Talk:University of Chicago/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Top Section

The additions seem out of place. Are already repeated elsewhere. Should be removed.

"Real Issues"

This page has got some real issues:

1) the list of "prominent departments" keeps growing and shrinking. is there any way for this to be neutral? why is it there?

2) the list of alumni is too long. why not spin it off?

3) how would we feel about a "Nobel Laureates associated with the University of Chicago" page?

-user:nwt, 10.6.2004

Go for your life! I was going to do the same at some point. I would suggest that we have a List of University of Chicago alumni page, but retain a summary with few very high profile names (say ~10?), like this:


"5 Ranking..."

QUOTE "Best Overall Educational Experience" for undergraduates among all American universities and colleges, while the problematic U.S. News and World Report rankings currently rate the College at 15th in the nation. UNQUOTE What means "the problematic U.S. Report" ? Is that an unclear POV, or I, as a non USA citizen, am missing something?

It's been established pretty well that many institutions game the US news ranking system to achieve artificually high rankings that may not represent their actually quality. Also, arguments have been made that the US news ranking puts too much weight in things like alumni giving and not enough in undergrad educational experience. We should probably cite the Atlantic Monthly articles that have been pretty scathing against the US news system. I don't have time now, but someone should do that. However, it is not POV to say the US news rankings are problematic--only the US news people would be able to keep that argument up (not to be snarky, since you didn't know, I intend that shot at US news=) Demaratus83 13:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Thompson, Nicholas (2003): "The Best, The Top, The Most;" The New York Times, August 3, 2003, Education Life Supplement, p. 2, in which he wrote that given the U. S. News weighting methodology, "it's easy to guess who's going to end up on top: Harvard, Yale and Princeton round out the first three essentially every year. In fact, when asked how he knew his system was sound, Mel Elfin, the rankings' founder, often answered that he knew it because those three schools always landed on top. When a new lead statistician, Amy Graham, changed the formula in 1999 to what she considered more statistically valid, the California Institute of Technology jumped to first place. Ms. Graham soon left, and a slightly modified system pushed Princeton back to No. 1 the next year."
In other words: my interpretation is this. The United States is not a classless, democratic, or meritocratic society, but for various reasons we collude to maintain the mythology, and truths about class are not usually spoken of plainly except by sociologists. Although the importance of the WASP establishment has declined since the Vietnam war, it is still important, and Harvard, Yale, and Princeton still have a special relationship to that establishment. U. S. News knows this, and knows, too, that people care about it in selecting colleges. But they can't express this openly, so they instead use a slightly dishonest system that appears to be objective and related to academic merit, but is carefully jiggered to include factors such as "alumni giving" because they are closely correlated with and can be used as a surrogate for social standing.
Note that the problem is not that U. S. News rankings are inaccurate. They are accurate. They truthfully represent which schools seen as most desirable by U. S. citizens. The lie is that they pretend to base this on objective data about the school's academic standards, and that high school guidance counselors, etc. pretend that academic merit is what people seek in a college. Now, in fact, Caltech may be academically superior to Yale, as the year-2000 U. S. News rankings reported... but you'll notice that degrees from Caltech or Rice or, for that matter, the University of Chicago are not exactly tickets to the White House. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yerkes Oberservatory?

It is both inconsequential and being sold. It should not be included other than under an operated by notation.

It's of historic importance. It was a very important observatory for half a century. For a decade it was the biggest telescope ever built, and it is still the biggest refractor ever built. And its importance is connected to its time as a working observatory operated by the University of Chicago, not to whatever future it may have as an historic monument.
To omit it from an article about the University of Chicago makes about as much sense as omitting mention of Stagg Field on the basis of its having been torn down a long time ago. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

True, however, the section seems overly large, and the use of "lick the lick" essential requires non-scientists to click on the link.

Major repairs

Major cleanup of the first paragraph. More concise and to the point. Rankings have been considerably paired down, with the Nobel controversy having been moved to the noble affiliation page. Please add citations as you see fit, especially looking for an article regarding the role of the Divinity School since rankings do not really exist. Also, much progress has been made on expanding the pages for the professional schools although some are still non-existant. I would like to put in a request for some better pictures of the campus. As it is, the ones we have are rather mundane and unrepresentative. The 'citations needed' additions have gotten out of control. Attempt to validate things before questioning them! Unless the matter is controversial, or if it seems unreasonable or surprising, there is not need for a citation. This is not an article about September 11th after all.


Notable alumni

Main article: List of University of Chicago alumni

... etc.

as for the prominent departments, this needs major NPOVing. I'll give it a shot. Keep the Nobel Laureates on the list of alumni page for the moment, to avoid proliferation of pages. --Lexor|Talk 11:11, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Old Conv.

I've just updated the enrollment statistics from 4,100 undergrads to 4,400, and 8,889 professional/grad students to 9,000 as per the University of Chicago's website. -user:terranwannabe

I attended the University of Chicago, but had never heard of Richard McKeon until reading this article. Is McKeon that important?

-user:dinopup

I'm sorry, I just had to get rid of the text about a de-facto ivy. As students, we don't consider ourselves to be ivy leaguers, and we all come in with complexes about it, even if some of us had Ivy League choices. (And I don't know about Rice either, but...). In any case, if it means a lot to someone, maybe we can hash out some verbaige? As for me, I'm just pushing to get people to recognize we're not UIC.

-user:nwt

On the University of Michigan page someone calls it "The Harvard of the Midwest". Isn't the University of Chicago a better recipient of that epithet?

 -- Mike Hardy

Well, we like to think of ourselves as a bit better than Harvard, with less grade inflation and more of an intellectual atmosphere. Of course, I'm a pretentious bastard, so... That said, with the possible exceptions of Northwestern and WashU, I think it's us or no one in the Midwest. Certainly Chicagoans, and the scientific community in general, hold the U of C to a higher regard than the others...

-user:nwt

Many schools claim to be "The Harvard of the ...", more snobby/better recognized institutions simply go by their name and are known for it. Chicago is in at least one of these categories. Pdbailey 20:37, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Looking for Love

Along with the intellectual atmosphere at University of Chicago, there is also a romantic atmoshpere. Or is it just the uniqueness of the students there?

Sixty percent of students who date any one person at the University of Chicago for more than one month end up marrying a U of C graduate.

This fact is interesting because students at the university view the dating scene on campus as non-existent...

"the dating scene can be kind of depressing"

“Come to Chicago if you want to study really hard, not if you want to try and hook up with the opposite sex!”

from the College Prowler guidebook, University of Chicago - Off the Record —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.29.200 (talk • contribs)

some things:

1) chicago doesn't really have undergraduate "departments" per se, so the distinction seems somewhat pointless. 2) the hyde park link didn't seem to be spelled right. as far as I know, there are hyde parks in NYC, London, Chicago, and Tampa...and that's just the ones I know. so Hyde Park, Chicago is an article someone can create at a later date. 3) eventually I'd like to go through and list the degrees these people got. 4) anyone have any opinions on listing famous faculty, or how that should be done?

-nwt

Please have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities for a proposed template. -- till we *) 12:55, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)

This page really needs some more text on economics. It is beyond me though. Rmhermen 13:13, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)

founding

I think the U of C was actually founded some years earlier, and then went bankrupt, or needed money or something, and so Rockefeller stepped in. But Im pretty sure he didnt actually found the university, can somone look into this or confirm this?

If I'm not mistaken, the first University of Chicago was founded by Stephen Douglas, it was a Christian college, and it later did run out of money and eventually burned to the ground. There's a piece of it in the arch between Wiebolt and Classics on the South side of the Quads.

hmm, I know this history pretty well. JDR's listed as the founder because he gave the seed money, although it was technically conceived by the trustees (he was in fact persuaded by William Rainey Harper).

The "Old University of Chicago" lasted roughly from 1857-1886. But founding dates are tricky for universities; it isn't like a human birth which is relatively unambiguous. There are many dates that could have been chosen to represent the founding of the present University of Chicago. Edgar Goodspeed wrote that the effective founding date was in 1889 when Rockefeller promised $600,000 if the Chicago community could raise a matching $400,000. The Board of Trustees first met in 1890, and the University was incorporated in 1890. Cobb Hall was constructed in 1892 and the first classes met on October 1, 1892. But when it was decided to celebrate the fifth anniversary of the University, the date that was chosen to celebrate was July 1, 1891, when Harper assumed the Presidency. Anniversary celebrations in 1896 (5th), 1901 (10th), 1916 (25th), 1941 (50th), 1966 (75th), and 1991 (100th) all ratified that choice of date, which was approved by Rockefeller when he attended the 1896 celebration. But for some reason John Boyer decided that founding=incorporation, and he has ditched over a century of tradition and put the "year founded" as 1890 on the web site http://www-news.uchicago.edu/resources/facts/.Bob66

list of alum too long

The list of alum and prominent faculty has gotten too long. I think it should be move to its own page.

Lunchboxhero 17:00, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Casing of sections

To the anonymous IP contributor, thanks for all your contributions, but please note that links to articles on Wikipedia are lowercase unless they are proper nouns, and all names of fields of study should be in lowercase, i.e. sociology, not Sociology. Please consult the Manual of Style. Thanks. --Lexor|Talk 23:23, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


degrees

Also, Harvard's Wiki page lists their "concentrations." I know we're technically doing "majors" now, but should we list them?

I think it's really silly/stupid/waste of space, but I suppose you could do it. Everyone here is calling them concentrations still, you may want to note that. --Directorstratton 03:37, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sports and Traditions

Spikebrennan 13:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC): I haven't made this change to the article, but I submit this for your consideration: perhaps the description of the Scavenger Hunt should be pared down to a single sentence or so, since that tradition already has its own (pretty-well written and comprehensive) article.

I infact did change that section, Anyone that's interested in the oddities and rules of the scavenger hunt can easily just go to that article. Selfexiled 02:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The University is also the only school ever to be undefeated in football against Notre Dame

This statement from the article is incorrect. It's appropriately referenced, but the supporting article is wrong. Yale, Georgia, Oregon State and North Carolina State can all make the same claim (though the latter two didn't play ND for the first time until 2000 and 2002, so that could simply be an example of out of date reference material).Ltv100

As a Notre Dame football fan, I must regretfully agree with Ltv100's assertion. The University of Chicago has an all-time undefeated record against Notre Dame, but is not the only school to do so. See the following page for a reference: http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/independents/notre_dame/opponents.php . I'm going to edit the page to reflect this. MysteryDog 14:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Students, Alumni and Faculty heading

This is an odd melange. I have added mention of the six Fields Medal ("Nobel Prize of Mathematics") winners -- at least, I was able to find six: Current University of Chicago faculty member Vladimir Drinfel'd (Fields Medal 1990) former Chicago faculty members Efim Zelmanov (on faculty 1994-1995; Fields Medal 1994) Charles Fefferman (on faculty 1969-1973; Fields Medal 1978) Stephen Smale (on faculty 1956-1958; Fields Medal 1966) and alumni John G. Thompson (Ph.D. 1959; University of Chicago faculty 1962-1968; Fields Medal 1970) Paul J. Cohen (Ph.D. 1954; Fields Medal 1966) though my search may not have been comprehensive.

"Nobel Prize Winners" is a very odd category, since there is no clear statement of how the University of Chicago decides that a given person was "affiliated" with the University. An egregious (IMO) example is Julian Schwinger, who spent only 2 months in the summer of 1943 doing classified work on nuclear reactors, before returning to his job at MIT's Rad Lab on microwave and radar (see e.g. Jagdish Mehra and Kimball A. Milton, Climbing the mountain: the scientific biography of Julian Schwinger, Oxford Univ. Press, 2000). I find it bizarre that Schwinger is listed as one of the UofC Nobelists. On the other hand, if he qualifies, so surely should Alexander Todd, who was Visiting Professor of Biochemistry in Fall 1948 (Alexander Todd, A time to remember: the autobiography of a chemist. Cambridge Univ. Press 1983) and yet isn't on the list. Max Born was visiting instructor in the Summer of 1912 (Max Born, My life: recollections of a Nobel laureate. Scribner, 1978), and he isn't included either. Such sins of omission and of commission are probably a combination of oversight, ignorance, and lack of clear guidelines in whatever office of the University keeps such records. As things stand, any official numbers from the University should be considered approximate, and any comparison with other universities should be considered totally without merit.Bob66 15:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The whole "who counts" thing is certainly contentious. The best way to be fairly impartial and avoid arguements is to use the university's own listings. Not great, but least likely to cause problems. DirectorStratton 20:22, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Someone has (re)inserted the parenthetical phrase "(more than any other university except Cambridge)" following the alleged number of Nobel Laureates associated with Chicago. Since it is not even clear how many Nobels have been awarded to people associated with UofC -- or what "associated" means (vide supra) -- such a statement is completely without evidence; how can anyone know the numbers "associated" with all other schools? Absent any evidence for this preposterous claim, how can one take it seriously? And given its absurdity, how can it be anything but harmful to the University's reputation? Bob66 19:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Somebody deleted my key clause "by its own standard of affiliation" DirectorStratton 22:25, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
        It seemed to interupt the general flow of the section. The standard used by the U of C seems to be unsed                          fairly     universally as well.
Also, don't get too steamed about this article, it gets a lot of edits come from anon students. DirectorStratton 22:32, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
It is true. I read it on Yahoo News. "[H]ow can it be anything but harmful to the University's reputation?" The article is not a fluff piece. It is not an instrument of a p.r. department. Swallow your pride and keep it real. Integrity is more important than reputation.

WashU Reference

Why does someone keep deleting Washington University in St. Louis from the list of schools founded in the 19th and early 20th centuries? It seems appropriate to me. Uchicago999, please explain.

I do not consider washu a peer school, therefore I think it should be left off the list. -uchicago999

It seems that if USC, Johns Hopkins, Vanderbilt, and Carnegie Mellon are on there, then WashU certainly deserves to be on there as well. Perhaps a better solution would be to shorten the list to just include Stanford and MIT. --Boreas231 16:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

That line has nothing to do with peer schools, only with institutions that were part of that wave of foundings. WashU is clearly a part of that trend, more so than MIT I would say. I do wonder if the list is really worth including at all. DirectorStratton 18:44, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think this list is a bit odd. I'm not sure what it adds, and it raises questions as to membership. --Pdbailey 03:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The list does not imply membership in any community. It gives historical context to the formation of American research universities by generous benefactors in that era. Rockefeller modeled the U of C from the great European research universities, where graduate-level education and research were given more emphasis. Johns Hopkins fits this mold also. Keep the list as it is - don't add to it, don't delete from it. Give credit where credit is due - USC has great film programs, Hopkins has an excellent med school and an excellent international studies school, Wash U has an excellent med school, Carnegie Mellon has great drama, computer science, robotics, and engineering programs, MIT is a leader in technical disciplines (computer science, robotics, nanotechnology, and engineering). Chicago is so different from MIT.

Check out what's on Northwestern's Wiki: "The mean high school rank was the 94th percentile and the combined SAT score 1398 (out of 1600), making Northwestern the most selective Big Ten university and also more selective than academic rival University of Chicago." Numbers don't tell the whole story. Chicago, like Tufts, rejects applicants with very high SAT scores (and accepts students with lower scores) for a variety of reasons.

Architecture

Just to be a tad more accurate, I changed the statement under "Location and Campus" to read "the buildings and layout of the Main Quadrangle have been deliberately patterned after Oxford and Cambridge from the beginning..." (Previously, only Cambridge was mentioned.) Actually, the Oxford influence is far more pronounced: the Tower Group is deliberately modelled on Oxford buildings (Mitchell Tower after Magdelen Tower, Oxford; Hutchinson Commons after Christ Church Hall, Oxford). Bob66 14:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

"Intellectual titans"

The last sentence in the first paragraph gives a rather distorted view of the University of Chicago. To partially compensate I added Chandrasekhar, who was certainly far more of an "intellectual titan" than any of those listed -- all of whom, additionally, seem to be right-wingers, and none of them in the "hard sciences" (yes, I know that Kass was briefly a biologist); thus the list is far from representative of politics at the University of Chicago or of the University's fields of distinction. Wikipedia is not intended to be a platform for dogma.Bob66 19:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC) Good lord, now someone has made the paragraph even more distorted, adding the sorry Alan Bloom as an "intellectual titan"! (And removing Richard Epstein, probably the only one of the right-wingers listed with a sense of humor -- I suspect he'd have laughed at the bombast of "intellectual titan"). It is too bad that this person has made a political football of the introductory paragraph. I could add lots of others to moderate the distortion, but I decline to play this game.Bob66 14:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to list the most notable recent academics, and I removed the ones who didn't even have pages. If you don't like them discuss and edit in a halfways civilized manner. You are in clear violation of Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. Back off. DirectorStratton 03:09, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I've removed pejorative adjectives refering to the person who made the latest changes. However, my point is valid; the paragraph is grossly distorted. The University of Chicago's reputation has always been strongest in physical sciences and mathematics (this was the case long before its Economics Department was strong, for example) -- why no mention of Saunders Mac Lane, Yoichiro Nambu, Leo Kadanoff, Stuart Rice, William Kruskal, Stephen Stigler, numerous others, or for that matter biologists such as Janet Rowley? Thus my point that the paragraph is severely distorted in terms of fields represented is pretty obviously true. And I truly find the removal a Richard Epstein to be regrettable -- Epstein is a genuinely witty and interesting person, even though his ideas can be somewhat off the wall. However, listing all right-wingers (with the sole exception, now, of Chandra) is also a severe distortion of the University's history. Finally, Allan Bloom really was a sad case; I've read little by him other than "The Closing..." but that book makes it impossible for me to take him seriously as an intellectual. Bob66 03:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

If you can make improvement, feel free to do so. Be Bold. As for my own changes, I chose people who fit four categories: academic (professors only), recent/living, listed on wikipedia, and well-known to the general public. In your list, only Lane, Rowley, and Rice have non-stub articles (and Rice only has an article because I made it), and I don't think any of them would be known outside of their communities (except maybe Rowley?). Allan Bloom may be political/controversial/full of crap, but his "Great Books" educational philosophy matches the educational philosophy at Chicago, especially in the undergrad college, and he was a bestseller with wide name recognition. And please, assume good faith. If I wanted to make this edit a "political football", I would have included John Ashcroft or Robert Bork.DirectorStratton 22:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

My apologies for not assuming good faith on your part. I suppose I can blame my own laziness for not creating Wikipedia articles on some people - but the presence or absence of a full Wikipedia article is a rather artificial standard for importance or even noteriety. Besides, one might expect that University of Chicago students would, at least, be aware of people outside of their own specialties -- or know how to google. The two statisticians I list are both widely noted among academics, and both are known for interdisciplinary research (see e.g. http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v12p352y1989.pdf and http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/05/050427.kruskal.shtml on Kruskal). Sadly, the day when serious books such as Stigler's History of Statistics http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/STIHIS.html are reviewed in the NY Times seems to be past. (It was reviewed in there in 1986, but his 1999 work Statistics on the Table was not, perhaps demarcating the deline of intellectual content in the NYT.) But if people interested in the University of Chicago are not aware of such works, an era has truly past. Bob66 00:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Presidents of the University of Chicago

Spikebrennan 02:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC) asks Should there be a separate list or article of Presidents of the University of Chicago?

I don't see why not. Although as there aren't many of them it might be more appropriate to make it a subheading of this page. DirectorStratton 03:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Notable faculty, intellectuals, etc.

There is a redundancy in listing famous faculty at both the top and bottom of the article. I'd like to keep it as it originally was (a brief listing at the top) although as I have stated before I am certainly open to changing the list if desired. But it seems silly and confusing to have two listing, especially when the top listing has different current faculty than the bottom listing (Friedman, Coates, etc.). DirectorStratton 05:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

As I pointed out, the list in the introduction is one of past faculty of world renown. For example, Allan Bloom is dead and Milton Friedman hasn't been with the U of C for years. The later list is one of present faculty who, despite not being as significant as Friedman or Bloom, are leaders in their field in the present day. There is a distinct difference. — Dan | Talk 07:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh, beg pardon, but I added both Leon Kass and Martha Nussbaum at some point a couple of weeks ago--I'm not sure why someone removed Nussbaum and left Kass, but for the record Nussbaum is far more famed, so at least be consistent about it; moreover, she is definitely one of the most notable current faculty there.

The section seems to be growing again. Bruce Cummings is not famous, and his page I would argue violates wikipedia's policy on advertising and self-promotion.

List of University of Chicago faculty

Since there are a large number of U of C faculty are notable enough to have their own wikipedia pages, should we create a list to complement this article? Based on recent editing it has struck me as something which would be valuable. DirectorStratton 03:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

It is often renowned as the most intellectual of the American schools.

A good example of a peacock term.

This shouldn't go in unless it's a quotation with a cited source.

I have no idea how one would even begin to judge such a thing. Personally, I would have to wonder whether there isn't a good case to be made for St. John's College as being "the most intellectual," since Chicago and most other universities have many courses of study with direct, career-oriented practical application, while St. John's does not. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

New ranking and reputation section

To prevent repeated reinsertion into the lead section, I've created a section provisionally entitled "ranking and reputation" containing material which is primarily of interest to Chicago boosters.

I've moved the various Rhodes Scholar counts, etc. here as well, because since they do not name anyone, they are not really about people, they are just more numbers presumably bearing in some way on the University of Chicago's excellence.

Unfortunately, most of this material, while probably accurate, had no source citations, so I have tagged the unsourced assertions. If they remain unsourced, I intend to remove them. (A source for a statement such as people having won 13 National Medals of Science of course needs to be a reasonably authorative list of the actual prizewinners, not just a copy of another unsourced assertion that the count is 13).

I personally believe that almost none of this material should be in the article at all. I am fully in accord with previous edits made editors Rdsmith4 and Btm.

128.135.155.18 needs to read and review our policies, particularly WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism, particularly the bullet point "Do not bury the reader in facts." A Wikipedia article should not resemble the kind of souvenir t-shirt you buy at a baseball game, the kind that enumerates a t-shirt-full of perfectly true facts all testifying to the team's glory. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Known as the "booster of boosters," the University of Chicago boasts of 78 Nobel laureates, brags of 26 MacArthur Fellows, and points with pride to 12 prestigious Grinstead Medallions, 11 celebrated MacIverson gold medalists, 10 elite Jantzen Prize winners, 9 distinguished Winslow Prescott Jr. awards, 8 impressive Temple Medal of Merit honorees, 7 illustrious Jankowsky finalists, 6 eminent MacIverson silver medalists, 5 Gouldrings, 4 celebrated Collingwood Professors, 3 important Samuel French Theatrical Awards, 2 notable Turkle Endowments, and a Partridge in a pear tree.


A problem is... that page itself gives no sources. It's probably accurate, but I have no more way of "checking the numbers" on that page then I do on the Wikipedia page in the first place. As I say about, "A source for a statement such as people having won 13 National Medals of Science of course needs to be a reasonably authorative list of the actual prizewinners, not just a copy of another unsourced assertion that the count is 13." Correction: that page contains links, displayed in a nonstandard style that I didn't recognize as links, to lists of the names of the honorees. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"Teacher of teachers"

I snipped the bit about the University of Chicago being called "teacher of teachers." It can probably go back as soon as someone finds a good source. Googling on "teacher of teachers" mostly turns up individual teachers; Googling on "teacher of teachers" Chicago turns up relevant hits, but a quick eyeballing seems to show that a) they do not give sources (who calls it "teacher of teachers?") and b) they all seem to originate with the University of Chicago itself (which presumably writes the blurb for its listing in HigherEdJobs, etc.)

If someone can find a good verifiable source for someone reasonably famous, other than the university itself, calling it "teacher of teachers," that should certainly go in the article. If the only good sources that can be found are the university itself, then the sentence should not read "is called 'teacher of teachers'" but "calls itself 'teacher of teachers.'"

I think "teacher of teachers" is likely for real and should go in the article but not until someone locates a good source. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the term was always self-referential. ~ crimsonmaroon

"Academic home"

The lead section currently states: "The University of Chicago has been the academic home of Allan Bloom, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, Ronald Coase, Enrico Fermi, Milton Friedman, Leon Kass, Richard Posner, Carl Sagan, and Leo Strauss." It seems to me that this is referring both faculty and alumni, but it should be clearer. I initially interpreted "academic home" to mean "home as members of the faculty." I went to List of University of Chicago people to check, but that list isn't split into faculty and alumni either (and almost every person on that page seems to have a degree from the university). We should be more concise in both this article and in the List of University of Chicago people. For example, what is the relationship between Ronald Coase and the University of Chicago? If we are being clear, perhaps someone can explain this to me. btm 20:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the alumni/faculty section further down says Ronald Coase is a member of the faculty. Still it seems to me the distinction between alumni and faculty should be clearer. btm 21:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
As with postage stamps, I'd like to limit these lists to people who are no longer living, on the grounds that there is less controversy about their achievements. I'd like to consider limiting to people who have been on the faculty. And I think the names should be alphabetized (otherwise, what's the reader supposed to think—they're in order of importance?) Dpbsmith (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
In full agreement with you that these alumni and faculty lists need to be in alphabetical order. We need an neutral and nonsubjective way of ordering such lists. I'm not sure how wide a net you wish to cast with your proposed policy. I would have to disagree with such a strict limit, but I would call it a good rule of thumb. So, while I agree with the sentiment, I don't think we would want to have it properly enforced. Suppose a faculty member is a part of a major news story (prehaps a scandal or a scientific breakthrough)... that should be noted. Then there are those whose prominence is obvious even before death. Should the Cornell article of a year ago have excluded Hans Bethe? No. (OK, so he had long become faculty emeritus.) Of course I realize you'd allow for certain exceptions, but it will be very hard to get consensus on a rule that will inevitably be broken quite often.
I'm not sure what the Cornell article said a year ago but I think there's a distinction to be made between listing names in the lead, which should be short, focussed, and pithy, and listing them elsewhere in the article, and I think limiting mentions in the lead to historical personages is a good way to minimize the inevitable debate over e.g. any prominent living faculty with detectable political alignments.
Click, click... the current Cornell University article does not have any luminaries (other than founders) mentioned in the lead at all. (Click, wait, click, wait, click)... Neither did the version of January 12, 2005. I'm particularly sensitive to boosterism in the lead section. If the crap boosterism excessive detail can be put into a relevant subsection where it isn't in your face on the first screen, it's much more tolerable. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
OK. It wasn't clear to me if the rule you were proposing was for the entire article or just the lead. (I thought it was the former.) I support that the lead should not include a list of famous alumni nor a list of its notable faculty. In fact, I believe that the lead section would be better served by excluding (nearly) all types of lists from the lead. Ideally, the lead would be written in "brilliant prose," and lists of people, awards, etc., would, IMO, not meet that criterion. And those listy facts (to coin a new phrase) that are mentioned should be short and of particular relevance to the institution. btm talk 21:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you on what should be in a lead paragraph. And I like that phrase "listy facts." As in "List, noun: An inclination to one side, as of a ship; a tilt," and in "List, noun: ... 3a. An arena for jousting tournaments or other contests. Often used in the plural. b. A place of combat. c. An area of controversy." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
On another note, it strikes me that on the List of University of Chicago people the overwhelming majority of people have degrees listed. Is the university's faculty filled to the brim with its own alumni? Does a large overlap in alumni/faculty categories make it undesirable to organize that page in a fashion similar to Yalies and most other "List of university people" pages? btm 08:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I took a closer look and can partially answer my own question. Some of the university's most famous professors have been left of the list. I guess someone copied the list of alumni from this page when it got to long and a separate list of faculty has not yet been added. btm 08:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed criteria for inclusion

I propose that the list of luminaries in the lead section be subject to the following criteria. What's not so important is the criteria themselves, but that it be reasonable easy to determine objectively whether the criteria are met, so that the list will not be subject to incessant turmoil.

  1. It should contain only names of people who are no longer alive. (As with postage stamps. Reason: because there is more agreement on who is important for people who belong to history than for people who are still living).
  2. It should contain only names of people who have been on the University of Chicago faculty.
  3. It should be limited to a maximum of ten names.
  4. As an objective measure of importance for this purpose, we should use the number of page hits in Google Scholar (not a Google web search), http://Scholar.google.com , with sanity checks for relevance and name variations. That is, the list should of consist of the ten people with the highest Google Books page hits known to us at the time.

For example, if we had a list of ten names that included Robert Millikan but not Milton Friedman, and we found that Robert Millikan had 635 page hits and Milton Friedman 16900, we'd bump Millikan off the list and add Friedman.

Why not Google Scholar? Seems more appropriate. btm 08:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Proposal revised accordingly.

Hit counts in Google Scholar

and for comparison/calibration

I've implemented my proposal. Removing the living people leaves only six, so the hit counts didn't need to be taken into account. Of the six, all but Saul Bellow were on the faculty. He does not appear ever to have been on the faculty, at least not on the basis of our article, so I'm removing him. When adding other illustrious historical Chicago faculty, please take the time to obtain a Google Scholar hit count and update the list above. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Brief "historical" notes in lead

Re the paragraph in the lead:

Historically it is particularly noted for its unique undergraduate "core curriculum," and other educational innovations introduced by Robert Maynard Hutchins during the 1930s; for its contributions to the Manhattan Project during the Second World War; and for its School of Economics, influential in shaping U. S. national policy in the closing decades of the twentieth century.

In case it isn't clear what I'm doing here, I'm mentioning three things about the University of Chicago that are important on a national historical level: one educational achievement, one research achievement, and one national policy achievement.

Wikipedia articles are based on verifiable sources, but necessarily involve editorial judgement in their synthesis into an article. I think a paragraph like this one is important to the lead because it explains what is well known and important about the University of Chicago as an institution.

Obviously I've used judgement in deciding which educational achievement, which research achievement, and which national policy achievement are the ones that should be mentioned and I'm certainly open to suggestions that e.g. some other specific Chicago educational landmark is more important than the Robert Maynard Hutchins curriculum. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced rankings

The various rankings I've tagged with the citation needed are probably accurate, but do not meet the policies of WP:CITE or WP:V. It's just not good enough to reference the "Gourman report." The citation has to be good enough to enable a curious reader to look up the actual fact. Either a web link to a reliable website or an actual citation in proper style (year, month if appropriate, page number, etc.) is needed. I'm going to remove these in about a week if no citations are provided. Does the University of Chicago has a press release on the Web that mentions all these rankings? If so, it would do as a reference for the general assertion that all these schools are "highly ranked" but not for the individual rankings unless it gives good citations itself. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

T-shirt slogans: removed pending source citation

On Jan 19th, I tagged this as citation needed. The tag was removed a few days later by an anon. Removal of the tag was probably an oversight involving a series of edits including a reference to (unsourced) material about "beer goggles."

But in any case, it's gone unsourced for a week, so I'm snipping this amusing and colorful bit of campus lore, that would be well worth having in the article if sourced per verifiability policy.

I'm not challenging the truth of these statements. Anyone interested in reinserting, please review the verifiability policy, linked to at the bottom of every edit box, and be aware that "verifiable" does not mean "true," it means has "already been published by a reputable publisher."

Popular among students are University of Chicago t-shirts with various self-deprecatory sayings on them, including: "U of C: Where fun comes to die"; "U of C: Where the end of the world began! (with appropriate mushroom cloud picture)"; "U of C: The level of hell that Dante forgot"; "U of C: Where the squirrels are more aggressive than the guys"; "U of C: Where the squirrels are cuter than the girls"; "U of C: If it were easy, it'd be your mom"; and "U of C: Where the only thing that goes down on you is your GPA"; "U of C: Our Ivory Tower is bigger than yours." While these slogans might appear to reflect a weak social life on campus, the school does possess a vibrant social life, due in part to the available urban culture of Chicago, Greek community, and liberal campus envirorment .

Dpbsmith (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Will the Maroon (student newspaper) do? — Dan | talk 14:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Works for me anyway. Put it back and use that citation. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
P. S. But leave out that last sentence, "While these slogans might appear to reflect a weak social life on campus, the school does possess a vibrant social life, due in part to the available urban culture of Chicago, Greek community, and liberal campus envirorment," unless you can find a source for that. OTOH you can quote anything else that seems relevant, e.g. "The Maroon quoted a student as claiming to have chosen Chicago because of the “twisted and fun sense of humor the student body has here." Dpbsmith (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
P. P. S. Just to be explicit: the "reasons" it works for me is because a) the source is easily verifiable, being web-based; b) a student newspaper is "reasonably" reputable as testimony to student life; c) It is almost certain that this qualifies as a print source, i.e. the text that appears on the web page almost certainly appears as ink on paper, giving it a bit more permanence and future traceability; and d) most important, the source has a reporter's name, that name is probably the real identity of a real-world person, and therefore the information is traceable to an authority of sorts with a known identity. So I think it's fully in accord with the letter and spirit of the verifiability policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Divinity School characterization as "pacemaker?"

I'm snipping this, pending someone finding a source.

  • The Divinity School is considered 'the' pacemaker in academic study of religions.

I did do some quick Googling, and a search on the UChicago site for divinity pacemaker and couldn't find it. So I'm snipping it for now. Anyone who knows who called the Divinity School a pacemaker and can cite a source, by all means reinsert it with the source.

Blessed are the pacemakers? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Old University of Chicago.

Am I missing something, or does the article completely fail to mention the first University of Chicago, established 1857, closed 1886? Is there a different article on this? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

When and how did it lose its Baptist connection?

The article says "Founded under Baptist auspices, the University today lacks a sectarian affiliation." The Britannica 11th says the University was "established under Baptist auspices in the city of Chicago, and opened in 1892. Though the president and two-thirds of the trustees are always Baptists, the university is non-sectarian except as regards its divinity school." When and how was the connection severed? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Haven't found an answer yet, but there's lots of interesting stuff here. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've found that it's particularly difficult to find information about when colleges and universities have shed their original religious affiliation. This is probably the case for a number of reasons: universities don't want to publicize their originial affiliations with religion, as higher education and religion are considered somewhat antithetical; universities want to be seen as pioneers, as having been modern before their time, and they seem to believe that mention of religion doesn't advance their promotional agenda; and the transition from sectarian to secular was probably gradual, so particular dates might be hard to pin down. However, the paucity of definitive sources about this surprises me. I think I just need to look harder, particularly at books and old periodicals, as this must have been quite a fierce political issue for decades and decades; and especially among the older universities when a large number nonsectarian (as well as some religious) universities were founded post-Civil War. (A time period that is particularly relevant for this page.)
Talk:Ivy_League#School_type.2Freligious_affiliation had some discussion about this. btm talk 08:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
According to lore, it never had a direct Baptist affiliation. The assumption was any educated person would be, or become a Baptist.G 01:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
What "lore" was that? The University of Chicago's own "brief history" section opens:
The University of Chicago was founded in 1890 by the American Baptist Education Society.
If that isn't a "direct Baptist affliation" it would seem to be a reasonable facsimile thereof. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing items pending provision of source citations

I'm snipping these for now, they've remained unsourced about a week since I requested sources. Anyone who believes they are important to have in the article should find sources before putting them back; per the verifiability policy the "the burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." Supplying a source of course means identifying the specific place where the specific fact can be found and reviewed.

The University is ranked amongst the top 15 institutions worldwide according to the The Times Higher Education Supplement[citation needed], as well as among the top 10 by The Economist/Shanghai World Rankings [citation needed].
The Princeton Review in 2004 rated the University as having the "Best Overall Educational Experience" for undergraduates among all American universities and colleges,[citation needed] while U.S. News and World Report currently ranks the College at 15th in the nation.[citation needed]

If the Times itself presents the "top 15" as a grouping, I would accept the characterization "among the top 15." If, however, there is no such grouping or breaking in their presentation of the list, and if this is just a way to "spin" a ranking that isn't in the top 10, then I would strongly oppose it.

It my own opinion that "finishing in the money" (top 3) counts as a notable and specific characteristic of an institution, but that "also rans" (7th, 22nd, etc.) are not valuable to have; people interested in that level detail are going to be going directly to the sources, not reading multiple encyclopedia articles and compiling their own table. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)



Source #1 http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/profiles/rankings.asp?listing=1023043&LTID=1&intbucketid=

Source #2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times_Higher_Education_Supplement (Top Universities overall- worldwide)

Source #3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._News_and_World_Report

The alumni list

Contrary to what a number of other editors are doing, I added 2 individuals affiliated with the University with some type of recognized, prominent, and I feel, noteworthy, histories behind them: Academy Award- Emmy- Grammy- Tony- winning director and producer Mike Nichols and civil rights leader Jesse Jackson.

According the the University's own website, both have attended the school. See the following link for confirmation: http://www-news.uchicago.edu/resources/alumni/index.html

I also feel that many are simply adding these individuals within the list, which is quickly becoming excessively long, to simply suit their own personal preferences. I believe that if one wants to contribute further to the article by including another person, this action should be somewhat justified. Of course, listing someone who does not even have a profile on Wikipedia is nonsensical as well, yet this does tend to happen.....just my opinion on the matter. Feel free to disagree and post why.

Mascot

Shouldn't the Mascot in the info box be Maroons? In the context, it seems that it should refer to the name of the athletic teams. The about page (http://www.uchicago.edu/uchi/about/) of the university also lists The Maroons, but doesn't mention a Phoenix. Aardhart 07:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Faculty and alumni section

I don't think an ever-spreading blue blob of names in the main article is much good to anyone. It's just an invitation to include personal favorites. For those who are interested, the List of University of Chicago people is superior in every way. What good is a random selection of unidentified bare names? In the case of the University of Chicago, even the list of Nobel laureates is unmanageably long.

The List of University of Chicago people bills itself thus: "The following people have at some point in their careers been affiliated with the University of Chicago, whether as alumni, faculty, researchers, or students." Presently it contains only alumni, but others should be added to List of University of Chicago people, not presented as bare names in the University of Chicago article.

If people feel strongly that a list of eighty-five bare names is performing a useful service to the reader, I'd like to know what that service is. I can only think of one practical use for it: measuring one's general knowledge by seeing how many of the names one can identify. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

This article failed due to lack of references. Tarret 19:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added 22 sources to the article, one to accompany every potentially-questionable fact. I have also renominated the article. Crimson3981 22:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The university and the University

"University" should be capitalized when it is part of the university's name, "University of Chicago." As the University of Chicago is neither deity nor a force of nature, when the word "university" is simply functioning as an ordinary noun, it should not be capitalized. There may be a few places where the word "university" appears by itself where it is clearly and obviously just a short form of the full name, and capitalization would be appropriate, but this should be done very selectively and only with good reason.

People do refer to University of Virginia as The University, but most people outside Virginia regard this particular custom as overweening and pretentious. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Requesting discussion: a short list of superstars?

We've now been through several cycles in which people attempt to single out a short list of especially notable University of Chicago people. These lists have tended to be wildly unstable and grow without bounds as people wander in and add their personal faves.

If we are going to have a short list, rather than just a link to List of University of Chicago people, I want to see it developed here in Talk and I want to see consensus reached on a stable list, and agreement that once stabilized it should not be altered without further discussion and consensus.

If it turns out that it is not possible to reach consensus on this, then no such short list should go in the article. (I note in passing that "stability" is one of the criteria for a featured article).

As a starting point, I propose three principles and a list.

Principles:

  • The list should contain no more than ten names.
  • The list should not consist just of names, but should briefly identify each.
  • The identification should avoid peacock terms, i.e. "Economist Milton Friedman," not "World-famous Nobel-prize-winning economist Milton Friedman."

For the list, I propose as a starting point a recently-added list of names that was selected by User:Crimson3981, which happens to meet the criterion of not exceeding ten names. (Personally I don't think Carl Sagan belongs because I associate him more with Cornell than with the University of Chicago...)

Current Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens, economist Milton Friedman, film director Mike Nichols, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, astronomer Carl Sagan, and journalist Seymour Hersh.
Is there consensus that these are the most stellar of the stars? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Such a short list of people associated with the university definitely would not hurt the article. I am in full support of adding a short one consisiting of ten or so of the most notable people. I was bothered by the previous list, though, since it seemed that it was a little excessive. Onto this proposed list I would add author Kurt Vonnegut, current Senator Barack Obama, current Justice Antonin Scalia, economist Gary Becker, physicist Enrico Fermi, and possibly philosopher John Dewey. mcshadypl 21:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, current list is (alphabetized): former Attorney General John Ashcroft, conomist Gary Becker, philosopher John Dewey, physicist Enrico Fermi, economist Milton Friedman, journalist Seymour Hersh, film director Mike Nichols, current Senator Barack Obama, astronomer Carl Sagan, current Justice Antonin Scalia, current Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens, and author Kurt Vonnegut, for a total of 12.

Should we remove two?

Is there consensus that this should be the list? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That list should definitely be used. I fully support adding those 12 very notable names to the article. '12' is not, by any means, excessive. 04:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

10 is a little bit too small. list should be 15 or 20. I think this is a good list. maybe add obama, hersh, and stevens.I'd be ok with that and subtracting one or two from it.

Enrico Fermi, Robert Millikan, Hannah Arendt, John Dewey, Martha Nussbaum, Paul Ricoeur, Leo Strauss, Gary Becker, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Marshall Sahlins, Saul Bellow, JM Coetzee, TS Eliot, Philip Roth, Kurt Vonnegut, Richard Posner, Barack Obama, and Justice Antonin Scalia.

Martha Nussbaum is probably the most famous living american philosopher (and this is not biased since I HATE her work). Paul Ricoeur was one of the most famous/important philosophers of the 20th century Hannah Arendt- speaks for herself Leo Strauss- ridiculously famous and is like Mr UChicago. Marshall Sahlins- the most important american anthropologist of late 20th century really really famous Hayek.... !

I think

Carl Sagan is not nearly as important as other uchicago scientists

Mike Nichols and Seymour Hirsh... come on. I think the other people on the list are a lot more famous. Mike Nichols compared to philip roth and saul bellow and JM Coetzee and TS Eliot.

THE PROBLEM WITH THE PREVIOUS LIST IS: it is mostly full of people that are famous in popular culture (People Magazine and Newsweek) the list I included has some famous popular culture people on it but also includes more people who are famous for serious scholarship. Also it includes MORE FACULTY. The problem with the previous list is that it only tells uchicago graduate from the most part. While alumni are important the famous faculty are also really if not more important. Uchicago is more defined by famous faculty memebers like Leo Strauss, Saul Bellow, and Marshall Sahlins. It is the faculty who define intellectual environments, bring fame to the school and are associated with the school. That some famous person went to chicago is not really relevant so much to the definition of the school. its okay to include some alumni but people who are only alumni are mostly on the list just as a way of bragging (i.e. that they graduated from chicago doesn't help a reader understand the school it only shows that smart/future famous people went there) whereas faculty tell you something about the sort of work done at the school. etc

  • I agree with the points made in this last paragraph. For a research-oriented school, the important thing is what the faculty have done. For a teaching-oriented school (e.g. the Little Ivies and other liberal-arts colleges) the important thing is whom the school has produced. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

good. then let's use the list I proposed: Enrico Fermi, Robert Millikan, Hannah Arendt, John Dewey, Martha Nussbaum, Paul Ricoeur, Leo Strauss, Gary Becker, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Marshall Sahlins, Saul Bellow, JM Coetzee, TS Eliot, Philip Roth, Kurt Vonnegut, Richard Posner, Barack Obama, and Justice Antonin Scalia.

since it is nearly all faculty and researches (and also people who are noted for academic seriousness not pop-famous)

  • Is there consensus that that should be the list? I personally think it is too long. What do others think? So far, we've only heard from you, I, and mcshadypl. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Current endowment figure source?

Where was the $4.5 billion endowment sum obtained from? I'd like to update the Wiki page at [1], but a more specific figure is needed. mcshadypl 21:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll on short list of names

The section on "Faculty and Alumni" should contain a short list of the most important faculty, as well as linking to List of University of Chicago people. That list needs to be frozen, or at least firmly gelled by consensus, so that it does not deteriorate into an unstable, ever expanding list as people drop in and add their faves. Once gelled, names should not be added or removed without discussion and consensus on this Talk page.

The following list has been proposed.

Enrico Fermi, Robert Millikan, Hannah Arendt, John Dewey, Martha Nussbaum, Paul Ricoeur, Leo Strauss, Gary Becker, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Marshall Sahlins, Saul Bellow, JM Coetzee, TS Eliot, Philip Roth, Kurt Vonnegut, Richard Posner, Barack Obama, and Justice Antonin Scalia.

Please include comments. Your comments are more important than your vote.

Concur:

Oppose:

  1. This list is much too long and should be reduced to ten or at the very most twelve names. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Many of the names on this proposed list are not particularly recognized and likely would not attract the attention of the common individual reading the article, i.e. Sahlins, Bellow, Nussbaum. Several names associated with politics are included, yet the list is missing SC justice John Paul Stevens. John Ashcroft is also a very notable figure and should be included for that reason. As mentioned, this list is simply too long. It really should not contain more than ten or so names. mcshadypl 04:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Saul Bellow won a nobel prize in literature and is a household name. Whatever criteria for inclusion or delection emerge from this poll, he ought to be in the "in" group.

Clearly, there are no objections to modifying that list in order to shorten it. I strongly suggest including John Paul Stevens and John Ashcroft since they are very recognizable names, while removing Sahlins, Nussbaum, Coetzee, and Roth. Any opposition to this proposal? mcshadypl 00:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a longer list would look great as well. The University of Michigan page at [2], for instance, has an entire section listing a large number of alumni. This format would be perfect in my opinion and would allow for the inclusion of more people. When I find the time to do so, I'll try compiling a list like that one...unless someone does it first... mcshadypl 04:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please put that content at List of University of Chicago people. Do NOT put it in the University of Chicago article until we get some kind of consensus here. I don't agree with you at all about the University of Michigan page; I think the list there is fairly empty boosterism. I don't believe that if you put that list next to the University of Chicago proposed shortlist that anyone would see anything distinctively Michigan-ish or Chicago-ish about the respective lists. They don't really tell you anything about the school, other than that, both being very big schools, over time a lot of notable people will emerge from them. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course I won't force anything onto the article without a general consensus here. I only suggested such an approach and would have outlined a list similar to the one on the UMich page to get an overview of what it would look like. The main objective here, in that case, is to decide how many and whom specifically to include. We really need to take into account the propsed list of 15 people or so and just work off of that. I already proposed whom I would personally add and remove from it. mcshadypl 05:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the UMich list at all. I think these "lists of names" are a form of contagious boosterism. I honestly don't see how they serve readers. And I think they are unmanageably unstable, subjective, and subject to uncontrolled growth like mould on an orange. But I'm willing to be proved wrong.
Anyway: an anon just dropped in and added his fave, Steve Levitt. How about it? Is there consensus that he should be on the short list? Not that I didn't enjoy Freakonomics and all, but as of 2006 is he in the same category as Milton Friedman and Saul Bellow? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Message deleted. Crimson3981 00:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Look. If we just listed Nobel laureates, we would have about eighty names on the list. Well, we shouldn't have a list of eighty names in the main article. We already have two good places for long lists: List of University of Chicago people and Nobel Prize laureates by university affiliation.
We need to find a way to agree on a short list. Or abandon the idea of a short list in the article.
If it's going to be a short list, it has to be people who are more notable than the plain old average Nobel Prize laureate. In fact, we need people who are about as notable as the top 25% Nobel winners.
So, the mental test we need to make is: is Allan Bloom's stature comparable to that of a Nobel laureate? Is Steven Levitt? Because they need to be at least that important. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Carl Sagan was recently added by 68.62.136.129 with no explanation or discussion here, and there have been a few reversions and reinsertions of his name since then. Test #1: Is Carl Sagan of equivalent stature to a Nobel laureate? Test #2: Is he famous for something he did while at Chicago? I say no to both. I associate him with Cornell, not Chicago. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Dialogo statue with hammer-and-sickle shadow: someone PLEASE get a picture of this!

A recently added reference for some University of Chicago traditions, http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0408/features/index-print.shtml , says:

Another landmark that fascinates the student body is Virginio Ferrari’s sculpture Dialogo outside Pick Hall. Locals say that every May 1—International Workers’ Day—the four-piece bronze sculpture casts a shadow that unmistakably resembles the Soviet hammer and sickle. Alas, this past May 1 was overcast, so the tale couldn’t be confirmed firsthand. But some administrators, such as Rockefeller’s assistant to the dean for external affairs Lorraine Brochu, swear to the story’s truth. The mystery is whether the shadow was intentional and whether the date is significant.

Oh, please, please, someone get a picture of this. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC) There does seem to be one [3] here. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"first major university to enroll women on an equal basis with men."

This was added in an edit with no comment, 01:42, 10 June 2006 70.240.117.78. What do people know about this? A big wave of coeducation was rolling across the U. S. at the time and I have to notice that our Coeducation article does not single out Chicago for any special mention. I have to wonder whether this statement, assuming it is correct, doesn't depend on some very nuanced definition of "major" or "university" or "equal basis," and whether it involves "winning by a nose" (admitting its first woman minutes ahead of Stanford or something like that).

And how is Chicago earlier than Cornell, which was chartered as coeducational and admitted its first women in 1870?

The University of Chicago has certainly been a major university for a long time, but I also wonder whether it can be said to have been a major university at the instant when it became coeducational... or whether it merely hoped and expected to become one. How many women graduated in the first graduating class? How did it compare with, say, the number graduating from Oberlin the same year?

Random factoids:

  • The University of Chicago's first president accepted coeducation only with reluctance: "all my feelings have been opposed to coeducation.... In all events the matter has been decided.... the requirements of the charter will be carried out in the letter and in the spirit." [4]
  • "The admission of women did not insure solvency, however; in fact, the old University of Chicago closed in 1886 despite female tuition fees. But by 1890 coeducation represented a well-established feature of western education, a necessary if not sufficient condition of financial solvency...." [5]
  • "It is no coincidence that all of the fourteen institutions characterized by Edward Slosson in 1910 as 'the great American universities'—California, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Harvards, Johns Hopkins, Illinois, Michican, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Princeton, Stanford, Wisconsin, and Yale—were the largest and were coeducational or had affiliated women's colleges."[6]

In other words, I currently think it would be better to present Chicago as just being in tune with the times and generally in the vanguard, rather than trying to give it some kind of dubious "first" status. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)