<p>This is bouncing off of the recent "What is wrong with the University of Chicago?" thread. Lots of people seem to point to reinstating big-time athletics (especially football) to get Chicago back to being a "top 5" school. I think this strategy is FAR too risky because starting up a reputable D1 athletics program is extremely difficult to do. Northwestern has been D1 for years, and they are still generally seen as the doormat of the Big 10 (with occasional strong years). Northwestern is essentially an Ivy trying to compete with some big-name sports schools, and they usually get pounded in the rainmaking sports (less so in football, but much more so in basketball). If Chicago, a school with a paltry athletic history in the latter half of the 20th century tried to kick start D1 sports, it's more likely that they would end up like SUNY Buffalo (which recently moved to D1 for football, for example) than Stanford.</p>
<p>Also, a note of caution - people always mention the importance of staying true to a school's alumni base. Reinstating D1 athletics would probably ANGER a LOT of Chicago alumni. Remember, most of the Chicago alums out there are the supra-nerdy types that nearly rebelled when Chicago <em>slightly</em> cut the core a few years back. Chicago can't afford to alienate the loyal alumni they already have (and keep in mind, whereas Chicago was a HYP-caliber school for quite some time, the U of C was traditionally MUCH smaller than most of the Ivies. Accordingly, Chicago has fewer alumni). Moreover, if Chicago's D1 programs don't succeed quickly, the touchy alums will only get more mad.</p>
<p>Instead of doing D1 athletics, I think a better reform could come in this way (in no particular order):</p>
<p>1.) For the incoming U of C President (Don Randel steps down at the end of the year), elect a Judith-Rodin like candidate. Randel was good, but he was just an unobtrusive guy hired to smooth over Chicago's image after the poor reaction to Sonnenschein's controversial presidency. This next hire is ABSOLUTELY key to Chicago's success for the next decade. If Chicago gets another good but nondescript guy like Randel, Chicago could very well slip out of the top 15 or so in the USNWR rankings. If a Rodin-like candidate is hired, a consistent top-8 finish in the USNWR within the next 5-7 years is feasible. UPenn is a HUGELY more reputable school now bc of Rodin, and Chicago needs a similar, hard-driving, committed, and rank-conscious leader.</p>
<p>2.) COMMIT to becoming a dominant DIII sports program, and possibly move less rainmaking sports to the DI level. I think having a spirit of athletic competion similar to Williams or Amherst would work better for Chicago than creating a D1 program. In recent years, Chicago has had reasonable success on the DIII level. They need to expand on this success, and make sure that many of their DIII squads are at the top tier of this division. The goal here is not to just raise the level of play, but to RAISE MORALE. Chicago gets respectable turnout for it's top-flight women's soccer team, strong men's soccer team, and also for basketball as well. If all the teams do well, the culture of a school can change. Slowly, Chicago could experiment with maybe have two or three sports at the D1 level (think Williams and squash).</p>
<p>With this in mind, I really think Chicago should move men's and women's soccer to D1 level within 5 years or so. The key reason for this is so Chicago can schedule some games against its peer academic schools. Since a lot of Chicago students are HYP rejects or waitlists (although I hesitate to say Chicago is a complete Ivy back-up school - most Chicago kids could probably still get into Cornell or Penn), a Harvard-Chicago soccer game would probably draw a BIG crowd at the U of C. A few contests like this a year would certainly help boost morale (especially if Chicago could win a few of these games).</p>
<p>Chicago could also develop useful regional rivalries if it re-joined the Big Ten in the smaller sports, and also played strong midwestern sports schools in select sports. The Northwestern-Chicago soccer game would be another big draw, and people would probably come out for an Notre Dame vs. Chicago game.</p>
<p>3.) Increased funding for the arts. I'm surprised no one mentioned this already - Chicago lags behind its peers in providing adequate space for endeavors outside of academics. The student body at Chicago just isn't as diverse as the students at Brown or Princeton. Adding top-flight facilities for the arts (combined with a burgeoning DIII athletics program) will make the College at the U of C MUCH more well-rounded, and much more true to its goal of providing a liberal-arts education (which carries an implication of at least offering more in the arts than Chicago currently does).</p>
<p>4.) Change the admissions policies. Right now, Chicago gives out 32 merit-based full scholarships. As part of the fund-raising drive, Chicago needs to try to double (or perhaps even triple) this number, and be even more generous with merit-based aid. At this point, Chicago's lifestyle reputation is not good enough to steadily draw cross admits away from other schools like Columbia or perhaps even Northwestern. For some students, a half-ride (combined with generous grants) from Chicago in comparison to paying full at Columbia could make a difference. Taking a few more of the pure alpha-students (the straight A, 3 varsity sport, student gov't presidet types) who would have gone to Princeton or Harvard through the use of aggressive merit based aid can only help Chicago's rep. Others in high schools might remember that the top overall kid (4.0 GPA, student body president, 2350 on the SAT, captain of the lacrosse team, blah blah blah) - and not just the nerdy kid who never left the library and didn't talk to anyone - went to Chicago, and this might allow the school to gain more appeal.</p>
<p>Also, Chicago needs to switch to ED to boost selectivity and increase morale on campus (i.e. with ED, more students decide Chicago is their first choice and WANT to be there, rather than settling).</p>
<p>I think Penn's ED decision would work well for Chicago. I'd assume that most Penn kids would rather be at Princeton or Harvard (I assume that Penn gets killed in terms of cross admits with these schools), but their % of ED students in the matriculating class is huge (like 50%). Most Penn kids know they couldn't get into HYP, and they are therefore happy with Penn (and not all that below HYP admits). Chicago should aim to have 35-40% of their class filled by the ED pool, and these kids will be happier to be at Chicago (bc by applying ED they implicitly realize they aren't HYP level candidates).</p>
<p>Finally, Chicago needs to look for a broader range of students more actively. Instead of just admitting brainiacs and the occasional athlete for a sport, Chicago needs to have a solid base of academics, but they do need to get a few more of the i-banking football types that form the bottom of many ivy classes. Also, they need to look for more smart artists or those with other talents as well. Nerds should still be prevalent, but not a ridiculously dominating force in the student body. Again, merit aid could help the cause, at least initially.</p>
<p>5.) Centralize residential life and play up being in the city of Chicago. The closing of the Shoreland (the dorm far away from campus) may be a good thing. The U of C should build soundly constructed dorms near the central quad. Chicago could also consider maybe adopting a residential college system like Yale's to improve social life. The new dorms should all be close to one another, and they should encourage a more vibrant social life.</p>
<p>Finally, make sure transportation to downtown and the northside of Chicago is safe and accessible for all students, and work to get Chicago students discounts throughout the city (make the U of C ID Card useable in certain locations in the city maybe). Maybe have a weekly e-mail sent out to students containing deals and rebates for U of C students? Drop the barrier a bit between the school and the rest of the city.</p>
<p>As a relatively recent Chicago alum, I'm actually surprised people speak sooo poorly about the school. Many of you have NO IDEA just how bad the school was in the late 80s and early 90s. That was back when Chicago admitted like 70% of the applicants, sports were awful at the DIII level, and some of the dorms were falling apart.</p>
<p>In the past few years especially, I've watched the changes at Chicago with considerable interest. Let me emphasize this - the school is a LOT better now than even 5 years ago. There are a lot more stores and shops in Hyde Park, and older students actually have viable hang-out options outside of Jimmy's. There's a bowling alley near campus, a great jazz club, Bar Louie, more restaurants, etc etc... In any case, I think the school is on the right track, but decisions in the next few years (especially deciding on the next president) will be HUGE.</p>
<p>The practical goals for Chicago should be to make sure it's a solid top-8 or so school in the US News rankings, and make sure that the school improves their yield rate, especially when in competition with other schools, in the coming years. Chicago should look to have - at the least - a 40/60 split with the "hot" peer schools like Brown and Columbia within the next 5-7 years. Perhaps, Chicago could get this to 50/50 at some point (a notion that wasn't unthinkable earlier in this century).</p>
<p>Through all of this, Chicago of course needs to maintain its academic reputation (and not have the connotation of pre-professionalism that surrounds, say, UPenn), but it MUST lose its "where fun comes to die" rep.</p>