@monydad et al: The ME major actually offers three tracks: biology, chemical/soft materials, and quantum. The way to measure the success of this program of study would be to observe the outcomes. It’s a new major, so this will be something that will become more observable with time. However, from what I’m learning, some fields of engineering at the advanced (ie graduate) level of study don’t even require an “engineering” undergraduate degree (and certainly not an “ABET-accredited” program). Those grad students can pick up whatever they need in “engineering” in the course of their graduate studies. What graduate admission committees are looking for is sufficient amounts of Physics, Math, Chem, Bio, etc. (whatever is relevant to the particular program). This will likely depend on specific field; for aeronautical, for instance, the ME major gives you the sufficient STM preparation, and you can pick up whatever you need in “E” when you are admitted to graduate study.
UChicago isn’t interested in “conventional” fields of engineering, particularly at the undergraduate level. Their focus is to graduate scholars who can think of engineering problems at the highest levels. In that sense, it’s very comparable to MIT. However, if you are a top STEM kid who wouldn’t care for the more broad-based liberal-arts focus of UChicago (particularly the heavy reading and writing requirements) then MIT or similar might be more your taste. It all comes down to “fit.”
@Cue7 - It’s easy to lay “all” the blame on Hutchins; however, things like the Great Depression (which happened pretty early in the university’s history and right after Hutchins was sworn in) and then WWII were also huge factors in the draining of resources. Hutchins was a more a radical experimenter than a prudent financial manager; it’s possible that the university today would be more “financially healthy” had someone else been at the helm at that time, but it would also be a different undergraduate program than current. In any case, the fact that you are applauding the university’s vigorous quest for money should help you connect a few dots: ED helps build up a happy alumnae network 
Also, Cue, your comments at #132 underscore the importance of “fit.” Like for any college, the experience at UChicago is what you make of it, but the particular intensity and pace isn’t for everyone - even the smart guys. Despite the positive changes that they have made over the years, the place is still a “grind” and attracts those who are seeking that experience, see the benefits of it and put it to good use once they graduate. To repeat what Marlowe has been saying throughout these threads, the experience speaks particularly to those who are “UChicago-Types.” One can still benefit over the long run w/o having enjoyed the place, but IMO that does risk a whole lot of negative impressions down the road. Can’t help but think that those vibes are not lost on prospective employers, grad admission committees and the like. Without deliberately attempting to circle back to sing the praises of ED at UChicago, I do think there’s a very specific reason why Nondorf and Boyer wanted to institute it (and to admit so many from those pools) that has nothing to do with solving financial issues in the short-term.