Re: 17
Not that they are likely to, but I wouldn’t mind if UChicago stepped it up athletically and (one day) re-joined the Big Ten as an athletic participant.
UChicago is one of the better known “lesser known schools”. The name comes up many times in HS chemistry classes due to its role in the Manhattan Project.
Now if we are talking about WashU… “Washington State University in St. Louis?”, “University of Washington?”, “Why is it called Washington U if it’s in St. Louis?”, “Why are you going there?”, “Is it a good school?”. It sucks so much to have to say “I am going to Washington University in St. Louis” every single time someone asks because if I say WashU or WUSTL they just say, “huh?” And then after I explain they forget what I said then next time. At least with UChicago there are less syllables…
Look at the bright side. You can wear a UChicago sweatshirt or t shirt and no one will think you are a pretentious jerk.
The unique path Chicago followed in the 40s and 50s was to offer admission to smart students before they had graduated from high school. That wound up getting lots of smart students, including people like Susan Sontag and Elaine May, but it alienated high school counselors and made them reluctant to recommend Chicago. It also probably contributed to the college’s reputation for poor social life. The other things Chicago did that were not so unique, but also not very successful, were to admit students on the basis of academic ability only, as opposed to the mix of academic ability and other qualities, including leadership and athletics, that other elite colleges tended to use, to admit both men and women (at the time, most elite colleges were single-sex), to champion a very demanding core curriculum, and to de-emphasize sports and other extracurricular activities. Those, plus the neighborhood issues, threatened the viability of the college, even though the graduate and professional programs pretty much thrived continuously.
The neighborhood issues were indeed experienced by other peer universities, notably Penn, Columbia, and Hopkins. All of them saw their reputations and popularity fade in the 60s and 70s, only to be revived later as urban universities came back into fashion. (When I was in high school, as now, Harvard, Yale and Princeton had stellar reputations, but Dartmouth was considered almost at that level. People would turn down Harvard for Dartmouth. Columbia, Penn, and Brown were all seen as less desirable than the other Ivies because of their locations.) Co-education also stopped being a minus.
It is strange to me that so few people seem to have heard of the University of Chicago. I certainly knew about it as a high school student in upstate New York in the 1970s. One of my cousins, then a PhD student at Princeton, told me that as far as he was concerned there were only seven world-class universities in the country – Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Princeton, Chicago, Berkeley and Stanford. And when I got to college, I heard about Chicago all the time – neoclassical economics, Leo Strauss and his acolytes, Allan Bloom, Richard Posner and Edward Levi, Sontag, Phillip Roth and Saul Bellow being around there, its importance in the history of social sciences and physics. I had several friends in law school and clerking who had gone there. I never applied, and I had no idea what it looked like, but I sure knew it was a great university.
The College as it existed in the 40’s and even into the 50’s reflected the vision of Robert Maynard Hutchins (President of the University from 1929 to 1951). The curriculum was entirely based on readings of the Great Books, much like that of present-day colleges like Reed and St. John’s, which indeed were inspired by the College of the U. of C. and fertilized by its faculty, many of whom departed for those schools when the Hutchins era came to an end. Hutchins was both loved and reviled within the University itself. There was especially a disconnect between the College and the graduate departments, many of which would not accept Chicago undergrads into their programs.
That more radical orientation of the College had passed by the time I arrived as a student in the early 60’s. However, it was still very much honored, and there was a feeling that we were living in the aftermath of a truly great era. In any event there remained the concept of the Core and a dedication to reading original texts of the great thinkers. That idea has persisted and remains valuable and almost if not entirely unique.
If you look at John Boyer’s histories of the university, it’s a profound mistake to say “The curriculum was entirely based on readings of the Great Books, much like that of present-day colleges like Reed and St. John’s.” At no point in its history was the Chicago Core Curriculum a “Great Books” curriculum. That may have been what Hutchins wanted, but it was constantly contested and often rejected by the faculty. It is true, however, that the late 40s were probably the high point of Great Booksiness at Chicago. And even then, only the humanities/Western Civilization courses were ever taught in a Great Books manner. No one ever attempted, as they do at St. John’s, to teach math and science that way, or even social sciences. Further, the emphasis at Chicago was always on development of critical thinking and skills of scholarship, rather than on a comprehensive, chronological appreciation of the genealogy of Western ideas.
The factor that was probably more important about the late Hutchins era at Chicago and its contribution to the termporary eclipse of the college was the decision to separate the college faculty from the graduate faculty, and to have the college faculty provide a General Education curriculum that was mostly prescribed for “grades 11-14,” after which students would complete a year or two of specialized education in the graduate divisions. That was originally tied to the college’s practice of admitting younger students, but as that system collapsed it became clear that the split system and the lack of flexibility in the first years of college was not a marketing success.
The college’s low point of enrollment, sometime in the 50s, was around 1,800 students, i.e., not much larger than Amherst College today. I think it was only in the 21st Century that the college reached the 1,000 students/class level. Now, of course, it’s 50% larger than that.
I accept those corrections. John Boyer loves the university and knows more about its history than just about anyone. His narrative may not, however, be entirely objective in that he has been very much involved in the reforms that have as their basis a narrative of the failure of the College of earlier years.
I do not say that the narrative is untrue as far as it goes. It is driven very much by the sort of numbers you were citing in your previous post. Numbers don’t exactly lie, but, as Aristotle would say, they are not the final cause. They leave out the aspirational part of what Hutchins and other visionaries were trying to accomplish in those days at Chicago. There has always been an undertow accompanying those aspirations - the thought that the College was too unusual a place to attract large numbers of students, especially a certain kind of student (call it the ivy league paradigm), the kind who would go on to become leaders in business and politics and make substantial contributions in due course to the university. But in the early 60’s I and my fellow students didn’t feel ivy-envy at all. Quite the contrary: We loved the differentness of the place from all other places. We probably exaggerated this, and we were undoubtedly guilty of myth-making about the Hutchins era (as you point out), but it was part of the esprit everyone felt at the place. The very idea that the name of the school was little recognized and that the applicants were surprisingly few was not indicative of failure in our minds. We saw that line of thinking as coming exclusively from within the administration. Thus, in October, 1963, there was a famous sit-in on the 50-yard-line of Stagg Field - disrupting the football game that was about to be played by the newly created U. of C. “football class” against a very tiny Midwestern opponent, with not a marching band in sight. That sit-in was somewhat ridiculous but it was extremely popular with most of the student body, who saw the reintroduction of football (famously abolished by Hutchins) as the thin end of a wedge that would lead to transforming the College into just another elite school, not the unique school that, even after the end of the Hutchins era, we believed it to be. I might also mention a beloved figure known as “Aristotle Schwarz”, who was believed to have a bed and a desk somewhere in the Harper stacks, emerging into the light of day only for the purpose of attending classes in, guess what, the Great Books.
Some of this spirit is also caught in that passage in “The Closing of the American Mind” in which Allan Bloom speaks of his arrival at the College and his encounter with “the good old Great Books” - his idea of what a university should be. Of course it was after wandering to other institutions that he triumphantly returned to Chicago and wrote his own famous book.
I know from a reading of your many posts that you too care about the College and are rather better informed about it than I am. I respect this, but I do believe you fail to capture some of the true spirit of the place as it existed in an era rapidly being lost to memory. Yet, as I read the postings of today’s students, I am frequently made to think that things have in many ways not changed so very much. Coffeehouses, gymnasiums and new buildings are good in their way. However, it is the seriousness of purpose of these present-day students that most impresses me and reminds me of the students of earlier eras.
@marlowe1 , you are certainly right about the politics of Dean Boyer’s histories, but I tend to want to believe him. Also, as a Yale alum who thought it was the greatest place on Earth, including intellectually, I tend not to get terribly upset about making Chicago a little more like that. I recognize opinions vary, of course. But I also get very annoyed whenever people describe the Chicago core curriculum as a “Great Books” program, because it is now, and always has been, a lot more sophisticated than that. For me, Great Books is usually a kind of reactionary gimmick, and that’s not the University of Chicago at all.
I don’t get it. Is being #11 in the world not good enough??? ;))
@reden2016 - It seems that you haven’t read or understood the OP & replies. No one on this thread has said or implied that being #11 in the world is not good enough.
My apologies, @BonaMaterFiliae . From where I come from UChicago isn’t a household name as well. But then again, should that matter? It’s a solid top 20 achools in the world.
But to answer the OP, I think it’s also due to Chicago’s very small undergrad student population, thus fewer alumni to spread the school name to friends and relatives.
Another is the lack of undergrad program offerings (e.g. no engineering) and the lack of particular subject concentrations which UChicago can boast to be solid top 3 in the world (economics is the only exception).
Aside from niche placements into academia and the financial services industry, UChicago doesn’t place as many people into coveted industry roles as other peer universities. Combine that with the fact that our rise in the ranks was very recent, and we are named after a city, what would you expect?
For our professional schools that do place well into industry (e.g. Booth), students there identify with the name of the professional school rather than UChicago. Many people I have spoken with have been shocked to learn that Booth is affiliated with UChicago.
^ Are you, what?, 11 years old? “Booth” has only had that name for about 7 years. Most actual grownups not actively involved in recruiting from business schools (or teaching there) might be surprised to learn that the University of Chicago Business School has any other name at all.
And, again, for about the zillionth time: The University of Chicago’s rise in the USNWR consumer-oriented undergraduate rankings for unsophisticated people who don’t know much about US higher education from the mid-teens to single digits is relatively recent (but not as recent as the renaming of Booth). But the University of Chicago’s place in the first rank of American universities has been secure and constant for well over a century. Chicago was one of five convening members when the Association of American Universities was founded in 1900 – it’s the premier organization of North American research universities – and it hosted the first meeting. The other convenors were Harvard, Berkeley, Columbia, and Johns Hopkins, and the initial membership consisted of them, Yale, Princeton, Cornell, Penn, Stanford, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Clark (which has since left the organization). Those universities constituted the educational elite in 1900, and to a large extent they still do.
Just giving my current perspective… the person that recruited me for my internship this summer (at a top 20 tech company) didn’t know what UChicago was, nor did over half the engineers that interviewed me. They were surprised to learn that Booth was at UChicago, and almost didn’t believe me. And sure, although most of them did go to state schools, I think they were far from “unsophisticated people”.
I understand Chicago is a fantastic university, but its name recognition is simply not there in many communities, including some elite ones. Not saying that it really matters though
I sort of agree with puzzled123’s observation. I am surprised that about half of his interviewers knew UChicago.
Even though UChicago has been consistently ranked in the top 10 in the nation and in the world (USNWR, THE, QS, ARWU) it still does not have a strong brand among educated general public (people with at least bachelor degrees).
I think part of the reasons is that they had not known UChicago in the past due to various reasons and there are no needs for them to know it now. Until very recently only part of the general public has been aware of it during their or their children’s (relatives) college application process. Even among high school students if students do not apply or care about schools other than their state schools they may not be aware of UChicago. One of my D’s classmates asked why she chose to go UChicago. That person was happy to enroll at a state school.
I think things are changing and UChicago’s brand is getting stronger and stronger. But it will take many years to catch educated general public’s attention - when students from 10 years ago become parents and their children start applying.
IMO the educated general public’s opinion is important. Let’s say if McDonald hires a CFO the search committee is very likely to know UChicago, if McDonald hires a store employee it is very unlikely for the store manager to know UChicago. The two extreme scenarios do not affect UChicago students. If McDonald hires a consultant or an intern UChicago’s brand becomes important. The hiring manager may not know UChicago but know Columbia so the Columbia student has some advantage if other things are equal.
The cost of attendance was the main reason I was relieved when my D chose not to attend UChicago. But, no matter how misguided, I’ll be completely honest and admit that the lack of name recognition amongst the general public played a role as well. It’s anecdotal for sure, but I had an experience very similar to @puzzled123 whose engineering internship employers had never heard of UChicago. I had a conversation about my Ds college options a couple of months back with two friends that happen to be VPs at one of America’s largest corporations. Neither of them had heard of UChicago either. Like I said, I know it may be misguided, but that conversation was a negative check-mark in the UChicago column for me as a parent. My thinking was why would I want to spend enough money to buy a suburban McMansion to send my kid where “fun goes to die” if the name generally isn’t going to jump off the resume. I know this is somewhat shallow thinking but no more so than choosing UChicago simply because of the high USNWR ranking
For our D, UChicago was the first choice. After she visited on their dime in October, she came back totally enthusiastic about going to it unlike any other visit. We have already sent our S to CMU with no financial aid and we are blessed that we were able to do it with no debt. But CMU offered one of the best Design programs in the nation within a very high quality academic environment (as opposed to an art school) that was a much better fit for him. When UChicago came back with a $30,000 a year scholarship, she was ecstatic and really wanted to go. We have always saved for their education and I went back full time to afford the CMU tuition. I will do the same with her tuition and work full time to afford it. I think for us as parents, it was really important that they find a school that they would thrive in and be happy about spending four years immersed there. Sure, we researched schools but more about fit. But we would not have gone into massive debt to afford either one. Sure the prestige of a school matters but not enough to tip things over into attending a school because of prestige over fit.
My D has a friend that was offered merit at UChicago but has decided to go to Yale with no financial aid. For her and her parents, Yale was more prestigious and worth it. I think that every family has to decide what works for them.
The REAL reason UChicago is virtually unknown to the general public - The school was one of the founding members of the Big Ten Conference, playing major sports like football. School president (from 1929-1945) Robert Maynard Hutchins successfully led the charge to withdraw Chicago from the Big Ten, as well as abolishing the football program.
Thankfully his grand plan to merge UChicago and Northwestern into one university failed. Northwestern, another founding member of the Big Ten that stayed in the conference and currently fields teams in 19 NCAA Division 1 sports, has significantly better name recognition amongst the general public.