Major Concentration

EVENT

So there's been some fuss at the University of Chicago, among students and a few faculty members, about the recent choice to change the title of "course programs" from concentration to major.

The argument for can be summed up: referring to such programs as "majors" dates back to the 1950s, and was a concession made to a group no longer present at the university (the Hutchins crowd). With students now taking "minors" it makes little sense not to adopt a more universal terminology.

The argument against runs: the term "concentration" is unique to the U of C, and is appropriate because it conveys a sense of the breadth of learning. It doesn't imply a career path so much as a focus of discourse.

Mind you, I'm only representing what I consider the most reasonable points pf each argument... the Maroon contained some pretty ridiculous quotes when covering this debate.

* * * * *

Locally (the trees, not the forest) I agree with the pro-major scool 100%.
Because the use of "concentration" is confusing and inconsistant.
Because the term "concentration" was never formally chosen except by default.
Because this change doesn't altar anything instrumental to the way education is conducted at the U of C.

I think people spending their time on this particular argument are wasting their time. Instead, they could be studying for that midterm, or beating the first Castlevania game.

* * * * *

Globally (the forest, not the trees) there is a much broader context to all this, and unfortunately, the name change is one of the last things to happen, not the first.

When I was a first year at the college (1997) there was a Common Core of 21 classes that we all had to take or pass out of:
2 Math
3 Biological Science
3 Physical Science
3 Social Science
3 Civilization
3-4 Language Arts
3 Humanities
1 Arts

By the end of my first year this had been cut down to 15 courses.

There was a rather gigantic fuss about it for about a year, with many prominent faculty and at one point a solid majority of student expressing opposition to the changes.

But the changes had been in instigated years before, with much less controversial decisions: opening the Reynolds Club to student use, and refurbishing the C-Shop.

The Master Plan, of which this is all a part is now in its closing stages.
It startling to notice, in the last six years the College has, with only nominal attention:

· cut the common core down to 15 classes from 21, including the elimination of the world renowned "History of Western Civilization" sequence, and the gutting of math and science requirements.
· begun to dismantle the diverse and successful college housing system, by replacing historic buildings in which students of all ages and concentrations mingled to shoddy facilities with thousands of freshment grouped by class.
· brought about faculty changes that have "streamlined" RSO's such as Scav Hunt, bringing them under tighter University control, or UT, making them more career focused than interdisciplinary.

The University has wanted to compete with other schools more effectively with the goal of increasing its alumni endowment. In short, getting more people, and getting people more likely to make some money.

I don't expect them to be successful, and to the best of my knowledge, alumni giving has continually gone down since most of these changes have been implimented.

Why?

Well, it's the University of Chicago.
It is never going to compete with Northwestern, because it's a nerdy school of big old buildings in the middle of the south side, not served by an El line, and no crowded with suburban all-night eateries.
It is never going to compete with Harvard or Princeton or Yale, because it's only a century old, has more ties to Oil magnates than the founding fathers, and is in the midwest.
It is never going to compete with the University of Michigan or Indiana or Ohio or Illinois, because it's an affluent private school that charges over thirty grand a year in tuition without being able to get any of its sports teams covered in the local rags.

But I'm not down on the U of C. I think it has to play its own niche.
I think the University is coming dangerously close to abandoning a niche it previously had cornered.

That is, the niche of 60+ Nobel Prize winners, the atomic bomb, Chicago-style improv, and the world's largest scavenger hunt all twisted and wrinkled because this is the essence of its hermetic self.

* * * * *

Here is what I propose to would-be University of Chicago revolutionaries:

Play the game. Don't let the game play you.

1. ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT WORKS.
You seem more reasonable that way.
If you want to make a change, you can't throw off being listened to for a good reason.
Some of the Master Plan worked.
Ratner works. The Civ sequences abroad work. Bartlet has, for the most part, worked.
We gave the GSB the north short of the Midway Plaisance, but we get back the central quads, and moreover, we keep Ida Noyes.
That's worth it.
Admit that. And vocally appreciate it.

2. CUT YOUR LOSSES.
Changing the name of "concentrations" to "majors" isn't worth a major fight.
Neither is the "redesignation" of the Common Core as Core Education, or whatever they're calling it now.
Give up the Shoreland. It's already lost. Instead for housing integrated by concentration (major) and class.

3. LEARN WHO'S IN CONTROL
Trustees have more sway at the U of C, I get the impression than at most other schools. It's also stacked with GSB alums.
If you're serious about fixing things, learn about that structure. Learn who to write letters to. And write letters.
Learn who might be a future trustee or important alum and corner them; oblige them to listen to you.

4. RESPOND
Most of all, call out things that seem random.
Don Randle, our president approved student trustees at Cornell, but he's dead set against them here. Force an answer as to why the U of C is different.
Don't stop asking until you've heard something.
Ask and ask and ask.
What about the impact of deans on RSO's? Why is that changing? How is that changing? And why now?
Let the Maroon know. Tell the CWN. Tell Chicago Magazine.

5. DONATE TO THE UNIVERSITY
Briefly.
And little.
Every year, consider how much you are willing to donate. Make a donation, even if you're below the poverty line, like me.
Then send them a letter, explaining to them that you would like to donate more, that you want to support the University of Chicago, but that you cannot financially invest in an institution that cares so little for the views and opinions of such highly qualified constituents.

Because this university is overwhelmingly run from the top down.
And they want to increase their endowment.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Neither can they.

Even if they Concentrate.

~ Connor