THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 5 RECORDAN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF FACULTIES VOLUME II, NUMBER 7STUDENT OMBUDSMAN APPOINTEDJohn W. Moscow, a fourth-year student in the College, was appointed Student Ombudsman; the termof his appointment extends to the end of the Summer Quarter, 1969.The Student Ombudsman will receive studentgrievances and, at his discretion, bring them to appropriate people or institute investigations intothose cases where a review by his office seems warranted. Since the work of this office is intended toresult in improvement in the regular remedial processes, the Student Ombudsman is expected, as anindependent officer, to call attention to abuses ofdiscretion wherever he finds them and to suggestchanges in rules, procedures or policies wherever hesees fit. The Student Ombudsman is also expected toissue quarterly public reports describing in generalwhat his activities have been.The Student Ombudsman's office is located on thesecond floor of Reynolds Club, Room 204. His extensions are 4206 and 4207.COMMITTEE FOR A SUMMARYSTATEMENT OF BASIC HOUSINGGUIDELINESAppointed by the Provost to review and describebasic housing guidelines for the University, theCommittee has been asked to take into account thefollowing: student housing, faculty housing andneighborhood considerations. The members of theCommittee are: Joseph J. Schwab (Chairman),Fred Eggan, John Hope Franklin, Philip Hauser,Norman Nachtrieb, Edward W. Rosenheim, Jr., andRoger W. Weiss.INTERIM REPORT OF THE COMPUTERPOLICY STUDY COMMITTEEJuly 30, 1968/. IntroductionThis Committee was appointed by President Beadlein early May of 1968. Its mission was described asfollows: "To engage in the broadest possible inquiry of the University's long- and short-term computation needs, and what the University can best doto attempt to meet these needs." CONTENTS / October 22, 19681 Student Ombudsman Appointed1 Committee for a Summary Statementof Basic Housing Guidelines1 Interim Report of the ComputerPolicy Study Committee11 rosenberger medals12 quantrell awards for excellencein Undergraduate Teaching12 In Memoriam13 New Faculty Appointments as ofSeptember 1, 196817 Resignations and Retirements18 Blum Committee Appointments18 Addendum18 Honorary Degrees19 Elected Student CouncilsIn addition to the Chairman, Irving Kaplansky(Mathematics), the Committee has four membersand four alternates.MembersRobert L. Graves (Business, Information Sciences,Institute for Computer Research — ICR)Richard C. Lewontin (Zoology, MathematicalBiology, Associate Dean, Biological Sciences)Stuart A. Rice (Chemistry, James Franck Institute)Victor H. Yngve (Library School, Linguistics,Chairman, Information Sciences; Director, ICR)Alternates (for members in order listed)R. Darrell Bock (Education, Psychology, HumanDevelopment)Jay M. Goldberg (Physiology, Information SciencesJurgen A. M. Hinze (Chemistry, College)Don R. Swanson (Dean of the Library School)The Committee met for the first time on Monday, May 13, 1968, and has met every subsequentMonday, with an additional meeting on Friday,May 31. The Committee has heard Profs. Roothaan,Ashenhurst, Gelfand and Fisher, and four managerson the staff of the Computation Center. From theoutside thus far the following have appeared beforethe Committee:1Arthur Burks (Professor of Philosophy, Chairman of the Department of Computer and Communication Science and Chairman of the Computer Policy Committee at the University ofMichigan) ,Benjamin Mittman (Professor of ManagementScience and Director of the Computation Centerat Northwestern University), andSamuel Conte (Chairman of Computer Scienceand Director of the Computation Center at Purdue University).In addition, the Chairman of the Committee hashad personal interviews with Sidney Davidson,Mark Inghram, Gale Johnson, Paul Meier, RichardMiller, Robert Moseley and John Simpson.A preliminary statement (internally called reportno. -1) was issued May 28, 1968 and is attached asan appendix. The present document (report no. 0)is the promised interim report.//. Current SituationThe University Computation Center operates anIBM 7040-7094 complex with associated peripheralequipment on a round-the-clock basis seven days aweek. As this report is being prepared, installationhas begun of a new IBM 360/50. The main divisions within the Center besides computer operationsand billing are systems development, systems services, custom programming, systems analysis, applications programming, technical writing and keypunching service. The total staff is about seventy-five people. The total expenditures for the fiscalyear 1967-68 just closed have been about 1.3 million dollars, with a deficit of approximately onehundred thousand dollars. Reliable figures are notyet available, but it is believed that the University'scontribution to the 1.3 million dollars was of theorder of magnitude 225-250 thousand dollars (thisincludes the one hundred thousand dollar deficit already mentioned). The proposed budget for 1968-69 is about 1.6 million dollars with a predicteddeficit of 160 thousand dollars. The University'scontribution may rise to about three hundred thousand dollars.Since the founding of the Computation Centersome six years ago, Clemens Roothaan has servedas Director, with Robert Ashenhurst as AssociateDirector for the past three years. Their terms expire September 30, 1968. A Computer Policy Committee of some fifteen people, appointed by theProvost, shares in guiding the Center. Its currentmembership is given in Appendix II.Recent policy differences led to a widespread expression of opinion that a thorough policy study2 was needed, and to the appointment of the presentCommittee.III. Outlook for the StudyPublished sources of information about computing within universities may be consulted at the ICRlibrary. An initial bibliography is given in AppendixI. We are gathering information from interested individuals and groups on this and other campuses.Some persons have been invited to meet with theCommittee to express their views informally. Wewould be glad to hear from others who wish to doso. It would also be very useful to have commentsand responses in writing, and we invite faculty, staffand students who have either information or a viewpoint not represented in this or future reports tosubmit statements to the chairman of this studygroup.The various interests on this campus whom itwould be appropriate to contact include the following:1. Deans of the divisions and professionalschools, directors and chairmen of institutes and departments.2. The various special groups and institutes whichoperate a computing oriented service and/or research facility. These include :a) Biological Sciences Computation Centerb) Center for Mathematical Studies in Businessand Economicsc) Center for Research in Security Pricesd) Laboratory of Molecular Structure and Spectrae) Institute for Computer Research (ICR)f) Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research (LASR)g) High Energy Physics Grouph) National Opinion Research Center (NORC)i) Department of Educationj) Libraryk) Comptroller1) Registrar(We recognize that there may be omissions on thislist.)3. Computation Center Staff. From outside theUniversity we have contacted or will attempt tocontact:1) Other university computation centers,2) users at other universities (this will be veryinformal; it will be very helpful to have informationfrom those on this campus who have direct knowledge as users of other university computation centers),3) computer manufacturers,4) commercial service bureaus, and5) other outside consultants.It seems likely that we shall continue to use aninterview system of getting opinions rather thantrying to design a questionnaire or other formalmechanism.IV. Computing Services Supplied by the CenterAlthough we have by no means made a detailedsurvey of the faculty and other sources of information enough information has been accumulated toenable us to make a preliminary assessment of thestate of the University's computation facilities. As amatter of convenience we will first comment uponthose services and facilities offered by the Center.a) The IBM 7094/7040 InstallationThis installation consists of an IBM 7094 whichthe University has purchased and a connected IBM7040 on rental. Programs are actually run on the7094, which for years has been the most widely accepted machine for major university centers butnow is being replaced or supplemented by thirdgeneration equipment at most major universities.The attached 7040 computer takes care of scheduling, card and tape handling, printing and the likeunder the CHAOS program, developed here withsupport from IBM. The CHAOS system is anexample of a multiprogrammed system which provides fast turnaround service in the batch processingmode for a wide variety of users.There is a large class of users whose problems involve large-scale arithmetic manipulation ("number-crunching") or long production runs and whoreport satisfaction with the functioning of the Computation Center.A large data file currently in use is that associated with the stock market survey. ProfessorFisher reports satisfaction with the functioning ofthe system and comments that he is basically computer-limited in manipulating that data.A major share of use of this epuipment, however,consists of many short jobs submitted by faculty,staff and students from throughout the University.An important factor in the service offered to thislarge and diverse group of users is the extent andvariety of programs available for the 7094 that havebeen developed over the years at the many centersusing similar equipment.. Another source of satisfaction to the users is thepromptness of the service available. It is frequentlythe case that the results of a job submitted can behad in less than an hour. This fast turnaround timeis due to several factors: the efficiency of theCHAOS program, the efficiency of the staff in carry ing out the manual operations involved, the scheduling policy which postpones long jobs until themiddle of the night when the loading is light, andabove all the fact that the machine is not fullyloaded. With demands for paid services amountingto one-third to one-half of the available time, longservice queues seldom develop. At universities withheavier demands, turnaround times may be one dayor longer. The light demand at our Center reflectsthe charge-policies of the University, rather thanany lack of need for computer time. Two lines ofevidence can be cited. First, the amount of incomerecovered from external grants and contracts at ourCenter is as high as or higher than it is at some university centers operating fully-saturated installations. Second, several of our larger users report thatthey could easily saturate the machine, but they areunable to do so for lack of funds.b) The IBM 360/50 InstallationThis equipment is being installed in July, 1968. Atthe same time the IBM 360 Model 40 equipment inthe ICR is being removed in the interest of economy. The 360 Model 40 was entirely supported bythe ICR, the library automation project and grantsupport to Clemens Roothaan. These users will betransferred to the 360 Model 50 under the Computation Center.The library automation project is funded in partby the National Science Foundation and has as itsgoal improved library efficiency and reader responsecapability through automated data processing andrelated functions such as acquisitions, accounting,catalog card production, periodical control, circulation and so on. It is hoped that the results will havean impact nationally and be of use to other libraries.The project has been a joint effort of the libraryand the Computation Center, with staff dividedabout equally between the two, but with the initiative coming from the library. The decision to takecare of the library automation project on the Computation Center machine was taken in the light ofseveral important factors:1) The sharing of resources would provide for eacha greater peak capacity, and in fact may wellmake possible a machine with a power that neither could afford.2) The library would be spared the problems ofrunning its own center.3) The library would be spared the effort of development and maintenance of general-purpose system software.4) The Center would make available expert technical assistance not obtainable in the library.35) The system would be guaranteed able to operateon a general facility and would thus be of greater benefit to other libraries not able to afford adedicated machine.The staff cooperation between these two organizations has been excellent and may point the way tofruitful collaboration between the Center and othergroups on campus. This working relationship hasenabled the library to avail itself of talent thatwould have been very difficult to find in the openmarket.It is expected that other general uses of theModel 50 will develop promptly. One reason for thisexpected growth is the ready availability of System/360 programs that are not available on the 7094.In addition, the Model 50 equipment is vastly moreflexible in the area of file handling and service toremote equipment.c) Interfaces to Other EquipmentThe Computation Center also has equipment toconnect its machines with others. Perhaps the mostimportant such connection is the link between theIBM 7040 and the IBM 1401 in the Biological Sciences Computation Center. Jobs destined to be runon the 7094 can be submitted in the hospitals andtransmitted over this link. Printed output is returned on completion of the jobs. Thus the 1401performs the function of a remote job entry terminal. It has been proposed at various times that othersuch terminals be stationed around campus.The 360 Model 50 will have a link to the 7040which may serve a useful function in operating thefacility.There is a link from the Maniac III computer inthe same building which connects alternatively withthe 7040 or the Model 50. By means of this link, theICR is served with a card reader and printer as wellas back-up storage on tape.A link is being installed between the 7040 andthe EMR 6050 computer located in the High Energy Physics Building.The library automation project has remote typewriter and punched-tape terminals in the librarywhich connect over telephone lines with the 360. Itis by this means that the library is building its filesof book and transaction records.V. Other Services Supplied by the ComputationCenterIn addition to providing computer time and suchrelated services as key -punching and record keeping,the Center also furnishes services in the form ofprogramming.The custom programming group has about fifteen full-time-equivalent programmers and systems analysts who are available on a consulting basis to theUniversity community. It is intended that this service pay its own way. This service is particularlyvaluable to the faculty member who is just gettingstarted in computing or who has a short-term needfor programming assistance. An attempt is beingmade to keep the services to particular groups frommaturing into long-term commitments that wouldmore appropriately be met by the groups themselves.The applications programming group of aboutfive full-time equivalents serves the function ofseeking out programs and languages of general utility to special classes of users and seeing to it thatthey are available to users and in working order.This group has introduced such packages as Data-text and Simscript, and has served an educationalfunction in making such facilities known to users.The work af this group has undoubtedly increasedthe productivity of a number of faculty membersand has increased the usage of the 7094. It has beenpartially supported from the budgets of variousdeans and by funds made available by the ComputerPolicy Committee.Systems programming is a term that covers anumber of activities and is differently understood indifferent contexts. We distinguish here betweenthree activities : installation and maintenance of existing systems, modification and adaptation of existing systems, and the development and programmingof new systems.The first of these is the installation of systemsand languages of general utility that are availablefrom the manufacturer (in our case IBM) or available from other centers or our own. Once such systems have been installed, they must be maintained;that is, errors must be tracked down and fixed, andany changes or modifications received from thewriters of the programs must be made. This activityis necessary in any center but usually does not require much manpower once the decision has beenmade as to what systems should be installed andmaintained.The second systems programming activity is concerned with making modifications in existing programs and systems to adapt them to special localconditions or to improve them in certain respects totake advantage of the local equipment configurationor the modes of operation preferred by local users.A center cannot dispense with such systems programming activity if it is to satisfy special localrequirements such as interfacing in unusual ways toother equipment. Such activity also has the potential of increasing the efficiency of the systems and4thus of effectively reducing the cost of computation Such work is often difficult and time-consumingfor it may require the programmer to comprehend acomplex program written by someone else. In allsuch modification work there is the danger that theprograms changed will be rendered non-standard inunexpected ways, thus making difficulties for theuser who wants to run standard programs.The third systems programming activity is theproduction of new operating systems, languageprocessors and the like. The development of theCHAOS system already mentioned was an effort ofthis type. That effort as well as some of the othertypes of systems programming activities have beensupported by grants from IBM through the ICR,but that source of support has been lost and at present systems programming in the Computation Center is unsupported by outside funds. Within thisactivity of the production of new operating systems,language processors and the like, one can distinguishbetween the straightforward writing of programs tocertain specifications using well-known or standardtechniques, the clever and imaginative combining ofknown techniques to produce a highly-optimizedsystem, and the invention, development and use ofnew and novel techniques that shade into researchactivity and may make contributions to the art.The Committee has insufficient evidence to determine the appropriate levels of these various types ofsystems programming. These groups now numberabout ten full-time people in the Center. Apparentlyonly a small effort is required to install and maintainsystems and programs available from the manufacturer or other centers. The choice of which systemsto install and maintain, however, is extremely important. Such decisions are on a par with decisionsas to choice of hardware. The choice of how andwhether to make modifications is equally importantand requires detailed knowledge of the technology,a thorough understanding of the service needs of theUniversity, and an appreciation of comparativecosts and savings. The question as to whether asystems development effort should be carried out iseven more complex and also deserves to be a high-level decision on a par with hardware decisions, forthe user sees the system and the hardware togetheras an integrated whole. A system development effortis not to be undertaken lightly. Any reasonably-sizedsystem or language implementation is likely to takeupwards of five to ten man-years of programmingeffort. Complex systems require hundreds of man-years and efforts of this magnitude are representedin such systems as MULTICS and Systems/360.We have learned that at the University of Michigan and Purdue University system and language development are pursued more actively than atChicago. Such activity has been supported at theseinstitutions through outside funds and has been carried out largely within the context of faculty andgraduate student research with staff support. Whensystem development for a computation facility isconstrued also to have research interest or is carriedout partly as research there is an additional problem. This is the conflict of interest between implementing a system of highest utility for the University and carrying out a project of greatest researchpotential. The faculty members, students and staffinvolved may be torn between the demands ofprompt completion of an efficient facility for theUniversity and the demands of research interest thatvalue novelty and the pursuit of new and untriedmethods leading to publishable results. It would appear to be essential before starting a system development project to have a clear understanding ofwhether service or research is the primary motivation, and the financing and auspices arranged accordingly.Research in computer techniques has an important place in a University and can be carried out indepartments and institutes in the same way thatother research is carried out. Indeed, a universitythat did not have innovative activity going on incomputer usage would not be at the forefront inthose fields which are touched significantly by computer techniques. This type of activity is likely togrow at Chicago with the growth of faculty that cantake leadership in this area, and if it is to flourish,it must have a first-class computation facility.VI. Computing Services Supplied ElsewhereThe Committee has not yet made a complete survey of computers on campus that are not administered by the Computation Center, but it is estimated that there are at least a dozen. We have already mentioned the 1401 in the Biological SciencesComputation Center that is linked to the 7040 forremote job entry. There are two 1401's in the administration building, another in the hospitals thatis operated by the comptroller, and another inNORC. There is an installation of an IBM 1130 inthe Department of Education. There is an SDS 930in LASR that is used for the reduction of satellitedata. There is the Maniac III in the ICR. There isan EMR 6050 in the High Energy Physics Building.There are several PDP-8 computers and other modern small computers associated with experimentalequipment. There are a number of defk calculatortype computers. ^In addition there are at least four separate groupson campus that rent typewriter terminals that con-5nect with computers located off campus and operatein the time-sharing mode.These installations represent a considerable investment in computing over and above the investment in the Center. In terms of space, personneland financing, this investment may already be greater than the investment in the Center.Some users make use of facilities at the ArgonneNational Laboratory which are available to certainUniversity faculty members. Reasons given forusing these facilities, in spite of the inconvenienceof traveling back and forth, are that the computersthere are faster and have more memory. In somecases the available program will run only on a CDC3600. Another reason is economy to the user's contract, for due to Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)support of Argonne, computer time costs less andmore memory and processor speed are available.Graduate students frequently take care of actuallyrunning the programs at Argonne. The extent of thisusage is not at present known to the Committee,nor is there an estimate of its effect on ComputationCenter income.Argonne rates are set to cover costs. Thus theyare changed at intervals to be consistent with experience and estimated future use. They were set up onJuly 1, 1968. The internal rates are:IBM 360/50-75 $150/hourCDC 3600 $100/hourNo extra charge is made for paper, cards, peripherals, etc. External rates are more complicated.The 360 rates are low to encourage people tomove and because the system has more errors.There is zero-priority time available on the 360at $50/hour, but in practice it is little used.Some users find that their programs run on theCDC 3600 five times faster than on our 7094. Thismay be due to an optimized Fortran.VII. Unsatisfied Needsa) Numerical ProblemsSome faculty members have problems in the"number-crunching" category which cannot behandled at our Centered they have been forced togo elsewhere. This includes some of the users whoare satisfied with the service at the Center for thoseproblems that the 7094 can handle. But the 7094represents an older generation of computers and itis anticipated that the percentage of problems ofthis type requiring hardware not available here mayrise in the future. The following is a rundown ofsome equipment on hand or soon to be installed atBig Ten universities and several others (we believe the information to be substantially accurate, but donot guarantee it).IllinoisIndiana IBM 360/50-75; buildingIlliac 4CDC 3400-3600 (a configuration comparable toour IBM 7040-7094)Iowa 360/65Michigan 360/67Michigan State CDC 6500Minnesota CDC 6600Northwestern CDC 6400Ohio State 360/50-75Purdue CDC 6500Wisconsin Univac 1108 (planned);1604, 3600 (now running)Columbia 360/75-91Berkeley CDC 6400Carnegie-Mellon Univac 1108, 360/67Pennsylvania 360/65Cornell 360/67Princeton IBM 360/91NYU CDC 6600Waterloo 360/75(Ontario)All of these computers (except at Indiana) arecapable of handling arithmetic problems which ourComputation Center cannot now tackle because oflimitations either in speed or memory. We do notyet know how much computational power is required, that is, what a reasonable estimate is of therequirement for arithmetic manipulaton for the future. It seems likely, however, that any computerwill create its own market and, therefore, the relationship between need and hardware must be discussed from both sides.b) Data File ManipulationThe library automation project is typical of aclass of computer usage often called file manipulation. Voluminous files of data are accumulatedon magnetic disk storage and they are searched,sorted and otherwise manipulated at request bymeans of special programs. The 360/50 hardwareis well suited to this type of operation and othersuch uses for the equipment are emerging.The hospitals are contemplating a large-scaleeffort to automate patient record keeping and other6hospital functions. This would require considerableequipment that we do not now have.Other medical uses include large files of specialized data such as cancer research files.In the social sciences area there are large datafiles available that have potential value as a resource for research. We are currently not wellequipped to handle such files.The future of the library automation projectmay well involve extremely large files of bibliographic information that will be of assistance tolibrary users.In the area of University administration, thereare unsatisfied needs in the form of flexible accounting procedures, improved handling of studentrecords, registration and scheduling and an adequatemanagement information system.Nearly all data-file manipulation uses are conceived in terms of remote consoles and some formof time-sharing. The library automation projectuses remote terminals in the library. The development of such uses and the development of properhardware and software systems for them are verymuch a frontier area for research.c) Aids to EducationThe University is not now adequately equippedto support research in computer aids to education.Such research may need a classroom equipped withsimple remote consoles connected to an adequatecomputer for file manipulation and time-sharing. Adifferent need is for at least one very flexible andhighly sophisticated console for carrying out research on what are the most effective and appropriate techniques for student-computer interaction.d) GraphicsThe University is poorly equipped to handlegraphical displays. There is a Calcomp plotter inLASR and a good film recorder, the Stromberg-Carlson 4020 soon to be installed in the Center, butcathoderay console display devices are rare andnone are connected to the central computer. Animportant need that we were not able to satisfy wasfor a display of the three-dimensional structure oflarge molecules such as DNA. The Art Departmenthas expressed interest in the availability of a graphical display. The area of computer graphics is alsoan area of current research interest and the lack ofsuch a facility hampers faculty recruitment in Information Sciences.e) Real-time Computation and Data AcquisitionAnother area where there is an increasing demandfor computer facilities is in the area of on-line real time computation. This is a type of use where thecomputer is connected directly to equipment thatgenerates data. Some processing of the data is performed and the results are often available immediately in the form of a display or in the form ofcontrol signals fed back to the experimental equipment. An early example of such on-line monitoringwas the use of Maniac III directly connected tospark-chamber equipment in the Accelerator Building. Other examples would be the monitoring of laboratory equipment in Clinical Chemistry, the monitoring of the physiological responses of laboratoryanimals, or the monitoring of cardiac patients in anintensive care ward. It is often the case that realtime response requirements demand small dedicatedcomputers, and some of the smaller computers oncampus are used for this type of service. In somecases there is a simultaneous need for a large memory or fast arithmetic. Thus links are desirable tothe central computer, which would be equipped tohandle the job on a demand interrupt basis. If adequate central equipment were available, it mightbe technically advantageous to handle the whole jobon the central computer in this mode, thus dispensing with the need for the smaller special-purposecomputer./) Time-sharing and Interactive ProgrammingThere are a number of people on campus who areconvinced of the merits of time-sharing and interactive programming and deplore the lack of such afacility on campus. At least four groups are rentingtime-sharing consoles attached by telephone lines tooff-campus computers. The experience with theseterminals has been favorable and the GraduateSchool of Business hopes to increase the number ofterminals available to it.There have been differences of opinion among theComputation Center staff concerning the importance and desirability of time-sharing. The Directorinformed the Committee that several years ago hefelt that more efficient batch processing had to begiven a higher priority than time-sharing, but thatnevertheless both developments were always considered desirable. He added that with the installationof the Model 50 the time has come to apply someprogramming talent in the direction of time-sharing.Some users of long-running programs have questioned the utility oURime-sharing or the wisdom ofhaving time-sh||ing and number-crunching on thesame macnine. Some installations, however, appearto have combined the two.Time-sharing is another area of computer usagethat is in the forefront of research. Some currentsystems work quite well and' others have serious7problems. The effort involved in programming alarge-scale time-sharing system is prodigious, but asmall do-it-yourself system can be had for a relatively modest programming effort. Some of theexisting successful time-sharing systems would beavailable for use on our own equipment if we acquired the appropriate hardware and were willing todedicate the machine to it.The experimental time-sharing work in ICR isdevoted to solving some of the basic conceptualproblems. The system might be available for limited use in about two years. This effort is supportedby the AEC and is justified entirely as research. Itis not intended as an answer to the University'sneeds in this area.One of the important advantages claimed fortime-sharing is the possibility of close and frequentinteraction between the user and his program. Itthus becomes possible for the user to experimentwith his program, trying different combinations until he gets the results desired. If properly used, timesharing not only reduces the calendar time fromthe inception of an idea to a completed running program but it also reduces the number of man-hoursdevoted to the problem, thus increasing the productivity of the researcher.A good time-sharing system should also be capable of satisfying more flexibly and economicallythe demand for small desk calculator computers.The term "time-sharing" usually means the typeof general purpose interactive programming we havebeen discussing. But sometimes the term is used forsomething more limited such as a system for remote batch entry or a system for manipulating alarge file in special limited ways from remote consoles as was discussed in section b. Sometimes thereis confusion with real-time computation on an interrupt basis by means of multiprogramming techniques as was discussed in section e.g) Instruction in ProgrammingAnother incompletely satisfied need is for adequate instruction in programming on this campus.Business 373/Information Science 30&° and Linguistics 350/Library Science 318/Information Science301 train over two hundred students per year at thesenior/graduate level. Next year an undergraduatecourse, Information Science 100/Introduction toProgramming, will be offered each quarter. Thereis still a need for further development of morespecialized programming courses, perhaps staffedjointly by Information Sciences and the Computation Center. Some universities have gone as far asto require programming of every freshman. Theneed at Chicago is probably not this great, but we are not at present filling the demand. There is alsoa need for short non-credit courses for faculty andstaff.VIII. Centralization vs. DecentralizationIt is the present policy of the University to restrict the acquisition of computers on campus thatmay compete with the central computation facility.This policy is administered by the requirement thatall orders for purchase or rental of computationequipment be approved by the Computer PolicyCommittee, which has promulgated certain guidelines governing such authorization. Most units ofthe University comply willingly with this policy, butthere have been recent cases where acquisitions ¦have been made without such approval.From the overall University point of view, sucha policy makes a great deal of sense. With the costof computation being so great and with so manyunfulfilled needs, the University must husband itslimited resources and attempt to build one strongcentral facility which will adequately meet most ofthe needs of the University. If every school, department, research project or administrative office hadits own computer, the chances are that very few ofthe faculty would be adequately served and theUniversity would be at a serious disadvantage. Evenif there were only two or three centers, each wouldprobably supply less satisfactory service than onestrong central facility could. It is important that thecentral facility grow in its ability to handle a greatervariety of problems ; otherwise users will be dissatisfied with the service and motivated to try to provide their own.In some cases the individual user has requirements so specialized that it would be uneconomicalor impractical to provide them on the central facility. Other less noble motivations for wanting togo it alone are unenlightened self-interest, empirebuilding and a desire to control one's own resources.But there are also strong reasons for the individual to rely on the Center rather than on specialequipment. These include enlightened self-interest,a desire to be free to devote more time to research,a reluctance to get involved in equipment, space,manpower and organizational problems, an appreciation of the more economical use of grant dollars,and other reasons listed in section IVb as importantconsiderations in the decision to put the libraryautomation project on the Center machine.IX. Sources of Financial SupportThe three main sources of support for computingare University funds, outside support obtained bythe Center, and outside support obtained by the8departments, divisions and schools. At some universities the sources are of about equal size. We hopeto gather more information and make some recommendation about what the shares "should" be andabout the risks and costs of extreme values for anyparticular share. Given a level within each category,other issues arise. For example, the University fundscan be given to the Computation Center with theprovision that it grant some budgeted number ofhours of use to individuals. Or the funds can begiven to departments with the agreement that theymust be used for computer time. Or it may be required that the funds be spent either for computertime or programming services. Clearly, various combinations of these possibilities exist.Funds may be sought by the Center for a varietyof purposes. To make it possible for the Center togo after these funds may require a different sort oforganization. It is also possible that the Centerwould lose some of its service orientation, and thismight be undesirable. But there are certainly needsin the areas of computer time for educational use,applications development, systems development,system research, particular pieces of hardware andhardware research and/or development. Some ofthese areas might be developed in cooperation withICR and the Committee on Information Sciences.Others might be done jointly with other departments. The University might be able to obtain afacilities grant from the NSF if it were able tomeet the policy requirements for University support and commitment.It is more difficult to suggest concrete problemsand policies with respect to support sought by departments. It is a formidable problem to coordinatedepartmental requests for funds which anticipate orrequire expansion of the computational facilitiesbefore the funds can be spent for computation, butthe department cannot guarantee the funds untilthe request has been approved.It may be possible to suggest other sources ofsupport and to devise a reporting scheme so thatthe Center Director is aware of department andproject budgets for computing. There may also begrants that are more appropriately sought outsidethe Center. It may be that an organizational structure that links some faculty more closely to theComputation Center would make it easier to getsome grants. In general we welcome suggestions inthis area.The University currently supports student computing related to courses through the regular budget.The total amount of such support has not beenascertained. Unorthodox ways of financing computing for courses have been suggested. One possi bility is a computation fee assessed on the student.We have not looked into the mathematics of thisbut recognize that a realistic fee might cover onlya small part of the cost. Other universities seem toprovide much larger sums for direct student computation than does The University of Chicago.At present, the University picks up any deficit inthe Computation Center at the end of the year.Apparently it is hoped that there will be no deficit.If an amount equal to this deficit could somehowbe made available to users, idle time on the machine could be reduced and someone would getsomething for the money.X. ConclusionWhen the Committee makes its recommendationsin its final report, implementation will doubtlessdepend intimately on the level of support the University will provide to the Computation Center.The preliminary evidence available suggests thatThe University of Chicago is at the low end of therange of support of computation centers when compared with other major universities. NorthwesternUniversity, the University of Michigan and PurdueUniversity currently commit more money for theircomputation centers than we do; this is true bothin absolute amounts and as a percentage of the respective computation center budgets. We did notattempt a comparison by way of a percentage ofthe total University budgets. Comparison with thelibrary has perhaps become a cliche, but we reportnevertheless the opinion at these institutions thatcomputing budgets will inexorably rise to the orderof magnitude of the library. Figures are not available from other centers, but presumably one of twothings is true : either our Center has been more efficient, thereby requiring less University support, orour lag in obtaining modern hardware is a measureof our lower level of university support than isavailable elsewhere.The evidence thus far accumulated suggests thatit will be desirable in the future to have a continuing policy review, possibly conducted by a suitablesubcommittee of the Computer Policy Committee.In this continuing review it will be advisable tohave annual reports analyzing the status of theComputation Center, correcting projections madein the past and adjusting projections for the future.It seems advisable that lines of responsibility beestablished for both the Director of the Computation Center and the Chairman of the Computer Policy Committee. (Note : it has been suggested that theline of reporting should include an appropriate administrative officer — perhaps a vice-president or theDean of the faculties — and we tend to favor this.)9Communication between various groups on thecampus concerned with computing has not beenideal, and efforts should be made to improve this.Furthermore, future developments may very wellrequire a willingness of the University to engage incooperative ventures with other institutions.The present policy restricts the number of private computers on campus, especially when thesecomputers may compete with the central computation facility. The adequacy of this policy dependsupon the quality of service provided by the Computation Center. Unless the Computation Centergrows in its ability to handle a greater variety ofproblems and is provided with new equipment, itseems likely that pressures for private computerswill grow. Planning for the Computation Center(hardware and software) must go hand in handwith the potential need for and availability of smallspecial purpose computers. It still seems necessaryand advisable that all considerations concerningpurchase of computational equipment funnel throughthe Computer Policy Committee and the relevantdeans' offices.The space problem for the Computation Centeris critical and reflects inadequate coordinated planning for the future. Some programmers have beenremoved to another building, but crowding is stillextreme. Related to this is the absence of a personnel policy that recognizes an appropriate rate ofexpansion. (Or is the Center to stop growing?)The absence of coordinated planning also hampers the development of the custom programmingand applications programming activities.The following suggestions for modifying the present administrative setup have been presented to theCommittee, but have not yet been fully explored:1. The Director should be responsible for overallplanning and the suggestion of appropriate policy.2. In this activity he would have the help of twoor more Associate Directors to form the directorate.Perhaps one Associate Director would specialize innumber-crunching facilities and one would specializein large files and time-sharing.3. The directorate would be aided in technicalmatters by an advisory committee of interested andtechnically competent faculty members appointedby the Director.4. Policy matters would be cleared with the Computer Policy Committee as at present, which wouldact with authority in some instances and recommendto the President's Office in others.5. There should be someone available in thePresident's Office to assist with financial questionsrelated to planning.6. The Director would be responsible for exe cuting policy with the role of individual AssociateDirectors arranged individually.APPENDIX ILB 1028.5.B94 Bushnell, Don D., and Allen,Dwight W. (eds.). The Computer in American Education.Wiley, 1967.Report of a conference on computers in education. Nineteenchapters covering many of themost important topics related tocomputers in education at alllevels.LB 1028.5.C16 Caffrey, John, and Mosmann,Charles J. Computers on Campus. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1967.Paperback report of System Development Corporation personnelwho visited fifty colleges in 1966.Addressed to the college president,it presents a rather complete viewof computing on campus. Containsa good glossary in prose form.QA 76.C745 Finerman, Aaron (ed.). UniversityEducation in Computing Science. Academic Press, 1968.Has a chapter on the ComputerCenter and the Academic Program.Several copies in circulation.LB 1028. 5. C73 Gerard, R. W. (ed.). Computers inEducation. McGraw-Hill, 1967.Report of a symposium at theUniversity of California, Irvine.Treats topics in Computer AssistedInstruction, Library Automation,Student Records and Scheduling,Management Information and Regional Networks.QA 76.5.K2 Karplus, Walter J. (ed.). On-LineComputing. McGraw-Hill, 1967.A text to provide the application-oriented reader with a perspectiveof the time-shared computer field.Contains ten separately authoredchapters.LB 1028.5.N27 National Academy of SciencesPublication 1233. Digital Com-10puter Needs in Universities andColleges. Washington, D.C.,1966.A carefully done study by theAcademy which drew on a numberof highly qualified individuals.Pamphlet form Report of the President's ScienceAdvisory Committee. Computersin Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: The White House,February, 1967.A definitive report with recommendations.APPENDIX IIThe Computer Policy Committee {luly, 1968)Term expires September 30, 1968:Sidney Davidson, ChairmanDr. Harry A. FozzardStuart A. Rice (a recent replacement for LeoM. Falicov)Don R. SwansonTerm expires September 30, 1969:Robert L. GravesJohn A. Simpson (alternate is Norman M. Gel-fand)Victor H. YngveTerm expires September 30, 1970:Paul MeierRichard H. MillerBenjamin D. WrightEx officio members:A. Adrian AlbertRobert L. AshenhurstWilliam B. HarrellDr. Leon 0. Jacobson (alternate is Richard C.Lewontin)D. Gale JohnsonClemens C. J. RoothaanGeorge P. ShultzExecutive Committee: Davidson, Meier, Yngve,Ashenhurst {ex officio), Roothaan {ex officio).APPENDIX IIIStatement Issued by the Computer PolicyStudy Committee May 28, 1968In response to a request to the Computer PolicyCommittee, President Beadle has formed a Com mittee to examine the entire picture of computationat The University of Chicago. The Committee in*tends to conduct a thorough study of the problemsof computing, including the growth of our needs,the competing requirements for different kinds ofservice, the continual modernizaton of hardware,the financing of computing, etc. To complete sucha study will require considerable time. For thatreason we will issue reports at intervals so thatpreliminary recommendations can be made availableas soon as possible. Obviously we want to makecomputing at the University the best possible forour needs. We are anxious to preserve and enhancethe stability and quality of what we already have,and we would appreciate the efforts of all membersof the University community toward that same end.We realize that when a committee is formed tolook into the operation of a large enterprise likethe Computation Center, there is naturally someuneasiness and uncertainty on the part of the faculty and staff associated with it. We want to makeclear that a major alteration in the operation of theComputation Center is not envisioned in the nearfuture. Our Committee will issue an interim reportearly in the Summer Quarter. The Committee willthen be free to embark on a deeper and more time-consuming study of computation in the Universityover the long range, a study that will try to predictthe pattern of computer use five years from nowand the kinds of machines and organization that willbe needed at that time.ROSENBERGER MEDALSRosenberger Medals were awarded to the followingat the 323rd Convocation, June 7, 1968:Lowell T. Coggeshall, Trustee, Vice-PresidentEmeritus, Frederick H. Rawson Professor Emeritus, Department of Medicine, and Special Adviser to the Dean of the Division of the Biological SciencesIn recognition of your distinguished research intropical medicine, your significant administrativeachievements while serving as dean, vice-president, and trustee of this University, and especially for your outstanding contributions to medicaleducation, typified by your historic chairmanshipof the committee whose widely acclaimed reporton medical education is a tribute to your name.Morris Fishbein, Editor, Medical World NewsIn recognition of your eminence as a writer andcommentator on medical progress, whose editorial11leadership has contributed significantly to the advancement of man's health, and whose wordshave increased the public understanding of thecomplexities of medical research and practice.John Schoff Millis, Chancellor, Case WesternReserve UniversityIn recognition of your eighteen years of outstanding leadership of Western Reserve University and your chairmanship of the committeewhose extraordinarily significant report established revolutionary guidelines for graduate medical education.John McFarlane Russell, President, John andMary Markle FoundationIn recognition of your role in initiating the Markle Scholar program, which has had a major im-,pact on the upgrading of academic medicine, andyour more than twenty-two years of administrative leadership of the Markle Foundation devotedunstintingly and with great effectiveness to promoting the advancement and diffusion of knowledge and the general good of mankind.James A. Shannon, Director, National Institutesof HealthIn recognition of your distinguished career as arenal physiologist, your great concern for and attention to international health problems, and twodecades of extraordinarily skillful and effectivework in the National Institutes of Health. QUANTRELL AWARDS FOREXCELLENCE IN UNDERGRADUATETEACHINGThe Llewellyn John and Harriet Manchester Quan-trell Awards for Excellence in UndergraduateTeaching were awarded at the Spring ConvocationJune 7, 1968, to the following:John C. Jamieson, Professor of GeophysicsEnlisting the participation of The University ofChicago's renowned faculty, he has engaged theminds of first-year students (most of them notspecialists in science) with authoritative lecturesand with material of incomparable fascination aswell as prime relevance.Edward James Kollar, Assistant Professor ofBiology and AnatomyAlways available to students for discussion outside the classroom, he has exhibited a friendly informality, patience and delight in learning thathave made him a personal favorite of many students — biologists, humanists and social scientists.Lester Knox Little, Assistant Professor of HistoryIn an age dazzled by the immediate and the momentary, he inspires students to grasp the fascination and relevance of remote times.Dudley Shapere, Professor of PhilosophyIn his office, on the lawn, in someone's livingroom, he is always ready to take the argument astep further — to keep it clear and get it right.IN MEMORIAMFollowing is a list of names of those who died between November, 1967 and September 15, 1968. The Secretary of the Faculties would be grateful to receive information on omissions or corrections.Crosskey, William WinslowFisher, Wayne D.Gilkey, Rev. Charles W.Hodgson, Marshall G. S.Holman, Rev. Charles T.Landsberger, BennoMcLean, Franklin ChambersNuveen, JohnSpencer, Lyle M.Strandjord, Nels M.Williamson, GeorgeMartin A. Ryerson, EmeritusDistinguished Service Professorship EmeritusFacultyEmeritusFacultyEmeritusEmeritusEmeritusTrusteeTrusteeFacultyEmeritus January 6, 1968May 2, 1968March 24, 1968June 10, 1968February 3, 1968April 26, 1968September 10, 1968August 8, 1968August 21, 1968September 11, 1968September 8, 196812NEW FACULTY APPOINTMENTS AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1968This list is meant to include all appointments completed after those listed in The University of Chicago Record of November 3, 1967 (Volume I, Number 1) and December 21, 1967 (Volume I, Number 2). The datelisted with each name is the effective date of the appointment. The Secretary of the Faculties would appreciate any information on omissions or corrections.DIVISION OF THE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCESDr. Leslie J. DeGroot Professor 9/01/68 MedicineIsrael Goldiamond Professor 7/01/68 Psychiatry, PsychologyDr. Merel H. Harmel Professor 9/01/68 SurgeryPhilip S. Holzman Professor 7/01/68 Psychiatry, PsychologyArnold Ravin Professor 9/01/68 Biology, CollegeRobert Beck Associate Professor 11/13/67 RadiologyDonald Charleston Associate Professor 11/13/67 RadiologyDr. Edward Cohen Associate Professor 1/01/68 Medicine, La RabidaDr. Robert Cutler Associate Professor 9/01/68 MedicineDr. Pieter DeVryer Associate Professor 7/01/68 PsychiatryDr. Jarl E. Dyrud Associate Professor 7/01/68 PsychiatryKatherine Lathrop Associate Professor 11/13/67 RadiologyWard R. Richter, D.V.M. Associate Professor 7/01/68 PathologyDr. Charles R. Schuster Associate Professor 7/01/68 PsychiatryDr. Eberhard H. Uhlenhuth Associate Professor 7/01/68 PsychiatryDr. John E. Ultmann Associate Professor 9/01/68 MedicineAnthony Amarose Assistant Professor 12/15/67 Obstetrics and GynecologyDr. Henry Joseph Binder Assistant Professor 7/01/68 MedicineDavid James Chapman Assistant Professor 3/01/68 BiologyDr. John N. Chappel Assistant Professor 7/01/68 PsychiatryDr. Robert E. Cleary Assistant Professor 7/15/68 Obstetrics and GynecologyDr. Nicholas Cozzarelli Assistant Professor 8/01/68 BiochemistryDr. John Esterly Assistant Professor 2/01/68 Pathology and ObstetricsStephen E. Fienberg Assistant Professor 10/01/68 Committee on Mathematical Biology,StatisticsDaniel Janzen Assistant Professor 6/01/68 BiologyDr. Joseph Jarabek Assistant Professor 1/01/68 MedicineDr. Adrian I. Katz Assistant Professor 7/01/68 MedicineJerome Mangen Assistant Professor 11/01/67 ZoologyDr. Herbert Meltzer Assistant Professor 7/01/68 PsychiatryDr. Roy Olson Assistant Professor 7/01/68 Zoller Dental ClinicAnthony D. J. Robertson Assistant Professor 4/01/68 Committee on Mathematical BiologyDr. Robert Rosenfield Assistant Professor 7/01/68 PediatricsDr. John Sandblom Assistant Professor 10/01/68 Committee on Mathematical BiologyJohn R. Thomas Assistant Professor 7/01/68 PsychiatryDr. Dorothy B. Windhorst Assistant Professor 7/01/68 MedicineDr. Joseph D. Abatie Instructor 7/01/68 RadiologyDr. Lawrence Allen Instructor 7/01/68 MedicineDr. I. G. D. Anderson Instructor 7/01/68 MedicineDr. Robert Bergman Instructor 7/01/68 PsychiatryDr. Michael Bihara Instructor 7/01/68 PediatricsDr. Gerald E. Byrne, Jr. Instructor 7/01/68 PathologyDr. James J. Castles Instructor 7/01/68 MedicineDr. Lionel W. Coppleson Instructor 7/01/68 SurgeryCharles Donnelly Instructor 7/01/68 PsychiatryDr. Generoso Duremedes Instructor 7/01/6& Surgery13Dr. Pablo EnriquezDr. Nancy Burton EsterlyDr. Raul FalicovDr. Audrey ForbesDr. John GriepDr. Nicholas J. GrossDr. Corazon de GuzmanDr. Yoshio HosobuchiDr. Richard KaufmanDr. Leland D. Kellerhouse, Jr.Dr. Hoon Taik KyeRobert E. KuttnerDouglas M. LayDr. James LumengDr. Joseph F. MatzRichard W. MintelDr. Willard B. MoranDr. Robert PaulissianDr. William W. SheehanDr. Harris SmithDr. Richard H. UlmerDr. Charles S. WinansDr. Supara Wongse-SanitDr. Magdi YacoubDr. James ZnajdaDr. Patricia A. ZygmunDavid BevingtonHamlin HillKali BahlRobert DembroskiAlbert J. FurtwanglerPhilip GossettC. Stephen JaegerPeter JansenTobin H. JonesCarolyn KilleanMrs. Janel MuellerAnthony NaroHans J. NissenJohannes M. RengerBraxton RossPaul A. SpraguePeter WhiteMrs. Theodora HadzistelliouPriceRobert D. HummelLouis NatenshonMaruta Ray Instructor 4/01/68Instructor 7/01/68Instructor 7/01/68Instructor 11/01/67Instructor 7/01/68Instructor 7/01/68Instructor 7/01/68Instructor 7/01/68Instructor 7/01/68r. Instructor 7/01/68Instructor 7/01/68Instructor 7/01/68Instructor 10/01/68Instructor 1/01/68Instructor 7/01/68Instructor 10/01/67Instructor 7/01/68Instructor 1/01/68Instructor 7/01/68Instructor 7/01/68Instructor * 7/01/68Instructor 7/01/68Instructor 11/01/67Instructor 7/01/68Instructor 7/01/68Instructor 7/01/68Professor 10/01/68Professor 10/01/68Assistant Professor 7/01/67Assistant Professor 7/01/68Assistant Professor 7/01/68Assistant Professor 10/01/68Assistant Professor 10/01/68Assistant Professor 10/01/68Assistant Professor 10/01/68Assistant Professor 7/01/67Assistant Professor 10/01/68Assistant Professor 10/01/68Assistant Professor 7/01/68Assistant Professor 7/01/68Assistant Professor 10/01/68Assistant Professor 9/01/68Assistant Professor 10/01/68Instructor 10/01/68Instructor 10/01/68Instructor 10/01/68Instructor 10/01/68 PathologyPediatrics and. La RabidaMedicineMedicine, PediatricsPathologyMedicineSurgerySurgeryPsychiatryRadiologySurgeryObstetrics and GynecologyAnatomy, CollegePathologyZoller Dental ClinicBiochemistry, CollegeSurgerySurgeryPathologyPsychiatryMedicineMedicineSurgerySurgerySurgeryPsychiatryEnglishEnglish, CollegeSouth Asian LanguagesRomance Languages, CollegeEnglish, CollegeMusic, CollegeGermanic Languages, CollegeLinguisticsRomance Languages, CollegeNear Eastern LanguagesEnglish, CollegeLinguisticsOriental Institute, Near EasternLanguagesOriental Institute, Near EasternLanguagesGermanic Languages, History,CollegeArt, CollegeClassics, CollegeArtGermanic Languages, CollegeArt, CollegeGermanic Languages, CollegeDIVISION OF THE HUMANITIES14DIVISION OF THE PHYSICAL SCIENCESRichard Lindzen Associate Professor 1/01/68Dimitri Mihalas Associate Professor 9/01/68Joseph Pedlosky Associate Professor 7/01/68Alfred T. Anderson Assistant Professor 7/01/68Richard Blake Assistant Professor 7/01/68Stephen E. Fienberg Assistant Professor 10/01/68Karl Freed Assistant Professor 7/01/68Joseph A. Goguen Assistant Professor 10/01/68Patrick E. Palmer Assistant Professor 7/01/68Michael J. Wichura Assistant Professor 10/01/68Leif Arkeryd Instructor 10/01/68Todd Dupont Instructor 10/01/68Edward A. Deutsch Instructor 10/01/68Phillip Griffith Instructor 10/01/68Richard T. Miller Instructor 10/01/68 Geophysical SciencesAstronomyGeophysical SciencesGeophysical Sciences, CollegeAstronomy, Enrico Fermi InstituteStatistics, Committee on MathematicalBiologyChemistry, James Franck InstituteCommittee on Information SciencesAstronomyStatisticsMathematicsMathematics, CollegeChemistryMathematics, CollegeMathematicsDIVISION OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCESIsrael Goldiamond Professor 7/01/68 Psychology, PsychiatryPhilip S. Holzman Professor 7/01/68 Psychology, PsychiatryManning Nash Professor 10/01/68 Anthropology, CollegeM. Brewster Smith Professor 7/01/68 PsychologyVictor W. Turner Professor 7/01/68 Committee on Social ThoughtSidney Verba Professor 10/01/68 Political ScienceBrian Barry Associate Professor 10/01/68 Political ScienceRobert Dreeben Associate Professor 7/01/68 EducationGeorge Stocking Associate Professor 10/01/68 Anthropology, HistoryN. S. Cheung Assistant Professor 10/01/68 EconomicsCarl Feldman Assistant Professor 7/01/68 Committee on Human DevelopmentJames J. Fennessey Assistant Professor 10/01/68 SociologyPeter G. Goheen Assistant Professor 10/01/68 GeographyRobert Gordon Assistant Professor 10/01/68 EconomicsMuriel E. Hunt Assistant Professor 10/01/68 Anthropology, CollegeEstel W. Kelly Assistant Professor 10/01/68- Political Science, CollegeRodney W. Kilcup Assistant Professor 10/01/68 History, CollegeLucy Ann Marx Assistant Professor 7/01/68 EducationDonald N. McCloskey Assistant Professor 10/01/68 EconomicsCharlan J. Nemeth Assistant Professor 10/01/68 Psychology, CollegeNorman Nie Assistant Professor 10/01/68 Political ScienceWilliam L. Parish Assistant Professor 10/01/68 Sociology, CollegeBraxton Ross Assistant Professor 7/01/68 History, Germanic Languages, CollegeDonald M. Scott Assistant Professor 10/01/68 History, CollegeNoel Swerdlow Assistant Professor 10/01/68 History, CollegeTerrence Turner Assistant Professor 10/01/68 Anthropology, CollegeIan D. Westbury Assistant Professor 7/01/68 EducationJoseph Richard Zecher Assistant Professor 10/01/68 EconomicsWayne Anderson Instructor 9/01/68 PsychologyFrances J. Beck Instructor 9/01/68 EducationJames Hazlett Instructor 7/01/67 EducationVictor Lidz Instructor 10/01/68 Sociology, CollegeThomas Pullam Instructor 9/01/68 Sociology15THE COLLEGEHamlin Hill Professor 10/01/68Manning Nash Professor 10/01/68Arnold Ravin Professor 9/01/68Alfred T. Anderson Assistant Professor 7/01/68Robert Dembroski Assistant Professor 7/01/68Albert Furtwangler Assistant Professor 7/01/68Mrs. Beatrice Garber Assistant Professor 10/01/68Philip Gossett Assistant Professor 10/01/68Muriel Hunt Assistant Professor 10/01/68C. Stephen Jaeger Assistant Professor 10/01/68Tobin H. Jones Assistant Professor 10/01/68Estel W. Kelly Assistant Professor 10/01/68Rodney W. Kilcup Assistant Professor 10/01/68Mrs. Janel Mueller Assistant Professor 10/01/68Charlan J. Nemeth Assistant Professor 10/01/68Mrs. Ida Paper Assistant Professor 10/01/68William L. Parish Assistant Professor^ 10/01/68Braxton Ross Assistant Professor 7/01/68Donald M. Scott Assistant Professor 10/01/68Jonathan Littell Smith Assistant Professor 7/01/68Paul Sprague Assistant Professor 9/01/68Noel Swerdlow Assistant Professor 10/01/68Terrence Turner Assistant Professor 10/01/68Peter White Assistant Professor 10/01/68Todd Dupont Instructor 10/01/68Phillip Griffith Instructor 10/01/68Robert D. Hummel Instructor 10/01/68Douglas M. Lay Instructor 10/01/68Victor Lidz Instructor 10/01/68Roy McDiarmid Instructor 10/01/68Richard W. Mintel Instructor 10/01/67Louis Natenshon Instructor 10/01/68Maruta Ray Instructor 10/01/68Mrs. Nancy Tanner Instructor 10/01/68 Humanities*, EnglishSocial Sciences*, AnthropologyBiology*, BiologyPhysical Sciences*, GeophysicalSciencesHumanities*, Romance LanguagesHumanities*, EnglishBiology*Humanities*, MusicSocial Sciences*, AnthropologyHumanities*, Germanic LanguagesHumanities*, Romance LanguagesSocial Sciences*, Political ScienceSocial Sciences*, HistoryHumanities*, EnglishSocial Sciences*, PsychologyHumanities*Social Sciences*, SociologySocial Sciences*, History,Germanic LanguagesSocial Sciences*, HistoryNew Collegiate Division*, DivinityHumanities*, ArtSocial Sciences*, HistorySocial Sciences*, AnthropologyHumanities*, ClassicsPhysical Sciences*, MathematicsPhysical Sciences*, MathematicsHumanities*, Germanic LanguagesBiology*, AnatomySocial Sciences*, SociologyBiology*Biology*, BiochemistryHumanities*, ArtHumanities*, Germanic LanguagesSocial Sciences*GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESSBrian Moore Assistant Professor 10/01/68Donald B. Rice Assistant Professor 10/01/68William Vaughn Assistant Professor 10/01/68Baruch Lev Instructor 10/01/68William M. Mason Instructor 10/01/68Thomas Morton Instructor 7/01/68Charles Upton Instructor 10/01/68* Indicates Collegiate Division.16DIVINITY SCHOOLGlen William DavidsonJonathan Littell SmithBrian W. GrantAnthony Yu Assistant Professor 7/01/68Assistant Professor 7/01/68Instructor 7/01/68Instructor 7/01/68GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATIONDonald E. Edgar Assistant Professor 9/15/68Raymond L. Jerrems Assistant Professor 4/01/68Robert P. Parker Assistant Professor 9/01/68Ernest N. Poll Instructor 10/01/68LAW SCHOOLRobert A. Burt Associate Professor 10/01/68Owen M. Fiss Associate Professor 7/01/68Phillip H. Ginsburg Assistant Professor 3/01/68SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SERVICE ADMINISTRATIONWilliam J. Reid Associate Professor 10/01/68Samuel Dooha Assistant Professor 4/01/68Joshua E. Cohen Assistant Professor 10/01/68John Schuerman Assistant Professor 7/01/68Walter L. Walker Assistant Professor 10/01/68DEAN OF STUDENTSMarsha BowersJohn M. Schael InstructorInstructor 10/01/68 Physical Education—Women9/15/68 Physical Education— MenRESIGNATIONS AND RETIREMENTSThis list is meant to include resignations and retirements which became effective since those listed inthe November 3, 1967 University of Chicago Record(Volume I, Number 1). The Secretary of the Faculties would be grateful to receive information onomissions or corrections.PROFESSORSWalter Blair* EnglishJames L. Cate* HistoryFrancis S. Chase* Education* Signifies retirement. Pierre DeMarqueJacques DrezeWilma R. EbbittMaurice L. Hartung*Duncan HoladayHilger P. Jenkins*Nicholas D. KatzenbachNathan KeyfitzRobert LangridgeViola Manderfield*Harold Mayer AstronomyBusinessEnglish, CollegeEducationAnesthesiologySurgeryLaw SchoolSociologyBiophysics, InformationSciencesGermanic Languages,CollegeGeography17Hugh McLeanHenry Perlman*Max Rheinstein*Lillian RippleHelen Robinson Jobe*Ichiro SatakeJohn ShlienMelford SpiroMarshall Stone*Sheldon Tefft*Birgit Vennesland Slavic LanguagesSurgeryLaw SchoolSocial Service AdministrationEducationMathematicsPsychology, Human DevelopmentAnthropologyMathematicsLaw SchoolBiochemistryASSOCIATE PROFESSORSB. Blanco-Gonzales*Kenneth A. BrownleeDavid H. DouglassEdgar DraperJohn HarveyWu-Yi HsiangLawrence KohlbergRobert KreidlerArdis R. LavenderDavid N. LimberMorrell LongWalter PetryshynBernice PolemisPeter N. StearnsRichard J. StorrRobert Tuveson Romance LanguagesStatisticsPhysics, James FranckInstitutePsychiatryPsychology, PharmacologyMathematicsPsychology, Human DevelopmentPhysical Education —MenMedicineAstronomyBusinessMathematicsSocial Service AdministrationHistory, CollegeHistory, CollegeBotanyBLUM COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTSThe following students have been appointed byPresident Beadle to serve on the Faculty AdvisoryCommittee on Student Residences and Facilities (the Blum Committee) for the academic year1968-69:Steven Cope, CollegeMichael Green stein, BusinessB. Robert Kreiser, HistoryRobert Lavine, PhysiologyRichard Murray, CollegeMitchell Pines, CollegeMargaret Primeau, CollegeBeatrice Wenban, CollegeThe following faculty members are serving on theCommittee during the academic year 1968-69:Walter Blum, ChairmanJoseph CeithamlGwin KolbJames E. Miller, Jr.James M. RedfieldJoshua TaylorJoseph Schwab"Karl WeintraubADDENDUMThe members of the Faculty-Student AdvisoryCommittee on Campus Student Life, who werelisted in the June 10, 1968 issue of The University of Chicago Record, will report toCharles D. O'Connell, Dean of Students.HONORARY DEGREESHonorary Doctor of Science degrees were awardedat the 323rd Convocation, June 7, 1968, to:Herbert C. Brown, R. B. Wetherill Professor ofChemistry, Purdue UniversityDistinguished scientist and teacher, whose experimental investigations have transformed major areas of practical and theoretical chemistry.Lars Onsager, Professor of Chemistry, Yale UniversityEminent theoretician, who has probed deeplyinto the most complex and profound problems ofphysics and chemistry and vastly contributed toour fundamental understanding of nature.Efraim Racker, Albert Einstein Professor andChairman, Section of Biochemistry and MolecularBiology, Cornell University18Versatile experimenter and biochemist whosework is characterized by variety and rigor.An honorary Doctor of Science degree was awardedat the 324th Convocation, August 30, 1968, to:George Klein, Director of the Institute of TumorBiology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, SwedenTumor biologist and scholar, whose investigativeskills have laid the foundation for the modern eraof tumor biology.ELECTED STUDENT COUNCILSThe following official communication is a supplement to the reports on student involvement published in the University Records, March 18, 1968,and May 3, 1968.October 11, 1968TO: ACADEMIC DEANSFROM: EDWARD H. LEVII hope the following program can be implemented :The creation in each collegiate division, each division and each school of an elected student councilor representative student committee — this group tomeet regularly with the master or dean and with a faculty group in that area designated in some appropriate way. This program would build on some existing institutions — some of the collegiate divisionsnow do have elected student councils and departments and schools do have elected student officersof student organizations. But the program wouldensure the existence as a regular matter of an electedrepresentative committee which would meet in waysto be determined by the area with a faculty group.I believe this will constitute something of a changefor some of the professional schools, even thoughthey may now have strong student organizations. Itwill be a change for some of the divisions (not all)because it will create a division-wide elected studentgroup. There will be different — and perhaps difficult— problems in each area concerning representativeness.The program of course is not intended to diminishin any way the importance of other elected studentgroups but rather to provide an elected group tomeet with faculty regularly in each area, buildingupon the basic structure of the University.This program (which has evolved out of discussions with the deans and many prior discussions)can be implemented only by action within each ofthe areas, and I ask your help and the help of thefaculties in bringing this about as soon as possible.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE FACULTIESuniversityof chicago,Archivesnf*3 c**X :«<aEF ^£2 a*o *•* :C> -figo o?i a*fl> Si*Q O0 0~ ***O 0a*ex: oO HM1sn>oowoooS3-8Ks.ON^1mw