I thought Diermeier was sounding more than a little bit like @MohnGedachtnis when Mohn was saying a while back in another thread that a Chicago education “stands for something different from other hyperselective universities”, which he went on to characterize as including “intellectual rigor, constant debate regardless of subject matter silos based on shared intellectual experience and shared understanding of how academic debate should be conducted, and a commitment to classroom learning as the most important element in a college education.” I applaud and accept those remarks, but I don’t know how to reconcile them with his present statement that differences between Chicago and other schools “barely exist now” and that “the type of student Chicago is looking for is no different from the universities with which it completes.”
We are all prone to overstatement, but this really violates the law of the excluded middle. A thing cannot both be and not be. Chicago cannot both be different and be no different. Even in the post above Mohn allows that Harvard would like more Chicago types (but I thought he was saying that that type does not exist) because “it’s no fun to teach empty classrooms or students who don’t care to be taught.” It’s not a small indicia of the character of an educational institution that its students are known for making classroom study the main event (Chicago) as against other pursuits (Harvard). There is more to the Chicago type than showing up for class, but that’s a pretty good litmus test of type.
Mohn, you also make a pretty sharp distinction between Brown students and Chicago students on the Brown forum. I won’t again quote your words back to you except to say you were highly convincing to me in expounding that difference even if the Brownites weren’t buying it. In your benign Dr. Jekyll persona you sounded a heck of a lot like former Provost Diermeir.