the rise was meant for college ranking. Also look at world university rankings.
@Cue7 There is more to medical school reputation an raniking than NIH,. That’s why Chicago is 15 in med ranking not 32.
@Chrchill - wait, what? In your thread on the “meteoric rise” you talk about the university overall (and mention law school, b school etc rankings). You never narrowed the rise to just be the college.
Also, there’s no “meteoric rise” in world university rankings. In one ranking in 2005, Chicago was ranked #8 (http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2005.html) - that’s similar to where it is now.
Where exactly is this “meteoric rise” you talk about as a university-wide phenomenon in your thread? If you just meant the college, you should’ve said so in your original thread.
Otherwise, here’s what I got over the past couple decades:
Areas of Improvement
College (+6)
Business School (+3)
Med School (+3)
English Dep’t (+9)
History Dep’t (+2)
Psychology Dep’t (+1)
Areas of Deterioration
Evolutionary Biology dep’t (-2)
NIH Funding (-14)
Chemistry (-1)
Statistics (-1)
Computer Science (-9)
Earth Sciences (-13)
Sociology (-7)
Economics (-6)
Endowment Rank (-1)
Does this look like a meteoric rise to you? There are some phenomenal drops there.
The ledger actually supports my point - that over the past couple decades, the University’s overall position has declined, except for the College, which has enjoyed a renaissance.
@Cue7 I do not consider a rise or decrease of 1 a change. The economics ranking is inconsistent with others. Check out subject matter rankings in world university rankings. So the rise is in college and business school. medical school is same regardless of NIH., earth sciences and sociology is a drop. We are going circles as I agree that life sciences /med is the weakness.
@Chrchill - where is the meteoric rise? Subject matter rankings in world u rankings are probably the same now as they always have been - not higher.
If you want to go by significant change, it looks like College and Business improved, and sociology, computer science, earth science, and NIH funding had big drops. That doesn’t look worthy of applause.
So do you change your statement in your meteoric rise thread? Do you really just mean the college? Nothing else I can see points to any “meteoric rise”.
Just posted this on the other thread:
According to that USNews archive, the college had slipped to 15th by 2006. Moving up 12 notches in 10 years does look fairly impressive. Those with a bit of historical knowledge will note that the rankings plummet occurred during the years that they brought in outsiders to run the university (1993 - 2006). Zimmer, who started in 2006, was an inside hire and a return to the long tradition of promoting to administration from the ranks of faculty.
Perhaps other academic departments exhibited the same rankings variability during these separate time periods? Booth, for instance, did slip a bit during that 1993-2006 timeframe. Law ever so slightly (just leaving the top 5 before returning). If so, then it might be more useful to look at the university’s department rankings from 2006 onward. Or (more difficult in terms of data), look at year-by-year rankings by department from the past 30 or so years.
In any case, if your memory of the university goes back only 10-15 years, and you see an increase in reputation and rankings for many departments during that time, then - yes - you are likely going to think that UChicago has had a “meteoric rise”.
So would the better title be: “UChicago: The Meteoric Rise to Almost Get Back to Where It Traditionally Has Been?”
Because, when looked at through a longer historical lens, this doesn’t look that impressive.
(And also note, Zimmer just followed the College playbook set forth by one of those “outsiders” - Hugo Sonnenschein - who was actually a UChicago “insider” - a econ professor for a good long time.)
If I were guessing, I would guess that USNWR ranking methodology changed significantly between 1993 and 2006 (or thereabouts), not that “outsiders” like Sonnenschein or Randel screwed up the University. The college could easily have fallen in the rankings not because anything fundamental had changed but because more emphasis was being placed on objective factors like selectivity measure, endowment per student, persistence, and graduation rate, vs. subjective reports of academic reputation.
The college had fundamental problems going back to the late 40s and 50s, and they were exacerbated by the deterioration of the South Side in the 60s and 70s. It has been a long road back from that, much of which was under the radar until the past decade, and all of the university administrations in the last `40 years have been part of the solution, not part of the problem. Or at least that’s what I think. (I have a warm spot in my heart for Hannah Gray, with whom I worked on a committee when I was in college, and whose signature is on my college diploma. I also took a course from her husband, who was a delightful guy.)
I agree completely with @Cue7 that there has been no “meteoric rise” of the university as a whole, largely because it was very strong with a few weaknesses before, and it’s very strong with a few weaknesses now. It’s clearly a world-class institution, although not necessarily in every field of academic endeavor. I don’t think there is any university that is world-class in every field. Chicago is one of the great universities in the world; there’s little question about that, but as far as I am concerned it’s a perfectly appropriate topic for debate whether the status of engineering or the BSD at Chicago will keep it from maintaining that status over the next generation.
At the same time, it’s a little precious not to notice that Chicago has had a “meteoric rise” in popularity with high-achieving high school students, and more than in a long, long time (maybe ever) is seen as a legitimate peer of HYP in terms of undergraduate education. That is kind of a big deal, lots of people have worked for a long time to make it happen, and it’s largely based on substance – the quality of education, the quality of opportunity, and the quality of life available at Chicago – rather than marketing. Plus a little element of luck that makes cities be popular again. Plus the fundamental demographic mechanism that the traditional highest prestige universities did not have enough slots for the students with highest-prestige credentials, and were not able to build more slots themselves, so the system built itself more slots by conferring additional prestige on the next ring of eligible institutions, Chicago chief among them.
@Cue7 it’s like your the alter ego to @Chrchill. The rankings are what they are, if you like them great, if not, well not much you can do about it, and I do mean you @Cue7
@Cue7 you are incorrect. Sonnenschein only joined the dept. of economics once he stepped down from the presidency. He came from Princeton and before that Penn (I think). No connection to the University of Chicago whatsoever prior to taking the helm.
To answer your question: Yes. And I would agree that the years 1993 - 2006 weren’t all that impressive from a rankings perspective.
Quite possible that all the hard work was done by Sonnenschein and Randel while Zimmer came in and claimed the harvest. However, for whatever reason, each of these predecessors lasted fewer than 10 yeas (seven for Sonnenschein, six for Randel). Assuming Zimmer stays for the duration of his recently-renewed term, he will have served about 21 years.
Presidents are known for a few key functions, one (and arguably the most important) of which is to bring in cash - the other is to make the school so selective everyone’s just clamoring to go there. Under Zimmer’s tenure, some of the largest gifts in the history of the university were bequeathed and undergraduate applications increase about 200 percent (not including this year’s number). Neither causes rankings to increase, but both are typically healthy signs that the college’s academic reputation has somehow improved for the better. We can quibble about whether the university is just making up lost ground but the fact remains that the trajectory has been steeper under Zimmer.
Edit to #149 ^^ Zimmer will have been in place 16 years, not 21.
@JBStillFlying - you’re correct, Sonnenschein and Randel were both indeed “outsiders” with Sonnenschein coming from Princeton (after being a Dean at UPenn), and Randel coming from Cornell.
Also, I don’t believe Sonnenschein and Randel did all the key leg work - that started before their time. Sonnenchein laid some groundwork for controversial - at the time - changes, and Randel smoothed things over a bit. Sonnenschein did step down, Randel was wooed away, which explains their shorter tenures.
Much of the College’s change stem from nigh 30-40 years of planning.
The rest of the U did not have (or need) such blueprints for change, although I am concerned to see that the stature of many departments looked stronger in 1993 than now.
For a “top” university, UChicago is a funny duck and always seems to be on the precipice of disaster. I, for one, am concerned about the economics department. Rankings lag reality and the the recent slip implies either that the department has been running on fumes for a while, during which time other more-nimble and more-well-funded departments have been making good hires. Departments wax and wane, of course, but when they fall, they need a plan to reverse that.
As far as the college is concerned, none of those negatives would have a direct impact for awhile, just given the significant positive changes made in recent years. However, over the long-run, academic strength and college reputation are highly correlated. To remain in the top five, UChicago needs to maintain and improve its academic strengths.
“Best archetype”? That’s the best laugh ever. Harvard is not even good in Engineering. Cornell beats it in that arena. Princeton too. One does not have to be in everything and the best at everything to be top5. And not all top research universities have to be Harvard or Stanford clones.
For the record, Harvard Engineering is the 23rd best engineering school. And no one in their right mind is saying that Harvard is having a meteoric fall because just like UChicago’s Med, it never was top 5 in all of its history and Harvard cant seem to find a way to make it top 5. This is because just like Med, Engineering has niche players that need to be toppled on the way from 23 to 5 (CalTech, MIT, GA Tech, Carnegie Mellon, Purdue and UIUC) much like UChicago has to topple many niche players to get from 15 to top 5 (UCSF, JHU, etc.). If you just look at the math, such an undertaking is really really tough. This is why no one is dinging Harvard for not having a top 5 Eng and this is why I dont see the point of overestimating the negative impact of having a top 15 med school. Harvard having a decent Eng is good enough for what it is trying to do. So should UChicago’s Med - because the better ROI is not in med, it’s in Eng.
For UChicago to overtake Stanford in terms of reputation, it should not be a clone. It has to come up with a new thing that it would be definitely better to have a bright line delineating it from the rest. Econ can not take it there. Think of how Stanford beat Harvard by identifying with the whole juggernaut of silicon valley/tech/cs/vc/entrepreneurship/startup/hippie/sunshine ecosystem… well except the sunshine, it has always been sunny in Palo Alto
You see, those who copy the “archetype” will always be a mere copy. A fallback option. A wannabe. A second rate, trying hard, copy cat. And those types dont get to be number 1. They barely get to be top5. (think UPenn, Cornell)
Yale Berkeley and Columbia in the top5? Yale maybe, Berkeley and Columbia, hells no. Not top5. Berkeley does not own UCSF Med so it does not get that credit. If it does, then UC Hastings Law should also be part of Berkeley, no? Berkeley does not have a better Law, Business, Med or College than UChicago. It has Engineering - which only underlies my point that Eng is more valuable than BSD/Med dollar for dollar any day. Berkeley has dire problems with finance cuts - if you are having an issue with UChicago not investing enough on your BSD per project, the situation in Berkeley is 10x worse. Columbia, no too. It is the one top university that is declining everywhere you look, might as well be Dartmouth.
Stanford clearly is first. Harvard next. Yale is in the 3 to 5 range. Princeton is either 4 or 5. UChicago can duke it out for one of the spots in the 3 to 5 range. And it can - since it can realistically dislodge Princeton. MIT has the same chance as UChicago even though people seem to discount it as a niche player.
That is it. These are the only contenders for top5: Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, UChicago and MIT.
A +3 rise from 6 to 3 is 1000000x bigger accomplishment than a +3 rise from 30 to 27. In fact, a movement between 10 and 30, though looks huge, is almost a rounding error compared to a movement between 5 and 3.
It takes more effort, more money and more everything to move up one spot as soon as you reach #7 (hence the B school term, “magnificent 7”) because you are supposed to dislodge an 800 pound gorilla who is unwilling and uncooperative to move one more spot up the ladder. And it gets doubly difficult to dislodge someone every time you move up.
Not all +3s and +7s are created equal, people!!! Get some perspective.
- This is why UChicago Law displacing both NYU and Columbia is a big effing deal!!! That NYU Law vs Columbia Law cross town rivalry is one for the books becuase they have been trading spots for so long. Both NYU and Columbia with their New York money and close ties to New York Big Law fought tooth and nail to keep UChicago Law from rising, but rise UChicago did.
** This is why Booth going to top 1 or 3 depending on the ranking publisher, and entering the Trinity by “forever” distancing itself from Kellogg, Columbia and Sloan is an even bigger deal. And its going to take 10x more out of Booth to clearly push down one among Wharton, Stanford or HBS than it took to differentiate itself from the three schools of the lower Magnificent 7.
Now that you have gained that perspective,
*** This is why UChicago from #11 to #3 is undoubtedly a “METEORIC” rise!!!
Nice post, delineates the points clearly and I agree with th UC system comment I guess Berkeley should take credit for all UCLA’s pro schools??? If that’s the case UC is a juggernaut but it might be hard to take classes at UCLA and Berkeley zag the same time.
@FStratford thank you. You have been making the augument for my position about the meteoric rise of UChicago much better than I did ! One small aside. With a minor exception, NYU law consistently has trailed Columbia Law. There Are many reasons fo this. A major one is that Columbia as a university is so much more prominent than NYU. But precisely because of that, NYU law’s ranking is so much more impressive.
Just in : Brand new world university ranking. Uchicago 9 in the world up from 10. Ahead of Yale, Princeton and Columbia https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings-articles/world-university-rankings/top-universities-world-2018
@Chrchill Yup, Columbia definitely has more resources and is overall better than NYU Law. There was one time though (I think in the late 90s?) when NYU law got the higher spot. That did not go well at Columbia. They clearly see NYU as 10 levels below them (see video below) so for it to be nipping at their heels in one important school does not feel good
Speaking of, even though Columbia Business is in the outs (top 10+ ish) its still a force to be reckoned with, and they are seething down there and cant wait to move back up. This video puts a funny spin on how they are feeling right now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVJngmmTfEY
I can only imagine their college admins are thinking the same way.
NYU was ahead only ONE year ! :))) I know. I took it very personally …