THE-UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO ©RECORDAN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF FACULTIES VOLUME III, NUMBER 7IN MEMORIAMFiner, Herman 3-4-69 EmeritusHalstead, Ward C. 3-25-69 FacultyHaroutunian, J. 11-15-68 FacultyRago, Henry A. 5-26-69 FacultySchmitt, Bernadotte E. 2-23-69 EmeritusStone, Raleigh 4-29-69 EmeritusADVISORY REPORT COMMITTEESWith the concurrence of the departments and deans,Advisory Report Committees were appointed inautumn of 1967 and spring of 1968 in the following areas: Divinity School, Germanic Languagesand Literatures, Mathematics and Far EasternLanguages and Civilizations. After visiting theschool or department, each committee wrote an advisory report based on its visit. The program of advisory reports is intended to cover all the academicareas of the University over a period of years.The first four of these reports follow.REPORT OF A COMMITTEE TO VISIT THEDIVINITY SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGOSeptember 23, 1968Members of the CommitteeJames M. Gustafson, Yale UniversityRobert W. Lynn, Union Theological Seminary,New YorkRobert Michaelsen, University of California atSanta BarbaraKrister Stendahl, Harvard Divinity School,ChairmanDuring the week we visited the Divinity School(May 6-9, 1968) we were much impressed with andgrateful for the cooperation and openness from allconcerned— the Dean and his office, the Committees, the "Fields," the Urban Training Center, theStudent Council. We had ample opportunity tomeet with groups and individuals, both in formal CONTENTS /June 10, 19691 In Memoriam1 Advisory Report Committees13 New Departmentsessions set up by the Dean's office and in gatherings and conversations of a more informal nature.In submitting our report I have drawn an extensive memoranda from Messrs. Gustafson, Lynn,and Michaelsen.The Divinity School and the Seven FieldsFew things struck us more than the degree towhich the Seven Field structure of the School affectsits life and work — the decision making, the curriculum and the ethos in the faculty and among thestudents. Needless to say, we recognized the valuesfor specialized research and specialized doctoralstudies which come from such a structure. Therecent series of "Essays in Divinity" witnesses tothe accomplishment. But we were concerned aboutthe fragmentation which seems to be inherent insuch a system, aggravated by the fact that committee structures and the administration's relationto the faculty is governed largely by that samepattern. In any school the "departments" and"fields" have their tendency to guard their vestedinterests. The system at Chicago seemed to haveformalized rather than tried to overcome suchtendencies.We note that our concern for a more unitedfaculty philosophy of theological education is notonly motivated by the needs of the D.Mn. program (see below), but also by a doctoral programin religion suited for the present state of the studyof religion in North America. The structure andcurriculum of the growing religion departments inthe land call into question the traditional fields ofthe Protestant seminary curriculum, which is thatunderlying the Seven Fields (with some additionsin which Chicago did pioneer some years back, e.g.,Religion and Personality, Theology and Literature,Ethics and Society). It is our impression that some1Fields are more related to parts of the Universityoutside the Divinity School (a good thing, to besure) than they inform the thinking of their sisterFields within the School.The Comprehensive ExaminationsEven in their somewhat modified form the Compsreinforce this Field structure and are a clear signthat the Chicago Ph.D. still builds on the structureof the traditional B.D. degree and curriculum. Still,ten years ago the vast majority of doctoral students in religion had earned a B.D. degree prior totheir doctoral studies. The Comps wanted to assurethe doctoral program that its students have thatbasis on a level acceptable to the faculty. This isthe more natural since at Chicago the Ph.D. degree is offered by the Divinity School and not — asis the case elsewhere — by a department of religionin the Arts Faculty with or without cooperationwith a divinity school. In such programs, and withan ever-increasing number of doctoral studentswithout a B.D., it has become natural to try newways to assure competence for teaching and research in the field of religion. It is our impressionthat the Ph.D. program at Chicago should be encouraged to free itself from its "B.D. Structure"represented by Fields and Comps, which tend tonarrow the focus to Western-Christian-Protestantreligion, except for those who specialize in Historyof Religions, but even they are expected to haveall their Comps in that same Western sphere. Andwe found less impact than desired and expectedfrom the Field of History of Religions on thethinking of students concentrating in the WesternFields.The Purpose of the SchoolIt is our impression that the statement of purpose in the catalogue (1967-68, p. 1) is anothersign that the School has not faced radically enoughthe developments in the field of religious studies intheir relations to the traditional role of the seminary. We believe that this statement is inconsistentwith the actual intentions of the faculty and withthe actual practice of education as it goes on. Thefaculty functions both as a graduate faculty for thestudy of religion, and as a professional facultytraining men and women for ministry in Christianchurches. The statement of purpose, which we believe is inaccurate, reads as follows: "The purposeof the Divinity School is to engage in disciplinedtheological research and inquiry into the nature andtask of the Christian faith at the level of scholarship expected from an integral part of a great uni versity." Where does' this leave History of Religions? As an ancilla fidei? And where is the purposeand expressed aim of the D.Mn. program?Size, Admission and Scholarship Policy of theA.M. /Ph.D. ProgramWe are under the impression that the standardsfor these degrees are high, as they should be. Wewould like to see more interaction between theFields by a less B.D. -minded system than the present Comps. We suggest that this cross-fertilizationis more significant at a later stage in the programand cannot be achieved by required Comps at thebeginning of the program.We were surprised to find that these programsoperate with an astonishingly large intake, considerable attrition, and inadequate scholarship support. These three factors interact and call for serious study and possible reconsideration. Althougheach school and program should go its own way,it is important that policies in these areas do notplace Chicago at a disadvantage in competingfor the best students seeking graduate education.It has too much to give to allow that to happen.Many schools are moving toward an admission-scholarship policy in which they do not admit morestudents than can be reasonably well aided financially, be it by scholarships or by a program ofteaching fellowships and assistantships at the moreadvanced stages of work.The latter arrangement not only gives financialhelp. It bridges the gap between students andteachers; it contributes to the morale of a doctoralprogram; it gives the students experience in teaching and the departments the chance to experimentwith new methods of teaching.Many schools now try to give students admittedthe assurance that they will receive the financialsupport they need for say five years, provided theyperform on an acceptable level. The students neednot fight for A grades in order to compete for afew scholarships. After sixteen or nineteen years ofcompetitive grade hunting, they can finally settledown to serious work.Such tendencies run counter to what we understand to be the present procedure and philosophyof Chicago, with its large admissions quota andsubstantial attrition and extension over a longperiod of time. This system may also make it difficult for the faculty to work closely with the students, especially in the first and crucial quarters ofa student's residence.We add the obvious remark that a conscious effort is needed for the increase of Ph.D. students2from the black community, and that academicstandards are not the only factor in admissionhere since past inequalities must be rectified withgreater speed.We would suggest that a system be consideredwhich would incorporate the following suggestions :1. All applications should be judged comparatively with each other after a single deadlineperiod for admissions.2. The faculty of the Fields should make a preliminary screening and ranking of their applicants.They should suggest the optimum and maximumnumber of students they could handle.3. A small admissions committee — not necessarily the Chairmen of the Fields — should decide onadmissions in the light of available scholarshipresources (see above and below). It should beguided more by relative quality of applicants inall the Fields than by the desire to give each Fielda certain quota. It should also give special attention to applications which look promising but donot fit automatically into the Field structure.4. The applicants should be notified about admission and scholarships by a set date, e.g., April 1.N For the implementation of such an admissionspolicy the School and the University mustreconsider Scholarship-Student Aid-Student Loan-Teaching Fellowship policies. The question must beraised as to special considerations for the needs ofa Divinity School which cannot count on government support available to students, faculty andprojects in other parts of the University.We are aware of good and special reasons thatcan be given for the present "swim or sink"philosophy and for a substantial screening at theA.M. level. The demands on faculty and on otherresources of the School, recently increased by theD.Mn. program, call however for serious consideration of whether the present system is the mosteconomical one when the result is measured againstthe input of time, funds and facilities. We urge acomprehensive study and offer our suggestions as astarting point.The D.Mn. ProgramWe were of course eager to see at first hand thenew D.Mn. program which has been well publicized and has attracted a lively and able group ofstudents. We discussed it with the various Fields,with the Committee in charge, with its Director,with the Urban Training Center and with the students involved. It constitutes a promising new venture in professional education and that at atime when the "profession" — the "ministry"— isitself in considerable flux.Let us begin our observation right at that point.Granted that the ministry of the future is hard todefine, we raise the question whether the Schoolcan avoid a moie precise definition. The presentstudent body profits from the feeling of newnessand experimentation which goes with the earlystages of a venture of this kind. But we wonderwhether the School — even with the resources ofthe University — can mount professional programsfor the wide variety of interests represented in thepresent D.Mn. student body. The School might beencouraged to state what it could not undertakein those last two years as well as what it can do.Otherwise the result could be a dilettantish venture justified by loose talk about "ministry."Some questions were also raised about whether the"vocational closure" should not come after oneyear instead of two. The students often seemednot to use the second year for moving towardvocational clarity.It was our impression that the faculty wasseriously committed to this new program andeager not to let the patterns and standards fromthe A.M. /Ph.D. Program dominate their attitudesabout the D.Mn. program and its students. Theyappreciated the presence of the lively new type ofstudent who has come to the School for the D.Mn.At the same time pressures from the demands oftheir own fields of research and the heavy burdenof graduate students in those fields may have ledto a somewhat "negative" expression of the faculty'srespect for the integrity of the D.Mn. program.By that we refer to a distinct feeling we hadwhen speaking with the D.Mn. students. They weresomehow under the impression that they were notworking up to their capabilities intellectually andacademically. We got the impression that the facultymay have leaned over backwards in order not totreat them as Ph.D. students, but this may haveled to a strange and covert anti-intellectualism inthe ethos of the D.Mn. program. The students feltthey were not prompted enough toward knowledgeof the Christian tradition, etc. One comment received: "I'd hate to have the faculty examine meon something other than my personal struggle."We guess that this — if correct — calls for seriousattention to the ways in which the traditional fieldsare taught within the D.Mn. program. Emotionaldouble standards in all-purpose courses do notwork. We note the new first year offering, "The3American Experience," which may be a goodcourse if its content as to knowledge and intellectual penetration is rigorous enough — a constantproblem with team-teaching.Another side of the same problem is the assessment of professional competence. Listening to thestudents and faculty, we found little awareness ofthis matter. A little less academics and the UTCexperience do not make for a rigorous approach tothat question, which will be of increasing importance also when the School must practice imaginative leadership in the placement of the D.Mn.graduates in the field.We felt some concern about the as yet unstructured nature of the third and fourth year. Wewould urge the faculty to watch carefully how thestudents can feel a real progression and progressin their education. This is, of course, closely related to the need for students as to professionalcompetence. The present scheme of "electives"calls for much wise guidance from the Director.But he depends on the availability of electiveswhich in method and content can make the studentfeel that he knows where he is going. Our conversations with the students left us with a question mark on this point.Relations to the Urban Training CenterThe School is to be congratulated for having access to the UTC. The advantages are obvious, bothin terms of the UTC program, its enthusiasticleadership, and the encounter with black church-manship. Here we want to mention only a fewquestions which were serious to us.We would like to see more two-way traffic between UTC and the School. In extreme terms onewould say that the School is in danger of using theUTC as a contractor for part of the D Mn. program. The word "reflection" was much in evidence,but we wonder whether this reflection and analysisshould not be related more closely to the workand resources of the Divinity School and notonly by the work of mainly junior faculty in connection with the UTC. As the relations betweenUTC and the Divinity School develop we wouldhope for sustained conversation between UTC andthe faculty as Faculty (not only those Fieldswhich are most obviously involved, such as Ethicsand Society or Religions and Personality).Field by FieldIn our meetings with the various Fields we wereimpressed — but not surprised — by the high academic quality of the faculty and its work. We con fess that our discussion was governed very earlyby our probing about the fragmentation causedby the Field structure of which we spoke above.We discussed with Theology and Literature whetherthey could strengthen their creative contributionin the field of Liturgy and we had some concernwhether graduates in this field find the employment they deserve. We found less interplay amongthe various Fields (e.g., History of Religions andEthics and Society) with Christian Theology thanwe thought should be the case, and we asked somequestions about how the influx of Roman Catholicstudents affects and will affect the Protestant tradition in that Field of Christian Theology. Wediscussed the role of a more phenomenological approach in the Biblical Field, and the ways in whichNew Testament studies are more related to EarlyChurch History than to Old Testament studies aspracticed at present. We noted the striking absenceof Jewish studies, especially after 135 C.E.Faculty ConditionsAccording to information received orally thesalary scale seems to place the Divinity Schoolroughly equal to comparable institutions, but certainly without any advantage. We noted a somewhat higher degree of the School's own graduatesthan at many similar institutions, especially in theyounger faculty, and we are inclined to hint at thedanger of in-breeding. We are not in favor ofvariety for variety's sake, but we believe that theimpetus particularly of young scholars trainedelsewhere is an asset to any school.In the matter of standards for promotion totenure we would like more attention paid to theimportance of good teaching and imaginative experiments in that area. Is the young scholar, inwhom the faculty is interested, encouraged to givehis best in the classroom or is "publish or perish"the only standard? The renewal of teaching andteaching methods may well come from junior faculty but at that time the pressure of publications inthe Field is at its maximum. With the new emphasis on the D.Mn. program in the picture, how isinvolvement in Church and Society evaluated forpromotion and for sabbatical projects?ConclusionThese are some of our reflections after a fewdays at the School. There are many areas whichwe have not touched upon. We did not study thelibrary situation. We did not assess the value ofthe relatively high proportion of visiting lecturersor visiting professors. (Does the glory of such ac-4tivities pay off according to cost?) We did not assess the relative lack of interplay between theSchool and neighboring seminaries or — with fewexceptions — other professional schools within theUniversity. What we saw and heard and tried toassess gave us the impression of rich resources,hard and competent work in the Ph.D. programand yet unclarified but hopeful enthusiasm in theD.Mn. program. Our suggestions center around thefeeling that it all could become an even strongerforce in religious studies and leadership for thechurches by stronger consolidation of all activitiesby faculty leadership across the lines of Fields andprograms.COMMITTEE TO EVALUATE THE DEPARTMENT OF GERMANIC LANGUAGES ANDLITERATURES AND ITS PROGRAMS AT THEUNIVERSITY OF CHICAGODecember, 1967Members of the CommitteeHermann Boeschenstein, The University ofToronto, ChairmanKon stan tin Reich ardt, Yale UniversityFrank G. Ryder, Indiana UniversityThe Committee submits the following report.Basic to our recommendations, which we hopewill be of significance and help both to the Department and the University, is our awareness thatwe are concerned with a superior department ina superior university. In no sense do our suggestionsfor change imply derogation. We do not feel, onthe other hand, that there is any purpose in makingour remarks less than forthright.I.The principal need of the Department is amplyclear. The two vacancies created by the resignationof Professor Jolles and the death of ProfessorGamer must be filled as soon as possible withscholars of stature in the profession, to terminatereliance on visiting professors. For whatever stimulation visiting professors bring from the outside —and it is considerable — is often counterbalanced bytheir inability to help in the continuing work ofthe department, most of all in the direction ofdoctoral dissertations. The Department is in urgent need of established scholars and teachers inthe whole range of German Literature in theClassical Periodj in part of the nineteenth centuryand most of the twentieth. Professor Schultz, who carries the burden of responsibility for these areas,does to be sure receive some help from assistantprofessors, but this is insufficient. It is our feelingthat a determined program of recruiting should beundertaken, leading to at least two appointmentsin the field of Modern Literature, one to replaceMr. Jolles and the other to prepare for the dayswhen Mr. Schultz will have retired. If his retirement were to ensue with the present vacancies stillunfilled, the whole of Modern German Literature— from Goethe to the present — would be left unattended, a field, that is, to which most of thecourses and seminars refer and from which themajority of subjects for dissertation^ are taken.The situation is approaching the critical.Fortunately, the Department has an excellentrepresentation in two areas which many Germandepartments find difficult to look after : older literature and philology. Further, the Department hasan enviable balance in the background and trainingof its present senior faculty. Mr. Metcalf represents American graduate education, Mr. Northcottis British-trained, and Mr. Schultz comes from theGerman academic world. The Department is notconfronted with difficulties of balance which sooften obtain when all the senior members are ofmore or less the same origin. We feel, however,that the Department should try to find anAmerican-trained scholar for at least one of thesetwo positions in the field of eighteenth, nineteenthand twentieth century literature.We were reassured to hear in our conversationswith younger faculty members that they would byno means be opposed to senior appointments fromthe outside. Indeed, one of them even mentionedthat he had brought up the desirability of such anappointment, thinking of the welfare of the Department and, by implication, of the welfare ofthe younger members themselves. It is also amplyclear that the present reliance on visiting professorsto occupy these "slots" results in an increasedworkload for all the members of the faculty, seniorand junior.We are all convinced of the wisdom of substantial offerings in Scandinavian under the aegis ofthe Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures. Every university capitalizes upon its particular areas of great strength. Professor Franzenlends such strength to his field, and the excellentrapport he has developed with Scandinavian scholars throughout the world, and also the acknowledged excellence of the Scandinavian library holdings, give Scandinavian studies in Chicago addedadvantages.5Although the Committee is, in general, in sympathy with the idea of offering Dutch, we feel thatthe senior positions referred to should have a vastlyhigher priority, and that only in the event of theirsuccessful filling should Dutch be taken under consideration.Particular urgency attaches to the matter ofrecruiting in view of the national drive for shorterPh.D. programs. Many of our own colleagues forecast the graduation of five to ten Ph.D.'s a year,where we are now producing two to four. If suchacceleration takes place, the demands of thesis advising, examination, and so on, will become unbearable for a faculty so small as Chicago's is at present.A further specific suggestion in connection withrecruiting we wish to make as tactfully as possible,because it was mentioned to us in a most tactfulway. Not perhaps in the case of senior staff, butcertainly in the case of ranks equal to or belowtheir own, younger colleagues in the Departmentwould like to play some part, and this in the bestspirit, namely the advancing of helpful suggestionsand comments, not as obstructionists. Our youngercolleagues have often a great deal to offer in termsof acquaintance with scholars and teachers of theirage, and since they come to Chicago from a varietyof other institutions, they may well bring firsthand knowledge of some of the senior people considered for appointments.We should like to conclude the discussion of thismost important section of our recommendationswith the observation that we consider the spirit,the morale, the cooperativeness and the level ofcompetence of this Department to be extremelyhigh. Not a single suggestion we received, eitherfrom students or staff, was given in a spirit ofpetulance or irritation. If criticism was in anysense adverse, it was never negative without anacknowledgment of the positive side, accompaniedby eagerness to help in the creation of a bettersituation. We believe that in this high level ofmorale the Department is singularly fortunate.The Committee was very favorably impressedwith the morale of the Department in anothervital regard — that is in the dedication of all members to teaching in the College. We are all only toofamiliar with scholars who will not touch undergraduate teaching or who avoid doing so by demonstrating their incompetence for it. Every memberof this Department appears to be satisfied with theinstructing he does and pleased that some of itis the College and some of it in the GraduateDivision. IIThe second major recommendation, again aunanimous and very strong one, is that the number,complexity and duration of examinations be drastically reduced. In the words of one of the members of the Committee, if he had been a prospectivegraduate student, reading the graduate cataloguesand descriptions of graduate programs of severaluniversities, he would, on the basis of the printeddescription alone, have avoided applying to TheUniversity of Chicago. As the literature picturesit, and as we gathered from the students themselves, the M.A. candidate is required to take atwo-part examination on a substantial reading list;he must take an examination in facility in the German language, this examination being given twiceevery year; and he is asked in most cases to takeit every time it is offered. There is a Master's comprehensive examination described in the programs,but it would appear that the status of this examination has been changed. Yet no change has beenmade in the further requirement of a Master'spaper, which at any other institution would surelybe called a Master's thesis, since it obviously runsfrom 40 to 100 pages in length. The Master's examination and the Master's degree are then followed by a pattern of comprehensive examinationsor prelims for the Ph.D. which must be among themost complicated in the country. Although thenumber of hours required for all the examinations,if added up on the basis of the printed information,would not total quite so high, it appears that thereare in practice no less than thirty-six hours of preliminary examinations. The slight difference intotal stems from the fact that on the eight-hourexamination in the major field the student is explicitly permitted to take nine hours. This meansthat nine hours becomes the rule.Aside from the staggering physical load, thereare a number of reasons to be urged against sucha complicated pattern. None of these reasons isparticularly obvious, at any rate not as obvious asthe sheer overload in time and effort for membersof the staff, but each is important.In a Department which exercises great selectivityin admitting graduate students and which has a veryfavorable faculty-student ratio the faculty mustsurely be aware of the capability of its students, orat least not in a position to be so indecisive thatconstant examining is required for "quality control." Some of this control must and can be exercised in the classroom in the form of grades onpapers and final grades for courses. Unlike manystate universities the Department is not faced with6a distinctly broad spectrum of quality and avariety of student goals. Even with a range whichruns from Ph.D. candidates to secondary schoolteachers, with a corresponding difference both inquality and intensity of interests, such an examination schedule as the one at Chicago would seemexcessive. In a Department which basically doesnot recognize the need for a large number ofterminal M.A.'s the complication of the M.A. program seems extreme. As one of the members ofthe Committee put it, much more stress should beplaced on course instruction and much less on examination. Further, the more a graduate programis directed toward the production of Ph.D.s, theless it would seem wise to emphasize the Master'sexamination. The same is true, in a more subtleway, of the extreme emphasis automatically puton the acquisition of certain types of knowledgeby the requirement of a thirty-six hour Ph.D. preliminary examination. The candidate is, in ouropinion, encouraged by this very pattern to regardthe test itself and the knowledge assembled for itas a primary goal of an important segment of hislife. We feel that this entails the danger that hewill pay less attention to the writing of his thesisand to the necessity of publishing scholarly workafterwards.The latter point leads to a much more positivestatement about the role of the Ph.D. program.The examination pattern at Chicago would almostseem to be designed as if it were the only way inwhich the good could be sorted out from the mediocre. In point of fact, the most significant separation takes place after the PhD., when the individual demonstrates, by his teaching and by hispublished contributions to scholarship, whether hehas indeed got the qualities of a real scholar. Itwould therefore seem advisable to make the Ph.D.program, to be sure not an insignificant one and notone without its hurdles, but most of all a programof maximum speed and efficiency, in a context ofhigh quality, so that the profession which so muchneeds our young scholars will get them without undue delay.That the complexity of the examination patterndoes increase the time required for the degree became apparent in our discussions with the studentsAlthough not one of them complained about thematter, they tended to smile when we askedwhether the Master's program, described in the bulletin as a one-year program, were actually suchSome very capable students apparently take a fulltwo years.Particularly in the context of the Ford program for expeditious Ph D.'s it would seem necessary thatsome consideration be given to a simpler programof examination at The University of Chicago.IllThe Department is obviously concerned about itscourses in Medieval Latin. The Visiting Committeeconcurs with the judgment of the Department thatsuch courses should be given in a modern discipline,since departments of classics have been traditionallydisinterested in Middle Latin language and texts inthis country. It might be argued that this does notconstitute a claim for Germanic languages. However, it is a fact that German-Latin literature ofthe Middle Ages is as strong as, if not a good dealstronger than, that of any other national group.Without a knowledge of the principal Latin worksof the period, a student in German literature has anextremely spotty acquaintance with medieval German culture. Such literature is by no means restricted to theology and philosophy. There are substantial dramatic and epic works in Medieval Latin,the cultural content of which is as German as thatof works done in the "native tongue."IVOn the subject of the graduate curriculum, theCommittee has certain reservations, most of themhaving to do with the quarter system under whichThe University of Chicago operates. We are, ofcourse, not submitting any recommendation on thequarter system itself, but we feel that rigid adherence to it can easily lead to compression and fragmentation of the curriculum. With the offering ofone quarter of Gothic, or of Old Icelandic, or ofRomanticism, and so on, instructors are forced topack into ten weeks what often takes a semester oran entire year in other universities. Students receivea short course in important subjects and have tochange their concentration after writing — sometimesin great haste — a term paper. We fear that theproblem is serious and suggest that the Departmentconsider sequential courses. German Romanticism,for instance, could be offered in two or three successive quarters and would then cover the fieldmore adequately.VThe Visiting Committee strongly recommends thecontinuation of the Beitrdge which are recognizedas an outstanding contribution to German scholarship and provide a stimulating outlet for the facultyin the Chicago Department.7VIChicago has an excellent library with a superbcollection of books in the area of Germanic studies.The authorities will no doubt do everything in theirpower to keep this high standard. Librarians generally appreciate well-founded pressure from departments, and Chicago is fortunate in having librarians who will find the books that are wantedand identified. We are also happy to discover thatGerman graduate students do a great deal of workin the special collections of the library on bibliographical research.VIIFinally, we would like to point out that the Department has particular strength in an area whichshould be of importance to recruiting. We refer tothe fact that Professor Metcalf is active in thecouncils of the Modern Language Association andin other professional groups. This should be of significance whenever the Department is looking foradditional staff. As far as Scandinavian languagesand literatures are concerned, it can be pointed outthat there are many young scholars, especially inNorway, who are unable to secure positions withtheir native universities, due to the smallness ofthese institutions, but who could be induced toteach and work abroad.Obviously The University of Chicago has a somewhat special geographical situation to deal with inrecruiting, but its location within a large city canbe capitalized on. There are people who are knownto enjoy life in big cities — the university of one ofof the members of the Committee has just lost amuch respected colleague to Chicago for this veryreason. The rich cultural life of Chicago, with itsworld-famous museums and art collections, is boundto form an attraction such as few other cities have.We see no reason why a very strong campaign ofrecruiting on the basis of such and other advantagesshould not yield good results.COMMITTEE TO EVALUATE THE DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOMay 2, 1968Members of the CommitteeS. S. Chern, University of California at BerkeleyNathan Jacobson, Yale UniversityCharles B. Morrey, Jr., University of Californiaat Berkeley, Chairman The Committee which you [Provost Edward HLevi] appointed to evaluate the Department ofMathematics presents the following report.The Department of Mathematics of The University of Chicago has been one of the most eminentdepartments in the country since the founding 0fthe University. The Department insisted on excellence in scholarship and research from the beginning and consequently rapidly became one of thetwo principal centers of mathematical research activity in this country, the other being that of Harvard University. Many people feel that the Department in Chicago was the more eminent of the twodepartments for the first ten or fifteen years. Atany rate, these two departments dominated thedevelopment of mathematical research in this country until Princeton emerged as a principal centerof research at the end of World War I. Then thesethree departments were regarded as the "BigThree" until the department at the University ofCalifornia at Berkeley undertook its great expansionin the late 1950's and early 1960's. In spite of someserious losses of personnel at that time, the Department at Chicago was able to make a number ofexcellent appointments and so is now regarded asone of the "Big Four" along with those of Harvard,Berkeley and Princeton. However, there are nowmany excellent departments of mathematics in thecountry and the competition for the best researchmen continues to be rigorous in spite of the greatincrease in the number of Ph.D.'s being granted peryear. But this increase makes possible the greatcurrent increase in the number of very good research centers.It is probable that The University of Chicago hasgranted more Ph.D.'s in mathematics over the yearsthan has any other university. It has certainly produced a large group of first-rate research men. It isinteresting that probably the most famous men atboth Harvard and Princeton — namely former Professors George David Birkhoff of Harvard andOswald Veblen of Princeton — received their Ph.D.'sfrom Chicago. Among more recent illustrious recipients of the Ph.D. in mathematics from Chicagoare such people as A. P. Calderon, Paul Cohen andI. M. Singer, all recently elected to the NationalAcademy of Sciences, and younger men such asJohn Thompson and R. M. Solovay. It might benoted that the Department at Chicago includes sixmembers of the National Academy, a very largeproportion.The teaching load in the Department at Chicagois very favorable and the salaries are certainlycompetitive except, perhaps, in the instructor rank.8Until now, the Department has not had difficultyin making appointments at that rank. However,several of the eastern schools are raising the salaries of instructors above those paid at Chicago.An attractive feature of the operation of theDepartment is the annual program in some specialtopic to which are invited a number of visitingprofessors. So far these have been financed bygrants from outside agencies but your Committeebelieves that the University should be prepared tohelp support these programs if that should becomenecessary. Another attractive activity is the "Midwest Topology Seminar" which involves cooperationbetween the Department at Chicago and those atNorthwestern University, Notre Dame University,and the Circle Campus of the University of Illinois.The Department has tremendous strength in thefields of algebra and topology. It is doing everything it can to build up the groups in those fields inwhich it is less strong. Its principal weakness is inthe field of geometry where it needs to make a highlevel appointment and a few others at the lowerlevels. In analysis, it merely needs to make surethat there are a few young people "on the ladder";Professors Browder and Calderon and, of course,Professor Zygmund are first-rate analysts. It needsalso to build up its groups in applied mathematicsand probability; but people in these fields are exceedingly hard to find and to move when found.The field of mathematical logic is becoming a moreimportant mathematical discipline. At present it isrepresented only indirectly (by Saunders MacLane) in the Department; a group in this fieldshould be formed as soon as possible but not at theexpense of necessary appointments in geometry andanalysis.The principal difficulty which the Departmentencounters in trying to prevent the development ofweaknesses is that of locating the men of high quality which it wants and then persuading them tocome to Chicago. Appointments at the instructorlevel would be facilitated by increasing the salaryfor that rank. The Department has found also thattwo years is not sufficient time to evaluate the probable future performance of an instructor since, inpractice, the evaluation must be made at the end ofhis first year or the beginning of his second year asan instructor. The Department has let several instructors leave at the end of their two-year appointments only to find out shortly thereafter that theywere "of Chicago quality" after all. In several cases,the Department was then unable to persuade themen to return to Chicago. In view of the Department's traditional policy of keeping practically all its assistant professors, your Committee suggeststhat the Department be allowed to keep some instructors on for a third year either as instructors oras "lecturers" or "acting assistant professors" — thetitle being selected to emphasize the temporarycharacter of the appointment. It would be stillmore desirable for fellowships, like the Junior Faculty Fellowships at Yale or the Miller Fellowshipsat Berkeley, to be made available to the most promising young faculty members during one of theirfirst three years in the Department.Several members of the Department stated toyour Committee that the Department encountereddifficulty in making some high:level appointmentsand in keeping some of its members. It was believedthat this was due to the situation of the Universityin the city. The University has done a great deal tomake its immediate neighborhood attractive to itsfaculty, 70 per cent of whom were stated to livethere, and to work out friendly relations with theadjacent parts of the city. This problem certainlyposes a great challenge to the University and to itsfaculty, a challenge which if met successfully willhelp point the way to a solution of the nationwideproblem of the "inner city." However, it is a challenge with which many present and prospectivemembers of the faculty may not wish to grapple.REPORT OF THE VISITING COMMITTEETO THE DEPARTMENT OF FAR EASTERNLANGUAGES AND CIVILIZATIONS AT THEUNIVERSITY OF CHICAGODecember 9, 1968Members of the CommitteeDerk Bodde, University of PennsylvaniaJohn K. Fairbank, Harvard UniversityMarius B. Jan sen, Princeton University, ChairmanDonald Keene, Columbia UniversityFrederick W. Mote, Princeton UniversityFrom November 10 to 12, 1968, the Committeevisited the Department of Far Eastern Languagesand Civilizations of The University of Chicago toexamine its program and work. The Committeemembers, in their backgrounds and orientation, represented Chinese language, thought, history andpre-modern law, and Japanese literature, languageand history. Their institutional experience wasvaried, as the Committee members represented oldand large centers of East Asian study as well as(in the case of Princeton) a relatively new program9which is separating from its original Near Easternsponsors and emerging as an autonomous Department of East Asian Studies.Although Committee members represented different disciplines and organizational patterns, theyfound themselves in close agreement in their viewsof the need for a core department of East Asian*specialization, its relationship to its library andresearch materials and its role in stimulating andcoordinating East Asian work throughout the related disciplinary departments of the University.The following pages take up each of these in turnand discuss the Committee's comments on the language and civilization program of the Department,its relation to its library facilities, and finally itsrole in the larger institutional pattern of work onEast Asia.Chicago's Present OpportunityWe must record at the outset our conviction thatrecent years have seen dramatic developments inEast Asian studies at Chicago that have brought theUniversity into the mainstream of the profession asit is now developing. Chicago has long led in workon ancient and traditional China, but the development of a Japan program and the decision to extendChina concerns to the more modern period andlanguage have been carried out with evident enthusiasm and skill. There was a sense of innovationand openness in all our talks with members of theDepartment, and it is clear that they are workingtogether with spirit and cooperation. The studentswith whom we talked appreciated and reflected thissense of movement. The language program hasaltered so recently that it was difficult, in the caseof Japanese, to get a student view of it becauseadvanced students had come up through a differentand earlier system. Changes in content and technique have been accompanied by large-scale expansion and outreach to undergraduate and especiallygraduate students. With eighty-six graduate students in East Asian studies and with one of thecountry's finest libraries, Chicago is a major centerof East Asian studies. It is among the largest subscribers to national facilities like the InteruniversityCenters for Chinese and Japanese Studies administered by Stanford University, and its representationon national boards and committees of many sorts isconsistent and strong.Consequently we feel that the present marks a* The term "East Asian" has replaced "Far Eastern"at many universities in recent years, and in the following pages "Far Eastern" will be used only to refer tothe Chicago department. moment of opportunity for East Asian studies atChicago and we congratulate the University for itstiming of our visit and survey. We feel that thismoment is critical for projecting long-range plansfor further development, and that what is done nextcan make or brake Chicago's growth and achievement for decades ahead. The momentum that hasbeen built up needs to be sustained and directed,and our comments below indicate the areas in whichwe feel support and direction are most needed.The Program and Language Work of theDepartmentIf we begin with small issues and move to largerones, it is appropriate to open with some wordsabout the catalogue. It is remarkably uninformative.It gives no idea of the intensity and hour load ofcourses, and little of their content and progression.Upon examination we found it almost misleading ata number of points. We realize that this may resultfrom a preference for general headings to cover arapidly changing program. But we also adviseprompt attention to this and suggest at least a separate brochure making more clear and explicit forstudents what must now be an oral tradition ofcounsel.We are also puzzled by a number of anomalies.The undergraduate concentrator in Far EasternLanguages and Civilizations seems to face higherlanguage requirements than does the candidate forthe M.A., and while the Committee realizes thatthe M.A. is not the center of the program and it isitself not agreed about its importance, it nevertheless feels that its requirements should be reconsidered if it is to be a degree and not a consolation.We also received from our talks with students theimpression that they sometimes found their coursechoices narrow. The many seminars that are listedwere, they seemed to think, so specialized and professional as to discourage non-specialists and soadvanced that few students are linguistically qualified to take them. As a result students tend to beforced into narrow paths. We have the impressionthat many graduate programs are somewhat morenarrow and parochial than would be desirable. Weare convinced that there is place and need for moreseminar work at early, less advanced, levels andthat there is need for more training in methods ofresearch and techniques of writing research papers.There are also problems of balance. These arefully solved at no institution, but the coverage accorded Japan at Chicago is conspicuously less thanthat given China. We felt particularly the desirability of adding more work in Japanese history and10civilization. In addition, "supporting" areas of anthropology and sociology for both China and Japanseem strangely out of keeping with Chicago's greatstrength in those disciplines, and other areas ofeconomics, political science, and linguistics awaittreatment.But additional specialists would not by themselves be able to balance students' programs without more coordination. It seemed to the Committeethat there is a lack of coordination between theChinese and Japanese programs as they are nowconstituted. They rarely intersect after the newlyinaugurated introductory undergraduate course. Itis true that most graduate students in one fieldtake at least some work in the other language, butit seems less common for them to take work inthe other civilization. The Committee feels strongly that the civilizations of China and Japan (tosay nothing of Korea and Vietnam) are interrelatedat so many points that it is desirable for studentsof one to confront the other language andcivilization whenever appropriate and possible. Andfor specialists this becomes essential, in view ofJapan's cultural debt to China and the depth ofJapanese scholarship on China.The language program of the Department is, asalready noted, in process of change. For Chinesethere are now parallel tracks in classical and colloquial, with a new third-year course which bridgesthese through reading of pre-modern fiction writtenin a colloquial style with numerous classicisms.Students stressed to us their appreciation of thiscourse. Nevertheless we feel strongly that there isstill much too little attention to the sounds ofspoken Chinese after the introductory work, andthat the program needs to devote greater attentionand more hours to this. At present overseas study ismaking good this lack for the more able and fortunate. But even such study would be more effectiveif preparation were better rounded.The Japanese program, although free of the parallel track problems of classical and modern, is alsoin process of change of materials and approach. Wefelt that here too there was more need of the contemporary spoken, and need for integrating it withthe larger pattern of instruction instead of relegating it to special hours and hands. For both Chinese and Japanese we felt the desire for morecourse alternatives on the advanced, certainly thefourth year, level.For both Chinese and Japanese courses, wesensed a desire on the part of students that language instruction at the early levels be entrustedto the hands of professional, experienced language teachers suitably rewarded, who would be able toprepare students for more exacting and advancedwork with the distinguished scholars who lead thegraduate seminars at Chicago.The Committee offers these suggestions not incriticism, but in support of the faculty of the Chicago Department. For we are aware with our colleagues that these problems are national and universal and that success is a matter of degree. Thepoint, however, is that the continuing developmentof the language program as it now stands will require that it receive a high priority for more andadditional posts. The present language staff is clearly fully occupied and in cases overloaded. Even ifall the courses listed are not offered each year itremains clear that additional hours and effort devoted to greater integration of language laboratory,colloquial and textual instruction can come onlythrough an expansion of staff. The changes we suggest are also, in a sense, in our own interest, forthe training of graduate students in our fields isseldom or never entirely at one center or institute,as the increasing role of the overseas centers shows.It is important for Chicago to be in phase in itsinstruction and achievement standards, for eachsuch development increases the possibility and easeof inter-institutional cooperation.The Department and Its LibraryThe Far Eastern library of The University ofChicago is one of the Western world's strongest. Itsgreat strength and depth in traditional China reflectChicago's long leadership in this field, and in particular the presence at Chicago, in Professor Tsien, ofone of the country's most distinguished scholar-bibliographers. The rapid growth of the Japanesesection in recent years under the skillful acquisitions policy of Mr. Morita is scarcely less remarkable. The collection is a resource that could not beduplicated, and its strength automatically makesChicago a major center at East Asian studies.The library is at present inadequately housed incramped surroundings, and the comments of thestudents with whom we talked were full of evidenceof the handicaps this places them under. Without acarrel or reserved desk or study room facility, theytend to find space wherever they can; one studentwe talked to works in the nearest branch of a public library. The library situation is clearly urgent.The proposed move of the library to a centralfacility in Regenstein, however, will not providethe East Asian community at Chicago with the support it needs, unless its special needs are first takeninto consideration. In brief, East Asian studies have11requirements that are different from those of otherfields. Unless this is clearly recognized by The University of Chicago, and unless appropriate action istaken, the forward development that we have witnessed can be stopped and the promising trend ofrecent years actually reversed. This is a strongstatement. It is based on considerations which comefrom our experience and observation over manyyears.The distinctiveness and separateness of EastAsia's civilizations have long been symbolized bythe Chinese writing system. More than any othersingle factor, it has kept the rest of the world fromcoming to grips with the Chinese people and theirtradition. Even countries like Japan, Korea andVietnam, which have supplemented the Chinesesystem of transcription with more flexible phoneticor even alphabetic writing systems, share with China the formidable hurdle posed by the Chinesecharacter; contemporary systems of simplifiedtranscription and restriction of vocabulary ease theproblem for minimal literacy, but they do little forthe student who seeks to penetrate the core of thetradition. He finds that he must first spend farmore time for the study of his East Asian languagesthan he would for any language with alphabetictranscription. The student's language problems, infact, never end.When he comes to research, the student next findshimself confronting a vast apparatus of bibliography and scholarship. East Asian research materials are highly organized chronologically andtopically, but the languages and form in which theyare prepared require from the student far moretime and effort than do those in any other field ofwhich we have knowledge. Merely to get acquaintedwith the major collections and principal tools in anyof the Chinese research fields is an arduous taskrequiring a year or more to get started. The American student, and indeed any student at this point,needs the personal guidance of an instructor beforehe can cope with library resources like Chicago's.The use of research aids must be explained anddemonstrated in practice. As the student getsstarted, his questions merely increase in number.How to find what he knows is somewhere in thematerials, how to identify names and terms in histexts, how to use specialized dictionaries and reference works of all sorts, all this is a complex craftwhich he must learn like a journeyman throughworking with scholars who are more advanced.If Chicago is to help its graduate students progress from their language training onto the higherlevels of research, a process which is only now assuming large proportions, there must be facilitiesvery like those of a laboratory, research rooms formajor periods where source compendia line thewalls and research aids are ready at hand. In shortthe special difficulties of this field can be met onlyby special facilities in space set aside for the purpose. To do less than this is to prevent traineesfrom getting the benefit of their earlier languageinvestment and keep the University from realizingon its faculty investment.It will thus be seen that the library problem inthis field is not one of retrieval and supply ofbooks. On the contrary, the principal library problem is to provide properly outfitted research roomsfor advanced seminar instruction. In the East Asianfield, the library is the center of activity. It cannotbe utilized without space in which to work andprivacy in which to talk, explain and search. Morethan in any other written tradition of which wehave experience, students educate and are educatedin the process of being led into and "talked through"library materials. And in no branch of East Asianstudies is this as certain as in the field of traditionalChina, in which Chicago excels.What this means to us is that library planningfor an East Asian program must provide at the outset for study rooms (by field and area) with reference and bibliographic tools immediately at hand,together with study space for the advanced researcher and the presence in nearby office or carrelspace of faculty members, whose most importantassistance may come in unscheduled and (in hours)unremunerated tutorial activity. To do less willprevent the Far Eastern Department from achieving its purpose; it may stunt its further development, and it will probably have to be rectified someyears in the future at much greater expense andeffort.The Department as the Center of a Communitywithin the UniversityEast Asian studies around the country have prospered where there has been recognition of theirindividuality and uniqueness. It is a differencerooted in difficult languages, transmitted and conveyed through a written tradition of extraordinarycontinuity, and it is one grasped or approached onlythrough unusual commitment on the part of thestudent and research worker. Training, in languageand course, suffices only to lead to the point ofoperation, which has to be experienced and sharedin the actual work of research. It is at this momentof confrontation with tradition, embodied in thelibrary, that the student most needs the presence12and assistance of his instructor. In this East Asianstudies are totally unlike other branches of thehumanities or social sciences. They are equally unlike other "area" studies that can be approachedthrough conventional bibliographical and languagecommand. Even in the study of West, South andSoutheast Asia, for instance, western-languagescholarship plays a far larger role. And certainly noother area has the problems and benefits that follow from the constant replenishment from a vitaland dynamic scholarly universe like that of EastAsia. For study of the present as well as the past,East Asia has to be approached on its own termsand in its own languages. Consequently it is moreimportant for East Asian specialists to be togetherthan it is for part of them to be close to interesting,but basically irrelevant, groups of non-East Asian"area" or "international" specialists.The linguistic and other difficulties of the EastAsian field can be utilized to create a strong senseof community among those working in it. Facingcultural problems together, they feel a commonbond. For success in developing specialists, it ismost essential that this sense of facing commonproblems be turned to good account, to encouragethe beginner and hearten the neophyte during hislong years of preparation. Close contacts betweenthe more and less advanced workers in this field hasproved extremely fruitful. All the major centerswith which we are acquainted have common roomsor similar meeting places. The most universal complaint that we found among both the faculty members and the students at Chicago is the presentabsence of any such meeting ground. The mosteffective centers have lunchrooms as well as common rooms. We strongly urge that high priority begiven to this problem without delay. We foundadvanced students who were meeting one anotherfor the first time. This should not happen.Our conclusion is that the University shouldwithout delay take measures to provide a commonroom, preferably with an icebox and at least facilities for bag lunches. Naturally if this could bearranged in connection with the library facilities, itwould produce maximum efficiency. A meetingplace of this kind is not only of use to the in-groupwho are specializing in East Asian studies. It also provides a point of useful contact between themand the wider university community.If they are properly equipped, concentrated andhoused, East Asian specialists become the center ofEast Asian activity throughout the larger universitycommunity, the center of the wheel whose spokesrun into the many departments that need East Asiacoverage and concern to keep them from becomingAtlantic-area studies, as they have been in the past.The East Asian Center, complete with its materials,specialists and students, works fruitfully and effectively only when it has the opportunity to interactand cooperate. The Committee members weretherefore strongly agreed on the desirability ofexamining immediately all current plans to housethe Far Eastern library. If, they felt, these did notalter the existing and dysfunctional scattering ofthe East Asian specialist community around thecampus, and if they did not incorporate full opportunity for student and faculty to work, study, talkand eat together, the impressive gains that theCommittee had seen were unlikely to lead to more.If, on the other hand, this problem of facilitiesand center in its largest sense can be met, then itwill affect many of the intellectual concerns thatwere introduced earlier in this report. Narrownessand parochialism of program are encouraged by thepersonal isolation that inadequate facilities forceupon students, and they cannot be effectively countered in a setting in which staff and books are farapart. Our final recommendation thus takes theform of a strong hope that the Department andadministration will take full cognizance of the advantages to be gained through consolidating andconcentrating the very great strength that Chicagohas now built up in East Asian studies.NEW DEPARTMENTA Department of Anesthesiology has beenestablished at The University of Chicago inthe Division of the Biological Sciences andThe Pritzker School of Medicine. Chairmanof the newly created Department is Dr.Merel H. Harmel, Professor of Anesthesiology.13THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE FACULTIESiIi880»woooi0ft W<^ <#£ It§<siI? r*•I* **IfCO I f# m*? a*# &f ;*?0 O»' Q*** &S? ts*9 m 30H»05ONOONU>COCOw