<p>Agree with most of what JHS says above. I spent some time at Penn, and don’t think that it’s a model for Chicago. One of the most important things that’s right about Chicago is that students share a fairly common (and quite rigorous) educational experience. Most members of the Class of 2014 likely own a well-thumbed volume of the Marx-Engels Reader, just like members of the Class of 1984 probably did. Similarly, at a multi-generational UofC alumni event, a mention of Kant, Weber, or Durkheim will generate a flash of recognition, even if it’s accompanied by a groan. In this regard, not having an undergraduate programs in business, engineering, nursing, hotel management, etc., is a positive virtue. Also a virtue, in my view, to continue to pursue athletics at a (suitably) low level. Athletic success comes at the expense of academic quality—any truthful person would have to admit that the bar must be lowered to ramp up in athletics. For instance, the whole purpose of the Ivies’ Academic Index concept is to ensure that the bar isn’t set too low. Similarly, touchstones like Jimmy’s Woodlawn Tap, Smokey Joe’s, etc., are ancillary and, at best, reinforce the experience (rather than create it). Not so sure, however, that Chicago “has tons of space.” Concomitant with its growth in size and popularity, Chicago seems to have struggled to find places to put undergraduates—some irony that College houses are in the New Graduate Resident Hall. I think that it is right to say that Chicago will never have a four-year house system that’s analogous to those at Yale/Harvard. It’s something of a historical artifact that Chicago is “neither fish nor fowl” when it comes to College housing—it has always been somewhere between a city commuter school (e.g. NYU, GWU) and a residential college school, with Yale as the most noteworthy example. May have something to do with the original conception of the University as one based on the German model—the College was originally something of a ne’er do-well stepchild of the University, while all the other peer schools began as colleges that subsequently grew into mighty universities. In any event, my view is that the key determinants of greatness (and success in wooing the very best students) boil down to two key factors: (1) the type and quality of the academic experience, and; (2) the personal relationships formed in housing (which, in turn, drive “spirit” and alumni fondness for their college experience). On item (1), it seems that Chicago takes a back seat to no one, even those that are currently shown more love in various ranking methodologies. Item (2) is where the university could make up some ground. While Chicago will never have a set of college quadrangles under the benevolent gaze of Harkness Tower, the administration’s current efforts to build more on-campus housing options exclusively for undergraduates (and not turfing them into I-House, etc.) seems to be a good step in the right direction. </p>