The "New" UChicago

JHS
Fri, 18 May 2012 09:28:11 +0000

Know:

The part of the interview I quoted was pertinent because this is a thread about the “‘New’ UChicago”, and he was giving a pretty coherent insider’s account of the long-term trend that has produced the changes this thread is about, including things that the faculty sees as problems. You were cherry-picking statements out of context in the manner of attack ads to support some thesis of your own that has nothing to do with Abbott, really.

You are free to do that, of course, but to do it effectively you have to be a lot more clear about what you are trying to say, and you have to pay a little more attention to what your source material is actually saying. For example, there’s nothing in Abbott’s discussion about higher education is seeking to make a profit off people’s desire to find and display their own intellectualism. There IS a discussion about how a university can’t overspend its revenue for decades and expect to survive, but that’s not the same thing. And what he’s saying at the end is that students should feel more free to pursue things that interest them in college, rather than what they think the job market wants, because most of what the job market wants is accomplished in the selection process at elite universities. Guess what? That’s completely true. (And it’s hardly an original insight, either.)

Abbott is also not saying anything shocking or new in describing lecturing to large classes in terms of performance. Have you ever seen a great lecturer at work? The fact that great lecturers are great performers does not remotely mean that they aren’t great educators, too – “great performers” and “great educators” are different sets, but there is considerable overlap between them. And Abbott was saying that early in his career he learned that being an effective performer didn’t guarantee that students were learning, and that he had to pay attention to both things – is that something you disagree with?

As for Abbott – he’s a big deal in the world of Sociology, especially Sociology of Education, although that hardly makes him a big deal in the world in general. He’s about 60, and I suspect he’s something of a dinosaur in a field where patrician WASPs are pretty rare now. And, as the article notes, he has a very important role within the University of Chicago, in terms of setting the University’s long-term strategies, things like what to spend money on and what to cut back.

I know he’s a fabulous teacher, both by general reputation and by reports from one of my kids, who took two classes with him. One of them was a lecture course, and the other was a seminar on research for 15 or so senior sociology majors (who had all previously taken several survey courses on research methods). At the end of the quarter he offered to continue the seminar for an additional quarter since he was enjoying it and the students were, too. So, he continued to meet with them weekly, give them assignments, etc. (but no grades). I have never heard of anything like that – it was magical, and meant the world to my kid. (Abbott is also one of that kid’s once and future recommenders for graduate programs, too.)

I have met Abbott a couple of times with my kid, and found him extremely charming – gracious, entertaining, and pompous in a professorial way.