It doesn’t seem quite right that financial solvency destroys culture. Instead, solvency is a precondition to nurture the flame and, perhaps, to have it burn even brighter.
Chicago has a long history of financial problems (begging J.D. Rockefeller for more cash in the early days, until he finally said “enough;” almost merged with Northwestern in the 1930s; considered moves to Palo Alto/Aspen in the 1950s; finances were an absolute wreck when Hugo Sonnenschein became President in 1993). It’s arguable that Chicago has never reached its genuine potential because it has never had a firm financial platform. It’s also beyond argument (for me, at least) that the University did a poor job of making the College what it could have been. Chicago was founded as a university with a college, unlike its closest peers, which were colleges that grew into great universities.
A large private research university draws its income roughly from tuition, endowment income dedicated to operations, research grants (e.g. government), and donations. Chicago had fewer paying students and Chicago had a weak endowment–even now, Chicago’s endowment is small relative to its peers. In 2015, Chicago’s operating income/expenses were $3.7B and Harvard’s were $4.5B–same order of magnitude. Harvard got 35% of its income from endowment, while Chicago got only 17%. One imagines that Harvard’s donation income is better, too. Thus, Chicago must be even more diligent to manage tuition income.
In general terms, undergraduates and professional school students are revenue, while graduate students are costs. Undergraduates are also the most loyal alumni in terms of university support–including financial support. As a result, recruiting more and better undergraduates helps current income as tuition and future income as donations. Prestige associated with better students (those silly rankings, as well as the future accomplishments of College graduates) also helps attract outside gifts, which can support both current operations and raising the endowment. In turn, good finances help recruit and fund the very best graduate students and faculty, who will produce the new knowledge that will keep Chicago unique.
Sonnenschein paid with his presidency for recognizing that Chicago’s model was unsustainable. His presidency didn’t ruin what made Chicago unique (otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about Chicago being unique 15 years later). It would sort of ridiculous for Chicago to be more like other schools–those schools do what they do better than Chicago could.
Unless one has a theory that dodgy finances are what created the unique medium upon which Chicago’s unique intellectual achievements thrive, I don’t see how making the school more attractive to more and better qualified students will dilute what makes Chicago great. Managed correctly, Chicago could become even more “Chicago.”