Faculty Dissent at UChicago: Detemining the “Ratio between eminence and resources”

Colleges & Universities University of Chicago
41

@JBStillFlying , well, now we have warring letters from two Distinguished Service Professors. There is disagreement at the University of Chicago! This doesn’t shock me as much as it shocks @Cue7 .

@MohnGedachtnis , you sound like a thoughtful guy with knowledge of the University. I don’t expect you to read the entirety of my repetitious oeuvre on this forum, but anyone who was masochistic enough to do that would surely conclude that I see the reforms of the last couple of decades as a very mixed blessing - necessary to preserve the viability of the University, especially the College, but carrying real dangers to the historic character of the University. That’s a character I love and cherish but that others on this board deplore. Many of the visitors to this forum - and at least one permanent fixture - take the view that the reforms necessarily spell death of all that is old and birth of something completely new. I believe the true situation to be more complex than that.

Some of the issues in contention reveal traditional fault lines at the University. Take the present controversy in which Marshall Sahlins joins in the somewhat limited chorus of dissident profs in the humanities and social sciences in deploring the “bloated” numbers of undergrads and M.A.s on campus. He writes with real distaste of these wretched creatures. As a product of both the College and an M.A. program I have little sympathy for that distaste. One reads about it as far back as the Hutchins era, and I remember it in my own era. To the extent that there was any truth to “fun goes to die” it came from that attitude, held by some but far from all the big and distinguished profs. Thus I remember Milton Friedman being willing to come over to BJ for a dinner with us Chamberlin House undergrads (and adjournment thereafter for cognac and cigars in the BJ library), in which he listened to and replied very seriously to our various objections to capitalism. The very best of the profs were like that - Norman Maclean, Charles Grey, Meyer Isenberg, the great Karl (Weintraub), and many others then and no doubt at all times.

Thus, while I very much valued then as I value now the scholarship that underwrites great teaching, my own strongest allegiances are to the experiences in the classrooms of the College. I saw my own M.A. year in a slightly different light, full of the same examination of texts and writers that always seemed to me the essence of literary studies but different enough to give me a sense that the trade of professional scholarship was not going to be my trade. If it is now true that certain Departments (primarily in the humanities and social sciences) are now shifting focus to teach more undergrads and more M.A.’s I can hardly see this as inconsistent with my vision of the University. It may be motivated by reality, and there is of course an economic dimension to all realities, but l do not see that as a reason to deplore it as a falling from grace and a lessening of the standards of the University. If some do see it that way, let the great debate begin.

42

@MohnGedachtnis - your statement demonstrates a notable and probably understandable ignorance, so allow me to enlighten. I refer you to Boyer’s history of the university for the details.

Sahlins has willfully ignored the facts that were on the ground at the time Sonnenschein began his tenure. Despite less generous financial aid policies than exist today, the College’s revenues didn’t even cover basic faculty salaries. The university had to dip into its own capital (ie shrink the endowment) in order to maintain itself. How it got to that situation is a whole other story, so we will skip that part here. But that’s what Sonnenschein was met with when he showed up, and that was what he was hired to fix. Meanwhile, the university’s peers were booming in terms of capital growth and flush with funds for research and grad programs. The choice - which Sonnenschein, economics professor that he is, laid out clearly and plainly for the faculty - was either to grow the College or watch the institution lose its status as a “great university” and devolve into that merely “good university” that Sahlins inexplicably claims exists today. BTW, it’s highly doubtful that anthropology scholars are data-challenged; Sahlins nevertheless fails to provide any, including the university’s current #10-in-the-world research ranking (per ARWU). Anthro - a heavily subsidized department that depends on university revenues for its very existence - wouldn’t have survived with its stellar reputation intact - or may not have survived at all - had the university not expanded the undergraduate program.

It wasn’t Sonnenschein who started to grow the College significantly. It was his predecessor, Hannah Gray, who was very aware of the issues as well as faculty resistance to doing something constructive about it. Sonnenschein merely continued the growth beyond the old cap, because he had the data to back up that it would work. His “controversial” proposal at the time was to increase the size by about 1,000 students, to a total of around 5,000 (IIRC). He fully disclosed to everyone - faculty, students, alums - what he wanted to do. It only became a “unilateral” decision (with approval from the board) because the faculty committee assigned to the task fell down on the job. They apparently laid out what had to be done in order to expand the size but wouldn’t render an opinion on what that size should be. In other words, they were cowards. Perhaps they were afraid of being “unpopular” with their colleagues. When the faculty committee fails to make the recommendation, the hard decision is left to the president.

At the time, my husband and I, along with many other alums, were predicting “the end of the University of Chicago.” We concluded that the “outsider” Sonnenschein was meddling, that he no understanding of the place, that he wanted UC to be “like every other university” and so on. In other words, we had no clue and we were dumb. Perhaps as UC-trained economists we should have taken a closer and more critical look at the situation instead of relying on casual, and at times incorrect, reporting. It certainly wasn’t the first time - nor the last - that the press and the common word on the street about the University of Chicago would get the story wrong. However, in our defense, we weren’t privy to the extent of the dire financial straits. But Sahlins was. He was there, he knew the arguments pro and con, and he had access to the data like the rest of the faculty.

Note: in his whiny diatribe, Sahlins fails to mention any plan that he might have proposed for solving the financial crisis. Let’s hear it, Professor Sahlins!

Of course, no one seriously complains about the College size today because the graduate departments have majorly benefitted from the revenue stream. While some of them have slipped in reputation, most are stabilized or have maintained their top status among their peers. Also, and to state the obvious, it would be a tad disingenuous of the Maroon’s (undergraduate) staff to complain about the larger size :wink:

43

This is a new account and user name, not a new poster. I have, in fact, read all or substantially all of marlowe1’s oeuvre regarding the University of Chicago. His post abundantly confirms the thing I was referring to: marlowe1 cherishes the unique undergraduate culture of Chicago in the 60s and 70s, while Sahlins doesn’t give a crap about that.

By the same token, gosh, thanks, JBStillFlying, I am familiar with Boyer’s work. I didn’t say that I agreed with everything Sahlins said or meant, or that I imagined that what was in that letter was anything like a coherent program for the university. If I had to vote for him or Zimmer to be president, I would vote for Zimmer without a second thought. But I will say it again: If the University of Chicago devolves into merely a “good” university for PhD programs, it will have exhausted the aquifer that made its academic reputation grow. Sahlins doesn’t have to “account” for the ARWU rankings – those rankings are very much a reflection of current world fashion, and privilege STEM and Economics pretty much above all else. (Not that I mind that Chicago shows well in the ARWU rankings, but that’s not the same as having currently healthy programs.)

44
  • @marlowe1 will no doubt speak for himself. Back in @marlowe1's day and through the '90's, college enrollments collaspsed (as you know from reading Boyer's work and other sources, most likely) and the critical mass on campus consisted of graduate, not undergraduate, students. As a result, that unique "undergraduate culture" was informed and influenced by GRADUATE culture. Sahlins was happy simply because there weren't enough undergrads around to mess with that. So "culture" and "numbers" are completely connected.
  • What does that even mean? How has the university "devolved" over the years? Where's the data to support that that is happening?

UChicago’s graduate programs - like grad programs everywhere - depend on undergraduate tuition dollars and alumnae/benefactor donations to maintain their quality. Sonnenschein was clear: these things didn’t exist in sufficient amounts to sustain the university as a top research institution. Unless they increased the top line, the university as a RESEARCH institution would suffer in quality. The most obvious way to increase the top line was to grow the College as peer institutions had done so that those dollars could subsidize the graduate programs. This is simple math.

  • Agree - ARWU doesn't include the humanities. But Sahlins was referring to the university as a whole, not just the humanities division. As a whole, the university is a top 10 research institution world wide - without an engineering program, btw, and even without a top bio sciences division.

Unlike US News’ Best College rankings, ARWU is research only. So faculty and grad programs. Many academics I know will refer to it because the methodology is trusted. The US News graduate rankings, which include humanities, is also a decent source so he could have included that instead. Rankings aren’t everything but they do tend to move in the correct direction. It’s hard to “game” peer reviews of your program.

Or - Sahlins didn’t even need to use rankings. How about peer reviews or news articles showing how UChicago isn’t the university it used to be. Or anything, really, to underscore his point. Otherwise, the piece reads as a hit job, and one only has to look at time-to-completion for PhD’s in the Dept. of Anthropology to understand why.

Those graduate programs needing a “health” injection aren’t suffering because the university has 2x the number of undergraduates on campus now than they did 25 years ago. They are suffering because the university wasn’t paying out sufficient fellowship funds to attract the top grad students. One sore indicator of lower quality is extended time to degree. In addition, it’s possible that some faculty have become complacent and inattentive to their grad students which isn’t surprising when you have a larger number of mediocre candidates than productive (and hirable) stars. The proposed caps can only be good news because it means more money for better quality students.

Perhaps Sahlins believes that the College is a money-loser. If so, then he’s really out of it.

45

^^well said, JBS.

As a counter point to Sahlins, one of the greatest Unis in the world – with as many top 10 graduate programs as Harvard – is UC Berkeley and they have 30+ thousand undergrads many of which are juco transfers. Obviously, the presence of undergrads doesn’t necessarily hurt grad rankings.

btw: I’m a fan of the now old NRC Rankings for lit/hume, and since grad prestige doesn’t change much, they are still rather representative…Chicago Anthro is ranked mid-30s; in comparison, SIX public UC’s are/were ranked higher. (the horror and embarrassment. Sahlins needs to step up his Dept’s game before criticizing others.)

https://www.chronicle.com/article/NRC-Rankings-Overview-/124703

46

Don’t know much about Marshall Sahlins, @MohnGedachtnis , but a look at his bio makes him sound like a pretty big deal. He came to the U after my time, but has apparently established a big rep over the past half-century writing on subjects I don’t follow.

It was interesting that he invented the term and practice of “teach-ins” in the sixties. I guess he had some use for undergrads in those days. And give him credit: His activist chops from that era seem to still be playing out in the swashbuckling stylistics of that letter to the Maroon. I reckon that mocking the Man is still his shtick. Old activists never die, they just lose all contact with reality.