THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO i RECORDAN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF FACULTIES VOLUME III, NUMBER 1STUDENT HOUSING HISTORYThe following report was written by Mr. HenryField and presented to the Committee of the Council for their information. The Committee recommended to the president that the report be madeavailable to the University community.IntroductionThis survey of ,the history of student housing atThe University of Chicago was undertaken to provide a perspective on current housing problems andto do so by relying only on recorded facts, not ongeneral impressions. One implication of this emphasis is that where the historical record is thin, thestory will be thin, and there are places in the historywhere the past simply would not disgourge hard information because data do not exist. Again, much ofthe information here is presented without specificconclusions, to avoid distortion and because many ofthe possible issues themselves remain unknown. Thereader may conclude for himself about those problems which he may bring to the materials.Over time, several points stand out for significantrecognition in understanding current housing problems. Foremost, perhaps, is the fact that until recently The University of Chicago was preponderantly a commuter institution. Well into the 1950's itcontinued to appear to be one. Just when the decision to change was made — if indeed one was made —does not appear, but the introduction by the Collegeof a residential requirement in 1961-62 marked theend of the commuting era, although, as Table 4shows, the actual shift in the College had beenoccurring since 1956-57.Also significant is the fact that The Universityof Chicago is overwhelmingly a graduate institution,with about two-thirds of total Quadrangles enrollment being graduate (see Table 3). Moreover, during and after World War II, enrollment figuresappear chaotic. Immediately before the war, enrollment was 6,053, during the war it fell to 4,650 andimmediately after the war it rose to 8,564. Fromthat point it declined precipitously each year to4,642 in 1953-54 (about the mid-war level), andthen rose to 8,296 in 1967-68 and 8,841 in Autumn{Continued on page 5) CONTENTS / January 29, 19691 Student Housing History1 President's Seminar4 The Council of the University Senate4 Correction22 Honorary Degrees23 Committee of the Council23 Additions and Corrections to New FacultyAppointments ListPRESIDENT'S SEMINARMr. Levi has asked each of the deans to recommendfrom the elected Student Councils in their area astudent to serve as a member of an advisory groupto the president. Upon the recommendations of thedeans, the following students have been asked toserve on the President's Seminar.Graduate Library School — lohn Aubry*New Collegiate Division — Don Bialostosky^Humanities Collegiate Division — Stephanie Butler^Physical Sciences Collegiate Division — Alan KeithBrownBiology Collegiate Division — Anne ClarkThe Pritzker School of Medicine— William DockenSocial Sciences Collegiate Division — Tim LovainDivinity School — Alan StoneDivision of the Physical Sciences — Miron StrafLaw School — Charles C. IvieDivision of the Humanities — leff SwansonSchool of Social Service Administration— M ariTietelman* The Student Advisory Group in the Physical Sciences Collegiate Division was appointed by the Masterlast year. Membership on the Student Advisory Groupin the New Collegiate Division is open to any membersof the Division who wish to participate. The studentsserving on the Advisory Group in the Humanities Collegiate Division nominate students to succeed them.1The deans of the Division of the Biological Sciences, School of Education, Division of the SocialSciences, and Graduate School of Business havebeen asked to recommend a member as soon as theStudent Councils have been elected in these areas.These names will be published in The UniversityRecord as soon as they are available. Following isthe membership of the student groups from whichthe President's Seminar was drawn.STUDENT COUNCILS BY ACADEMICAREADivision of the Physical SciencesStudents:AstronomyLaurence MarschallChemistryKenneth SpearsGeophysical SciencesTyler Coplen {Alfred Duba, appointed as substitute for Coplen during latter's absence fromcampus)MathematicsWilliam Griff ethPhysicsChing-Fai ChoStatisticsMir on StrafInformation SciencesChristopher BrownFaculty:Peter VandervoortR. Stephen BerryL. F. McGoldrickF. BrowderS. H. KrasnerPaul MeierR. L. AshenhurstLaw SchoolStudents:Harvey E. BlitzJohn M. CunninghamJames E. Fearn, Jr.Charles C. IvieJames P. WalshAlvin C. Warren, Jr. Faculty:Soia MentschikoffWalter J. BlumRobert A. BurtDavid P. CurriePhilip B. KurlandDivision of the HumanitiesArtPearlee FreibergComparative StudiesPeter RabinowitzEnglishJeff SwansonGermanicsChauncey MellorHistory of CultureSuzanne NaiburgLinguisticsMrs. Georgia GreenMusicCalvin StapertNear EasternEdward BrovarskiNew TestamentRobert AllisonPhilosophyPeter K. MachamerRomance LanguageJohn PearceSlavicBarry SchorrThe Pritzker School of MedicineStudents:Brandy SikicWilliam DockenVincent TornabeneMary WilliamsRobert SvensonFaculty:Dr. Frank FitchDr. Philip HoffmannDr. F. Howell WrightDr. Edward N. EhrlichDr. Robert S. Daniels2f Student Councils by Academic Area — con't.)School of Social Service AdministrationJan BridgesRay CooperBarbara McKinneyMarvin GreenbaumTom WoodNancy AdlerNancy AlcockJoan BeerhalterTom ClarkSandy CumpMary FusekHarold HayesJo Ann HeinikoffJoe LoundyDan McLeanBetty SmithKathy TalbatMari TeitlemanLynn VogelWilbur WederEleanor YoungGraduate Library SchoolJohn W. AubryMary Jean GrathwolMrs. Marilyn GreenbergThe Divinity SchoolLowell W. LivezeyWilliam A. SimpsonNicholas A. PatriccaFrancis E. SteinerBiology Collegiate DivisionStudents :Thomas AdamecAnne ClarkJoshua Goldman_Ruth HodelSean PeppardJudy RybarczykMartin SoohooJohn StrausserSue ThompsonJanet WinikoffFaculty:John HubbyEdward KollarLorna StrausJohn Westley Social Sciences Collegiate DivisionAnthropologyRichard StruckerLawrence G. StrausEconomicsEileen McGregorRichard SchmalbeckGeneral StudiesJudy GoldsteinJoe GordonGeographyElaine FlyeLarry SvartHistoryRobert SchwartzAllan ShartinPolitical ScienceTim LovainLaurie JosephPsychologyBarbara Greens teinDeborah S. CahnPublic AffairsStephen VanceReece PetersonSociologyJoel Margolis (alternate)Chris Bates (regular delegate)Physical Sciences Collegiate DivisionA. Keith BrownJames N. Heasley, Jr.Gerald F. HermanMitchell I. Hof steinJudy M. LarsonThomas A. PummerRichard J. WeinbergJoel M. WeinsteinLinda YoungHumanities Collegiate DivisionStudents:Romance LanguagesStephanie ButlerLinguisticsJudith Phyllis Canino(Undecided)Bernabe Francis FeriaMusicAnn Garfield(Student Councils by Academic Area — con't.)MusicDale Levan GoodEnglishPeter B. HaywardLinguisticsDee Ann HoliskyHistoryNancy JasperEnglishMary Beth J or gens enPhilosophyJacques LeSourdGeneral StudiesLawrence NadelArt HistoryAnn Ellen SalitskyPhilosophyColleen Miner StameshkinGeneral StudiesLynn McKeever SweetFine ArtsJanice TohinakaFaculty:Ralph A. AustenStanley P. BatesLawrence BersteinAnne BurnettGrosvenor CooperPeter F. DembowskiHerbert Kessler Philip A. KuhnRalph E. MatlawJames D. McCawleyKenneth NorthcottJanice B. Spo fjordRobert SteinNew Collegiate DivisionCivilizational StudiesRoy BehnkeSusan LandayMaxine MiskaHistory and Philosophy of ReligionJoseph KenzoraHistory and Philosophy of ScienceMichael RauworthIdeas and MethodsKathleen Atlas sDavid BarnardDon BialostoskyAndrei LaszloHalle ck PollardRobert ShapiroMichael SorkinPhilosophical PsychologyNancy AbramsCarola GoldsteinSusan KimmelmanNancy RoemerGary YudkoffTutorial StudiesRuth WinterADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO NEW FACULTY APPOINTMENTS LISTThe Secretary of the Faculties is grateful to have received the following additions and corrections to thelist of new faculty appointments that appeared in the last issue of the Record.DIVISION OF THE HUMANITIESMichael Issacharoff Assistant ProfessorPeter Jansen Assistant ProfessorTHE COLLEGEMichael IssacharoffPeter Jansen Assistant ProfessorAssistant ProfessorGRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS fBaruch Lev Assistant ProfessorThomas Morton Assistant ProfessorBrian Moore InstructorWilliam Vaughn Instructor 10/01/68 Romance Languages, College10/01/68 Germanic Languages, College10/01/68 Humanities*, Romance Languages10/01/68 Humanities*, Germanic Languages10/01/687/01/689/01/6810/01/68* Indicates Collegiate Division.t The previous inclusion of Donald B. Rice in the list of appointments to the Graduate School of Business is inerror, since he declined.4Student Housing History —{Continued from page 1)Quarter 1968, the last figure slightly over the postwar figure. The appearance after the war of a number of relatively cost-free temporary governmenthousing units with preference for veterans, and thenof a housing excess in the early fifties, further complicated the housing picture.One implication of these facts is that while theUniversity has several dormitories, it has not developed anything like the system of residential facilities which characterizes many similar institutionsand which many consider to be an important component of the intellectual and cultural traditionsfostered by those other institutions.The most striking single change in student housing is the increase in the University's portfolio ofapartment buildings purchased in the neighborhoodfor both single and married student use. The number of units, timing of acquisitions, costs and rentsfor these properties are analyzed in some detail.Significant here is an understanding of the subsidycomponent of University-owned student housing,the result of four factors:1) tax exemptions of three sorts — local real estateand water tax exemptions and federal income taxexemptions for the University;2) federally-financed low interest loans for capital construction under the Housing Act of 1950;3) accounting practice which excludes depreciation from operating costs — a practice which assumesthat replacement of the asset and major repairs willbe provided from gifts to the University or low-interest loans, not from rents, and4) a rental pricing philosophy which elevates student needs over market prices. Student aid might also be considered a part of the housing subsidy, although it is less subsidy for University housing thanit is for student life.Finally, an attempt is made at the end to indicatethe effect of these acquisitions on both the University and the racial composition of the neighborhood,and also the effect of urban renewal plans on thestudent housing market./. Student Housing, 1892-1950The University of Chicago has provided quartersfor a significant portion of its unmarried undergraduate and graduate students since its opening in1892. Gates was opened that year. Blake, Foster,Kelly, Beecher and Snell were built in 1893. Greenfollowed in 1899 and Hitchcock in 1902. A hiatusfollowed, and then the construction across the Midway of the Burton-Judson Courts, all of a piece, in1931 completed what was to be, with the exceptionof a few married student apartments, the totality ofthe University's housing facilities for the first fiftyyears of its existence.Between 1928 and 1945 several analyses of student housing were undertaken. They showed thatabout one-half of the students at this Universitycommuted to school from their homes, and about 10to 15 per cent of the students lived in Universitydormitory or apartment facilities. During the twenties, about 9 per cent of the students lived in fraternities — almost as many as lived in University housing — but by 1940 the figure was under 1 per cent,where it has stayed. Another 30 to 38 per cent livedin rooms and a few furnished apartments in thevicinity, including east and west Woodlawn. Although no figures exist on just how far away fromthe University these rooms were, those who wereTABLE 1Year TotalEnrollment Livingat Home Dormitories Frats Rooms1928 5,4131940 6,0531943.... 3,6001944 4,650 2,522(47%) 610(11%) 514 (9%) 1,639(30%)2,899(47%) 892 (15%) 191 (3%) 1,703(29%)*1,703(47%) 473 (13%) 50 (1%) 1,370(38%)*1,988(42%) 718 (15%) 32 (.7%) 1,519(32%)** Does not include International House (368 [6%] in 1940).TABLE 2"Year CollegeEnrollment Livingat Home Dormitories Frats Rooms1928...;'....1940 1943 -,.1944........ 2,8701,7511,0621,928 1/693(59%)854576960 (49%) 240(8%)357195634(33%) 417(14%)683914 (.007%) 502 (17%)266252300(15%)here at the time remember distances considerablylonger than from any of the present Universityhousing facilities. Table 1 shows these figures.The figures for the College are shown in Table 2.A memorandum in 1945 disclosed that of a totalof 5,017 students then enrolled, the Universitycould house 1,621 students. Of 2,205 College students, only 944 came from outside Chicago, and of2,812 students in the Graduate Divisions andSchools, 1,703 came from outside Chicago. Apparently it was expected that the dormitory capacityof 1,621 would go principally to the non-Chicagostudents : 862 for the 944 out-of-towners in the College and 759 for the 1,703 in the Divisions andSchools.The extent to which the University seemed to bein significant part a commuter University eventhroughout the fifties is revealed by a report madeto* Chancellor Kimpton in 1954, entitled "FutureStudent Body and Student Housing." In this reporta future overall enrollment of 10,000 students wasprojected, half for the College and half for theDivisions and School. Of the 5,000 College students,it was estimated that 2,400 would commute, 1,500would live in University housing and 1,100 wouldlpe in fraternities, clubs and private houses. Of the5,000 graduates, 2,000 were predicted to commute,2,000 (mostly married) to live in University housing and 1,000 to live in clubs and private houses.These figures projected a total housing need of 3,500units by the mythical future date, and 1,925 unitswere already available in 1954 (including about 525at International House).Also that year the Student Government undertookan exhaustive examination of student housing cooperatives at various universities throughout thecountry. Although there was much discussion of thepossibility of such an enterprise, apparently nothingcame of it. That such an undertaking was seriouslypursued, however, suggests that alternatives to University-owned housing for students were activelydiscussed in that period just before the University'ssingle and married student housing programs beganin earnest.The extent to which what had been typical fromthe University's founding well into the fifties — thepattern of a largely commuting student body — became quickly untypical is revealed by a projectionthat in Autumn Quarter 1966, only .7 per cent of thetotal University student body lived at home with aparent, guardian or relative. Other statistics, elaborated later, show that by 1961, 61 per cent of theundergraduate student body resided in Universityhousing. For the year 1967-68, over 97 per cent ofthe College freshman class resided in the residencehalls, and the figure this year is over 99 per cent. Thus today less than 1 per cent of the freshmencommute, a dramatic reversal from the time onlyfourteen years ago when 50 per cent commuted, andhousing expectations shaped by these facts havechanged enormously.//. Single Student Housing, 1950-68Enrollment at this University is today almostexactly what it was immediately after World WarII, both in the College and in the Divisions andSchools. Table 3 shows enrollment from 1928 to thepresent.TABLE 31Per Cent Increase or(Decline) inTotal College Total En-Year Quadrangles Enrollment2 rollmentEnrollment2 over Previous IndicatedYear1928-29... 5,413 2,8701939-40... 5,898 1,643 8.961940-41... 6,053 1,751 2.63194^45... 4,650 1,928 (23.18)1947-48... 8,564 2,947 84.171948-49... 8,210 2,572 . (4.13)1949-50. . . 7,643 2,354 (6.91)1950-51... 6,818 1,862 (10.79)1951-52... 6,008 1,601 (11.88)1952-53... 5,064 1,351 (15.71)1953-54. . . 4,642 1,168 (8.33)1954-55... 4,764 1,350 2.631955-56. . . 5,090 1,645 6.841957-58... 5,785 2,183 13.651959-60. . . 5,827 2,119 .731961-62... 6,194 2,163 6.301963-64... 6,674 2,125 7.751965-66... 7,799 2,351 16.861966-67... 8,043 2,485 3.131967-68... 8,296 2,470 3.151968-69... . 8, 8413 2,700a 5.00i Enrollment figures differ slightly throughout this analysis, depending on the time of year used or whether all different studentsare counted.2 Enrollment figure is final Autumn Quarter figure each year.3 Third week Autumn Quarter degree candidates.In 1950-51, 32 per cent (588) of the undergraduates, and 10 per cent (520) of the graduateswere housed in the University's single student dormitories, which then included Manley House, atemporary structure behind Burton- Judson, closedthe next year. In 1967-68, 58 per cent (1,506) ofthe undergraduates and 13.6 per cent (774) of thegraduates were housed in University single studentdormitories and apartments. Put another way, 16.3per cent (1,108) of total University students in1950 lived in the University's dormitories, and 27.5per cent (2,280) in 1968 lived in single studenthousing — an increase of over 100 per cent. Table 4shows the fluctuating numbers and percentages ofsingle students housed by the University in dormitories, and later also apartments, since 1950.Table 5 shows total University housing capacitiesover time for single and married students, and also6compares single student capacities with studentsactually housed — a comparison which shows approximate demand and supply over time. Note thatsupply exceeded demand in the early fifties and demand greatly exceeds supply today.No housing in addition to the existing dormitorieswas provided single students by the University during the period from 1950 to 1958, nor was any existing housing converted to a different use. The onlychanges of use which occurred were in the proportions of the "mix" of housing units devoted tograduate or undergraduate, male or female, students.Nonetheless, large changes in residential patternswere occurring. The decline in enrollment of veterans (most of whom were married), combinedwith a decline in overall enrollment, caused the percentage of students housed to rise from 32 per centof the undergraduates in 1950 to 42 per cent in1952-53, with a corresponding increase among graduate students from 10 per cent in 1950 to 14 percent in 1954. This percentage increase occurred eventhough the number of graduates and undergraduatesactually housed steadily declined from 1,108 in 1950to 919 in 1954-55, indicating that demand for University housing was less than supply and so housingpressures were not severe at that time.With the beginning of the community's neighborhood program and an initial effort in the College toattract Chicago area students (from 1953 to 1957the College had a special recruiting program for students from the Chicago public schools), enrollmentbegan a steady rise throughout the fifties toward itsprevious level. As shown in Table 4, undergraduateenrollment nearly doubled in three years from afifty-year low of 1,150 in 1953-54 to 2,000 in 1956-57, at which point it leveled off without substantialincrease until 1965-66. Graduate enrollment bottomed out at 3,383 in 1954-55 (down from 5,617 in1947) and three years later was back at 4,347, fromwhich point it climbed steadily until by 1967 it hadreached the 1947 level.From 1957-58 until 1961-62 the University rapidly expanded its dormitory housing capacity from1,179 to 1,744 spaces, and the number of undergraduates housed rose dramatically from 525 (or27 per cent) in 1956-57 to 1,309 (or 61 per cent)in 1961-62. In the same period, the number andpercentage of graduate students housed remainedstatic, the number fluctuating between 488 and 573and the percentage fluctuating between 10 per centand 13 per cent (see Tables 4 and 5).This increase in capacity began in 1957-58 withthe erection of the first new single student housingin twenty-six years; the West House of the NewWomen's Residence Hall for undergraduate womenopened that year. This brought new space for 176 persons, and when the entire residence hall wascompleted the next year (and renamed WoodwardCourt) the total of new spaces was 496. Next camePierce Tower, which opened in 1960-61 with 324new spaces for undergraduate men, bringing the total number of new beds through new dormitoryconstruction to 820.That same year Gates-Blake was closed and converted into office and classroom space for the College, causing the elimination of 131 spaces. Thenext year ;one-half of Foster was closed, and by1963-64 the entire "C" group was converted intooffice space, causing a further loss of 249 beds, fora total of 380 beds lost by conversion into officeuse. The primary reason for this conversion was thatthe group of buildings was out of compliance withfire codes and costs of compliance were judged atthat time to be excessive. >During this period, at student and faculty request,the University also began a program of reducingshared-room occupancy to afford more living spacefor those students in dormitories. In 1952-53 thefour-man rooms and some triples were eliminated inBurton- Judson, reducing its student capacity fromabout 468 to about 436. In 1958-59 undoublingcaused Snell's capacity to drop from 76 to 70,Hitchcock's to drop from 133 to about 120, andBurton- Judson's to drop again to about 415. Furtherundoubling hr Burton- Judson in 1960-61 broughtdown its capacity from 414 to 364, and this wasagain reduced in 1962-63 to its present capacity of348. In 1961-62 Snell's capacity dropped from 70to 60, and in 1965-66 it dropped again to its presentcapacity of 57. Hitchcock lost 11 beds in 1965-66because of fire code problems, bringing its capacitydown to 108.The newer dormitories were also made lesscrowded. Woodward Court, which had beds for 496students when completed in 1958, was steadily reduced in capacity until by 1965-66 capacity stoodat 483. The next year this figure was further reduced to 448, then to 438 last year. This year projected capacity stands at 423. Pierce Tower, whichopened with 324 beds in 1960-61, was reduced to299 in 1966-67, and to 291 last year. Thus the totalloss of beds through elimination arid deconversionof single student dormitories since 1952 (mostlysince 1958) stands at 650. This loss almost canceledout the gain through new University dormitory construction, leaving a net gain of 170 beds.There has been no new University dormitory construction since Pierce Tower in I960.1 That same1 In fact, total new University residential constructionsince 1931 is limited to Woodward Court (1957), Phe-mister Hall (1959), Pierce Tower (1960) and 1400 East57th Street (1967).7year, however, the University began a program ofpurchasing neighborhood properties and reconditioning them for single student use. Laughlin Hall, theold "University Hotel" at 5519 Blackstone Avenue(purchase price $189,875), and Blackstone Hall at5748 Blackstone Avenue (bought in 1953, used fornurses until 1961 — book value $392, 1402) openedwith 77 and 79 beds respectively in 1961-62. Alsothat year, the College introduced an undergraduateresidential requirement. Under this rule, undergraduate men had to live in University dormitories fortwo years and women for four years. Consequently,the percentage of undergraduates housed by theUniversity jumped from 52 per cent to 61 per cent,while the actual number housed jumped 175 from1,134 to 1,309. The result for the graduate studentswas that the number housed declined from 540 to491, although graduate enrollment that year rosefrom 4,599 to 4,746. The pinch in housing was felt,and the University had to rent 45 beds at the HydePark YMCA for graduate men.In 1962-63 the University opened two neighborhood apartment buildings with a combined capacityof 203 persons for use by single graduate students:5400 Greenwood ( housing 107, purchase price$297,500) and 5518 Ellis (housing 96, purchased in1956, used for nurses until 1962, 1968 book value$254,790). These added beds, combined with a slightdecline in both undergraduate and graduate enrollment that year, relieved the pressure for graduateaccommodations, as the percentage of graduate students housed jumped from 10 per cent the year before to 13 per cent.In 1963-64 the University purchased the HarperSurf for $197,958 and opened it for 69 graduate andundergraduate women. Because of the conversion ofthe 175 remaining "C" Group dormitory spaces tooffice use, however, that year saw a decline in overall University single student housing capacity from1,874 beds to 1,781 beds — a net reduction of 93beds. But a relaxing of the undergraduate residential requirement (to the first year only) contributedto a significant decline in housing demand, and 147fewer persons than the year before were actuallyhoused (see Table 5).The year 1964-65 saw the addition of no new orrefurbished facilities for single students, and withdeconversion proceeding, overall University singlestudent capacity fell again from 1,781 to 1,751 beds.The pressure for housing was once again felt, andthe University had to rent space for approximately98 single graduate students at the YMCA and the2 "Book value" is a University accounting term including purchase price and major rehabilitation or repair costs, and not including depreciation or any marketvalue estimate. Eleanor Club. The following year, 1965-66, witnessed the largest gap in recent times between available University housing and single student demand.Even with the opening of 19 new spaces at the University House, a former fraternity house (closedfor student housing in 1968-69, book value $95,-846) overall University capacity declined slightlyfrom 1,751 to 1,749 because of deconversion.Simultaneously, enrollment jumped 543 from 6,946to 7,489, and with the bulk of University housinggoing to undergraduates, the University was forcedto rent space for 367 graduate men and women atthe Eleanor Club, the Piccadilly Hotel (bought thatyear by the University but still held open for publicrental), the Broadview Hotel, the Blackstone Villa,the Blackwood Hotel, the Madison Park Hotel, theYMCA and the 5326 Cornell Apartments. (TheEleanor Club and Broadview Hotel were subsequently purchased by the University.)In 1966-67 the University purchased (for $625,-000) the vacant George Williams College, with acapacity of 96 persons , renaming it ChauncyBoucher Hall, and also (for $500,000) the Broadview Hotel, with a capacity of 197xpersons, andopened them to undergraduate and graduate menrespectively. This addition of 293 new spaces, combined with 10 more in 2 row houses, was offset bydeconversion so that the net gain in Universityhousing was 244 beds, increasing the overall University single student housing supply from 1,749 to1,993 beds. Even with this gain in supply, demandrose sharply again through an increase in overallenrollment of 554, from 7,439 to 8,043 students.Once again, the University had to rent housingspace for graduate students in commercial neighborhood facilities, although this time only 274 beds(see Tables 4 and 5).Last year, 1967-68, the University opened a newly-built apartment residence for women at 1400East 57th Street, with a capacity of 72 to 120persons. The average number of residents that firstyear was 98 persons. Ninety-five more beds openedat 1442 East 59th Street with the University's purchase of the Eleanor Club, for $410,200. The purchase of 5 row houses added about another 23 beds.This gain of about 216 new beds was only partiallyoffset by a further jump in enrollment of 253 students, from 8,043 to 8,296. As a result, the University had to rent 162 beds for graduate men andwomen at the Blackwood and Madison Park Hotels.It is thus apparent that there is still a squeezefor single student housing. This may be the result ofseveral steady trends. First was the constant andsignificant increase in enrollment from 1953-54. In1947-48 enrollment stood at 8,564 students. By1953-54 it had declined to 4,642 students. Last year8TABLE 4Single Student Housing, 1950-681Undergradua te s Graduates TotalYear Enroll Number Per Cent Enroll Number Per Cent Enroll Number Per Centment2 Housed Housed ment2 Housed Housed ment2 Housed Housed1950-51... . 1,831 588 32.1 4,987 520 10.4 6,818 1,108 16.31951-52... . 1,568 559 35.7 4,440 420 9.5 6,008 979 16.31952-53... . 1,339 567 42.3 3,725 378 10.1 5,064 945 18.71953-54... . 1,150 476 41.4 3,492 448 12.8 4,642 924 19.91954-55... . 1,330 440 33.1 3,383 479 14.2 4,713 919 19.51955-56... . 1,637 478 29.2 3,422 477 13.9 5,059 955 18.91956-57... . 2,000 525 27 3,400 499 14.7 5,400 1,024 19.01957-58... . 2,183 696 31.9 4,347 488 11.1 6,530 1,184 18.11958-59... . 2,103 892 42.4 4,400 573 13 6,503 1,465 22.51959-60... . 2,119 970 45.8 4,447 502 11.3 6,566 1,472 22.41960-61 . . . . 2,201 1,134 51.5 4,599 540 11.7 6,800 1,674 24.61961-62... . 2,163 1,309 60.5 4,746 491 10.3 6,909 1,800 26.11962-63... . 2,082 1,274 61 4,618 592 12.8 6,700 1,866 27.91963-64... . 2,125 1,160 54.6 4,860 557 11.5 6,985 1,717 24.61964-65... . 2,147 1,212 56.5 4,799 631 13.1 6,946 1,843 26.51965-66... . 2,313 1,359 58.8 5,176 703 13.6 7,489 2,062 27.51966-67... . 2,485 1,452 58.9 5,558 744 13.4 8,043 2,196 27.31967-68... . 2,611 1,506 57.7 5,685 774 13.6 8,296 2,280 27.51 Does not include International House (total capacity about 525).2 Enrollment figure includes total dijferent students enrolled throughout each year (cf. Table 3).TABLE 5University Housing Capacities1Single Stu TotalSingle Student Capacity dents Actual UniversiYear (Supply) ly Housed(Demand) Married Student Capacity2 ty Capacity31940-41 1945-46 831948-49 1,621 463 (including1951-52 1,002 (not including 32 nurses) 979 450 (including1952-53 999 (not including 40 nurses) 945 450 (including1953-54 947 (plus 47 nurses) 924 450 (including1954-55 963 (plus 45 nurses) 919 403 (including1955-56 974 (plus 40 nurses) 955 376 (including1956-57 1,025 (no nurses) 1,024 610 (including1957-58 1,179 1,184 587 (including1958-59 1,467 1,465 595 (including1959-60 1,463 1,472 527 (including1960-61 1,611 1,674 5271961-62 1,744 (plus 45 at YMCA) 1,800 7761962-63 1,874 1,866 1,0891963-64 . 1,781 1,717 1,1911964-65 1,751 (plus 98 at YMCA) 1,843 9761965-66 1 , 749 (plus 367 in rented space) 2,062 1,0071966-67 1,993 (plus 274 in rented space) 2,196 1,0151967-68 2,182 (plus 162 in rented space) 2,280 1,0311968-69 2,150 (plus 131 in rented space) 1,009 380 temporary)about 360 temporary)about 360 temporary)about 360 temporary)340 temporary)about 340 temporary)about 300 temporary)about 200 temporary)122 temporary)no temporary) 8921,6212,0841,5211,4891,4441,4111,4781,6351,7662,0621,9902,1382,5202,9632,9722,7272,7563,0083,2133,1591 Does not include International House (capacity about 525 since 1932).3 Based on present capacities and year of acquisition.3 Totals single student beds and married student units.it had almost doubled that figure and stood at 8,296— still under the post-war figure. Second was theenormous increase in the percentage of undergraduates housed by the University, partially a result ofresidential requirements, an increased proportion ofthe student body from places other than Chicago and neighborhood deterioration. In 1950-51 theUniversity housed 32 per cent (or 588) of its undergraduates and 10.4 per cent (or 520) of its graduates. In 1967-68 the University housed 58 percent (or 1,506) of its undergraduates and 13.6 percent (or 774) of its graduates. In the interim the9percentage of graduates housed had gone as low as9.5 per cent and as high as 14.7 per cent, while thepercentage of undergraduates housed had risen to42 per cent in 1953-54, dipped to 27 per cent a fewyears later, then steadily risen to a high of 61 percent by 1962-63, and has leveled off in recent yearsat about 58 to 59 per cent.The third and most significant trend was a changein the character of undergraduate student residentialpatterns. (One constant has been the percentage ofgraduate students living in non-University housing.)In the post-World War II period and into the earlyfifties a high percentage of married veterans wereenrolled in the College, and consequently the demand for University single student housing facilitieswas not high. The supply of housing in those daysoften exceeded demand, as reflected in a comparisonof figures for housing capacity with students housed(see Table 5). In 1951-52 the University had spacefor 1,034 single students and housed only 979; 32nurses could occupy single student rooms. Until1956-57 housing capacity exceeded students housedby an average of 78 spaces, and 40 to 47 nurses peryear could be housed. Also at this time the University was drawing heavily from local areas and almosthalf the students lived at home. After 1956 supplyand demand were about equally balanced until theintroduction in 1961-62 of the undergraduate residential requirement, when the percentage of graduates housed declined to the lowest point in a decade while the percentage of undergraduates housedrose to its highest point to date, and the Universityhad to find spaces for 45 graduate men at the HydePark YMCA. The percentage of undergraduatesfrom local areas, who might commute, was decliningsignificantly throughout this time. With a slight decline in overall enrollment in 1962-63 and 1963-64,the pressure slackened, only to assert itself again inearnest thereafter. Since 1964-65, because of increasing student demand for University space, theUniversity has had to rent space in the open marketwhile its own capacity caught up with demand. Thiscapacity for single students has risen from 1,749persons in 1965-66, to 1,993 persons in 1966-67, to2,182 persons in 1967-68 (twice the capacity for1957-58). Congruently, the University's rentals forstudents in non-University neighborhood propertieshave declined yearly from 367 beds in 1965-66 to274 beds in 1966-67, to 162 beds in 1967-68 and to131 beds this fall (see Tables 4 and 5).International House and the FraternitiesNo inventory of University single student housingwould be complete without mention of two relatednon-University facilities — International House andthe fraternities. International House is limited under its charter to single graduate students, althoughoccasionally a few undergraduates are permitted toreside there. It has had, since its construction in1932, a total capacity of about 520 persons (in 516rooms) — 330 persons in the men's dorm and 190 inthe women's. Under its own rules, in effect for thelast three years, foreign graduate students may beenrolled at any college or university, but Americanstudents must attend The University of Chicago.An attempt is made insofar as possible to achieve a50 per cent balance of foreign and American students. In fact, the overwhelming portion of studentsresiding there attend The University of Chicago. In1951, 433 of 480 residents were so enrolled; in 1960,the figure was 437 of 460, and in 1967 it was 494of 519.The number of fraternities and their occupancyhave declined drastically since 1930, when 29 fraternities, with a capacity of 500, housed 409 students. By 1942 there were only 14 fraternities with206 members living in them, and by 1952 there wereonly 9 fraternities housing 105 members, althoughcapacity was somewhat higher at 215. In SpringQuarter 1968, 8 fraternities with a capacity of 162students housed 129 member students, while 11non-member boarders took up additional space.///. Married Student Housing Facilities, 1945-68The University's role in the provision of marriedstudent housing has drastically altered in recentyears. In 1944-45, the Universtiy owned 83 apartments in 6 buildings for married students:5604 Ingleside (917-23 E. 56th) 15 apartments5659 Drexel (908-10 E. 57th) 12 apartments5800 Maryland (817 E. 58th) 18 apartments5821 Maryland 8 apartments5815 Drexel 6 apartments1145-61 E. 61st 24 apartmentsThat year the University made $6,141 on a grossincome of $29,962 from these apartments.The return of veterans from the war brought arapid increase in enrollment and a housing crisis,and in 1946-47 the government built, under theLanham Act, 389 units of temporary prefabricatedhousing for the exclusive (after 1948, preferential)use of veteran students and their families. By 1954there were 340 units, by 1958 there were 122, andthe last of the "prefabs" was demolished in 1959.Under the terms of the agreement, the Universitywas to provide sites for the housing and to operateand maintain the units. Because the units were builtby the government, they had extremely low rents($30 to $40 per month). These units were usuallyfilled, and were used about 98 per cent by marriedstudents and 2 per cent by faculty families. Theywere not legal under the Chicago building code, and10a special ordinance had to be passed and renewed topermit their continuance. Over University objection, the city Building Department refused to permit their continuance after 1959.As shown in Table 5, in 1952 the Universityoffered about 450 apartment rental units to marriedstudents, but this figure includes 59 which werefor graduates only, and the 340 to 380 temporaryprefabricated units which were preferentially available to married veterans. Assuming the normal 28to 30 per cent relationship between total and married student enrollment, which may understate theactual figure at that time because of the effects ofheavy veteran enrollment, about 1,500 of the 5,064students at the University in 1952 were eligible forthese 450 married student housing units. Thus theUniversity supplied housing for just slightly lessthan 30 per cent of its married students — a highfigure when compared with the 10 to 12 per centaverage for graduate students as a whole.3 But whenthe temporary spaces are excluded, there were 95University-owned units, or units for only about 6per cent of the married student population.The effects of neighborhood deterioration beganto cause increased concern at the University duringthe fifties, and a program of remarkable size wasembarked upon to counter the market squeeze onstudents. The program for married students beganslowly in 1955 and 1956 and accelerated from 1961until its culmination in 1966. It involved 47 separate parcels of property with a combined bookvalue of over $14,117,000. All the properties exceptPhemister Hall were purchased and renovated, notbuilt.In 1952-53 the University's married student housing was comprised of about 360 temporary prefabricated units with preference for veterans, an apartment building with 24 units at 1145-61 East 61stStreet, purchased in 1944 and sold in 1964, and another apartment building with 12 units at 5659-61Drexel, purchased in 1951 and still in use. Alsoapparently open for married graduate students atthat time were 4 properties, with a total of 27 units,at 5604 Ingleside (3 units), 917-23 East 56th Street(12 units), 908-10 East 57th Street (6 units), and5659-61 Drexel (6 units); for graduate DivinitySchool students there were 4 more properties, with22 units, at 5800-04 Maryland (15 units), 817 East58th Street (3 units), 5821-27 Maryland (8 units),and 5815 Drexel (6 units), for a total of 59 units in3 Because some married students — usually about 20per cent— are married to each other, the percentage issomewhat low. But not all the spaces in married student housing are used for married students (about 16per cent) in 1967-68, for example, were not so used andtherefore this effect will be considered insignificant. 8 properties. With the sale or demolition of most ofthese 59 latter units by 1955, the University had inthe mid-fifties, before beginning the acquisition ofneighborhood properties for married student use,about 376 units, or units for about 24 per centof its married student population of approximately1,527 students (see Table 5).In 1955 the University began its program of purchasing and renovating neighborhood property formarried student use with the acquisition of 1411-13East 60th Street (11 units) and 2 properties forDivinity student use: 5471-79 and 5482 Greenwood, with 32 and 45 units respectively; total costwas $600,000. (Actually the University had purchased Blackstone Hall, at 5748 Blackstone, in 1953,but this was used exclusively for nurses until it wasconverted into a single student dormitory in 1962.)In 1956 the University acquired 5 properties with186 units at a total cost of $1,180,208:5645-49 Maryland 10 units533Q Blackstone 42 units5417 University 73 units804-12 East 58th 31 units5545-55 Ingleside 30 unitsIn 1957, 6 properties with 77 units were acquiredfor $341,691:6044 Woodlawn 23 units5601 Maryland 19 units5428 Kimbark 18 units5537 Maryland 5 units5517-25 Drexel 12 unitsIn 1958, 2 properties with 37 units were acquiredfor $169,028:834 East 56th 13 units5401 University 24 unitsIn 1959, 5557 Drexel, with 22 units, was acquiredfor $148,996; and Phemister Hall, with 81 units,was erected at 5715 Drexel for $1,124,582. Phemister was, and continues to be, used primarily for interns at the Hospitals.Thus in the five years between 1955 and 1960 theUniversity had purchased and renovated 18 structures with a total of 491 dwelling units for marriedstudent housing at a total cost of $3,562,632. Thisaverages to a capital cost of $7,526 per dwellingunit. With a total enrollment in 1960-61 of 6,800students (total different students throughout entireyear) and approximately 2,040 married students, theUniversity was by then providing 527 married student housing units, or housing for 26 per cent of itsmarried students, a jump of almost 20 per cent infive years (see Table 5).No buildings were added to the married studenthousing program in 1960, but in the period from1961 to 1966 the pace accelerated above even the11rate of the prior half decade. In 1961, 6 propertieswith a total of 249 units were purchased and renovated at a total cost of $2,075,956:The Grosvenor, 5220 Kenwood ($662,718) 57 unitsThe Gaylord, 5316 Dorchester ($736,768) 87 units6044-52, 6054-56 Ingleside ($166,428) 39 units1215 East Hyde Park ($462,623) 60 units5432 Woodlawn ($47,419) 6 unitsIn 1962, 14 properties with a total of 441 unitswere purchased and renovated at a cost of $3,217,-029:816-24 East 58th 12 units6051 Drexel 24 units6100 University 16 units5700 Drexel 12 units6100 Woodlawn 23 unitsThe Carlson, 1401 East Hyde Park 47 units(most for interns)5482-88 University 25 units5436 Woodlawn 30 units5410 Woodlawn 6 unitsThe Harper Crest, 5345 Harper 51 units5485 Greenwood 6 units6022 Drexel 72 units(most fc ir nurses)1334-40 East Hyde Park, 1335-41 EastMadison Park 24 units5100-10 Kenwood 93 unitsIn this one year the total units added approachedthat for the half decade from 1955 to 1960, as didthe cost of acquisition and renovation, and in thetwo years from 1961 to 1963 a total of 600 dwelling units were acquired for married student housing, bringing the total at that date to 1,217 units.Because of lags between acquisition and openingdue to renovation, however, the supply never actually reached that high; in 1963 and 1964 the University began to sell for neighborhood use certainof the properties acquired earlier and others weredemolished or sold for the use of the LutheranSchool of Theology. For the academic year 1962-63there were 2,028 married students enrolled and1,089 apartment units were available for their use.Thus the University that year provided a supplyequal to 53.7 per cent of possible demand, up from26 per cent in 1960 and 6 per cent in 1952.In 1963-64 the Fairfax, with 90 units, at 1369East Hyde Park Boulevard, and the Chicago Arms,with 52 units, at 5125 Kenwood, were brought intothe married student housing program at a total costof $1,850,327. But at the same time the 23-unitproperty at 6044 Woodlawn, acquired for $12,950in 1957 and used for married students, and 3 properties with a total of 17 units, at 5537 Marylandand 5517-25 Drexel, were demolished because deterioration had made rehabilitation uneconomic,bringing the net gain in units for married studentsto 102 that year.In 1964 no properties were acquired for married students, but 7 properties formerly used for marriedstudents were sold in the open market for community residential use. At the instance of a facultycommittee from the Divinity School, a building at5436 Woodlawn, with 30 units, purchased by theUniversity for $153,502 in 1962, and a 6-unit building at 5410 Woodlawn, a $43,812 investment purchased in 1962, were sold to the Lutheran Churchfor use in connection with the Lutheran School ofTheology, whose location in the community wasconsidered desirable. One building with 42 units at5330 Blackstone was sold because the units werezero bedroom units, too small for continued marriedstudent use. Five other buildings on the south sideof 61st Street were sold together as part of anagreement for South Campus reached betweenthe University, the city and The Woodlawn Organization, that University institutional use wouldcease on the north side of 61st Street. Thebuildings sold under this agreement were the24-unit building at 1145-61 East 61st Street, inwhich married students had lived since 1944, the11 -unit structure at 1411-13 East 60th Street, the1 6-unit structure at 6100 University and the 23-unitstructure at 6100 Woodlawn. Also sold was the 96unit building at 6104 Woodlawn which had housednurses since 1947. The sale of these buildings entailed a total loss of 152 units for married students.This figure was raised to 158 units in 1966 with thefurther sale of 5432 Woodlawn (6 units) to theLutheran School of Theology, for a grand total of181 units lost since 1963 through sale or demolition.For 1964-65 this meant a net loss of 113 units,dropping the total available for married students to976, or 50 per cent of the 1,971 married studentsenrolled.In 1965, 4 properties with a total of 168 unitswTere added at a cost of $2,395,603. One of these—5136-42 University, with 40 units — was never used,however, because extensive deterioration during andafter acquisition forced rehabilitation costs abovethe point of marginal utility, and the structure hadto be destroyed. The three other facilities are thePiccadilly (with 77 units at 5101 Blackstone), whichopened in 1966-67 at a cost of $1,380,734, and1316-24 East Hyde Park Boulevard (with 25 and26 units respectively). For the academic year 1965-66 the supply of apartments stood at 1,007, or 48.5per cent of the 2,076 married students on campus,a gain of 25 apartments but a loss of 1.5 per centfrom the year before.In 1966, 2 properties with 59 units were broughtinto the program for $373,600, although renovationdelay prevented their more than partial use untilthis year. These are 5410-18 Ridgewood Court (31units), and 5233 Greenwood (28 units). But 5 more12properties with 160 units worth $1,015,552 weresold to the Lutheran School of Theology: 5417-34University (73 units), 5401-09 University (24units), 5482-88 University (25 units), 5485 Greenwood (6 units) and 5471-79 Greenwood (32 units).In the academic year 1966-67 there were 1,015apartments open for married student use — 45 percent of the increasing married student enrollment of2,278 persons. In 1967-68 there were approximately1,031 apartments open, or about 45.4 per cent ofthe married student enrollment of 2,311, and in1968-69 there are about 1,009 apartments open, thedecline due to the loss through demolition of 22units at 5557-59 Drexel to make way for the newathletic facilities. It is expected that more units willbe lost to married student housing in the nearfuture because of similar needs. The 30 units at5545-55 Ingleside stand in the way of new proposed residential units. Sixty-three units at 6051-57Drexel and 6044-52 and 6054-56 Ingleside may belost to the Woodlawn Hospital expansion. Thus itis likely that to preserve the current ratio of supplyto demand, more married student housing units willbe needed.IV, Financial OperationsMarried Student HousingThe University loses money on its housing of students — both single students and married students.In only the last three years of this past decade doesthe balance sheet show a net gain in the cash flowoperations of the married student housing facilities,and only in two years in the early sixties did thesingle student housing operation do better thanbreak even. In neither program is there any rigorous attempt to align prices to "the market"; thesingle student housing program aims at best tobreak even, while the married student programaims to provide housing geared to the needs of thestudent, not the dictates of the market. University Realty Management's view of itspricing policy is as follows :"The philosophy of pricing in Married StudentHousing is based on several salient points whichare often diametrically opposed to marketprice : (a) that since the majority of incomingstudents lease their apartments without opportunity to inspect them and without good knowledge of the distance from their various schoolactivity centers, prices for units of similar utility should tend to be the same; (b) that therates should be set on a basis of utility to thestudent rather than as to the amenities whichare so important in the public market; (c) thatit is extremely unwieldy and time-consuming to'defend' variations in price because of amenities; (d) that student rents should be as low aspossible rather than as high as possible and thatthis is justified in particular as to married students where the University's subsidy seems tobe less than in single student housing,"A 1966 study compared married student rateswith "the market" and showed the student rate tobe an average of 80 per cent of the market rate, the20 per cent difference being a tax and water advantage to the student. (University-owned studenthousing does not have to pay property or watertaxes.) In only one unit in the 13 buildings sampledwas the price charged the student higher than theestimated market price would have been on thatbuilding. For most units the student paid below80 per cent of the market price.4Table 6 is a statement of gross revenue and net4 There have been two married student housing renthikes in the last two years— one for 5 per cent, effectiveSeptember 1, 1967, and the other for 7.5 per cent,effective September 1, 1968. This 12 per cent hike intwo years has been matched by a similar rise in themarket rentals for similar apartments in the community. Rising costs, inflationary and real, occasionedthe hikes.TABLE 6Operating Summary of Married Student Housing, 1958-681Summary 1958—59 1959-60Gross revenue $382,678 449,742Excess or (deficit) of revenue overexpenses. .'. . . 4(109,480) (38,762)Approximate capacity 473 527Average rent per unit:2Year ',.., '. . $809.04 853Month $67.42 71Average revenue excess or (deficit)per unit:2Year. $(231.46) 73Month. ..¦. ftHQ 7X\ « 508,773(131,200)527 662,433(78,467)776(101.12)(8.42)1 Excludes married student housing designated for nurses and temporary veteran housing (122 units in 1958-59).2 Assumes full capacity. 901,148(17,679)1,086829.7869.17(16,28)(1.36)TABLE 6 — continuedGross revenue Excess or (deficit) of revenue overexpenses Approximate capacity Average rent per unit:2Year Month Average revenue excess or (deficit)per unit:2Year Month 1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68>71,750 1,050,200 1,241,641 1,328,366 1,682,286$(824)950 (15,233)952 157,8111,002 134,6721,006 5,6001,021,022.85$85.25 1,103.1591.90 1,239.16103.25 1,320.43110.00 1,530.00125.00$0$0 (15.12)(1.00) 157,5013.08 133.9011.16 5.00.41annual excess or deficit on married student housingfrom 1958 to 1968. Average rent per unit is calculated from gross revenue and capacity. Excess ordeficit per unit is calculated from net excess ordeficit. Depreciation — an annual reserve against current income for repair and replacement of thebuilding — is not calculated in the operations statement, which is primarily a statement of cash flow.The assumption that part of replacement costs willcome not from operations but from gifts or federallow-interest capital financing,5 produces a largesubsidy component in student housing, even apartfrom the approximately 20 per cent tax and watersubsidy gained by favorable tax legislation.Table 6 shows that the University's pricing policyfor married student housing has meant a large operating deficit each year, with the exception of thelast three years. Up to 1965 the University had lost$391,635 in operating the married student housingprogram, and this loss had to be satisfied from otherUniversity sources. But because of excess revenuesin 1965-66 and 1966-67, the University has lost todate $70,569 in direct operating expenses since1958-59. The deficit per unit shows, in averages,the operation subsidy per student apartment apartfrom tax and replacement subsidies.The figures from operations do not absolutelystate yearly "expense" disbursements. Occasionally,on request by the Business Office, the Trustees appropriate money from general sources for use inrehabilitating married student housing, and theseappropriations are not reflected in the cash flowaccounts kept by University Realty Management.Rather, such expenses may be capitalized in "bookvalue" accounts. Thus expenses reflected that yearmay not be as high as was actually the case. Also,reserves for replacement and repair are not systematically or uniformly provided from operating income on all buildings. Some buildings have low re-5 Available since the enactment of Title IV of theHousing Act of 1950, 64 stat 48, 12 U.S.C. §1749 etseq. as amended (1950). TABLE 7Married Student and Auxiliary HousingIncome from operations $1,783,979 1,804,613Operating expensesHousekeeping costs Building service costs Maintenance and repairs ....Management and general expenses Insurance Property taxes Net income or loss (— ) fromoperations Rehabilitation and improvements Net income or loss (— ) after rehabilitation and improvements Net nonoperExpensesDebt service and sinkingfund. .- Ground and other rent. . .Replacement reserves anddepreciation Provision for income tax . .Contingencies CreditsM.S.H. charge distributedto H.H.F.A. financedproperties Capitalization of operatingexpenses Net gain or loss (— ) on real estate operations Transfers to special reserves andfunds Net gain or loss (— ) to regularbudget 60,342 57,031459,355 472,819415,376 446,670177,996 161,65214,904 2&,15920,256 23,8001,148,229 1,190,131635,750 614,482635,750 538,336498,588 490,0759,564 8,4973,819 -3,819473,220 509,753162,530 28,583-12,530 -12,530$ 150,000 16,053serve provisions, while all earnings for six buildingsfinanced under the federal HHFA program (Phemister and Carlson Halls, the Grosvenor, Gaylord,Chicago Arms and 1334 East Hyde Park) are required to be retained for use on those buildings andmay not be used for general purposes except underspecial circumstances. Table 7 is the financial statement for married student housing for the year ending June 30, 1968. This statement includes twobuildings used for nurses — which ordinarily showexcess revenues — not treated in this history as apart of the married student housing.The University's investment in married studenthousing in 1967-68 totaled $13,422,654. As shown inTable 7, the 1967-68 married student housingbudget provided for a "profit" of $162,530 (thetransfers to special reserves reflect the earnings onthree of the HHFA buildings mentioned before).The actual excess of revenue was $28}583 ($5,600without nurses residences). Seen as a return on investment, the University budgeted a 1.4 per centreturn and made a .0004 per cent return. However,were a realistic depreciation or reserve factor included, this percentage would be negative. Table 8shows the University's return on its investment inmarried student apartments since 1959, without depreciation.Single Student HousingThe single student housing operation ordinarilyshows an operating "loss" or cash flow deficit. Table9 shows the yearly excess or deficit resulting fromthe single student housing operation.The University makes a negative rate of returnon its single student housing facilities and the yearly deficit must be taken up from other sources ofrevenue than housing. Table 10 indicates that thestudent apartments are more economical than thedormitories (remembering this is a comparison ofunlikes), whether measured by average per personexpense, annual per cent return on investment, net TABLE 8Married Student Housing Investment*Actual NetYear Operating Per Cent(as of July 1) Investment Excess or Return(Deficit)1958-59 . $3,612,641 (109,480) -3.031959-60 . 3,612,641 (38,762) -1.071960-61 . 5,688,597 (131,200) -2.311961-62 . 8,905,626 (78,467) - .881962-63. . 10,755,953 (17,679) - .161963-64 . 9,981,639 (824) - .011964H55 . 12,377,242 (15,233) - .121965-66 . 12,750,842 157,811 1.241966-67 . 12,750,842 134,672 1.061967-68 . 13.422.654 5.600 .0004* Based upon 1967 book values.excess or deficit or net as a percentage of gross. Butthe figures disguise some cost and non-cost factorswhich make the comparison invalid; type of construction and anticipated lifetime of buildings aredisregarded, for example. Common room services,bedding and the accounting of food services in thedormitory figures, the imputed costs of housekeeping services in the apartments, plus the educationalvalue of residence life, are also unweighed. Table1 1 shows typical rents for single student dormitoriesand apartments and married student apartments, although these are also not strictly comparable, forthe reasons given above and because telephone andcooking equipment costs to the residences are notincluded.The University's investment in its housing forsingle students in 1957-58 was essentially that whichhad been invested since the construction of Burton-Judson Courts in 1931. For single student housing,1958 signaled a departure in philosophy. For married students, the departure had begun three yearsearlier. The strain upon the University's resourcesis evident from the figures presented here. WithTABLE 9Single Student Housing1Gross Revenue Net Excess Per Cent ApproximateYear Investment2 (Total) or (Deficit) Return Capacity1957-58... ., $ 2,394,522(since 1931)1958-59 6,416,325 578,035 (10,467) - .16 1,4671959-60 8,845,633 662,314 23,190 .26 1,4631960-61 8,712,710 684,865 2,274 .03 1,6111961-62 9,371,029 760,785 (125,703) -1.34 1,7441962-63 9,984,531 842,279 (75,693) - .76 1,8741963-64 .. 10,130,000 887,455 (59,450) - .59 1,7811964-65 .. 11,029,565 948,807 (39,776) - .36 1,7511965-66 .. 11,828,443 934,520 (36,620) - .31 1,7491966-67 .. 13,175,828 1,204,272 (105,010) - .80 1,9931967-68........ 13,178,828 1,122,209 (172,127)3 - .01 2,1281 Includes apartments and dormitories but not commons. In general, including the commons decreases the deficit:to $15,332 in 1965-66, to $70, 196 in 1966-67 and to $144,150 in 1967-68.2 Based on 1967 book values.3 Does not include 57th and Dorchester, the Broadview, or 5604-08 Maryland, 5440 Ingleside (managed by UniversityRealty), purchased or built in 1966-67, separately accounted in University records.over $26 million dollars invested in housing for students, the University has diverted an extraordinarilylarge amount of funds, otherwise available for intellectual and academic matters, into a resource which^ains it a slight yearly return at best and a substantial yearly loss at worst. Moreover, the operatingdeficits are unlikely, if past experience is any guide,to be offset by the possibility of capital appreciation for future sales. In 1964 the University soldfour married student housing properties with a totalbook value of $517,844 in the open market and lost$57,344 from book value on the transaction. Andthe possibility of future appreciation does not makeeasier the necessity to make up present losses out ofgeneral revenue and other sources.No statement of costs and profits would be complete without an indication of what it cost the Uni versity to take funds from endowment and othergeneral sources and spend them on student housing.An intangible, hence immeasurable, cost is that ofhaving to provide housing, which the open marketin the neighborhood had long supplied, in lieu offulfilling more strictly academic needs — classrooms,labs, libraries, scholarships, salaries. What can bemeasured is the amount of value that would haveaccrued to the University had the money spent onstudent housing over the years not been so spent,but rather had been left alone. Thus the Universityhas spent about $13,422,654 since 1955 on its married student housing program and about $13,178,828since 1958 on its single student housing program.Had these funds been left to accumulate income andappreciate, the University would be without theannual financial burden of so many buildings forTABLE 10OPERATIONS OF STUDENT DORMITORIES and ApartmentsComparison of Operations of £ Jingle Student Doi rmitories and Apartrn entsNet Excess Per Cent Average P<Year Gross Revenue Expense or Return on Capacity Person(Deficit) Investment Expense1Dormitories21958-59 .. $578,035 588,502 (10,467) -1.81 1,467 $4011959-60 662,314 639,124 23,190 3.50 1,463 4371960-61 684,865 682,591 2,274 .33 1,611 4231961-62 682,138 758,529 (76,391) -11.20 1,590 4771962-63 680,161 750,261 (70,100) -10.31 1,517 4951963-64 680,942 718,515 (37,573) -5.22 1,342 5351964-65 719,462 764,354 (44,892) -6.24 1,339 5711965-66 687,893 741,393, (53,500) -7.78 1,337 5551966-67 821,915 927,532 (105,617) -12.85 1,372 6761967-68...... 873,202 1,036,252 (163,050) -18.67 1,434 722Apartments1961-62 78,649 127,961 (49,312) -62.70 159 8051962-63 162,117 167,710 (5,593) -3.45 357 4791963-64 206,513 228,390 (21,877) -10.59 439 5201964-65 229,346 224,231 5,115 2.23 412 5441965-66 246,637 229,757 16,880 6.84 412 5581966-67 252,939 247,447 5,492 2.17 719 3441967-68 249,007 258,084 (9,077) -3.65 833 J 3101 A division of capacity into expense, where capacity is in number of beds av;2 Does not include commons, which ordinarily shows an excess.TABLE 10 — continuedOperations of Married Student ApartmentsAverage PerYear Gross Revenue Expense Capacity UnitExpense11958-59 $ 382,678 492,158 473^ 1,0401959-60 449,742 488,504 527 9271960-61 508,773 639,973 527 1,2141961-62 662,433 740,900 776 9551962-63.. 901,148 918,827 1,089 8441963-64 971,750 972,574 1,191 8171964-65 1,050,200 1,065,433 976 1,0921965-66 1,241,641 1,083,830 1,007 1,0761966-67 1,328,366 1,193,694 1,015 1,1761967-68 1,682,286 1,676,687 1,031 1,6261 Capacity into expense, where capacity is in dwelling urcomparable to single student housing.2 Excluding 122 temporary units separately budgeted. not persons. Thi isure is therefore not stri<TABLE 11COMPARISON OF TYPICAL UNIVERSITY-OWNED STUDENT APARTMENT AND DORMITORY RATES*Typical Dormitory Rates (Converted to Per Month), 1958-681SinglesYearAcademicYear PerDay Month(30Days) DoublesAcademicYear PerDay Month(30Days)1958-59 $366 1.59 481959-60 366 1.59 481960-61 366 1.58 471961-62 404 1.74 521962-63 448 1.93 581963-64 448 1.91 571964-65 464 1.98 591965-66 464 1.98 591966-67 537 2.30 691967-68 537 2.32 701968-69 552 2.40 72 334334334349372417432432501501492 1.451.451.441.501.601.781.821.852.152.172.14 4444434548545555646564* It should be noted that these rates are not strictly comparable. The dormitory doubles and singles are mostly one roomunits, with common baths on each floor.# The apartments usually have both kitchens and private baths for each unit. Moreover,the singles sometimes are over one room in size and the doubles are mostly 2-1/2 rooms. That apples and oranges are both rotundand succulent does not admit their equality.1 Maid service charge for males ($6 per quarter) eliminated.Typical Apartment Rates (Using 5518-26 Ellis), 1962-681Year Singles1962-63 $751963-64 851964-65 851965-66 851966-67 981967-68 981968-69 98 Doubles506060606969691 Operations began in 1962-63.Note: An estimate of fraternity rates for 1967-68 ranged from $125 to$170 per quarter for room, and about $30 to $85 per year for fees. On a three-quarter basis, the range for room, board and fees was estimated to be from$755 to $1,045.Note: Figures compiled by RH & C.Typical Married Student Apartment Rental, 1958-681Year Monthly Rent1958-59 $ 72.501959-60 72.501960-61 85.001961-62 85.001962-63 87.501963-64 87.501964-65 92.001965-66 96.501966-67 96.501967-68 102.001968-69 110.001 Using selected four room, walk-up units (with kitchen, private bath).17housing to operate and maintain; moreover, thevalue of the investments would be $23,212,212 and$22,960,630 respectively, for a total of $46,172,842(estimate by Treasurer's Office). Table 12 showsnew University housing investment yearly since1954 (excluding the older residence halls), uponwhich the figure of $46 million was based.TABLE 12New Student Housing Investmentby Years*Married SingleYear Students Students Total1954-55... .. $ 648,136.. 1,828,3442,170,0351955-56...1956-57...1957-58... 2,339,0631958-59... .. 3,612,641 6,416,325 10,028,9661959-60... . . 3,612,641 8,845,633 12,458,2741960-61... .. 5,688,597 8,712,710 14,401,3071961-62... .. 8,905,626. 9,371,029 18,276,6551962-63... .. 10,755,953 9,984,531 20,740,4841963-64... .. 9,981,639 10,130,000 20,111,6391964-65... . . 12,377,242 11,029,565 23,406,8071965-66... . . 12,750,842 11,828,443 24,579,2851966-67... .. 12,750,842 13,175,828 25,926,6701967-68... .. 13,422,654 13,178,828 26,601,482* Based upon 1967 book values.V. Prior Occupancy of Neighborhood PropertiesBought for Student HousingAn effort was made to determine the prior occupancy, by income level and race, of buildings purchased for the student housing program. The University has kept no files on the racial or incomecomposition of the previous occupants of buildingspurchased by it. Therefore, the best check thatcould be made at this time was through the memory of those in the Real Estate Office who werefamiliar with the buildings at their time of purchase.A further rough check can be made by looking atacquisition prices of selected buildings.Of 47 buildings included in this survey (see Table13) in only 13 was occupancy more than 10 per centNegro. Of these 13, 4 were houses. The following listindicates the prior occupants' income level andmonthly rent in high, medium or low, and color ofoccupants in W (White), B (Black) or O (Oriental), for the 13 buildings indicated above, plusthe larger apartment buildings now used for housing students. Omitted from the list are all thosebuildings with both an over 90 per cent prior whiteoccupancy and a capacity of less than 50. Includedfor selected apartments (the larger occupany buildings) are acquisition prices and dates of acquisition.Book value includes acquisition and renovation anddoes not reflect estimated market depreciation orappreciation. VI. Impact of Neighborhood Renewal on StudentHousingThe neighborhood renewal programs in HydePark-Kenwood caused the removal of not morethan 400 units which were occupied by students atthe time of the program. This figure — just 13 percent of the total University-owned student housingunits alone — while not insignificant, does not appearsubstantial. (In South Campus, about 135 studentbeds will have been removed through urban renewal, for a total of about 535 beds or units, or 17per cent of University-owned capacity alone.) It isalso probably true, however, that the urban renewal programs contributed to a rise in rentals inexcess of inflationary rises, so that students in someparts of the community pay more now than theywould if there had been no urban renewal at all.But the increases in student enrollment, the declinein commuting and the loss of Woodlawn as a preferential housing location for many students meansnot only that more students now live in Hyde Park-Kenwood than did before urban renewal, but alsothat the increase in demand for housing in HydePark-Kenwood is the result of several major factors other than urban renewal. University financialaid policy has attempted to take this rent rise intoaccount, and since 1961 aid for housing has beenavailable for students who live in non-Universityhousing.University HousingOf all the University-owned properties in theneighborhood held for student use, only 3 buildingswith a total of 39 units — 5537 Maryland (5 units),5517-25 Drexel (12 units), and 5557 Drexel {22units) — all in the married student housing program,have been demolished as part of the neighborhoodrenewal plans, and these were all taken downthrough the South West Hyde Park RedevelopmentCorporation to make space for the new Universityathletic facilities. Two other buildings bought foruse as student housing — 6044 Woodlawn (23 units)and 5136-42 University (40 units)— were demolished sometime after acquisition because rehabilitation costs became excessive, and deterioration hadprogressed to the point where the units were nolonger fit for student use. Three other buildings—5518-26 Ellis (90 students), 5545-55 Ingleside (30units) and 834 East 56th Street (13 units) are onthe site of proposed but uncommitted new University uses, so their future is somewhat unclear. Butthe neighborhood renewal efforts themselves reduced the number of University-owned student unitsby only 39.1'8TABLE 13Major Buildings and Others: Acquisition and Displacement1Buildings Student YearJune 1968 Previous OccupantsCapac Pur Purchase Priceity chased Book Value IncomeLevel Rent ColorSS Boucher Hall (George Wil 97 1965 $625,000 $945,422 Vacantliams) (collegemoved)SS Eleanor Club 95 1967 410,200 436,069 Women's1442 E. 59th clubSS 5400 Greenwood 100 1962 297,500 445,123 Low Low 90%W5%B5%0SS Broadview Hotel 195 1966 500,000 712,566 Medium Medium 99% W5540 Hyde ParkM Piccadilly Hotel 77 1965 565,000 1,416,344 Medium Medium 99% W5101 BlackstoneM Fairfax Hotel 90 1963 400,000 1,212,373 Medium Medium W1369 E. Hyde ParkSS 57th and Dorchester 98 1967 742,562 NewbuildingM 5100 Kenwood 93 1962 718,392 1,460,6502 Medium High W(Shelbourne)SS Harper Surf 71 1963 197,958 347,323 Low Low W5426 HarperSS LaughlinHall 77 1961 189,875 266,179 Low Low W5519 BlackstoneM Chicago Arms 52 1963 330,000 637,954 Medium Medium W5125 KenwoodM Harper Crest 51 1962 225,000 526,532 Medium Medium W5345 HarperM Carlson Hall 47 1962 280,000 631,789 Low Low W1401 E. Hyde ParkM 1215 E. Hyde Park 60 1961 515,478 462,623 Medium High WM 1310-16 & 1316-24 E.Hyde 50 1965 355,000 811,818 Medium Medium 75% BPark 25% WSS 5440 Ingleside(house) 4 1966 21,373 BSS 5468 Ellis 6 1966 25,591 B(house)SS 5604 Maryland(house) 6 1967 25,255 Low Low BSS 5606 Maryland(house) 6 1967 11,401 Low Low BSS 5608 Maryland(house) 6 1967 15,824 Low Low BM 5645-49 MarylandM 804-12 E. 58th 10 1956 60,536211,966 Low Low B31 1956 Low Low B(nurses)M 834-40 E. 56th 13 1958 (In 4-block 65,053 Low Low W&B(removed from program area — dein 1967) molished in1967)M 1334-40 E. Hyde Park & 24 1962 465,041 Medium Medium 10% B1335-41 E. Madison Park 90% WM 5517-21 Drexel 6 1957 (In 4-blockarea — demolished in1963) 43,542 Low Low BM 5523-25 Drexel 6 1957 (In 4-blockarea — demolished in1963)(In 4-block 43,550 Low Low BM 5537 Maryland 5 1957 31,027 Low Low Barea — demolished in1963)M 5136-42 University1120-26 E. 52nd Never 1965 203,051 Low Low Boccupied25M 1310-16 E. Hyde Park 1965 413,226 Medium Medium 25% W75% BTotal Capacity 1,4011 SS =single student; M = married student.2 Reflects $610,583 major renovation in 1967-68.19Non-University HousingNo figures are available for the number of students who lived in the Hyde Park "A" and "B"areas before clearance.6 Rough figures are available,however, for the larger Hyde Park-Kenwood UrbanRenewal Plan, including the South West Hyde ParkRedevelopment Area.According to a National Opinion Research Centersurvey of the residents of Hyde Park and Kenwoodundertaken in the spring of 1956, 13.4 per cent ofthe families, group households and unrelated individuals in that area had some connection with The University of Chicago, either as students, teachers oremployees; 86.6 per cent did not. About two-thirdsof the University-connected families or individualshad moved to the neighborhood because of the University connection; 5.2 per cent of the families,group households and unrelated individuals in thetotal area were connected to the University as students. Families containing a student member tendedto be concentrated in the area closest to the University, that is, between 55th Street and 59th Street,Cottage Grove to Stony Island, with the vast percentage east of Kimbark Avenue. The best estimatefrom the data for that particular area is that a maximum of 87 of the units that were cleared wereoccupied by University of Chicago students, withthe largest concentration being in the Harvard Hotelnear 57th Street and Blackstone, one of the build-6 Hyde Park "A" encompassed approximately thearea along 55th Street from Kimbark to the I.C.tracks, and along the I.C. tracks from 54th Street to57th Street. Hyde Park "B" encompassed a small areaalong 54th Street between Blackstone and KenwoodAvenues. The Hyde Park-Kenwood Urban RenewalPlan encompassed, with certain exceptions, the areaknown as Hyde Park and Kenwood from 47th Streetto 59th Street, Cottage Grove to Stony Island Avenues.The South West Hyde Park Redevelopment Area isthe four-block rectangle between 55th and 56th Streets,Cottage Grove to Ellis. ings described as "dilapidated" in the Urban Re-newal Plan.7For the Hyde Park-Kenwood area as a whole(excluding Hyde Park "A" and "B" and The University of Chicago campus triangle from its apex at55th Street and Greenwood Avenue to its base along59th Street from Cottage Grove to Dorchester Avenues), of the approximately 10,350 units cleared,University of Chicago students were connected toabout 362, or 3.5 per cent of the total units. Table14 shows the number of student-related units andcondition of the units for the seven sub-areas ofHyde Park and Kenwood where most of The University of Chicago students then living in the arearesided.South CampusFigures compiled by the Registrar in AutumnQuarter 1967 showed that 110 students lived inbuildings in the South Campus area that will beaffected by urban renewal. Sixty-two of these students attended the College. Excluding Burton-Jud-son Courts, 65 students lived in University-ownedbuildings in South Campus, and they are not affectedunder the plan. The 110 students living in non-University housing will have to find new accommodations, and the City of Chicago's Urban RenewalRelocation Office, located at 61st and Woodlawn, isassisting those students who desire such assistancetogether with the other residents of the area. Table15 shows the residences of students in South Campus (excluding Burton- Judson) as of Autumn Quarter 1967.The neighborhood renewal programs in HydePark-Kenwood caused the removal of not more7 About 620 units were cleared in that area, 612 ofwhich were occupied at the time of the survey, including 419 white and 193 non-white occupants; 218 of theunits were in "dilapidated" structures.TABLE 14Student Occupancy of Cleared UnitsSub-area Total UnitsCleared* Total Student-Related Units OccupiedDilapidatedUnits2 White OccupiedDilapidatedUnits31.2.3.4.5.6.7. 253 64(25.3%) 77 74424 56(13.2%) 176 141605 34(5.7%) 315 167367 19(5.3%) 137 39,937 111(3.8%) 483 178624 23(3.7%) 214 193407 8(2.1%) 163 1011 Includes vacant apartments.2 Excludes vacant dilapidated units.3 Shows racial composition of dilapidated units in sub-area.20TABLE 15students Living between 60th and North Sideof 61st Streets— Cottage Grove to Stonyisland (exclusive of burton- judson)— auTUMN 1967Address MaleAffected by urban renewal6011 Harper 16028 Dorchester 36030 Dorchester 16038 Dorchester 26044 Dorchester 36046 Dorchester 16023 Kenwood 46025 Kenwood 26027 Kenwood 26016 Kimbark 36030 Kimbark 56032 Kimbark 56052 Kimbark 26056 Kimbark 26051 Kimbark 66020 Woodlawn 106022 Woodlawn 126040 Woodlawn 16027 Woodlawn 36029 Woodlawn 6031 Woodlawn 36033 Woodlawn. 46043 Woodlawn 16047 University 6060 Drexel 26040 Ingleside 11201 East 60th 11209 East 60th 11443 East 60th 31436 East 60th Place 11442 East 60th Place 11445 East 60th Place 1928 East 61st 1Total 88In university-owned buildings not affected by urban renewal1545 East 60th (Plaisance) 146022-24 Drexel 6051-57 Drexel 1+906-914 East 61st 66011-27 Ingleside 16020-22 Ingleside 16044-52 Ingleside 66054-56 Ingleside 3+920-934 East 61st 46021-35 Kimbark 66022 Kimbark (house) 6030 Kimbark (house — maybe sold). 46027 University (house) 6041 University (house) 36005-11 Woodlawn 2Total 51 Female2214 than 400 units which were occupied by students atthe time of the program. This figure— just 13 percent of the total University-owned student housingunits alone — while not insignificant, does not appearsubstantial. (In South Campus, about 135 studentbeds will have been removed through urban renewal, for a total of about 535 beds or units, or 17per cent of University-owned capacity alone.) It isalso probably true, however, that the urban renewalprograms contributed to a rise in rentals in excessof inflationary rises, so that students in some partsof the community pay more now than they wouldif there had been no urban renewal at all. But theincreases in student enrollment, the decline in commuting and the loss of Woodlawn as a preferentialhousing location for many students means not onlythat more students now live in Hyde Park-Kenwood than did before urban renewal, but also thatthe increase in demand for housing in Hyde Park-Kenwood is the result of several major factorsother than urban renewal. University financial aidpolicy has attempted to take this rent rise intoaccount, and since 1961 aid for housing has beenavailable for students who live in non-Universityhousing.These figures for South Campus understate theactual impact of urban renewal on students in thatarea, however, because the figures were drawn upafter the program had begun. One estimate of totalaccommodations affected by the plan since its inception might be calculated from the known figure oftotal students (245) living in Woodlawn (excludingSouth Campus) in autumn 1966. This calculationresults in a figure for autumn 1966 of 142 studentsliving in non-University residences in South Campus slated for demolition under the urban renewalplan.8 Because of the contraction of the number ofstudents living in Woodlawn by preference, however, this figure probably overstates the actual number. A rough conclusion might be, therefore, thatabout 135 student beds will have been affected bythe South Campus urban renewal.8 A result of applying to the 1966 figure the autumn1967 ratio of students living in Woodlawn, exdudingSouth Campus, to those living in South Campus, andthen the 1967 ratio of students in South Campus affected and not affected by urban renewal.21HONORARY DEGREESNine honorary degrees were awarded at the Inaugural Convocation on November 14, 1968.Doctor of Humane LettersBertrand Bronson, Professor of English, University of California, BerkeleyLiterary scholar and critic, whose contributionsto our understanding of our cultural heritagecombine an antiquarian's knowledge of the temporal facts of past ages with a critic's keen perception of how these are transcended in literarymonuments which are permanently human.Murray Barn son Emeneau, Professor of Sanskritand Linguistics, University of California, BerkeleyEminent Sanskritist, ethnolinguist, anthropologistand etymologist, who has contributed uniquely tothe foundation and development of Dra vidianlinguistics.Raymond Firth, Professor of Anthropology, London School of EconomicsSocial anthropologist and interpreter of Polynesian life, whose contributions have led to a broader and deeper understanding of modern life in allits aspects.Kurt Weitzmann, Professor of Art and Archeology, Princeton University, and Member, Instituteof Advanced StudiesArcheologist, scholar and teacher, whose discoveries and interpretations have greatly enrichedthe understanding of Byzantine art and whose investigations of cultural interchange are of universal humanistic value.Doctor of LawsGlen Alfred Lloyd, Chairman of the Board ofTrustees, 1956-63Distinguished citizen, learned and wise counselor,whose informed dedication to the cause of knowledge has invigorated a universityFleming James, Jr., Sterling Professor of Law,Yale UniversityMaster legal craftsman, teacher of law, creativecritic of legal institutions, in recognition of hiscontributions to a liberating education of lawyersand to the improvement of the common law. Robert K. Merton, Giddings Professor of SocioUogy, Columbia UniversityOutstanding student of the sociology of scienceand of the integration of sociological theory andempirical research.Doctor of ScienceElias James Corey, Sheldon Emery Professor ofChemistry, Harvard UniversityDistinguished scientist and teacher, whose outstanding experimental studies have greatly advanced the fields of synthetic and mechanisticorganic chemistryGeorge E. Palade, Professor and Head of the Department of Cell Biology, Rockefeller UniversityDistinguished anatomist and cell biologist whoseoutstanding research has helped to form the basisof our understanding of the structural organization and orderly functioning of the internal machinery of living cells.Five honorary degrees were awarded at the 326thConvocation on December 13, 1968.Doctor of Humane LettersFernand Braudel, Directeur d'Etudes, Ecole pratique des H antes Etudes, ParisHistorian, teacher and director, whose seminalinvestigations and writings have significantlyadded to our knowledge of the past and greatlyinfluenced the wrork of other members of his craft.Jean Nougayrol, Directeur dJEtudes, Section desSciences religieuses, Ecole pratique des HautesEtudes, ParisExpert philologist and cultural historian, who hasenriched immensely our knowledge of the ancientNear East.Doctor of ScienceJulius H. Comroe, Jr., Director of the Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of CaliforniaMedical CenterPhysiologist, scholar, experimentalist and educator, whose contributions to the physiology andpharmacology of respiration and circulation haveled to new approaches in the research of breathing and have stimulated a new generation of inquisitive scholars.22Curt P. Richter, Professor Emeritus, Laboratoryof Psychology, lohns Hopkins Medical SchoolDistinguished researcher and teacher, whose persisting interest in the biological mechanisms ofbehavior led to simple, ingenious and elegantexperiments and to multiple discoveries importantto both psychology and biology. John Hasbrouck Van Vleck, Hollis Professor ofMathematics and Natural Philosophy, HarvardUniversityDistinguished natural philosopher and influentialteacher, whose fundamental theoretical studieshave elucidated the physical and chemical properties of matter.THE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITYSENATEFollowing are the members of The Council of theUniversity Senate:Dr. C. Knight AldrichHoward AronsonMark AshinDr. H. Stanley BennettWayne C. BoothNorman BradburnFelix BrowderAlberto CalderonSidney DavidsonPeter DembowskiEdward DimockEarl A. EvansFrank W. FitchPhilip FosterDr. Daniel X. FreedmanArthur FriedmanE. Peter GeiduschekDr. Alexander GottschalkZvi GrilichesDr. Paul V. HarperDr. Robert HasterlikArthur HeisermanKnox C. HillL. Richard Hoffman George HughesMorris JanowitzArcadius KahanJohn KasikWilliam H. KruskalPhilip B. KurlandDr. Richard L. LandauEdward H. LeviDonald LevineMartin E. MartyRobert L. McCaulPeter MeyerJames MoulderNorman NachtriebBernice NeugartenKenneth NorthcottDallin OaksMark RavitchJames RedfieldEdward RosenheimRobert G. SachsJoseph V. SmithGeorge StiglerJohn W. StoutManley ThompsonArnold R. WeberJohn T. WilsonStanley YachninVictor YngveCOMMITTEE OF THE COUNCILFollowing are the members of the Committee of theCouncil :Morris JanowitzPhilip KurlandRichard LandauEdward LeviNorman NachtriebEdward Rosenheim (Spokesman)George StiglerArnold WeberJohn Wilson CORRECTIONIn the list of resignations and retirementsthat appeared in the last issue of the Record,Millard Long, Associate Professor of Business, was erroneously listed as Morrell Long.23IIOw.oo»0•8S0H.0)OSOONU>^1