THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 9 RECOEDAN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF FACULTIES VOLUME IV, NUMBER 1STUDENT HOUSINGDecember 1, 1969In view of the changes that have taken place thisyear in student housing, it seemed appropriate tohave a retrospective survey of student residenceat The University of Chicago, one which not onlybrought together data from scattered reports ofrecent years but also dealt with some of the issues sociological and even philosophical — involved inplanning student housing. Some weeks ago I askedBen Rothblatt, Assistant to the Provost, to writea report of this kind, and the following essay is theresult. I think it will be of considerable interest toboth students and faculty.John T. Wilson, ProvostStudents in a large urban university in the East,the New York Times reported recently, decoratedthe doors of neighborhood apartment buildings lastspring with mimeographed notices offering $150rewards for "information leading to the rental ofan apartment" in the university area. "The moreenterprising, or more desperate, students chargethrough the neighborhood block by block, askingeach building superintendent about vacancies." Onestudent looking for an apartment to share said heplanned to "stick around after final exams and talkto every landlord in the neighborhood until we getsomething." Although no similar activities have yetbeen reported in The University of Chicago area,they may very well exist, and perhaps more ingenious methods have been invented or are on theway.The student apartment is a quite recent phenomenon at The University of Chicago, as elsewhere. Forty years ago, 47 per cent of Universityof Chicago students lived at home with parents andcommuted to the campus. Only 11 per cent lived inUniversity dormitories; 9 per cent lived in fraternity houses; and 30 per cent lived in furnishedrooms. Of the undergraduates, 59 per cent livedwith parents and just 8 per cent lived in dormitories. As late as the mid-fifties, about half thestudent body commuted from parents' homes.The dramatic reversal of student residence patterns is exhibited in data collected last year by theOffice of the Registrar. In 1968, 31.7 per cent of CONTENTS / January 9, 19701 Student Housing12 Report to the President from the Department and Graduate School of Education14 President's Seminar, 1969-7014 Deans' Budget Committee14 University Committees with StudentMembers15 Governing Committees, 1969-7015 Report of the Examining Committee onthe Graduate School of Business19 Committee on the Conceptual Foundations of Science20 Select Committee on, the Nature andFunction of the Council of the University Senate20 University Sports Program20 Honorary Degree21 New Faculty Appointments as of December 12, 1969students on the Quadrangles (and 59.7 per cent ofundergraduates) lived in dormitories (includingInternational House) and only 3.1 per cent livedwith parents. The group living in fraternities hadshrunk to 1.9 per cent, and even fewer students(1.7 per cent) lived in furnished rooms or roominghouses. Of all University students, 11.5 per centlived in University apartments for married students; another 12.2 per cent were married studentsin private apartments; 33.1 per cent of the studentpopulation were single students occupying apartments or houses. Two striking facts emerge. Oneis that the percentage of students in Universitydormitories had nearly trebled. The other is thatby 1968, 52.8 per cent of the student populationlived in apartments (both University and private)with another 4 per cent in private houses— a totalof well over four thousand students. It is hardlysurprising, therefore, that the competition forneighborhood apartments is intense, if not at timesvirtually savage.(Tcu) 1Changes in the patterns of student residence reflect The University of Chicago's shift in recentdecades from a commuting institution with a sizable number of students living at home to an institution which now draws most of its students fromother areas of the country and from abroad. Butother factors may be equally salient, including thegrowth in financial support available to studentsand corresponding changes in students' conceptionsof what constitutes adequate housing. The declineof fraternities and the fading away of the roominghouse also reflect shifting norms and life styles.Concepts of suitable housing not only changewith time but are subject as well to the usualvicissitudes of consumer preference. The doubledormitory room, until recently considered an acceptable standard, now survives largely because ofeconomic necessity. Similarly, the current proliferation of "4 +1" apartment buildings in some areasof the city may one day come to be regarded asa passing aberration, as ephemeral and inexplicableas the American passion in the 1950s for tailfins onautomobiles. But buildings, unlike motor cars, tendto survive long after the fashions and customs thathelped produce them have faded, and the manybizarre monuments to past ignorance and follyoften last as long as the relatively few products ofwisdom and taste. The job of planning studenthousing, therefore, involves the frank recognitionand costly rectification of past error as much as itrequires prophetic judgments about the future.Planning is further complicated by differencesin the requirements and preferences of single andmarried students, graduate students and undergraduates, and men and women, as well as by thespecial needs of freshmen. When the contingenciesof financing and the pressures of other Universitypriorities are also considered, it is small wonderthat much housing for students at the Universityand elsewhere has necessarily been the result ofthe chance encounter between need and availablefunds almost as often as it has proceeded fromrational planning and articulated principle.Universities in general have taken four basicapproaches to the problem of housing their students. One is to provide no housing at all, leavingstudents free to find their own housing in the openmarket. A second is to provide mass housing, typically high rise, with a minimum of space, privacy,and common facilities. A third approach conceivesof housing as integrally related to the students'academic, cultural, and social lives and providesfacilities of high quality with a wide range of activities focused in the student residence hall. Sinceresidence in this system is seen as a part of the education of the student, it is fairly uniform andmandatory. The fourth approach provides a varietyof housing types and a range of options and mayincorporate elements of the other three models.In many respects the first alternative is the mostattractive one, since the University takes smallpleasure in the management of housing propertiesand derives even less satisfaction from the necessity of subsidizing them. But this laissez faire approach is possible only in a university in whichmost students are drawn from the local communityand continue to live with parents while commutingto the campus or one in which private housing forstudents is both plentiful and inexpensive. It restseither on a narrow conception of education aslimited to the classroom, library, and laboratory,or it may take the view that living in the community has important educational advantages.The second alternative of providing low-cost,mass housing assumes that students need little inthe way of space, privacy, quiet, and common facilities, or that such amenities are too costly foreither the university or the student to support.The completely mandatory house system is basedon the notion that students should have a commonexperience throughout the undergraduate years andleaves little room for individual differences in preference or life style. It also involves a heavy financial commitment to facilities which are often opulent but relatively difficult to modify in responseto changing conditions and needs.The University of Chicago has had a variedapproach. Although it has always contained a modified House system as a major element, the systemcurrently requires residence only for freshmen, andapproximately two -thirds of other undergraduates(or about 40 per cent of the total undergraduatebody) live in non-University housing. There is afairly wide variety of housing types available: dormitory, apartment, furnished room; on campus, offcampus; high rise, low rise; expensive, inexpensive.The University's commitment to variety is reflectedin the 1965 report of the Faculty-Student Committee on Student Residences and Facilities (the BlumCommittee) .The policy underlying recent housing practicesis a policy of diversity, containing as a major component a structured House system, mandatory forfreshmen but also including other undergraduates.The House system has been in existence at Chicago since the University opened in 1892. In hisfirst Decennial Report in 1902 President Harperdescribed the House system as "the distinguishingfactor in the social life of the University." It isevident that the Houses were considered part of2the University's educational program. Residentheads of the Houses were appointed by the President and included among their number several distinguished faculty members. James W. Thompson,an eminent medievalist, was director of UniversityHouses. Fraternities, which Harper and most faculty members opposed, were finally organized atChicago only as components of the House system."I do not hesitate to say," Harper declared, "thatideal college and university life will be attainedonly in those cases in which the life of the individual is brought into closest contact with the livesof many other individuals, and this is impossiblewhen students isolate themselves and maintain association in large measure with those who have noconnection with the University."Harper's commitment to the House system resulted in building the entire group of residencehalls on the Quadrangles in the first decade of theUniversity's life. Gates Hall opened in 1892, followed in 1893 by Blake, Foster, Kelly, Beecher,and Snell. Green was built in 1899 and Hitchcockin 1902. Nevertheless, most students in the earlyyears lived off campus, many at considerable distances. There was not enough dormitory space.Nor was housing available in the community. ForHyde Park at the turn of the century was a suburban outpost of the city, with beach cottagesalong its eastern border, a few hotels and apartment houses built for visitors to the ColumbianExposition in 1893, and only scattered housingelsewhere. Although plans existed for additionalresidence halls, funds were unavailable and after1902 no further dormitories were built until Burton- Judson Courts opened in 1931.Through the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, only 10 to15 per cent of undergraduates could be accommodated in the residence halls. About half the undergraduate body commuted from their homes, witha substantial percentage living in furnished roomsand fraternity houses. By 1950-51, 32.1 per centof undergraduates lived in the residence halls, andthe figure nearly doubled in the next decade. By1961-62, 60.5 per cent of undergraduates werehoused in residence halls, a level which has beenmaintained to the present time. In absolute numbers, the total of undergraduates in the House system has trebled in the past two decades. In theseyears the shift from what was primarily a commuting college to one which is largely residentialhad taken place. This shift was formalized by theintroduction in 1961-62 of undergraduate residencerequirements, initially four years for women andtwo years for men, but later reduced to one yearfor both. The expansion of the residence system was made possible by the construction of Woodward Courts (1957-59) and Pierce Tower (1960-61), the last major dormitory to be built. Since theopening of Pierce, the only new construction housing undegraduates has been the apartment buildingat 1400 East 57th Street, although recent yearshave also seen the purchase and renovation of existing neighborhood apartment buildings and hotelsfor student use.Along with the growth in dormitory facilitieswent the expansion of the House system. The system is currently organized into twenty-six Houses(which range in size from 28 to 106 students), allbut five for undergraduates. Seven undergraduateHouses are for women.Activities in the Houses vary rather widely.Although all Houses participate in the program ofintramural sports, more variation is exhibited insocial, cultural, and intellectual activities. Houseshave sponsored evening lectures, debates, poetryand dramatic readings, and creative writing contests, as well as film series, dances, and group excursions. Almost all Houses invite faculty members on a fairly regular basis to lunch, dinner, andspecial discussion hours; and a few have developedprograms of Faculty Fellows who maintain a continuing involvement with the life of the House.Distinguished visitors from outside the Universityand alumni have also been guests in the Houses.To the degree that a House is successful it tendsto develop a special ambience which differentiatesit from other Houses. Thus, for example, oneHouse may develop a variety of musical events,another may foster literary activities, and a thirdmay become known for its intramural teams.Responsibility for the development of Houseactivities rests largely on the student members.Students in the Houses also have the primary responsibility for making and enforcing House rules.Each House has an elected House Council and theInter-House Council is composed of elected representatives of all the Houses. In Autumn, 1969,following the recommendations of a special Committee on House Autonomy with a majority ofstudent members, social regulations have beenplaced entirely in the hands of the individualHouses — subject only to those safeguards requiredto protect individuals and to mediate possible conflicts between Houses. To perform this review function, the Inter-House Appeals Committee, composed of seven students, two faculty members, andone administrative representative, has been established.Assistance in the development of House activities and in the management of House affairs is pro-3vided by the residence staff of the House system.Each House has a Resident Head, often with oneor more assistants, who provides advice and counselto individual students as well as to the House asa whole. A few are faculty members; most aregraduate students. In an effort to attract morefaculty members to serve as Resident Heads theUniversity, in the summer of 1969, enlarged andremodeled six apartments in the Houses for Resident Heads and their families, and further enlargement of Resident Head apartments is planned forthe coming year.In the current year the House system has acapacity of 2,007 spaces for single students. (See Figure 1.) Of these spaces 1,879 are in dormitoriesand 126 are in apartments and town houses. Inaddition, a reserve of 100 spaces is available at theBlackwood Hotel, with rentals subsidized by theUniversity. Beyond this, International House hasa capacity of slightly over 500 rooms, most ofwhich are rented to University of Chicago graduate students. Finally, over 100 students live in fraternity houses on campus.In Autumn, 1969, the dormitories have space for1,310 undergraduates and 569 graduate students.Of these student spaces, 478 (25 per cent) are indouble rooms; 1,153 (61 per cent) are in singlerooms; and 248 (14 per cent) are in two-roomFIGURE 1Inventory of Single Student Housing, 1969-70House SingleRoom Number of SpacesOne Room Two RoomDouble Double Total College, Division,or School SexWoodward :Lower Wallace. 24Upper Wallace 26Lower Rickert 18Upper Rickert 19Lower Flint 18Upper Flint 26Total 131Burton- Judson:Dodd 28Mead 36Chamberlin 56Vincent 52Coulter 43Mathews 53Linn 38Salisbury 41Total 347Pierce:Tufts 24Henderson 24Thompson 25Shorey 25Total 98Hitchcock 32Snell 57Boucher 95Eleanor Club 40Blackstone 2Greenwood Laughlin 77Harper 71Ellis , 6Broadview 197Grand total 1 , 153Per cent ¦. . (61%) 30 54 College F32 58 College F24 42 College F28 47 College F48 66 College M40 66 College F202 33328 College M36 College M56 College M52 College M43 Graduate M53 Law School M38 Law School M41 College M34736 60 College M38 62 College M32 57 College M30 55 College M136 23456 18 106 College 'M57 College F2 97 College M52 2 94 College F76 78 College F30 68 9877 CollegeGraduate School ofBusiness MM71 Graduate F84 90 Graduate F197 Graduate M478 248 1,879(25%) (13%) (99%)4doubles, this represents a significant improvementover 1968-69, because of the conversion this autumn of 133 double rooms in Woodward and Pierceto single occupancy. Occupancy was reduced from423 to 33S in Woodward, where there are now 131single rooms (compared with 49 last year) and 101double rooms (compared with 187 in 1968-69).Similarly, the capacity of Pierce has been reducedfrom 291 to 234, with the number of single roomsincreasing from 47 to 98 and double rooms dropping from 122 to 68. Of the remaining dormitoriesonly Hitchcock and the former Eleanor Club havesignificant numbers of double rooms.This program of conversion to single occupancyhas been under way for several years. The originalcapacities of Woodward and Pierce were 486 and324 respectively; their combined capacity has beenreduced 30 per cent, from 810 to 567 — a loss of243 spaces. Revenue loss from this year's conversion alone will amount to almost $150,000 annually,at current rental rates.In 1970-71, further conversion of double roomsto single occupancy will take place. Clearly the University is fast approaching the time when the singlebedroom will be the standard, although double occupancy will always be available for those studentswho prefer it.The increase in available housing for single students has been accompanied by a sharp rise in thesupply of University apartments for married students. Twenty-five years ago, when World War IIended, the University owned 83 apartments formarried students. Housing for married students inthe postwar decade was for the most part provided by 389 prefabricated temporary units builtby the government in 1946-47 for the primary useof student veterans and their families. The last ofthese was demolished in 1959, when the ChicagoBuilding Department refused to permit them toremain.Meanwhile the University had begun in 1955 topurchase and renovate neighborhood apartmentbuildings for married student use. At that time only376 University apartments were available to mar^ried students, including about 340 temporary prefabricated units. By 1962-63, three years after allprefabricated units were removed, the number ofmarried student apartments totaled 1,089, providing housing for over 50 per cent of the marriedstudent enrollment. In 1964 a poll of 54 universities and colleges conducted by Princeton Universityshowed that The University of Chicago's percentage of married students housed (50 per cent) wasby far the highest of the institutions surveyed,more than twice the average for all institutions (22 per cent). The number of married studentapartments has remained at about this level, asFigure 2 shows. Although some apartment buildings have been purchased in the past five years,others have had to be demolished (to make way forthe new athletic fields, for example) and a fewhave been sold. Most married student apartmentbuildings contain more than 20 units and severalare high rise, elevator buildings.FIGURE 2Inventory of Married Student andAuxiliary Apartments, 1969-70Number ofBuilding Units5107 Blackstone (Piccadilly) 765316 Dorchester (Gaylord) 865659-61 Drexel; 908-10 E. 57th 125700-02 Drexel; 845-47 E. 57th 125715 Drexel (Phemister Hall) 81a6022-24 Drexel 70b6051-57 Drexel 24804-12 E. 58th 31b816-24 E. 58th , 125233-37 Greenwood; 1100-1110 E. 53rd ... 275482-88 Greenwood 445345 Harper (Harper Crest) 501215 E. Hyde Park 601310-16 E. Hyde Park; 1311-17 E. MadisonPark 251318-24 E. Hvde Park; 1319-25 E. MadisonPark ." 251334-40 E. Hyde Park; 1335-41 E. MadisonPark 271369 E. Hyde Park (Fairfax) 891401 E. Hyde Park (Carlson Hall) 45a5545-55 Ingleside; 932-42 E. 56th ........ 306044-52 Ingleside 186054-56 Ingleside; 920-34 E. 61st 215110 Kenwood (Shelbourne) 925135 Kenwood (Chicago Arms) 515220 Kenwood (Grosvenor) 565428-32 Kimbark 185601-5 Maryland; 835-39 E. 56th 195645-49 Maryland 95410-18 Ridgewood Court 31Total 1,141a Occupied primarily by residents and interns of the Hospitalsand Clinics.b Occupied primarily by nurses.The rapid growth in the supply of married student housing reflects the coincidence of the University's need with the availability in the mid-fifties of private apartment buildings and hotels onthe Hyde Park housing market. Many of theseproperties had reached a point at which major renovation was necessary and they could no longer beoperated at a profit. Some were apartment hotels,once rather elegant. These were extensively renovated by the University after purchase. In generalthe standard of renovation has been high. Renovation at the Shelbourne (5110 Kenwood), forexample, cost $610,583 in 1967-68.5The University's acquisition since 1955 of alarge number of apartment and hotel units for bothmarried and single students, in addition to the construction of Woodward Court and Pierce Tower,has enabled the great majority of students — apartment dwellers as well as dormitory residents — tolive in fairly close proximity to the campus. Thishad not been possible through most of the University's prior history. The latest available data onthe distribution of student residences were collected in 1967 and published in 1968 as part of acomprehensive report on student housing preparedby three students — Alan Jaffe, Bradley Rogers, andJohn Wertymer — and published by the Center forUrban Studies. The report showed that a total of43 per cent of all University of Chicago studentslived in University housing and 82 per cent of allstudents lived in the immediate University area —Hyde Park, Kenwood, and Woodlawn. An additional 7 per cent (nearly all of them graduate students)lived in South Shore.As Figure 3 shows, students were fairly well distributed throughout the Hyde Park-Kenwood area.A large number, mainly single students, were concentrated in the immediate campus area and adjacent subdistricts. The smallest number resided innorthwest Hyde Park and Kenwood. Six hundredeighty-seven students lived in Woodlawn, abouttwo-thirds of them in University housing. According to the Registrar's survey the number in Woodlawn dropped to 523 in 1968. The 1968 studentpopulation in South Shore held at about the samelevel as in 1967. Although data for the current yearare not yet available, the pattern of residence islikely to be basically the same, except for somefurther drop in the number of Woodlawn residents.Not only do most University of Chicago students live in the immediate neighborhood, but, onthe basis of recent data, most are reasonably satisfied with their housing, whether University or private. An extensive survey conducted in 1968 forthe Jaffe, Rogers, Wertymer report showed that 82per cent of all students surveyed expressed at leastmoderate satisfaction with their housing. This finding tends to confirm the results of an earlier surveyby the Registrar in 1965 which reported that 64.1per cent of the students were "fully" or "rather"satisfied, with 17.1 per cent expressing themselvesas "neutral" (a category not included in the Jaffe,Rogers, and Wertymer study). If the neutral responses are divided evenly, the results of the twosurveys are not dissimilar. What little variancethere is indicates that student satisfaction wassomewhat higher in 1968 than three years earlier.The Registrar's survey also showed a higher level of dissatisfaction on the part of students with private housing than with University housing. Theevidence does not, therefore, support the ratherfrequent claim that there is widespread student dissatisfaction with housing.Nevertheless, student housing is not infrequentlythe focus of some dissatisfaction. Such dissatisfaction has been of two kinds. On the one hand studentcriticism has been directed at the facilities andservice — food, quiet, space, privacy, costs, and provision for activities. The other species of complainthas had to do with housing policy and planning ingeneral.The Jaffe, Rogers, Wertymer study does giveevidence of considerable dissatisfaction with mealarrangements in the residence halls. Only vendingmachine service ranked below the meal contractplan in popularity. Students preferred a meal ticketarrangement, a cafeteria system, or facilities todo their own cooking. Although second-year students, fresh from their first year of dormitory life,gave high ratings to the residence halls on "congeniality," "freedom," and "safety," the dormitories ranked low with respect to "quiet," "privacy," and "food."Efforts to improve the situation in the residencehalls with respect to privacy and quiet have beenmade in the past few years, mainly by the conversion of double rooms to single occupancy and thecarpeting of hallways and lounges. Such measureshave helped greatly, but it should also be notedthat the dormitories were built anticipating neitherthe technology that produced high fidelity stereoequipment nor the affluence that made its ownership by students widespread. Conversion to singleoccupancy is costly, but it will continue. Less certain is the possibility of doing away with foodcontracts. If this were done the likelihood is thateither deficits would mount or the price of mealswould have to go up.In general, existing student dissatisfaction withhousing must be viewed within the context of ever-increasing financial constraints. The Universitysubsidizes student housing of all kinds — both dormitories and married student apartments. Food service in the dormitories also operates with a subsidy. In 1968-69 the subsidy for single studenthousing and food operations combined was over$200,000 (as Figure 4 shows), not including thesubstantial underwriting of Hutchinson Commons.Nor does this include the cost of rent subsidies fornon-University housing — an emergency measurebegun in the mid-sixties which guarantees a reservesupply of student rooms in neighborhood hotels.In some instances these rooms have been rented to6FIGURE 3Map of Student Residence, Fall 1967THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO AND ENVIRONSOffice Of Physical PlanningPATTERN OF STUDENT RESIDENCE • FALL 1967Each individual dot = one studentEach large circle = 20 to 400 students7FIGURE 4Single Student Housing and Food Service Operationsfor Year Ended June 30, 1969Single Student Housing OperationsBudget ActualIncome from operations $1,128,901 $1,116,792Operating expenses:Salaries and retirement expense 377,487 359,538Utilities 143,652 128,652Building and service costs 130,609 134,658Repairs and maintenance 272,824 279,875Management and general 87,685 72, 146Total operating expenses. 1,012,257 974,869Net income or (loss) from operations.-. 116,644 141,923Nonoperating costs:Debt service and sinking fund 207,339 209,363Replacement reserves and depreciation 110,363 107,031Total nonoperating costs 317,702 316,394Net gain or (loss) to regular budget $ (201 ,058) $ (174,471)Single Student Food Service Operations*Budget ActualIncome from operations $ 873 ,866 $ 840,272Operating expenses:Food 353,915 332,270Salaries and retirement 333,804 317,070Utilities 25,056 24,044Building and service costs 33,258 32,662Repairs and maintenance 59,864 53, 142Management and general 64,595 53,967Total operating expenses 870,492 813, 155Net income or (loss) from operations 3,374 27, 117Nonoperating costs:Debt service and sinking fund 39,482 37,058Replacement reserves and depreciation. . 17,632 18,628Total nonoperating costs 57, 114 55,686Net gain or (loss) to regular budget $ (53,740) $ (28,569): Not including Hutchinson Commons.students at rates lower than those paid by the University. In 1968-69 these subsidies amounted tonearly $30,000. Still another kind of subsidy isrepresented by financial aid to students, both inand out of the House system. Married studenthousing appeared to operate on something closerto a break even basis, sustaining a loss in 1968—69of $11,015 (see Figure 5). But the actual subsidyis much greater than this figure indicates. Not reflected in the operating statements is the sum of$5 million spent from University funds for the purchase and rehabilitation of married student housing properties and in effect "written off." Annual operating deficits for all student housing have been therule rather than the exception in recent years, asHenry Field's "Student Housing History" {TheUniversity of Chicago Record, Volume III, Number 1) shows in detail.The annual operating loss is only a part of thesubsidy to student housing. The full picture includes the University's investment in plant andequipment and special appropriations for renovation, as well as other subsidy factors deriving fromthe University's tax-exempt status. The total in-8FIGURE 5Married Student and Auxiliary Housing, 1968-69BudgetIncome from operations $1 , 878, 191Operating expenses:Housekeeping costs 59, 979Building service costs 480, 733Maintenance and repairs 396 , 600Management and genera] expenses 174,588Insurance 26 , 562Property taxes 22,709Cooperative assessments Total operating expenses 1 , 161 ,171Net income or loss (— ) from operations 717,020Rehabilitation and Improvements 42 , 484Net income or loss (— ) after rehabilitation and improvements 674, 536Net nonoperating costs —Expenses:Debt service and sinking fund 554,047Ground and other rent 8 , 400Replacement reserves and depreciation Provision for income tax Contingencies —27,070Credits:Married student housing charge distributed toHHFA financed properties — 4,072Capitalization of operating expenses Net nonoperating costs 531 ,305Net gain or loss (— ) on real estate operations 143,231Transfers to special reserves and funds —27,231Net gain or loss (— ) to regular budget $ 116,000 Actual$1,903,04857,283492,224496,863168,82138,06213,2321,266,485636,56357,654578,999543,4558,40015,000- 4,072562^78316,216-27,231$ (11,015)vestment in dormitories and apartment buildingsfor student use amounts to about $26 million,almost evenly divided between the two categories.This does not include dormitories built prior to1931; nor does it include all capital improvementsto housing facilities.As a tax-exempt institution the University doesnot pay property tax and water tax on its housingfacilities. This advantage is estimated to amountto about 20 per cent of the market rate in the caseof student apartments, as shown by a 1966 study.Although no currently reliable comparison withmarket rates exists, rent increases in Universitymarried student housing have not kept pace withrent increases in private housing. Commercialapartment rates in Hyde Park increased by 5 to 8per cent in spring, 1969; there has been no increasein University apartment rates since autumn, 1968.Dormitory rates were last increased in autumn,1966. The current operating budget of the Universitycontains a planned deficit of over $9 million; itincludes no funds for building purposes, whetherrenovation or new construction. Nor is depreciationincluded in operating costs, except where legallyrequired in the case of buildings with governmentloans. This means that improvements must be paidfor by gifts or loans rather than from rents. Furtherconstruction or purchase of student housing alsodepends on the University's ability to raise substantial gift funds beyond those needed to supportthe budget. Government loans are increasingly unavailable for these purposes and in any case placecost limitations far below the standards of construction, space, and amenities that the Universityhas adopted. The prospects, therefore, of financing-major student housing projects are, at best, uncertain. Nevertheless, planning for new student residences has continued.In the last few years the Student-Faculty Com-9mittee on Student Residences and Facilities (theBlum Committee) has carried a large share of theplanning burden. The Committee was organized asa faculty committee in July, 1964, and studentswere later added as members. Its original functionwas "to advise on a new college residence hall orhalls and also to advise on new student facilities,"but in practice the Committee has dealt with theentire range of student housing, old and new, andhas also concerned itself with many aspects ofstudent life.In addressing itself in 1965 to the inadequaciesof existing student housing the Committee put fortha series of recommendations including the creationof new floor lounges at Woodward Court, conversion of double rooms to singles, carpeting of corridors at Woodward and Pierce, and redecoratingand refurnishing in several residence halls. All ofthese recommendations were subsequently carriedout.The primary work of the Blum Committee hasinvolved the development of a ten-year programof student housing for the decade 1965-75, andthis was the focus of the detailed report by theCommittee in June, 1965, followed several monthslater by a supplementary report. (Both reportswere subsequently published in The University ofChicago Record, Volume II, Number 1, January23, 1968.) As guidelines for future development,the Committee adopted the following: 1). thequality of facilities was to equal the best schools;2) student residences should produce "traffic flow"through the campus and should not be concentrated in one location; 3) student facilities shouldbe diversified and decentralized; 4) marriedstudent housing should be in several locationsin Hyde Park; and 5) private commercial development should be a part of the total plan.Early in the life of the Committee the conceptof a "New Area" emerged, a concept whicheventually developed into the plan for the NorthQuadrangle — a complex of housing, athletic, andacademic facilities. A "Student Village," housingover a thousand students primarily in organizedhouses of from 40 to 60, clustered in larger communities of from 200 to 300, formed the heartof the development. Also included were newathletic facilities and a theater-art-music complex,as well as a coffee shop and other student facilities.The University commissioned the architect EdwardLarrabee Barnes to work with the Committeein developing a design for the complex.The plan, as it developed, embodies the Committee's original conception of the Student Villagein remarkably faithful detail. It covered the entire six-block area bounded by Cottage GroveAvenue on the west, Greenwood on the east, 55thStreet on the north, and 56th Street on thesouth. This "North Quadrangle" was to includenew athletic facilities on the west end, and aCenter for the Arts consisting of a threater, musicbuilding, and art center on the east end. At thecenter of the entire development is the StudentVillage.As designed by Barnes, the Student Village isa group of interconnected buildings unified arounda large central plaza on the European model. Thebuildings include seven six-story towers withlong low rise wings connecting them, lookingout on either the central plaza or on one offour enclosed landscaped courtyards. Facilitiesserving the entire Village include a dining commons, a coffee shop and sidewalk cafe, a commonkitchen for students wishing to cook, and a Rathskeller. Also planned are a photography lab anddarkrooms; a small bookstore; music rooms;typing rooms; an indoor recreation area for billiards, pool, and ping-pong; offices for studentactivities; and radio studios. A branch post officeis also included in the plan. In addition, residentsof the Villiage will have easy access to the playingfields to the west as well as to the Art Centeron the east.As presently conceived the Village will houseabout 900 students in a variety of accommodations: efficiency apartments, one-bedroom apartments, five-man suites, and corridor rooms. About16 per cent of the students will be in doublerooms. The architectural plan allows the organization of residences into as many as 17 Housesof from 30 to 60 students each; but perhaps only10 to 12 Houses will be established, leaving fora significant number of students the option ofliving in the Village but not in the formallyorganized House system. The Village will includegraduates and undergraduates, both men andwomen, and a few faculty members; facilities aredesigned to be flexible enough for all categoriesof students.The Barnes plan for the North Quadrangle wasenthusiastically endorsed by the Blum Committeeand in the spring of 1968 was endorsed by theFaculty-Student Advisory Committee on CampusStudent Life. Although there has been oppositionto the plan on the part of some students, otherstudents have made useful suggestions for modifying the Student Village, and the plan now hasfairly widespread support. Although further revisions and modifications are necessary, the remaining obstacles to its eventual realization are10largely economic— which is to say that they areimmense.The cost of the Student Village is currentlyestimated at about $20 million, with the total costof the North Quadrangle project estimated at perhaps $31 million. The cost per student housed inthe Village will be over $20,000. This is roughlyat or somewhat above, the level of studentresidences of the highest quality recently constructed at, for example, Harvard, MassachusettsInstitute of Technology, and Stanford, and fourto five times the cost per student housed of thetypical state university dormitory.The proposed Student Village exemplifies severalprinciples of planning which experience at TheUniversity of Chicago has shown to be sound. Itis a unified plan, with housing well integrated ina complex with academic, athletic, and communityfacilities. The Village will contain housing ofhigh quality and sufficient diversity to support apopulation which can be broadly representativeof the entire University community. Although amajor portion of the Village will be organized inthe House system, a significantly large segment ofit will not.Students, faculty, and administrators have participated not only in the initial development ofthe plan, but also in extensive modification andreview, along with architects, site designers, andprofessional planners. All are necessary to theproduction of a successful plan. Administratorsmust be involved in planning because of the necessity to finance projects and to evaluate expenditures in the light of other priorities. Faculty members must be involved if the educational dimensionof housing is to receive proper attention. Students,because of their special circumstances as currentresidents, should also be part of the planningprocess. But the long time lag between initialplanning and eventual construction means thatthose students who have participated in earlyplanning will have no direct relationship to thefinished product, except possibly as alumni donors.Therefore, like faculty members and administrators, they too are planning housing for others tolive in.Eventual construction of the Student Village willdepend on very large gifts from individual donors.Such gifts have not yet appeared, although somesubstantial gifts have been pledged in supportof other components of the North Quadrangle. Theenormous sums required make it evident that theStudent Village, if it is to be built at all, willbe built in stages. At the same time as the fund-raising effort for the Student Village goes on, funds will also have to be raised to support therenovation of Snell and Hitchcock and further necessary improvements in existing residence halls.Meanwhile other plans for housing develop. Subcommittees of the Blum Committee are investigating various possibilities for new apartmentconstruction as well as the establishment of student housing cooperatives, and further new ideaswill no doubt emerge.All of this must proceed within a context ofuncertainty and change. The life styles of currentstudents are quite different in many respects fromthose of earlier students, and future generations ofstudents may be expected to differ from the presentone. Changes have taken place as well in theUniversity itself and in the surrounding neighborhood, and further change can be anticipated,though its precise nature is not easy to predict.Least certain of all is the future availability offunds.The construction of new housing must proceedin the face of costs which are already very highand rising rapidly. Construction costs, in fact,have been rising at the rate of about 10 per centannually and may be expected to continue to goup. These cost factors also affect the prospectsof purchasing and renovating older neighborhoodproperties. In addition, few properties suitablefor conversion to student housing are any longerreadily available, and the general shortage ofrental housing would in any case make the relocation of tenants in the community difficult, if notvirtually impossible. If, therefore, the Universitywere to buy existing housing, it would replacenon-University occupants with students only asvacancies occurred; conversion of private apartments to student use would be a slow process, ifit were possible at all.For those students who choose to live in privateapartments the situation may become more difficult. Rents have been rising and, as a recentStudent Government report notes, private landlords do not generally regard students as highlydesirable tenants. Although the University hasprovided financial aid to some students in privatehousing, a general policy of subsidizing privaterentals is not economically possible, quite apartfrom the question of whether the Universityshould intervene in the housing of students whowish to remain independent of the Universityresidence system. Such intervention might alsohave undesirable side effects on apartment housing for the community as a whole.The problem, therefore, of providing studentswith the physical environment in which communal11intellectual activity and personal growth can takeplace is a difficult one; moreover it is a problemwThich does not easily lend itself to permanentsolution. At the present time the University hasa plan which has evolved through many years ofdiscussion and has been repeatedly re-examined.It has both the necessity and the will to proceed.But the funds are lacking. The objective, howeverUtopian it may appear at any given moment, isnevertheless well worth pursuing.REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT FROMTHE DEPARTMENT AND GRADUATESCHOOL OF EDUCATIONAugust 1, 1969In response to your recent request, I would like toreport briefly on some accomplishments and problems of the Department and Graduate School ofEducation over the past year. Much of the ratherlong report submitted in June 1968 is still pertinentand will not be repeated here.Student ParticipationStudent concern about the University and a desire to influence University decisions have characterized the past year. While few, if any, students ineducation participated in the sit-in, many were interested in the issues being discussed and there wasconsiderable range of opinion on these issues. OnFebruary 14, 1969 students and faculty in theDepartment spent the entire day discussing studentparticipation in the University. This meeting wasorganized by the Student-Faculty Committee of theDepartment. Several student-faculty work committees grew out of the day-long conferences. One ofthese committees has examined several aspects ofthe instructional program, including the generalfield Ph.D. examination for which a change wasrecommended. The recommendation was consideredby the faculty and an alternate experimental examination plan adopted for one year.In the Graduate School of Education two student members now have membership on the Planning Committee. With the help of students a systematic procedure for the evaluation of faculty wasdeveloped, adopted by the faculty, and tried forthe first time at the end of Spring Quarter.Negro RepresentationThere has been a consistent effort made to identify able Negroes for faculty and staff positionsand for admission as students. In the Department a search committee has recommendel Edgar Epps,Tuskegee Institute, for the Field Professorship inUrban Education. Mr. Epps has tentatively accepted for 1970.In the Graduate School, Yolanda Wilson has beenrecommended as an instructor. Ernece Kelly was avisiting lecturer in 1969 and offered a course inblack literature. Four staff members of the FordTraining and Placement Program are black. John C.Bradley has been hired as a counselor for blackMAT [Master of Arts in Teaching] students.Black MAT and MST [Master of Science inTeaching] students, through dint of hard recruiting,were increased from 1 in 1967-68 toll in 1968-69.Indications are that a still larger number will beenrolled in 1969-70. We have, on two occasions,been confronted with "demands" by these blackstudents.Urban Education ProjectsEfforts to augment and improve training and research programs in urban education have led tocollaboration with the Chicago schools on threeprojects. The oldest of these projects is the Woodlawn Experimental School program, now fundedunder Title III of the Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act through the Board of Education.Our chief relationship is through the WoodlawnCommunity Board.The Ford Training and Placement Program provides for the training of professional groups forplacement in three different city schools each yearover a period of several years. In the first year andone-half of the program we have encountered somesuccesses and some failures, but we have learnedsome things and are determined to move ahead. Weare submitting a request to Ford, as part of theUrban Studies Project, for a second round of funding.A third project has to do with the training of thetrainers of teachers (TTT-U.S. Office of Educationlanguage). This program requires collaboration withthe Chicago schools, particularly District 22 inSouth Shore. The program provides support for experienced teachers seeking additional training andfor Ph.D. candidates who are preparing to directteacher education programs.Curriculum RevisionSeveral special fields in the Department — including Curriculum and Instruction, Higher Education,Administration, and Teacher Education — are in theprocess of revising their programs. In some instances courses are being changed. For instance, inCurriculum, Schwab and Westbury will do a new12ourse in which some problems of curriculum related to the structures of history and science willbe examined. There is some impetus in the Department to encourage fewer M.A. candidates and morePh.D. candidates.In the Graduate School, reduction of the MATprogram from a two-year to a five-quarter sequenceis being seriously considered and will probably beadopted and made effective as of 1970. There isalso a desire to give greater emphasis to in-serviceprograms for* teachers and somewhat less emphasisto pre-service programs. New funding being soughtfrom the U.S. Office of Education reflects this shift.Faculty ProductivityThis is not the place for a complete report onfaculty research and publication. Some of the morenotable publications during the past year include :Bettelheim — Children of the DreamSchwab — College Curriculum and Student ProtestJackson — Life in the ClassroomGetzels — "A Social Psychology of Education,"Handbook of Social PsychologyRyan — MicroteachingThomas — School Finance and Education Opportunity in MichiganDunkel — Herbart and HerbartianismFaculty AppointmentsSeveral good faculty appointments have beenmade during the past year. Edgar Epps, Field Professor of Urban Education, is referred to above.Mary Jean Bowman, long a research associate ineconomics and education and distinguished for herwork in the economics of education, has been madea Professor. Joseph Wepman in psychology andsurgery has been made a Professor of Educationand Director of the Early Education ResearchCenter. Francis Schrag is a new Assistant Professorin the Philosophy of Education. Bertram Cohler isa new appointment as an Assistant Professor andAssistant Director of the Orthogenic School. ArthurWise is the new Assistant Dean in the GraduateSchool of Education. He is also an Assistant Professor in the Department and Assistant Chairman.Also in the Graduate School, Zalman Usiskin willreplace Paul Moult on in mathematics educationand Robert Ward will replace Ernest Poll in scienceeducation.Three of our faculty members — Bettelheim,Bloom, and Getzels — were made distinguished service professors during the past year.Our greatest needs for major faculty appoint ments are in the fields of higher education andreading.Financial SupportIn addition to University funds, the Departmentand Graduate School have had considerable financial support from the U.S. Office of Education, theFord Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, andthe Danforth Foundation. A new proposal, chieflyfor student support, is before the U.S. Office of Education and its outcome in the present fundingsituation is uncertain. Denial of this request wouldseriously affect student support in the GraduateSchool for 1970-71. A proposal for a second roundof funding in urban education is also before theFord Foundation. Again, denial of this requestwould affect faculty and student support in boththe Department and Graduate School.Preliminary conversations are under way inwhich funds provided by the Stella Rowley willthrough the Community Trust and funds from theSpencer Foundation are being sought. In both caseshelp will be required from other University officialsif the potential assistance from these sources is tobe realized.Visiting CommitteeA visiting committee for the Department andGraduate School of Education was organized andthe first meeting of the committee was held in April1969. The visit appeared to be an important firststep in this kind of relationship. Another meeting isplanned for January 1970. Membership of the committee is being expanded from nine to twelve.Student EnrollmentStudent enrollment in education (Departmentand School) for autumn 1968 was 496, as comparedto 572 for autumn 1967. This decrease can be attributed largely to two factors— fewer part-timestudents and fewer M.A. candidates. Summer Quarter enrollment for 1969 is 409, as compared to 633for summer 1968. This decrease may be explained,in part, by our relative lack of special workshopsand conferences in 1969. It may also reflect a moregeneral problem — few or no offerings in many departments of the University during the summer.JRoald F. Campbell. Dean, Graduate School of EducationChairman, Department of Education13PRESIDENT'S SEMINAR, 1969-70Mr. 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.Division of the Biological SciencesElizabeth MullenbackDivision of the HumanitiesSteven CrockettDivision of the Physical SciencesJames LandwehrDivision of the Social SciencesHarry BlochBiology Collegiate DivisionJohn StrausserHumanities Collegiate DivisionBernabe Francis FeriaPhysical Sciences Collegiate DivisionJudy M. LarsonSocial Sciences Collegiate DivisionAnthony GraftonNew Collegiate DivisionDavid BarnardGraduate School of BusinessJames MorrisDivinity SchoolMichael McCrossinGraduate School of EducationAlice CarnesLaw SchoolHenry Le Baron PrestonGraduate Library SchoolMichael KoenigThe Pritzker School of MedicineEugene Corbett, Jr.School of Social Service AdministrationClay DixDEANS' BUDGET COMMITTEESidney Davidson, ChairmanA. Adrian AlbertRoald F. CampbellLeon 0. JacobsonD. Gale Johnson UNIVERSITY COMMITTEES WITHSTUDENT MEMBERS*STUDENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THEOFFICE OF ADMISSIONS AND AIDKarl Menninger, ChairmanJerome Culp, SecretaryDavid AdelsteinArmand AndryMartha ArmstrongMike CookElise FrankBarbara GrauPeggy GreenfieldAnneHamblinJoan HueblMarc LipschutzRon McAdowDavid UtevskyDAY CARE COMMITTEEMary Jean BowmanDonald BrielandWilliam B. CannonDr. Jarl E. DyrudElizabeth Anne MeyerSuzanne Morrisondonnell m. pappenfortStudents : Rebecca McIntyreConnie StevensDEPARTMENT OF MICROBIOLOGYNew Student Representatives {Elected Novembe25, 1969)Peggy EngelJames FitzwilliamGeorge HillyerGerald StokesGary WilsonCourse Evaluation CommitteeJohn BushJan EggerWade GibsonPreliminary CommitteePeggy EngelGlenn Chambliss* Includes committees not listed in The University <Chicago Record Special Supplement, December 1, 19614GOVERNING COMMITTEES, 1969-70Biology Collegiate DivisionArnold Ravin, MasterWilliam K. BakerHarold J. F. GallGodfrey S. GetzSebastian P. GrossmanHumanities Collegiate DivisionStuart Tave, MasterStanley BatesLawrence BernsteinPeter F. DembowskiFruma Gottschalk John L. HubbyRichard K. LashofJohn H. LawRichard LevinsManfred RuddatEric HampHerbert KesslerPhilip A. KuhnRalph E. MatlawJanel Mueller Kenneth SchaffnerRonald SingerMarvin StodolskyLorna StrausBernard S. StraussFriedhelm RadandtJanice B. SpoffordRobert SteinPhysical Sciences Collegiate DivisionRobert Clayton, MasterRobert L. AshenhurstWalter L. Baily, Jr.Patrick BillingsleyAlbert V. Crewe Peter GeiduschekArthur HeisermanOle J. KleppaRichard S. LindzenWilliam H. L. Meyer Charles R. O'DellEugene N. ParkerWilliam D. PattisonNathan SugarmanSocial Sciences Collegiate DivisionArcadius Kahan, MasterKeith BakerRichard FlathmanRaymond FogelsonPhilip FosterJohn Hope FranklinMilton Friedman Marc GalanterNorman GelfandNorton GinsburgHanna GrayMorris JanowitzHarry KalvenMcKim Marriott Marc NerloveRichard ParksSheldon SacksJoseph SchwabM. Brewster SmithGilbert WhiteAristide ZolbergNew Collegiate DivisionJames Redfield, MasterMorrel CohenEdward DimockEugene GendlinJ. David Greenstone Philip B. KurlandCharles H. LongSoia MentschikoffDudley ShapereHerman Sinaiko Reuben SmithJerome TaylorCharles WegenerKarl WeintraubMilton SingerREPORT OF THE EXAMININGCOMMITTEE ON THE GRADUATESCHOOL OF BUSINESSAugust 1969Members of the CommitteeKenneth R. Andrews, Harvard Business SchoolDouglass V. Brown, Alfred P. Sloan School ofManagement, Chairman Ralph E. Gomory, IBM CorporationRobert A. Gordon, University of California,BerkeleyDonald W. Taylor, Yale UniversitySources of InformationThe members of the committee visited theSchool on November 21 and 22, 1968. Prior toour visit, we had had an opportunity to read the15brochures describing the various programs andactivities of the School. We also had the benefitof statistical materials prepared by the offices ofthe Acting Dean, the Dean of Students, and theDirector of Doctoral Programs.While we were in Chicago, we met as a groupwith the Policy Committee of the School. We alsomet, individually or in groups, with almost everyofficer of administration, with more than twentymembers of the faculty (other than those whocurrently comprise the Policy Committee), andwith a dozen or more students. Included amongthe administrative officers and faculty memberswith whom we talked were individuals associatedwith all the major programs of the School: theCampus M.B.A. Program, the 190/M.B.A. Program, the Ph.D. Program, the Hospital Administration Program, the Executive Program, the Advanced Management Seminars, and InternationalStudies in Business. One of our members receivedthe outlines of the courses currently being offered.Another reviewed the Course Evaluation for Winter Quarter 1968, prepared by students.It would be presumptuous on our part to pretend that the above exposure constitutes an exhaustive investigation. Nonetheless, we feel thatwe have learned a great deal about the GraduateSchool of Business. If we do not feel that thereare many areas in which we can make dogmaticpronouncements, at least we have a modest degreeof confidence that we can raise pertinent questionswhich the School may want to pursue in greaterdepth.Some General Substantive Comments and QuestionsThe primary function of an examining committee is not, in our judgment, to heap praises uponthe institution being examined. Rather it is to tryto identify areas in which improvements may bepossible. It would be grossly unfair, however, toomit all reference to aspects of the School thatseem to us to call for commendation.Judged by normal academic standards, theGraduate School of Business is clearly of highquality in terms of training, research activities,and intellectual atmosphere. This quality is a reflection of the quality both of the faculty and ofthe administrative officers. Supporting activities,such as recruitment and placement of students,appear to be well handled. The various programsof the School seem to be flourishing. Special commendation would appear to be in order for activities directed toward the recruitment and retentionof Negro students and for the involvement of the School's students with the Negro business community. We were impressed also by the closeworking relationships between the School and othersegments of the University, particularly the Department of Economics and the Law School.The morale of the faculty appears to be veryhigh. (We shall return to this point later.) Themorale of the students also seems to be high.Many of the complaints that we received fromthe latter group centered upon matters that, as weunderstand it, are outside the control of the School :the library, the bookstore, the cost of studenthousing. Some, however, concerned matters internal to the School: counseling on choice ofcourses, lack of coordination among courses, variation in content and rigor of particular coursesdependent upon the particular instructor in charge(and consequent "shopping around" by students,sometimes leading to taking courses out of sequence). We repeat, however, that in spite of afew complaints, the morale of both the facultyand the students appears to be very high.In short, there is no doubt in our minds thatthe School, as a school, is of high quality. Suchreservations as we have concern the role of theSchool as a professional school of business administration.To a very considerable extent the faculty of theSchool is "discipline-based," in economics, mathematics, and the behavioral sciences. This disciplinary orientation seems to have been strengthenedin recent years, and is reflected in many ways inthe various programs and courses that are offered.We have no quarrel with discipline-based approaches as such. On the contrary, they can bringrigor and technical skills to bear on problems ofbusiness and can provide an antidote for the superficiality of treatment which, all too frequently inthe past, was characteristic of many schools ofbusiness. Indeed in the present state of our knowledge, the discipline-based approach may well bethe most promising.We believe, however, that in a professionalschool there can be dangers in too heavy emphasis on a discipline-based approach or, to put itin a milder way, that the disciplines can fall shortof the contributions they should be making to theprotessional school. The full potential of the disciplines in a professional school can be achievedonly if discipline-based teaching and research aredirected toward professional problems rather thantoward the traditional problems of the disciplineitself. The ultimate goal of a discipline-basedapproach should be the creation of a new discipline — business administration or management.16The members of our committee, without exception, are concerned by what we sensed to be aremoteness from business problems on the part ofa substantial segment of the faculty of the School,both within the disciplinary fields, more narrowlyconceived, and within some of the functional areasas well. Various members of the committee usedvarious terms to describe their perception of faculty attitudes toward business problems: unaware-ness, detachment, aloofness, disinterest, distaste,or discomfort. Regardless of the terminology, however, we all share this concern.It might be argued that a shift in focus to "business problems" would entail a sacrifice in the degree of rigor in teaching and research. We wouldassert that this need not, and should not, be thecase. All that is involved is a shift in targets.Indeed, if progress is to be made toward the ultimate goal of a new discipline, there must be nosacrifice of rigor — a rigor based upon an interestin and a familiarity with business problems as wellas upon a firm grounding in the traditional disciplines.If our perceptions of the School and our assessment of the role of a school of business are correct, a number of steps suggest themselves. Oneof the more obvious has to do with new appointments to the faculty. In recruiting and hiring newfaculty members, emphasis can be placed not onlyon demonstrated competence but also on demonstrated interest in and knowledge of business problems. For both new and present members, thereare a number of routes for bridging the gap intothe "reality" of business that may not have beenfully exploited. The participants in the^ ExecutiveProgram and Advanced Management Seminars,and perhaps also the 190/M.B.A. Program, andtheir companies come to mind immediately. Thealumni of the School, and particularly the heavyconcentration of those active in business in theChicago area, should provide a further valuableresource. Faculty members might well be givenstimuli to take advantage, within reasonable limits, of consulting opportunities. Consideration mightbe given to the provision of sabbatical leaves during which faculty members would gain actual business experience. More modestly, arrangementsmight be made for desk space in business concerns, where faculty members by proximity mightacquire a deeper "feel" of problems. The office ofthe Director of Business Research could perhapsperform a valuable catalytic function in bringingthe School and the problems of business moreclosely together. It is not our purpose to provide specifics withrespect to implementation. We are persuaded, however, that given the desire for a closer involvement in business problems, ways are available orcan be made available to achieve this end.To conclude our general comments we returnbriefly to a comment made earlier in this report.There it was noted that the morale of the facultyseemed generally at a high level. High morale isa desirable sub-goal in an organization, but withthe proviso that its attainment does not dependupon a neglect of the ultimate goals. To the extentthat high morale rests upon the opportunity toremain disengaged from actual business problems,its presence in a school of business is at least opento question. Put in other terms, there may be afine dividing line between high morale and complacency.Some More Specific CommentsIn this section we shall attempt to comment onparticular programs or aspects of the School. Sincehere we are dealing with more detailed matters,and since we obviously were unable to get into allthe details, our comments should be taken as suggestive rather than definitive.The Campus M.B.A. ProgramWe have already referred to some aspects of theprogram to which attention might be invited—counseling, coordination among courses, and shopping around by students.Our other questions (applicable to other programs to at least some extent) have to do withcurriculum content. We wonder whether there maynot be a too narrow emphasis in the applied fieldson the underlying disciplines for their own sake.We wonder whether there may not be too muchemphasis on techniques and too little on problems.We wonder whether certain functional areas (forexample, production and marketing) may not besuffering from a too heavy concentration on mathematical approaches. We wonder, generally, whether the curriculum imparts to the students a sufficient appreciation of the problems he will encounter in business. Needless to say, these questionsare not unrelated to the concerns set forth in thepreceding section.We recognize that no curriculum can be all-embracing. We note, however, that little or noattention appears to be given to certain areas —business ethics, responsibilities of business, business history, and the sociological and politicalenvironments in which business is conducted. It17may be that, given the environment in which welive today, these areas deserve a higher priority.The 190/M.B.A. ProgramThe 190/M.B.A. Program is modeled after theCampus Program. Accordingly, many of the comments that have already been made are also applicable to this program.There are, however, additional questions thatmay be raised more specifically with respect tothese two programs. The campus and the 190/M.B.A. programs are identical. Yet the composition of the student bodies is very different. Thequestion may be raised as to whether identicalprograms most appropriately meet the needs ofthe respective groups. In suggesting that this question be examined, we are not unaware of thenecessity for maintaining equal standards in theprograms nor of the role that identical programsare seen as playing in this connection. Nor are weunaware that students transfer from one programto the other. Further study might, however, revealways of maintaining standards and permittingtransfers while allowing the contents of the programs to diverge.There is some indication that faculty membersare selected primarily on the basis of their abilityto contribute to the campus programs in researchand teaching. We wonder, again in question form,whether more weight in the selection should begiven to the needs of the other programs, as theyare or as they might be constituted. Faculty members selected on this broader basis might, in fact,contribute to the enrichment of the campus programs themselves.Executive Program and Advanced ManagementSeminarsThe Executive Program, examined by one member of the committee with considerable experiencein this area, is considered by him to be the bestpart-time program for experienced managers available anywhere and of unique value in relating theUniversity to one of the country's major executivecommunities.The Advanced Management Seminars, smallprograms addressed to particular topics and themes,seem to the committee to be particularly useful,like the Executive Program, in bringing facultymembers into the presence of businessmen and inencouraging intelligible communication betweenthem. In the light of the general demand for continuing education for managers and of the needwe see for the Chicago faculty to involve itselfmore sympathetically and self-confidently with the professional practice of business, we would recommend a steady expansion of this activity. Testimony offered to us indicates that already youngfaculty members have benefited by the opportunityto develop teaching skills adequate to this differentneed, by the challenge to bridge the distancebetween theory and practice, and by the opportunity to learn from the practical experience oftheir students.The Ph.D. ProgramThis program, like the School generally, exhibitsqualities of a very high intellectual order. Wehave, however, certain reservations with respect tothe program. These reservations are of the samesort that we expressed earlier in the more generalcontext.In our view, a Ph.D. program in a school ofbusiness should, together with faculty research,provide a primary setting for the forging of a newdiscipline of business administration or management. If it is to perform this function, it must bedirected to the problems, rich and complex, ofbusiness. To the extent that it is not so directed,it may be shirking its responsibilities and, at theleast, it may be neglecting its opportunities.A large number of students and faculty members are involved in the Ph.D. Program in theSchool of Business. Obviously, all of them do notview the program in the same light. But, withmany, we sensed an attitude of noninvolvement in,of discomfort in the presence of, or of distastefor problems of business. We sensed some tendency to retreat into the security of the establisheddisciplines. The narrow specialization permittedunder the new doctoral program, if it is not directed toward relevant problems, could contributeto still further noninvolvement and retreat. In ourjudgment this would be unfortunate.(As a footnote, but not as a digression, it maybe noted that on more than one occasion facultymembers indicated to us that the production ofPh.D.s is, or should be, the primary function ofthe School.)We have some concern about certain other aspects of the program. The number of course requirements seems to us to be on the high side.These requirements will almost certainly postponethe time when the student actually gets down todoing research. Moreover, they will work in thedirection of prolonging the period before the receipt of the degree. At Chicago** as elsewhere, students spend too many years in the Ph.D. Program.We would see, as a desirable and attainable goal,18a median period of not more than four years fromthe A.B. to the Ph.D.Hospital Management ProgramWe were in no position to make a thoroughstudy of this program. We have the impression,however, that it is serving a useful purpose. Thereseems to be general agreement that in the past thecalibre of students enrolled in this program hasbeen below that of the rest of the M.B.A. studentbody. There is also evidence, however, that thisgap has been narrowing in recent years.International Studies in BusinessAgain, because of the pressure of time, nothorough study of the work in this area was possible. The chairman of the committee was able tomake limited inquiries. It is his impression that,in this area, there is a very high degree of interestand involvement in relevant problems.Concluding CommentsWe return to where we began. If we have seemedto be adversely critical, it is because we have conceived our function to be that of accentuating thenegative. If we have seemed to be dogmatic, it isbecause dogmatism is frequently a convenientcover for uncertainty. The overriding purpose ofthis report has been to try to stimulate a self-examination by those who are far more competentthan we to suggest and bring about improvements— the members of the School of Business.COMMITTEE ON THE CONCEPTUALFOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCETO: Faculty and Students of The Universityof ChicagoFROM: Norman H. Nachtrieb, Spokesman, Committee of the CouncilAt its meeting of November 11, 1969, the Council of the University Senate recommended the establishment of a Committee on the ConceptualFoundations of Science, with programs leading tothe award of graduate degrees in the HumanitiesDivision. Following is the report of the subcommittee, upon which the Council's recommendationto the Board of Trustees is based. Report of the Committee To Review the ProposalTo Establish a Committee on the PhilosophicalFoundations and Conceptual Development of Sci-November 10, 1969The following conclusions and recommendationsare based on numerous conversations with concerned faculty, administrative officers, and students.We wish first of all to thank all who have helped usand to record the high praise we have heard — andthe high esteem we ourselves have — for the scholarly work of both the philosophers of science andthe historians of science at The University of Chicago.Conclusions:Recommendations : There is a very clear difference between the intellectual goals, methods, andachievements of the historians and the philosophersof science.The program in the historyof science and the proposedprogram in the philosophyof science are valuable contributions to the scholarlylife of The University ofChicago.Whereas the program ofthe historians of science isable to be contained andis able to flourish within theDepartment of History, theprogram proposed by thephilosophers of science cannot be contained within theDepartment of Philosophy.We recommend that a committee be established within the Division of the Humanities, to be called theCommittee on the Conceptual Foundations of Science. The committee shouldbe empowered to givecourses and to recommendthe granting of graduate degrees. Its faculty membersshould have joint appointments with regular University departments of phi-19losophy, the sciences, andperhaps other fields.We recommend that printed materials describing theprogram of the committeerefer to the program in thehistory of science, and viceversa, making clear the differences between the twoprograms.We recommend that thecommittee, as part of itsannouncements, make plainits concern with the studyof the philosophy of science, in large part throughthe analysis of specific scientific activities of particular eras.In view of our conclusionthat both groups have asubstantial contribution tomake to the intellectual lifeof the University, we recommend strong administrative and financial support toboth activities.John R. BormuthWilliam Kruskal, ChairmanKenneth J. NorthcottSELECT COMMITTEE ON THENATURE AND FUNCTION OF THECOUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITYSENATETO: Faculty and Students of The Universityof ChicagoFROM: Norman H. Nachtrieb, Spokesman, Committee of the CouncilDATE: November 20, 1969On the recommendation of the Committee of theCouncil, President Levi has appointed a SelectCommittee on the Nature and Function of theCouncil of the University Senate. Its members are:Robert E. Streeter, Professor of English,Chairman Howard Aronson, Associate Professor of SlavicLanguages and LiteraturesWalter J. Blum, Professor of LawRobert N. Clayton, Professor of Chemistry andGeophysical SciencesJack Halpern, Professor of ChemistryChauncy D. Harris, Professor of GeographyMartin E. Marty, Professor of Church HistoryEdwin McClellan, Professor of Far EasternLanguages and CivilizationsKenneth Prewitt, Associate Professor of Political ScienceGeorge J. Stigler, Professor of Business andEconomicsLorna P. Straus, Assistant Professor of AnatomyRobert B. Uretz, Professor of BiophysicsThe Select Committee will be a subcommitteeof the Committee of the Council.UNIVERSITY SPORTS PROGRAMThe University fields varsity teams in twelve intercollegiate sports — baseball, basketball, cross country, track, tennis, swimming, gymnastics, wrestling,fencing, soccer, golf, and football. The latter sportwas returned to varsity status for the first time inthirty years during the 1969 season. The teamplayed six games, losing four and winning two.The intramural sports program of the Department of Physical Education had another banneryear in 1968-69. According to a report submittedby Chester T. McGraw, Associate Professor ofPhysical Education and Director of the IntramuralProgram, 4,751 individual participants took partin the program during the academic year. Theywere members of 724 separate teams which participated in 17 different sports. The annual TurkeyTrot race attracted 71 runners, representing 23organizations.HONORARY DEGREEAn honorary Doctor of Science degree was awardedat the 330th Convocation on December 12, 1969:Martin David Kamen, Professor of Chemistry,University of California, San DiegoWho, in the spirit of contemporary biology, hasmade contributions to knowledge ranging fromnuclear physics to biochemistry and microbiology.20NEW FACULTY APPOINTMENTS AS OF DECEMBER 12, 1969This list is meant to include all appointments completed after those listed in The University of ChicagoRecord of October 22, 1968 (Volume II, Number 7) and January 29, 1969 (Volume III, Number 1).The date listed with each name is the effective date of the appointment. The Secretary of the Facultieswould appreciate any information on omissions or corrections.DIVISION OF THE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCESDr. Stanley Deutsch Professor 7/1/69 AnesthesiologyDr. Roy Grinker Professor 7/1/69 PsychiatryEmanuel Hallowitz Professor 10/1/69 Biological Sciences DivisionDr. George Le Roy Professor 10/20/69 MedicineDr. Bertran Levin Professor 7/1/69 RadiologyDr. Lee Lusted Professor 7/1/69 RadiologyDr. James Nickson Professor 7/1/69 RadiologyDr. Gerald Peskin Professor 7/1/69 SurgeryDr. Eric Reiss Professor 7/1/69 MedicineDr. Antonio Scomenga Professor 10/1/69 Obstetrics and GynecologyDr. Stanley K. Brockman Associate Professor 10/27/69 SurgeryDr. Lloyd Ferguson Associate Professor 9/1/69 MedicineDr. Janet Rowley Associate Professor 8/14/69 MedicineDr. Bernard Rubin Associate Professor 8/26/69 PsychiatryDr. Stan Vesselinovitch Associate Professor 7/1/69 RadiologyDr. Sidney K. Wolfson Associate Professor 10/27/69 SurgeryDr. C. Anagnostopoulos Assistant Professor 7/1/69 SurgeryDr. Lynn Ault Assistant Professor 8/4/69 SurgeryGlyn Dawson Assistant Professor 9/1/69 Pediatrics, BiochemistryDr. Laurent Desbaillets Assistant Professor 7/1/69 SurgeryDr. Norman E. Hugo Assistant Professor 10/27/69 SurgeryEdgar Hurst Assistant Professor 7/1/69 PathologyDon Paul Jones Assistant Professor 8/19/69 MedicineDr. Ronald Kallen Assistant Professor 10/1/69 LaRabida, PediatricsDr., Edwin L. Kaplan Assistant Professor 10/27/69 SurgeryStuart Kaufman Assistant Professor 7/1/69 Committee on Mathematical BiologyDr. Ramon Lim Assistant Professor 7/1/69 Surgery, BiochemistryMarion Murray Assistant Professor 7/1/69 AnatomyJoel Pokorny Assistant Professor 9/1/69 SurgeryDr. William Powell Assistant Professor 2/11/69 SurgeryDr. Hernan Reyes Assistant Professor 10/31/69 SurgeryLuigi M. Ricciardi Assistant Professor 12/10/69 Committee on Mathematical BiologyDr. Thomas Steele Assistant Professor 7/1/69 MedicineDr. Allen Stoolmiller Assistant Professor 10/1/69 Pediatrics, LaRabidaDr. Clarence S. Thomas Assistant Professor 10/27/69 SurgeryJack de la Torre Assistant Professor 9/12/69 SurgeryArthur Winefree Assistant Professor 9/1/69 Committee on Mathematical BiologyMartin Zwick Assistant Professor 9/1/69 BiophysicsDr. Thomas Andrews Instructor 7/1/69 MedicineMaurice Barcos Instructor 7/1/69 PathologyDr. Jay Berkelhamer Instructor 7/1/69 Pediatrics, LaRabidaDr. Jerome Brosnan Instructor 7/1/69 RadiologyDr. Marta Chaplynsky Instructor 7/1/69 RadiologyDr. Phillip Collins Instructor 7/1/69 RadiologyDr. Rajai Dajani Instructor 7/1/69 Obstetrics and GynecologyAruna Daniels Instructor 7/1/69 Pathology21Walter Gibbons Instructor" 10/20/69 MedicineDr. Donald Greer Instructor 7/1/69 SurgeryDr. Paul Hoffer Instructor 7/1/69 RadiologyDr. Dusan Jovanovic Instructor 7/1/69 Obstetrics and GynecologyRobert Kirschner Instructor 7/1/69 PathologyDr. Steven Kramer Instructor 7/1/69 SurgeryDr. Jeffrey Kranzler Instructor 7/1/69 RadiologyDr. Joel Levinson Instructor 7/1/69 MedicineDr. Victoria Lim Instructor 7/1/69 MedicineArthur Loewy Instructor 8/15/69 AnesthesiologyDr. Thomas McCaffery Instructor 7/1/69 MedicineDr. Carl Mead Instructor 7/1/69 SurgeryCharles Edgar Metz Instructor 10/1/69 RadiologyDr. Mario-Edgar Moran Instructor 7/1/69 MedicineDr. Marianne O'Donoghue Instructor 8/1/69 MedicineDr. Joan Orlando Instructor 7/1/69 MedicineDr. David Owen Instructor 7/1/69 Zoller Dental ClinicDr. Emily Jo Pang Instructor 7/1/69 PediatricsPhilip Polimeni Instructor 10/20/69 MedicinePeter S. Rabideau Instructor 10/2/69 Ben May LaboratoryDr. Pierre Renault Instructor 7/1/69 PsychiatryDr. Andris Saltups Instructor 7/1/69 MedicineDr. Howard Schacter Instructor 7/1/69 MedicineDr. Peter Schrock Instructor 10/27/69 SurgeryDr. Pushpalata Sheth Instructor 7/1/69 AnesthesiologyDr. Stanford Shulman Instructor 7/1/69 PediatricsEdward Stein Instructor 7/1/69 PsychiatryJack T. Stern Instructor 9/1/69 AnatomyDr. Jerry Titel Instructor 7/1/69 AnesthesiologyDr. Alfred Wall Instructor 7/1/69 MedicineDr. Walter Wallinford Instructor 7/1/69 MedicineDr. Jerome Winer Instructor 7/1/69 PsychiatryDIVISION OF THE HUMANITIESAlan Donagan Professor 1/1/70 PhilosophyJoseph Fitzmyer Professor 10/1/69 Near Eastern LanguagesFahir Iz Professor 10/1/69 Near Eastern LanguagesFazlur Rahman Professor 10/1/69 Near Eastern LanguagesKamil Zvelebil Professor 7/1/69 South Asian LanguagesTetsuo Najita Associate Professor 7/1/69 Far Eastern Languages, HistcLeonard K. Olsen Associate Professor 7/1/69 Division of the Humanities,Katherine Bailey Assistant Professor 7/1/69 English, CollegeKeith Cushman Assistant Professor 7/1/69 English, CollegeAlan Gibbard Assistant Professor 7/1/69 PhilosophyClayton Koelb Assistant Professor 10/1/69 Germanic Languages, CollegeCharles Krance Assistant Professor 10/1/69 Romance LanguagesCharlesl Kriebel, Jr. Assistant Professor 10/1/69 Romance Languages, CollegeWilliam McKinley Assistant Professor 10/1/69 Music, CollegeJudith Quintana Assistant Professor 10/1/69 Romance Languages, CollegeJoseph Bell Instructor 7/1/69 Near Eastern Languages, OristituteKjetil Flatin Instructor 10/1/69 Germanic LanguagesVera Klement Instructor 11/6/69 ArtDonald Nelson Instructor 7/1/69 South Asian Languages22DIVISION OF THE PHYSICAL SCIENCESMalcolm MacfarlaneRaghaven NarashimhanJohn SchifferGilbert GhezRobert G. KnollenbergLuke MoThomas J. SchopfKlaus SchwartzStuart A. SolinRamesh SrivastavaJames DowlingKenneth FieldsPeter HessWilliam LakinStephen L. Williams Professor 7/1/69 PhysicsProfessor 10/1/69 MathematicsProfessor 7/1/69 PhysicsAssistant Professor 10/1/69 EconomicsAssistant Professor 8/21/69 Geophysical SciencesAssistant Professor 10/1/69 Physics, James Franck InstituteAssistant Professor 10/1/69 Geophysical SciencesAssistant Professor 7/1/69 Physics, James Franck InstituteAssistant Professor 10/1/69 Physics, James Franck InstituteAssistant Professor 7/1/69 Geophysical SciencesInstructor 10/1/69 Mathematics, CollegeInstructor 10/1/69 Mathematics, CollegeInstructor 10/1/69 Mathematics, CollegeInstructor 10/1/69 Mathematics, CollegeInstructor 7/15/69 Mathematics, CollegeDIVISION OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCESMary J. BowmanDavid McNeillHoward MoltzMarc NerloveNeil HarrisAkira IriyeTetsuo NajitaAugusto BlasiGregory CampbellJohn H. CoatsworthBertram J. CohlerHerbert ColleShepard FormanFrancis SchragRichard TaubThomas WilliamsArthur WiseStephen AllanJonathan Finkelstein Professor 7/1/69 Education, EconomicsProfessor 7/1/69 PsychologyProfessor 1/1/70 PsychologyProfessor 7/1/69 EconomicsAssociate Professor 10/1/69 HistoryAssociate Professor 10/1/69 HistoryAssociate Professor 7/1/69 History, Far Eastern LanguagesAssistant Professor 10/1/69 Psychology, Human DevelopmentAssistant Professor 10/1/69 History, CollegeAssistant Professor 12/19/68 History, CollegeAssistant Professor 10/1/69 EducationAssistant Professor 10/1/69 PsychologyAssistant Professor 10/1/69 Anthropology, CollegeAssistant Professor 10/1/69 EducationAssistant Professor 10/1/69 Sociology, CollegeAssistant Professor 10/1/69 EducationAssistant Professor 7/1/69 Education, Graduate School of EducationInstructor 7/7/69 AnthropologyInstructor 6/17/69 PsychologyTHE COLLEGELeonard K. OlsenKatherine BaileyGregory CampbellJohn H. CoatsworthKeith CushmanRichard DunnShepard FormanClayton KoelbCharles Kriebel, Jr.William McKinleyJudith Quintana Associate Professor 7/1/69Assistant Professor 7/1/69Assistant Professor 10/1/69Assistant Professor 12/19/68Assistant Professor 7/1/69Assistant Professor 7/1/69Assistant Professor 10/1/69Assistant Professor 10/1/69Assistant Professor 10/1/69Assistant Professor 10/1/69Assistant Professor 10/1/69 Humanities*, Division of the HumanitiesHumanities*, EnglishSocial Sciences*, HistorySocial Sciences*, HistoryHumanities*, EnglishHumanities*, Romance LanguagesSocial Sciences*, AnthropologyHumanities*, Germanic LanguagesHumanities*, Germanic LanguagesHumanities*, MusicHumanities*, Romance LanguagesIndicates Collegiate Division.23David Smigelskis Assistant Professor 9/1/69 New Collegiate Division*Richard Taub Assistant Professor 10/1/69 Social Sciences*, SociologyWilliam Veeder Assistant Professor 7/1/69 Humanities*, EnglishEllen R. Becker Instructor 6/26/69 Social Sciences*, AnthropologyMaureen Geary Instructor 9/11/69 New Collegiate Division*James Dowling Instructor 10/1/69 Physical Sciences*, MathematicsKenneth Fields Instructor 10/1/69 Physical Sciences*, MathematicsJonathan Finkelstein Instructor 6/19/69 Social Sciences*, PsychologyPeter Hess Instructor 10/1/69 Physical Sciences*, MathematicsChauncey J. Mellor Instructor 10/1/69 Humanities*GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESSRonald B. Brooks Assistant Professor 10/1/69Victor Cook Assistant Professor 10/1/69Hillel Einhorn Assistant Professor 10/1/69Isaac Ehrlich Assistant Professor 10/1/69Robert Flanagan Assistant Professor 9/1/69Nicholas Gonedes Assistant Professor 9/1/69Richard Mancke Assistant Professor 10/1/69David McFarland Assistant Professor 9/1/69Donald Nelson Assistant Professor 7/1/69Harvey Babiak Instructor 11/6/69Raymond Ball Instructor 7/1/69Robert Blattberg Instructor 9/1/69Jerome Cooper Instructor 9/1/69Katherine Dusak Instructor 10/1/69John Humpal, Jr. Instructor 9/1/69Paul Kettler Instructor 10/1/69Frank Meyer Instructor 10/1/69Peter Peacock Instructor 10/1/69Joshua Ronen Instructor 7/1/69Leroy Swarz Instructor 10/1/69Ross Watts Instructor 10/1/69DIVINITY SCHOOLSchubert M. Ogden University Professor 7/1/69David W. Tracy Assistant Professor 7/1/69Donald Capps Instructor 10/1/69Bernard McGinn Instructor 10/1/69GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATIONRobert Ward Associate Professor 9/1/69Zalman P. Usiskin Assistant Professor 9/15/69Arthur Wise Assistant Professor 7/1/69 also Department of EducationJohn B. poster Instructor 9/19/69Louise Stanek Instructor 9/19/69Yolande Wilson Instructor 9/23/69LAW SCHOOLRichard Posner Professor 8/1/69Cameron Clark Instructor 9/13/69David Fleming Instructor 7/1/69* Indicates Collegiate Division.24Stepen Herman Instructor 9/12/69Michael Jackson Instructor 9/12/69Joel Kaplan Instructor 9/12/69SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SERVICE ADMINISTRATIONEmanuel Hallowitz Professor 9/1/69 also Division of the Biological SciencesDonald Beless Assistant Professor 7/1/69James Craigen Assistant Professor 7/1/69DEAN OF STUDENTSWilliam Simms Instructor 9/1/69 Physical Education — Men25THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE FACULTIESHXwawH*!onoowooaoerooONou>n Zm ± c o35 n? >=i O TJ cn no|zPO p > •vOcn o<3si a -i> a3<O n'os22cn m