Perceived Differences Between Chicago and other Elite Universities

Colleges & Universities University of Chicago
121

^ @Cue7 at #115 - happy to play along! It’s just best to provide backup rather than guesswork. One can always read between the lines with Zimmer (it’s not like he or Boyer aren’t asked questions of this sort).

Biggest priorities on JB’s List, not in any particular order, along with the rationale:

Med school - We know this from the rankings and BioSci division (which includes medicine) ranks behind the other divisions and the College so needs some work.

Undergraduate Aid - When I donated a smallish amount for the Capital Campaign not too long ago I told them to add it to where the College needs it most. I was thanked for my donation to the Odyssey Scholarship program. So FA is a big thing for them. They do lag the top schools in % on aid and average grant size and IMO need to close the gap.

CompSci - Going off what everyone else says on this one. Seems important.

Grad Student Funding (NOT Booth/Law) - Agree with Diermeier’s conclusions. University’s hum/SS programs (Anthro, History, Philosophy, etc.) are lagging other top schools in time to completion. University needs to attract higher quality candidates here which can be done with dollars and faculty (see below). More generally, UChicago lags some of the other top R1’s in terms of grad student stipends.

Faculty pay/Endowed Chairs - UChicago needs to remain competitive with other top R1’s. University punches above its weight here, but overall top dollars will attract top faculty.

Here’s what UChicago does NOT need to spend money on:

Engineering programs that contradict what they are doing with IME: UChicago should stick to doing what it does best which is liberal arts on the undergrad. level and tailored engineering on the grad. The idea that everyone will just flock to UChicago because “now it has engineering!” is superficial and likely flawed. Those other engineering programs have established histories and reputations and know what they are doing. UC’s history and reputation - not to mention philosophy - is firmly grounded in the liberal arts.

Sports programs that contradict what they are building with D3: see thread.

Funding for Booth/Law in order to waive student tuition: Why??? These schools are HUGE money makers for the university. They already attract top students and already give out surpringly more aid than one would expect. Those degrees boost permanent income by enormous amounts. UC students already get special financial consideration. Faculty are well paid at both places. If it ain’t broke . . .

Funding for the College that makes UChicago “cheaper” than the competition on an average-cost basis: Free-tuition models have a poor track record over the long run and UChicago has no reason to be charging “less” than the competition. Right now they charge more and seem to be pulling it off. I’d prefer they charge equivalently so that every student is pretty much deciding based on fit and not price. Increase funding to make THAT happen, and no more. Tuition revenue is a large contributor to the bottom line so messing too much with it leaves money on the table.

122

@JBStillFlying - I more meant that, for booth/law, it’d be spectacular if they could pull an NYU med (e.g., find a donor who can offer full-tuition scholarships to all students who attend). With that and some more faculty recruitment resources, those schools would be pre-eminent (Probably #1) in their fields.

The med school is a tough issue. All agree Chicago needs to do it, but it’s so costly. I wonder, in a world without unlimited resources, if they set expectations differently - e.g. try to stay in the top 25-30. That’s probably the toughest issue for Chicago over the next couple decades. There’s a real chance the med school languishes, vis a vis its peers. NU is poaching Chicago researches like crazy, and it takes so much money to play the med school game…

Also, med schools collaborate with engineering schools often. Not having one still hamstrings Chicago. I wonder if even having a top 40 program is better than none at all?

The problem is balance - most other top R1 schools - even H and S - have huge biomed plants. Chicago is more social science/law/business as its top strengths…

123

@Cue7 at #121:

UChicago has been in the biosciences for decades and decades now. They should know how to do this well. MIT doesn’t even have a med school but is top ranked in Bio Sciences! Princeton ranked #6 on USNews and #28 on Shanghai (research only) which is 10 higher than UC. Again - no med school.

Eng collaborates with Bio in a few areas but most engineering specialties are separate and distinct from bio sciences. At our state flagship, they are separate schools. If MIT and P can have decent-to-top ranked Bio programs sans med school, can’t UC have a decent-to-top ranked Bio program sans engineering? Just a thought, have no idea whether it makes any sense.

IMO it’s best to let the engineering grow organically. There’s no need for a full spectrum of ABET-accredited programs. You know that’s what most eng. majors want, and we have to ask whether that would truly be consistent with the educational philosophy of UC?

124

@Zoom10 Your comment did not touch on a personal note, I just wanted you flesh out your thoughts a bit more. Blanket statements like that rarely have any consideration behind them. Yes, fencing is a niche sport with low public participation, and yes, the varsity teams end up competing against each other but there are several of them. That said, elite fencers bring unique qualities to the community at large that, even in my ignorance, I can’t see mirrored in some of the other sports you mentioned (no offense to any lugers, bobsledders, or curlers). Fencing is a combat sport – physically, emotionally, and perhaps most strikingly intellectually. Because that’s what we’re talking about here — taking up the seats. And the criteria for seat entitlement, for some anyway, seems primarily to be intellect: @marlowe1

This is black and white thinking devoid of nuance. Kids who are quantitatively perfect are being turned away in droves from the likes of UC and its ilk, so the criteria truly is more multi-dimensional. I argue that it’s those dimensions that add considerably to an academic environment. Maybe if UC had more sports, the motto would change from “where fun goes to die” to “where fun and intellect are happy bedfellows” – and I’m not saying that to be cheeky, truly.

But I think you ask a great question

I’d love to know what others think on this.

For me that answer would be sports that create community and joy (because those lift everyone up) or cerebral sports where the participants can parlay their skills more directly to their academic endeavors. For instance, elite fencers are excellent at pattern recognition and creative problem solving. This pairs up nicely with STEM fields.

125

@fencingmom - I am biased by my own perceptions, but I believe an elite university should ask the following to make admissions decisions:

1.) Who is most qualified to contribute to our intellectual community? (The bar for qualification should be very high indeed)

2.) Who would benefit most from a seat at our university?

My rubric strongly reflects the “socioeconomic escalator” feature of elite universities.

Since there are so many top intellects, the preference for “special qualities” in my view, should be factors like overcoming hardships, rising above poverty restraints, etc. Those who benefit truly from the boost elite U.s offer.

U.s have to preference something to make their decisions. There are so many applicants! I just care less about the qualities you describe (important as they are) when offering coveted seats at an elite U.

Put another way, I think most elite U.s need to be engines of social mobility more strongly. That should be one of their key goals.

Are there fencers who would get in under this rubric? Absolutely. Would it be at the same numbers as before? Absolutely not. Same goes for squash players and sailors and rowers. They’d still get in - there are some great applicants out there w these qualities. The numbers would just look very different.

126

Oh, here’s my other thought - to better be engines of social mobility, the Ivy League should go D3 with sports. @Zoom10 what do you think of that!

If they went D3, they could meet more important institutional goals so much more easily. They would place less emphasis on sporting ability - bc it matters less. Part of the squash team or rowing team could be people who show promise, and want to learn the sport.

And @fencingmom - i’m pretty sure, removed from the squash program, Harvard et al get students who are phenomenal creative problem solvers and pattern recognizers. Have some of those students try out fencing - for the first time - at Harvard, with all of their great resources and support.

My issue w elite/niche sports is that qualities people say it generates can usually be found in other sectors of the applicant pool, with ppl who would benefit more from the seat.

Again there are some incredible students who fence or row who definitely would merit entry. The numbers would just be far fewer.

127

@Zoom10 Your comment did not touch on a personal note, I just wanted you flesh out your thoughts a bit more. Blanket statements like that rarely have any consideration behind them. Yes, fencing is a niche sport with low public participation, and yes, the varsity teams end up competing against each other but there are several of them. That said, elite fencers bring unique qualities to the community at large that, even in my ignorance, I can’t see mirrored in some of the other sports you mentioned (no offense to any lugers, bobsledders, or curlers). Fencing is a combat sport. It takes ■■■■■■■, even for the girls, to suit up and be a combatant, physically, emotionally, and perhaps most strikingly intellectually. Because that’s what we’re talking about here — taking up the seats. And the criteria for seat entitlement, within this argument anyway, seems primarily to be intellect. But kids who are quantitatively perfect are being turned away in droves from the likes of UChicago and its ilk, so the criteria truly is more multi-dimensional. I argue that it’s those dimensions that add considerably to an academic environment. Maybe if UChicago had more sports, the motto would change from “where fun goes to die” to “where fun and intellect are happy bedfellows” – and I’m not saying that to be cheeky, truely.

But I think you ask a great question

I’d love to know what others think on this.

For me that answer would be sports that create community and joy (because those lift everyone up) or cerebral sports where the participants can parlay their skills more directly to their academic endeavors. For instance, elite fencers are excellent at pattern recognition and creative problem solving. This pairs up nicely with STEM fields.

128

Cue - great wish list. But if the amount was 1/3 the amount you start with, I’d pick the medical complex (including research capability) and CS.

129

@Cue7 Sure, I’m a champion of idealism at every turn, but a realist at heart. I agree, the bar should be set very high at elite universities, but it’s not a think tank. Myriad qualities, aside from intellect, create dynamism on a college campus. Are you suggesting that Div1 sports, as they stand today, constitute a type of intellectual slumming?

Your second point of who would benefit most is interesting and gets to the crux of it. If elite universities strictly followed the socioeconomic escalator model, they wouldn’t be able to offer social mobility for very long because it’s financially unsustainable. Big money sports are footing the bill for these noble causes, along with, of course, big money donors. These are the realities, but you can think of them as “public works factories” if that makes it easier.

If universities are to serve the public good (and I certainly think they should), then the criteria for admittance should hinge on which applicants have the potential to add the most value to society. Social mobility is just too narrow a lens.

130

Cue, the philosophy for student athletes as stated Ivy schools is indeed more consistent with the D3 model, but what they say vs what they actually do is oftentimes incongruent. In short, the Ivy’s want to have their cake and eat it too. On the one hand, they try to distinguish themselves from the rest of D1 schools by not offering athletic scholarships (and coach salaries are much lower, especially in football and basketball), yet they make athletics the biggest hook of all in their admissions practices. The hook from being a recruited athlete is bigger than any other hook, bigger than being URM, 1st gen, low socioeconomic status, and even legacy or donor. While their minimum GPA and test scores requirements for athletes that is based on an academic index (AI) number are much higher than the bare minimum required by NCAA (which is 2.3 GPA), these academic standards for athletes are definitely lower than what it would take to be a recruited athlete at the highest academic D3 schools such as Chicago, MIT, Caltech, Pomona, and many of the NESCAC schools.

In football, it’s actually a bit of a misnomer that the Ivy’s are D1 because they compete in the FCS subdivision of D1 and not the FBS subdivision which is where all the Power 5 conferences compete. But in most other sports, the Ivy’s can and do schedule games against major D1 schools even though they are generally quite mediocre (on occasion, they sometime do finish in Top 20 of a given sport like hockey, water polo, etc.). So why don’t they just go D3? Because they like being able to say they compete at the highest level while also being able to say that their players are “true” student athletes who play for the love of the game because they aren’t getting any scholarships. Not to mention that they love having an automatic bid for their league champ to certain NCAA playoff championships like March Madness. When an Ivy manages to occasionally pull off an upset in the first round like Yale did beating Baylor a few years ago, it’s bragging rights for the school and league.

I don’t blame the Ivy’s for their approach to athletes, but when Harvard brags that it sponsors 40+ varsity sports, it raises the question why Ivys feel the need to offer many sports that (1) no one else cares about except the athletes and their parents, (2) are sports that only the upper class plays (squash, sailing, crew, fencing, equestrian, perhaps lacrosse to some extent), and (3) why this results in ~20% of their student body as athletes and (4) why any admissions preference needs to given to athletes in certain sports that have the very marginal importance, if any (yes, some preference needs to be given to football to field a reasonable team but many other sports could consist of walk-ons who were truly admitted on their own or these sports should just be club-level sports and not varsity).

You’ll note that essentially all the sports targeted in the Varsity Blues scandal were “country-club” sports where ascertaining the real skill level of a purported athlete is extremely difficult because there is very little information in the form of rankings or objective evaluations available online. In contrast, high school athletes in sports like football, basketball, baseball, track, tennis, swimming have their metrics, times, rankings, videos, or scouting evaluations readily available online making it much easier for an admissions officer to verify that they are legitimate athletes.

131

^ Actually, elite research universities - and other research universities as well - are, indeed, “think thanks,” and University of Chicago is pretty clear that this is the case even at the undergraduate level. For that reason, development of the intellect remains the top priority there, and their selection criteria is “who would most flourish in this intellectual environment.” One may not agree with that criteria - for instance, “who would add the most value to society” might be judged to be a better criterion for undergraduate admission somewhere else. While there is overlap between these two stated criteria, especially as they pertain to the university’s mission to serve the public good, there are clearly differences as well. Once such difference would involve the purpose of having an athletic program on campus. UC, for instance, might be of the opinion that having a decent athletics department is crucial to attracting top scholars; however, as it’s not the purpose of a research university - a “think tank” - to develop “top” athletes, funding should be prioritized for scholarship rather than building up a D1 program.

132
  • Another reason might be that occasionally these student-athletes go pro. For instance, NBA, NFL and NHL always seem to have a few from Harvard at any given time. That has to score major points with the alums.
    • This is anecdotal but I've been told by Ivy parents with kids competing in D1 that the athletic dept. always manages to find (more) money if needed. Obviously that's not the same thing as an athletic scholarship but the family can always apply for "need based" financial aid, even if not strictly needed. My guess is that a very wealthy full-pay family wouldn't be given anything; however, an UMI family might find that the "need based" award is quite generous; perhaps more generous than if the student weren't a RA.
133

@JBStillFlying A research university is not a think tank. Sure, the kids are smart but they’re not (yet) putting their intellect to work for the public good. Semantics?

Elite universities are not “developing” athletes, they’re showcasing them. An important distinction.

134

^ @fencingmom - Disagree on both points.

Not sure what you are thinking of, but any R1 is going to be devoted to two things: research, and teaching. Whether those functions involve undergraduates or grad students. (To be clear, many LAC’s also involve the student body in research, even if primarily undergrads). You are coming up with some vague generalized notion that somehow undergraduate students are not on campus primarily for the academic education. And indeed, that is probably the case at some research universities; Hutchins and the trustees at Chicago certainly thought so back in 1939 (which is why they shut down the athletics program).

If elite universities were merely “showcasing” athletes there would be no reason for the amount of training and practice that many of these athletes undergo while in college. The professional circuit, for instance, is “straight out of college” as we know from the number that Stanford sends along in that direction. Ivies in particular will send as many as they can to compete for Team USA in various world and olympic competitions (even if those players don’t eventually turn pro).

135

@fencingmom -

You say U.'s are not thinktanks, and schools should select people “with the potential to add the most value to society.”

If we accept your rubric are true (and I have doubts there, but will leave them aside for now):

Are you attesting that athletes have the best potential to add value to society? Really? Now, athletes may possess qualities that could then serve society well (like fencers and their problem solving abilities, or soccer captains and their leadership capabilities), but if elite schools truly believed in your rubric, would athletes be accepted at the rate they are now?

If I was a selective school, and I wanted those with potential to add the most value to society, I’d look for the potentially great scientists, the great fact-finders (reporters), logical thinkers, entrepreneurs, budding governmental leaders, mathematicians, etc. Respectfully, athletes are far down the list of value-makers for society.

Again, there are some amazing fencers and rowers out there who possess qualities that can add tremendous value to society. Those students would be accepted. But if schools truly believed what you assert, the numbers of these athletes would greatly decrease on campus.

136

@JBStillFlying Of course everyone is on campus primarily for academic pursuits. Athletes just add to the ethos, they bring so many unique experiences to their classmates and possess a wide range of skills and characteristics that have contributed to their success. No one is an intellectual automaton! We just might have a difference of opinion here. I see your point, I just think the spectrum allows for more nuance than you do. Nuance is subtle. And interesting. But you have to see it, and appreciate it. Kind of like wine.

Just so you know, many athletes who are good enough to be recruited are already at the top of their respective fields before admittance. They do train on campus with the varsity team, but many retain relationships and training protocols with the coaches who brought them up. This is especially true on the east coast where NY is a fencing hub. Many IVY athletes have already competed on world teams and at the Olympics before their tenure (or concurrently) at those institutions. Don’t get me wrong, IVY coaches are great, and the athlete development certainly continues (especially in team sports) but, to use a bread analogy, the flavor is all in the starter. So yes, I think showcasing is the term.

Speaking of Stanford, I was told by a coach there that some prospective employers solely interview Stanford Div1 athletes (no, not for pro sports). Those choice students must have something other than point control or free throw percentages that are coveted in the broader market.

137

@fencingmom - let’s be serious, for every truly exceptional, nuanced potential nobel prize winning ivy athlete, there are scores of athletes whose main skill is being able to kick a ball or swing a racket very well, and has the basic SAT scores to meet the AI requirements. They’re at the school bc they are good at sports, and can help their team win in a middling D1 sports league.

This shows me a school with misaligned priorities, not the accumulation of nuanced, exceptional future world beaters.

If you want those with exceptional future promise and value to society, having D1 level athletes comprise 15-20% of the student body would not be the right percentage.

138

Regarding the “adding value to society” criterion and its cousin “making the world a better place” Former Provost Dan Diermeier was very clear in the recent Nightowl discussion “What are Universities For and Why do They Matter?” that this should NOT be the criterion for figuring out who should join a university community.

At the faculty level, a successful hire (or tenure grant) is generally considered to be someone who can advance the field in some way and contribute productively to the lively discussion, debate and exchange that transpire in an academic department. Whether they “add value” to society is not really a criterion, and that makes sense. Academics who choose to hit singles - working on or discussing only what’s “safe” or obvious instead of what’s intellectually engaging or challenging to them - probably won’t hit any home runs. Academic department reputations are built on the ideas generated (and the people who generate them). The “safe” path tends to be associated with the mediocre.

When choosing among candidates for PhD graduate school, departments tend to assess them on potential - to understand complex ideas and methods, to assist faculty in research, to have some original ideas and execute those to the level of a peer-reviewable work, to be contributors to a future academic department or research group, to change the field in some way some day, and so forth. That’s why the rec. letter from someone known in the field is so crucial to someone’s chances for acceptance.

When it comes to undergraduate programs, sometimes it seems there can be a disconnect between what universities are looking for here versus for grad school or faculty. Certainly the selected group can be quite diverse; while all will benefit from a college education, the large majority will not be going into academia. Nevertheless, the one standout criteria that UChicago professes to use is evidence of intellectual curiosity (engaged, lively mind, etc). The curriculum is designed to appeal to those with that attribute, and those who engage with the material and the discussion in the classroom will have the best chance of doing well. Clearly, some of these matriculants will be traditional “leader-types” who want to make the world a better place and know pretty well how to go about doing just that. UChicago welcomes these types, among others, and believes that they can benefit from the lively exchange of ideas that they will encounter during their four years.

When you look at the large breakthroughs that have improved human life - its longevity and quality - they largely have been developments that happen at universities. So universities don’t actually NEED to focus on “making the world a better place” since by their very mission, purpose and set-up, they are helping to do so anyway. Not everyone needs to focus on “adding value to society” in order for the university system as a whole to be doing so.

139

@JBStillFlying - i wonder how diermeier will do at vanderbilt (where he will soon be chancellor) - given their big D1 sports program and different set of undergrad values!

140
  • @fencingmom - the Harvard letter from Dean Claudine Gay was quite enlightening to me, especially this part:

“In embarking on this search, I had the unique privilege of diving deeply into one of the most beloved parts of our institution and hearing from the people who care about it most: our coaches, who have dedicated their lives to transformational leadership in sport; our staff, who have similarly dedicated their lives to Harvard’s mission of education through athletics; our alumni, who keep us true to our traditions as well as our aspirations; our student-athletes, whose intensity, commitment, and talent is a constant source of inspiration and hope for the future; and our faculty, who are committed to a transformative experience for all of our students. The conversations on campus and with athletics thought leaders around the country were eye-opening, reinforcing not only the singularly formative experience of sport, but also the complex issues ahead for intercollegiate athletics.”

This type of glowing description of the importance of athletics to the mission of a top research university simply won’t exist at UChicago. Not saying that Harvard is somehow flawed or misguided. They are about educating leaders, and clearly they view athletics as a crucial part of that education. That’s in large part why they work so hard to bring top athletes who have academic talent as well. UChicago is kind of the flip side: they work hard to bring in top intellects who have talent in athletics and/or other things.

  • No doubt the majority of athletes at most universities (not just the elite) don't choose (or make it to) a pro career. And yes, they would have an advantage in the job market, all else equal.
  • It's impossible to be an intellectual automatron, given the variety of subjects one can study. However, 100% of students at UChicago are expected to attend class. (not sure - does that make them automatrons?).
  • Agree that there is nuance, and that different schools tolerate or welcome a comprehensive program of athletics to different degrees. UChicago would say their decision to build the D3 rep has been a resounding success as it has helped them matriculate even better academic talent than historically.
  • As to connections to your collegiate vs prior coaches, YMMV. Fencing clearly so. Same perhaps with tennis, golf, swim(?). Team sports might be different (football, basketball, baseball, hockey, lacrosse)? College coach seems far more important to one's athletic career there.