Up thread, @marlowe1 asks me: “What you are really after is the eradication of all that is traditional or distinctive in Chicago education and students because you have a loathing for them. Have I got you right?”
That’s completely incorrect. What I’m really after is for Chicago to return to its apex predator status, no matter the culture of the College (bookish, athletic, whatever). In 1920, the 3 most powerful american universities were harvard, yale, and chicago (with some rising publics gaining steam). In 2020, Harvard and Yale are still up there, Chicago is not.
There’s no question Chicago has lost wealth and standing over the past century. I want it back.
If great books and eggheads (and strange Hutchins-era plans, like admitting 15 yo high schoolers, reducing the BA degree to 2 years and granting a 4 yr grad a masters, etc.) meant that Chicago would maintain its apex status, I’d have no problem with it.
The lens of history shows us, however, that many of Hutchins’ plans led to bigtime attrition of Chicago’s standing. Every university president ultimately has one goal: to burnish the institution’s eminence. Hutchins failed even when he was handed a loaded deck. That, to me, is what’s unforgivable.
(And, to bring this back to the OP’s point, if the road back includes recruiting the children of texas oil magnates, well then, hook 'em. If it means embracing the “Academic Ivy” position, do it. My basic premise is, being the apex predator takes money - lots and lots and lots of money. Being the dominant - or near-dominant - player across as many fields as possible, medicine, law, humanities, social sciences, business, etc. etc. takes a lot of cash. What gets us there?)