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.

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.

“We went to a much worse teaching system and we are having financial problems but the school is ranked much higher now and since people chase rank we can fill every seat easily” tells you all you need to know about school rankings.

Anonymous wrote:Never would have expected this!

https://chicagomaroon.com/40872/news/expect-growing-pains-university-presentation-reveals-severe-financial-pressures/

“ While UChicago’s investments have allowed it to punch above its weight for decades, rising interest rates and a drop in operating income have necessitated a range of cost-cutting measures, including a temporary staff hiring freeze and voluntary staff retirement packages, as well as budget cuts for programs across the University.”

“ Since 2013, UChicago has seen a 25 percent student enrollment increase across its undergraduate, Ph.D., masters, and professional divisions. This increase is one of the highest among UChicago’s Ivy Plus peer group, second only to Columbia’s 27 percent student enrollment increase during the same time period.

However, UChicago’s 2022 endowment market value of $10.3 billion stood lower than many of its peer institutions. ”

Yikes.
Did met they just hire a new CIO a couple years ago and then replace everyone who left? Weird timing

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neither of our kids who both scored in the 95%+ on the PSAT/SAT got any mailings from U Chicago. I think some zip codes get plastered and others don't.

Mine who didn't do as well on her PSAT got mail almost every day. She didn't apply, had no intention of applying, and never responded to a single mailing, yet they kept coming. Super annoying.

She probably checked the box that opens up all mailings.

Anonymous wrote:Neither of our kids who both scored in the 95%+ on the PSAT/SAT got any mailings from U Chicago. I think some zip codes get plastered and others don't.

Mine who didn't do as well on her PSAT got mail almost every day. She didn't apply, had no intention of applying, and never responded to a single mailing, yet they kept coming. Super annoying.

UChicago is so irrelevant!

Signed,
Middle class yenta strivers who went to state schools obsessively posting about UChicago

Anonymous wrote:We did not get any email from u Chicago until my son SAt came back 1550 after 3rd try.
We got tons of email from u Chicago, Columbia and Wash U.
It is a brilliant strategy and the cost is very insignificant, u Chicago is part of QuestBridge program and some super smart kids from lower income get to attend the school for free.

We started getting them after a promising PSAT. Then the dried up after SAT#1 was bombed. Then started up again after a 1540 on SAT#2.

I don't believe they send mail to everybody. There are some criteria and I think #1 is a promising PSAT score.

Word on the street is they are trying to recruit high stats kids from high income zip codes. This article helps to explain that. All of these "elite" universities want to recruit kids with a high(er) chance of becoming wealthy after graduation!

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they should stop spending so much money marketing to literally every HS senior just to increase their rejection rate and appear more selective.

Boom!

+1000

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.

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.

The Classics professor is trying to protect against cuts in the humanities. The Dean was trying to justify the deficit by laying the blame on a prior generation of leadership (which had undergraduate enrollment levels too low) and say that the deficit has helped propel Chicago to Ivy + standing. Neither is actually looking at this from a standpoint of judiciously spending within means. They are netting $60K or so per year from each one of these additional undergraduates. Endowments are usually specified as to purpose (e.g. a professorship in the graduate school of business) by the donor and don't sit around to offset deficits run up by overspending on the part of the administration in specific areas. This is simply a school that has overspent. They actually need the additional revenue from undergraduate enrollment to help service the debt. They aren't alone in using undergraduates to fund programs. Many schools use undergraduates to help fund graduate education and research.

We did not get any email from u Chicago until my son SAt came back 1550 after 3rd try.
We got tons of email from u Chicago, Columbia and Wash U.
It is a brilliant strategy and the cost is very insignificant, u Chicago is part of QuestBridge program and some super smart kids from lower income get to attend the school for free.

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.

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?

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.

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?

Hi, I speak non-academics. Let me translate.

No matter how the boosters spin it, UChicago is on a fast track on a downward spiral in the US News ranking.