Re housing - I was ball parking figures, and forgot that Pierce has already been demolished, and the new North Campus is nearly ready to go. With Pierce gone, and Shoreland, Woodward Court, Breck, Blackstone, Max Mason, etc. all gone, the figure is probably something like 20% of housing from 2000 still stands.
That being noted, let me run through some data from the past 15-20 years or so.
In 1998, Chicago’s College had an enrollment of about 3,800 (source: https://magazine.uchicago.edu/9904/html/curriculum.htm)
In 2016, the College has an enrollment of about 5600 (source: https://registrar.uchicago.edu/page/quarterly-census-date-enrollment-reports)
That means, in about 18 years, the size of the College has grown about 50%.
In 2002, the College had a six-year graduation rate of about 81% (source: 2002 US News College Rankings, https://web.archive.org/web/20010331105027/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/natunivs/natu_a2.htm)
In 2016, the College had a six-year graduation rate of 93% (source: http://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/university-of-chicago/academic-life/graduation-and-retention/#)
So the six-year graduation rate has gone up 11% in 14 years.
In 2002, 79% of incoming freshman were in the top ten percent of their hs class (source: https://web.archive.org/web/20010331105027/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/natunivs/natu_a2.htm)
In 2016, 97% of incoming freshman were in the top ten percent of their hs class (source: https://colleges.niche.com/university-of-chicago/statistics/)
So, in 14 years, 18% more of the incoming students hail from the top 10% of the class.
In 1999, Chicago’s average GPA was a 3.26 (compared to a 3.42 at Harvard or a 3.33 at Duke). By 2006, Chicago’s avg. GPA was a 3.35 (compared to 3.45 at Harvard and 3.42 at Duke). Source: http://www.gradeinflation.com
Chicago doesn’t offer any current data on average GPAs, but it’s completely reasonable to think that, if the avg. GPA was 3.35 10 years ago, it’s comfortably in the 3.5 range now. (Duke’s avg. GPA now is about 3.5.)
So, in about 18 years, the GPA gap has gone from being noticeable to being negligible.
I don’t have time to assess physical changes to the college, but I imagine Chicago’s building spree exceeds what you’ll see almost anywhere else for their non-STEM plant in the past 15 years. They’ve built 3 new dorms (Max, South, and North), built a brand new gym, built an arts center, are building a major conference space, will see and assist with the installation of a major Presidential Library blocks from campus, and much more.
Yes, other colleges are expanding, and yes, other colleges have experienced quantifiable changes. Moreover, cultural shifts occur at schools all the time, for reasons sometimes unrelated to admin decisions.
Has any other school seen the types of changes I’ve outlined above, though, in such a short period of time?
Finally @HydeSnark said that, in 30 years, Chicago won’t be Princeton or Stanford. That’s hardly my concern. Here’s something that worries me about Chicago, and it’s perhaps the most telling change.
In 1928, Chicago’s endowment was #2 in the nation (behind only Harvard).
In 1958, Chicago’s endowment was #3 in the nation (behind only Harvard and Yale).
In 1998, Chicago’s endowment was #16 in the nation, and less than one third the endowment size of Harvard, Yale, and Stanford.
In 2013, Chicago’s endowment was #16 in the nation, and less than one fifth the size of Harvard’s endowment.
No university in modern history has started off so wealthy and lost so much ground over the period of half a century. The story of the University of Chicago, then, in some ways, is the story of mismanagement.
(Sources: https://magazine.uchicago.edu/9904/html/curriculum.htm and https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=73)
So, @HydeSnark I say, there’s hardly a worry that Chicago will be Princeton or Stanford in 30 years. To the contrary, a very real concern is: Chicago in 30 years could be like Michigan or Wisconsin now - universities that were once bona fide preeminent institutions, who now are “merely” very good universities - noticeably behind the very first rank.
To sum, I don’t think I have a problem with the bulk of the changes - the pace is startling, but the changes are probably good. I wouldn’t really have a problem with Chicago’s college resembling Stanford or Harvard, either - people exaggerate the importance of a College’s specific culture for the climate of a large research institution. If Chicago’s college resembles Stanford’s or Harvard’s in 30 years, that probably means the College is lucrative and healthy - that’s the most important part for a college in a research uni. My worry, however, is that the school will continue losing more ground - ground it’s been losing for 50 years.