THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 0 RECORDAN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF FACULTIES VOLUME IV, NUMBER 5REPORT OF THE STUDENTOMBUDSMAN FOR SPRINGQUARTER 1970July 8, 1970As was stated in my first report, the majority ofcases which come to my attention as ombudsmanare highly particularistic. This has been true evenin this last extraordinary quarter. During SpringQuarter, I handled approximately 65 cases (againfor an average of 6 cases a week) involving perhaps120 complainants. Again there was considerableclustering of cases with regard both to time andsubject matter; and again, rather than tire theaudience of this report with details of large numbers of these cases, I would prefer to discuss a fewwhich raised what are, to my mind, importantissues — issues which questioned accepted rules,policies, or procedures, or which involved a largenumber of complainants.One such issue was the much debated nature andcontent of the College's spring convocation. Inorder that such confusion be avoided in the future,and for a variety of reasons which will be discussedbelow, I believe that a senior class council shouldbe elected to plan, in cooperation with the facultyand administration, the College convocation and,separately, any other events or programs whichseem appropriate (for example, class donationsto worthwhile causes, speakers' programs before orafter convocation, other events of a less seriousnature, etc.). As with any proposal of this sort,questions are at once raised as to how a representative and hard-working body (and this jobwill require considerable work) can be elected ona generally apathetic campus. I will leave thisquestion for further debate. I should hope, however, that an attempt will be made to avoid whatis apparently becoming a standard format appliedwithout consideration of the merits of the individual case, that is, indirect election (such aselection by the already elected student advisorycouncils). While such indirect processes generallysecure responsible, hard-working students, theirrepresentativeness remains questionable. This inevitably limits the legitimacy that any such bodycan have in the eyes of its ultimate constituency;and in this case legitimacy is essential. CONTENTS / August 31, 19701 Report or the Student Ombudsman forSpring Quarter 19705 Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on theUse of University Facilities6 Honorary Degrees6 1970-71 University Budget10 New Faculty Committee10 Rosenberger Medalist10 Disciplinary Procedures Enacted by theCouncil of the University Senate onMay 12, 197016 Revision of Autumn Quarter Calendar1 7 Report of the Committee on African andBlack American Humanities18 Final Report of the Computer PolicyStudy Committee42 Report of the Committee on Faculty Recreational Facilities44 Report of the Evaluation Committee onthe Department of Statistics55 Report of the Evaluation Committee onthe Department of Pathology59 quantrell a wards60 Women's Board 1969-70Rightly or wrongly, convocation has long beena function important to the University but unimportant to a large segment of the student body.The dispute this spring arose because studentsrealized that this function could be important tothem, that convocation could and should be moreto them than a compulsory ritual of passage.Many students distrust the formalisms and elaborate apparel of convocations and other ceremonies. Yet, most ceremonies, through their symbolic affirmations, serve the ultimate function ofreinforcing solidarity, of helping the participantsrecognize reciprocal bonds and mutual concerns.Certainly this function will not be achieved whenthe basis for solidarity is questioned. If the ceremony seeks to reinforce a solidarity of educatedmen and women as against "outsiders," of elitists1in a plebian world, it will and perhaps should beattacked. Hence, students have come to questionthe garb, the sanctity of the ritual, and the academic exclusiveness of the event's central figures(that is,, those giving the convocation addresses,not those receiving honorary degrees). There areother bases for solidarity. For instance, if theceremony were designed to reinforce the solidarityof the participants as sharing a common desireto improve the conditions and quality of humanlife through means made available to them througheducation, then worthwhile debate would continueover those means, but the ceremony might havethe potential for generating the kind of centripetalforces it should. Such a ceremony can be developedonly through recognition of such common desiresand beliefs as now exist, and that recognition willcome only when the diversity of participants isadequately considered. This in turn can be accomplished only through sufficient representation of allsectors of the participating body at the planningstages.While numerous lofty assumptions may be madeabout the nature of the convocation address andwhat it should be, it is at bottom nothing morethan a topical lecture of an inspirational nature,at best. Can anyone seriously think that afterfour years at The University of Chicago, thegraduating senior is not quite capable of discriminating between exceptional and mediocre lecturers?Those who believe so had best set about dismantling the Quantrell Award and teaching evaluation systems, for they rely on the same capacity.Wouldn't it be preferable to build upon thestrengths of these systems, that is, their capacity todraw upon a considerable breadth and depth ofinformed opinion. I believe, despite all the objections, that the College convocation speaker aswell as the ceremony should be selected with significant student participation.The convocation also seems to me a propitioustime for taking stock of what this University isaccomplishing in the education of its undergraduates. This index can be provided in part by thestudents' selection of a student speaker and in partby the problems which he or she addresses. Likewise, there is an important solidarity among students, particularly undergraduates, which deservesrecognition and which should be much moredeeply understood by faculty and administratorsthan it is at present. Thus the reciprocity deemedso desirable in the classroom should be paralleledin the last experience we share together.I believe a senior class council could do much to advance each of these goals.• • •A problem which will be increasingly importantin the next year will be the continuing decay 0fStudent Government, a decay which is not so mucha result of poor leadership as it is a result of poorstudent participation in its elections and operations, which is in turn the result of widespreadbelief in its impotence. I believe that a referendumshould be held this autumn to determine whetherthere is sufficient student support for it to continue. I encourage Student Government to coordinate this vote and to push for performance as earlyas possible in the Autumn Quarter.In the event that the verdict of such a referendum is to abolish Student Government, severalimportant functions which SG has attempted toperform should be continued. A major function isthe appointment of students to important committees such as the Council on Recognized StudentOrganizations (CORSO), disciplinary committees,and others. It will be necessary to continue andto strengthen the performance of this function. Ofthe various possible methods of doing this, I propose a direct one; suit the institution to the job.For the job of making committee appointments,this would mean an appointments council of fifteento thirty members elected generally. For the purpose of expressing student opinion to the President,to the Faculty Senate, or to the general public,this would mean a student forum with resolution-writing powers. For other purposes, other groupsof students would be formed.If the appointments council operated effectively,with application and screening, it might do a gooddeal in the way of distributing responsibilities beyond the few who seem to be involved in everything (Maroon Key Society, Owl and Serpent, dean'sadvisory committees). Such distribution mightalso help substantiate students' desire for positionsof responsibility in the University by proving theirwidespread capacity for work in a meaningfulendeavor. It would also free the various existingcouncils from their current tangle and from thevariety of incompatible demands made upon themfor both action and appointments. With specificfunctions, an appointments council could be morecarefully scrutinized by its public and kept moreresponsive in its actions.This does not mean that direct election to decision-making bodies should be unilaterally abandoned. However, to fill large numbers of importantpositions by popular election ignores the fact tha-2tudents here normally do not know the abilitiesr the interests of large numbers of other students.There are notorious and infamous students (believeeV there are few or no famous or generallyrespected students.If the events and debates of a student forumwere widely publicized in advance, I see no reasonwhy it could not become a valid and viable meansfor the formulation and exposition of studentopinion on a wide variety of subjects. Becauseof the open nature of this institution and its resolution-drafting power, participation in the debateof all crucial issues probably would be heavy andwould produce resolutions of high quality bothin terms of content and persuasiveness. This couldmultiply immeasurably the effective influence students could have in the University and its decisions.As for other functions, once established they arebetter off left alone (for example, Charter Flights,the Tenant Union, or even the Union of Students—if and when it comes into being) . When appropriate, these groups should receive funds directlyfrom CORSO and space directly from StudentActivities (when available). Miscellaneous functions should be absorbed by already existinggroups. For instance, Revitalization could take onthe defunct speakers program, and so on down theline.If SG is not abolished and continues at itspresent low level of support and participation,students can look forward to a good deal of resistance to its and CORSOs actions from administrators as a natural and undesirable outcome. Moreimportantly, if competent bodies were established,the possibility that student needs and beliefs wouldnot be taken into account in important Universitydecisions would be much diminished.One suggestion I received this past quarterdeserves to be put forward just as it was statedto me. Instead of getting involved in purchasingadditional apartment buildings and real estate,wouldn't it be simpler for the University to runa housing placement service in much the same waythat it now operates the Career Counseling andPlacement Service, though perhaps on a muchsmaller scale? To do so would involve probablyonly one or two staff members and a suitablyequipped office. This is a method employed toadvantage at several other schools and would bewell worth investigation by a member of the Dean of Student's staff. Besides the visible advantageto students, faculty, and staff, the University mightprofit by having a viable alternative to geographical expansion. It would also be an important wayfor the University to promote fair housing policieswithin its own neighborhood.There were a few blunders this past quarterwhich, while they cannot now be corrected bydiscussion, may serve to illustrate a class of casesthat with care can be avoided.Disturbingly late in Spring Quarter, dormitoryresidents were notified by Residence Halls andCommons of a limitation upon the amount of spacethey would be allotted for summer storage. In fact,the notice arrived in the midst of a trucking strikethat precluded normal pickup service and was solate that arrangements for other methods of shipment were made with great difficulty by a largenumber of students. Even worse, the notificationtook the form of an authoritarian statement whichgave the appearance of total inflexibility and inadaptability to unusual circumstances. Further,the space limits appeared to have been madewithout consulting the Office of Student Housingor any student groups and showed a lack of awareness of students' actual needs. Rather than tryingto secure additional space for storage purposes,RH&C had decided, perhaps appropriately, tolimit student storage. However, from there theeffort took on the appearance of coerciveness andarbitrariness. Behind the scenes there may havebeen a good deal of flexibility, but all I could seewere alarmed and enraged students by the score.(This was one of the very few cases that havecome to my attention where delegations were actually formed to present me with a grievance.) Inthe end, arrangements were worked out for students, with the approval of resident heads, tosecure additional space — but only after considerable (and what should have been unnecessary)pressure from students and the Director of StudentHousing.A second blunder involved about twenty students who thought they had jobs with the PlantDepartment. Some even arrived on the job for thefirst day of work only to be told there were nojobs. Some administrators in the Plant Departmenthad thought they had money for these summeremployees but apparently were mistaken. It is verydifficult for someone with little fiscal experience tounderstand how these mistakes might be avoided3in the future. I can only say that with the summerjob market the way it is, I would be very surprisedif all these young people find work, and I wouldbe inclined to press for reconsideration of the financial aid applications of these particular peopleif need arises as a result of this development. Suchabuses of student helplessness must be avoided.There are no sufficient excuses for them.When the fall recess was still being considered,I publicly requested those students interested inan alternative of substituting a Summer Quarter'swork for a Fall Quarter's work to contact me aboutthe difficulties they might encounter if they attempted to do so. I felt, and still feel, that tendays' work in a political campaign by large numbers of inexperienced students could not but failto be effective in anything but the frustration oftheir aspirations. To date I have had no responseto this inquiry. Either no one was interested, orthe difficulties they anticipated seemed so insurmountable that they soon lost interest. But whatif those difficulties had not appeared so insurmountable?To be honest, I had hoped to use this interestin the Summer Quarter to further my own ideasabout what the Summer Quarter should be. Personally, I find Chicago's winters unbearable and thesummers generally quite nice. However, besidesthe advantages for politically interested sutdents,a real Summer Quarter would have values for nearly every group. Faculty might look to the possibility of getting two-quarter research leaves andgrants (in different fiscal years). Administratorscould look forward to having more company inthe summers, and more seriously, to the generaladvantages associated with continual operation.Staff would find layoffs less common.I realize, of course, that there are financial andfamily problems to be dealt with (for example,faculty with school-age children whose vacationsare confined primarily to the summer), but it seemsto me that resources could be displaced rather thanmultiplied and that the Laboratory School, at least,could provide more family flexibility. However,since my inquiry went unanswered and thus givesno evidence of demand, I must reluctantly assumethat the rest of the University thrives on Chicagowinters.• • •The issue was raised this year as to whether theUniversity should provide bail money for students who have been "busted." I concur with the decision that such a service would be unwise, but rnvagreement probably springs from a different set ofassumptions. I hope it suffices to say that sucha service would work against students if one con-siders that it directly or indirectly forces the Uni.versity to take cognizance of off-campus behaviorThe present ad hoc system appears to be function.ing, with. minor exceptions, remarkably well. Theonly problem, as far as I know, has been in pro.curing ready cash. At present the list of volunteersconsists mainly of students willing to do the"legwork." However, several faculty have expressed to me their willingness to join a similar listfor providing the capital.*During Spring Quarter another in a long seriesof committee reports was published. It receivedfar less attention than reports and studies of lessimportant issues, and I fear it will not receivethe constructive legislative effort given the Weg-ener report on disciplinary procedures. It appearsto me that the report of the Committee on University Women has so far been treated publiclywith a lack of seriousness inappropriate to themagnitude of the issue. This may be a consequenceof the timing of its presentation. I hope that amuch more positive response will be forthcoming.Admittedly, the report suffers from incompleteness. There are several other dimensions to beexplored by this type of research (for instance,the knowledge men have of discrimination againstwomen and the facts posed by those 6.2 percentof undergraduate men who say they have hearda professor make discriminatory remarks), butthey will be refinements of a still young discipline.The response, however, should be to the issue,not to the quality, of the report; and that responsehas been lacking to the present time.I am provoked to this conclusion by my ownrecollections of letting prejudicial words go bywithout even recognizing the prejudice. Perhapsthose who have been denigrating the women'smovement are expressing a feeling that the movement is a silly effort on this campus because itattacks a prejudice with which the Universityhas not been contaminated. Perhaps they see thewhole movement in terms of what is, to them, itslunatic fringe. Or perhaps they see the inequalities* I encourage F. M. and his cohorts who organizedlast year's effort to take advantage of this expressionof willingness.4• the status of women in the University simply asatter of temporary quantitative disequilibriumhich will heal itself without a change in thelitative approach to the problem. Whatever. reason, the very lack of seriousness with which. University is approaching this and associatedroblems is itself the most serious student griev-nce I have encountered since taking this position.Finally, I suppose I should offer some commentsupon the method by which my successor was selected. To be blunt, I think it was fair. The taskwas significantly more difficult than any of theselection committee members would probably haveanticipated. The grilling given the applicants wasone I hope I shall never have the misfortune toundergo. The only improvements I could offerwould be of a detailed procedural sort. The methodof choosing the student members of the committeeseemed adequate, but I believe the current ombudsman should be a voting member, rather thanan ex officio member who appoints one of thestudent members. (All student members should beselected by the appointments council if it shouldget off the ground.)Beyond these comments, I believe I will save myfinal remarks about the office and its operation formy final report.REPORT OF THE AD HOCCOMMITTEE ON THE USE OFUNIVERSITY FACILITIESJuly 21, 1970The first report of the Ad Hoc Committee on theUse of University Facilities, which is in the formof a letter to Mr. Levi, is published below. I haveasked the Dean of Students to make known tostudent and faculty groups whose activities comewithin the purview of the Committee's charge theguidelines contained in the report.John T. WilsonProvostDear President Levi:Although the Ad Hoc Committee on the Use ofUniversity Facilities continues to deliberate on avariety of issues within its competence, it has com pleted its initial examination of the issues raisedby the absolute prohibition against University participation in campaigning under the relevant provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.The Committee's deliberations so far on the issue of "campaigning' can be summarized as follows:1. The Committee believes it can only outlinethe gross characteristics which distinguish campaigning from other activities of citizens.2. Campaigning involves temporal proximity to,and functional connection with, an election. Thenearer in time an election is, the broader is thescope of activities which will be considered campaigning.3. Functionally, the following activities wouldbe considered examples of campaigning, regardlessof their temporal proximity to an election:(a) Endorsing a particular candidate;(b) Soliciting campaign funds for a particularcandidate ;(c) Recruiting and assigning workers to aid aparticular candidate by canvassing, poll watching,or "getting out the vote."The Committee has also examined the implications of the prohibition in relation to one campusgroup, the Movement for a New Congress, whichhas been most cooperative in informing us of itspresent activities and future plans.As we understand it, the present activities of thelocal Movement for a New Congress involve information and referral rather than assignment andcampaigning. A formal distinction should be madeimmediately between The University of ChicagoChapter of the Movement for a New Congress, aregistered student organization concerned with information and referral, and the Illinois Movementfor a New Congress, concerned with coordinatingcertain campaign activities for selected Illinoiscandidates.In the view of the Committee, it would not be improper for The University of Chicago Chapter ofMNC to maintain on-campus information and referral services for members of the University community. The Chapter must not use its campuslocation for campaigning. If and when the IllinoisMNC should become involved in campaigns forparticular candidates, it will be imperative to keepthose activities off campus and clearly separate fromthe former. We believe that this physical separation should be accomplished by Labor Day, whencongressional campaigning is launched in the rele-5vant districts. MNC has indicated that it intendsto meet this deadline.The Committee has sent a copy of the presentletter to The University of Chicago Chapter ofMNC for its information.We hope that you will find our advice helpfuland that the Committee can continue to help youmeet current problems without sacrificing the traditions of university freedom.Sincerely,Aristide R. Zolberg, ChairmanAd Hoc Committee on the Useof University FacilitiesHONORARY DEGREESFive honorary degrees were awarded at the 332ndConvocation on June 12, 1970.Doctor of Humane LettersPeter Hugh Jeeferd Lloyd-Jones, Regius Professor of Greek, University of Oxford, and Fellow, British AcademyClassical scholar and teacher, a master in theart of establishing classical texts, and an enlightened interpreter of ancient Greek religious andphilosophical ideas.Doctor of LawsRichard Morris Titmuss, Professor and Chairman, Department of Social Science and Administration, London School of Economics and Political ScienceCreative scholar and educator, humane and uncompromising social critic, whose inquiries haveprofoundly influenced the theory and practice ofsocial welfare programs in his own country andabroad.Doctor of ScienceJule Gregory Charney, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology Distinguished scientist, his fundamental contributions to dynamical meteorology have openednew vistas on atmospheric circulation processesand weather prediction.Sol Spiegelman, Director, Institute of CancerResearch, Columbia UniversityDistinguished biologist and teacher, his probingexperimental studies have led to a broader understanding of the molecular bases of life.Henry M. Stommel, Professor of Oceanography,Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyDistinguished scientist, his incisive studies haveilluminated the dynamics of the world's oceans.1970-71 UNIVERSITY BUDGETJuly 31, 1970TO: Faculty, The University of ChicagoFROM : John T. Wilson, ProvostWe have just closed the books on fiscal year 1969-70 (which ended June 30, 1970) and have started thenew budget year. Attached for your information isthe 1970-71 Consolidated Budget as approved bythe Board of Trustees in early April. The financialproblems it reflects are serious. I think we all shouldbe aware of them.At about this time last year, during the closingfor fiscal year 1968-69, the 1969-70 budget appearedto be sound; but it was obvious that by 1970-71 theUniversity would be facing serious financial stress.In order to convey to the University communitythe nature of the University's fiscal limitations, BenRothblatt prepared a special report on the budget.The report was published in the Maroon of November 25, 1969 and again in the University Record ofDecember 1, 1969. This memorandum is a continuation of our effort to keep you informed, particularly about the current budget year. It also is intended to alert you to some of the problems inher-6t in the budget for fiscal year 1971-72, planningwhich has already started and will accelerateduring the next two months.In anticipation of the difficulties that we are nowf cing President Levi last July asked that a Deans'Budget Committee be appointed to survey the Uni-ersity's financial position. He asked the Committeeto make recommendations for the 1970-71 fiscalvear and for the longer run. The Committee, chairedbv Dean Sidney Davidson and including Deans A.Adrian Albert, Roald Campbell, Leon Jacobson, andT) Gale Johnson, began a series of discussions withother Deans and staff members culminating in a setof recommendations for the 1970-71 budget year.The recommendations made by the Deans' BudgetCommittee called for:a 3 percent increase in the basic academic andbusiness budgets of the University;a tuition increase of $225 for all students in the1970-71 academic year and $150 per year in eachsucceeding year until further notice;a faculty limited in size to a number equal to orless than the number of faculty in 1969-70;an increase in room and board charges for dormitories and single student housing of 10 percent onthe average; anddeferment of adjustments in married studenthousing charges until an analysis of costs andrevenues by individual properties is made.Discussion among the Deans led to agreementwithin all academic areas to make every effort toachieve the projected enrollment figures used inconstructing the budget. In addition, in keeping withestablished practice, the Deans in each area were informed of the general characteristics of the budgetfor all of the academic areas.The recommendations were communicated to faculty and students by means of a series of memoranda which were subsequently published in the University Record for May 11, 1970. After review ofthe Committee's recommendations and their acceptance by the President and the Budget Committeeof the Board of Trustees, the 1970-71 budget wasprepared on the basis of: (1) an increment of approximately 3 percent in the academic budget, applied not uniformly but as equitably as possibleacross the various academic units ; (2) an estimatedQuadrangles student enrollment of 8,300; (3) atotal number of faculty not to exceed the 1969-70level. Steps were also taken to improve the fiscalcontrol of various academic activities such as the Computation Center, which in prior years had beenhandled by year-end deficit funding or through various contingency funds. Firm understandings werereached with academic areas that budgets and budgetconditions were to be met and that contingencyfunds would not be available throughout the academic year.The University's Consolidated Budget for 1970—71 totals $151,467,000, which represents both projected expenditures and projected revenues requiredto balance the budget. The attachment is a somewhatcondensed form of the material that appears in the"official" budget and includes the General Funds(Unrestricted) budget; the Restricted Funds budget ; the budget for Academic Auxiliary Enterprises ;and, lastly, the budget for general Auxiliary Enterprises, iThe difference in degree of freedom enjoyed bythe University with reference to the categories "unrestricted" and "restricted" is somewhat illusory.While "restricted" funds which are available forspecific purposes are indeed limited to those purposes, the functions carried out are generally thosewhich the faculty is doing by choice and whichwould be eligible for general University support ifsufficient "unrestricted" funds were available. Inturn, "unrestricted" funds are not completely unrestricted in that they are encumbered, for example,by tenure and term contracts.Revenue and expenditure categories for auxiliaryenterprises are self-explanatory, with most of theactivities budgeted being essentially "self-balancing." But Auxiliary Enterprises as a whole, particularly student housing and food services, will require from unrestricted revenue a subsidy of over$800,000 in fiscal 1970-71. It is important to notethat the Consolidated Budget contains no funds forcapital expenditures, i.e., construction of buildings.Another point that should be made is that the indicated revenue from endowment includes only thatwhich is available to the operating budget eitherfrom income or, if necessary, from allowed allocations from principal.There are several comments regarding the General Funds (Unrestricted) portions of. the budgetthat I should like to make. General Funds (Unrestricted) expenditures are estimated to total$53,135,000 for 1970-71 as compared to a total ofsome $49,783,000 in last year's budget Within the§53,000,000 figure, the strictly academic portion,as defined by accumulated academic area budgets,amounts to $34,450,000 as compared to $33,315,35.0last year. The increment for academic functions7thus defined is 3.4 percent The difference betweenthis increment and the 6.7 percent increment fortotal General Funds (Unrestricted) expenditures isaccounted for by several items: student servicesand student aid budgets together increased about12 percent; the cost of physical property operations increased 16.7 percent (for example, physicalplant operating costs of the Regenstein Library are included for the first time in this budget) ; and, business operations, because of a reorganization in the Treasurer's Office and improvedcomputation services to the investment unit, increased about 10 percent. Several activities, budgeted for the first time, were not included within the3 percent limit reommended by the Deans' BudgetCommittee.I should like particularly to call your attention toGeneral Funds (Unrestricted) revenue. Total revenue from sources which make up the General Funds(Unrestricted) category is budgeted at $53,935,000.As indicated, the sources of this revenue includestudents fees, unrestricted endowment income, sundry income (largely from Encyclopaedia Britannica),indirect cost allowances (primarily from federal government grants and contracts), and, finally, giftsrequired — which means required to balance the totalrevenue budget against the total expenditure budget.Each of these items reflects the best estimate thatcould be made as of the time the budget was adopted.Although student fees were increased by anamount sufficient to maintain tuition income at itsprevious relative level of contribution to the budget, increased support of student aid reduced thenet contribution from this source. The contributionfrom endowment income toward support of the budget and that from sundry income will probably meetthe estimates as indicated. The same is true, at leastbased on current information, with reference to indirect cost allowances from government grants andcontracts. Reductions in income from this sourcewill probably not be felt until next year.What gives the greatest cause for concern is theunrestricted gift requirement — $10,435,000. This isthe portion of the unrestricted general funds revenue total of $53,935,000 that is necessary to balance the budget as a whole. Last year the analagousfigure was $9,327,000. However, there is a significantdifference in this year's situation as compared tolast year and the four years before that. The difference is that there were available last year some$5,700,000 from the Ford Challenge grant to applyagainst the $9,327,000 unrestricted gift requirement.For 1970-71 funds remaining from the Ford grant will be about $3,000,000. For 1971-72 and for fu,ture fiscal years none will remain. The likelihood ofa replacement for the Ford grant is negligible.Obviously it will require strenuous efforts to meetthe gift estimate. Gifts are in large measure a function of market and economic conditions. They arealso a function of the attitudes of those most eligiblefor gift-giving. In addition, they are a function ofthe amount of time available to apply to fund-raisingpursuits. Taking into account all of these factorsincluding the remainder of the Ford grant, it willtake something akin to a minor miracle to achievethe required $10.4 million gift estimate.With reference to restricted and auxiliary enterprise revenue the primary source is governmentgrants and contracts. Funds from federal government agencies have leveled off for the past threeyears. The federal budget for fiscal year 1971 showsincreases for research and development programsin colleges and universities, but many of these increments are directed toward programs and areas ofresearch which are not congruent with faculty interests at this University. Although we have indicationsthat we will not experience a reduction in government grant and contract research funds this year,that will probably not be true for fiscal 1971-72.Compounding the problem is the cutback on fellowships and traineeships, which will put an increasingly heavy burden on research grants as a sourceof replacement for graduate student support. It willalso put an increasingly heavy strain on unrestrictedUniversity funds for student aid. Over the past twobudget years we have experienced a reduction ofabout $2 million in revenue from government fellowship and traineeship programs.The outlook for the immediate future, insofar asthe University's budget is concerned, is difficult. Itis against this background that the Deans' BudgetCommittee will initiate its deliberations on the 1971-72 budget. There is little doubt that measures suchas were recommended for the 1970-71 budget will beinadequate to meet the conditions of next fiscal year.Closer scrutiny of recommendations and decisionson new appointments, reappointments, and tenurewill be required. Closer examination of each expenditure will be necessary. Increased efforts to raisefunds will help.It may well be that there will be a return to anearlier mode of academic life, less well rewardedthan we have come to enjoy and expect. If this isso, it may be helpful to remind ourselves that thisUniversity has weathered crises, fiscal and otherwise. It has the capacity to do so again.8©2CO O^ono~3S OOt^OOOOOo"oTo 10 -p-Tto 10 o"<N OOONOOOOtMOOONf^t^-ONTftco^Ot^cOCNt^. hcoO *H oooooooooooooo^o^oo^00 lO rj< CM lO OVO^ON CM lOON "* CM O 8o 030,000 524,000 130,000 Ooo^9 5 CO *^» »-•CM COm {& 6©= t& ooooooooooooooooooo^ONaa"*.§••1JO C38 o tf"si COd CO<u dao. eftSgS8.sg _Q <y d .o. 2 .§1-§8,g 3^«S *Q H brt o £ d1 ?h h-3 c/3 Pk O c/3 ds-iPnffi- ¦¦i CDboco cu.Sto eg -3Jw d s *g 2 fl -1 .2o -y <u d a I3 ,°3 rsK»o O o o s o o o o o ooo o oooooooooooo 8 Oo o o o o o o o 8 oooooo o Oo o o o o o^ o^ o^ o^ o oooooo O oo o o o lO u-T i>r ^—1 v-4 ON o«*o s O -h O co io o ON t^o o o s CO CO lO rH cm CO CM CO O 00 vO *-h Tt< CO CN vOlO 00. VO ^ on °1 J>» 00 o»o^ VO O VOIS- On ^iO o^ ^,-T 00~ \o v©~ cT co~ CO~ tjT ,_T ©> co*^"-"1 ^r oTco l>» "^ vO~ ^TCM lO CO •r-t •* CM CO '"' »o€©= €£= €©= «©= .** €©= ¥Z €fe= SI d u 3s*b ?> a•s co5 d 3 ^BQ IdW (^sEo "So o RJH o]d"SSd toto d3-1*p, e^<^ o38.118 S to^2S 1 Sgti^ dO(fl.H flO co »-io o tJPQffirS do••8ow'3•-3 91 Od 8 *O M JOCU O CUti > ^fl'd.JG 5s&qNEW FACULTY COMMITTEEPresident Levi has appointed a faculty committeeto consider criteria of academic appointment ina broad perspective. The members of the committee are:Edward Shils, ChairmanS. ChandrasekharDr. Roderick W. ChildersJohn Hope FranklinArthur FriedmanJacob W. GetzelsHarry G. JohnsonSaunders Mac LaneJohn A. SimpsonLorna P. StrausH. G. Williams- AshmanROSENBERGER MEDALISTThe Rosenberger Medal was conferred at the 332ndConvocation on June 12, 1970.Edward Pendleton Herring, Director, ForeignArea Fellowship Program, Joint Committee ofthe Social Science Research Council and theAmerican Council of Learned SocietiesIn recognition of your scholarly contributions tothe understanding of politics and your leadingrole in the development of the social sciencesduring your fifteen years as President of theSocial Science Research Council.DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES ENACTEDBY THE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITYSENATE ON MAY 12, 1970In April 1969 the Council of the University Senate asked for the appointment of a committee tostudy possible future changes in disciplinary procedures with particular reference to disruptiveactivities and to the question of student participation in disciplinary hearings. The Committee of theCouncil selected six faculty members to serve. Thefacidty members then selected three students from a panel of nominees supplied by student councilsof the collegiate divisions, the graduate divisionsand the professional schools.Faculty members of the committee were CharlesWegener, chairman, Harold Demsetz, EdwardDeutsch, Paul Sally, Ronald Singer, and JamesSpofford. The three student members were TimLovain, Peggy McQuade, and Steven Orman.Counsel to the committee was Allison Dunham.The report of the Wegener Committee was submitted to the Council of the Senate on November24, 1969. It was discussed extensively throughoutthe Winter Quarter of 1970 and numerous changesof style and substance were adopted by the Council, although the disciplinary procedures as finallyenacted are substantially the same as those recommended by the Wegener Committee. The amendedprocedures in their final form were adopted by theCouncil on May 12, 1970. In keeping with therecommendation of the Wegener Committee, thenew disciplinary rides and procedures as finallyadopted are being printed in full in this issue of theRecord. The substantive rules will also be separately printed in the 1971 edition of the StudentHandbook.Charles D. O'ConnellDean of StudentsSection 1. Provision for Review of DisciplinaryProceduresThe Council of the University Senate shall review, through an appropriate committee, the entire disciplinary system of the University withspecial reference to the innovations herein proposed, such review to be conducted not later thanthe Spring Quarter 1973.Section 2. Statutory ProvisionThe Council of the University Senate shall request the Board of Trustees to include within theStatutes of the University provisions to the following effect:Conduct of members of the University disruptive of the operations of the University, includinginterference with instruction, research, administrative operations, freedom of association, andmeetings as protected by University regulations,is prohibited and is subject to disciplinary action.Consistent with the powers reserved to the Boardof Trustees, the Office of the President, and otherRuling Bodies, the Council of the University Senate10hall formulate those rules that relate to studentnduct prohibited by this statute. The Councilf the University Senate shall formulate the procures tkat will enforce those regulations andshall provide for hearings where there are chargesf violations of those regulations. The Council ofthe University Senate may also establish mechanisms for the formulation and administration ofadditional rules and regulations for student conductprohibited by this statute.1Section 3. Definition of Disruptive ActsIt is misconduct, constituting a disruptive act,for any member of the University community toengage in conduct which substantially obstructs,impairs, or interferes with teaching, study, research, or administration of the University, theauthorized use of University facilities, or the rightsand privileges of other members of the Universitycommunity, for example :(a) by obstructing, impairing, or interfering withUniversity sponsored or authorized activities orfacilities in a manner likely to deprive others ofthe benefit or enjoyment of the activity or facility;(b) by using force against any member of theUniversity community or his family which substantially and directly bears upon the member'sfunctions within the University, or threatening theuse of force against him or his family in circumstances which create a reasonable fear that actualforce is likely to follow ;(c) by taking, occupying or using, destroying ordamaging the property of the University or ofany member of the University in the offices orpremises of the University without authorization;(d) by obstructing the administration of University disciplinary processes by force, violence,physical interference, unreasonable noise, or byother obstacle to its functioning;1On May 18, 1970, the Board of Trustees amendedthe Statutes of the University as follows.1. By adding the following provision as Statute 24 andby redesignating the present Statutes 24 (Degrees) and25 as Statutes 25 and 26 respectively:Statute 24. Disruptive Conduct. — Conduct of members of the University disruptive of the operations ofthe University, including interference with instruction, research, administrative operations, freedom ofassociation, and meetings as protected by Universityregulations, is prohibited and is subject to disciplinaryaction.•2. By adding the following provision to Section 3 ofArticle IV of Statute 14 as paragraph (e) of said Section3 and by redesignating the present paragraphs (e) , (f ) , (e) by obstructing any officer or employee ofthe University in the performance of his duties;(f) by altering, destroying, removing, or concealing without authorization or by falsifying anyrecord or document of the University.Section 4. Constitution of University DisciplinaryCommitteesDisciplinary committees, empowered to conducthearings on charges of violations by students ofstatutory provisions and Council legislation prohibiting disruptive acts, shall be constituted asfollows.During the Spring Quarter of each academicyear :( 1 ) The President of the University shall appoint, after consultation with the Committee of theCouncil of the University Senate and the AcademicDeans, five faculty members [as defined in Statute13(a)] to each of five University DisciplinaryCommittees, and designate one member from eachCommittee as its Chairman.(2) A panel of thirty-two students shall beconstituted — one to be appointed by each StudentCouncil in the Collegiate Divisions, the Divisions,and the Schools (including The Pritzker Schoolof Medicine), in consultation with the appropriateDean or Master, and sixteen by Student Government.At such time as a University Disciplinary Committee is required:( 1 ) One of the available faculty groups shall bedrawn by random selection and to it shall be addedtwo student members drawn by random selectionfrom the student panel.(2) The Chairman does not vote except in caseof ties. The Chairman and four members of theCommittee constitute a quorum, and decisions are(g), and (h) of said Section 3 as paragraphs (f), (g),(h), and (i) respectively:Section 3 of Article IV of Statute 14 (the Organization and Powers of the University Senate andthe Ruling Bodies. — (e) Consistent with the powersreserved to the Board of Trustees, the Office of thePresident, and other Ruling Bodies, the Council ofthe University Senate shall formulate those rulesthat relate to student conduct prohibited by Statute24. The Council of the University Senate shall formulate the procedures that will enforce those regulations and shall provide for hearings where thereare charges of violations of those regulations. TheCouncil of the University Senate may also establishmechanisms for the formulation and administrationof additional rules and regulations for student- conduct prohibited by Statute 24.11Intent of ProceduresPursuant to the new disciplinary rules enacted by the Council, President Levi has appointed the following groups of faculty whosemembers will be available for service during1970-71:1. Mark AshinDr. James E. BowmanEdwin McClellanSchubert OgdenMargaret K. Rosenheim2. Mary Jean BowmanJames BruceDr. Jarl DyrudDr. Wolfgang EpsteinOwen M. Fiss3. Philip FosterRobert GordonAkira IriyeDr. Ann M. LawrenceMichael D. Taylor4. Dr. Lloyd A. FergusonJohn E. JeuckWilliam H. MeyerJane OvertonManley H. Thompson, Jr.5. Philip HoffmannCharles H. LongRichard A. PosnerErica ReinerDr. Francis H. Straus, IIreached by simple majority, except that a decisionto expel requires four affirmative votes.(3) Vacancies on a Disciplinary Committee,whether of faculty or students, created by failureto serve, shall be filled by appointment by thePresident.(4) A Committee remains in being until discharged by the President, at which time its members rejoin the appropriate panel or groups.Section 5. ProceduresThe following procedures are to be followedin cases in which the charge against the student isviolation of the University Statute and legislationof the Council prohibiting disruption of the operations of the University. The intent of these procedures is to insure a fairand orderly hearing on the charges. Interpretationand detailed development of this procedural outline require that all parties to the proceeding con-sider procedural questions in the light of what isrequired by fundamental fairness and a reasonablyprompt and organized movement toward an accurate determination of individual cases in a processnot having available all the resources of a proceeding conducted in a court of law. While responsibility for a fair and orderly procedure must beshared by all parties, the Chairman of the University Disciplinary Committee is specially responsible for the conduct of the proceedings, and theCommittee as a whole must be the judge of whatprocedures will best serve these ends in a particular case.ChargingInformation that a student has engaged in actsdisruptive of the operations of the Universitymay be brought by any member of the Universityto the attention of the Dean of Students, a Deanof Students, or the Deans of the Schools, theDivisions, or the College. Charges of such violationmay, however, be preferred only by the Dean ofStudents, a Dean of Students, or any one of theDeans of the Schools, the Divisions, or the College.Charges must be given to the student in writing,and must include a brief statement of the natureof the charge and of places and times at whichthe student can respond to the charge. Unless thereis already in being a University Disciplinary Committee able to handle the case, one is promptlyconvened. The charging authority transmits to theChairman of the Committee, who thereafter becomes responsible for processing all aspects of thecase under the Committee's direction, a copy ofthe charge and a statement of the evidence onwhich it is based. The facilities of the Office ofthe Dean of Students are at the disposal of theUniversity Disciplinary Committee in whateverways may, in the judgment of the Committee,facilitate a prompt and fair disposition of the case.Informal HearingProceedings before the Committee normallybegin with an informal private hearing conductedby a representative designated by the Committee.At this hearing the student charged is informed ofhis rights and of the substance of the procedureto be followed throughout by the Committee asset forth herein or in some other form. He is12dvised that he may be represented by someonef his own choosing at every stage of the proceed-. s js asked to consider — and to decide, if pos-•uje whether he will request a private or a publichearing of the case, is fully informed of all theevidence available to the Committee on which thecharge is based, and is told that the Committeewill hear witnesses whom he may bring forward andthat it will also accept written statements on hisbehalf. He is further informed that the Committeewill use its own powers of persuasion to inducesuch witnesses to appear or to offer statements inwriting if he is not able to procure their attendanceand assistance. This policy of full disclosure isfurther implemented by informing the student thatany additional evidence becoming available to theCommittee will be available to him before thehearing, and he is told how he and his representative may have access to such evidence. Finallya date for the hearing before the Committee isset or arrangements are made for determining itand informing the student.HearingThe Committee presumes the innocence of thestudent charged, assumes no facts or conclusions,ignores any previous history of disciplinary actionwith respect to the student charged, and reachesits decision as to whether the student has engagedin the prohibited act solely on the basis of theevidence actually before it. In a hearing beforethe Committee the evidence is set forth and itssignificance discussed. In addition to the contentof all evidence the student charged is entitled to beinformed of the source of all evidence and Si theidentity of those on whose credibility any evidencemay depend. The Committee makes every effort,within the limits of its powers of investigation andinvitation, to resolve all issues of fact appearingin the evidence and invites and encourages thestudent and his representative not only to commentupon conclusions which might seem reasonablyinferable from the evidence but also to offeralternative interpretations of it in whole or part.But the student charged, while required to appear,is not required to testify, and if he chooses totestify he may refuse at any point to answer anyquestion, and no prejudicial inference is drawnfrom such refusal. All "rules of evidence" will,hi similar fashion, be considered by the Committeewith respect to their function and effect in anmquiry enjoying neither the advantages nor thelimitations inherent in an "adversary" proceeding111 a court of law. The student may have a private hearing at which a few observers of his own choosing are present as well as his chosen representative,or with the approval of the Committee a publichearing at which members of the University community and other persons are freely admittedwithin such limits and under such conditions asthe Committee deems consistent with orderly conduct of the hearing. At any time the studentcharged or his representative may request changesof schedule in the interest of a more adequatepresentation of his case or may change his mindas to whether he wishes a public or a privatehearing. Such requests will be considered on theirmerits by the Committee. In deliberating upon theweight of the sanction to be imposed the Committee may take into account any facts of previousdisciplinary action with respect to the student and,in the case of a student on probation or undera reserved suspension, is required to do so. Thedeliberations of the Committee will be private.The Chairman of each Committee has a specialresponsibility for procedural correctness. He may,if he so chooses, delegate this responsibility toanother member of the Committee, but it is hisresponsibility to see that the function is providedfor in the working of the Committee. The Chairman or his deputy would (a) make an initialresponse to any procedural question which arises,(b) be obligated to alert the Committee to procedural implications of any action they may wishto take, (c) call to the attention of the Committeeor any of its members any inconsistency betweenthe demands of fair procedure and the actionsof the Committee or its individual members at anypoint in the proceedings, and (d) be responsible,in situations in which he feels it desirable or theCommittee instructs him to seek further guidance,for seeking out and presenting to the Committeewhatever relevant information may be availablein the experience of previous Committees, or inspecial circumstances from other sources (seebelow). None of the special responsibilities withinthe working of the Committee, however, shouldin any way impair or supersede the ultimate authority of the Committee as a whole in determining, within the framework of this legislation, itsown procedures.In discharging the function of the Committee,its Chairman is authorized and encouraged to consult the precedents and experienced judgmentavailable in the work of previous Committees. Forthis purpose he may have recourse not only tothe records and reports of previous Committeesbut also to their Chairmen or such other members13of previous Committees as may seem to himappropriate. With the permission of the Committeehe may, on specific points, consult such otherpersons as it may determine may have usefuladvice. In transmitting the results of such inquiriesto the Committee for its consideration he shall(a) emphasize that no advice or precedent is binding upon the Committee, (b) indicate clearly whatthe sources of any opinions or suggestions may be,and (c) express his own judgment as to the valueof the suggestions offered.Failure To AppearThere is but one exception to the rule that nosanction is imposed without fulfillment of the procedural requirements outlined above. A studentwho fails to appear for a hearing before the Committee may be suspended by action of the Committee when it is satisfied that he has been givennotice of the charges as required above and hashad sufficient opportunity to respond. A student sosuspended is notified of the suspension and offeredanother opportunity to appear on the originalcharge or charges. Failure to appear on the partof a student so suspended and so notified for aperiod of three weeks from the time at whichnotice of suspension was given to him or by the endof the quarter in which the original notice toappear was given, whichever is longer, is in itselfgrounds for imposition of sanctions, not excludingexpulsion, by action of the Disciplinary Committee. In considering the case of the student whoappears after having been suspended as a consequence of failure to appear, the Committee maytake into account his original failure to appear inimposing sanctions where, in their judgment, suchfailure was willful.RecordsA summary written record of each case is keptby the Committee and furnished to the ReviewBoard or the student upon request. This recordshould show at least (a) the chronology of thecase from the receipt of the charges to final disposition by the Committee, (b) a statement of allactions taken by the Committee with respect tothe case, (c) a statement of the chief findings offact which were relevant to the final disposition ofthe case and the choice of sanction, including especially any findings that bear upon the difference ofsanctions imposed in this case as opposed to similarcases, and (d) a notation of any procedural questions peculiar to the case. The student may keep hisown record of the hearings. At least annually the Dean of Students shallmake available to the University community astatistical summary of the activities of all University Disciplinary Committees and of the ReviewBoard.Section 6. IdentificationA student is subject to disciplinary action if hefails to identify himself adequately upon properrequest of a properly identified University officialin the performance of his duty. Charges of such afailure to identify oneself may be heard by a University Disciplinary Committee when the failure toidentify is associated with a disruptive act. In nocase shall the sanction imposed for such failureexceed one quarter of suspension.Section 7. SanctionsSanctions imposed upon students in any University disciplinary proceedings shall be given thepractical meaning assigned in the following list. Noothers shall be imposed in cases of disruptive conduct except that restitution may be required fortheft or damage to property associated with a disruptive act. It is the responsibility of the Dean ofStudents to inform students by appropriate meansof the various sanctions. The notes which followthis list are an integral part of it.Disciplinary probation means that the personcharged has been found to have engaged in theprohibited act but that the sanction of suspensionor expulsion has been withheld. For a period oftime specified in the decision of the DisciplinaryCommittee, the student continues to enjoy all therights and privileges appertaining to the status ofa student except as the Disciplinary Committee mayspecifically provide, but in the event that duringthe period of probation he is charged with andfound by a Disciplinary Committee to have engagedin another prohibited act the Disciplinary Committee, in determining sanctions, is informed of hisprobationary status and is required to take it intoaccount.Reserved suspension means that the personcharged has been found to have engaged in theprohibited act, that the Disciplinary Committeeimposed the sanction of suspension for a specifiedtime but that the suspension is held in abeyance.The unexpired portion of such suspension becomesautomatically effective when a student under reserved suspension is charged and found by a Disciplinary Committee to have engaged in anotherprohibited act. In determining a sanction for suchan additional act the Disciplinary Committee is14uired ^o take into account the fact of the previous suspension.Suspension means that the person charged hasbeen found to have engaged in the prohibited actand that for a period of time specified in thedecision of the Disciplinary Committee (but neverexceeding nine quarters) the student is deniedthe exercise of all the rights and privileges appertaining to the status of a student in the University.Unless the Disciplinary Committee specifically provides otherwise in its decision, at the expiration ofthe period of suspension the student may' resumeactive status as a student without any action onhis part other than would be required of any student who has, for a comparable period, interruptedhis residence in the University for any other reason except that a student under suspension chargedwith another offence may not resume active statusas a student until final action has been taken onsuch charge by an appropriate Disciplinary Committee.Expulsion means that the person charged hasbeen found to have engaged in the prohibited act,that he ceases to have the rights and privileges appertaining to the status of a student in the University, and that he may not resume such status without reapplication for admission. Normally suchreapplications will not be entertained for a periodof eleven quarters following the date of explusion.Note 1. Sanctions may be imposed on anyonewho has been admitted to the University whetheror not he happens to be in residence at the time ofthe offense. The sanction imposed in the case ofstudents not currently in residence takes the formof a condition imposed upon resumption of activestatus as a student.Note 2. Sanctions on this list are arranged inincreasing order of severity. They may be combinedin a given decision. The Review Board in mitigatingsentences may be expected to make use of allthealternatives.Note 3. Rights and privileges appertaining to thestatus of a student include (but are not limited to)registration, participation in classes and other instructional activities of the University, taking ofexaminations and the satisfaction of any other requirement for a degree, application for and receiptof any degree, participation as a student in studentactivities and organizations and in University ceremonies or official bodies, and use of Universityfacilities such as libraries, dormitories, and otherstudent housing. While employment by the University is not an exclusive right or privilege of students, in cases in which employment is reserved for students or students are given preference inemployment the fact of suspension or expulsionmay affect status as an employee. Further, theUniversity as an employer is entitled to takeinto account in its employment policies the groundson which sanctions have been imposed, as thesemay relevantly bear on qualifications for employment.Note 4. Suspension and expulsion will be recordedon a transcript in such terms as will not distinguishexplicitly or by inference between interruptions ofregistration and residence by disciplinary action andinterruptions imposed for any other reason, suchas academic performance.Section 8. Review BoardThere shall be established a Review Board withauthority to review decisions of University Disciplinary Committees as follows.Constitution of Review BoardThe Review Board consists of:(a) the Dean of Students in the University orhis designated deputy,(b) one of the Academic Deans selected by theProvost,(c) a senior member of the faculty appointed asChairman by the President of the University,(d) an undergraduate student selected at randomfrom the panel of students nominated for membership on University Disciplinary Committees,(e) a graduate student selected at random fromthe panel of students nominated for membership onUniversity Disciplinary Committees.All members other than the Dean of Students inthe University are appointed for one year terms atthe beginning of the Winter Quarter of each academic year.Procedure for Clemency( 1 ) A student on whom any sanction other thanprobation has been imposed by a Disciplinary Committee may petition the Review Board at any time(but no more often than once each academic year)for mitigation of the sanction imposed. The petitionshall contain a brief history of the case and a statement of the reasons why the decision should bemodified. The Review Board shall not in such acase pass upon the correctness of the proceedingsin the adjudicatory tribunal but shall confine itselfto considerations which properly bear upon the15propriety of extending clemency. In making thedetermination regarding clemency the Board considers whether the sanction imposed bears unfairlyon the petitioner in his individual circumstances,but also should take into account such factors aswhether there. is undue risk that on reinstatementthe petitioner will engage in misconduct again andwhether a lesser sanction will depreciate the seriousness of the petitioner's misconduct.The Board may in its discretion permit thepetitioner to make an oral presentation in additionto any written submission he cares to make. If threemembers of the Board agree on reinstatement orother mitigation of the sanction imposed, a copy ofthe Board's decision shall be sent to the Dean ofStudents for appropriate action.Procedure for Request of New Hearing(2) Within one academic quarter after a noticeof a decision has been delivered to him, a personwho has been suspended or expelled may petitionthe Review Board to request an appropriate Disciplinary Committee to hold a new hearing. TheReview Board (by agreement of three of its members) will order a new hearing:(a) where the petitioner establishes to its satis faction that he was denied a fair and impartialhearing;(b) where the petitioner establishes to its satis-faction that since the initial hearing he has discovered new and material evidence which if introduced at the hearing would probably have changedthe decision.Conclusiveness of Disposition(3) Except as provided in (1) and (2) above,the disposition of the original adjudicatory tribunalis final and conclusive on all parts of the University.Section 9. PublicationThe Council's actions with respect to disciplinaryprocedures shall be published in such a way as toensure their general availability to all students.Section 10. Transitional ProvisionIrrespective of the calendar prescribed [in Sections 4 and 8] for the appointment of the studentpanel, the faculty groups, and the Review Board,the first panel, groups, and Board will be appointedas soon as possible after enactment of these regulations and procedures and will take office uponappointment.REVISION OF AUTUMN QUARTERCALENDARJune 10, 1970TO: Faculty and Students of the UniversityFROM : Edward H. Levi, PresidentOn May 12, 1970 the Council of the UniversitySenate approved an action recommending to thePresident that the academic calendar for Autumn1970 be constructed so as: (1) to provide for arecess from Saturday, October 24, through Tuesday,November 3; and (2) to begin classes on September 28. The feasibility of the proposed calendar hasbeen discussed by the Provost with the AcademicDeans and by the Dean of Students with the Deans of Students in the various areas. In addition,the proposed calendar was discussed at a subsequent meeting of the Council.I realize there are differing views as to thewisdom of the proposed change, and that in deferring to the diverse personal plans of some facultyand students, there is inevitably some inconveniencefor others. A calendar, at best, always represents acompromise on such matters consistent with theeducational requirements of the institution.I have concluded that the recommended University calendar is feasible and that it is consistentwith the academic objectives of the University. Itrust the administration of the calendar will seekto minimize the inconveniences which are boundto arise because of the lateness of the change.REVISED AUTUMN QUARTER (1970) CALENDARQuarter begins; classes meetRegistration for undergraduates beginsRegistration for graduates beginsRegistration for undergraduates andgraduates in divisions ends Present ScheduleOctober 5 (Monday)September 30 (Wednesday)October 1 (Thursday)October 2 (Friday) Revised ScheduleSeptember 28 (Monday)September 23 (Wednesday)September, 24 (Thursday)September 25 (Friday)16Registration for professionalschools ends October 6 (Tuesday)Interim — no classes .Thanksgiving Day, a holiday November 26 (Thursday)Autumn convocation . December 18 (Friday)Quarter ends . -. . . . December 19 (Saturday) September 29 (Tuesday)October 24 (Saturday)throughNovember 3 (Tuesday)November 26 (Thursday)December 22 (Tuesday)December 22 (Tuesday)REPORT OF THE COMMITTEEON AFRICAN AND BLACKAMERICAN HUMANITIESMay 15, 1970The following report on the first two years- work ofthe Committee on African and Black American Humanities was prepared by its retiring chairman,James C. Bruce, for distribution to the campuscommunity.I would like to summarize the events of ourtotal or partial sponsorship from October 1968 tothe present. I feel that through these events, enumerated below, the Committee has made a positivecontribution to the intellectual and cultural life ofthe University and of the Chicago community atlarge.In all, we have presented, or helped to present,eighteen persons and three ensembles for a total oftwenty- four lectures, ten informal discussions, fourmusical or dance performances, and one art exhibit.In six instances we have enjoyed the cooperationof the Committee on African Studies, the Departments of History and Music, the Bergman Gallery,and the Illinois Arts Council.Apart from the separate, informal discussions,these events have comprised, in terms of the geographical distribution of their content, six lecturesand two performances pertaining to Africa; thirteenlectures, two performances, and an art exhibit pertaining to the United States ; four lectures pertaining to the Western Hemisphere south of the UnitedStates; and two lectures pertaining to Africa andthe Western Hemisphere. In terms of topical categories, again apart from informal discussions, theofferings have consisted of three lectures on art andone exhibit, twelve lectures on literature, sevenlectures on music and four performances (including the dance), and two lectures concerning theintellectual and cultural tradition in general. ^ The art exhibit was a month-long show of worksby Hughie Lee-Smith, who also delivered a lectureand conducted a separate, informal discussion.Musical or music and dance performances wereoffered by the classical pianist Natalie Hinderas, theGhana Dance Ensemble, the Blue Nile Ensemble ofEthiopia, and a jazz ensemble under the directionof William Quinn, who also gave a lecture on jazz.The names of the persons and ensembles whoappeared and the nature of their contributionsfollows:Chinua Achebe (author) — lecture on African literature and separate discussionT. J. Anderson, Jr. (composer and musicologist)— lecture on music and participation in a jointdiscussion with David N. Baker and WendellP. WhalumDavid N. Baker (composer, performing musician,and musicologist) — lecture on music and participation in a joint discussion with Messrs.Anderson and WhalumThe Blue Nile Ensemble — performance of Ethiopian music, in cooperation with the Committeeon African StudiesWilfred Cartey (Africanist) — two lectures onAfrican and Caribbean literature and a separate¦: disCUSSion . • -¦¦-¦¦¦;¦¦.•>;.: ¦-¦'..¦::¦¦¦'¦ ' -*-> ,:•-;¦¦Mercer Cook (Romanist) — lecture on African,West Indian, and Afro-American literatureAbram Demoz (Ethiopianist) —lecture on Ethiopian literature, in cooperation with the Committee on African StudiesHoyt W. Fuller (author and editor) — lecture onliterature and separate discussionGhana Dance Ensemble — performance of Africanmusic and dance, in cooperation with the Department of Music and the Illinois Arts CouncilNatalie Hinderas (pianist) — lecture on music anda piano recital17C. L. R. James (historian and author) — two lectures on the intellectual and cultural traditionin general (one lecture in cooperation with theDepartment of History)Charles Keil (musicologist) — two lectures onmusic and a separate discussionGeorge E. Kent (Americanist) — two lectures onliterature and a separate discussionHughie Lee-Smith (artist) — lecture on art, aseparate discussion, and an exhibit of his works(in cooperation with the Bergman Gallery)Ezekiel Mphahlele (author) — lecture on Africanliterature and a separate discussionJames A. Porter (art historian) — two lectures onart and a separate discussionWilliam Quinn (musician) —lecture on jazz and aperformance with his ensembleEmile Snyder (Africanist) — lecture on AfricanliteratureWendell P. Whalum (musicologist) — lecture onmusic and participation in a joint discussionwith Messrs. Anderson and BakerJohn A. Williams (author) — two lectures onliterature and a separate discussionThe recent appointment of George E. Kent asProfessor of English and in the College is a directoutgrowth of the activities of the Committee. Following his lectures here in spring 1969, Mr. Kentwas invited to the University as a visiting professor for the academic year 1969-70. The visitingappointment has in turn become a permanent one.I must conclude on a tragic note. Those whowere privileged to hear James Porter's splendidlecture on African art, which so auspiciously inaugurated our series on October 14, 1968, will beespecially saddened to learn of his recent untimelydeath from cancer.James C. Bruce, ChairmanFINAL REPORT OF THE COMPUTERPOLICY STUDY COMMITTEENovember 1969PrefaceThe Computer Policy Study Committee was appointed by President George W. Beadle in earlyMay of 1968. Its mission was stated as follows: "Toengage in the broadest possible inquiry of the University's long- and short-term computation needsand what the University can best do to attempt tomeet these needs." An interim report was issued in August 1968 andwas printed in the University Record of October 221968. Some background information in the interimreport has not been included in the final report-however, in all essential respects this report super-sedes the interim report.We gratefully acknowledge the generous helpoffered by many people. In particular, HarryRoberts of the Graduate School of Business andCarol Stocking of the National Opinion ResearchCenter (NORC) gave us valuable advice in drawing up the questionnaire, and the directors (pastand present), associate directors, and staff of theComputation Center were constantly ready toassist us in everything we requested.There was initially a distinction between members of the Committee and alternates. This distinction became blurred as time went on, and in thisfinal report we list all Committee members alphabetically.R. Darrell BockJay M. GoldbergRobert L. GravesJUERGEN A. M. HlNZEIrving Kaplansky, ChairmanRichard C. LewontinStuart A. RiceDon R. Swan sonVictor H. YngveConclusions and Recommendations1. (a) The University needs the continued existence of a good Computation Center.(b) In the near future this will require a subsidyfrom the University of approximately one-third ofthe Computation Center budget. This is in line withthe current practice at many comparable universities. The appropriate subsidy in the more distantfuture is not easy to predict; in part this maydepend on the results of studies recommendedbelow.2. Administration. The administrative structureof the Computation Center has not functioned entirely satisfactorily. (It was partly in response toinadequacies of this structure that the ComputerPolicy Study Committee was formed.) We feel thatit is important to define clear lines of commandand that in the case of major decisions the computing community should be informed and consulted effectively. To this end we make the following recommendations.(a) We endorse the assignment of an administrator (currently William Cannon, Vice-President for18Programs and Projects) to an active concern withcomputation on campus.(b) There should be a Director of the Computation Center to guide the day-to-day operationsnd the implementation of policy. The Directorshould be responsible to the administrative officerreferred to in part (a). We recommend (as isnresently the case) that the Director be a full-time professional..(c) There should be a computer policy committee and an executive subcommittee. The administrative officer and the Director should be members,but neither should be the chairman. Preferably eachdivision, school, or other relevant unit (e.g., thelibrary, the comptroller) substantially concernedwith computing should be represented on the wholecommittee. For the four units that currently dothe bulk of computing (physical sciences, biologicalsciences, social sciences, Graduate School of Business) we suggest that one faculty member bedesignated as the chief representative on the computer policy committee; faculty and staff in hisarea could then channel their suggestions throughhim. (Remark: Some years ago the ComputerPolicy Committee did have such divisional representatives.)3. Policy, planning, and review. Policy shouldbe formulated so as to preserve the areas inwhich the Computation Center has been particularlysuccessful and improve other areas. The Centerhas had and does have a good staff and a goodbatch operating system. It has not had goodplanning and budgeting procedures, there has typically been unused computer time (reflecting eitherpoor allocation procedures or excess capacity),there has been no real progress in time-sharing, theplotting facilities have not worked well in spite ofextensive expenditures, and there has been little effort to coordinate the investigation and use of external computing services.We suggest that the computer policy committeeand its executive committee organize with the Director and staff of the Computation Center (perhaps through the use of a subcommittee structure)to provide policy, short-range planning, and long-range planning in the following areas.(a) Budget. Projections of costs, revenues, andtypes of use should be prepared and reviewed on aregular basis. Past operations should be analyzedregularly. Recommendations should indicate theMarginal services which might be deleted or added.business operations would be part of this area aswould recommendations for rate and prioritydecisions. (b) Computation Center operation. This areaincludes the physical arrangement and operation ofthe central facility and various remote access facilities which may be installed this year. The issue ofspace falls in this area.(c) Computation Center facilities. This area includes hardware, systems programming, and external commercial services. Recommendations for thesize of the central facility would come under thisheading.(d) Computation Center programming and analysis services. This area includes services providedfor the library and the comptroller, custom andapplications programming, as well as future services for other research and administrative groups.It is important to decide which part of analysisand programming should be done at the Computation Center and which by the educational, research,or administrative bodies. Here it will help to haveexamples of successful operations.Responsibility for each of these areas ultimatelylies with the administration, the chairman of thecomputer policy committee, and the Director ofthe Computation Center. The study committeerecommends that short-range reports with a one-year horizon and long-range reports with a five-year horizon be prepared by the Director and hisstaff, reviewed in detail by subcommittees of thepolicy or executive committees (joined by otherexperts as each group decides) and presented tothe full policy committee at regular (say yearly)intervals. One of the four areas might be reportedon each quarter in combination with a general reportby the Director on the state of the Center. Thesereports, when approved, should be made widelyavailable.4. Meeting computing needs. Our campus-widesurvey indicated that there are two different computing needs which are not adequately satisfied bythe Computation Center at present. These are:(a) remote batch and time-sharing access to thecentral computer and (b) truly large-scale computations requiring a large and fast "super" computer.For (a) we recommend an immediate technicalstudy of the cost and feasibility of establishing remote batch and time-sharing services by the Computation Center. The technical details of such astudy (i.e., the costs, types of devices, and theirlocations) should be distributed widely to the University community. The study should also includean investigation of possible grant support for suchfacilities; the Director of the Center and/or chairman of the computer policy committee should takethe initiative in preparing suitable proposals.19For (b), a financial and technical study is required to ascertain how users with large-scale computations can be served. At present, some of theseusers have made private arrangements to use large,fast computers off campus; this represents an inconvenience to them and a significant drain onfinances. One possibility, which appears financiallyattractive, is a data link to an off-campus "super"computer via a console in and supported by ourComputation Center. The feasibility of such an arrangement should be explored immediately. Analternative, more attractive from the users' pointof view, would be the rental or acquisition of sucha "super" computer by our own Computation Center. However, this appears (at least to us) to betoo expensive, unless a true bargain could bestruck or sufficient financial support obtained forpaid use of the "super" computer at close to capacity. These points need detailed financial exploration.We mention finally that it is desirable to bealert to developments which in time may changethe pattern of computer use. The falling cost ofsmall computers is one such possibility.5. We recommend a periodic reconsideration ofthe rate structure for computer time, in accord withfederal auditing policies, so that the computingcapacity of the Computation Center can be usedmore fully. Possibilities for the immediate futureare significant volume discounts, significant lowpriority discounts, or a combination of both.6. We endorse the recent steps taken to distribute through proper channels the deficit, which wasup to now picked up by the University at the endof each fiscal year. We suggest the following priorities for the use of these funds :(a) classroom computer use by students (thisis the only category envisaged in the steps takenthus far) ;(b) computer use by students for thesis researchor special projects;(c) administrative computer use; and(d) computer use for faculty research (e.g., newfaculty members until they get grant support, newprojects not yet funded).Several alternatives ordered by priority appearto be appropriate, since the survey showed that nogroup, except perhaps (d), could consume all thedeficit.7. The Center should aggressively advertise forbusiness via publicity and suitable courses. BackgroundWays of providing large-scale computation facili,.ties on the Chicago campus were first studied during1956. Warren Johnson, then Dean of the Divisionof Physical Sciences, appointed a committee chairedby Joseph Mayer. Among other things, the commit-tee examined the possibility of acquiring one ofthe computers commercially available at that timethe IBM 704 being typical. (For many interestingdetails on the history of computers in general, seethe article "Electronic Computers: A Historic Survey" by Saul Rosen, in the March 1969 ComputingSurveys.)The step that was finally taken was to inviteNicholas Metropolis to build an individually designed computer to be called Maniac III. (Maniacstands for "mechanical analyzer, numerical integrator, and calculator." There had been a Maniac Iat the Institute for Advanced Study in Princetonand a Maniac II at Los Alamos.) Mr. Metropoliswas appointed Professor in the Physics Departmentand Director of the newly created Institute forComputer Research (ICR). Maniac III was housedon the ground floor of the computer building,erected as a wing of the Research Institutes. Thebulk of the funds for the construction of Maniac IIIcame from the Atomic Energy Commission.The directorship of ICR subsequently passed toRichard H. Miller and then to Victor Yngve. Increasing scholarly work in the general area of computer science led to the formation of the Committeeon Information Sciences under the chairmanship ofMr. Miller and subsequently Mr. Yngve. On October 1, 1969 Robert Ashenhurst succeeded Mr.Yngve as Director of ICR and Chairman of theCommittee on Information Sciences.Maniac III continues to be used by the studentsand faculty of ICR and the Committee on Information Sciences as an integral part of their researchand education programs.In 1958 the Sperry Rand Corporation presentedthe University with a Univac I computer. It wasinstalled in the Operations Analysis Laboratory,under the direction of Alex Orden. In the four yearsfrom 1958 to 1962, the Univac in effect functionedas the University's computation center.By the fall of 1961, with Maniac III still notcompleted, advances in computer technology madeit timely to reconsider the situation. WilliamZachariasen, then Dean of the Division of PhysicalSciences, took a survey to determine what supportfaculty members would be able to bring to helpfinance a large computer. The survey indicated that20a computation center that was self-supporting (or atany rate nearly so) appeared to be feasible. As1962 got under way, an administrative mechanismwas set up and a Computation Center was created.The Director was Clemens Roothaan (now theLouis Block Professor of Chemistry and Physics).He had a vigorous interest in the problems of computation, in part because he needed large-scalecomputation in his own research and in part outof an altruistic concern for the general question of. jmputing needs on campus. In addition, a Computer Policy Committee was formed, chaired byA. Adrian Albert (who became Dean of the Divisionof Physical Sciences on January 1, 1962). DeanAlbert was succeeded by Sidney Davidson in 1965and resumed the chairmanship of the ComputerPolicy Committee on October 1, 1968.The decision reached in 1962 was to rent an IBM7090. At the time, the IBM 7090 and the CDC(Control Data Corporation) 1604 were the twocomputers commercially available that were suitablefor a large computation center. The machine wasinstalled in the basement of the computer buildingand went into operation on October 1, 1962. AnIBM 1401 was attached to the 7090, acting as asatellite computer to "drive" the 7090. Since thenthe Center has expanded to fill the basement andhas overflowed to other buildings.The National Science Foundation had a programof grants to support the establishment of computation centers. A proposal was prepared by DeanAlbert, aided by Mr. Ashenhurst, and a grant of$500,000 for three years was obtained. Anothergrant received at about the same time is worthmentioning, although its effect on the developmentof computers on campus was peripheral — an IBMfive-year $500,000 grant for the support of appliedmathematics. This grant has resulted in the development of a significant program in appliedmathematics, including numerical analysis.After about two years the 7090 was upgradedto a 7094 and the 1401 to a 7040. A favorableoffer from IBM led to the purchase of the mainframe of the 7094 (tapes and peripheral equipmentcontinue to be rented) ; the offer was contingenton the rental or purchase of some (not necessarilyIBM) third generation equipment.Three substantial IBM grants and contractswere made to the Computation Center. Theycarried the titles Mathematical Routines, AdvancedComputing Systems, and Man-Machine. The lastwas especially important in that it supported thedevelopment of the CHAOS (CHicago Asynchronous Operating System) for the 7090/7094. A National Institutes of Health (NIH) grantmade to the Biological Sciences resulted in theestablishment of a Biological Sciences ComputationCenter, with an IBM 1401 used mainly as an inputmachine to the 7090 and later to the 7094.Anticipation of increased needs and new typesof needs led to a thorough study of what should bethe next acquisition. The verdict (an interim decision pending a step toward major third generationequipment) was in favor of an IBM 360/50. (The360 line is IBM's version of the third generation ofcomputers. Available are computers ranging all theway up to the very large 360/91. It is relativelyeasy to upgrade from one computer in the 360 lineto a higher one. There had been on campus a360/30, subsequently upgraded to a 360/40. It wasfunded jointly by the library, the Institute forComputer Research, and the Laboratory of Molecular Structure and Spectra.) The 360/50 was installed during the summer of 1968.Installation of a 360/65 is expected in December1969 or Januray 1970. It will replace both the360/50 and the 7040. As this is being written,extensive reprogramming of the system is underway in order to accomplish the changeover. Installation of the 360/65 is expected to be followed byconsolidation which will result in hardware costsnot rising significantly.From the beginning it was hoped that incomefrom outside sources (largely federal researchgrants) would make the Center self-supporting. Attimes the goal seemed nearly within reach. However, in 1968-69 a combination of various factors(discussed in the next section) raised the deficitsharply.In early 1968 sharp differences of opinionshowed up in the University's computing community. Various factors contributed to this. The leveling off of federal funds was beginning to be felt,and termination of an IBM grant supporting systems programming led to a debate over the role ofthis kind of work in the Center. The occasion triggered a decision to have a full-scale policy study.The present Computer Policy Study Committeewas appointed by President Beadle in May 1968.(It is not a subcommittee of the Computer PolicyCommittee, although the two bodies overlap.) Apreliminary statement was issued on May 29,1968; it is incorporated in the interim report. Aftera series of weekly meetings, an interim report wasissued in August 1968. It first received a limitedcirculation. After slight editing, the interim reportappeared in the University Record of October 22,1968.21The Computer Policy Study Committee devotedthe fall of 1968 to the preparation and testing ofa questionnaire. The questionnaire was sent out tothe entire faculty in early February 1969. The finalsteps were taken during the sit-in. (There was anunusual episode when it was necessary to enter theAdministration Building to rescue a document;the Chairman of the Committee ventured to dothis, with a student escort.) The spring and summer of 1969 were spent analyzing the questionnaire(with the aid of NORC) and conducting interviews.The present and final report was prepared in thefall of 1969.During the discussions of early 1968, Mr.Roothaan indicated that he wished to have hisname withdrawn from consideration for continuation as Director of the Computation Center. Adirectorship search committee was formed, chairedfirst by Mark Inghram and then by Jim Douglas.Mr. Douglas agreed to serve as Acting Directorduring the academic year 1968-69. On September1, 1969 the Center acquired a new full-time Director, Fred Harris, who had most recently beenAssistant Director of the Computation Center atRice University.Finances of the UniversityComputation CenterPast HistoryThe Computation Center began operations inOctober 1962. For the first full year (1963-64)the budget of the Center was $1,013,000. Thisfigure has grown in subsequent years (see Table 1)so that the budget was $1,397,000 in 1967-68 andreached $1,559,000 in 1968-69.The income to the Center has come from manysources, the most important being direct chargesfor computing services. These charges grew moreor less consistently until 1968-69 when they leveledoff. In Table 2 there is a breakdown of these directcharges for the years 1963-64, 1967-68, and 1968-69. (Note: The minor discrepancies between Tables1 and 2 are due to small changes in accountingprocedures.) This breakdown indicates a changingpattern of computer usage. When the Center started, it was largely used by the natural sciences,particularly by the Division of Physical Sciences.The subsequent increase in income from nongovernmental and University funds reflects the increased use made by the other academic units inboth their research and educational programs.A most important point is that income fromdirect charges, though large, has never been suf ficient to meet expenses. The discrepancy betweendirect charges and income ranged from $224,000in 1967-68 to $394,000 in 1964-65. Particularlydisturbing was the discrepancy of $495,000 in1968-69. The income to the Center has been sup.plemented from three sources, the first two beingthe grants and contracts mentioned in the previoussection. In 1962 the National Science Foundationmade a grant of $500,000 to help establish theCenter. The tenure of the grant was three yearsending in March 1965. Starting in 1964, the Centerhas had three grants and contracts with IBMwhich have helped to support the programmingstaff. The total income from these contractsreached $251,000 in 1965-66 and has been declining ever since, amounting to only $23,500 in1968-69. The last source of income has been thedeficit picked up by the University at the end ofeach fiscal year (see Table 1).University support of the Center comes fromtwo sources. First there is the aforementioneddeficit. The other involves direct charges to University budgets. A precise breakdown of thesecharges is hard to obtain. Estimates for 1968-69indicate that 45 percent of these charges werefor classroom use and 7.5 percent for administrative data processing. The remaining portion (47,5percent) is difficult to specify but may include un-sponsored research both by graduate students andby faculty.Table 3 indicates that the total University contribution amounted to 3.2 percent in 1963—64,rose to 24 percent in 1967-68, and to 45 percent in1968-69. The latter percentage is not out of linewith the experience of other universities. In thepast year there was a deficit of $471,000. This largedrain on University finances has led, and properlyso, to a reexamination of the future course ofthe Center. In such a reexamination it is necessaryto decide if such a deficit reflects a set of circumstances peculiar to 1968-69 or is, rather, a state ofaffairs which may be expected to recur. We have,for that reason, done a detailed analysis of thebudget for that year and have attempted to identify the reasons for the deficit.There was in 1968-69, as compared to 1967-68,both an increase in expenses and a decrease inincome (see Table 4). The increase in expenses iseasily interpreted. Three things contributed to it.There was an increase in operations salaries andin equipment costs, which may be attributed tothe installation of the IBM 360/50. In additionthere was an increase in programming salaries,most readily explained by a decrease of $60,00022• ncome from IBM contracts. The latter, as hasen mentioned above, have been used largelyto support the programming staff.The decrease in income (see Table 5) is mored'fficult t0 interpret. There was a decrease of$195,000 in income generated by the IBM 7094/704o' system— representing a decrease in usage of494 hours— and this was only partially compen-ated by new income from the 360/50. Severalfactors may have contributed to the fact thatincome did not keep pace with expenses. First,there was a tightening of support from federalagencies, s0 that income from government accountsremained more or less constant. Second, there waslarge decrease in nongovernmental restricted accounts. A preliminary investigation failed toidentify the reason for this decrease. Third, somelarge users — as we learned from our questionnaireand interviews — have found the Center's facilitiesinadequate for their current needs and have takentheir work elsewhere. Fourth, there was a decreasein 7094 rates of some $60 per hour. On simplearithmetic grounds one might be tempted to attribute a large fraction of the loss of income to therate decrease. Such reasoning obviously assumesthat there is a fixed demand for computing time.While this may be true for many users, it is clearlynot the case for others. Moreover, there was noimmediate drop in income when the rates werelowered in previous years. It may be suggested,TABLE 1Computation Center Budget: Sources of Income, by YearSources of Income 1962-63 1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69Direct charges $414,157 $ 786,422 $ 796,181 $ 963,631 $1,049,951 $1,172,301 $1,063,166Contracts and grants toCenter 150,000 200,000 200,000 251,300 143,800 83,700 23,564Deficit 71,200 26,340 194,467 105,804 86,493 140,796 471,886Total $635,357 $1,012,762 $1,190,648 $1,320,735 $1,280,244 $1,396,797 $1,558,616TABLE 2Sources of Direct Charges, by YearSources of Direct Charges 1963-64Restricted accounts (government) $732,316 (92.0%)Restricted accounts (nongovernmental) 22 , 889 (2 . 9%)University budget 6,300 (0.8%)Intra-Center transfers Outside academic 34,048 (4.3%)Outside commercial ... *Total $795,593 (100%) 1967-68 1968-69580,224(50.0%)207,724(17.9%)194,128(16.8%)46,615 (4.0%)91,510 (7.9%)41,429 (3.6%) $ 567,441(53.7%)128,923(12.2%)229,545(21.7%)23,036 (2.2%)65,810 (6.2%)42,100 (4.0%)$1,161,630 (100%) $1,056,855 (100%)* Not available, but modest.TABLE 3University Support of Computation Center, by Year*Support 1963-64 1967-68 1968-69Direct charges to University budget . . .Deficit...... $ 6,30026,340$32,640(3.2%) $194,128140,796$334,924(24.0%) $229,545471,886Total $701,431(45.0%)* Percentages refer to total Center budget (see Table 1).23TABLE 4Budget for 1967-68 and 1968-69Budget 1967-68Administration. $ 83,857Operations. . . 222 ,016Programming (excluding custom programming) 108,693Custom programming 134, 777Keypunching 27,980Subtotal 577,323Expenses:Equipment , 492,030Supplies 226,483Travel 8,709Communications , 8 , 551Subtotal 735,773Total expenses $1,313,096Income:7094/7040 $ 802,262360/50 Peripherals, etc.. 177,013Applications support. . . . 30,540Custom programming 131 , 843Keypunching 30 , 643Total income. $1,172,301Deficit . $ 140,795 1968-69 Difference$ 80,184317,007175,509115,83426,558 $- 3,673+ 94,991+ 66,816- 18,943- 1,422715,092 +137,769588,671212,0029,03210,254 + 96,641- 14,481+ 323+ 1,703819,959 '+ 84,186$1,535,051 $+221,955$ 504,020130,843280,47817,90797,90132,017 $-298,242*+ 130,843+ 103,465- 12,633- 33,942+ 1,374$1,063,166 $-109,135$ 471,885 $-331,090*Part of difference is based on new accounting scheme; true difference is approximately $195,000. Compare withTable 5.TABLE 5Sources of Income (Account Group Name), by YearDifferenceSources 1967-68 1968-69Restricted accounts (government) $ 580,000Restricted accounts (nongovernment) . 208,000University budgets 194,000Computation Center transfers 47,000Outside commercial. 92 ,000Outside academic. 41 ,000$1,162,000Computer income figures:7094/7040 $ 979,200360/50. $ 979,2007094/7040 usage figures, in hours:Physical sciences 1 , 529Other 2,074Total 3,603 3,109$ 567,000129,000230,00023,00065,00042,000 $- 13,000- 79,000+ 36,000- 24,000- 27,000+ 1,000$1,056,000 $-106,000$ 784,500130,800 $-195,700+130,800$ 915,300 $- 64,9001,2951,814then, that had the rates not been lowered, incomemight have been higher. But this would have beenoffset to an extent difficult to gauge by a furtherreduction in usage.Future ProjectionsMany of the factors which contributed to last year's deficit will continue to be felt. For one thing,it is reasonable to suppose that federal support ofresearch will, at best, remain constant over the nextseveral years. Given the increasing costs of doingresearch — including increases in equipment, supplies, and personnel costs — there may be less federal money available for computer time. If large24users increase their use of non-University computation facilities, this will also serve to decreaseincome.It seems clear that the Computation Center, ifjt is to thrive, must develop and attract newsources of income. The consolidation of administrative data processing within the Center is a stepin this direction. Once the consolidation is accomplished, the University should save on the order of$100,000 per year. With the acquisition of theIBM 360/65, the Center should -be in a positionto provide new kinds of services, such as remote-batch processing and time-sharing, and these mayencourage increased computer usage. In addition,the Center is exploring the possibility of submittinga grant proposal to the National Science Foundation (NSF) similar in nature to the one whichfacilitated the Center's getting started. Such agrant, were it to be approved and funded, woulddo much to alleviate the current financial difficulties.There is a further need to keep expenditureswithin reasonable limits. One possible source ofsavings would be to get rid of the 7094; althoughthe machine is owned by the University, operationsand maintenance costs are not negligible. Therewas a pronounced decrease in the use of the 7094in 1968-69, most of which occurred after theinstallation of the 360/50. This trend should beaccentuated as service on the 360/65 improves andit becomes capable of taking over many of the7094 's functions as well as providing some ofthe services mentioned above. At a certain pointthe utilization of the 7094 will probably fall toa level where its retention will no longer be justified.Even under the best of circumstances, however,it is unlikely that the Center can operate withouta University subsidy. Here some perspective ishelpful. The large size of the deficit in 1968-69has been considered an almost unique occurrencein the Center's history. This is not really correct ifone remembers that, over the seven years of theCenter's operations, income from direct charges hasnever matched expenses and that the discrepancybetween the two approached $400,000 in at leasttwo previous years (1964-65 and 1965-66). Whathelped to decrease the deficit on those occasionswas the existence of an NSF grant in 1964-65 andlarge IBM contracts in 1965-66. What is suggested—both by past history and by current economicpressures — is the continued need for a Universitysubsidy of something like $500,000.One further point can be made. In the past, the University subsidy has been treated as a deficitto be made up at the end of each fiscal year. Thisapproach is wasteful in that it does not resultin a greater use of available facilities. A sensiblealternative would be to estimate the amount ofthe deficit at the beginning of the year and todisburse the funds to the various academic andadminstrative units sq that computer time can bepurchased. The aim of the disbursement should beto maximize computer use without compromisingtraditional sources of extramural support. A possible benefit of such a policy would be that byencouraging a wider use of computers, additionalsources of income would eventually be developed.Summary of the Analysis of the QuestionnairesOf about 1,200 questionnaires sent out to thefaculty, 504 were completed and returned; a detailed analysis, prepared with the help of NORC,is given in Appendix I.About 200 faculty members of this Universitymake use of computers. Most of these are inone of the following four: biological sciences (60),physical sciences (42), social sciences (33), andGraduate School of Business (26). Only a fewof the members of other divisions or schoolsmake use of computers. It can be anticipated thatthe number of computer users will grow by 10 to20 percent within the next year.Most of the computer time used in 1968 bythe respondents to the questionnaire was on theIBM 7094 of the University's Computation Center(2,316 hours). The physical sciences account fortwo-fifths of this computer time, with the biological sciences, the social sciences, and the GraduateSchool of Business accounting for one-fifth each.The computer time used by all the other divisionsis slight. In the biological sciences a significantamount of computer time was used on their PDP/8.A large amount of computer time (1,000 hours)was used by the faculty of the physical scienceson computers not on this campus. This is aboutequal to the on-campus computer usage by thephysical sciences faculty. In view of the underusedcapacity of the computers of the ComputationCenter, it appears desirable to attract these off-campus computer users back into the ComputationCenter. The Maniac III in the Institute for Computer Research appears to be used very little by therespondents to the questionnaire.A large number of computer users (160) usinglittle computer time each (less than 25 hours ayear) account for about one-quarter of the total25computer time used, while a small number ofcomputer users (40) using more than 25 hours ayear account for about three-quarters of the totalcomputer time used. In particular, the small groupof heavy computer users, mainly in the physicalsciences, would use significantly more computertime if their computation budgets were higher.The computation budgets in this group, more sothan in the other, are derived predominantly fromresearch funds, while in the larger group of lightcomputer users a significant part of the computertime is paid for out of general University funds.In the projections of computer time usage forthe next few years no changes in this type of picture can be observed; only an overall increase of 10 to 15 percent in the total computer time usagecan be noted.Overall, it appears that the users of the University Computation Center are quite satisfied withthe facilities and services available, except thatthe working room available in the ComputationCenter was judged by most to be inadequate. Thecustom programming service and the plotting fa.cilities appear to be used by only a few users.A large number of the respondents to the questionnaire either require or desire remote accessconsoles to the main computer for various tasksranging from sophisticated direct experiment monitoring and control to simple entering and retrievalof data.APPENDIX IAnalysis of the Computer Policy StudyCommittee QuestionnaireOf about 1,200 questionnaires sent out to thefaculty of The University of Chicago, 504 werecompleted and returned. The analysis of these 504 questionnaires is presented here, with the questionsin the order in which they appeared in the question-1. Have you used any computer time in the pastfew years?(by division or school) If (1) is no:la. Do you anticipate using any computer timein the next few years?(by division or school)Division or School Total Yes NoLibrary and Library School 4 2 2Biological Sciences 166 60 106Humanities . . 89 4 85Physical Sciences 80 42 38Social Sciences 73 33 40Graduate School of Business 30 26 4Divinity School 10 0 10Graduate School of Education .... 8 5 3Law School.. 12 1 11Pritzker School of Medicine 2 1 1School of Social Service Administration 13 4 9Others and no information 17 1 16Total f... 504 179 325 Division or School Yes Maybe NoLibrary and Library School 0Biological Sciences 14Humanities 3Physical Sciences 5Social Sciences 8Graduate School of Business 1Divinity School 0Graduate School of Education 0Law School 0Pritzker School of Medicine 0School of Social Service Administration 2Others and no information 2Total 35 76 2140 234 5813 6910 - 2311 210 30 102 11 100 12 53 1126H (la) is no or maybe:iv, Would you be interested in exploring with amember of the Computation Center staff possiblecomputer use in your area of interest?(by division or school)Division or School Yes Maybe NoLibrary and Library School 0 0 2Biological Sciences 17 30 38Humanities 14 17 45physical Sciences 2 2 26Social Sciences 5 5 18Graduate School of Business 0 0 2Divinity School 1 3 5Graduate School of Education 0 2 1Law School 0 1 9Pritzker School of Medicine 0 0 1School of Social Service Administration • • • 0 1 5Others and no information 3 2 6Total 42 63 158 If (la) is no or maybe:lc. Do you use an electronic desk calculator orother desk calculator regularly for your research?(by division or school)Yes,Division or School Elec- Yes, Notronic OtherLibrary and Library School 0 0 2Biological Sciences 24 19 43Humanities 1 2 73Physical Sciences 2 3 24Social Sciences 2 6 20Graduate School of Business 1 0 1Divinity School 0 0 9Graduate School of Education 1 0 2Law School 0 0 10Pritzker School of Medicine 0 0 1School of Social Service Administration 0 0 6Others and no information 1 2 8Total 32 32 1992. How much computer time did you use duringthe past academic year?(by division or school and machine type in hours)Division or School 7094/40 1401Library and Library School — 3Biological Sciences 460Humanities 9Physical Sciences 922Social Sciences 456Graduate School of Business . . 422Divinity School Graduate School of Education . 22Law School 12Pritzker School of Medicine ... 6 ...School of Social Service Administration 3Others and no information — 1Total 2,316 488 360/50 PDP/8 SDS 930 360 CDC Other321*425120 5515109182 1,484 621 4001,484 27 400 101605112"i720(by number of hours of computer use[any one machine])Number ofHours Users0 to less than 1 351-5 646-10 1911-25 3126-50 1851-100 9101 and over. 15273. Would you have used more time if your computer budget had been higher?No Yes126 40 Question 3 analyzed by response on Question 7Mean additional time (in hours) required againstthe amount of time (in hours) used on 7094/40 or360/50.(by division or school and machine type in hoursof extra time required)Division or School 7094/40 1401 360/50 CDCLibrary and LibrarySchool Biological Sciences . .Humanities 974 160 184Physical Sciences Social Sciences. ..... 1,01077 2 30Graduate School ofBusiness 55 10Divinity School Graduate School ofEducation 11Law School Pritzker School ofMedicine School of Social Service Administration Other and no information Total 1,254 160 196 30 Hours 7094/40<t>t 360/50-<t>t0-1....... 31 8.1 62-10.. 62 5.2 311-100 38 8.3 2101 and over 4 187.5 1 243.0092.0.0* Number of 7094/40 or 360/50 users for the given amount oftime per annum.t Mean of additional computer time required by those users.(by additional computer time required)Number ofHours Users0-5 146-10 811-100 14101 and over 44. Indicate below what percentage of computertime equivalent you used was at each of thesefacilities.Percent 7094/40360/50 Other CampusComputer Off -campusComputer0-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 1297106 1012319 52113Entered are the number of replies in a givencategory.(percentage means by division or school)Division or School 7094/40360/50Library and Library School 100Biological Sciences 53 .2Humanities 100Physical Sciences 75 . 4Social Sciences 85 . 1Graduate School of Business 87 . 5Divinity School Graduate School of Education 77.6Law School 100Pritzker School of Medicine 100School of Social Service Administration . 90 . 4Others and no information 100 OtherCampus Off-campus Number ofComputer Computer Replies240.7 6.1 5035.3 19.3 418.1 6.8 303.5 9 232*2.4 *3119.6 41285. Approximately what percentage of computerexpenditure you used was paid for by each of thefollowing sources of funds?GeneralPercent Research University OtherFunds Funds0-25 6 17 6~26-50 4 3 251-75 4 1 276-100 127 17 13Entries are number of replies in eachcategory. Hours (Mean percentages for source of funds by timeused on 7094/40 and 360/50 [from Question 2])ResearchFunds7094/40 360/50 GeneralUniversityFunds7094/40 360/50 Other7094/40 360/500-1.. 75 78 12 12 12 92-10 79 70 13 30 3 011-100 81 ... 10 ... 9 50101 and over. 96 85 2 10 15(mean percentages by division or school)Division or School GeneralResearch Univer NumberFunds sity Other of ReFunds plies50 50 281.2 11.2 7.5 5324 76 484.6 0.6 14.8 4387.3 10.8 1.9 3164 27.2 8.8 2467.6 32.4 4100 1100 166.7 33. *3 325.4 74.6 1Library and Library School Biological Sciences . Humanities Physical Sciences . . Social Sciences .. Graduate School of Business . Divinity School. Graduate School of Education Law School Pritzker School of Medicine School of Social Service Administration.Others and no information 6a. If you use the 7094, of the computer time usedapproximately what percentage wras for short,medium, and long jobs? (mean percentages by division or school)Under More thanPercent 3 3-30 30Minutes Minutes Minutes0-25... .... 21 31 1326-50.. .... 32 28 751-75.. .... 11 20 376-100. .... 79 7 4Entries are numbers of replies in each category. More than NumberDivision or School Under 3 3-30 30 of ReMinutes Minutes Minutes pliesLibrary and Library School . . . 100 1Biological Sciences 80.8 18.3 0.9 38Humanities 70.4 27.3 2.3 4Physical Sciences . 63 24.7 12.3 36Social Sciences . . . 61.1 32.5 6.4 30Graduate Schoolof Business. ... 59.5 32.1 8.4 24Divinity School. .Graduate Schoolof Education . . 97.6 1.2 1.2 4Law School 95.2 4.8 1Pritzker School ofMedicine ...... 5 25 70 1School of SocialService Administration ...... 100 4Others and no information 100 1296b. If you used another computer, what was theaverage length of time for one of your computerjobs?Minutes Number ofRepliesUnder 3 3-30 . .. 1532More than 30 . . . ... 187. Please record by circling appropriate codeswhether or not you use the facilities and services of the Computation Center listed below and whatyour opinion is.NoFacilities and Services Adequate Inadequate OpinionCentral computer speed 99 13 21Central computer memory 84 25 23Auxiliary storage (tape, disk) 62 15 34Card drawer space 46 12 45Working room 36 54 27Plotting facilities 30 16 51Turnaround time 92 18 21Documentation describing the use of the Center 70 27 27Custom program service 21 15 68Keypunching service 54 8 53Program debugging assistance 39 24 48Program library :Documentation 57 16 50Availability 57 11 49Keypunch machines 73 34 22Reproducers, sorter, etc 61 34 29 Do you use?Yes No45 4829 6256 3419 7012 7633 5030 5556 2055 227a. Comments to (7):User room too small 17User room too noisy. \ . . 3Inadequate tab equipment 4Not enough keypunchers 11Need help in use of Computation Center 5Need better debugging help 9Improve program library 8More auxiliary storage 11Various complaints 538. For your purposes, what additional equipmentis needed?Larger, faster computer 7Time-share consoles/service 10Small, general utility computer 9More keypunches 7Better plotter 6More work room 9Better debugging aid 5Various others 449. For your purposes, what equipment could beomitted?Nothing 26360/50 3Plotter 2Various others 163010. Please comment on the charging system used,the priority and reserve time policy, or anythingelse not covered by previous questions.Computer charges too high 10Computer charges okay 20Reserve time complaints 5Restricted access to output .... 4Request volume discount 2Various others 18 11. Compare The University of Chicago Computation Center to any other computer facility youknow.Forty-three different institutions were mentioned in thiscomparison. Twenty-five found hardware and servicesat The University of Chicago better and 17 found themworse; 9 found our hardware better but the serviceworse ; and 4 found our hardware worse but the servicebetter.12. Please make a projection of the amount ofcomputer time you expect to use in an average yearfor the next few years. (151 replies)(hours by division or school and machine)Division or School 7094/40Library and Library School 10Biological Sciences 313Humanities Physical Sciences 1 , 163Social Sciences 408Graduate School of Business 297Divinity School Graduate School of Education .... 30Law School 20Pritzker School of Medicine 10School of Social Service Administration 15Other and no information 11Total. 2,277 1401 360/50 PDP/8 360 CDC Other1654169 200*25444287 600 208"58192 > 1,000 636219943814600 287 > 1,000 1,27913. In this projection, would you use more timeif you had a higher computer budget?Yes.No.. 39112(hours by division or school and machine)Division or School 7094/40Biological Sciences 132Physical Sciences 1 , 129Social Sciences 48Graduate School of Business 60Other Total 1,369 360/50 SDS 930 360 Other20 56030400 5 203 99858 400 8 6791601603114. Will the time referred to in Question 12 beused primarily for computing or data handling?Primarily computing 122Primarily data handling 28Both, about equally. . 41Other 8Not certain.. 1115. Will you require or desire remote accessconsoles in your work?Require 22Desire 67Neither 62Don't know 68If (15) is require or desire:15a. What type of remote console would you use?Console for entry and retrieval of informationby computer '. 52Console for direct experiment monitoring without immediate feedback by the computer ... 9Console for direct experiment control with immediate data reduction and feedback by thecomputer . 32Console for entering batch programs 48Console for real-time programming interactionwith the computer for debugging or editingprograms 46Console to be used as sophisticated desk computer 44Other '.. 816. Will you need Computation Center personnelas advisers in large teaching or research projectsmaking use of the computer (e.g., setting up oflarge programs, data file and retrieval systems,or on-line experiment control) ?Yes.... 38No 110Don't know .... 65The Committee's interim report identified twelvemajor users of computing on campus. During Apriland May 1969, Messrs. Graves and Kaplansky conducted a series of interviews. These are assembledin this appendix; they are recorded informally intwo different styles. Some suggestions made in theinterviews have since been acted on; and someblunt criticisms, perhaps justified at the time, havesince been acted on and the conditions alleviated.The interviews assembled are those conductedwith ten of the twelve major users. For the Gradu- 1.7. Do you have, programs available to you of sufficiently broad utility that they might usefully beimplemented and maintained at the central facility?Yes 38No 136Don't know. ... 4418. Will you require or desire direct data linksbetween the Computation Center and other computer centers off campus?Require 4Desire 19Neither 115Don't know 8019. Do you feel that instruction in the use of theComputation Center is desirable?Yes 185No 26Kind of Instruction :Basic programming 44Algol ,. 2Use of program library 15Use of University of Chicago Computation Center 4Systems programming 8Other 8220. Please describe any ways not covered by thisquestionnaire in which you think the ComputationCenter might be of help to you.Give a simple primer for users. . 3General access (free of charge) to students 4Instructions in sophisticated computer use. ... 5Make consultants available 3Instructions for program library 4On-line equipment 2Other 39ate School of Education, a statement describing thecomputing operations and needs was furnished byDarrell Bock, a Committee member; this appearsas the final "interview." In the case of the Comptroller, there were in fact two interviews. However,because of rapidly changing circumstances, wethought it would not be useful to include a summary of either interview. We are grateful to Ric-cardo Levi Setti for providing a supplement to theinterview with Norman Gelfand; this supplementgives a more complete, updated account of theAPPENDIX IIInterviews with Major Users32needs of High Energy Physics. Thanks are also dueto Herman Fussier and John Simpson for editingand updating their interviews.Laboratory for Astrophysics and SpaceResearch (LASR)(Gordon Lentz, Peter Meyer, John Simpson)April 11, 1969Faculty and professional staff. — There are approximately fifteen doctoral students and ten tofifteen graduate students and undergraduates whomake extensive use of the facilities. In the futureit is hoped that theoretical astrophysicists in thefield of nucleosynthesis would use a central computer facility with very large memory. In addition,there are usually about five research associates whoactively use computational facilities.Technical staff. — Seven people work full time asprogrammer analysts in production work.Equipment. — -LASR rents an SDS 930 plus associated equipment which includes printer, disk,tapes, and Calcomp plotter. The original installation was made in 1964. The facility runs about3,000 hours a year. Operating costs including supplies are about $123,000 a year.Computing budget. — In the year 1970, due tosevere funding constraints, the projection is about$30,000.Kinds of jobs. — There are two main job typesat present. The first is processing and cleaning upraw data tapes containing data from various satellites. Most of this work is now done in machinecode on the SDS 930. Only the full-time analystswork on this kind of job. The tape library containsabout ten thousand tapes at present. The numberof bits of raw information is likely to increasedrastically. The second kind of program analyzesthe data. Much of this work is done by doctoralstudents using Fortran on the 7094 or 360/50.Both job types are largely I/O and memorylimited ; the pure computing load is not large.Comments on the Computation Center.— -Thereis strong support for professional management ofthe Computation Center and use of rental programmers from the outside to support ComputationCenter activities.Future needs and suggestions. — It would bedesirable to phase out the SDS 930 by 1971 anddo all such work at the Computation Center. Fourtapes and a reader/printer would have to be atLASR. There now seems little prospect of this.Data rates of 50 K.C. (50,000 bytes per second)would be required. It would be very desirable to have on-line access to large blocks of data whichcould be manipulated and displayed by a CRT(cathode ray tube) with light pen. It would alsobe desirable to have a real-time facility for datareduction and on-line control. The required datarates would be 2 to 5 K.C. There would be noobjection to such facilities being located off campusprovided LASR could get high priority. It wasremarked that the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration (NASA) may set up regional computer centers to provide service to various projects.It was suggested that the Committee might consultwith Mr. Goddard or other large government usersto get useful opinions on current hardware andsoftware. In general, the laboratory looks towardhaving a high-speed terminal feeding to the Computation Center and through the ComputationCenter to a super computer facility somewhere inthe Midwest.National Opinion Research Center (NORC)(Norman Bradburn, Norman Nie, Ed Noll, Jar-vis Rich)April 9, 1969Faculty and professional staff. — There are six toeight study directors who use the facilities atNORC, the Computation Center, and equipmentat Argonne National Laboratory.Technical staff. — Three or four people are involved full time in production work which mayinclude analysis and programming as well as usingexisting programs.Equipment. — NORC has a tape 1401 which rentsfor about $5,000 a month. There is extra capacity,and conversations with the comptroller are takingplace to see if a sharing arrangement is possible.Computing budget. — Expenditures for its ownequipment are about $60,000 a year. About $30,000to $40,000 a year is spent at the ComputationCenter or elsewhere.Kinds of jobs. — Most jobs have large amounts ofinput — up to five reels of tape. There are aboutseven hundred reels in its tape library. Some jobshave large amounts of calculation (e.g., factoranalysis), others are principally input/output.There is a fair amount of effort in developing statistical and data handling programming systems.An overall requirement is that jobs be handledquickly, accurately, and economically.Comments on Computation Center. — The applications programming staff has been very helpful.Most other computation centers do not have suchgroups; our group rates an A. The performance of33the operations staff rates an F. Parts of jobsare lost, tapes are misplaced, and it is the exceptionwhen a job runs properly the first time. Most,though by no means all, of these comments seemto be directed toward jobs run on the 360/50.The main criticisms of the 360/50 are the cost andthe difficulty in getting information and resolvingquestions about OS 360. It seems to be true thatthere is no way of guaranteeing that some givenamount of scratch disk space will be availablefor a job on the 360/50. There are also questionsabout the management of 360 tape storage. Atcurrent rates it costs five to ten times as much touse the 360/50 as it does to use the 360/75 atArgonne.Future needs and suggestions. — It is stronglyurged that there be a full-time professional directorwho can make policy decisions. The Universityshould consider subsidization of remote access tothe main computer via, say, a 360/20. There isno objection to using an off-campus computer inthis manner. It will be important to have conversational terminals and fast, reliable turnaroundvia batch processing. Prices must be comparableto those available elsewhere.Center for Mathematical Studies in Businessand Economics(Ronald Brooks)April 1969This report also deals with the computing needsof the Graduate School of Business as a whole.Faculty and professional staff. — Two facultymembers and one supervisor are directly involvedwith the administration of the Center. About thirtyfaculty use its services or participate in its program.Technical staff. — One person works full time asa programmer analyst. Eight to ten students workpart time.Equipment. — The Center has two keypunchesand two teletypes which are used by faculty andstudents. The Graduate School of Business has sixadditional keypunches.Computing budget. — The Center's computingbudget is about $15,000 a year; about two-thirdsof this is for COMSHARE. The Graduate Schoolof Business spends about $100,000 a year for classand thesis work. These expenditures are part of theregular budget of the Graduate School of Business.Kinds of jobs. — -There is a broad spectrum ofjobs. Some involve moderately extensive computing. Many involve data tapes. In the Graduate School of Business there is extensive use of filesof the Center for Research in Security Prices andfiles of survey data. The Center's work is largelyin developing, adapting, and maintaining programs.Comments on Computation Center. — The relationship with the Computation Center has beengenerally good. There has been trouble with lostjobs on the 360. An unusual amount of efforthas seemed to be necessary to get the SIMSCRIPTprogram to run again; the systems and applicationsstaff, however, have been most helpful. There isa need for better information on manuals; frequently information on revisions is not distributedas soon as it should be.Future needs and suggestions. — Both the Centerfor Mathematical Studies in Business and Economics and the Graduate School of Business willstrongly urge a remote batch facility and moreextensive console facilities within a year or so. TheComputation Center is simply too crowded. Diskspace for users is more important than additionalcomputing power. Some faculty members believethat they should not be required to use a facilitywhich is less convenient or more expensive thanan outside facility.Biological Sciences Computation Center(Ralph Brunke, Dr. Robert D. Moseley, Jr.)April 14, 1969Faculty and professional staff. — There are eightto twelve faculty members who are fairly deeplyinvolved in the administration and use of theCenter.Technical staff. — Three full-time people andseveral part-time people work in programming andproduction work.Equipment. — The equipment consists of a four-tape 1401 connected to the 7040, a PDP/8 withsome extra equipment which can communicate withthe 1401, and keypunches and teletypes. The equipment rental is about $67,000 a year. The PDP/8was purchased. Its most important role is inanalog-to-digital work. There are now about 2,500square feet of space and the Center is very cramped.The facilities for the Medical Information Systemwhich is being discussed may require 8,000 to10,000 square feet.Computing budget. — The Center was initiallysupported completely by NIH. Recently the Division of Biological Sciences has supported the operation to about the amount of $30,000 a year.About $12,000 a year is spent at the ComputationCenter. Currently NIH requires that biological34science projects originating outside the BiologicalSciences Computation Center pay for computertime. The current NIH support has been renewedin its present form.Kinds of jobs. — There is nothing striking aboutthe job mix. The 1401 operates about one hundredhours per month as a stand-alone machine andabout the same amount as an input/output devicefor the 7094/40. There is great interest in developing statistical programs and packages. Some of thework involves programs to process data files ofmoderate size.Comments on Computation Center. — There hasnot been sufficient emphasis on providing file processing service for the general user. Both the directwire connection and messenger service are used tocommunicate with the Computation Center. Thingsare now running smoothly although there wereproblems when the new CHAOS was installed onthe 7040. There has been no use of the 360/50.Future needs and suggestions. — In general theComputation Center must be super-responsive tothe needs of users or the users will acquire smallcomputers or purchase time-sharing service.Center for Research in Security Prices(Lawrence Fisher)April 1969Faculty and professional staff. — Two facultymembers are directly associated with the Center.Other faculty and students in the Graduate Schoolof Business and elsewhere use the resources of theCenter and participate in its activities.Technical staff. — Two technical people are involved full time in production work and programming.Equipment. — The Center has a keypunch anda teletype used with COM SHARE, a commercialservice.Computing budget. — Expenditures amount toabout $24,000 a year at the Computation Center,plus a small amount for COMSHARE. The latteris used almost exclusively for debugging smallprograms. The Center is supported by a grant fromMerrill Lynch and fees charged for a seminar heldsemiannually.Kinds of jobs. — A basic function of the Centerhas been to define, develop, maintain, extend, anduse large data files containing information aboutfinancial markets— principally the New York StockExchange (NYSE). The Center owns or uses several hundred reels of tape. Several of the files consist of about five reels or 15,000,000 words.Faculty and doctoral students may use the largefiles. Students at a less advanced level generally usesmaller files containing selected data. Some 150students use the files each year.Comments on Computation Center. — The general level of service at the Computation Center,including systems maintenance, seems to have deteriorated since the summer of 1968. There is noreliable high priority messenger service, and theregular messenger service sometimes fails withoutnotification. The operators tend to be lax at offhours. On one occasion a backup tape was lost;$5,000 effort was required to recreate it. The users'room is small and badly lighted. The quality ofprinting has gone down. The constant improvementin the quality of service which one should expecthas not taken place. The accounting programsare not well designed.Future needs and suggestions. — Tb . 360/50 isnot a desirable computer for the Center's needs —for several reasons. An important factor is theshort word length. The master file will require four2314 disk packs on the 360. The 360 operatingsystems don't seem to be very good. It may requirefour to five man years of reprogramming to movefrom the 7094 to the 360.Registrar's Office(Albert M. Hayes, William Van Der Laan)May 7, 19691. Mr. Van Der Laan was associated with theComptroller's office starting in 1961. In February1965 he became Assistant Registrar. In the summer of 1968 he resumed his connection with theComptroller, while maintaining responsibility in theRegistrar's Office.2. In the basement of the Administration Building the Comptroller maintains two 1401 's withassociated cards and tape. A survey about twoyears ago showed that 30 percent of the time wasused by the Registrar. It is probably about thesame now. The Comptroller charges $41 an hour,this being met by the Registrar's budget. A verylarge part of the time is spent on printing.3. If suitable hardware and manpower wereavailable, changes in the Registrar's operationwould be in order. These would eliminate somecurrent problems. As it is, frequent updating is uneconomical, so about every three weeks all information on hand is inserted.35A recent check disclosed 540 errors on a tape.Some were keypunch errors, but most were errorssuch as registering for wrong courses or nonexistentcourses.4. The biggest single file is on one reel of tape.It maintains information on all students who havebeen here since October 1966. Other more activefiles concern current students and courses. Tapesare being used for virtually all files.5. Data is prepared in the Registrar's Office onthe first floor in a form ready for keypunching.The keypunching is done in the basement, exceptthat at peak periods commercial keypunching isused, and sometimes the work gets done in a different way.6. Mr. Van Der Laan expressed the belief thatThe University of Chicago Registrar's operation ismoderately sophisticated for a second generationsystem. Very likely some third generation systemsare in operation elsewhere, but this is not knownfor certain.7. The financial aspects of a move to a thirdgeneration system are uncertain. Anyway, it isconceivable that money could be saved now bygoing back to handwork. However, this wouldmean doing without certain things we now have,for example, quick production of lists of studentsin special categories.8. After the sit-in of February 1969, both theComptroller and the Registrar faced large backlogs. There was good collaboration and, withheavy use of overtime, the work was brought up-to-date.9. Mr. Van Der Laan discussed briefly the proposed merger of the Comptroller's office and theComputation Center. He reviewed some of the'technical aspects, and in particular he had gravereservations about the effectiveness on most jobsof the 1401 simulator.Library(Herman Fussier)April 23, 1969(revised December 18, 1969)1. Some three years ago, after about two yearsof study, an NSF grant was obtained with whichthe Library started a project to mechanize itsdata processing as much as reasonable. The grantof about $450,000 was for three years. The University has matched the grant with about $200,000,some of which was used for programming, supervision, and the input clerical staff. 2. NSF has made a grant for a one-year extension of the book processing system, but beyondthat the outlook is not bright. Approaches havebeen made to the Council on Library Resources(a Ford Foundation organization) and the Rockefeller Foundation. The Council on Library Resources is willing to look at proposals; Rockefelleris still examining whether this would be withintheir scope.3. The work is basic data processing, for themost part building, maintaining, and searchingmassive files. The Library is among the pioneers inthe effort to develop such a capability.4. In the current operation there is a manualinput to paper tape on IBM 1050s. The tapes arethen read into the 360/50 at the Center via telephone data sets. All book purchase orders and allnew acquisitions in the Roman alphabet are beinghandled. A significant fraction of new acquisitionsare not in the Roman alphabet. At present themajor produces include catalog cards for allRoman alphabet material with all headings (subject title, etc.) added and cards printed in filingorder for the particular catalog or shelf list forwhich they are intended; all book purchase orders,batched in printing for the dealer for whom theyare intended ; book circulation cards ; pocketlabels; some phases of book fund control; andsome in-process file data.5. The Library has developed the software formachine handling of machine readable tapes fromthe Library of Congress containing full bibliographical data on current English imprints. Whenthese data are available, they eliminate the needfor virtually all manual input. The Library ofCongress expects to expand the coverage in thisservice.6. At present the unit costs are higher thanthe superseded manual costs. It is reasonable toanticipate that the two cost curves will crosseventually. In any event, there are the advantagesof smooth handling of seasonal loads and relieffrom the problems of turnover and shortage ofclerical help. Cost/benefit ratios will improverapidly as the amount of Library of Congress datafor automatic input is increased and as the system's software can be extended to handle ordersearching and many other processing or servicedata functions.7. Mechanizing the circulation of books lookslike a simple inventory problem. However, closerinspection reveals that a responsive system willpresent a variety of complex problems. Development costs will be relatively high, and funding is36not currently available. Benefits to readers couldbe quite substantial.8. The Library started with a 360/30, upgradedto a 360/40, and switched to the Center's 360/50.The 360/30 to 360/40 conversion was not bad,the 360/40 to 360/50 was painful. .9. Work on routine output has more or lessreached a plateau. In due course more computertime will be needed in connection with the Libraryof Congress tapes. An on-line circulation projectwould significantly increase time on the 360/50.10. Access to the Computation Center and itspeople— some of them talented— has helped theLibrary. Initially the Center staff thought theLibrary's problems to be trivial, but as they gotinvolved, they found technical and intellectualchallenges.11. The number of Library staff involved hasrun between six and ten.12. It certainly will be necessary to have designand software staff on campus. During such highlyexperimental development it seems preferable tohave hardware on campus, but perhaps remoteaccess to a suitable computer would be adequate.At a later time a group of libraries might find itadvantageous to share a common computer andsoftware system.Laboratory of Molecular Structure and Spectra(Clemens Roothaan)April 14, 19691. The Laboratory has, as its current faculty,Juergen Hinze, Robert Mulliken, and ClemensRoothaan. Paul Cade, a professional physicistwho is responsible for a large part of the computing, is also a member of the staff. (He will leavefor the University of Massachusetts in the autumnof 1969.) There are three postdoctoral fellows, twoof whom work primarily with Mr. Cade. There arecurrently approximately ten students; this is thenormal number.2. The Laboratory has two principal aspects —experimental and theoretical. The experimentalwork does not generate much computing. Thetheoretical work is largely concerned with quantum mechanics and stationary states of atoms andmolecules and is heavily oriented toward computing.3. The work is such that it could saturate areasonable computer. In fact, in the early days ofour Center, the Laboratory used all time availableafter other needs were satisfied. When audit regu lations changed, this was no longer possible;Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) paidabout a third of a million dollars to rectify thesituation retrospectively.4. Current support for the theoretical workcomes from ARPA ($100,000) and NSF ($93,-000). Proposals submitted for 1969-70 are forthe amounts $80,000 (ARPA) and $75,000(NSF). The NSF ceiling hurt for awhile but wasrecently alleviated.5. Several "graduates" of the Laboratory areworking for IBM at San Jose, California (this isone of three IBM research facilities). IBM willsupport their work and make a Model 360/91available. They have submitted a parallel proposalto ARPA. Consequently, Chicago's ARPA proposal contains little for computing.6. Mr. Roothaan has not used Argonne sinceabout 1960 (i.e., before our Center started). Heremarked that one needs an inside track toArgonne.7. Up to about a year ago all the Laboratory'scomputing was done at the Center. The changedsituation of course entails a loss of income to theCenter.8. In answer to a question he offered the following opinion. To make the facility here attractive,the University needs to make a commitment to amajor center with appropriate systems support.University support should be in the vicinity of$500,000 a year. At present about $100,000 a yearis being spent on people; this could profitablyrise to $150,000 to $200,000. It was people of thiscalibre who made the 7094 the best of its kind.9. Questioned about the feasibility of gainingaccess to large computers by long distance lines,he answered that he could live with it, but hethought this would- not meet campus needs.Institute for Computer Research (ICR) andCommittee on Information Sciences(Victor Yngve)April 10, 19691. Mr. Yngve began by sketching the historyof ICR. It was started in 1958 explicitly as thevehicle for building Maniac III. This sort of hardware experimentation continues, although otheractivities are increasing rapidly.2. It is good for the Committee on InformationSciences to have this kind of hardware work inprogress on the premises.3. The ICR staff has no major complaints about37the Center. In part this is because they don't useit much, except for the connection between the360/50 and the equipment that replaced the360/40 formerly on the premises. The pricecharged for computer time and peripheral needshas turned out to be around ten times what wasanticipated. As a result, there have been attemptsto cut down costs by reprogramming, and thereare tentative ideas about getting equipment tomake it possible to terminate the connection. Thiswould, of course, result in a loss of income to theCenter.4. Student use in Information Sciences leansheavily on the Center, and they are second toBusiness in student use. The funds come out ofregular University budgets. This use will probablygradually increase.5. Students miss certain aids to computer education (graphics, time-sharing).6. ICR, with Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)support, is building a small time-sharing computer.It will be used largely for research and experiment.7. In addition to Maniac III, AEC has furnished a PDP/8, acquired some three years agowith the approval of the Computer Policy Committee. On the day of the interview it was atYerkes (it is highly portable). The book value ofAEC equipment at ICR is $1,400,000, of which$35,000 is represented by the PDP/8. AEC hasoffered to give both Maniac. Ill and the PDP/8to the University.8. The pattern of research use by the ICR andInformation Sciences staff is not likely to changemuch. This means that developments at theCenter will not have as direct and vital an effectas in other areas of the University. Nevertheless,Mr. Yngve expressed the opinion that a strongCenter is highly desirable.9. He saw no particular objection to having asubstantial part of the University's computerneeds filled by a remote connection to a largecomputer elsewhere. However, having a substantial Computation Center right on the scene isgood for students.High Energy Physics (HEP)(Norman Gelfand)April 17, 19691. HEP occupies its own building and in addition has space in the Enrico Fermi Institute andin the Accelerator Building. The faculty are Herbert Anderson, Norman Booth, Giovanni Conforto, Albert Crewe, Norman Gelfand, Roger Hilde-brand, Riccardo Levi Setti, Valentine Telegdi,Roland Winston, and Courtenay Wright. In theHEP building there are two full-time professionalpeople, one working with Mr. Gelfand and onewith Mr. Levi Setti. Mr. Gelfand has four studentsat work.2. Messrs. Anderson and Telegdi need a lot ofcomputing power, but only for limited periods(three to six months at a time). A machine like aCDC 6600 or IBM 360/91 is called for. Theyboth use Argonne and in addition they get freetime — Mr. Anderson at Los Alamos and Mr.Telegdi at SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator).Mr. Gelfand's needs are continuous, but the 7094is quite adequate.3. On the premises Mr, Gelfand has an EMR6050 and a variety of auxiliary equipment. Totalpurchase price would have been about $200,000;however, half is on rental. The $100,000 purchasewas funded by NSF ($60,000), Air Force ($20,-000), and Navy ($20,000). The NSF and Air Forcecontributions now have title vested in the University. The complex pattern of ownership has complicated a currently pending application to AEC foradditional equipment. The rental portion is fundedby current NSF grants. (Note added December 16,1969: This equipment is now owned entirely bythe University.)4. At the time this equipment was acquired, itturned out that little could have been saved bygetting a machine with less computing capability(e.g., a PDP/8). Having some computation on thepremises is good for the students. In sum, Mr.Gelfand has both needs — the big central facilityplus smaller equipment on the scene.5. Current NSF support for computing in Mr.Gelfand's group is running $30,000 a year, and hehopes that it will remain at least at that level.Work of the kind he is doing stretches into theindefinite future. If additional capability of handling experiments is acquired, potential use ofthe 7094 could rise to 8 hours a day, 365 days ayear. Money for that amount of computing isnowhere in sight.6. Mr. Gelfand has never gone elsewhere forcomputing. The work is very much large-scalenumber crunching (e.g., inverting matrices as largeas 21 by 21). It is production type work; somedeterioration of turnaround time on the 7094would be acceptable. Service in general has beengood. No tapes have been lost, etc. The operationsstaff is competent.387. He tried the 360/50 just once. It was troublesome and he gave up. Others at HEP are usingit. There is really no incentive to switch to the36O in terms of finances or turnaround.8. If the machine changes some day, no seriousproblems are likely. Most programs will run on the360. IBM has a package to help bubble chamberwork. CDC equipment would also be acceptable.9. The present link of the EMR 6050 to the7040 has to be switched to the 360 some ninemonths from now. The change involves problemsand costs, and the Center will have to help. Atpresent, unfortunately, Mike Williams, operatingsystems manager at the Center, is over his head inwork.10. One complaint is that the Stromberg-Carl-son 4020 is down some 60 percent of the time.Apparently no one is complaining hard enough orto the right people to get it fixed properly.11. The Center is hurting for lack of a full-timedirector. Mr. Gelfand firmly believes the directorshould be a nonfaculty professional.12. Mr. Gelfand's concluding remark was tourge that serious work begin now on the conceptof a big regional computer. Within the foreseeablefuture it is highly unlikely that a university likeours will acquire this kind of equipment.Computer Needs of the High Energy PhysicsProgram at the Enrico Fermi Institute (EFI)(Riccardo Levi Setti)December 15, 1969An updated survey of computer needs is in progress at the Fermi Institute, as part of the activityof the EFI "Master Plan" Committee. This recentinvestigation, carried out by personal interviews,revealed a situation which is inadequately described in the response to the questionnaires circulated by the Computer Policy Study Committee,at least in the area of High Energy Physics. It isfelt that even at this late stage, the informationwhich has only recently emerged is very relevantto the scope of the Computer Policy Study Committee and should be brought to its attention.1. High Energy Physics faculty and scientificpersonnel. — Faculty members engaged in experimental activity in the field of High Energy Physicsare Herbert L. Anderson, Norman Booth, Giovanni Conforto, Norman Gelfand, Roger Hilde-brand, Riccardo Levi Setti, Luke Mo, ValentineTelegdi, Roland Winston, and Courtney Wright. In addition, five to seven research associates andtwenty to twenty-five graduate students typicallyparticipate in the program.2. Use of Computation Center facilities. — TheHigh Energy Physics group has been, during the1968-69 fiscal year3 the largest individual user pfthe Computation Center, with a total expenditureof $100,300— entirely from NSF funds. Computertime has been purchased in the amount of approximately 430 hours of IBM 7094 and 130 hours ofIBM 360/50.3. Use of outside computers. — A total of approximately 2,200 hours of 7094 equivalent CPU(Central Processing Unit) time has been usedduring 1968-69. This includes use of the followingcomputers: CDC 3600, CDC 6600, IBM 360/75,and IBM 360/91. Only 10 percent of this timewas purchased on a low priority, reduced costbasis; the remaining 90 percent was procured atno cost to the user.4. Jobs. — Heavy users of the 7094 system indicate that of the used time, 50 percent was forlong jobs, 20 percent for medium, and 30 percentfor short jobs.Of the time used on outside computers, 50 percent was for long, 50 percent for medium durationjobs. About 1,000 hours of either 360/75 or 360/91 were spent on jobs of one hour.5. Opinion about the facilities of the Computation Center. — For the purposes of the High EnergyPhysics program the concensus is that the centralcomputer speed and central computer memory areinadequate. As to the corollary items, a consensusis also reached with regard to the inadequacy ofworking room and insufficient number of keypunchmachines.6. Additional equipment needed. — The basicrequirement of the High Energy Physics groupas a whole is to have easy access to a larger, fastercomputer. This could be a 360/75 system as aminimum, but preferably a computer in the CDC6600 or 360/91 class. The computing costs shouldbe much less than the present rate for equivalentwork. It has been suggested that the majority ofthe long jobs (50 percent of the total load) couldbe run on a low priority basis, at a cheaper rate.7. Comparison with other computation centers.— From the standpoint of High Energy Physics,the Computation Center facilities are obsolete byat least five years. Next to the availability of ahigh energy particle accelerator, large computersare the primary asset. The competition of betterequipped experimental groups is fierce. In addition39to the large national and international laboratories,a substantial number of other universities havethe facilities which we lack. A very limited listincludes Columbia with a 360/91, Stanford witha 360/91, New York University with a CDC6600, and Heidelberg, with a 360/75.8. Projection of computer needs. — The yearlyrate mentioned in items 2 and 3 has been maintained at comparable levels over the last fewyears. The projection for fiscal 1969-70 indicatesa 25 percent increase over 1968-69 in the fundsbudgeted for computing. Actual needs in the immediate future will increase from a factor of fourto a factor of six over the amount which can bepurchased (at the present rates). This correspondsto a total of 3,400 hours a year of 7094 equivalentCPU time.9. Repartition of computer use. — Research inHigh Energy Physics involves typically twostages :(a) Production of large amounts of data. Thisaccumulation of data proceeds at a fairly uniformrate in the average of several experiments. Individual experiments may involve peak requirements of several times the average rate everyfew years (e.g., 1,000 hours of CDC 6600 one outof four years — over an average of 100 hours ayear).(b) Fitting of multiparametered functions tothe retrieved data (up to one hundred parametersin, for example, phase shift analysis and resonancehunts).Note that both stages (a) and (b) in generalfollow and do not overlap with the use of online smaller computers, which for all purposescan be regarded as an integral part of the detecting equipment.10. Programming.— High Energy Physics programming is in general the result of massive effortsof large computation centers at national laboratories or is often an integral part of the experimental program of individual users. It has so farbeen carried out without the aid of ComputationCenter personnel.11. Summary. — -In conclusion, the computingrequirements of the High Energy Physics programat the Fermi Institute cannot be met by thepresent Computation Center facilities. The limitations are of both technical and budgetary nature.Access, in whatever feasible form, to a modernsuper computer is essential and urgent. Computational Needs of the Education Quadrangle(R. Darrell Bock)October 28, 19691. Background.— The education quadrangle occupies the two city blocks from Kimbark to Dorchester Avenues and from 58th to 59th Streets.Within the quadrangle are housed the Departmentof Education, the Graduate School of Education,the Committee on Human Development, and theLaboratory School, including the lower, middle,and high schools. The quadrangle maintains asmall computing facility in Judd Hall, 5835 SouthKimbark Avenue. This facility is called the Department of Education Statistical Laboratory andis based on an IBM 1130 system. Equipment includes the 1130 central processor with 8K core(32 bit words) and resident disk capacity of halfa million words. The unit is served by a combination reader punch with a read capacity of upto 400 words per minute and a 1403 printer withmaximum speed of 350 lines per minute. At thepresent time the system is being extended toinclude a mark page reader under computer control and a dial-up data link to be used with the360/50 or 360/65 of the University's Computation Center. Synchronous communication adapterfor this setup will be shared with the Institute forJuvenile Research of the State of Illinois. TheStatistical Laboratory also contains a 1,000-cardper minute sorter with counters and five 029 keypunches, one of which has the interpreting feature.The personnel of the Laboratory include a half-time supervisor and two half-time assistants inthe machine room and a programmer and third-time programmer in the user's room. Three graduate students in the Measurement, Evaluation andStatistical Analysis (MESA) program serve asstatistical and programming consultants to facultyand students on a part-time basis. Responsibilityfor the policy of the Laboratory resides in aStatistical Laboratory Policy Committee, consisting of R. Darrel Bock, chairman, Benjamin D.Wright, David E. Wiley, John R. Ginther, Frederick F. Lighthall, J. Alan Thomas, John R.Bormuth, Donald O. Conway, and the assistantdean, Arthur Wise. The present operating budgetof the Laboratory is approximately $60,000 ayear. At the present time a large part of this budget is covered by a development grant from theU.S. Office of Education.2. Computing needs of the education quadrangle.40(a) Administrative needs of the LaboratorySchool. Mr. Conway, Director of AdministrativeServices of the Laboratory School, makes use ofthe facilities of the Statistical Laboratory forclass assignment in pupil accounting. The Laboratory Records Office processes scholastic achievement data, and the high school is begining theimplementation of a measurement system for anungraded English program. The 1130 system probably will be used in these applications.(b) Student use, Department of Education andGraduate School of Education. Students requireaccess to computers for the following purposes:to learn a programming language such as FORTRAN; to perform calculation in connection withclass exercises in the educational statistics courses,Quantitative Inquiry I, II, and III; and to dodissertation research. Most students in Educationand Human Development make use of the 1130facility to learn FORTRAN and to prepare classexercises in statistics. Students find it difficult touse the main Computation Center for this typeof computer work because of crowded quarters andslow turnaround time. Because of the numerousand unavoidable trivial errors which new programmers make, the slow turnaround prevents moststudents from completing a sufficient number ofpractice problems and exercises in the time available in a one quarter course. This is particularlycritical for students in the education quadranglebecause of our relative remoteness from the mainComputation Center. Students are not able to takeadvantage of the time between classes to workon computer problems if they must walk backand forth from the Computation Center or dependon the courier service. The capacity of the 1130to perform small-scale computations for instructional purposes effectively solves these problems.Turnaround is virtually instantaneous and studentshave access to the equipment any time between9 a.m. and 9 pm. when they are in Judd Hall.Dissertation research, on the other hand, ofteninvolves larger-scale computations, possibly withthe use of magnetic tape records, and for themost part is done at the main Computation Center.In this instance most students make use of theStatistical Laboratory to prepare runs and utilizethe courier service to get jobs to and from theComputation Center. It is expected that this usewill be greatly facilitated when the data linkbecomes available in November 1969.(c) Faculty use of computers. There are severaldifferent types of computer work done by the Education faculty: (i) Processing of research data. This work is done primarily at the Computation Center,using programs in the social sciences program library. In many cases these data originate on IBManswer sheets (mark pages) , which are now scorableon the 1230 optical reader in the Statistical Laboratory. When the data link is in operation we expectto be able to prepare magnetic tape records directly from IBM mark pages. This should considerably facilitate research carried out in theform of mental testing or survey questionnaires.(ii) Card preparation, reproducing, listing,minor calculations, and data screening. Most ofthis work is done in the Statistical Laboratory. Itsfacilities are indispensable for this purpose.(iii) Original production program development.This activity is carried on primarily by the MESAfaculty and probably accounts for the majorityof the department's use of the central Computation Center. In the past the necessity of relyingon the courier, having the research assistants wasting time going back and forth to the ComputationCenter, or spending long hours in the ComputationCenter at night have made this type of worktedious at best. Nevertheless, over the past fiveyears a number of important large-scale dataprocessing programs have been developed by theMESA faculty and students. (These programscarry the MESA label in the social sciences program library.) This type of work will be greatlyfacilitated by the data link.(iv) Professional training. In the coming yearthe Statistical Laboratory of the Department ofEducation will be host to a workshop in educational data processing, sponsored by the AmericanEducational Research Association and financed bythe U.S. Office of Education. It is anticipated thatthe best possible turnaround time will be neededduring the portion of these workshops devoted tostudent exercises. It is hoped that we will beable to make special arrangements with the Computation Center to ensure good turnaround timeduring the two or three days involved.(v) Real time use of computers in stimuluspresentation, data recording, and programmed instruction. This is an area of potentially great importance in educational research, but up to nowwork has been pursued in this area only by Mr.Ginther. At the present time he is using equipmentin the Institute of Computer Research for thispurpose; however, depending on the financial support available, it may be possible to do some ofthis work from terminals in Judd Hall.3. Recommendations. — The following are sug-41gestions concerning the central computation facility as it reflects the needs of the education quadrangle. These recommendations are those of theundersigned and have not yet been discussed withthe Statistical Laboratory Policy Committee orother members of the department. It is plannedto discuss these matters at the meeting of theStatistical Laboratory Policy Committee plannedfor late January 1970.(a) Applications work should not be physicallyor administratively the responsibility of the Computation Center. Applications programming, program development, program libraries, and adviceshould be the responsibility of divisions, schools,and centers of the University which make use ofthe computer in their area of research. Thesegroups should be supported by the regular budgetof the unit involved and should be located in closeproximity to a remote batch terminal to the maincomputer. These groups should be under thesupervision of faculty members of the respectiveunit. This is especially important relative to thetechnical certification of the computer programsin the library of the group and the kinds of adviceand instruction the members of the group give tostudents and other faculty.(b) The main Computation Center personnelshould be concerned primarily with maintainingand increasing the efficiency of the programmingsystems. The effort should be in the direction ofvariety and flexibility of programming languages,data storage retrieval and manipulation techniques, and maximum response of the facility toits terminals.(c) The University should exert its influence tohave the rate structure for data transmission andline conditioning revised downward for smallusers. The cost of lease lines and the conditioningof lines is at the present time excessive whenvolume is modest. These rates are highly arbitraryand it is questionable that the Federal Communications Commission has given them the study theydeserve from the point of view of the University'sneeds.(d) The University should not attempt to support a super computer unless it is underwrittenby an external agency. The University should,however, investigate the possibility of a data linkbetween the University's Computation Center anda computer of very large scale. It should be possible to reach that computer from the University'smain computer or from any of its terminals. Again,some revision of telecommuncations rates to encourage this kind of development should be sought. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEEON FACULTY RECREATIONALFACILITIESAprtt 13, 1970In the Winter Quarter of 1970 Provost John TWilson appointed a faculty committee to reviewand make recommendations concerning the Universityys recreational facilities for faculty. The com-mittee was chaired by Leonard Olsen, AssociateDean of the College and Associate Professor ofHumanities. Members of the committee were MaryJean Mulvaney, Kyle Anderson, Joseph CeithamlWalter Hass, Leonard Linsky, Charles OyConnelland Harry Roberts. The text of the committee'sreport follows.Since the report was submitted to the Provoston March 27, 1970, swimming hours especiallyavailable to the faculty have been extended in bothIda Noyes Hall and Bartlett Gymnasium. The poolin Ida Noyes Hall, for example, was kept openfor a number of hours each day during the springinterim, and an additional hour of early morningswimming was made available to faculty, staff, andstudents from 7:30 to 8:30 a.m. several morningsa week during the Spring Quarter. Records ofattendance were maintained, and the results weresufficiently encouraging that the extended hourswill be maintained for Autumn Quarter 1970.Mr. Wilson appointed a faculty committee inSpring Quarter to review requests for the use ofUniversity athletic and recreational facilities bygroups outside the University itself. This actionwas taken in accordance with recommendation 2gof the report that follows. The committee is chairedby Walter Walker, Vice-President for Planning.Although brie] descriptions of available facilities in Ida Noyes Hall, Bartlett Gymnasium, andthe Field House have been published each fall bythe Departments of Physical Education for Menand for Women and have been available to thosefaculty who have expressed interest, a more detailed brochure is planned for Autumn Quarter1970 and will be distributed to all members of thefaculty.Charles D. O'ConnellDean of StudentsFeeling that the circumstances do not warrantan expensive statistical survey, your committee hasbased its observations on its own experience42explored in numerous committee meetings and thatreported by faculty colleagues.Although new, better, more extensive facilitieswould always be nice, the committee thinks thata realistic assessment indicates the desirability of(1) better information concerning existing facilities (2) increasing hours of availability, and (3)improvement of some facilities.1. Information. — Publish and distribute annuallya brochure describing recreational facilities available to members of the faculty. Give informationthat is reasonably accurate and detailed concerningprocedures, hours (days of the week, interimperiods), locker arrangements, towels, bus transportation, etc. Indicate availability of facilitiesfor spouses and children.2. Availability.(a) Squash and handball are among the mostpopular with the faculty. Present facilities areinadequate. The completion of three new courtsmay satisfy the need. Records should be carefullykept of use by students, faculty, and staff (distinguishing each). Records should be reviewed afterabout six months to reassess adequacy of facilities.(b) Facilities for swimming are not good butmight be reasonably adequate if hours are extendedand maintenance improved. This applies to latehours and weekends. (At the time of writing weunderstand that some action has already been takento increase availability.) Increased use of Boucherpool should be encouraged by rerouting busses,making lockers and towels available, and providingadequate security. Records should be kept.(c) Basketball is very popular and currentlyenjoys a great deal of mixed faculty-student participation. Care should be taken to preserve andextend availability of basketball courts for generaluse. (Preempting Bartlett for the first week ofeach quarter, as well as half the month of September, for registration purposes should be reexamined.)(d) Track, jogging, miscellaneous exercising,etc. are popular with the faculty and their families.Availability of the Field House, Stagg Field, andother facilities for faculty and families should beaccurately indicated, times adhered to, and appropriate security provided. The committee recognizesthe difficulty of the security problem, especiallyat the Field House and Stagg Field, but urges thatadequate surveillance be provided as far as possible.(e) Tennis is popular among faculty of all ages. Indoor facilities are at a premium. Their conditionand availability should be carefully maintained.Records should be kept. Outdoor courts are muchused by faculty as well as students. Their locationand procedures for using them should be wellpublicized. Attention should be called to the availability of the "varsity courts" for night play.(f) The availability of additional facilitiesshould be explored and publicized, for example,Sunny Gym, Jackman Field, U-High, and International House tennis courts.(g) The availability of University facilities tooutside groups should be severely scrutinized andrigidly limited.3. Improvement.(a) Field House. Although considerable expenseis involved, we recommend that serious consideration be given to the installation of a Tartan floor.Having examined the use of such flooring at theUniversity of Illinois, we think it would providean enormous increase in the value of the FieldHouse to the University. It would greatly increaseits versatility by providing an excellent surfacefor tennis, track, basketball, volleyball, and badminton. Requiring virtually no maintenance, itcould be available at all hours of the day and night.It would provide a varsity basketball floor, solvinga problem which now seems insoluble. It wouldmake the Field House considerably more healthfulby eliminating the dust clouds now hanging in theair from frequent raking of the dirt surface. (Itsresilient surface would benefit the aging jointsof faculty joggers, a nontrivial advantage.) Itwould lighten the interior and generally make itmuch more attractive. Its real cost would be significantly less than the apparent cost because of thesubstantial reduction in maintenance cost. We areinformed that the Field House roof leaks and oughtto be replaced. The interior walls ought to becleaned and/or painted.(b) Bartlett. The basketball floor and the running track are in almost constant use and needrepair. The plumbing should be gone over (thereare showers that don't work). Locker space isseverely limited.(c) Tennis courts. The tennis courts at 58thand University were "improved" at considerableexpense a few years ago but the job was botched.Someone who knows about such things should beconsulted and the courts should be improved sothat they can serve the purpose intended for them.(d) In general, it seems likely that it would be43prudent to give more attention to the preservationof existing facilities, some of which are very badlymaintained.Kyle AndersonJoseph CeithamlWalter HassLeonard LinskyMary Jean MulvaneyCharles O'ConnellLeonard Olsen, ChairmanHarry RobertsREPORT OF THE EVALUATIONCOMMITTEE ON THEDEPARTMENT OF STATISTICSJune 23, 1970Members of the CommitteeFrancis J. Anscombe, Yale UniversityDavid H. Blackwell, University of California atBerkeleyFrederick Mosteller, Harvard University, ChairmanTHE CHANGING ROLE OF STATISTICSOn the Meaning of "Statistics," Its Relation toOther SciencesThe word "statistics" has had, and continues tohave, several very different meanings, and a fewremarks about these may be helpful. In sixteenthcentury Italy a "statist" was one who was knowledgeable about political states, their geography,history, customs, politics, etc. The word "statistics"carried scarcely any of its present day connotationsuntil the nineteenth century, when it came to meanfactual information about the condition of society,especially numerical information such as could bepresented in tables and charts. Statistics was whatwe should now call a social science, constitutingparts of what are now called demography, sociology, economics, public health, political science,criminology, psychology, etc.The American Statistical Association, foundedin 1839, was the second oldest scientific societyin the country, and the oldest devoted to a specificdiscipline. Later in the nineteenth century there developeda considerable interest in .statistical method — meaning methods of arranging, studying, and interpreting bodies of statistical data, and methods of con.ducting statistical inquiries, such methods beingfound to be valuable in other fields of study besideswhat was called statistics, in natural as well associal sciences. Gradually, various basic ideas ofstatistical method were defined, and mathematicsespecially probability theory, was brought to bearon the exploration of the ideas. This developmenthas continued, ever more rapidly, up to the present.It is this kind of study that is often referred totoday by the name "statistics." Perhaps the phrase"statistical method" is too modest for what is nowa considerable edifice with much broader objectivesthan formerly. Modern statistical science is concerned not only with the treatment of statisticaldata and the design of statistical investigationsbut with the study of decision making and decisionprocedures, with random phenomena of manysorts, and with much related mathematics. This isthe sort of statistics professed by all the departments of statistics in major United States universities (and, as far as we know, in foreign universities as well). Statistical work in the social sciencesgoes on, vigorously, but is usually thought of aspart of economics or sociology or business administration or whatever. The modern department ofstatistics may, from historical origin and for administrative convenience, be a part of the divisionof the social sciences (as, for example, at YaleUniversity) or, again for administrative convenience, a part of the division of the physical sciences(as at The University of Chicago). No matter!Such statistics is not concerned with discovery ofthe real (social or physical or biological) world,but is concerned with tools for such discovery,with thought, theory, philosophy. In this respectstatistics is like mathematics, which was once veryclose to physics but is no longer. Since, indeed,modern statistical science has a large mathematicalcomponent and extremely broad possible relevance,it can appropriately be labeled one of the mathematical sciences. That is a more reasonable, lessmisleading, label than a social science or a naturalscience, as those terms are generally understood.Changes in the Character of Statistical ScienceAs we look back over the course of developmentof modern statistical science, we have the impression (perhaps an illusion) that the development44was clearer in purpose before 1940 than since. Thepioneers and leaders up to about 1940 were in thefirst place concerned with statistical practice, withsolving statistical problems arising in agricultureor chemistry or biology or medicine or industry.Statistics was a practicing science, like medicine.The problems came first ; they had to be dealt withsomehow, well or ill; theory, methods, techniqueswere developed to make practice more effective.In medicine a strong tradition has survived thatresearch and practice should not be separated.A man primarily interested in medical researchat a fundamental level still makes the daily tourof the hospital ward at 7 a.m. In statistics, thatassociation of fundamental research with practicebecame less common after 1940. Theory for its ownsake, motivated by existing theory rather than bypractical need, is, vastly attractive. There wererich mines to quarry, in probability theory, decision theory, information theory, statistical inference. Important developments in statistical practicehave continued to be made, especially in the designof experiments and sampling inquiries, and manynew kinds of practical problems have been addressed. But for a quarter century after 1940the practice of statistical analysis of data (whichmay be claimed as the oldest part of statisticalscience, going back to John Graunt's book of 1662)did not show much progress.Today statistical science seems again to bechanging in character and direction. A potent forcefor change is the computer. Although computers(high-speed stored-program digital) first becameavailable about twenty years ago, their influenceon statistics is still more a promise than a fact;the promise is, however, profound for all parts ofthe subject. Statistical analysis of data has becomeonce again an exciting field, with many unexploredpossibilities for new techniques of analysis andnew modes of summarizing and display. The computer offers enormous possibilities in the investigation of random processes and systems, becauseit permits powerful experimentation. And there aremany ways in which the computer can assist inmathematical development of statistical theory.AH this is not to suggest that statistics is aboutto become merely a branch of computing. The roleof the computer in statistics may fairly be likenedto that of the radio telescope in astronomy — something of immense importance, complementing butnot supplanting other modes of study.We return below to a more detailed consideration of statistical computing. THE DEPARTMENT OF STATISTICSSince the statistical community is small andtightly knit, the members of the Committee naturally were well acquainted with the more seniormembers of the Department before their visit, andthey knew some of the younger faculty personallyand the rest by reputation. The Department canclaim distinction in many ways. We think thata brief and partial documentation of this claim isan instructive exercise.Members of the Department produce their shareof books and articles. The profession values theirparticipation in publication, and so it is commonfor one or more Chicago faculty members to bean editor or associate editor of a major statisticaljournal. One member played a major role in theextensive statistical work of the InternationalEncyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Furthermore,the Department participates with the Institute ofMathematical Statistics in publishing a series oftheoretical books in statistics through The University of Chicago Press.Members of the Department frequently holdhigh offices in the statistical societies, with onemember being president-elect of the Institute ofMathematical Statistics in 1970. Beyond offices,the faculty has assisted societies in organizingprograms for regional and annual meetings. Itsmembers have participated in the Visiting Lecturers in Statistics Program sponsored by theNational Science Foundation and the Committeeof the Presidents of Statistical Societies. Theselecturers speak at many colleges wanting to hearmore about probability and statistics but havinglittle or no program of their^ own. The Department's members frequently serve on governmentalpanels and committees dealing with such variedtopics of national concern as weather, driving safety, behavioral and social science, census enumeration, computing, and health.The Committee noted that the younger appointees are already producing well and felt that thisshowed bright promise for the future. The factthat students spoke as often of the fine teachingof the younger members as of the older, and thatthese comments were frequent, is cheering newsfor those who may have felt that strength inresearch must mean neglect of teaching.For professional meetings, committees on invitedaddresses frequently ask faculty members from the^Department to give special addresses, and somemembers have been invited to give special lectureseries at universities. Among their honors, we men-45tion that some members are fellows of the Instituteof Mathematical Statistics and of the AmericanStatistical Association; and some are members ofthe International Statistical Institute, an honorarysociety requiring election by scholars from all overthe world.Within the University, members of the Department were repeatedly mentioned by name for theirparticipation in cooperative research and consultation on statistical problems arising in the workof faculty members and students in other departments and schools.Although all members of the Department mightbe called theoretical statisticians on the basis oftheir training and research, their current work covers a broad field ranging from theoretical throughpractical. Part of the interest in applications canbe appreciated from the joint appointments withother departments in the Divisions of the SocialSciences and of the Biological Sciences; the Department of Statistics itself is in the Divisionof the Physical Sciences mainly because of itstraditional association with mathematics. Anotherpart develops through the widespread consultingwork of the faculty and students. Along with thisappreciation of the spectrum of practical applications, one must also note the Department's strongprograms of research in theoretical probability andin the foundations of statistics. (One member ofthe Department has a joint appointment with theDepartment of Mathematics.) The student seesa well-rounded Department from the point of viewof the theoretical-practical circle.BalanceThe Department is remarkably well balanced.For almost any area of statistics, there is at leastone member of the Department with a stronginterest in it. At the same time no member is isolated; each one shares at least one specializationwith some other member of the Department, andseveral work closely with faculty members outsidethe Department. The size of the Department seemsabout right in relation to its present activities. Anyincrease in service teaching or any substantialincrease in the number of Ph.D. students wouldrequire an increase in staff, but a substantialincrease in undergraduate majors could be accommodated with the present staff.SpaceUntil recently the Department was crowded,with little room for students. The new space, especially if it can be further refurbished, willfor a reasonable time to come alleviate the crowding and make casual meeting between students andfaculty more frequent.AtmosphereEvery discipline has its age-old arguments. Insome departments these arguments have split thefaculty into warring groups. This has not happenedin the Department of Statistics at The Universityof Chicago. While members hold various positionsin these arguments, they do not seem to feel itnecessary that everyone agree. Rather, the atmosphere is that of men who appreciate and respectone another's work and attitudes without expectingcompliance with their own views.The Department seems to an outsider to berun on democratic lines. The full faculty discussesall business except certain appointments. There aremany committees, but though opportunity wasoffered, no one complained about service on them.We came away with the impression of people wholike their teaching and their research, who likeworking with one another, who like their students,and who are generally satisfied with both thedepartmental and University administration. Altogether we found an impressive show of unity, butnot of complacence. The faculty is actively reconsidering its courses, strengthening its computingarrangements, and studying its relations with itsstudents.THE TEACHING PROGRAMThe Department offers three types of courses:service, undergraduate major, and graduate. Thedistinction is not really sharp; for example, somecourses are integral parts of the undergraduatemajor and also prerequisites for courses in otherdepartments. And we believe that making the distinction even less sharp, so that statistics majorswould be more often in statistics classes with non-majors, would be healthy for both groups of students. Statistics and mathematics students tend tobe formal and rigorous, while economics and psychology students tend to be intuitive. Since rigorand intuition complement each other, each typeof student can learn something useful from theother. We comment separately on the three typesof courses. /Service CoursesThe Department offers a wide variety of introductory service courses. At the most elementary461 there is a general course and a variation of it, a stronger mathematics prerequisite. Theseexcellent introductions but do not (and are not• tended to) prepare the student to use any butthe simplest methods of analysis. Two more de-nding and extensive one-quarter courses werentroduced this year, one emphasizing biologicalnlications and the other natural science appli-tions. The Department also presents an introductory course to medical students.More extensive introductory courses are alsooffered by the Department. There is a two-quartercourse established primarily for graduate studentsin the social sciences and a two- or three-quartersequence with calculus prerequisites that is theDepartment's most extensive introductory course;it is taken by students from many departments.Introductions to probability and theoretical statistics (two quarters of the former and one of thelatter) fall into a somewhat different category.These courses would probably be given even ifthey played no service role, but most of the students in them are from other departments.Several other departments offer further statisticscourses, building on the statistics service coursesand emphasizing methods of special importance inthe departments' fields. Other departments offertheir own introductions to statistics.Just how many and what kinds of servicecourses (if any) a statistics department shouldoffer have been much debated. The present rathermixed arrangement at Chicago is not atypical, andthe faculty members we interviewed, inside andoutside the Department, are generally satisfied.Undergraduate Major CoursesThe Department, like most statistics departments, has few undergraduate majors. Part of thereason is the introductory major sequence: it isovernumbered, having a number appropriate fora graduate course, so that advisers may thinkit inappropriate for undergraduates. And it triesto cover too much, with a resulting lack of emphasis on mathematical proofs that is unappealingto mathematically inclined students who are thelargest single source for prospective statisticsmajors. The Department has recognized bothproblems and is next year (1) giving the presentsequence an undergraduate number and (2) introducing a new, alternate sequence, also with anundergraduate number, with a sharper mathematical flavor.The field of statistics, as some parts of thisreport make clear, offers those who take it up a wide spectrum of possibilities in the mathematical sciences, running from full-time work in abstract mathematics through full-time practicalwork including participation in actual experimentsand field studies. The profession is as well paidas any in the mathematical sciences and providespositions for women as well as men. Successfulstudents are much in demand. It is an especiallygood field for those who have enjoyed and beensuccessful in their science and mathematics studiesbut want more emphasis on applications than puremathematics offers today. Nevertheless, recruitment has always been a problem to the profession.At the same time that the Department introducesits new course above, perhaps it could also giveconsideration to additional ways of recruitingtalented young people to this exciting field.Statistics as an Undergraduate SubjectWhereas many universities have graduate programs in statistics, not so many have a regularundergraduate major in statistics. Some educatorsin statistics disapprove of the idea of an undergraduate major. They note that if a person is topursue a career in statistics, he will find that undergraduate training in mathematics or in one of theprincipal sciences is very valuable. Statistics maybe said to be a secondary discipline, in the sensethat it is concerned with and derives impetus fromproblems arising in other disciplines. For development of the theory of statistics, much mathematicsis needed; and for effective practice of statistics,substantial knowledge of fields in which statisticalproblems arise is always helpful and often mandatory. So, it is argued, the natural way to approacha career in statistics is through an undergraduatemajor in a traditional discipline, followed bygraduate study of statistics. That has been andstill is the usual pattern. But we see no reason whyit should be the only one or even the modal one.Many colleges offer undergraduate courses instatistics, even when there is no major in statisticsand no graduate program. Such courses are commonly offered in mathematics departments and invarious social science departments. Whereas theart of graduate instruction in statistics has beenwell developed and excellent programs are conducted (at The University of Chicago and elsewhere), undergraduate instruction in statistics isprobably on the whole rather unsatisfactory. Itstands to benefit greatly from imaginative rethinking and experimentation, which will no doubt beforthcoming in the years ahead.Two reasons can be given for increased attention47to statistics in undergraduate teaching and in particular for development of regular majors in statistics. One is concerned with recruitment into thestatistical profession; the other is concerned withstatistics as a valuable experience in a liberal artsprogram.As to recruitment, the matter should be considered in relation to all the mathematical sciences.Most undergraduate majors in mathematics aredirected toward the main areas of activity in modern pure mathematics; the best students areencouraged to continue in that direction. Thereis little awareness among the students concerningthe other mathematical sciences besides main-linepure mathematics. In addition to the traditionalkind of "applied mathematics," directed towardphysics and engineering, numerous other kinds ofapplied mathematics study have developed greatlyin recent years. (Some perspective can be obtainedby examining the later sections of MathematicalReviews.) Most of these kinds of applied mathematics are insufficiently supplied with entrants.Undoubtedly this is largely because of lack ofknowledge of the possibilities on the part of ablestudents. Mathematics students often express adesire to see applications of mathematics to thereal world but are presented with only a narrowrange of examples. Thus, strengthening and diversifying the applied mathematics courses, includingcourses on statistics, either as part of the existingmathematics major or as an alternative major,is likely to have a beneficial effect on the mathematical world as a whole.As for the general cultural value of the studyof statistics in a liberal arts environment, not muchseems to be said about this currently, and yeta strong case can be made. We are all bombarded today by rudimentary statistical arguments,good and bad, mostly bad, as has been beautifully illustrated in the excellent little book writtenat The University of Chicago, The Nature ofStatistics by W. Allen Wallis and Harry V. Roberts.It is good that an educated man today shouldhave some experience in making sense of statistical data, should have some notions about thepossibility of gaining reliable information bysampling, and should be acquainted with some statistical principles of experimentation. Such acquaintance with statistical methods, at much lessthan a fully professional level, can be a valuableasset to the businessman, the lawyer, the physician.Quantitative thinking is important to all. Facilityin quantitative thinking concerning everyday affairscan be imparted by elementary instruction in sta tistics at least as well as by instruction in moretraditional mathematics or experimental scienceAs more attention is paid to the challenge ofelementary statistics teaching, as more elementarytextbooks of very high quality come to be written(there are all too few today), statistics mayfor good reason become a far more popular subjectof undergraduate study than it now is.Graduate CoursesThe graduate program is high in quality andbroad in coverage, but several graduate studentscommented (not as a complaint) that virtuallyno data or applications occur in the formal gradu*ate courses. This is somewhat remarkable, sincethe faculty has a strong interest in applicationsand has a long and varied history of successfulcooperation with faculty members in other departments and of contributions to applications of national interest.Nevertheless, the students who are about tofinish and some recent Ph.D.s whom we talked toagree that somehow they have acquired at Chicagoa substantial experience with and feeling for applications of statistics. This has occurred in two principal ways : ( 1 ) faculty members informally involvestudents in their own collaborations with colleaguesfrom other departments, and (2) a special facultymember is put in charge of cooperative research(usually called consulting) by students. Studentsand faculty members from other departments whoencounter statistical problems in their researchare encouraged to come to this faculty member,who will arrange for students and perhaps facultymembers to work with the scholar who has the statistical problem. This year a third road to cooperative research, (3) a formal course in whichpeople with statistical problems are invited topresent their problems, has been introduced andhas resulted, in several cases, in successful andstimulating cooperation.Every statistics department in the country hasthe problem of managing training in consulting because (1) it is an important source of fresh problems for theoretical statistics; (2) it offers trainingfor graduate students in recognizing, formulating,and attacking real statistical problems; (3) it helpsothers in the solution of their problems; and (4)many enjoy participating in practical investigations.Other departments may therefore wish to studyChicago's program. Beyond the observations justreported, we have had available a statement oncooperative research prepared by the Department48-hich we append to this report (see Appendix I).That appendix should be of interest both to peopleoutside the Department at The University of Chi-ago and to other departments of statistics. We havealso reviewed the latest report on the consultingactivity which gives details about the effort. It isan impressive document.We have two minor criticisms of the graduateprogram:1. The main graduate sequence is four quartersjong — two quarters of measure-theoretic probabilityfollowed by two quarters of mathematical statistics.This results in a probably unnecessary delay inintroducing the student to the principal areas ofmathematical statistics and a corresponding delayin his rinding the area that most appeals to himand in which he will write a thesis. We suggest that,with a little thought to order of presentation, themathematical statistics sequence could be madesimultaneous with the probability course, so thatthe student could have an overview of the subjectat the end of the winter quarter of his first yearrather than, as at present, after the fall quarter ofhis second year.2. Graduate students in the Department rarelytake statistics courses outside the Department. Thetotal course load of statistics graduate students thisyear is 115 courses, of which only 1 is a statisticscourse outside the Department (17 are mathematicsand computing courses outside the Department).Many graduate courses with essentially statisticalcontent are given outside the Department (e.g., intime series analysis) and some are in areas notstressed in the Department (e.g., applied probability). Many important statistical ideas originateand are developed mainly outside statistics departments, e.g., factor analysis (psychology, education) ;information theory (engineering, information sciences) ; queueing theory (business, operations research) ; stochastic linear models (economics) ; andMonte Carlo (computer science). We hope theDepartment will do more to encourage its studentsto explore outside statistics courses.A special feature of many courses in the Department is the systematic use of high speed computers. The Department is among the leaders in thecountry in recognizing the indispensable role thatcomputers will have in the teaching of statistics(as well as in research and applications), and hasdeveloped programs and imaginative approachesthat should be of great assistance to other statisticsdepartments as well. We discuss this in more detailbelow. Except when discussing the introductory undergraduate major sequence mentioned above, studentswere unanimous in their praise of the content andteaching of statistics courses. We did not have anopportunity to talk with students from other departments, but faculty members from other departments generally expressed satisfaction with thecourses, and those who had actually attendedcourses were enthusiastic. But one course, theanalysis of variance sequence, was mentioned particularly often and with particularly high praise bydepartmental students. The coordinate-free approach used in this course is new, and when a textbook is published, will probably be widely adopted.Summer Program for Graduate StudentsThe graduate summer program except for research work is largely nonexistent, so practical workis especially appropriate. The faculty tries to obtainsummer work for graduate students that will givethem an opportunity to practice their statisticalprofession. To this end, one faculty member hasthe responsibility of finding appropriate positionsfor all the graduate students. While that has notbeen possible in every instance, a large proportionof the students do obtain such positions, and theDepartment's efforts are believed to be in largepart responsible for their success. In addition to thethree consulting efforts mentioned earlier, this summer program represents a fourth way for studentsto get practical experience before completing theirprogram.Time to Ph.D.Time to Ph.D. interests educators. It always hasa distribution with a rather long tail. At the requestof the Committee, the Department studied basicfacts about the last eighteen Ph.D.s. The numberof years from first to last graduate registration atThe University of Chicago ranged from 2 to 4,with mode, median, and mean being 3 years. Thenumber of years from first graduate registration atChicago until the Ph.D. ranged from 2 to 12, withmode 3, median 4, and mean 5 years. The numberof years from first graduate work anywhere toPh.D. ranged from 2 to 13, with mode and median5 and mean 5.7 years.It might be useful to the Department and forother departments of statistics to make some comparisons of such figures using common definitions.GraduatesStudents with graduate degrees from Chicago'sDepartment of Statistics have carried on estimable49professional careers, and the Department is justifiably proud of them. Those in academic positionsare (or have been) at the University of Californiaat Berkeley, Columbia University, Harvard University, Iowa State University, Bar-Ilan University,the London School of Economics, Rutgers University, the University of Michigan, and other institutions of higher learning. Of these former students,three are (or have been) department chairmen.Those former students in industrial or government positions are (or have been) at, for example,Bell Telephone Laboratories, the Bureau of theCensus, Westinghouse Research Laboratories, theVeterans Administration, and the National Institutes of Health. One Ph.D. from the Departmentis a successful private consultant.The Department's students have published animpressive array of technical papers and books ona wide variety of topics in statistical theory andmethod.About two-thirds of these former students withdoctorates from the Department are in academicpositions; the others are with private industry orgovernment. For former students with the master'sdegree but not the doctorate, the ratio is roughlyjust the other way; about one-third are in academicpositions and two-thirds in industry or government.Desiderata in Statistical ComputingStatistics has not directly influenced the development of the modern high-speed computer, eitherin its hardware or its software (though in the pre-computer era statistics had a considerable effecton computing in various ways and in particular canclaim credit for the punched card). Until now,statistics has not made demands on the computerthat were different in kind from demands alreadymade by other fields. However, the needs for computing now being recognized in statistical teachingand research are in fact somewhat different fromthe needs of some other computerized fields. Allthe major advances in computer technology havea bearing on statistics, especially the wonderfulincreases in speed and capacity. But there is onesupreme need in statistical computing, and that isflexibility, the ability to perform new calculationsand to depart from established procedures.For example, statistical analysis of data is not inprinciple a one-shot affair. A statistician cannottell, when he begins to study a set of data, whatkind of analysis will seem in retrospect to beadequate. He may choose some standard procedureto start with, but often one of the things revealed by such an analysis is that the analysis itself wasinappropriate. And in other types of statistical computing, say in experimenting with random processesthe computing probably does not take the form ofmany large "production" runs of a few standardprograms, but rather has the character of improvisation. Thus most persons approaching a computerfor statistical purposes, whether they are studentsor professionals, are likely to need to do somethingin the nature of programming, even though theymay possibly rely extensively on existing programsor subroutines.So for statistical work interactive computing(time-sharing) through a terminal might well proveto be generally preferable to batch computing, ifsimilar power and inexpensiveness could be achievedin either mode. At the present time interactivecomputing is still new and rather expensive in manyinstallations. On the other hand, it is technicallyfeasible for batch processing to be operated so thatshort jobs, such as debugging runs, are executedvery fast, with turnaround time in the range of fiveto fifteen minutes. Getting a new program to workcorrectly usually requires several debugging runsbefore useful output is obtained. Under conditionsof fast turnaround, a two hour spell, say, will permit a new program to be punched, debugged, andrun, with a total expenditure of time and effort notin excess (or not by much) of what would beachievable with a good interactive system. Therefore, while interactive computing offers great promise for statistics and is being actively tried in someuniversities, it would be rash to assert that batchprocessing is necessarily inferior in convenience andeffectiveness. Batch processing under conditions oflong turnaround time of several hours, as it is inmany installations and (so we were told) hasrecently been at the computer center of The University of Chicago, is indeed vastly inferior to goodinteractive computing and offers a severe deterrentto use of the computer. Under those conditionsa job that could be done in two hours gets spreadover a much longer period, almost certainly withconsiderable waste of time and interruption ofthought. Under those conditions it is scarcely practicable, either for the instructor or for the students,for a course to be concerned to any considerabledegree with statistical computing, as a course onstatistical analysis of data, for example, ought tobe. (A colleague of one of the members of thisvisiting committee has just completed a graduatelevel course on statistical analysis in which a widerange of types of statistical data were analyzed invarious ways by the students and then discussed in50A batch processor with fast turnaround wasd programs being written in Fortran, withmerous previously tested subroutines available.The fast turnaround was found to be essential tothe conduct of the course. Such a course seemshighly desirable in a graduate program.)Interactive time-shared computing through terminals brings with it some amenities in addition tofast response. Such terminals are likely to be closerat hand, in one's own building if not in one's ownoffice (or home), than the nearest place where batchprocessing can be done. Time-sharing in generalseems to encourage users to be their own programmers, rather than to seek out large package programs intended to be flexible that all too often turnout obscure, clumsy, and frustrating. Some of themost interesting new developments in languages andsystems are associated with time-sharing. In ourremarks above about batch processing with fastturnaround, we do not in the least wish to discourage The University of Chicago from developing time-sharing facilities as rapidly as possible.There are other ingredients to flexibility besidesfast response and ready access to the computer.The user should be able to explore new languagesand special program systems. Computing has notreached a steady state. Innovations need to beavailable, so that they may be called upon, andintelligible, so that they can be called upon effectively. Whereas good primers of Fortran programming, for example, now exist, most new languageor program developments come with highly unsatisfactory explanations. In fact, to provide anaccount of a new language or program system thatis both accurate and comprehensible to potentialusers is a formidable task, comparable with theeffort in developing the object to be described anddemanding a different talent. A user who is stronglyenough motivated to penetrate the designer's explanation of his system may perform an immenseservice to his colleagues by writing the thing up inEnglish. Such work requires and deserves financialsupport.Important developments now taking place bothin general programming languages and in specialstatistical systems offer reduced effort in the programming of novel procedures. Any new computation calls for effort, sometimes large, in clearand precise formulation and in thinking throughvarious possibilities. Over and above this essentialeffort there is the effort of communicating theprocedure to the computer for execution. Ideallythe latter effort should be very small comparedwith the former. At Chicago a special statistical system known as SNAP has been introduced andextended, and seems to offer much promise. Someother recent developments, notably Iverson's language APL, seem not to be at present readily available at The University of Chicago.The Department of Statistics has unusualstrength and interest in computing aspects ofstatistics. An account of activities in statisticalcomputing by members of the Department hasbeen supplied by the Department at our request andappears as Appendix II.PREPARATION OF THIS REPORTThe Chairman of the Committee visited TheUniversity of Chicago for three days early inJanuary 1970 for purposes largely outside the workof the Committee. This gave him an opportunity todiscuss the plans for the visit with the Chairmanof the Department of Statistics, to interview individually over half the members of the Department, and to breakfast with two groups of fourgraduate students together with one of the youngerfaculty members on each occasion. These interviewsgave the Committee a firm basis for its furtherwork because it then knew what matters wereespecially on the mind of the Department, andperhaps even more important, it knew a host ofthings that were not troubling either students orfaculty.After planning how to share responsibility forinterviewing and for writing the final report, theCommittee asked the Department through its Chairman to supply statements on departmental plans,on the encouragement of professional activities, oncooperative research and consulting, and on computation. Beyond these we requested and receivedvitae and publication lists for faculty members;departmental brochures; University catalogues;statements to entering graduate students aboutcourses, seminars, and other matters; a list ofPh.D.s in statistics together with titles of dissertations; a listing of the courses taken by this year'sgraduate students (1969-70); sets of examinations;and a list of professors from other departmentshaving interest in statistics.While the Committe was on the grounds April14-17, 1970, it interviewed two students who wereor had been undergraduates in the Department,fourteen graduate students in the Department, andone alumnus. At least two and usually three members of the Committee interviewed each of theyounger faculty members, usually in two sessions.Discussions were held with each of the senior51faculty members of the Department, as were interviews with nine professors from outside the Department of Statistics and interviews with three members of the administration. Three group discussionswere held with those faculty members from theDepartment who are especially interested in thetopics of computing, cooperative research and consulting, and the introductory course. In addition,at a final luncheon the Committee reported some ofits findings to the full faculty of the Department.APPENDIX IiCOOPERATIVE RESEARCH WITH OTHERSFrom its beginning, the Department of Statisticsat The University of Chicago has felt a strongobligation to help faculty and students throughoutthe campus in the application of statistics to research of all kinds. Among ourselves we call this"consultation," but that term is subject to a kindof service-station misinterpretation, so some ofus prefer the term "cooperative research."The motivations for engaging in cooperative research are :1. It provides a stimulus and a source of problems for theoretical statistics.2. It provides enjoyable participation in interesting scientific inquiries.3. It often results in real help to others.4. It contributes to the training of statisticsstudents.In the best cases, all four motivations may bepresent during a piece of cooperative research.Here are a few examples, among many, chosento illustrate diversity.Paul Meier has recently participated with theHematology group of our Department of Medicinein the design and operation of a randomized follow-up study on the effectiveness of different treatmentsfor Hodgkins disease and various classes of leukemia.David L. Wallace has been deeply engaged (andMr. Meier to a lesser extent) in the programoperated in the Department of Medicine known asthe Myocardial Infarction Research Unit. The sub-project concerned with data acquisition and analysisis directed by Dr. Harry Fozzard. Working withDr. Fozzard, Mr. Wallace has developed a numberof programs for the analysis of EKGs in real time.1 Prepared by the Department at the request of theCommittee, March 13, 1970. Leo A. Goodman and William Kruskal were 1 ato their interest in measures of association fcross-classifications after discussions with B. Berelson (then of the Graduate Library School) and LThurstone (Psychology). Later on, the resultthemselves led to cooperation with a variety 0ffaculty members, including R. Johnson (Geophysi.cal Sciences) and R. Tapp (Meadville TheologicalSchool).Mr. Goodman became interested in problems ofpopulation growth partly as a result of conversations with N. Keyfitz (Sociology). Mr. Goodman'sfindings then led to further interactions with MrKeyfitz and other demographers and to a sequenceof research papers.Christopher Bingham and others, including ourstudent Henry Davis, have worked extensively withVictor Rosenberg, a doctoral candidate in the Graduate Library School. Mr. Rosenberg has been carrying out research on the efficacy of keyword indexingof documents by several methods; the cooperativeresearch included aspects of both design and analysis.Frederick Glick and our student Stella Machadohave helped Theodore Laws, a doctoral student inthe Graduate School of Business, with the analysisof an experimental study of subliminal suggestion.Stephen Fienberg with our student Kinley Larntzcooperated with Alice Jones (Washington University) in her study of wealth in the Americancolonies just before the Revolution.Gordon Sande has worked with Dave Fultz (Geophysical Sciences) on the analysis of an experimentshowing the effect of the earth's rotation on theslowly rotating fluid of a small-scale laboratorysetup.Our former student Lalitha Sanathanan co-operated with a bubble chamber group in the Research Institutes on the analysis of chamber photograph readings by several independent observers.Her work on this led to her doctoral dissertation.Students. — We believe that all graduate students,with the possible exception of a few having primaryinterest in abstract probability, should receiveguided experience with cooperative research. Avariety of schemes have been tried to effect this.For the last four or five years we have beenprimarily using the following arrangement. A member of the faculty is responsible for cooperativeresearch by students. When a request for cooperation comes to the Department's attention, an initialinterview is set up with one or two students, thecentral faculty member, and perhaps one other52ultv member. This initial interview may thend to further activity as circumstances suggest.At roughly quarterly intervals we review thetivity. The Committee has seen a recent writtenview by F. Glick, the responsible faculty memberfor 1969-70.During 1969-70 we are trying, in addition, aformal course in applied statistics. In most of thesessions an outside speaker describes a scientificoroblem to which statistical methods have been, ormight be, applied. Some sessions are devoted to discussions among ourselves.These approaches seem to work fairly well, although there are difficulties. For example, theamount of cooperative research activity varies agreat deal among students. Again, it is difficult toarrange the kind of long-run, deep cooperative research that is most effective and rewarding.OtJier aspects of cooperative research. — Of coursewe are not able to provide all the statistical aidthat might be desired over the campus, nor do wewish for anything so ambitious. In the other direction, many scientific colleagues who might profitfrom discussions with us do not ask for them, andthat for any number of reasons: ignorance thatwe are often willing to help, pride that precludesasking for help, belief in one's own statisticalcompetence (sometimes justified), fear of beingoverwhelmed with high-flown theory, dislike ofsharing credit, etc.As on most campuses, there are individuals andgroups in other segments of the University whoprovide statistical help in their own areas. Statistical groups of this kind flourish, for example, in theGraduate School of Business, the Department ofEducation, the Law School, and the Departmentof Economics. We have been generally successfulin maintaining cordial personal and intellectualbonds with such groups and their members.The cooperative research program sometimesbrings us in touch with scientists off this campus.When they come from other academic organizationsor from research institutions, we typically treatthe relationship just as if it were on our owncampus.There is a small amount of faculty consultationfor pay, most often with industrial concerns. Sincethe amount of this has never been great, it hasnot represented a problem for the Department. Wemonitor it from time to time by asking each facultymember to write down a list of such consultations,with approximate amounts of time spent. Theamount of money is not listed. Members of the Department's faculty also participate from time to time in the activities of government panels and commissions. This is usuallydone as a public service, without financial recompense.APPENDIX II2COMPUTATION AND THE DEPARTMENTOF STATISTICSThe Department of Statistics at The Universityof Chicago is increasingly committed to the ideathat computation (the use of high-speed electronicprogrammable computers) has an indispensable rolein the teaching, research, and application of statistics. This is reflected by growing emphasis in theAnnouncements and other Department literature onthe importance of computation in degree programs.It is seen in the increasing use of computers byfaculty members in their own research and teaching. It is evident in the faculty's activities and associations outside the Department and in theircontributions to advances in computing methodsand systems. No attempt at completeness will bemade in this summary. The emphasis is on communicating the extent and the flavor of the Department's relationship with computation. We beginby sketching a few examples.Much of Mr. Goodman's work in the past fewyears has been predicated on the use of computers.Most recently, he adapted the ideas of stepwiseregression to stepwise contingency table analysis. Aswith many forms of data analysis, the availabilityof a powerful computer is a prerequisite for effective implementation. He also routinely uses thecomputer to obtain numerical values for estimatorbias and other properties of statistical methods.Mr. Sande makes heavy use of the computerin studying techniques of time series analysis, including the distribution of cepstrum estimates. Healso is deeply engaged with geophysicists on campus in applying real-time computer techniques tothe analysis of doppler radar data, especially forthe investigation of clear air turbulence.Mr. Wallace and, to a lesser extent, Mr. Meierhave been working actively with the data analysissubgroup of a large research project oil clinicalheart disease that is known as the Myocardial Infarction Research Unit (MIRU). Programs for online analysis of EKG signals have been developed,2 Prepared by the Department at the request of theCommittee, April 3, 1970.53as have digital programs for more detailed summarization of EKGs taken over a period of time.A program for the analysis of indicator-dilutioncurves has also been developed.Messrs. Meier and Wallace have over the lastseveral years been involved in the activities ofthe Biological Sciences Computation Center (nowreorganized and renamed the Biomedical Computation Facilities) located in Billings Hospital. Asa result, both have been participants in the development of computer applications to a wide variety ofproblems in the biomedical area, ranging from fileprocessing systems to function minimization andnonlinear least-squares analysis programs.Mr. Bingham has been active in development oftime series analysis programs. In particular, hehas consulted on the use of computers in thefrequency analysis of intra-aortal blood flow measurements. He also has made routine use of thecomputer in studying the properties of functionsarising in the analysis of observations of directions— that is, of samples from distributions on thecircle and the sphere.The above examples are concerned largely withthe computer as a tool for solving problems andfor applying results which themselves have littleto do with computers. Several members of theDepartment are also committed to efforts to makethis tool more effective and accessible and to understand the properties of the numerical algorithmswhich actually produce results. Particularly important has been Mr. Wallace's rethinking andrewriting of SNAP, a student-oriented statisticalprocessor that was originally developed at Princeton. With the occasional assistance of Mr. Bingham,Mr. Wallace has vastly improved the power andflexibility of the built-in data library facility, overcoming the lack of the on-link disk that was available on the 7094 at Princeton. The addition ofmanipulable constants as well as arrays of variablesand the improvement of the control of transformations of variables have made SNAP considerablymore powerful. Mr. Wallace has . also developedprograms for a PDP/8 with plotting scope. Theprograms explore the properties of likelihood functions and their derivatives in a form attractive forclassroom use.Mr. Bingham has programmed a powerful tapehandling package which made the improved libraryfacility in SNAP possible. More important to theoverall picture, he substantially expanded the software available to all users of the University'sComputation Center. For example, by importing and making operational a version of the 7094 mon*tor system used at Princeton, he made availablhere the first WATFOR compiler, the first g00fiALGOL compiler, and a powerful and easy-to-ucCRT plotting package. His efforts were also indjspensable in getting PSTAT, a large data-set statistical system, operational on the 7094 here.Mr. Sande has also greatly contributed to un-grading general facilities at the Computation Center, improving the Princeton ALGOL compiler, andputting the 360 version of PSTAT on the air. Oneof the pioneers in the design and use of the so-calledfast Fourier transform, Mr. Sande has continued tomake advances in studying its numerical propertiesand finding new uses for it, especially in time seriesanalysis. As the closest to being a numerical analystof any member of the Department, he is also doingresearch on algorithms used in linear equation solving and least squares. During 1970-71, Mr. Sande'sappointment will be joint with the Committee onInformation Sciences.To indicate that fascination with the superpower-ful does not overwhelm everyone, we should notomit mention of Mr. Glick's creation of ANGST,a set of statistical programs for programmable desktop WANG calculators. ANGST proved extremelyvaluable in laboratory exercises for a new introductory course in statistics for medical students.This course, taught by Messrs. Meier and Glick,also was the vehicle for our first use of a timesharing system (COM SHARE) in teaching elementary courses.The role of the computer in teaching is, of course,influenced by the nature of computer related research here (and vice versa). High speed computation is being increasingly used in introductorycourses. One course, Statistics 300, which had beencomputer oriented for five or six years, is no longeroffered. It has been replaced by the previouslymentioned medical school course and by two newcourses for students in the sciences, both of whichare expected to use the computer routinely. Forthe past two years, Statistics 304-305 has usedSNAP as an aid to insight into the nature ofrandom variables and sampling distributions and asa flexible tool to apply methods discussed in thecourse to more substantial bodies of data than wereformerly possible. SNAP is supplemented in Statistics 306 by other programs, including the analysisof variance processor, AARDVARK. Mr. Wallacehas made use of PDP/8 programs written inFOCAL in Statistics 350.On the graduate level, Mr. Sande's courses in54• e series and linear equation solving requirehstantial programming and computation. Theme is true of Mr. Wallace's course in data"natysis, Statistics 344. The ongoing program of• volving students in intra-university consulting• yet another route which may result in experienceith computation in applied statistics. In addition,uoting from the Announcements: "Graduate students are normally expected to acquire familiarityand experience in the effective use of computersthrough formal courses in computation and numerical analysis . . ." Another activity that is stillin the experimental stage is the assignment of twograduate students to the Computation Center to beon duty for statistical advice, especially with regardto the use of standard statistical packages andsystems. One measure of the effectiveness of ourefforts to bring students and computers togetheris the fact that roughly half the recent Ph.D.theses have involved some computation. In perhapsa quarter, computation played a central role.Most of the computation around the Departmentof Statistics, and indeed around the University, isbatch mode computation on the 7094 and 360/65.We have made effective use of this in the past andwill continue to do so in the future. It is, however,increasingly obvious that time-sharing facilities already in wide use elsewhere would increase theeffectiveness of much of what is already common,such as use of computers in introductory courseexercises, exploratory numerical analysis in thesisresearch, etc. Time-sharing also makes possible theuse of the computer in the classroom. Mr. Wallace'suse of the PDP/8 has shown the power of suchan approach, but the logistic problems in schedulingclasses in the hospital, where the PDP/8 is located,preclude much expansion in this direction. As afirst step we have bought a teletype console thatis housed in the same building with student studyoffices, and we are subscribing to two commercialtime-sharing services. We would very much liketo see such services available from our own Computation Center, but this is not likely in the nearfuture.The Department takes an active interest in theoperation of the University Computation Center.Mr. Bingham is currently a member of the Computer Policy Committee, on which Messrs. Meierand Wallace have served. Messrs. Sande and Bingham regularly attend User Meetings and the like.A problem that is likely to loom larger andlarger is that of obtaining funds for carrying oncomputing activity of the kind described in thisstatement. REPORT OF THE EVALUATIONCOMMITTEE ON THEDEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGYJune 14, 1970Members of the CommitteeDr. Ellis S. Benson, University of Minnesota atMinneapolisDr. K. M. Brinkhous, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, ChairmanDr. Paul E. Lacy, Washington University in St.LouisIt is our pleasure to submit the report of the Evaluation Committee for the Department of Pathology.The members of the Committee visited the University and Department for two full days on May 19and May 20, 1970. Prior to the visit the Committeewas furnished with a great deal of factual data onthe Department, its faculty, budgets, and teachingprograms, as well as some general information onThe Pritzker School of Medicine. We had the opportunity of discussing the goals and functioning ofthe Department with the Chairman and with theFaculty Secretary of the Department; all but oneof the executive or tenured faculty in Pathology(Dr. Henry Rappaport was away from the institution at the time of our visit) ; the remaining facultyin Pathology; graduate students, interns, and resident staff in the Department; representative medicalstudents of each class; the chairmen of several ofthe clinical and basic science departments ; a groupof faculty of the clinical departments who havesignificant patient care responsibilities; the Deanand Associate Deans of the Division; and the Director of the Hospital. We are especially appreciativeof the time and help given to us by Provost JohnT. Wilson, Dean Leon O. Jacobson, and AssociateDean C. W. Vermeulen. From the foregoing, wefeel that we had an unusual opportunity to viewthe strengths of one of the most important pathology departments in the country and to reviewthe problems facing the Department, Hospital, andSchool' in relation to changing patterns in educational requirements and governmental researchfunding and to increasing demands for pathologicservices in a modern university medical center.Historically, the Department of Pathology hasbeen viewed as an oasis of strength in its field sincethe founding of the University. It was the pioneerin the development of a Ph.D. program in pathology. There have been three chairmen since the55development of the Midway Campus, an indicationof the stability of the Department. The currentChairman, Dr. Robert Wissler, took over this responsibility some twelve years ago, at a time whenthe staff was largely depleted by reason of retirements and transfer of faculty to other institutions.In many ways the current eminence of the Department is due to the devoted efforts of the Chairmanand the support of an outstanding faculty.The Department is one of the most outstandingacademic departments of pathology in the nationand represents a vital center for the continuedgrowth and development of academic pathologynationally and internationally. The present superbstatus of the Department is due to the many majorstrengths and degree of excellence which exist inadministrative leadership; research; senior staff;undergraduate and graduate teaching; residenttraining in anatomic pathology; and diagnosticservices in cytology and autopsy, and in surgical,pediatric, and obstetrics-gynecology pathology. Dr.Wissler has obviously been eminently successful inselecting and recruiting staff members with excellentpotential and has created an environment whichpermits these individuals to flourish and achievenational and international recognition for theiraccomplishments. Factual evidence for this recognition is not only in their published work but in thecontinued attempts by many other medical schoolsto recruit these persons for chairs of pathology intheir own institutions. The total Department isseriously and actively committed to undergraduateteaching, and it has worked extremely hard to continue to improve the courses given. Several membersof the Department have interacted with facultyfrom other departments in a most admirable fashionin making changes in the new curriculum. The success of their efforts in teaching was evident fromthe interviews with the medical students and fromthe large number of students that choose to do research in Pathology. The M.D.-Ph.D. students inPathology were obviously brilliant young men andwomen who were enjoying their training in a moststimulating environment. The resident-trainees inthe graduate program were committed to academicpathology and were receiving the type of trainingthat will permit them to have fruitful academiccareers and assume positions of leadership in thefuture.The major areas of research strength presentlyinclude immunopathology, cardiovascular and renalpathology, hematopathology, and oncology; the approaches utilized in each of these areas involveboth biochemical and ultrastructural methodology. Outstanding contributions have been made in theunderstanding of cellular mechanisms of antibodyformation, in the pathogenesis of the atherosclerotic lesion (widely used animal models have beendeveloped and the key role of the smooth musclecell has been identified), in the natural history 0frenal diseases of man, in viral oncogenesis, in thebasic nature of hyaline membrane disease of thelung, and in the effect of lowT-level, long-term toxicagents on the fine structure of cells. Special mentionshould be made of the systematic clinico-pathologiccorrelative studies of hematopoietic neoplasms, withthe development of an international reference centerfor these diseases.The breadth and depth of research activity areof importance not only in making significant contributions to medical science but also in providingopportunities for research training in multiple areasby the resident-trainees and graduate students.There is no question of the remarkable achievements made by the Department or of the positionof eminence that it holds in academic pathologyand the equitable balance of teaching, research, andservice that exists. The only concern is that inattempting to meet the present and future challenges of this changing era in medicine these vitalstrengths not be weakened and the tripartite balancebe continued in equilibrium.The new medical curriculum, instituted thisyear, emphasizes correlative introductory coursesin the basic sciences and medicine. There are nolonger required courses as such in Pathology. Whilethere is enthusiasm for this approach to teaching,there is also concern about whether this will weakenthe total teaching efforts of the Department, particularly in the graduate program, since historicallythe graduate student in Pathology has come mainlyfrom the medical student body (an M.D. and Ph.D.program requiring at least six years rather thanfour years for the M.D. alone). Another expressedconcern of some was the possibility of an identityproblem of faculty members in relation to Pathology, since chemical approaches to pathologic research are so important. Still another concern isthe need for greater faculty teaching time, withoutcompensatory increases in staff, and the possibilitythat this may adversely affect research productivityof the faculty. The Committee believes that the newcurriculum should be reviewed in these lights in twoor three years, to determine if these potentially adverse effects are likely to materialize. One of themedical students we interviewed stated, "This isa very good Department. It is a Department whichis willing to change." In a sense this is one of the56most lavish testimonies of praise in a time whichcalls for change.A concern was expressed that some of the graduate students in the Ph.D. program may not continue in Pathology but may select another basicscience or clinical field for their future careers. Thisconcern does not apply to the resident-traineesworking toward a graduate degree, since theseindividuals are receiving specialty training in bothdiagnostic pathology and experimental pathologyand will undoubtedly continue in academic pathology. The M.D. -Ph.D. medical students are notin a position to make a definitive commitment toa particular clinical or basic science field, norshould they be at this stage of their development.Some of the individuals doing graduate work inPathology will select medicine, pediatrics, biochemistry, etc. for their future academic careers.It is the view of the Committee that the trainingin experimental pathology received by these students will be of tremendous value to their futureacademic careers regardless of the field of specialization they may select and that this diversity ofcareers should be a source of great satisfactionto the faculty in Pathology.To the Committee, it is natural that a faculty inPathology, with the breadth and subspecialties ofthe discipline, should differ regarding the relativeemphasis that should prevail for different areas inthe future. All are agreed on excellent teaching,which exists. But the same is not true regarding therelative emphasis to be given to scholarly activitiesand research on the one hand and diagnostic andpatient care activities on the other. The Committeestrongly urges that the current research strengthbe protected. To what extent this can be expanded,with present strictures on space and budget, remainsto be determined. Regarding the relative emphasisgiven to diagnostic and patient care activities, it isnot believed that this is resolvable by departmentalfaculty vote, since the societal needs for medicaleducation and related medical care activities willto a large extent be a determinant factor. It isbelieved that the Department, without in any waydetracting from its present strengths, must be responsive to these needs. The way in which thesechallenges are met will be determined as much bythe total posture of the medical center in relationto medical care and community health problems asby the desires of the departmental faculty; for, ifthe University embarks on a broadened program,the need for pathologic services will have to bemet. While the departmental executive facultyfunctions admirably as a community of scholars facing their common needs and defining goals, itmay be asking too much of this organizational structure to resolve at a departmental level a problemthat is but part of a broader University problem.Debate is essential, but polarization of the facultyon issues such as this should not be allowed tobecome a destructive force.The Department has a base of great strengthin research. In its senior faculty it has many scientists who are internationally recognized for theirresearch accomplishments and are honored authorities in their fields. The junior faculty have not yetachieved the positions of eminence of their seniorcolleagues but show much promise of developingstrength within this environment as creative andindependent scientists. The faculty as a whole areskilled and devoted teachers and are gratefullyrecognized as such by their students. Since thisDepartment has such strength in research andteaching, we are very optimistic about its futurepotential in all areas of diagnostic pathology, including clinical pathology. Further development ofits capabilities in service areas of pathology shouldnot be done in a way which diminishes its researchand teaching capability but rather in a mannerwhich strengthens and indeed expands research andteaching activities and potentials.The anatomic diagnostic services were each directed by outstanding pathologists and in mostinstances were adequately staffed with excellentjunior members. The quality of service provided, aswell as the training given in anatomic pathology, isabove reproach, except for space limitations notedbelow.One of the major areas of concern to the Department and to the institution is that of clinical pathology or laboratory medicine. In this area, thedifficulties that the Department of Pathology hasin resolving its "polarization" dilemmas (researchand scholarship versus service and patient care,basic science versus clinical science, "ivory tower"versus community involvement) become intensified. Members of clinical departments whom weinterviewed were almost totally in agreement intheir dissatisfaction with services provided by theclinical chemistry laboratory. This dissatisfactionseems to have more to do with administrative matters, such as reporting, planning communications,and responsiveness to queries and complaints, thanit does with the quality or breadth of services.Though more satisfaction was expressed regardingclinical microbiology and the blood bank, seemingly the services of these sections, too, may requireadditional strengthening to make them more closely57responsive to the needs of the clinical services.Members of the Department of Pathology deplored the administrative fragmentation of clinicallaboratories. Especially deplorable in their viewis the fact that the diagnostic laboratory area ofhematology is administratively separate from therest of clinical pathology. Many other small unitsexist, especially in the Department of Medicine,all of them providing services of some sort. Someof these are the thyroid function laboratory, endocrine laboratory, and renal disease laboratory.There are approximately twenty of these smallunits, each of which has been assembled aroundthe research interest of a clinical investigator.Often a single procedure, such as a steroid analysis,is performed in more than one laboratory. Thisfragmentation, of course, weakens the service capabilities of clinical chemistry, is administrativelycumbersome and inefficient, and increases medicalcosts. Furthermore, it weakens the training programs in Pathology, since these fragmented areasare not readily available for training purposes.Pathologists in specialty training are more awarethan ever of the need to obtain proper professional qualifications in their specialty area. This is trueeven at The University of Chicago, which hasalways taken as its primary mission the preparationof medical scientists and academicians. Todayit is apparent that even in academic surroundingspathologists must deal with problems of patientcare (the ivory tower versus community dilemmaagain).In summary, then, clinical pathology is fallingshort in providing the services required at thismodern, model teaching hospital. At the same time,the present organization of the clinical laboratoriesis less than ideal for the residency training needsof the school in clinical pathology. We believethese two problems can be resolved as one, sincewe feel certain that if the laboratories becomea more lively and stimulating place for training,they will also be in a position to much better meetthe service demands, especially in the area ofcommunication.The Department has thirty-three full-time faculty members. Only four of these are in clinicalpathology, and one, the director, is moving toanother institution. This immediately points upone of the problems since the faculty of manydepartments are, on a rough basis, more equallydivided between anatomic (surgical, autopsy, cytologic) and clinical pathology.A search is now in progress to obtain a laboratorydirector. An individual experienced in one area of clinical pathology (hopefully, in clinical chemistwherein lies the greatest need for growth a aimprovement) should be found and appoint aHe should have full authority to organize all na tof clinical pathology in a manner consistent withthe best level of service. He should have full authority over training of residents and the encouragement to develop programs of training in alliedhealth fields, such as medical technology, clinicalchemistry, and clinical microbiology. He shouldhave the opportunity to recruit several additionalfaculty members in clinical pathology. The Committee was much impressed with the present facultycontingent in clinical pathology. The three remaining members are all highly competent, resourcefuland dedicated faculty members who hopefully willremain at The University of Chicago, continuingtheir good work.The individual who heads this division should bea recognized scientist, able teacher, skillful organizer, and, importantly, should be able to understandclinical problems and communicate effectively withthe chiefs of clinical services. In developing theclinical laboratories, the director should haveenough autonomy so that he can accomplish theorganizational and communicative requirements ofhis responsibility. We believe this autonomy canbe attained in a division of clinical pathologywithin the Department of Pathology, if such adivision were given a considerable amount ofbudgetary and administrative independence. Theprogression in due course of a strengthened divisionin the direction of an independent Department ofLaboratory Medicine must be accepted as a naturalone. The strengthening of the division at thepresent time within the framework of Pathologywill allow it to derive considerable encouragementand strength from the parent department, particularly in developing a strong research base.The fragmented areas of the clinical laboratoriesshould be brought into the new autonomous division. The division needs these to fulfill its teachingand residency training missions. Furthermore, consolidation under enlightened new leadership willprovide an improved service potential and moreefficient and economical overall operation of theseareas.Space is a serious limitation not only in clinicalpathology but also in the total service, research,and teaching activities of the Department. Thisrealization came from our tour of the Department,from our inspection of actual space allocationfigures, and from our conversations with graduatestudents, medical students, residents, and junior58faculty members. Graduate and medical studentstold us of elbow-to-elbow crowding in the faculty'sresearch laboratories. More students would work•n this Department, both in Ph.D. programs andmedical student research projects, if there weremore room. There are approximately 18,500 squarefeet of research space assigned to thirty-two faculty members, for a total of about 500 square feetper individual — which is well below the 1000 squarefeet recommended by several authorities, organizations, and agencies. Several junior faculty membershave no space of their own for their research andfor prospective students. There has been very littleincrease in departmental research space since 1927,though the Hospital has more than doubled its bedsand the Department has greatly increased in numbers of faculty and other personnel in the intervening years. We hope the planned remodeling of thesixth floor space (formerly used as animal quarters)can be accomplished soon. Furthermore, when newteaching laboratories are constructed according topresent plans, the present teaching laboratoriesshould be converted to research facilities. Obviously, development of a strong unified program inLaboratory Medicine will require additional commitment of space. Such space should not be obtained simply by reassignment from other areas ofPathology. A long-range plan envisioning new modern facilities for Pathology, including clinical pathology or laboratory medicine in a new separatebuilding, is strongly urged.QUANTRELL AWARDSThe Llewellyn John and Harriet Manchester Quan-trell Awards for Excellence in UndergraduateTeaching were awarded at the 332nd Convocationon June 12, 1970.Easley Blackwood, Professor of MusicEasley Blackwood is a composer and a pianistto whom good teaching is a powerful professionalobligation. Good teaching is essential to producegood musicians, and he attacks the problems ofteaching with the same zeal that he brings tolearning a new and difficult piece. Devotion tohis art will not allow him to spare himself orhis students; he gives himself fully in his time,m his energy, and in his concern for them, and he demands the best from them. His classes aredynamic, passionate, never easy. He has an astonishing mastery of his materials, which he usesalways in a drive for precision — whether in performance, explanation, or criticism — for lucidity,for discipline. A course in elementary harmonytaught by him, his students have said, becomesan exciting and profound study of music theorythat can change their lives.Joseph Cropsey, Associate Professor of PoliticalScienceMaster of the precise phrase and the fully-articulated argument, Joseph Cropsey leads hiscrowded classes in political philosophy on thelong and circuitous path stretching from opinionto knowledge. It is a difficult journey, but nevera grim one, as the teacher (through speech anddeed) instructs his students in how to be students, together with him, of the writings of thepreeminent intellects of ancient and moderntimes. To this task Mr. Cropsey brings the exactness that comes from the training of an economist, the breadth that comes with careful scholarship in the school of the philosophers, and thewit that comes to one who has observed, longand well, humans in their polity.Stuart A. Rice, the Louis Block Professor ofChemistryAs an outstanding physical chemist, a world authority on the theory of the liquid state and onthe behavior of electrons and energy in liquidsand solids, Stuart Rice possesses an array oftalents one might hope to find combined in halfa dozen scientists selected to form the nucleusof a distinguished department of chemistry. Heis equally gifted as a theoretician and as anexperimentalist. He is as concerned with scienceand public policy as he is with pure research.He is the leader of a large and exciting researchgroup while also writing a revolutionary textbookfor basic chemistry.In a demanding course in basic chemistry, hepresents the subject with such clarity, and transmits so much of his own boundless zeal andenthusiasm, that students in their first year in theCollege are inspired to extend themselves and59develop a real understanding for the breadth andbeauty of modern science.Lorna P. Straus, Assistant Professor of AnatomyA gifted teacher, Lorna Straus has amplified herconsiderable talents in the classroom by thedevotion with whith she has tended to the individual strengths and weaknesses of her students.She has given untiringly of herself to the manystudents requiring her help as Senior Adviser ofthe Biology Collegiate Division and to the evengreater number of students in the College who have benefitted by her service as Assistant Deanof Undergraduate Students. A faithful colleagueshe has expedited with imagination and goodhumor the labors of faculty committees concerned with problems of curriculum, governanceand educational facilities.Her grateful students who have come to knowher either in the general biology course requiredof all College students or in the mammaliananatomy course taken by Biology majors haveattested to her skills in exposition, her enthusiasm for scholarship, and her sympathy andunderstanding of student needs and problems.WOMEN'S BOARD 1969-70Mrs. Robert McCormick AdamsMrs. Mortimer AdlerMrs. A. Adrian AlbertMrs. Robert 0. AndersonMrs. A. Watson Armour IIIMrs. Charles F. AxelsonMrs. John W. BairdMrs. Russell BairdMrs. Rosecrans BaldwinMrs. Harrison B. BarnardMrs. Claude BarnettMrs. George W. BeadleMrs. Laird BellMrs. Edward H. Bennett, Jr.Mrs. Edward BenninghovenMrs. B. E. BensingerMrs. Charles BentonMrs. William BentonMrs. John J. BerganMrs. Bowen BlairMrs. Edward McCormick BlairMrs. William McCormick BlairMrs. Edward F. BlettnerMrs. Leigh BlockMrs. Philip D. Block, Jr.Mrs. Philip D. Block IIIMrs. Richard Drummond BokumMrs. Daniel J. BooneMrs. Charles T. BoyntonMrs. Jerald C. BrauerMrs. Robert E. BrookerMrs. Charles L. BrownMrs. Oscar BrownMrs. George T. Bunker, Jr. Mrs. Richard M. BurridgeMrs. Roald F. CampbellMrs. William B. CannonMrs. William G. CaplesMrs. Robert A. CarrMrs. Laurence CartonMrs. Robert W. CartonMrs. Gilbert ChapmanThe Hon. Marguerite Stitt ChurchMrs. Norton ClappMrs. John ClaytonMrs. Dwight M. CochranMrs. Lowell T. CoggeshallMrs. I. W. ColburnMrs. William M. Collins, Jr.Mrs. Fairfax M. ConeMrs. John S. CoulsonMrs. James R. CoulterMrs. Thomas H. CoulterMrs. William CovingtonMrs. John J. CrownMrs. Charles F. CutterMrs. Charles U. DalyMrs. William W. DarrowMrs. Eugene A. DavidsonMrs. Sidney DavidsonMrs. Emmett DedmonMrs. Edison DickMrs. Earl DickersonMrs. John Dille, Jr.Mrs. Elliott DonnelleyMrs. Gaylord DonnelleyMrs. James C. Down, Jr.Mrs. Cyrus S. Eaton Mrs. G. Corson EllisMrs. R. Winfield EllisMrs. William C. EllisMrs. Owen FairweatherMrs. Ralph Falk IIMrs. Robert S. FaurotMrs. Enrico FermiMrs. Harold FlorsheimMrs. Gaylord Freeman, Jr.Mrs. Roy J. FriedmanMrs. Charles B. GentherMrs. Maurice P. GeraghtyMrs. James R. GetzMrs. Isak V. GersonMrs. Robert Hixon GloreMrs. Bertrand GoldbergMrs. Howard GoodmanMrs. Philip L. GrahamMrs. William B. GrahamMrs. Paul GuenzelMrs. Robert C. GunnessMrs. Robert P. GwinnMrs. J. Parker HallMrs. Homer HargraveMrs. Homer Hargrave, Jr.Mrs. Irving B. HarrisMrs. Stanley Harris, Jr.Mrs. Augustin S. Hart, Jr.Mrs. Sidney HaskinsMrs. Harris HaywoodMrs. Ben W. HeinemanMrs. James 0. HeyworthMrs. Roger H. HildebrandMrs. Frank P. Hixon60Mrs. W. Press HodgkinsMrs. James F. Hoge, Jr.Mrs. John A. HolabirdMrs. William 0. HuntMrs. AllhvK. IngallsMrs. Robert S. IngersollMrs. Robert T. IshamMrs. Leon 0. JacobsonMrs. Porter M. JarvisMrs. D. Gale JohnsonMrs. John H. JohnsonMrs. William B. JohnsonMrs. Percy JulianMrs. David M. KennedyMrs. Meyer KestnbaumMrs. Martha Bennett KingMrs. Ferd KramerMrs. L. Ellsworth LaflinMrs. Gilbert L. Lee, Jr.Mrs. Nathaniel LeveroneMrs. Edward H. LeviMrs. C. Ranlet LincolnMrs. Alton A. LinfordMrs. Homer J. LivingstonMrs. Glen A. LloydMrs. Water LoweMrs. John M. LowrieMiss Louise LutzMrs. Thomas B. Malarkey, Jr.Mrs. William MauldinMrs. David MayerMrs. Frank D. MayerMrs. Frank D. Mayer, Jr.Mrs. John L. McCaffreyMrs. Franklin P. McCarty, Jr.Mrs. Woods McCauslandMrs. Fowler B. McConnellMrs. Brooks McCormickMrs. John T. McCutcheon, Jr.Mrs. John J. McDonoughMrs. Edward D. McDougal, Jr.Mrs. Robert McDougal, Jr.Mrs. William L. McLennanMrs. Frank McNairMrs. John F. MerriamMrs. D. Daniel MichaelMrs. C. Phillip MillerMrs. Harold A. Moore Miss Ruth Moore Mrs. Gordon H. SmithMrs. William V. Morgenstern Mrs. Hermon D. SmithMrs. Phil C. Neal Mrs. Malcolm N. SmithMrs. Albert Newman Mrs. Solomon B. SmithMrs. James M. Nicely Mrs. Robert J. SnyderMrs. Thomas L. Nicholson Mrs. John V. SpachnerMrs. A. C. Nielsen Mrs. Lyle M. SpencerMrs. John Nuveen Mrs. Sydney Stein, Jr.Mrs. Charles D. O'Connell Mrs. Gardner H. SternMrs. William R. Odell Mrs. Adlai E. Stevenson IIIMrs. Conway Olmsted Mrs. Robert E. StrausMrs. John Osborne Mrs. Robert E. StreeterMrs. Gilbert Osgood Mrs. Robert Stuart, Jr.Mrs. Walter P. Paepcke Mrs. William G. Swartchild, Jr.Mrs. Ellmore C. Patterson Mrs. Roily 0. SwearingenMrs. Beverly Pattishall Mrs. Gustavus Swift, Jr.Mrs. Charles H. Percy Mrs. A. Thomas TaylorMrs. Anthony L. Perrin Mrs. Henry F. TenneyMrs. Peter G. Peterson Mrs. Robert C. UptonMrs. Albert Pick, Jr. Mrs. Clifton UtleyMrs. George A. Poole Mrs. John Van Der VriesMrs. Charles S. Potter Mrs. Edwin P. VanderwickenMrs. Rockefeller Prentice Mrs. Errett Van NiceMrs. William Wood Prince Mrs. H. Stanley WanzerMrs. Abram N. Pritzker Mrs. J. Harris WardMrs. Jack N. Pritzker Mrs. Thomas M. WareMrs. Jay A. Pritzker Mrs. Douglas A. Warner, Jr.Mrs. Ernest E. Quantrell Mrs. Louis WatermulderMrs. George A. Ranney Mrs. George H. WatkinsMrs. Joseph Regenstein Mrs. Harry WeeseMrs. Joseph Regenstein, Jr. Mrs. Edward K. WellesMrs. Bryan S. Reid, Jr. Mrs. John P. WellingMrs. Harold A. Richman Mrs. Philip C. WhiteMrs. William J. Roberts Mrs. Eddie N. WilliamsMrs. Frederick Roe Mrs. Jack A. WilliamsonMrs. A. Loring Rowe Mrs. Christopher W. WilsonMrs. Paul S. Russell Mrs. John P. WilsonMrs. Edward L. Ryerson Mrs. John P. Wilson, Jr.Mrs. Calvin Sawyier Mrs. John T. WilsonMrs. Leo H. Schoenhofen, Jr. Mrs. Orlando W. WilsonMrs. Charles P. Schwartz Mrs. Arthur M. WoodMrs. Irving Seaman, Jr. Mrs. J. Howard WoodMrs. Merrill Shepard Mrs. Frank H. WoodsMrs. Albert W. Sherer Mrs. Joseph S. WrightMrs. George P. Shultz Mrs. Silvain WylerMrs. Richard Simmons Mrs. Theodore YntemaMrs. Frank S. Sims Mrs. George B. YoungMrs. Edward Byron Smith61THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE FACULTIESHXwawH*!onoowooaoo0Qoou>n Zm ± c o35 n? >=i O TJ cn no|zPO p > •vOcn o<3si a -i> a3<O n'o122cn m