<p>Yeah I liked O’Neill a lot too, but he was more of a member of the “old guard” at Chicago. I’ve posted about this in the past, but basically, for most of the 20th Century, Chicago took the stand that ONLY education and academics mattered - everything else was secondary. HYPS, on the other hand, took the stance that social catchet matters first, and academics are second. So HYPS was more about preparing students for positions of power, and chicago was more about preparing the future intelligentsia. </p>
<p>The problem with chicago’s philosophy, however, is that it did not leave the university itself in good standing. Chicago produced hundreds of pioneers in a variety of academic fields, but the university was not in good shape. While HYPS thrived during most of the 90s, Chicago struggled with a very small endowment, a unhappy class of alumni that thought the school was too rigorous, and a generally unhealthy university environment. More or less, the Chicago take on the goal of a university (only academics matters) had failed.</p>
<p>By the late 90s, Chicago changed its policies pretty drastically. The core became more flexible, the endowment improved greatly, Chicago changed some of its admissions policies, and the school - while still very strongly intellectually driven - adopted the HYPS model a bit more. U of C became more rankings conscious, became more selective, and, by all accounts, the school is a much happier place now than it was a decade ago. </p>
<p>At the same time, I think the old guard, with people like Ted O’Neill, has become a bit disillusioned with this direction. They really wanted Chicago to be the last true place where intellectual meritocracy rules. Unfortunately, as I’ve said before, in America, a school is much more than just the academics it offers. Zimmer’s goal is to make sure Chicago maintains its academic standing, but also becomes more “elite” (and gains more of the social catchet that HYPS boasts). </p>
<p>I think Chicago is well on the way to achieving this goal. Again, when I was at Chicago, I think the school was ranked maybe #15 in US News, student morale was still kinda low, and my cohort of students was just not as accomplished overall as the current group of Chicago undergrads. It’s my hope that Chicago maintains its strongly academic bent, but produces graduates with more polish and social acumen than my graduating class at U of C. </p>
<p>Again, all signs point to this. For example, I don’t think we’re horribly underranked in US News now, but as selectivity continues to improve and we improve our grad retention rate, etc., we should be able to cement a spot in the top half dozen or so in the nation. This is certainly solid ground for the U of C.</p>
<p>With regards to Nondorf, I believe he worked at RPI after Yale, not U of Rochester. Either way, you’re right - he does wonders for student recruitment. When I talked about being “savvy” with admissions though, I mean just that - I don’t think he’ll follow O’Neill’s policy of just accepting every qualified individual and hoping that some will come. He’ll be more calculating and careful in who he targets, and he may modulate some of O’Neill’s more laissez-faire policies with an eye for becoming more selective.</p>