<p>From reading this thread, the general sentiment seems to be that Chicago is very well respected in academic circles, and under-appreciated in other spheres. The problem with this view is it tends to put Chicago in too much of a niche - enjoying high respect within a very small, generally closed-off and slight portion of the population, and then lacking that respect outside of that very small area. </p>
<p>Now, for certain schools, being “self-selective,” having a reputation for eccentricity, appealing more to a niche market, etc. are enviable goals to keeping the character and atmosphere of a place. For example, Reed College, a very small liberal arts college, can thrive on this model. It’s purpose is to educate a very small group of students, and to keep a consistent atmosphere available to appeal to future types of those students. In short, as a small LAC, it can thrive as a niche-player. </p>
<p>Chicago, however, is a relatively large, comprehensive research university. It’s goals, ostensibly, differ from Reed’s. With a student body maybe 4 times as large as Reed’s, varied academic departments, a large budget, etc., I don’t think the niche market (being greatly respected in academia, not as much outside of it) works well or offers Chicago any tangible benefits. </p>
<p>As President Zimmer has stated, his goal is to make the University of Chicago the BEST university. Like it or not, from Harvard to Stanford to Columbia to Emory, research universities that are national in scope share a certain level of uniformity. Moreover, for continued success on this front, it doesn’t make much sense for Chicago to continue to cement it’s niche place on the market when it aspires to be the BEST American university.</p>
<p>According to a lot of scholarship on the matter, in the early 20th century, Harvard, Yale, etc. came to an important conclusion about top universities: In America, social catchet matters a great deal, and a university derives much of its success by being well connected to the societal mechanisms of power. Academics still mattered, of course, but social catchet was perhaps the driving force behind the decisions made at a top university. A couple decades later, Chicago decided to go in the other direction by arguing that, for a university, the absolute most important factor - above all else - was its intellectual capital. Intellectual horsepower matters more than anything else. </p>
<p>At that time, in terms of finances and clout, Chicago, Harvard, and Yale were all about on the same page. In the decades that followed, with Harvard et al. using their metric and Chicago using their “brains above all else” scheme, a significant divergence between the schools became readily apparent. Chicago developed a niche - it was the “academic” school - whereas Harvard, Yale, etc. enjoyed success across a broader range of fields. Chicago produced some amazing ideas, scholars, teachers, and thinkers, but pretty much all of these graduates remained linked to the one area Chicago emphasized: academics. Harvard et al., on the other hand, continually produced leaders, entrepreneurs, billionaires, etc. that made their mark on the broader swath of society. Don’t forget, Harvard etc. also made their fair share of contributions to the academic realm. </p>
<p>By the mid 1990s, the error in Chicago’s decision had more or less been revealed. While Harvard and Yale enjoyed multi-billion dollar endowments, a loyal and active alumni base, and continued success of its alums across an impressively wide spectrum of arenas, Chicago was struggling considerably. Hamstrung by a paltry endowment, utilizing an admissions strategy that just looked for warm bodies rather than top talent, and with a largely disillusioned group of current students, the school was certainly not doing well. </p>
<p>The Chicago approach had failed. </p>
<p>Now, about 15 years removed from the nadir, Chicago has more or less adopted the strategies found at Harvard and Yale. In short, in the american model for education, a university MUST be more than mere academics to thrive and compete with its peers. For better or worse, elite universities serve an important societal function in america, and STILL remain well-connected to the avenues of power. </p>
<p>I say all this because, simply maintaining its good name in the academic sphere is NOT enough. Zimmer and other administrators, however, recognize this, and are making the appropriate decisions. A university’s social capital and social catchet may be nearly as important as its intellectual capital. For decades, Chicago tried its “academics above all else” experiment, and, in terms of the health of the university, it largely failed. That model may work great for a small LAC by Reed, but that is NOT what the U of C is. </p>
<p>One other point - hyeonjlee - that’s great your son is receiving some approving comments regarding his college decision. Also, since I think your son wants a rigorous, varied education, Chicago will be a great place. At the same time, I don’t think Chicago is any more respected than Princeton, Wharton, etc. in the business world. We have to be careful when we determine just where Chicago’s strengths lie - it excels in the academic arena, but in no other area does it hold a significant lead over its peers.</p>
<p>Put another way, a Chicago student will have great options following college. Moreover, if you want a great education, Chicago’s a great bet. At the same time, a Chicago grad will not be any more coveted than grads from its peer schools in the professional world (law, business, etc.). From what I can find, there is no evidence that a Chicago student, similarly situated to his Princeton counterpart, will enjoy any advantage in terms of professional opportunities.</p>