<p>Thanks for all of the great, thoughtful replies! JHS, you do a good job of putting the historical context behind Chicago’s changes in better perspective, and I appreciate that.</p>
<p>I have to admit, I attended Chicago during the height of the Sonnenschein controversy, and any hint of “changing in the direction of fabulously successful institutions” raised significant campus furor. Yet pretty much all of the positive changes associated with the College’s rise remain embedded in Sonnenschein’s policies (a better endowment, the ratner center, new dormitories and a larger student body, “less” of a core, etc.). </p>
<p>What is also interesting to note is that, in a footnote, Karabel contends that “there may have been considerable truth to (Harvard’s) analysis of the cost to a major university of moving too far toward the pole of intellectualism. Whereas in 1930 the U of C endowment was 56 percent of Harvard’s… it stands at 18 percent today.” Chicago lagged behind in production of CEOs, in post-war rankings of social status of American universities, and in general financial strength. As Karabel goes on to note, the “issues [Harvard] raised about the University of Chicago in 1952 resurfaced more than 40 years later during the presidency of Hugo Sonnenschein…”</p>
<p>This is perhaps overly cynical of me (and perhaps this is a result of having attended Chicago when it was not the more congenial institution that it is today), but I see Chicago’s changes as a concession to (more or less) the Harvard model of admissions, and the failure of the hyperintellectual model (outside of a few small liberal arts colleges).</p>
<p>In short, while I would like to read a book specifically on the history of Chicago’s admissions (and I plan on reading “Stagg’s University: The Rise, Decline, and Fall of Big-Time Football at Chicago”), Karabel’s book hints at - and these posts point to it more strongly here - the traditional model of admissions at Chicago has failed, and Chicago has now adopted - with minor modulations - the “Big Three” model that became the benchmark by the 1970s. </p>
<p>Now, don’t get me wrong - I think Chicago is a better place today because of Sonnenschein’s policies. The admissions office is certainly not transparent about its role as essentially the caretaker of the Sonnenschein plan. Nevertheless, in reading Karabel’s book and in thinking about Chicago’s current policies, I tend to think this is the institutional “result” Chicago would like to see (an intellectual but generally more well-adjusted student body, one that can more comfortably fit all the other needs Chicago now has - fundraising, elevating its own status, etc.). </p>
<p>JHS, just to make another point clear, I don’t think this is “sinister.” Rather, it’s a logical step that Chicago needed to make to survive, and one where even the resignation of a president and consistent alumni protest could not stop. The Harvard model bestows considerable material success onto a university, and Chicago has done well in taking that model and modulating it to fit its own institutional needs.</p>