4)

So it looks like the rot started, at earliest, maybe late 1990s, early 2000s - very close to when Zimmer arrived in 2006.

(And remember, Zimmer was only away from Chicago from 2002-2006 - he was Deputy Provost at Chicago in the early 2000s, so he’s had more exposure to this - at a high level - than most.)

104

@Cue7 - Spurrious correlation. Presidents typically don’t micromanage a department. That’s the job of the head (and even then I’d be surprised to find that they were micromanaging someone’s research). When, exactly, were these “cost-cutters” put in place and why would their presence suddenly cause departments with sufficient knowledge of how to write a grant proposal to cease being able to do so? W/o knowing more about the situation, the progression from good to bad sounds more like some crappy hiring decisions were made at the department level. Two things are pretty clear: Either the volume of proposals from BSD has decreased from the late 90’s or their research wasn’t worth the money they were requesting. Both would suggest problems with quality of faculty and research staff.

Is it possible - and this is not unique to the departments of the BSD - that some top-dog codgers were in charge of the hiring and making some poor decisions? Perhaps that’s another reason why Zimmer (or the provost) replaced the heads. Don’t know how faculty hiring works for bio. sciences. It should be a collaborative process within the deparment, of course (perhaps across departments as well given the nature of the division?) but there’s always a risk that the big-wigs (famous for their research and prizes) are also given deference w/r/t some major decision making. The best researcher is not always the best decision-maker. And of course there is the risk of holding on to power till you decide to go emeritus. Too many of those types can really set a department back for quite a few years. (Disclosure: have NO information as to whether this was/is true for any of the departments within BSD. It’s just something that is possible in general and always a risk at a world-class institution).

In any case, blaming the head guy is convenient but not very useful and if that attitude prevails then it bodes poorly for the success of the BSD going forward. For better or worse, Zimmer’s bosses just handed him a major vote of confidence by renewing his contract for another 5 years. Another signal that any change is going to have to come from BSD itself. It is in charge of its destiny. As it should be.

105

@JBStillFlying

I agree in part and disagree in part - Zimmer’s ultimate charge is not to lead bsd/med directly, BUT, as President of the U, all school deans report directly to him. Zimmer, in concert with the overseers/board for any particular school, is also responsible for selecting the new leadership for each school/division.

Moreover, he’s probably been receiving/reviewing reports about BSD/Med for 15 of the past 20 years. So he has fairly in-depth knowledge about this area. Certainly, major management is for the head of each school, but I believe the reporting structure ends with him.

Put another way, if improvement in admissions is listed as a positive of Zimmer’s tenure (which it is on the announcement of his extension), why wouldn’t decline in med/bsd be a black mark against him? My hunch is Zimmer spends a lot more time thinking about med/bsd than college admissions.

Re the broader issue, my hunch is it’s a combination of losing top-flight talent (Ralph Mueller left Chicago, for example, to become CEO of UPenn’s Health System, and has done an outstanding job taking Penn from top 10 to possibly top 5), lackluster newer hires (James Madara wasn’t great at the helm of UChicago Medicine), loss of top faculty, and an atmosphere - perhaps created by Zimmer - that inhibits top flight outside talent from joining Chicago.

If you were being recruited by Stanford, Hopkins, and Chicago for life sciences, and the word on the street is that cost-cutting and belt-tightening were in the works at Chicago, where would you go? Those other schools already have richer ecosystems for life sciences work, and probably more competitive overall packages (with money flooding in). And nowadays, as @Poplicola mentions, if you’re even recruited by Vandy and Northwestern, there look to be more reasons to go to those other places.

106

Generally, if your faculty leaves for better ranked institutions that’s not a bad sign at all. It’s when they leave for worse institutions that you have a real problem. are Vandy and NU worse places? I’m not aware of how the rankings go in this area.

Top-flight is not going to join UChicago - even if Zimmer were the best president in the history of academia - if there is nothing for them at UChicago. Why go to a lower ranked place? Exceptions would be if someone is paid oodles to rebuild a department and others are willing to come because of this anchor. That’s unusual, however, requires a lot of money and typically this anchor would be in charge of hiring.

One way to solve the problem would be if someone gave a Booth-sized amount of money to the biomed division. The division would be renamed of course – and I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that is what Zimmer is actually working on. Presidents raise money. Provosts are in charge of the academic side. The president usually doesn’t get directly involved unless it’s really bad.

Totally agree that Zimmer likely has a good handle on what the problems are in the division

107

@JBStillFlying - well, it’s the President (not the Provost) who has the most input on hiring/firing of school deans, and I believe deans submit reports to both President and Provost. So the presidency doesn’t just have to focus solely on fund-raising, internal governance can be a big priority too.

Re getting top-flight to join, you’re right, it takes a lot of money (and a promise of a gaudy future), but Chicago is doing this in other areas. Look at Comp Sci - Berkeley’s CHAIR for Computer Science recently came to Chicago:

https://news.uchicago.edu/article/2016/01/11/data-science-specialist-michael-franklin-lead-computer-science-uchicago

Re Booth-sized donations, that’s exactly what Chicago needs, but they seem to be licking their wounds a bit. Neither Zimmer nor Polonsky (a head honcho for UChicago Medicine) handled the trauma center issue particularly well, from an optics standpoint. There might be some negative air surrounding UChicago Med now. I’m not sure, of course, but all the metrics (NIH funding, ranking, etc.) seem to be trending downward - and have for a few years.

Further, going back to @Poplicola point - there could be some truth to cost-cutting and austerity measures having an adverse impact on the science end, more than in traditionally strong Chicago departments. Also, I’m not sure if cost-cutting has been uniform across the board. I don’t think Booth is hurting in this area, but bsd/med may be stung more by it (and may find it harder in the first place to recruit all-stars). If that’s the case, you’re in the exact opposite of a virtuous cycle - and things spiral downward.

Bottom-line: unless some mega-donations come in, Chicago bsd/med probably isn’t moving up any time soon, and may continue to slip down a bit. I’d be surprised if it breaks the top 10 any time soon.

And, to bring this back around, until bsd/med get in the top 10, Chicago doesn’t appear to be a top 5 research uni - one that should be mentioned alongside Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, etc. This is a glaring weakness the top 5s don’t have.

108

@Cue7 I disagree re Uchicago not being top research Uni. It clearly top notch in physical sciences.

109

As usual, this is passionately and knowledgably argued by people who care about the University. I like the intensity on display in principle, but I can’t in this instance embrace it. Though a proud alumnus, I simply don’t care that much about the work of the Med School, much less its status. Medicine has never seemed to me to be the thing the University of Chicago is really about. It is just a superior sort of plumbing the study of which is echt-middlebrow. It is an industry. Let this worthy work be done by all means, but let it be done elsewhere! The University managed to escape the fate of turning out mechanical engineers. I suppose it is too late to axe the doctors, but I would if I could.

Anyone else here feel that way?

110

@Chrchill: “Very surprising to see Mayo ranked so low per ranking site earlier in three. How is this possible?”

Medical schools and hospitals are ranked separately. While Mayo Clinic/Health System is one of the finest in America, its medical school is relatively new (founded in 1965 I believe). It takes time to build up the reputation necessary to compete with the more established programs. It doesn’t surprise me that Mayo trails behind other programs when it comes to peer assessment score.

In terms of medical school ranking, even though Mayo spends about the same amount of money on research activities as the very top (Hopkins, Harvard, UCSF), about two-third of Mayo’s research dollars come from private donations rather than the NIH. Only NIH dollars are taken into account. Mayo gets as much from the NIH as Vandy and substantially more than UChicago’s BSD/Pritzker. Its admissions process is also less numbers driven (more holistic), reducing its selectivity.

The ranking could definitely be improved, which is why I think the peer assessment score is a much better reflection of where all medical schools stand at this point reputation-wise.

@marlowe1: Pritzker doesn’t exist in isolation. It’s part of the BSD, which is as integral a part of the University as the Humanities or Social Sciences or Physical Sciences. Drop in Pritzker’s ranking could almost entirely be attributed to BSD’s inability to land federal research dollars. If BSD isn’t what UChicago is about, then what is? Ongoing discussion is about why BSD seems to be performing much worse than other divisions and professional schools.

111

Looking at the top Life Sciences grad. programs most have a med. school (Princeton, MIT, Cal-Tech being notable exceptions). UChicago can’t really go from an integrated bio-med division to a research-only life sciences division. That will kill the brand. Even if the brand is suffering, Life Sciences is still top 15. However, Chicago has axed things before - the school of education comes to mind. Different issues there, IMHO (although it’s noteworthy that Harvard has top grad schools in both Ed. and Med.).

112

@JBStillFlying - yeah no way UChicago axes or jettisons life sciences/med - NIH funding is a brass ring for top schools, and papers produced in Cell/Science/Nature is still a major marker of research impact. If Chicago takes itself out of this game, it won’t ever be considered a top R1 research U. Simple as that.

Also, @marlowe1 - say what you will about doctors and hospitals, top-notch theoretical research now requires a firm base in many technical disciplines. Science papers, for example, are getting much more interdisciplinary - it’s of great help to have an engineering school, medical plant, MDs, etc. collaborating (under a great Principal Investigator/lead faculty member) to create the best research. UChicago’s lack of an engineering school (even a mediocre one) is now hampering its progress, because it simply can’t offer what you get at Stanford or Hopkins, or even Vandy and NU.

Finally, @Chrchill - with Chicago’s NIH funding ranking now at #32, I can’t have the school as top 5. Yes, Law School, Social Sciences, etc. are extremely strong, but no other top contender for top 5 school has any ranking that low. It’s a glaring weakness that can’t be overlooked, and is nigh unforgivable because, just 20 years ago, Chicago’s NIH rank was in the top 15, and it’s per capita faculty rank was in the top 5. Until Chicago’s stature here improves, it looks way too lopsided to truly be a top 5 contender. I mean come on, #32 on one of the most important metrics for determining research output!

(At the comprehensive, R1 research level, I’d put Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Columbia, Berkeley, and Penn ahead of Chicago - because none of these other schools have a major division ranked so low - #32 drops Chicago big time. Say what you will about Penn, but find me one of their major, impact-making departments that’s ranked #32.)

(At the college level, for me, the top pack are Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT [because you can take humanities/social science classes at Harvard], and Columbia. Chicago would be somewhere just after that.)

As Chicago was ranked #1 or #2 in the nation not long ago, the drop has been hard.

113

@Cue7 That’s nice that you can tell us about your individual ranking of schools but that and a quarter will get you a cup of coffee, oops, make that $2.95 now. :open_mouth: Keep harping on the medical school and maybe the president will listen to you, but I’m pretty sure he has his own plans for it.

114

Pardon, @CU123 - would you prefer I point to the published rankings that have Chicago’s wealth at #2 in the '60s, and its NIH research impact at #32 today? Happy to provide published data that show the magnificent drop, and invalidate the breathy representations of Chicago’s top brass (“we’re top 5!”).

115

@Cue7 I am not following exactly why having one laggard sector (and, even more narrowly, the low ranking of a particular source of funding within that sector) ipso facto rules the University out of the top 5. You say that none of the other contenders have such a laggard sector. That may be a fact, but where is it written that this is the test and not some average or mean of all departments and sectors?

Perhaps you believe this because you give the Med School/BSD such a heavily weighted significance based on their large fiscal footprint (40 per cent of the total). But that’s a business model. How can it be a correct way of measuring the intellectual/scholarly-output/reputation of a university across all its many departments, most of which don’t employ many people or consume much in the way of space and resources? I don’t ask the question to be provocative but because I am curious: Do you in fact weight the significance of the university’s various disciplines by virtue of their respective physical plants and payrolls?

Stepping back a bit from all this, why does it matter so much that the University be able to call itself Top 5? An old prof of mine, Richard Stern, once dedicated a book to the University of Chicago. His gloss on the dedication page was that while institutions are not in themselves either good or bad - only people have these attributes - the people at the University of Chicago are the very best in the world. That was touching to me. No one can prove such things, but I know what he means.

116

Maybe I’ve missed this post (if so please point me to which one) - but what exactly ARE Zimmer’s plans for the med school?

117

@Cue7 The BIO/Med issue by no means precludes Uchicago from being a world leading research institution in natural sciences. it is an elite leading global player in Physics and Astronomy and very strong in Chemistry.

118

Berkeley doesn’t even have a medical school. So I guess that would be a zero?
@Cue7 most of these divisions don’t interact with each other so yes I would choose Stanford and the others over UChicago for med school, well at least the ones that have one. Otherwise UChicago is on par with the rest.

119

Berkeley has UCSF nearby. Part of the same system.

120

@Cue7

I was referring to the BSD/Med School, not UChicago. Read my post again before you go into a tangent.

I wont answer your post because it is irrelevant and based on your erroneous reading of my post.