Is U of C still "Gritty"?

Cue7 · July 1, 2009, 2:02pm

One quick exception to my point above: I do think the University of Chicago should strive to achieve more pronounced recognition in the city of chicago. The upcoming 2016 olympic bid will certainly help this, but in general, I felt it’s important for the U of C to have a good presence in its home city. It’s a little weird when people in Paris or Singapore are more aware of the U of C than native Chicagoans. Penn, for example, has poor nat’l recognition, but its ties to the city of Philadelphia seem to be improving quite markedly. Accordingly, it’s easy for Penn to recruit some of the best local talent to come to West Philly for college. I feel like in Illinois, Chicago too often loses the battle for local talent to a Northwestern or schools on the east or west coast. This shouldn’t be happening. As Zimmer and others would argue, Chicago shouldn’t lose much talent to schools that lack the U of C’s academic punch.

The key reason to do this is I think the U of C needs to break out a bit from its “island” mentality. Chicago’s Business school already has a center downtown, and I think the college should follow suit. It’d be great to take a sociology class on urban areas right in downtown chicago, with easy access to all the neighborhoods around there. (The U of C has a class that goes over thehistory of the south side, so broadening that scope should work well.)

Again, as Zimmer is trying to do, Chicago needs to shed it’s “that weird school on the south side” projection, and do a better job of building more amenable ties with the rest of the city generally. On the national level, I could care less. Outside of somehow winning 5 straight national college football championships, schools like Chicago, Penn, Williams, etc. are never going to have a recognition to match their more entrenched peers.

JHS · July 1, 2009, 2:41pm

The contrast between Chicago and Penn for local recognition is very telling. Penn has been on the upswing, and its relationship with the surrounding community in West Philadelphia has improved a lot. But it’s misleading to say “ties to the city of Philadelphia seem to be improving quite markedly” because there hasn’t been any room for improvement in that relationship in decades, certainly not as long as I have lived here. It would be impossible to overstate how pervasive Penn’s impact is in the area’s business and professional communities, and it even slops over into politics. (Three of the last four mayors – the decent ones – had degrees from Penn, two of them undergraduate. One of them is now Governor of Pennsylvania, and he still shows up for more Penn basketball games than not.) Temple has a lot more students, and it’s important locally, too, but no one has any doubt about which institution is more “important”. Penn is also the area’s largest non-governmental employer, thanks to its extensive health system.

Penn’s president is always a local celebrity. I don’t know if Robert Zimmer gets recognized outside of Hyde Park. (Heck, I don’t know if he gets recognized IN Hyde Park. At graduation I had to tell my second-year which one he was.)

It does seem nuts that Chicago’s profile in its own city is so low. But because of its elitist, intellectual character, it may never be the go-to college for the local bourgeoisie. Northwestern (like Penn) is much more an all-things-to-all-people institution: “We got a program for everyone!”

Shempi · July 1, 2009, 5:07pm

in addition to improving recognition and shedding its somewhat “elitist intellectualism” attitude, U Chicago should also build a “magic escalator.” I certainly would not mind that.

Cue7 · July 1, 2009, 5:14pm

JHS - yes I should’ve clarified what I meant about Penn’s ties to the city of Philadelphia. My knowledge of its history with the city is spotty because I only really began considering the school back in the mid-90s, right around when Rodin took charge. You could be very right - Penn’s ties to Phila could be very constant for the past few decades.

From what I remember though, ever since the mid-90s, Penn seems to have enjoyed a thorough renaissance under Rodin (and more or less continued by Gutmann). Back when I was in high school, UPenn didn’t have a particularly great reputation amongst high school seniors, and there was a lot of negativity about West Phila. In the past fifteen years or so, that has completely changed.

Perhaps Penn’s relationship with the city overall has remained constant, but it seems like there have been big improvements with West Philly. The Univ City district is more active, Penn seems to be taking charge in the revitalization and construction of the area along the schuylkill river, the school’s finances are strong, and they’ve developed great new resources for students and faculty alike.

So in my time at least, I thought Penn has improved its ties to pretty much everywhere pretty markedly. From what you say, though, I certainly see that Penn has had connections to the local bourgeoisie for quite some time.

I do think Chicago needs to improve quite a bit on this front. I always felt the U of C had a sort of cold, stand-offish relationship with the greater city. Northwestern very much plays the role Penn plays in Philly, but I think it’d only be good for the city and the U of C if Chicago got more involved with city affairs.

Michelle Obama’s Community Service Center and the U of C’s partnerships with the Chicago Public School system is a start, but I think the outreach needs to be much more aggressive. Perhaps partnering with other schools, opening up school space downtown, promoting student internships in the city more heavily… the school needs to do a lot to warm relations with the community.

I agree with Zimmer’s directive of making Chicago the best university it can be, and I realize that Chicago cannot (and should not) be “the elite univ for all people” like a NU or UPenn, but the aloof position of the school needs to end. It’s part and parcel from turning Chicago away into a more outstanding, more engaged local institution. In Philly, Penn is extremely respected and appreciated for the contributions it makes to the city. In Chicago, many regard the U of C warily, despite the U of C being one of the biggest employers in the city. This needs to end.

(In some ways I like Chicago’s position as an institution to where Penn was in the mid-late 90s - improving, but still with a lot of progress to be made.)

menloparkmom · July 1, 2009, 5:38pm

As long as Chicago’s image is that they are training the “teachers of tomorrow”, i.e. future professors, intellectuals, academics, etc., they will not appeal to the kind of students who are looking to be the “movers and shakers” of tomorrow, imo.

Cue7 · July 1, 2009, 7:20pm

Menloparkmom - I agree, and I think President Zimmer’s rhetoric about the school reflects your point. During his inaugural address at Chicago, Zimmer stated: “[U of C graduates] have been empowered by this education and way of analyzing our world to become leaders in virtually every area of endeavor.”

You can read his full address here: <a href=“http://president.uchicago.edu/speeches/inaugural_convocation.shtml[/url]”>http://president.uchicago.edu/speeches/inaugural_convocation.shtml</a>

In short, Zimmer is gradually changing the rhetoric away from being “a teacher of teachers,” and instead focusing on how Chicago’s rigorous approach to schooling can prepare its graduates to lead across all fields. I like how Zimmer is keeping Chicago’s committment to rigor alive, but broadening the utility of the Chicago approach.

I never recall Sonnenschein or Randel or previous presidents talking about using the Chicago way to embolden and prepare future leaders. Zimmer just started this a few years ago,and many of his directives adhere to this mantra.

Shempi - haha yes I would like a magic escalator as well. At this point, though, I think the “magic escalator” model works for only a scant few schools (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, maybe Stanford as well). Maybe if Zimmer plays his cards right, we’ll at least have like a “magic ladder” or “magic stepstool” at Chicago soon ;-). The magic escalator could take generations though…

menloparkmom · July 1, 2009, 7:39pm

well, I think it’s going to be a looooooong time, if ever, before Chicago has the cache of “you got in, now your set for life” of HYPS. First, as long as Chicago has the reputation that students have to work harder to get the same, or lower grades than students at HYPS, it will appeal to a different “type” of student. And for that to happen would require a whole different mindset from the profs- which won’t happen until many current profs retire, and whole new crop of profs rise to positions of authority.
Students come to Chicago to learn. Students try to get into HYPS to learn AND meet other top students who are interested and ambitious about opportunities and people that can help them prepare for life after college.

JHS · July 1, 2009, 8:05pm

Any student who picks a college based on how easy it will be to get x GPA isn’t going to be leading anybody anywhere. I read stuff like that on CC and it makes me retch. I have never heard a student I respect in real life say anything remotely like that. In theory, it should be darn near impossible for a student with that attitude to get accepted at HYPS, since everything they look for past the first cut is inconsistent with it.

It’s not clear to me at all that students really have to work harder at Chicago to get the same or lower grades that people get at HYPS. Students work hard at all of those colleges. The median final GPA at Chicago has to be somewhere around 3.3, given the number of kids (well over 50%) who get general honors (GPA of at least 3.25) at graduation. Maybe grades are a little more compressed; I don’t think there are many GPAs north of 3.7.

Anyway, the idea that Harvard or Yale “sets you for life” is high school folklore with no connection to reality. If anything, what sets you for life are the qualities that get you into Harvard or Yale in the first place (qualities that may include, in some cases, Grandpa’s millions).

menloparkmom · July 1, 2009, 8:34pm

^^ re GPA’s, You are forgetting that relatively recently at one of the top three ivy’s, the grading policies were changed from the prior “unspoken” policy that resulted in nearly 75% of students getting A’s. That was never the case at Chicago. The “generous” grading policy dated back to the Vietnam war days, when many academics were oppose to the war, and wanted to help students avoid the draft by helping them keep their student deferments.
So it may be that now all students at HYPS have to work as hard as students at Chicago do once they get there , to get the same grades. But up until recently, it wasn’t always the case. Remember the Princeton Tiger student newspaper article- “You think we’ve got it bad?”
[Think</a> we’ve got it bad? U. Chicago has it worse - The Daily Princetonian](<a href=“http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2000/03/07/399/]Think”>http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2000/03/07/399/)

Cue7 · July 1, 2009, 10:40pm

Menloparkmom - come on, that Daily Princetonian article is from nine years ago. This was before the initiatives to reinvigorate Chicago’s college really got underway. To give you a sense of what’s changed at Chicago since then:

<ul>
<li>The acceptance rate has dropped by about THIRTY PERCENT (from around 55% to around 25%). At the same time, the % of students in the top decile of their class increased from about 70-75% to about 90%. </li>
<li>The U of C built a new top-class gym facility, a top-flight arts center will be completed in a couple years.</li>
<li>The U of C built dorms close to the heart of campus to centralize it, started a comprehensive community service center, linked with Chicago public schools, and increased the number of Metcalf fellowships and administrative support for undergrads. </li>
</ul>

For more info on how the college has changed, please read this interview with Michael Behnke, exiting dean of enrollment for the college:

[Behnke</a> to leave post after 11years - The Chicago Maroon](<a href=“From Lance to Laundromats, band fad clasps campus wrists – Chicago Maroon”>From Lance to Laundromats, band fad clasps campus wrists – Chicago Maroon)

As Behnke notes, one of the biggest reasons Chicago had a lower avg. gpa 10-15 years ago was because, quite bluntly, 25-30% of each college class could not cut the academic requirements instituted by the college. With more lax admissions standards in the 90s, the bottom quartile of the class really struggled and pulled down the overall GPA.

Now, following that 2000 Daily Princetonian article you published, many of the ivies are looking for more accountability with GPA, while Chicago’s GPA has crept upwards with the infusion of more and more talented, capable students at the school. If I’m not mistaken, Princeton has a goal to maintain an overall GPA of around 3.4, while Chicago’s GPA is probably in the 3.3-3.4 range now.

The info you point to is way out of date.

Cue7 · July 2, 2009, 12:01am

Oh one other big change I forgot to mention - about ten years ago, U of C had a 20% dropout rate. Now, I think Chicago retains around 90-95% of its students.

Again, just a completely different place now.

LouieCope08 · July 2, 2009, 12:34am

^I think it’s 98%

diontechristmas · July 2, 2009, 12:54am

That’s right, we are more important.

WindSlicer · July 2, 2009, 1:12am

Ugh, I don’t want Chicago to become another Ivy-like institution.

I love it how it is, and strong initiatives aimed solely to make it more well-known in the outside world, compromising the current vibe of hard work and intellectual investigation, would certainly change how I viewed the college.

menloparkmom · July 2, 2009, 1:28am

Cue, I am REALLY familiar with what the “recent” Chicago is like. S[ NMF, 2340 SAT, national AP Scholar, the student who everyone thought was the “U of C” kid in HS] was accepted to Chicago, both as a freshman and again as a sophomore transfer student.[he had no interest in applying to HYP because he considered them elitist] He was first accepted in 2006 when Chicago accepted 40% of applicants, before they started to use the Common app. The use of the common app is a big reason why the acceptance rate has fallen. Does that mean there are now more capable students applying to Chicago than in 2006? Not necessarily. Perhaps there are just more students applying now because it is easier to apply. [Why do you think C decided to finally accept the common app? To get more applications. Its’ called enrollment management] The top 30 university he decided to attend initially [in large part because he received a full tuition scholarship] and returned to after a disappointing, miserable experience as a transfer student at Chicago, also has experienced a plunge in their acceptance rate in the past 4 years[ from 45% to 22%], and an increase in the % of accepted students in the top decile. They have also finished an incredible sports complex recently . Does that mean it is comparable to Chicago? Not necessarily.

CountingDown · July 2, 2009, 1:36am

The Common App has only been in play for one admissions cycle so far. 2009 accpetance rate was ~28%.

S1 was among those groaning at Convocation last year when O’Neill mentioned the implementation of the Common App for the class of 2013. S chose UChicago for its reputation for training academics and that kind of focus. There will always be some of those purists that make up part of the Chicago character.

LouieCope, you are correct on current retention rates.

Cue7 · July 2, 2009, 3:10pm

Menloparkmom - To echo what Counting down said, the Common App was just introduced last year, and it induced a modest increase in applications (about 9% overall). The year before that was the “boom” app cycle for chicago.

See here for more info on the boom year BEFORE the common app was introduced:

<a href=“https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/admissions/classprofile.shtml[/url]”>https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/admissions/classprofile.shtml</a>

So yes, the common app seems to have increased apps a bit, but not by the significant amount you imply in your post.

On another note, I’m sorry to hear your son didn’t enjoy his experience at the U of C. What in particular did he not like about it?

Again, while I’m sorry he didn’t like the school, I can assure you that the Chicago in 2007 or 2008 looks quite different then when I graduated in 2000. You’re right, maybe some of this is just clever “enrollment management” on the part of the administration. At the same time, the 20% drop out rate (in comparison to 2% now) gave the school a very different vibe. The statistics certainly played their way out amongst my group of friends - a bunch of my friends withdrew or transferred, and a bunch more thought of leaving.

I do alum interviews a lot for Chicago, and from what I can see, in the past 6-7 years of doing interviews, the composition of the students has changed. First, the sheer volume of interview requests have increased, and I see fewer “weaker” candidates gain acceptance just to fill seats in the class. At my time at the U of C, it was apparent that certain people were there just to fill seats.

The changes thus far seem too significant to overlook. A minimal dropout rate, a significant increase in diversity (I think the % of minority students at Chicago has literally doubled since my time at the U of C), higher scores, higher yield… Sure, maybe some of it is clever enrollment management, but the fact is no other school has seen such significant numerical change in such a short span of time. Most of this occurred, by the way, without the introduction of the common app.

While all this has happened, Chicago’s improved its finances significantly, created outreach programs, etc etc. On aggregate, I highly doubt that all these changes actually had a minimal impact on the feel of the school.

With all this in mind, why do you think the Chicago of today still bears a strong similarity to the Chicago of the not-so-distant past? I graduated in 2000, and whenever I go back to the U of C now, I’m struck by just how much has changed.

Cue7 · July 2, 2009, 3:19pm

Windslicer - you state that you love how Chicago is, and that’s great, but do you really not see that there are certain areas where Chicago definitely needs to improve?

I certainly think that the U of C’s relation with the city should get better. Chicago still seems aloof and distant - and its relations with Hyde Park and the greater city of Chicago have been icy at times. In part, this comes from Chicago’s elitist, sorta erudite and inaccessible reputation, and I can’t see why we would want to keep this going. Michelle Obama often talked about her early impressions of the U of C as being negative, and she made strides during her time their to improve Chicago’s connection to the city.

I absolutely think this should continue, and our reputation for being a cold and distant place from the city of Chicago does us no favors. There’s no reason for this sort of tension to exist. Many other top major urban universities have far less frosty relations with their respective cities. There’s no reason Chicago should not follow suit on this front.

In terms of broadening Chicago’s goal beyond simply being “the teacher of teachers,” I see no problem with this. By virtue of being a meritocratic, intense, and scholarly place, Chicago will always produce the next generation of scholars. At the same time, a Chicago background can prepare students for success in myriad fields - and that’s exactly what a liberal arts education is supposed to do. Contending that the best use of a broad, expansive liberal arts curriculum is academia is too narrow of a goal.

Shempi · July 2, 2009, 4:36pm

Cue7, could you give some examples of U Chicago’s icy relationship w/ greater Chicago?

menloparkmom · July 2, 2009, 4:58pm

‘you state that you love how Chicago is, and that’s great, but do you really not see that there are certain areas where Chicago definitely needs to improve?’
I really don’t see how, given the economic circumstances of today, Chicago can continue to be “the teacher of teachers”, with all that it implies regarding academic rigor and the intellectual pursuit of knowledge, AS WELL AS be a college that" magically opens doors based on it’s name alone and who goes there, and who their parents were etc, etc" that apparently is a big factor in why so many students apply to HYPS, and not to Chicago. Sometimes you have to make a choice, based on what is most important to the institution. The uneven, non transparent way that financial aid decisions are made, even after the new FA program was instituted, is yet another reason that Chicago falls short in landing HYP type kids compared to so many other peer universities. Now, if money were no object…

Is U of C still "Gritty"?

CONNECT WITH US