<p>“Without changing its defined market segment, college stats have improved markedly in recent years.”</p>
<p>Wait, hasn’t the U of C changed its defined market segment in recent years? I thought that’s exactly what Zimmer (and his two predecessors, Sonnenschein and Randel) have been doing for at least the past 6-7 years. If you read “Shakespeare, Einstein, and the Bottom line,” professor David Kirp argues that, as far back as 1999, Chicago started modulating its admissions practices. </p>
<p>In fact, this book is now on google: [Shakespeare</a>, Einstein, and the … - Google Books](<a href=“Shakespeare, Einstein, and the Bottom Line - David L. Kirp - Google Books”>Shakespeare, Einstein, and the Bottom Line - David L. Kirp - Google Books)</p>
<p>For those of you that are interested, start reading by around Pg. 17 or so, and read how then director of ug enrollment Michael Behnke relied on a McKinsey study and a “kit bag of marketing tools.” He polished up the marketing materials - in the “Life of the Mind” brochure, you’d find more pictures of students “juggling and playing football” rather than being buried in books. </p>
<p>The change has been going on for quite some time, and really, with only positive net results. You may have minor tremors down the way, such as when Chicago modified their Core in the late 90s, but an outright faculty revolt at this point is very, very unlikely. The push to make Chicago more “mainstream” has been going on with considerable success for the better part of a decade. </p>
<p>Also, while I apologize for this article’s rough language, look how a U of C grad from the height of the “life of the mind” period describes the college now: </p>
<p>[Uncommon</a> Interview: TuckerMax - The Chicago Maroon](<a href=“Quartet-in-residence again awes the Mandel faithful – Chicago Maroon”>Quartet-in-residence again awes the Mandel faithful – Chicago Maroon)</p>
<p>Finally, with the rise in number of very talented high school applicants, I think there may be enougn to go around at all the top 15 or so top schools. Moreover, if Chicago is smart about its recruiting (i.e. not just focus heavily on the east coast where Chicago will lose the home turf advantage to Harvard, Brown, UPenn, etc.), I don’t think yield is going to be that big an issue.</p>
<p>I think stating that Zimmer’s goals will “backfire” is too extreme. For the past 10 years, Zimmer’s approach has basically been happening, with no signs of significant harm to the College. If anything, all signs point to Zimmer’s plan continuing along an upward trajectory.</p>