UChicago Braces for $220M Deficit

Colleges & Universities University of Chicago
161

@JBStillFlying - yes, establishing categories can be a simplification, but here is what I mean:

I categorize Gray or O’Neill as “Old” Chicago for this reason: they ostensibly had the very same data that Sonnenschein and Behnke accessed, no? Gray saw the same financials in the early 90s that Sonnenschein assessed in the mid-90s? And O’Neill saw the same data and stats that Behnke saw in 97?

Here is the difference between the Old and the New: The Old (like Gray) saw that data and perhaps wanted to make some change (like increasing the size of the College by 500 students), but the new saw a bona fide crisis. Sonnenschein saw the financials and decided an overhaul was necessary. Behnke saw a need to pump up admissions.

Does that sound fair to you?

Also, I want to note the pointedly derisive language you use in your categorizations of “innovative” vs. “fossilized.” Calling anyone a “fossil” seems callous indeed - especially when, despite what you assert, Gray, O’Neill, etc. were critical leaders in the University’s history. Your disrespect of them is unfortunate indeed.

Finally, I have to ask, in all the accounts I can see of Sonnenshein, of Randel, and of Zimmer, “innovate” isn’t what comes to mind. What is innovative about heeding market forces? They are all practical leaders (and Randel and Zimmer have good managerial sense), but innovative?

I don’t know if I’d call heeding McKinsey and a corporate Board of Trustees innovative. Again, this was all necessary, but does such practicality deserve such praise at a place like Chicago?

How do these descriptors sound to you, for someone like Sonnenschein or Zimmer:

Pragmatic, Market-Aware, Realist, Cynical, Severe, Calculated

Those terms and a hundred others come to mind before I think “innovative.”

162

As Gray laid the groundwork for Sonnenschein, I would not call her a “fossil” by any means. Gray is not only one of the most influential university presidents in modern times, she goes down as one of the great ones at UChicago. It’s important not to view the College as the University. The College is one division that, at the time, happened to be under-utilized. I would predict that Gray was 100% on board with the changes that Sonnenschein wanted to make; her appointment of Boyer right before she retired spoke volumes, as it turns out. Gray has been one of the most vocal proponents for free expression at the university. As a renown scholar of history, she’s no slouch on the academic side either.

In short, Gray was an innovator. You only need to look at the work she did in her 15 years at the university when it was a research powerhouse. Also of note, she spent time at NU and Harvard so was by no means living in the UC insular bubble that existed in those days among much of the faculty and admin.

O’Neill, on the other hand, is a different story - an entrenched (insulated?) administrator any way you look at it. There is obviously much to like personally, but he was at least part of the problem that Sonnenschein was brought in to fix. The results under O’Neill speak for themselves. He joined College Admissions in 1981 and was appointed Dean in 1989. In that time, and up till his contemporary Michael Behnke was brought in to turn things around within a year, O’Neill presided over a truly mediocre admissions record. Clearly, the College was an awkward subject for decades at the university; this was a LONG standing issue. But O’Neill didn’t help, so he really can’t be seen as more than part of the fossilization that began after Hutchins and continued for quite a spell. However, in all fairness, his personalized style of admissions made him famous among his contemporaries and it is to be hoped that he influenced not only admissions offices everywhere, but - at UChicago - the admissions practices they use today.

Perhaps, Cue, you are happier with “paralyzed” rather than fossilized? I’m cool with either. This is an objective assessment, btw - no one at the university (especially those “cynical, pragmatic and calculated” New-Guard types that you’ve described) is above a critique.

Where is your evidence that the “new guard” just follows along with whatever the trustees decide? Trustees rely heavily on the university’s executive team for advice and for ideas as to how to carry out the vision that they have for the university (including timing). They also hire the pres. Other than give oodles to the university itself, that’s probably their most important job. BTW, Gray, Provost Casper and the trustees were WELL AWARE of the financial crisis. They just didn’t share it all with Sonnenschein because they didn’t want to scare him away :wink:

IMO, there has been plenty of evidence of innovation in the past 20+ years. If “heeding market forces” was all that it took to build the College and the endowment, Cue, what does that say about O’Neill and the “old guard”? :wink: The university’s past is filled with battles between the “purists” and the “bottom-liners.” Sonnenschein was perhaps the most forceful of the latter category. But he was by no means the first one in the university’s history. So you are probably right: “innovator” may not be the best descriptor either.

So how about this: “butt-kicker.” And here is a quick description of the last 90 years: In Hutchins day, the “butt-kicker” was the “purist” and the “paralyzed” were the “bottom-liners.” But that switched after his retirement, and it was “pure and paralyzed” for decades even as more “purist but butt-kicker-wannabee” tpes such as Gray tried to turn it around. Then Sonnenschein, the “bottom-liner” came in and kicked major butt, followed by Randal (who was nicer about it). Now, under Zimmer, I see a good blend of “pure” and “bottom-line” and even some “butt-kicking” where necessary. It’s a nice place to be.

163
  • marlowe, what's interesting about the Kirp book that Cue mentioned upthread is that he verifies what you and I have been saying about the College historically: that there were two different groups of undergraduates. One group would camp out in frigid weather to get their first choice of classes and profs. They were the ones who thrived in the culture. "Die hards" I call them. The other were those who truly didn't care for the experience. They certainly weren't camping out. They also tended to get whatever selection was left over, and probably didn't care for those either. Cue seemed to know several of this group, from what he's described.
  • I do wonder how much of the O'Neil admissions office (including his predecessor) contributed to targeting more modest income kids. Of course, we are a generation from the 80's-90's when I was on campus as a graduate student, and there is no doubt that higher education among my generation has propelled the next into higher wealth and more opportunity. But I think it's a given that selective universities were becoming wealthier even during my time back then. UChicago was no doubt behind the ball on that fact, but the small set of applications perpetuated the problem. They had to break that cycle in order to attract more "top" kids (who also happened to have more wealth). Doubling the size of the College and increasing selectivity 8-score or so went a long way toward resolving this problem.
164

@JBStillFlying - you’ve met or seen sonnenschein and zimmer, right? I am laughing really hard at the description of them as “butt-kickers”! I love the visual of a buttoned up, corporate administrator as a “butt kicker.”

Also, do you find Kimpton or beadle or others to be “fossils” because they didn’t push as hard to follow the market forces?

Typically, U leadership works well when the board and the president are on the same page. They work together. Sonnenschein was on the same page for a while, but by the time he resigned, no one on the board resisted. Zimmer (in a fairly corporate, market aware way) has been on the same pg w the board for many years. And his tenute has been extended because of it.

It’s interesting that you find the “butt kickers” to be, what I would call, consummate Organization Men. Sonnenschein, randel, and zimmer strike me as organization men.

If you want to find the “butt kickers” - wouldn’t you prefer to find those who rail against the system? Wouldn’t you be more likely to find “butt kickers” admins at the iconoclast institutions - bard or reed or st johns?

Wooing corporate donors and focusing on us news doesn’t seem like “butt kicking” to me…

165

Cue you are, IMO, mischaracterizing Sonnenschein. You should read the Boyer book to get some additional perspective to add to your undergraduate memories.

While Sonnenschein was hired to build on the work of Hannah Gray and to provide much-needed attention to the bottom line, he was NOT hired specifically to increase the size of the college or to revise the Core (something he personally didn’t do but obviously supported despite the bad PR). The realization that this was the prudent course of action - indeed, the ONY course if UChicago was to remain a great university - was Sonnenschein’s. It’s obvious now but I’m sure you remember how absolutely shocking the news was to pretty much everyone including alums. Now we see how wise those decisions were but they were anything but obvious at the time. A LOT of stakeholders were furious. The trustees hadn’t invited in any of these radical changes. They had to be convinced regarding the expansion and the Core was simply bad PR as far as they were concerned. It was a painful - but necessary - adjustment and the university is a LOT stronger because of it. We owe a lot to Sonnenschein because he took a lot of grief for making the right call and sticking with it. And of course it merely all continued with the subsequent administrations because by then the trustees could see the benefits.

And, gee you must not be remembering this . . . the butt-kickers did, indeed, rail against “the system.” The university was deeply beholden to a strong faction of faculty and admin who opposed these measures. You don’t remember Sonnenschein’s letter, hmm? BTW, that is, indeed, kickers with an S because he was assisted by Geoff Stone (then his hand-picked provost).

I didn’t follow US News too well in those days . . . how did UChicago do during Sonnenschein’s time?

Maybe you are happy with “change-maker?” Although as you were presumably there and surely must remember some of this (I feel a bit awkward reminding you of these events all of the time . . . ) you should be able to come up with descriptors that are more appropriate to your actual experience and your subsequent reflections as an alum. Please share them, but I warn you that Organization Man simply won’t do for Sonnenschein. O’Neill? Different story. Now THERE is your Organization Man :wink:

166

I’m kind of curious, Cue, as to whether you recognize the validity of that division of the student body at the U of C of your day - as between the “die-hards” and the “not-signed-on”? It certainly existed in my day, and it seemed to me to be the single factor that most determined one’s quality of life and happiness. Even in my day, however, some of the die-hards would hold up Reed and St. John’s as the true mecca. Most of us saw Chicago even then as having put water in that purist wine. And even then there were those who wanted to say that because Chicago was not Reed, it had no distinct character at all. Using a certain type of perfection as a stick with which to beat the good is an old rhetorical ploy. So, come clean, did you camp out overnight in order to get the courses from the profs who were dearest to your heart?

167

Marlowe, you seem to have this obsession with schools like Reed and St John’s. If that’s the kind of college experience you desire, you are certainly entitled to your opinion but the vast majority of top students today want nothing to do with schools like those and for good reason in my opinion.

Not that those schools don’t offer a stimulating education, but what you regard as nirvana, others (vast others) regard as cults.

168

Agreed. Reed, with it’s 17% yield, just isn’t in the same world as U Chicago anymore. It’s clearly not the first choice for many.

169

@JBStillFlying - how’s this - Sonnenschein brought “the organization” to Chicago. I’d agree if you called O’Neill an “Old” Chicago man, but Chicago, in those days, was about as far from the “organization” as you could get. Do you really see O’Neill as an Organization Man - a pinnacle of Whyte’s Corporate america? Do you see “old” Chicago as the pinnacle of market values, as espoused by Organization Men… really? How would you classify Sahlins and Abbott and Sinaiko? Organization men as well?

Let’s be serious, again, Sonnenschein and Stone cut their teeth at Princeton and Wharton, and brought those views to leading Chicago. And the P & W views are wildly successful - why wouldn’t Chicago be the same, with its raw materials?

Also, I’m not sure when you were at Chicago for grad school, but as you may recall, Sonneschein was just as reviled for his execution. Remember that Randel actually sustained the pace of Sonnenschein’s changes (and, actually, increased some of them) without the same level of conflict.

Here’s a good example: I believe under Randel, Chicago built the (fairly ugly) Max Palevsky Commons near the Reg. Randel, being who he was, got this done with little fanfare or pushback. Sonnenschein, given his approach and heavy-handedness (remember, even profs said “he broadcasts, but does not receive”) would’ve gotten a lot more flack.

It wasn’t just that Sonnenschein made the right call and stuck with it… it was the way he executed his vision that rankled so many. There’s a reason Randel and Zimmer have endured no such conflict although they’ve stayed (or amplified) the course. As I recall, everything with Sonnenschein was a battle, because of his style.

Also, US News under Sonnenschein was a mixed bag, but, here’s a little history for you: Chicago’s US News ranking jumped (from 15 to 9) after Behnke, Boyer, and an Assoc. Provost went to the US News headquarters to meet with the rankings staff. Apparently, Chicago “misrepresented” some data to US News, and also could make some easy fixes (capping some classes at 19 rather than 20). Ever since that point, Chicago has been in the top 10.

Talk about innovating and thinking outside the box by these butt kickers, eh?

https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2006/10/2/u-of-c-jumps-to-ninth-in-us-news-rankings/

@marlowe1 - I avoided entirely camping out for classes and (gasp!) Scav as well.

170

Also, as a thought experiment, what would Chicago look like if the investment and focus on the College’s change was less intense? Let’s say the College capped expansion at ~5500 (rather than 7000), made more modest investments in dorms, gyms, etc., and it’s ranking was, say, 13th rather than 6th.

Let’s also say the admins, instead of falling in line with peers and making a pilgrimage to U.S. News, continued to shrug at the rankings.

Let’s say also O’Neill and Behnke stayed on, and the admissions process wasn’t pumped on steroids.

In short, what would the College look like? The applicant boom in the 90s and 2000s would still buoy Chicago (as it did, say, Reed). If a place like Reed has a 30% accept rate, is it feasible to think Chicago would, right now, probably have a 15-20% accept rate, and a 40-50% yield?

What would the harm have been? The market for top schools is so intense I doubt Chicago would’ve spub into the backwater. Would it be doom and gloom in Hyde Park these days, but for the shining lights of Nondorf and crew?

171

@Zoom10 at #167 and @Mwfan at #168 - um, you guys missed the entire point of Marlowe’s (and Cue’s) references to those schools.

172

Cue, for a university renowned as the intellectual defender of free markets, why do you seem to be conflicted with the concept of market values? Instead of pontificating endlessly about various misguided administrators who nearly tanked the university, perhaps you should spend more time thanking the Chicago School of Economics and luminaries like Milton Friedman, Gary Becker, and Eugene Fama for sustaining the university’s eminence in spite of the mistakes of Hutchins and others.

173

@Zoom10 and @Mwfan1921 , you didn’t quite get the point of my reference to Reed and St. John’s. Cue had thrown them in our face as being true idiosyncratic schools as compared with Chicago. I was not accepting that rhetorical ploy on his part. l respect both of them, but I don’t hold them up as being other than what they are - tiny pure kingdoms with a very limited appeal. Interestingly, a fellow named Stringfellow Barr was brought to Chicago by Hutchins to create something like a St. John’s great books program. He ran into such resistance from the faculty that he decamped after a couple of years for St. John’s itself. From there he invited Hutchins to join him and become President of the College. Hutchins declined. The place was too pure even for him.

@Cue7 , pardon me if I say that you sound like you were one of the “not-signed-on” of your day. Have never heard you say anything about courses or profs, or even your concentration, though much about the misery you endured. You stuck it out, l’ll give you credit for that, and in your way you have stayed engaged. But your perspective is skewed.

174

@marlowe1 - everyone’s perspective is skewed, no?

Also, I use Reed and St. John’s not as ploys, but as examples of schools that can avoid market segmentation, and can still enjoy healthy metrics and solid finances.

@Zoom10 - see the above comment. Note, I don’t decry market values at all - Chicago made the necessary and predictable changes it needed to, given market forces. I also agree it’s primary purpose is to increase its eminence.

But I don’t herald the process or the climate. I’m not about to laud market-aware administrators as “butt kickers” and rock stars. Do you see the Chicago free market boys and their ideas as areas that deserve more of our gratitude?

I can understand the power of free market theory, but anyone who wants to extend more commendation for this fairly cynical approach puzzles me.

But, maybe next I should thank Darwin?

175

Perhaps I should have added after the word “skewed” the words “by your unhappy experience at a place whose educational culture you were not suited for.” No shame in that. But hating a place isn’t a good perspective from which to describe it, much less improve it.

And what’s with praising Reed and St. John’s? If you hated Chicago you would have loathed with a deep and unmitigated passion either of those places. But there’s really no school you won’t praise if it will help you score a point against your alma mater. I doubt I’m the only one here baffled by your varying positions. There is really only one constant.

176

@marlowe1 - why must their be consistency in my position w\r Chicago, over time?

I’d equate my “position” to be akin to a pendulum - in the 90s, I did indeed look with envy at places like Harvard and Yale, Duke and Stanford.

But, zoom forward 25 years, post Varsity Blues and post Harvard law suit, post skull and bones controversy and post US News rankings scandals, and my position has changed.

Now, I cast spite at this great, perverse machine of elite higher ed. The system, it seems, has grown only crazier over the past couple decades, and no one is happy. Ask AOs like the ones interviewed in the NY Times Trinity College article, or ask scores of administrators who are both part of the bloat and toiling away - the entire system now simply exists to feed the beast.

Again, marlowe, the pendulum can swing. (But rest assured, I’m not pining to return to my college days! Although I do wish I paid more attention when O’Neill or Abbott or Sahlins - those “fossils” of yesteryear decried the commodification of higher education.)

@Zoom10 will tell you that’s how the market works - virtually anything can be commodified. But, I’m past the point of lauding this fact.

177
  • 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?
178
  • Cue, why do you think there is currently commodification of higher ed? Are you thinking that adcoms today admit less holistically than they did back in your time? Also, do you believe that high school students might also be more of a commodity these days than they used to or are they more distinctive one from another compared to your day?
  • In your research of AO's who feel they are feeding the beast, have you run across any at UChicago like that? Tonight I listened to a joint admissions talk (College/Law/Booth) and I have to admit that Nondorf was fun to watch. Very positive and gave great advice especially tailored to the realities of quarantine, cancelled test dates and no campus visits this summer. We were there for the law talk but I have to admit I enjoyed Nondorf's way more and found it more substantive. I'm sure that had I been a college junior I would be looking very thoroughly into UChicago right now! (edit to add: and I readily admit that this is a skewed perspective!)
179

Cue, you are indeed a swinging pendulum and yes, paying more gratitude to free markets and Darwin would be extremely helpful if you would like to see both Chicago’s eminence and endowment improve which you clearly seem to want.

With respect to your latest comments on Reed and St. John’s “as examples of schools that can avoid market segmentation, and can still enjoy healthy metrics and solid finances.,” are you really aware of their current metrics? Their metrics in terms of rankings, admit rates, yield rates, and public awareness are terrible, actually worse than terrible. And if you are paying any attention to demographic trends and financial metrics, it’s more likely that they go out of business in the next 20 years than they survive.

You really should stop mentioning these soon-to-be dinosaurs as examples of academic virtue because Adam Smith and Darwin have it right.

180

^ Small LAC’s are in grave danger, particularly the less selective ones. And didn’t Reed have some flakey protest there a few years ago over some humanities course? That couldn’t have helped.

There will always be a few UC admits who are also looking at LACs.