E-mail to the University Community from President Zimmer

<p>It’s long and wordy and pretty vague, but have at it:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m in no position to comment on how well it addresses the needs of the University since I’m not there yet, but I do think it has a clear goal in mind and a steady outline on how to get there.</p>

<p>Edit: I love the bioengineering idea.</p>

<p>Everyone knows how I feel about the whole diversity thing, so I won’t comment on that. Otherwise, it doesn’t look like a bad plan. I think graduate aid should be a top priority, though, above molecular engineering and computational sciences.</p>

<p>Long, wordy, and pretty vague are all apt descriptions. I do get the sense that something important is happening, although it seems to be somewhat buried in the bureaucratspeak: </p>

<p>There are going to be lots and lots of bulldozers and cranes around. Old buildings are coming down, and new ones will be going up (some of them far from Chicago). It’s going to be expensive. Financial aid is not competitive, at the undergraduate or graduate levels, and that’s going to be expensive, too. We need to hire more famous professors in hot disciplines, and they don’t come cheap.</p>

<p>In all the demolishing and building (and presumably in the hiring, and graduate support), there are going to be winners and losers. He’s telling you about some of the winners. “Interdisciplinary” is the kind of word winners apparently use a lot.</p>

<p>To pay for all this, we’re going to (a) take a higher payout from the endowment, (b) borrow money at today’s low, low rates, (c) fundraise a lot more aggressively (helloooo, Capital Campaign!, always a welcome feature of a new presidency), and (d) apply some fiscal discipline to the butts of those who aren’t at the forefront of something.</p>

<p>There’s more to come. Shoes will be dropping for years. Robert J. Zimmer intends to leave his mark on the University. Feel free to e-mail him.</p>

<p>…O.o
So, new hospital, engineering, more dorms, new professors, and financial aid initiatives…looks like Zimmer’s going to haul ass.
One thing that bothers me - - I don’t want to go to school with construction going on everywhere :P</p>

<p>JHS: LMAOROTF… how succinctly re-stated :D</p>

<p>JHS, I was going to do a similar outline myself, but yours was so much more fun to read (and I was having problems reading and understanding it without getting caught up in empty phrasing… this is why I’m not going to law school). </p>

<p>What bothered me the most was this sort of underlying tone of “We want to be just like Harvard, but we have 1/6th the financial resources.” I don’t need to say that there are many, many ways in which the University is already quite special and I wonder if our end goal is enriching lives/ creating new knowledge, or just beating out our competition.</p>

<p>I do agree that the bio stuff sounds really neat.</p>

<p>O_o! Molecular engineering! Biology! Neuroscience!</p>

<p>I wonder how fast that can get started and running, i.e. would it affect today’s prospective undergraduate aside from construction all around campus?</p>

<p>One thing that irks me about a lot of people especially on this board is the resistance to change. First it was admissions policy, now this outline for academic progression. Like I said in my earlier post I haven’t stepped foot on campus as an actual student, but I don’t believe that a university needs to remain the same forever to keep its personality.</p>

<p>

It would be a pitty, all top level american universities chase the same module.</p>

<p>I totally agree Unalove, with this message along with other recent happenings it seems that the school IS sending the message that they want to be more like the elite schools like HYSP and don’t care that it may ruin what makes the school unique. </p>

<p>This is obviously not coming from a student there(maybe next semester we’ll see) but someone who has an immense amount of respect for the school. I hope I’m dead wrong here.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What do you see in Zimmer’s letter that says “We want to be more like HYP?” I read Zimmer’s letter and read “The University is great, but we can make it better: here’s how.”</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Of course there are going to be winners and losers. This is the nature of change. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t think you understand the credit crunch. The idea is that credit is more expensive, and therefore borrowing is more costly. Alternatively, you could be sarcastic, which is much harder to pick up over an internet forum.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The former, of course. Zimmer is just outlining a plan to reposition the university to better do so.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>qft. I don’t understand all this hang wringing. The culture at the University of Chicago will be (and must be) driven organically by the people here; there is no need to “lock in” a culture from up high. We are not first an institution of “quirkiness;” we are first an institution of Truth (in the metaphysical sense).</p>

<p>Cesare:</p>

<p>Of course I understand the credit crunch. The phrase was half-sarcastic. As of yesterday, real interest rates are negative, and risk premiums are absurd, even in a worst-case scenario. The Fed and the politicians are determined to push liquidity into the real world. Eventually (weeks, maybe months), that’s got to mean some good deals on debt for good credits. (Which may not mean U Chicago, by the way, but probably does mean Illinois or the city of Chicago, both of which would probably be involved in debt financing here.)</p>

<p>It’s actually probably a great time for the University to build stuff. No one is going to be starting a new high-rise condo or office building for a couple of years. The construction industry should be willing to work cheap.</p>

<p>CesareBorgia and others, </p>

<p>It was this piece-- from over a year ago-- that I can’t get out of my head when I think about Zimmer.</p>

<p>The article in full: <a href=“http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_edition/article/8450[/url]”>http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_edition/article/8450&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The quotes that stuck out to me:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Perhaps Zimmer has changed his tack since then, and perhaps the writer was putting too many words in his mouth, but I feel Zimmer’s motivations aren’t coming from a good place. Though I shouldn’t be complaining-- I think change can be a great thing and I think that Zimmer can improve the school.</p>

<p>That article saddens me, I hope that the writers were putting words into his mouth because there are way to many wannabe HYP schools. Chicago stands as a competitive, yet entirely unique, alternative. </p>

<p>Another great thing about the school is that what the university might mean to me or anyone else can be totally different than Zimmer or anyone else’s. I would bet that the last thing the student body wants is for the school to be more like HYP but maybe I’m being naive.</p>

<p>I think you guys have to distinguish between undergraduate education and the university’s other missions. In undergraduate education, Chicago has an interesting, admirable niche, and I understand how most of you – who, after all, were attracted to Chicago precisely because of some of its differences, and who perhaps owe your acceptance there to them – don’t want to see that uniqueness lost. I don’t, either. But when you talk about biomedical research, nuclear physics, the business school, the law school, if your ambition isn’t to be great (not “quirky great”, just great) and cutting edge, then you have just withdrawn from the great research university business, which is the only business Chicago has ever had. That doesn’t mean that everything you do has to be a copy of what Harvard or Stanford does, but it does mean that you plan on competing with them head-to-head.</p>

<p>I don’t think anyone sits around the Economics Lounge and whines about how corrosive it is to compete with Harvard. I think they sit around the Economics Lounge and plot how to burn Harvard’s ships and carry off its women.</p>

<p>That’s part of what makes Chicago a great, world-class university, and a place that offers first-rate opportunities to undergraduate students. You don’t want to give that up.</p>

<p>Great post jhs, I didn’t think of it that way. I hope you’re right.</p>

<p>

ITA. Call me the worst informed mom, never heard of UofC before my kid put on the application list as one of the top choice schools. “This school has the personality” was the reason given. … Then I started my own research on the school, I have to say unalove and my kid convinced me. It would be ‘sad’ to see it become another ‘ivy’ like one.</p>

<p>I think Zimmer is really pressing an important agenda. Chicago as it is presently constructed is massively over invested in fields that don’t position it well to have a major influence on intellectual discourse in the future. I think a prime example of what it runs the risk of becoming is Johns Hopkins. JHU may been known amongst laymen for its medical and public health offerings, but it has a lot of other programs that are international heavy hitters as well. Art History, various European languages, foreign affairs, and environmental sciences are just some of its other standout programs. The problem of course is that these areas are also a huge financial drain, and don’t really have much of a natural market for their graduates and intellectual output. Consequently, you see a lot of great work going on at JHU, but not a lot of it getting out from the campus and into the world (in comparison to the dollars that go in). </p>

<p>In the same vein, as much as departments like Social Thought, History or plain vanilla Physics may have been historical contributors to Chicago’s greatness, they are going to struggle to have an impact in the 21st century if they do not delve into new areas. Groundbreaking interdisciplinary work and the application of numerate / scientific approaches to formerly qualitative fields are going to be THE criterion on which schools are judged in the future (ask some sociology or linguistics professors how fast their fields have evolved – and how quickly stubborn departments have withered), and those that do not get on the ball now will be left in the dust. As a practical matter, this means plowing funds into a few applied science and professional fields like a flood, a process that has not merely caused consternation at Chicago, but throughout the old guard of elite schools. The public may be perpetually fixated on Harvard, but college presidents look to very well balanced Stanford with far greater envy. </p>

<p>This is not to say Chicago has to abandon its identity. It can continue to attract highly dedicated students and provide them with a more rigorous than usual academic environment – and this is certainly unique in an age of sometimes rank pre-professionalism and mindless, type A personality social molding. However, what is in its textbooks, and indeed the very general topics of its classes will no doubt change greatly in coming years. Indeed, I think this will largely be to the abandon of the idea of “secular perrenialism” as expounded by President Hutchins, which still to this day informs most of the core. I would not strike me as odd at all if in ten years the college demanded for graduation a rigorous statistics course, a formal, multifaceted study of information networks, and a detailed examination of human bioengineering issues. This is not to say that Plato does not mean something, but it may be the case that understanding the main tenets of probability theory means far more in coming to terms with the big issues of the day for tomorrow’s pupils.</p>