<p>Now for ChiCity, who is apparently not an erstwhile set theorist;</p>
<pre><code> You are of course free to assert that my speculations have no basis in fact, but then you have no facts on which to base that assertion. It seems it’s left you quite giddy, this embrace of the fact free life of the mind, and so you then kerplop into the mud of discerning flaws in “assumptions” you could not even state, nevermind examine. For a gent who would Capisce that’s a nice little comical touch of the Callicles.
</code></pre>
<p>You offer the following, apparently with the sincere belief that together they make an argument-- and one that would be in your favor:
[1] “First of all, it’s not like we all the sudden surged in US News ranking and that’s why the university has been more popular”
You are of course correct. It is not as if first there was a sudden surge in USNews rankings and then popularity followed. But before you clap yourself with the gladhand of Truth, ask yourself; do you think that is what I was claiming, or assuming??? Read again, ChiCity. You will find nothing close to that.
As for what I do think, all carefully detailed just for you, let it wait until the magnificence of your opus has had its full chance to shine.
[2] " It’s because the University has been making pains to let people know that the image of UChicago students as miserable sacks an (sic) antisocial awkwardness is incorrect."
Gee, Mister, that’s quite an ambitious goal, and well worth the pain the University has been making. Each prospective student no doubt now is sent a letter along these lines: “Dear Prospies. You may have the image that UChicago students are miserable sacks of antisocial awkwardness. A canard! Our misery cannot be quantified in units of sack, and our antisociality is no more awkard than our awkwardness is antisocial. Should this erroneous image be the reason you have chosen to seek admission, we deeply regret any inconvenience caused. Yours Sincerely, …”.<br>
[3] "Student life here has improved significantly in the last 10 years and the students are much happier because of it. (Our transfer rate is down to 2% from 12%.) "
So, ChiCity, you have been in the College for the last 10 years? If so you have indeed earned the name of Student. How exactly do you know that student life has so improved? Can you describe what you mean by “improved”? In talking to graduates of the College I get the strong impression, for the peculiar reason that they tell me so, that many [most!] found life in the College both worthwhile and rich with happiness [as well as sadness, exultation, doubt, pride, shame, and all the other emotions of a full human life]. Is your basis for this claim of yours the transfer rate?? It has nothing to do with, say, better financial support? A general easing up on grading? [Yes, Chicago is not so far down the road of good grades for all as are, say, Harvard or Brown or Stanford. But it is much further down the road from where it was 20 years ago. I base this on what current faculty tell me, those who have that institutional memory, as well as comparing how A’s are ladled out today–and D’s and F’s are not-- in comparison to what the alumni of the earlier eras relate].
If the lower transfer rates are significantly due to a desire not to give students grades that cause them to seek transfer, then your “it’s because they show us love” riff is BS. Unless of course your “it’s because they show us love” riff is a proxie for “hey, it’s easier to get good grades now. And that, my friend, is showing us Love”. In which case, by choosing to measure Happiness by Easier Grades, well, then, for sure Easier Grades mean Happiness. The young Wittgenstein would be so proud.</p>
<p>As for the rest of your boilerplate defense of the current admissional powers that be, a few comments.
ChiCity: “Also, the University makes no claims to not be a rigorous academic institution”</p>
<pre><code>Ah… It may even be that you truly believe that this is equivalent to the University claiming to be a rigorous academic institution. If so, then in your case the rigor is mortis.
</code></pre>
<p>ChiCity: “Not everyone, especially top students, are terrified of difficult classes like you believe them to be”</p>
<pre><code>Ah… so from what I wrote you inferred that I believed everyone to be terrified of difficult classes?? Your acumen honors you as much as your capacity for reading. But thank you for the assurance that “especially top students” are not terrified of classes. Top students are surely inspired by your belief in the modest level Fear plays over them.
</code></pre>
<p>ChiCity: “There’s no basis for thinking that this is all a slippery slope to the university becoming a non-rigorous institution”</p>
<pre><code> Do you consider Harvard non-rigorous? Yale? Duke? Brown? Northwestern? I will assume not [and if I am wrong, and you do consider them non-rigorous, please feel free to correct me]. But they have been in general not as rigorous as Chicago. This lesser rigor can be attained without ever becoming a “non-rigorous” institution. Are you sure, with the easing of grading in the last couple of decades, and the emphasis on being more like the Ivies, that there is no basis for noting that the University of Chicago is in fact becoming a less rigorous institution? There is no “slippery slope” needed here. The process has been underway for a longish time.
</code></pre>
<p>ChiCity:“Further, this doesn’t answer the question of how, if it’s continuing to trend upward without them having to pander to people that you have a low opinion, what reason is there to believe that it won’t continue rising?”</p>
<p>Your words ain’t the model of clarity, ChiCity. But let’s see what you’re trying to get at. “There are people for whom Smerdyakov has a low opinion. The University of Chicago is “trending upward” and is doing so without pandering to those poor people [that Smerdyakov has low opinion of]. So why shouldn’t this trendiness e’er upward not continue?”</p>
<p>A fascinating question, and one that genuinely merits the fulsome talents of ChiCity. Now if only ChiCity could begin to address the conflict that has arisen, and will only more starkly be met, between the impulse to aggrandize our ‘status’, our popularity, in the admissions game and the claim to desire to keep alive the powerful intellectual life of the College; not let it become mere legend, receding into the past and destined only to be a pretense in the future. </p>
<p>You have your reasons for embracing the University of Chicago, ChiCity, and I have mine. I can speak clearly as to what about this still great University drew me here, and what I would defend it for. It is an open question if you can. Capisce?</p>