The "New" UChicago

KnowThyself
Fri, 08 Jun 2012 02:30:32 +0000

Continued @ JHS,

In your opinion, clearly, you think that Abbott’s statements were a “coherent insider’s account” of “things that the faculty sees as problems.” However, you are sugarcoating his words. Naturally, a high-up faculty member of a prestigious university would want to portray ‘major problems’ and then solve them like a hero. However, the results of the administration’s ‘problem-solving’ are yet to be seen in the future of higher education. Furthermore, because he is your kid’s “once and future recommenders,” one can see why you think so highly of him, but this does not mean that one should think highly of him generally.

You say that I am cherry-picking statements out of context, but in my initial statement I did not even mention Abbott’s name, nor was it intended to be strictly personal against him, nor were my statements unclear, irrelevant, or out-of-context. I was taking issue with the greater trend in higher education that led to the “New UChicago.” You decided to name-drop, to make your argument seem more impressive. And in doing so you artificially inflated your argument, as if UChicago is a wonderful and charming place with squirrels that are tame and respond lovingly to petting.

I reject your claims, rather cliche even for UChicago, that I have to be “a lot more clear about what [I’m] saying” or that I must “pay attention to what [my] source material is saying.” You seem to be suggesting, blindly, as does UChicago’s marketing materials, that anyone who has not received an education and been specially endorsed by such an institution has not truly learned how to make arguments or how to think clearly. And to suggest this is false. Very, very, very false.

You say: “There is nothing in Abbott’s discussion about higher education is seeking to profit off people’s desire to find and display their own intellectualism.” And here you show, forgive me, how little you understood that excerpt which you yourself quoted. Abbott /all but/ says this:

"[In the past] the University of Chicago pursued…a ‘spend down’ strategy… Basically, the university spent a substantial chunk of its endowment being an extremely unusual place [i.e. an ‘intellectual heaven’]… Wildly exciting, wildly alive [and other subjective, hyperbolic comments /in favor/ of said intellectual heaven]…It was also going broke… We [[implied:] have to make money] off of pure intellectualism [so as not to pursue a ‘spend down’ strategy i.e. going broke]."

So, to analyze: The university was not making money off of intellectualism. They learned the hard way that they needed to make money [because generally people won’t pay for you to do ‘whatever the hell you want’]. As a result, they are trying to ‘spin’ their formerly ill-fated intellectualism as a valuable commodity (to make money), with the help of their hedge-fund donators (paying for advertising, new buildings). Savvy? But “pure intellectualism” isn’t really worth anything in the first place…

And, above, I’ve made the argument that this approach isn’t necessarily going to win out, because they’re still selling the same [damn] thing, just under a new mask. And this is the same with all of higher education: Same product, new “spin” for the new decade. But I say: It’s the genuinely new products that win out (technology). I think this should be pretty clear…

Finally, I will say that I have indeed met Mr. Abbott and even taken a class with him. You seem to be assuming and hoping that I haven’t met him if that artificially strengthens your argument, but you are wrong. He’s a nice enough guy, but you are way exaggerating the aura that his personality should impress into a coldly rational and honest appraisal. Sorry to say, but he’s actually pretty lazy–and this, given his authority, is concerning–and he even suggests that his students “teach themselves the material.” Students, naive and ambitious early 20s, are in awe that this guy understands the system so well that he doesn’t even have to teach and that they’ve got to pick up the slack so that they can be like him some day. In short, students take this to be one of his interesting and admirable quirks, and therefore they are entertained and enthused. In retrospect, however, and especially given the current economy and the need to learn things that will be useful for one’s fellows, Abbott and the university which he plays a leading role in guiding, in my humble opinion, are only a giant money pit. The university was only too glad to pick up this, as you say, “patrician WASP” to bolster its institutional CV and attract others like him. But he’s hardly a genuinely valuable asset, nor is “pure intellectualism.” And you can suck up to this institution all you like. What you get out of it for the long term will really be up to them and not so much reflective of the work and value that you offer. Future students, be advised!

JHS, I am truly very glad for you and your kid if you feel you are getting your money’s worth and a ‘world-class education.’ However, only time will tell whether this ‘education’ yields anything but a momentary pleasure. Yet, make no mistake, I truly hope that we all can win in the end.