<p>This entire tangent of discussion sprouted from the quotations of Nondorf’s letter to prospective students. Lets be careful to not assume too much about this. If Nondorf goes on to radically revise the Chicago admissions webpage, and totally changes the Chicago info sessions, then maybe we can talk. </p>
<p>I’m sure ten years ago, Chicago Alums who saw the “Life of the Mind” brochure filled with pictures of students juggling and playing football may have quirked their eye brows too, but it didn’t lead to disasters in the college. </p>
<p>Also, arguing the other side, if Chicago went the more conventional route of seeking leaders and having more ivy-like admissions, would Chicago really become that anonymous? From my estimation, there are maybe only a half-dozen research universities that boast stronger financial resources than Chicago, and maybe only 3-4 with a more accomplished faculty. Yes, the midwest is a harder sell, but who knows? If Chicago targets students more creatively (i.e. recruit harder in areas where students might be more inclined to travel - i.e. the southeast or by solidifying its rep in the midwest), it could achieve success on this point. A successful 2016 bid for the Olympics could give the city an entirely new coat of polish. </p>
<p>Again, Zimmer’s goal is to make the U of C the best university - not just the best trainer of academics or the best incubator of nobel prize talent, but the best university around (with all that title would connote). This means producing leaders across all fields, not just academia. Traditionally, American universities have focused on this broader goal, and I think it’s fine for a school with the resources and horsepower of Chicago to begin its climb to become the best university around. </p>
<p>Finally, idad, the school did more than just increase the visibility of its product in the late 90s. The nature of the “product” has changed - perhaps because of the overflow from the ivies or whatnot, Chicago today has a different feel than Chicago in the past. The students are generally more pre-professional. There’s more grade inflation. The core is not as rigid. The school has kept its basic values, but the feel of the place is quite different. Put another way, Chicago in the past had something of the notion of being the Gotham of top colleges - a dark, intense place. I’m happy the college is stepping out of that a bit now, and that it continues to do so in the future.</p>
<p>Maybe this is a bit of blasphemy, but I don’t know if Chicago is a complete world apart from other similarly situated (in mantra) elites. Sure, Chicago is different from the pre-professional beehives that are Duke and UPenn, but is a Chicago student’s experience terribly different from other schools where actual learning is still valued (i.e. a Yale or a Brown or a Rice)? If anything, now, there is more homogeneity on the upper rungs.</p>