We’ve asked the 24 students who attended last week’s discussion with President Zimmer to send SG their thoughts on the event. This is a collection of those thoughts and I will add more as they come in. Do you want to ask President Zimmer something? Send me an email or comment on this post.

Caroline West, Candidate, Master’s of Public Policy, Harris School of Public Policy:

President Zimmer opened by describing two of the core values he envisions for the university. The first—to stay on the cutting edge of research (most notably in science and medicine)—struck me because he insisted that the university remain “agenda-setting” and never fall back into being “followers.” The second—diversity—both surprised and delighted me. He described how a diversity of perspective and background can enrich the high level of inquiry so valued at this university, because a diversity of people expands the richness of assumptions and ideas in research. I was particularly happy to hear his opinion on this issue because the Dean of the Harris School of Public Policy has publicly noted that diversity on the staff (gender, in particular) is not a priority, because, to paraphrase her words, good research is good research no matter who is doing it.

After questions from students about how the university interacts with and enhances the community, the transparency of university processes, and the sources of university funding, a vibrant discussion began about the university’s commitment to rigorous theoretical inquiry as opposed to practical application (ie, “thinking versus doing”). A law school student, also a graduate of the College, noted that she felt the professional schools do not do as a good job of maintaining a high level of theoretical inquiry as the College does. Dean of Students Goff-Crews replied that the U of C graduate schools do better than most in integrating theory; and besides, law students still have to learn practical skills to pass the bar! As a public policy master’s student, I would add that many of my peers feel that the Harris School is too embedded in theory and does not teach enough applicable skills. In their eyes, we are a professional school and so should be assuming direct professional policy skills, more “doing” as opposed to “thinking.” My personal opinion is that the Harris School has earned its reputation as quantitative and theory-based, and its place at the University of Chicago offers prospective policy students a unique setting in which to study theory and public policy.

The discussion then delved into the issue of student engagement and connection to the university. In particular, one undergraduate noted that his peers simply want to “get their degree and leave,” with little spirit or pride for the institution and no lasting relationship with their alma mater. (He added that they just want t-shirts that say “Harder than MIT or Harvard.”) President Zimmer responded that quite simply, U of C has historically not had a culture of togetherness and unity under the university banner. While the school has “come a long way,” it still has “a long way to go” in terms of fostering an environment that creates and inspires attachment to the university. One of the problems noted was that students don’t feel that they are part of a community. Another undergrad responded that the “discordant plurality of voices” was a unique aspect of the university. Another expressed that she liked that there was no unifying pride and felt that the high level of academic rigor here has no need for a nostalgic community. Dean of Students Goff-Crews added that the university must consider how its students value and express their experiences here, and it might take a “re-normalizing” to develop the missing student/university connection.

I have had little to no interaction with the undergrads, so found this discussion quite interesting; I certainly wasn’t surprised to hear that few have warm fuzzy feelings about the university, and I hasten to guess that few professional students do either. Unfortunately, the discussion did not evolve to include graduate students, but it would be a worthwhile exercise to consider to what extent grad students feel attached and/or dedicated to the university, and whether this possible detachment is a function of graduate school in general or if something is brewing in the culture of this university that prohibits a collective institutional spirit.

Overall, the discussion was very productive, and both President Zimmer and Dean of Students Goff-Crews seemed quite receptive and reflective on what the students had to say. (And I must give them both credit for staying nearly an hour beyond the scheduled the time.) The two overarching themes—the tension between thinking and doing, and the level of student engagement and pride in the university—were certainly thought-provoking and relevant to both undergraduate and graduate students. Despite the fact that I did not participate much, I certainly felt engaged. My suggestion for future such forums would be to use a Robert Rules of Order-type manner in order to manage participation.

Michelle Sowemimo, J.D. Candidate 2010

Having just moved to the University of Chicago, the discussion with President Zimmer was a great way to hear directly where the university was coming from and where it was going. The event also was a great way to hear a lot of the concerns current students are having and it gave a chance for students from all different walks of the University life to get together. Topics ranged from career services to Alumni donation, with the president addressing everyone’s question with detail.

My only suggestion would be perhaps separate the graduate and undergraduate discussions. It was a little hard at times to follow along with the discussion/question because I am not really invested in undergraduate life and I think the same might be true for the other graduate students. If these talks happen again, it might be helpful and more focused if those present were within the same division (I am speaking of a undergraduate and graduate division).

On the flip side though, the discussion did give me a chance to hear the concerns of those in the other schools that I would most likely not have met before the dinner. Thanks again for putting this together!

Luke Rodehorst, 3rd Year in the College

Among the issues discussed at the President Zimmer round table, perhaps the most compelling and evocative was the conversation surrounding the balance of staying true to fundamental U of C academic pillars while at the same time paying attention to the need for some kind of cultural shift that engenders more postgraduate engagement in University activity. While few solid examples of how to achieve this balance came to light, the fact that such a debate actually occurred suggests that it is an important topic that students, faculty and administrators alike can work together on to address. My hope is that dialog and action continues because there are clearly passionate people who love the University who want to work towards its advancement.

Seth Mayer, 4th Year in the College

I thought the discussion was interesting and President Zimmer, for the most start, engaged in answering the questions he was asked. I think it would be better to either have meetings focus on particular issues or to be just an open forum for the airing of comments and complaints. Having a vague topic seemed to kind of distract from having a real conversation. Generally, I hope more of these things happen and students have a chance to press the people in charge with their arguments, concerns, and viewpoints.

Adrienne Yuen, class of 2009, the College, Public Policy Studies & Environmental Studies

The dinner was interesting and informative. President Zimmer began by introducing himself and his past affiliations with the university, discussing the U of C’s core values, and talking about past and present trends with regards to the institution’s general trajectory. He touched on, for instance, the university’s emphasis on being a center of rigorous inquiry as well as a leader in the evolving world of science.

Students asked questions on topics from all across the board. Among other things, we talked about information-sharing and transparency, sustainability, fundraising, student engagement and sense of school pride, the university’s relationship with the surrounding community, CAPS’s potential for improvement, grad student funding, the BA in a competitive global market, and diversity at the school.

As a student with a special interest in environmental issues, I was pleased to learn that the university has hired a new senior staff member in facilities, with a special mandate to increase sustainability on campus–presumably through building policies, purchasing, and the like. According to President Zimmer, the new director will begin work on March 1.

A strength of the discussion was that students from a variety of divisions, extracurricular interests, concentrations, and class years were selected, so that a wide range of concerns were put forth. The experience also offered a brief bird’s-eye view of the U of C–a reminder that this institution is more complex and with a larger network than we imagine, and that there are always competing demands on limited resources from different university groups at any given time.

Overall, I was satisfied with the discussion. President Zimmer was open to all questions, no matter how frank, and though the dialogue is far from over, I think it generated insight for and from both sides of the table.

Update 2/12 - Here’s the Maroon article about the meeting.