U Chicago financial woes

[Anonymous]

Loads of money in college sports but at this point a program like that would be way off-brand for uChicago. You see how hard it is for the Ivies to get top athletes with top academic stats? There aren't enough to go around.

[Anonymous]

Exactly!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it strange that Chicago puts no value on the sports which creates community. They have super smart kids who deserve some fun and community. Many Ivy League schools have fun sports culture. Boosters want to go to things to get excited and remember how much they loved going to school.

Because not all kids give an eff about sports?

Exactly--what I appreciate are there are a range of schools. Watching sports does not equal fun and community for everyone. There are plenty of American schools where someone who finds sports important to community can go. There are relatively few for those who would prefer the sense of community to be largely based on something else.

If you don't care about sports (I didn't, even though I went to a huge D1 sports school) then the existence of sports on campus doesn't hurt you. You probably won't be in any classes with athletes and you are not forced to attend games. You can easily go find your community of people who base that on something else, and that community has no overlap with the sports community.

In short there is no downside to having sports at a school. The non-sporty kids can and do ignore it.

Except that sports use up a lot of resources. Yes, at some schools they generate revenue, but at many they are a huge resource sink.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Strength of endowment is relative to costs. Also, their endowment is far smaller than HPY.

Soon we'll probably see TV commercials begging for donations for this beleaguered institution. $10 billion just isn't what it used to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it strange that Chicago puts no value on the sports which creates community. They have super smart kids who deserve some fun and community. Many Ivy League schools have fun sports culture. Boosters want to go to things to get excited and remember how much they loved going to school.

“Why isn’t the University of Chicago a huge jock school”.

It’s famous as maybe the most anti-sports highly selective school of all time.

They literally abolished their Big Ten football program in 1939, they weren’t a bad team, they were actually really good, but the university president said “this is a waste of time that is better spent studying.”

It eventually came back in much diminished form but they were called “Where Fun Goes to Die” for a reason.

Sports was considered incompatible with the core mission for DECADES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In true U Chicago style, here are two professors' arguments on the financial situation- logic, and facts supporting two opposing points of view that are both very interesting. I do think agree there is a big issue with the three decades of very low undergraduate numbers, leading to a low base of donors vs the other Ivy Plus schools.

John Boyer (recently retired Dean of the College)
https://chicagomaroon.com/40782/viewpoints/letter/john-w-boyer-on-the-state-of-the-universitys-finances/

Clifford Ando (Classics Professor)
https://chicagomaroon.com/40809/viewpoints/letter/all-amazing-all-unequal/

Hi, I speak Academic. Let me translate:

Boyer says that Chicago is broke because they had too few undergrads for decades, that affects alumni donations. (He’s didn’t say WHY they had so few students) So they had to borrow money to do the necessary spending to make Chicago into the top very selective school it is today. It’s competing head to head with the Ivies so it’s worth it.

Ando says yeah, but. We spent a ton of money but it wasn’t on faculty, we still rely too much on unequal adjuncts. A lot of them didn’t get the chances white men got to be full faculty. It’s cutting corners and unfair. What’s the point of all this spending if teaching quality is affected and it goes against our values?

These are complementary positions. The hard push to increase UG numbers worked, but resulted in the need for a significant increase in instructors. Chicago didn't have the money to staff properly so resorted to underpaid adjuncts, which indeed affects teaching quality and compromises institutional values.

Not the core issue. How did they increase enrollment and therefore funding base, pay less per instructor, and not come out ahead from a funding standpoint? They likely have huge bureaucratic bloat, large debt incurred for fancy capital projects, and other prestige-related overspending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In true U Chicago style, here are two professors' arguments on the financial situation- logic, and facts supporting two opposing points of view that are both very interesting. I do think agree there is a big issue with the three decades of very low undergraduate numbers, leading to a low base of donors vs the other Ivy Plus schools.

John Boyer (recently retired Dean of the College)
https://chicagomaroon.com/40782/viewpoints/letter/john-w-boyer-on-the-state-of-the-universitys-finances/

Clifford Ando (Classics Professor)
https://chicagomaroon.com/40809/viewpoints/letter/all-amazing-all-unequal/

Hi, I speak Academic. Let me translate:

Boyer says that Chicago is broke because they had too few undergrads for decades, that affects alumni donations. (He’s didn’t say WHY they had so few students) So they had to borrow money to do the necessary spending to make Chicago into the top very selective school it is today. It’s competing head to head with the Ivies so it’s worth it.

Ando says yeah, but. We spent a ton of money but it wasn’t on faculty, we still rely too much on unequal adjuncts. A lot of them didn’t get the chances white men got to be full faculty. It’s cutting corners and unfair. What’s the point of all this spending if teaching quality is affected and it goes against our values?

These are complementary positions. The hard push to increase UG numbers worked, but resulted in the need for a significant increase in instructors. Chicago didn't have the money to staff properly so resorted to underpaid adjuncts, which indeed affects teaching quality and compromises institutional values.

Not the core issue. How did they increase enrollment and therefore funding base, pay less per instructor, and not come out ahead from a funding standpoint? They likely have huge bureaucratic bloat, large debt incurred for fancy capital projects, and other prestige-related overspending.

I’m inclined to agree with the prof who said if we become super prestige but the teaching sucks what’s the point.

Modern high stat students demand super selective admissions and super high prices as signs of quality.

They must be doing something right their yield is incredible- people who apply really want to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it strange that Chicago puts no value on the sports which creates community. They have super smart kids who deserve some fun and community. Many Ivy League schools have fun sports culture. Boosters want to go to things to get excited and remember how much they loved going to school.

Because not all kids give an eff about sports?

Exactly--what I appreciate are there are a range of schools. Watching sports does not equal fun and community for everyone. There are plenty of American schools where someone who finds sports important to community can go. There are relatively few for those who would prefer the sense of community to be largely based on something else.

If you don't care about sports (I didn't, even though I went to a huge D1 sports school) then the existence of sports on campus doesn't hurt you. You probably won't be in any classes with athletes and you are not forced to attend games. You can easily go find your community of people who base that on something else, and that community has no overlap with the sports community.

In short there is no downside to having sports at a school. The non-sporty kids can and do ignore it.

Except that sports use up a lot of resources. Yes, at some schools they generate revenue, but at many they are a huge resource sink.

That doesn’t hurt you, the non sporty student.

[Anonymous]

It says 24% cost increases since 2019. Inflation in the same time frame was 15-18% so this is actually not that crazy an increase. And Chicago may be hit worse with salary increases because with all the crime issues they may need to pay a little more to attract and retain people. (Yale had that problem back when New Haven was viewed as a challenging location.).
It is an interesting question whether all the schools will hit some problems with the combination of inflation, a flattening stock market and a coming demographic decrease in teens (eg less application money coming in).

[Anonymous]

Meh, I guess it's a point for the other Chicago school, Northwestern. They seem to be doing well with all their billionaire donors and ultra wealthy alumni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It says 24% cost increases since 2019. Inflation in the same time frame was 15-18% so this is actually not that crazy an increase. And Chicago may be hit worse with salary increases because with all the crime issues they may need to pay a little more to attract and retain people. (Yale had that problem back when New Haven was viewed as a challenging location.).
It is an interesting question whether all the schools will hit some problems with the combination of inflation, a flattening stock market and a coming demographic decrease in teens (eg less application money coming in).

With a demographic crunch, to maintain app income and high you need more apps from fewer people to maintain the numbers.

Something like getting kids to apply to 20+ rejective schools each instead of just picking 4-5 realistic choices and a safety.

They can still only attend one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it strange that Chicago puts no value on the sports which creates community. They have super smart kids who deserve some fun and community. Many Ivy League schools have fun sports culture. Boosters want to go to things to get excited and remember how much they loved going to school.

“Why isn’t the University of Chicago a huge jock school”.

It’s famous as maybe the most anti-sports highly selective school of all time.

They literally abolished their Big Ten football program in 1939, they weren’t a bad team, they were actually really good, but the university president said “this is a waste of time that is better spent studying.”

It eventually came back in much diminished form but they were called “Where Fun Goes to Die” for a reason.

Sports was considered incompatible with the core mission for DECADES.

First Heisman Trophy winner was at uChicago and they STILL killed the football program. Chicago is dead serious about being serious

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it strange that Chicago puts no value on the sports which creates community. They have super smart kids who deserve some fun and community. Many Ivy League schools have fun sports culture. Boosters want to go to things to get excited and remember how much they loved going to school.

“Why isn’t the University of Chicago a huge jock school”.

It’s famous as maybe the most anti-sports highly selective school of all time.

They literally abolished their Big Ten football program in 1939, they weren’t a bad team, they were actually really good, but the university president said “this is a waste of time that is better spent studying.”

It eventually came back in much diminished form but they were called “Where Fun Goes to Die” for a reason.

Sports was considered incompatible with the core mission for DECADES.

First Heisman Trophy winner was at uChicago and they STILL killed the football program. Chicago is dead serious about being serious

They need to become dead serious about managing expenses and budgeting.

[Anonymous]

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/education/university-chicago-deficit-and-debt-raise-alarms-some-faculty-members

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.chicagobusiness.com/education/university-chicago-deficit-and-debt-raise-alarms-some-faculty-members

All that aggressive marketing and movement away from their core mission came back to bite them… prospective student should be wary