- Cue, can you please explain where Ted O'Neill had one outside-the-box thought as Admissions Dean? Not trying to dump on the guy and you've no doubt met him personally. However, he completely bought into - and perpetuated - a strikingly false narrative about admissions at the College, despite the contradictory data on outcomes. We actually have a pretty good description of your class (Class of 2000) from Kirp's book to support this:
"In 1996, the university admitted 62 percent of those who applied-more than three out of five, as compared to one in eight at Harvard and Princeton. Loyalists explained away this lack of selectivity as the result of the applicants’ self-selection, contending that only those who wanted Chicago’s rigor actually applied, but in fact fewer than a third of those who were accepted opted to enroll.
The University of Chicago never stopped attracting some of the nation’s smartest youth-the class of 2000 included three Rhodes scholars and a Marshall scholar-but it wasn’t attracting enough of them. Too many students, less qualified and less motivated, wound up on campus only because Chicago was their ‘safe’ school. Those two camps, the self-styled styled ‘brainiacs’ and the Northwestern University wannabees, inhabited distinct academic worlds within the precincts of the university. This didn’t happen by accident. Until the late 1990s, a quaint campus custom called ‘sleep-out’ effectively separated the most motivated undergraduates, who camped out to be assured of getting the best professors, from the rest, who took the leftovers."
David L. KIRP. Shakespeare, Einstein, and the Bottom Line (Kindle Locations 590-591). Kindle Edition.
- You have just confirmed that you were in that 2nd camp. Both you and Kirp (who writes much closer to the "Old Chicago" time period than I can ever hope to remember) have validated the recollections I've made on other threads - that there were two groups of students at UChicago. Some, similar to Marlowe's memories from back in the 1960's, thoroughly enjoyed their time and were enriched by the experience. They held Chicago up to a very "pure" standard (Reed in their day) but they basically still flourished. The other group did not - both in Marlowe's day and in yours. This is primarily a question of "Fit" - as I've also noted on other threads.
- The bad fit during O'Neill's time happened because he and others opted for the "Purity Myth" - that only a select group applied to UC in the first place and all others wouldn't be a good match - over evolving admissions practices at the time. O'Neill was well known in admissions circles and had been in the office of Admissions for eight or nine years before being named Dean, a position he held for several years before the arrival of Sonnenschein. He was no neophyte. His predecessors in the 50's actually did more outreach, so that wasn't exactly a new practice. Perhaps he didn't have access to - or didn't like - all those newfangled tools of analysis? But that's odd, because rejecting modern forms of analysis contradict a genuinely "pure" UChicago approach to problem solving. Or maybe figured the type to apply would be a raw chaser of prestige? Or maybe he like his job and his methods so well that increasing volume seemed distressing? Who knows what his reasons were?
-Anyway, it’s this “Purity Myth Groupthink” that makes me view O’Neill as a version of Organization Man.
- You ask in #170 "What would have been the harm?" had UChicago simply continued with a Behnke/O'Neill - style of admissions practice, replacing them when they retired in 2008? Answer: they did continue with that. Nondorf is a younger more energetic version of Behnke who also happened to be particularly well-suited for UChicago.
A few more points:
- Geoff Stone has been at UC since 1973 and graduated from the law school there (editor of Law Review). He has served as Dean of the Law School and Provost of the University. He may have "cut his teeth" at Penn with his undergrad degree, but his graduate and long faculty experience at Chicago puts him in squarely in that corner of the ring.
- Sonnenschein was a renowned economist while at Princeton and certainly didn't "cut his teeth" there LOL. He's as freshwater as they come (general equilibrium theory, after all). I've heard rumors that he jumped at the chance to join the faculty at Chicago (all presidents and provosts will have a home department) and so I'm not too sure he was all that sad to leave admin. He still had a good 10-15 years of academic work left in him when he stepped down and happily remained at UChicago till his retirement. And is there still! (same with Hannah Gray!).
- I have no problem with what Sonnenschein actually said or with his level of directness. He's not an unpleasant person in the least. It had to be done and his letter was very straightforward, even if it offended the fossilized. The reporting was very skewed on this issue so it was easy to be misled - we certainly were (I too suffered from fossilization). I think had I read his actual letter I would have thought differently, but it's hard to know that in truth. I'm on record - and I'll say it again - that Sonnenschein saved the university from falling into mediocrity. He is the reason that my kids - and a whole of other parent's kids - attend such an outstanding institution today.
- I graduated (just) prior to Sonnenschein's tenure. Cue, what do you personally recall from the news he would share with the university community? What was your/Maroon's response to his letter?