THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 9 EECOEDAN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF FACULTIES VOLUME IV, NUMBER 6REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CONTENTS /December 17, 1970ON THE CRITERIA OFACADEMIC APPOINTMENT1 * Report of the Committee on theCriteria of Academic Appointment15 Report of the Student HealthGynecology ServiceThe Committee on the Criteria of AcademicAppointment was appointed by President Levion July 15, 1970. The members of the Committee are:S. Chandrasekhar, the Morton D. Hull Distinguished Service Professor of Astronomy andPhysics.Dr. Roderick Childers, Associate Professor ofMedicine.John Hope Franklin, the John Matthews ManlyDistinguished Service Professor of History.Arthur Friedman, Professor of English.Jacob W. Getzels, the R. Wendell HarrisonDistinguished Service Professor of Educationand Psychology.Harry G. Johnson, Professor of Economics.Saunders Mac Lane, the Max Mason Distinguished Service Professor of Mathematics.Edwaifd Rosenheim, Professor of English, Secretary.Edward Shils, Professor of Sociology and inthe Committee on Social Thought, Chairman.xIn view of the invidious implications of theuse of the masculine pronoun in all cases, it shouldbe clearly understood from the beginning thatwhere that pronoun is used, the reader of thisreport should understand it to refer to both sexes.Henry James once said, "When I say 'Oxford,' Imean 'Oxford and Cambridge.' " We are, mutatismutandis, in the same position.When the term department alone is used, itshould be understood to refer to department, committee, institute, and school.When appointment alone is used, it should beunderstood, unless it is otherwise clear from thecontext, that this means appointment, promotion,retention, or extension.When we speak of "senior members" of theUniversity faculty, we mean those on permanentappointment; when we speak of "junior members,"we mean those not on permanent appointment.The University of Chicago is generally referredto in the text as "the University." John Simpson, the Edward L. Ryerson Distinguished Service Professor of Physics.Lorna P. Straus, Assistant Professor of Anatomyand Biology.H. G. Williams-Ashman, Professor of Biochemistry and in the Ben May Laboratoryfor Cancer Research.Fourteen meetings were held in 1970 — July15, 24, and 28; August 4; October 6, 13, 20,and 27; November 3, 10, 17, and 24; andDecember 1 and 8. The report of the Committeeis submitted herewith./. IntroductionThe existence of The University of Chicagois justified if it achieves and maintains superiorquality in its performance of the three majorfunctions of universities in the modern world.These functions are: (1) the discovery of important new knowledge; (2) the communication of that knowledge to students and thecultivation in them of the understanding andskills which enable them to engage in the furtherpursuit of knowledge; and (3) the training ofstudents for entry into professions which requirefor their practice a systematic body of specialized knowledge.In intellectual matters, at least, the wholeamounts to more than the sum of the parts inisolation. A university faculty is not merely anassemblage of individual scientists and scholars;it must possess a corporate life and an atmosphere created by the research, teaching, andconversation of individual scientists and scholarswhich stimulates and sustains the work of colleagues and students at the highest possible level.Research, teaching, and training are the work of1individuals. These individuals depend for theireffectiveness, at least in part, on the University'sprovision of material and administrative serviceswhich enable their work to go on; they dependalso on the maintenance in the University ofan atmosphere of stimulation, tolerance, andcritical openness to new ideas. The function ofappointive bodies is to bring to the academicstaff of the University individuals who will perform at the highest level the functions of research, teaching, and training and the maintenance of the intellectual community of the University. A university which does not performat this level will lose its standing in the worldand therewith its power to attract outstandingfaculty members and outstanding students. Itsfailure to attract them will in turn reduce thequality of its performance. Every appointmentof a mediocre candidate makes it more difficultto appoint a distinguished candidate later andit makes it more difficult to bring outstandingstudents to the university. This is why scrupulous insistence on the most demanding criteriain the act of appointment is so decisive for theUniversity.The conception of the proper tasks of theUniversity determines the criteria which shouldgovern the appointment, retention, and promotion of members of the academic staff. Thecriteria which are to be applied in the case ofappointments to The University of Chicagoshould, therefore, be criteria which give preference above all to actual and prospectivescholarly and scientific accomplishment of thehighest order, actual and prospective teachingaccomplishment of the highest order, and actualand prospective contribution to the intellectualquality of the University through critical stimulation of others within the University to produce work of the highest quality.The University of Chicago should not aimto be a pantheon of dead or dying gods. Appointments to the University should not bemade solely on the basis of past achievementsbut only to the degree that past achievementspromise future achievement.The tradition of The University of Chicagohas defined it, primarily but not exclusively, asa research university of the highest internationalstanding. The University of Chicago is, by itstradition, an institution where research is doneby academic staff and where students are trained to do research, by induction into the state ofmind and disposition to do research on importantsubjects and with original results. Undergraduateteaching at The University of Chicago has beenand must be conducted in a way which arousesin students their capacity for discrimination anddisciplined curiosity so that upon reaching thelatter years of their training they will have theskills, knowledge, discrimination, and motivationto make original discoveries or will begin to beready for the effective performance of roles insociety where these qualities will bear fruit.In the performance of its functions in research and in professional training, it becomesnecessary to appoint supporting staff who areindispensable to the performance of these functions but who are not qualified for appointmentto the University faculty. This raises seriousproblems for the University in its effort to keepto its major tasks at the level its traditions andaspirations demand.//. Procedural MattersA. CriteriaAny appointive body must have a standardby which it assesses the merits of the alternativecandidates before it. Academic appointive bodiesin general, and at The University of Chicagoin particular, must have clearly perceivedstandards which they seek to apply to particularcases. They must seek to choose candidates whocan conform most closely with these standardsin their most exigent application. The standardsto be applied by any appointive body shouldbe those which assess the quality of performancein (1) research; (2) teaching and training, including the supervision of graduate students;(3) contribution to intellectual community; and(4) services.2 Distinguished performance in anyone of these categories does not automaticallyentail distinguished performance in the others.For this reason, weighting of the various criteriacannot be avoided by appointive bodies. TheCommittee thinks that the criterion of distinction in research should be given the greatestweight.2The criteria for academic appointments sometimes are distorted or degraded by pressures fromthe faculty or administration as a result of theneed for special talent to carry out supportingservices of the University or to fulfill a commitmentmade by the University to perform certain services.2#. The Application of CriteriaAll academic appointments to Universityfaculties must be treated with great seriousness.3They should, wherever it is at all possible, bemade on the basis of careful study by members ofthe appointive body of the publications and otherwritten work of the candidate, and of writtenassessments, where desirable, by outside refereesor consultants which assess originality, rigor andfundamental significance of the work and whichestimate the likelihood that the candidate is orwill become a leading figure in his field. Theyalso should be made on the most careful consideration of his teaching ability which includesthe ability to contribute effectively to the research of graduate students. Appointive bodiesshould take into account the observations andwritten opinions of those who have observed orexperienced the candidate's teaching or whohave observed its results in the accomplishmentsof his students. They should be made on thebasis of the best available information about thecandidate's contribution to the intellectual activity of the university where he has worked previously in addition to his publications and hissuccess with his students in their doctoral andsubsequent research, as attested by their dissertations and publications.All appointments, whether they are firstAccording to Statutes 13 (a) and (b) of theStatutes of The University of Chicago (pp. 41-43),the following categories do not possess membershipin the University faculty: (1) Research Associatesand (2) Field Work Personnel:13. (a) The Members of the UniversityFaculties are classified as follows: Professor,Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, andInstructor. Every person holding one of thesetitles shall be a member of the Faculty withstatus as defined in this Statute. . . .(b) Other academic personnel. Membershipin the University Faculties is restricted to persons holding appointment as prescribed in thepreceding section of this Statute. Others, regardless of courtesy rank or stated rank equivalence,shall not be members of the. University Facultyto which they are attached. They include thefollowing:(1) Research Associates and Associates. Research Associates are classified as follows: Research Associate (Professor), Research Associate(Associate Professor), Research Associate (Assistant Professor), Research Associate (In- appointments to instructorships or assistant professorships, or reappointments to assistant professorships, or promotions to permanent tenureat the level of associate professorship, or promotions from the rank of associate professor to thatof professor, or appointments from outside theUniversity to associate professorship, or extension beyond the age of normal retirement,must be conducted with the same thorough deliberation, the same careful study of relevantdocumentation and other evidence, and thesame process of consultation. No decisions toappoint, retain, or promote between any gradesshould under any circumstances be regarded as"automatic."Junior appointments of candidates who havejust finished graduate work to instructorships orassistant professorships do, however, have acharacter of their own. The candidate's writtenwork is likely to be scanty and may not even beavailable. There may be little or no evidence ofhis teaching, and it may be difficult to disentangle his originality from that of his professors.In such cases, all available evidence must beexamined just, as in other cases, but there cannotbe the same certitude of judgment. For thisreason, appointive bodies must always be quiteexplicit in stating that such an initial appointment is for a limited term.There must be no consideration of sex, ethnicstructor), and Research Associate. The normalperiod of appointment of research associates shallbe one year, and reappointments may be madewithout limitation as to number of reappointments in any rank. Connection with the University ceases at the end of appointment unlessreappointment is provided.Associates of Departments and Schools maybe appointed to designate courtesy relationships.At the end of the term of appointment the connection with the University ceases unless reappointment is provided.(2) Field Work Personnel. In the School ofSocial Service Administration and in the Department of Psychiatry appointments may bemade to the following additional positions: FieldWork Professor, Field Work Associate Professor,Field Work Assistant Professor, and Field WorkInstructor. Appointments may be made for periods of one to three years, and reappointmentsmay be made without limitation as to numberof reappointments at any rank. Connection withthe University ceases at the end of appointmentunless reappointment is provided.3or national characteristics, or political or religious beliefs or affiliations in any decision regarding appointment, promotion, or reappointmentat any level of the academic staff.Particular care must be taken to keep "inbreeding" at a minimum. "Inbreeding" at thelevel of appointment to the rank of instructorand assistant professor is a temptation becausethe internal candidate is already known to theappointive body. The arguments against "inbreeding" are: (1) the dangers of relaxation ofstandards; (2) the dangers of narrowing andstereotyping the intellectual focus of the department in question; and (3) the dangers of appointing candidates who are excessively dependent intellectually on their former teachers' ideasand even presence. These are arguments to betaken seriously by appointive bodies. Nonetheless, the barrier against "inbreeding" should notbe insuperable. Whenever an "inbred" candidateis considered, great pains must be taken to identify and examine with the utmost care the credentials of external candidates of high quality sothat internal candidates can be properly compared with external candidates. Special emphasisshould be given to external assessments in decisions which entail "inbreeding." Where, aftersevere scrutiny, the internal candidate is veryclearly superior in his estimated potentiality asan original scientist or scholar to any of theexternal candidates, and if he is not only superiorto his immediate competitors but is deemedlikely to become an outstanding figure in hissubject, the objections to "inbreeding" shouldbe overcome in that instance.Decisions regarding retention or promotionmust deliberately eschew considerations of convenience, friendship, or congeniality. No decisionto retain or promote should permit the entry ofconsiderations of the avoidance of hardshipwhich might confront the candidate if a favorable decision is not made. Similarly, favorabledecisions to retain or promote should not berendered on the grounds that evidence is notsufficient for a negative or positive estimate offuture accomplishment. The insufficiency ofsuch evidence is in such cases indicative of thecandidate's insufficient productivity.No appointments should ever be made inwhich the chief or major argument is that "outside" funds would accompany the appointmentsufficient to relieve the regular budget of the cost of the appointment. Similarly, no appoint-ment should ever be made on the initiative ofa person or body from outside the Universitvwho offers to defray all expenses, salary, etcon condition of a particular person's appointment.Care must be taken to avoid undue regardfor the rights of seniority in promotion. Consideration should be given only to quality of performance, and age should be disregarded. Thusthe fact that an older member of a departmentor one with a longer period of service remainsan associate professor should not be permittedto inhibit the promotion of a younger personto full professorship; similarly, in promotions ofassistant professors the age of the candidate inrelations to the age of his colleagues at the samerank should not be considered in any decision.Great caution must be exercised by appointivecommittees themselves to prevent their being"stampeded" by the prestige or influence ofcontemporaneity. There has for some years beenan increasing tendency for universities to concern themselves in their teaching and researchwith contemporary events — especially in the social sciences and humanities — and it is perfectlyunderstandable that this should occur. With thisfocus of attention, however, there has also beena corresponding tendency to regard participantsin the contemporary events as qualified to become academic staff members on the ground thattheir presence in the university will bring to theuniversity the immediate experience of thoseevents. Appointive bodies must remember thatuniversities are, insofar as their major intellectualfunctions are concerned, places for scientific andscholarly analysis and training in such analysis,not theatres for the acquisition of vicarious experiences. Proposals to appointive bodies urgingthem to consider present or recent public notables for academic appointments must be responded to by strict adherence to the criteria ofacademic appointment. Where rare exceptions tothis rule are permissible, such appointmentsmust not be classified as appointments to thefaculty.These observations should not be interpretedto mean that a candidate who hitherto has notbeen wholly or at all in the academic professionshould be automatically excluded from consideration. It means only that appointive bodiesmust be certain to apply the same high standards4f distinction of scholarly and scientific perfor-°e to these candidates as they would toany others.C Mode of Arriving at DecisionsAt present there is a wide variation among therious schools and departments of the Univer-*tv in the composition of their appointive bodiesand in the sequence of stages of the appointivecess, xhere is no need for uniformity, otherthan that recommendations for appointment (retention, promotion, extension) should originatewithin departments and schools, pass to thedean of the division or school and thence to theProvost and President for approval or rejectionor reference back for further consideration.The Committee recommends that departments,schools, and committees in the University makearrangements whereby all faculty members, irrespective of rank within the department,4 possess a voice in the appointment of new members.When it is a matter involving reappointment orpromotion of existing faculty members, e.g.,the reappointment or promotion of assistantprofessors, it is reasonable for those at the samelevel or below not to have a voice in the decision. The same documentation on prospectiveappointments which is available to senior members and external assessors should normally beavailable to junior members of the academicstaff.The Committee recommends that the variousdepartments and schools of the University shouldestablish rules which they regard as appropriatein inviting and considering the assessments ofcandidates for appointment made in a consultative capacity by students. The Committee is ofthe view that advisory student assessment ofcandidates for appointment should be taken seriously, particularly with regard to teaching performance and graduate supervision. The Statutesof the University and the obligations of thedepartments and schools in the performance ofthe three main functions of universities precludethe membership of students with voting powerson appointive bodies.External assessors should be selected verymeticulously. They should not be chosen per-Not necessarily including those persons on expressly terminal appointments. functorily or in anticipation of an assessmentfavoring a particular candidate. The Committeedoes not recommend that external assessors beinvited to become formal members of appointivebodies or that they be invited to be present atinterviews of candidates. It does recommend thatthe external assessors be provided with full documentation such as bibliographies, offprints, etc.,just as provision should be made for all members of appointive bodies. At the same time, itpoints out that external assessors are sometimesmore indulgent in their view of candidates forappointments at other universities than they areat their own. One procedure which might befollowed is to request the external assessor toindicate whether he would support the appointment of the candidate at his own university tothe same rank for which he is being consideredat The University of Chicago. Supplementaryoral consultation with assessors by telephonewould be useful.The Committee suggests that some designatedmembers of appointive bodies, whenever an appointment is to be recommended, present theirassessments of competing candidates in independently written statements as well as orally.These written assessments, together with thevote taken in the appointive body, should besent to the dean of the division together with therecommendation.Appointive committees should not consideronly one candidate at any one time for a givenappointment. It should be a firm rule, followedas frequently as possible when there is an appointment to be made, that several alternativecandidates be considered. Although difficultiesmight be encountered because not all the candidates considered might be willing to accept appointment, this practice would lend rigor toappointive procedures. This same procedureshould always be followed when an assistantprofessor is being considered for reappointmentfor a second term or for promotion to an associate professorship. At this point, he should beconsidered as if it were a new appointment. Itshould be made clear that no appointmentscarry with them the assurance of reappointmentor promotion.The decision to appoint an assistant professorfor a second term (of two or three years) shouldbe made only if there is reasonable confidencethat at the end of that period he is likely to5be qualified for promotion to the rank ofassociate professorship. In considering internalcandidates for retention or promotion (or extension), members of appointive bodies must bewilling to recognize that their earlier assessmentsmight have been wrong. The effectiveness of theUniversity in the performance of its intellectualfunctions would be diminished by the repetitionof earlier erroneous assessments.D. Special SituationsThe foregoing remarks accept the principlethat the power of formal recommendation of appointment rests with the faculty members ofdepartments and committees and schools. Thisis the general practice, established by traditionand convention, and it should be adhered to.There are, however, occasionally special situations where deviation from this practice isnecessary.Where the quality of work of a department,school, or committee has declined over the years,special weight should be given to the views ofexternal assessors regarding any candidate whoseappointment has been internally proposed.Where a field, subject or department is expiringbecause first-class intellects are not available toconstitute its staff, the discontinuation or suspension of the department should be considered.One way to deal with the situation of a deteriorated department or, what is quite a different situation, of a department which has toofew professors to make the necessary judgmentabout optimal lines of development, is for thedean of the division to appoint an ad hoc committee of distinguished persons from other universities and from adjacent departments in TheUniversity of Chicago to canvass the field andmake recommendations for appointments andpromotions. Another way is for the presidentor provost to appoint a new chairman with powers greater than those ordinarily enjoyed bychairmen.E. Terms of AppointmentInitial appointments to the rank of instructoror assistant professor should be treated variously.In some cases the evidence at hand may bestrong enough to indicate that the candidatemay well be a strong prospect for permanenttenure. In this case an initial appointment as assistant professor for a term of four years 'advantageous. (This is within the present prov"sion of the University Statutes?) This wouldhave the advantage that the next decision wouldbe taken after a period of three years rathethan the present period of two years for a threeyear term of appointment. The latter term isoften too short for the accumulation of sufficientevidence on the intellectual promise of thecandidate.In other cases, an. initial appointment isbased largely on recommendations of the candidates from outside graduate schools so thatan initial appointment for two or three yearsgiven the possibility of reappointment, may bemost appropriate. In some departments it shouldbe possible as a matter of general practice tooffer junior appointments with the explicit understanding that the appointment is strictly aterminal appointment and that most or all ofthose so appointed will leave the University atthe end of that term. Such arrangements havecertain advantages in promoting a flow of youngtalent, in taking care of certain teaching andservice obligations, in training young postdoctoral students here, and m assisting the flow ofscholarly information. Moreover, the Universityremains free to appoint the very best of suchpersons in more permanent ways.In many ways, the promotion to rank ofassociate professor and to permanent tenure isthe one requiring greatest care and consideration.Promotion to the rank of professorship fromassociate professorship should not be automaticeither on the basis of seniority or after thelapse of a specified period of time. Promotion toprofessorship within the University should bemade on the basis of the same procedures asappointments to full professorship from outsidethe University.^Statutes— -13 (a) (2), p. 41:(2) Assistant Professors: The appointment ofan assistant professor normally shall be for aterm of either three or four years of full timeservice in one or more Faculties of the Departments, College, and Schools, provided that noperson shall be appointed to serve in this rankfor (a) a total of more than seven years, nor(b) a total of more than six years if he previously had an appointment for full time servicein the rank of instructor for as long as fouryears. . . .6The Committee believes that on approaching, orrp of 65, members of the academic staffthe age .ieht be considered for reappointment for a*h ee-year period. Each case should be consid-d bv essentially the same procedures and withthe same intensive and rigorous scrutiny as appointments at earlier ages and at lower ranks.The main criteria in the assessment of the faculty member in question should be teaching, research, and contribution to the intellectual accomplishment of his colleagues. Once a facultymember has reached the age of 68, he may beconsidered for subsequent reappointments ofone year. Each such appointment should be considered in the light of the same criteria whichare applied to earlier appointments. If the ageof retirement should ever be raised to 68, post-retirement appointments should be made forone year at a time. Each reappointment shouldbe subjected to the same criteria and proceduresas other appointments.In this connection, it is sometimes importantto take into account the effect of retirementupon the general strength of the department. If,for example, several retirements are scheduledto take place concurrently and prospects foradequate replacement are not favorable, the department involved might be threatened by seriousdepletion of its staff within a single year. Insuch cases, it may be desirable to "stagger" theretirement of senior faculty members by appropriate extension of their appointment.In view of the fact that academic membersof the University sometimes make arrangementsseveral years before the age of normal retirement to resign in order to go to another university where the age of retirement is later, it mightbe desirable for the University that such decisions regarding extension may be made asmany as two years prior to the age of normalretirement. (The arrangement for the supervisionof dissertations also counsels a decision prior tothe last year of normal tenure.)The Committee discussed the possibility ofan age of "early retirement" with modified pension provisions. It also discussed instances inwhich, for various reasons, a faculty member'sasociation with the University should be terminated before the statutory age of retirement. TheCommittee noted precedents for such a proce dure in other universities and recommendsthat where a faculty member on permanenttenure shows no promise of continuing usefulness to the University, the termination of hisappointment be given serious consideration. Such"early retirement" may be made possible througheither modified pension provisions or the "commutation" of full-term appointment by a lumpsum payment of anticipated future salary.The Committee recommends that there shouldbe a category of strictly temporary appointmentfor which there is not only the usual terminalcontract of appointment but explicit statement tothe appointee that the appointment will notextend past a particular date. These short-termappointments should be used only on specialoccasions, such as emergencies where there isno regular member of the academic staff available to teach a particular subject which must betaught. If a person is on an emergency short-term appointment and is considered for regularappointment at the end of the period of hisemergency appointment, his candidacy shouldbe treated like any outside candidacy. (Theseobservations do not apply to the short-term appointments of visiting professors and lecturers.To these appointments the same criteria applyas to normal appointments.)F. Conditions of AppointmentAll academic appointments, when confirmedby the provost, president, and Board of Trustees,should be notified by letter to the appointee,stipulating that his acceptance of the appointment places him under obligation to "conductand supervise research, teach, and contribute tothe intellectual life of the University."G. Uniformity of Application of CriteriaA question has repeatedly been raised concerning the differing standards which seem to beapplied to faculty members whose primary dutiesare in the College and those whose primaryduties are in the divisions. Those in the lattercategory are judged primarily by their researchaccomplishments. The application of these samecriteria for promotion and permanent tenureto those who are burdened with teaching doesnot seem to be fair. The existence of dual standards cannot be avoided as long as these two7categories exist. The only way to abolish thedual standard is to abolish one of the categoriesby abolishing the differences in the kinds oftasks performed by members of the faculty.The three criteria for appointment to TheUniversity of Chicago — distinction in research,distinction in teaching, distinction in intellectualcontribution to the University as an intellectualcommunity — should be applied in all situationsin which appointments must be made. In general,as has already been stated, the criterion ofdistinction in research should be weighted mostheavily. The University of Chicago faces a peculiar dilemma, however. It arises from the factthat at least since the 1930s, and more acutelyover the past quarter of a century, there havebeen integrated into the structure of the University, two not wholly harmonious modes ofweighting the criteria of research and teaching.Appointees to the University faculty posts indivisional departments, schools, and committeeshave been selected primarily according to thecriterion of distinction in research; the othercriterion was applied but given secondary significance. Appointees to the College have in certain fields been selected primarily according tothe criterion of prospective teaching performance and promoted in accordance with evidenceof distinction in teaching. The research criterionhas not been disregarded, but it has not beengiven primacy or even equal weight.These divergent weightings of the criteria haveresulted in a degree of stratification in the University which is injurious, and various effortshave been made to overcome this stratificationby various departments. Some of these effortshave apparently been successful; in others theyhave introduced an unassimilated mass of persons who do not share the intellectual aims oftheir colleagues and who believe they have nofuture in the University. In still others, stratification has been contained with good grace onboth sides, but even in such fortunate outcomes,the fact remains the same: the criteria have beenapplied with different weightings and they have,therefore, constituted two different sets of criteria.The Committee believes that normally appointment should involve both teaching and researchand that candidates should be judged on bothqualities. Appointive bodies should discourage appointments for research alone or for teachinalone. In particular, College appointments shouldnot carry teaching loads so heavy as to pre.elude productive research activity.H. Joint AppointmentsIt is one of the merits of The University ofChicago that it has often led in the developmentof new subjects through the freedom of itsmembers to conduct interdisciplinary researchand teaching. "Joint appointments" have beenone of the devices by which this kind of workhas been fostered, and the Committee views sucharrangements with favor. These joint appointments have, however, sometimes led to gravedifficulties for both the individual holding theappointment and for the University. Primarilybecause of administrative problems and facultypolitics, there have been cases where personshave held appointments with full privilegesin one department but were denied the privileges associated with the appointment in anotherdepartment. Joint appointments should enjoythe full privileges of the respective organizations, according to the level of appointment. Appointments initiated by institutes, interdisciplinary committees, etc. should be made as jointappointments with one of the teaching departments, and no members of the faculty shouldbe able to find shelter from teaching by virtueof institute or committee appointments alone.Joint appointments often present difficultiesfor junior members at the time of their reappointment or promotion. They find themselvesin "double jeopardy." Each department appliesthe criteria for advancement in its own way, andeach exacts its own full set of demands independently of the other. Hence, it is important toprotect the joint appointee by not demandingtwice the commitment of service on committees,examinations, etc. expected of normal appointments in a single department.The Committee wishes to emphasize thatwhen such appointments are made, each department participating should treat the appointment,whether it is from within or outside the University, with the same stringency as it would treatan appointment entirely within its own jurisdiction. The Committee is especially concernedthat the fact that a department's share of a joint8opointee's services in research and teaching ist pai(i for from its own budget should notause the appointive process to be treated perfunctorily. Agreements to share in a joint appointment of a candidate wholly paid for fromanother unit's budget should not encourage itstreatment as a matter of "courtesy." Researchassociates are not members of the Universityfaculty entitled to the prerogatives of facultymembers, except where as holders of joint appointments, they enjoy the title of "researchassociate (with rank of . . .)" in one of thedepartments.6 Research associateships do, however, fall into the category of academic appointments. For this reason, the Committee believesthat their appointments should be reviewedperiodically by the appointive bodies of departments, to ensure that the criterion of distinction in research is strictly adhered to. Thiswould also render less likely the possibility thata research associate will become so "embedded"in the department that he is retained until theage of retirement or until he is recommendedfor faculty appointment.///. CriteriaA. ResearchThe criteria of appointment are implicit inthe definition of the aims of The University ofChicago. The traditions of The University ofChicago in which these aims are containedplace it under the obligation to be in the firstrank of the universities of the world in all thosesubjects and fields in which it is active. Thismeans that appointive bodies must seek to recruit to its staff and to retain on its staff persons whose accomplishments and potentialitiesare adjudged to be of the very highest order inresearch and in teaching and in the creation ofan intellectual environment in which research ofthe highest order is done and in which studentsof distinguished intellectual potentiality areformed and guided.The Committee regards distinction in researchaccomplishment and promise as the sine qua6The University Statutes— tt (b)(1), p. 43— state:The normal period of appointment of researchassociates shall be one year, and reappointmentsmay be made without limitation as to number ofreappointments in any rank. non of academic appointment. Even where acandidate offers promise of being a classroomteacher of outstanding merit, evidence should besought as to the promise of distinction in hisresearch capacity. Even if his research production is small in amount, no compromise shouldbe made regarding the quality of the researchdone.The appointment of academic staff membersmust, therefore, place in the forefront the criteria which will populate the University withpersons capable of research at the most advanced level and of the highest quality.It is imperative that in every case the appointive body ask itself whether the candidateproposed, if young, is likely in a decade to beamong the most distinguished scientists orscholars of his generation; if middle-agedwhether he is already in that position andwhether the work which he is likely to do inthe remainder of his career will be of at leastthe same quality.In the recruitment of new staff members,emphasis should be placed upon the recruitmentof younger persons who have not yet reachedthe height of their potentialities.Young staff members should be encouragedto do research in spite of the importance andpressure of their teaching. At the same time,appointive bodies must be on the alert againstthe dangers of appointing young persons in away which forces them into research projectsin which they have no genuine interest.To offset the handicaps which might arisefrom concentration on undergraduate teaching,University departments should make a moredetermined effort to rotate their undergraduateteaching responsibilities so that junior membersof the faculty can be provided with more timefor research, especially when it is requested.When older, very distinguished persons outside the University are considered for appointment, the major emphasis should be on theirprospective intellectual influence in the University through teaching and informal contact withcolleagues and students, as well as on the likelihood of a continued high quality of their ownresearch. These same observations apply ingeneral to candidacy of any person well pasthis middle age.9While stressing the preponderant importanceof the appointment of young persons, the Committee recognizes that exceptions must sometimes be allowed. Thus, sometimes if there hasbeen a disproportionate number of retirementsor resignations by eminent senior members of adepartment, candidates at the same level ofseniority and eminence might be sought by theappointive body. The need to maintain the prestige of the department and to render it attractiveto outstanding younger persons would justifymaking this exception to the recommended emphasis on the appointment of younger persons.It is obvious that sheer quantity of scholarlyor scientific production, if of indifferent quality,must never be permitted to be counted in favorof any appointment. In assessing the researchaccomplishments of a particular candidate, adequate regard should be given to the extent towhich his original intellectual or research accomplishments are contained in the work of research students and junior colleagues. Nonetheless, it is the quality of the actual publications,or the likelihood of such, which must be giventhe primary weight in assessment of researchaccomplishment and potentiality.Appointive committees, in seeking out candidates and in making their decisions, should bearin mind the prospective development of thesubjects on which the candidates have beenworking. They must seek to appoint a sufficientnumber of members of the department whoseinterests and skills are complementary to eachother's, so that students will obtain a well-rounded training in their respective fields andso that there will be sufficient mutual stimulationwithin the department. At the same time, theappointive committees must be alert to thedangers of narrowing the range of intellectualinterests represented in their respective departments.Appointive committees in considering candidates should reflect not only on the candidate'scapacity for development to eminence in hissubject but the prospective vitality and continuedsignificance of the candidate's main interest. Itis important that departments should not becomegraveyards for subjects which have lost theirimportance. Thus, appointive committees inseeking out and considering candidates should,while regarding present or prospective distinc tion as indispensable, attend to the needs of thdepartment in the various subfields within tf»discipline or subject and the capacity of thsubfields for further scientific or scholarlv Hvelopment. Just as research projects should nbe undertaken simply because money is availablfor them in substantial amounts, so there shouldbe no academic appointments simply to staffparticular project.B. TeachingTeaching at various levels and in variousforms is one of the central functions of theUniversity. No person, however famous, shouldbe appointed to the University faculty with theunderstanding that he will do no teaching ofany sort. Considerations regarding appointmentshould include the requirement that a candidatebe willing to teach regularly and the expectationthat he will teach effectively. Appointive bodiesmust bear in mind that teaching takes numerousforms. It occurs in lecture rooms, in small discussion groups, in research seminars, at thebedside' in medical school, in laboratories, inreading courses, in the supervision of dissertations, and in the guidance of research assistants,postdoctoral students, and residents in hospitals.It should be borne in mind by appointive bodiesseeking to assess the teaching accomplishmentof candidates that no one is likely to be equallycompetent or outstanding in all the differentforms of teaching.The Committee regards the success of thestudent in learning his subject and in going onwith it to an accomplishment of intellectualsignificance as the best test of effective teaching.Assessment of performance in teaching shouldnot be unduly influenced by reports, accidentallyor systematically obtained, about the popularityof a candidate with students or his "being anexciting teacher." Other evidence of teachingeffectiveness such as arousing students' interestin a problem, stimulating them to work independently, clarifying certain problems in thestudent's mind, etc., must be sought by appointive bodies. The assessment of teaching shouldinclude accomplishments in curriculum planning,the design of particular courses, and other teaching activities which go beyond the direct face-to-face teaching of students. The teaching ofintroductory courses should count to a candi-10date's credit no less than the teaching of advanced courses. (The responsibility of teachingan elementary course should be recognized byreduced teaching schedules as compensation.)There should be no appointment in whichthe appointed person is expected to spend most0f his time on classroom teaching.C. Contribution to the Intellectual CommunityThe University is not just an aggregate ofindividuals performing research or a collectionof teachers instructing students at various levelsand in various fields. It is an institution whichprovides the services, auxiliary services, andfacilities for research and teaching. The University must be administered and it must havefinancial resources to enable its academic staffto perform the functions for which they havebeen appointed.In addition to being an institution with anadministration and financial resources whichprovide the framework and facilities for researchand teaching by academic staff members andstudents, it is also an intellectual communityand a constellation of overlapping intellectualsubcommunities built around, but not boundedby, committees and schools. It is an intellectualcommunity in which interaction is about intellectual matters. The contribution which amember of the academic staff makes to thework of his colleagues and students by his ownwork, by his conversation in informal situationsand by his criticizing and reading of their manuscripts, by his discussion of their research andof problems in their own and related fields isof great importance in creating and maintainingthe intellectual quality of the University. Healso contributes through his role in devisingand revising courses of study (curricula) andother activities which go beyond his own teaching.To what extent should these contributions beconsidered by appointive bodies?First, regarding administration, members ofthe academic staff are not appointed to fill administrative roles. The fact that a candidatefor appointment has been an excellent dean oris a good "committee man" or willingly serveson departmental committees or has been ormight be an excellent department chairman adds to the merit of a member of the academic staff.But it is a "gift of grace" and it is not pertinentto discussions about appointments, which mustconcentrate on intellectual performance, actualand prospective.Although in principle younger members ofthe academic staff should be enabled to serveon committees and perform departmental dutiesother than their teaching and research, the decision regarding their reappointment or promotion should not be affected by their having ornot having done so. The performance of someof these departmental chores often being at theexpense of research, an appointments policywhich accords importance to accomplishmentsof this sort might be injurious to the young staffmember's development as a scholar or scientist.Universities require financial resources tosupport research, teaching, and administrationof the university. Nonetheless, the capacity orincapacity of a candidate to attract financial resources or to "bring them with him" should notbe a criterion for appointment. The acquisitionof financial resources should be a task of theadministration and a derivative function of thedistinguished scientific or scholarly accomplishments and capacities of the members of theUniversity faculty. If this rule is not observed,the University will be in danger of becoming anaggregate of affluent mediocrities.The intellectual contribution of the academicstaff member to his colleagues and students isa different matter. It is partly a function of hisresearch and teaching accomplishments, but italso goes far beyond them. If a candidate isknown to greatly stimulate his colleagues andstudents by his conversation and his criticismof their work, so that their individual performances are thereby improved, this should weighin the consideration of a candidate for appointment.Influence on the intellectual life of the University as an institution can be negative as wellas positive. A member of of the academic staffmight be an impediment to the University'sperformance of its intellectual functions, quiteapart from his own performance as a researchworker and teacher.It should go without saying, therefore, thatall appointees to the academic staff of the University should possess the requisite "academic11citizenship." By this the Committee means thatappointive bodies are entitled to expect thatpersons whom they appoint to the academic staffwill contribute what they can to the intellectuallife of the University through their research,teaching, and intellectual intercourse in the University, and that they will abstain from deliberatedisruption of the regular operations of the University.The University must operate as an institutionin order for its individual members to pursuetheir research and teaching. Deliberate obstruction of the work of the University through participation in disruptive activities cannot claimthe protection of academic freedom, which isthe freedom of the individual to investigate,publish, and teach in accordance with his intellectual convictions. Indeed, the only connection between disruptive actions within the University and academic freedom is that the disruptive actions interfere with the very actionwhich academic freedom is intended to protect.Appointive committees, concerned with the maintenance or improvement of the intellectual quality of research and teaching in the University,must expect that those whom they appoint willenjoy the protection of academic freedom andthat they will also be the guardians of thatfreedom. It is pertinent at this point to affirmwhat was said above about the irrelevance ofpolitical or religious beliefs and affiliations todecisions regarding appointment.D. Services1. University Services.a) Services integral to research and trainingoutside medicine. There are various kinds ofservices performed by members of the University. The first of these is the service which isindispensable for the performance of the central functions of the University in research andtraining. For example, faculty members in thephysical sciences often require the collaboration of engineers for the conduct of their research. Such persons are normally highly qualified and could hold senior posts in engineeringfaculties or in industry. Their contribution is integral to research and although not members ofthe faculty they must therefore be accorded emoluments and privileges comparable to members of the University faculty of similar accomplishments and professional standing. Similarly,the training of social workers requires that supervisors be provided for their training in fieldwork. Those performing these services are notdefined by the University Statutes as membersof the University faculty.7b) Health care and the medical school. University service functions in the medical realmare those which do not ipso facto serve theprimary functions of the University, viz., research and teaching. They include the provisionof health care by the medical school to boththe community at large and the student body.The staff who deliver these services are University faculty members in clinical departments,other academic personnel,8 and perhaps additional persons not specified in the Statutes.It must be emphasized that though deliveryof health care may be solely a service function(as in student and employee health clinics) morefrequently it is an integral part of the Universityas an academic institution. It is such when itinvolves the teaching and training of medicalstudents, interns, residents, and fellows. Of fundamental importance is the fact that teachingand care at the bedside on the one hand andmedical research on the other are mutually interdependent and continuous activities, both ofwhich provide intellectual tasks of the highestorder. The commitments of members of theUniversity faculty in the clinical departments(unlike those of members of the faculty in thebasic medical and biological sciences) are therefore threefold. The training of outstanding physicians requires that faculty members deliver thebest of medical care in addition to their research and teaching activities. For many reasons, it is practically impossible to ensure thatevery appointment in clinical departments reflects a similarly balanced excellence in all threeareas. Thus, appointments to various academicfaculty ranks in the clinical disciplines usuallyembrace a wide range of personnel, rangingfrom research workers of acknowledged excel-7See Statutes of the University, 13 (b)(2), p.43, quoted in footnote 3 of this report.Hbid., 13 (b)(1), pp. 42-43, quoted in footnote3 of this report.12whose contributions to patient care may^outstanding, good, or slight; physicians whosespective contributions are equally meritoriousbut not of the very first rank; and clinicianswhose dedication to research is modest. Someclinical departments also appoint a relativelymall number of distinguished investigators whomay or may not have a medical degree and whodo not participate at all in clinical care.The Committee believes that a great university medical school rapidly loses its eminenceif it ceases to have a considerable number ofoutstanding investigators on the faculty of itsclinical departments. Nevertheless, a medicalschool which cannot provide excellent care tothe patients in its wards and clinics will produceonly poor physicians and will fail to attract students, interns, and residents of high intellectualpotentiality.Physicians engaged in purely clinical work,who make no serious contributions to researchor teaching, should under no circumstances begiven any form of faculty rank or have anyformal voice in recommendations for academicappointments. Many such clinicians who are notmembers of the University faculty are at presentgiven the title of "research associate."9 This termmay be a misnomer inasmuch as these personsare not engaged in research and the title is alsoused as an additional designation for bona fidefaculty members who hold joint appointmentsin two or more departments. The title of "clinicalassociate" might better describe persons involvedin purely clinical service functions.In situations where the financial competitiveness of private (or nonacademic) medicine hashelped to deplete the academic pool of a clinicaldepartment, its resuscitation should depend moreon attractive competitive stipends than on lowering the standards for academic appointments.c) Concluding observations on University services. The likelihood of appointments for purely"service" purposes is increased whenever theUniversity undertakes, for whatever reason, theextension of services not related to its researchand teaching functions. Such enterprises by definition require expertise and performance of adifferent kind from those expected of regularnbid. faculty members, and appointments to meetsuch needs should never be appointments to thefaculty (as defined by the University Statutes).Decisions to extend medical and other serviceswhich do not involve either teaching or research or both should be made in the awareness that whatever persons who are appointedwill not be granted the status of members of theUniversity faculty.2. External Services.10a) Public services. There is a second type ofservice in which members of the academic staffbecome involved. This is public service, i.e.,service for the federal, state, and municipalgovernments and for civic and voluntary associations. To what extent should appointivebodies consider accomplishments in such services as qualifications for appointment? The Committee is of the view that such services shouldnot be considered as qualifications for academicappointment unless the service has a significantintellectual or research component. Thus, membership in a governmental body which does notperform research or make decisions regardingthe promotion of research should not be regarded as a qualification for appointment. Membership in an advisory body which organizes,supports, and oversees research should be regarded as a positive qualification. Proximity tothe design and execution of the research programme and its quality must be taken intoaccount.Incumbency in elective or political office,whether it be the presidency of the UnitedStates or the prime ministry of a country, shouldnot be regarded as a qualification for appointment to the academic staff of the University.10The Statutes of the University (Statute 16, p.61) state that:A member of the Faculty during the quartersof his residence may not engage in consultation, teaching at other universities, regular compensated lecturing, compensated editorial activities, or other substantial outside employment,unless such activity is consistent with his obligations to the University, is not inimical to thefullest development of his scholarly activities,and meets with the approval of his Chairmanand Dean.13Participation in the "delivery" of services forthe non-University community should be considered in decisions regarding academic appointment only when there is an increment to knowledge or a valuable function in instruction ortraining arising from the "delivery." Certainof these "deliveries" are undertaken as part ofthe "public relations" of the University or because government or civic bodies have not takenthe initiative or responsibility which are properly theirs.Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shouldbe interpreted as a judgment on the merit ofthe various public services or the appropriateness of their performance by members of theacademic staff in their capacity as citizens. Onthe contrary, such services are often very important for society — local, national, and international. They must not, however, be counted asqualifications for academic appointment.b) Academic services. Among the serviceactivities sometimes performed by members ofthe academic staff are those performed on behalfof learned and scientific societies which the Committee designates as "academic services." Athreefold distinction can be made between (1)honorific services, e.g., presidency of a learnedor scientific society; (2) intellectual services,such as editorship of a learned or scientificjournal; and (3) administrative services, e.g.,secretaryship of a learned or scientific society.The first is a distinction conferred on personswho by their research have made and are making valuable contributions to their subjects. Inmost instances, such honorific offices represent aconfirmation of the major criteria of academicappointment, namely distinction in research, andthey may therefore be taken into positive account by appointive bodies.The second, the editorship of a learned orscientific journal, is a contribution to the intellectual community in a particular disciplinebeyond the confines of the University. It is acontribution to the maintenance of standards ofexcellence in the discipline. It too should betaken into positive account by appointive bodies.Membership on advisory panels, e.g., NationalInstitutes of Health (NIH) "study sections,"is an intellectual service; it is similar to editorship of a learned or scientific journal and is a contribution to the national and internationlearned and scientific communities. It shouldaccordingly, be taken into positive account h'appointive bodies.The third academic service, the secretaryshmor a similar administrative function on behalf ofa learned or scientific society, on the other handis a time-consuming activity which does notentail contributions to teaching or research*this type of service should not be taken intopositive account by appointive bodies.c) Private services. Consultative services forprivate industry are admissible as considerationsin academic appointments only if they entailan enhancement of the scientific accomplishments of the person involved. This is the aspectwhich should concern appointive bodies.IV. ConclusionThe positive task of appointive bodies, i.e.,the appointment of persons of the highest abilities, has been the main focus of attention in thisreport. There are, however, also negative tasks;these are the refusal to make appointments.These negative tasks fall under three headings.The first is relatively simple; it is to refuse tomake appointments when there are no availablecandidates of sufficiently high quality. The onlyexcuse for appointing a candidate of acknow-ledgedly undistinguished qualifications is thatcertain necessary teaching must be done if students are to be prepared for their degrees. Thisnecessity can be met by the expedient, referredto in the body of the report, of explicitly temporary appointments for particular teaching tasks.This irregular situation should be under constant review so that jt can be restored to a regular condition through appointments of the properquality.Where there is no particular teaching task ofgreat urgency, in situations where there areno candidates of sufficiently high quality, actualor prospective, no appointments should be made.It is better for the University to allow a field tolie fallow than to allow it to be poorly cultivated. Appointments should not be made justbecause there is a list of candidates and fundsto pay their salaries.14Appointive bodies have a second negativection, and this is to exercise a stern scrutinyr expansion. This responsibility, of course,they cannot exercise alone; they depend heavilyon the support and cooperation of the deanf the relevant division, the provost, and thepresident of the University.Great care must be exercised in expandingme staff in established fields or in reaching intonew fields of academic work. One of the greatadvantages of The University of Chicago in thepresent situation of universities in the worldis that it is relatively small. There are manythings which universities do, some of which areuseful and admirable, but which need not bedone by The University of Chicago. There isa great temptation, both when financial supportis plenteous and when it is scarce, to take onnew members, new fields of study and research,and new service functions because financialsupport is available. Some of these might beproperly done by The University of Chicagowhere the University has a tradition whichwould enable them to be very well done or wherethere are clear and important intellectual andinstitutional benefits to be obtained from doingthem. But to allow expansion and new appointments simply because financial resources areavailable to support them would be an errorwhich would be wasteful of resources and damaging to the University.The judicious performance of this negativetask must not, however, be permitted to preventthe taking up of important new fields of studyand research about which there are genuine andwell-based intellectual convictions in the University and outstanding intellectual capacities todo them outstandingly well. Even where a fieldis intellectually important, the University, andthis also means appointive bodies, should notventure into them simply because other outstanding universities are working in them. Theexpansion into the important new field shouldbe undertaken only if appointments at a highlevel of quality can be made to provide thenecessary staff.There is a third negative function, alreadyreferred to in the body of this report. This isthe problem of dealing with fields in decline because the subject has become exhausted within the country or in the world at large or becausenot enough young persons of sufficient potentiality for distinguished accomplishment wish toenter them.The last three tasks are negative only in thesense that they involve the refusal to make appointments when the quality of the candidatesis not sufficiently high. In fact, however, thesenegative functions, if properly performed, areas positive in their outcome as the more obviously positive tasks. It is indeed only if equalattention is paid to both — i.e., to the need foradamant refusal to be tempted into making appointments just because appointments can bemade, as well as to the firm insistence on appointing only candidates of actually or potentially great merit — that The University of Chicago will be what it ought to be. Only by anundeviating adherence to the criteria set forthin this report can The University of Chicagomaintain and enhance its reputation among theuniversities of the world as a university of thefirst rank in certain fields, regain that positionin others in which it has declined, and open upimportant new fields which no other universitieshave yet entered.REPORT OF THE STUDENT HEALTHGYNECOLOGY SERVICE*August 4, 1970Prior to 1966 the gynecologic care of the studentpopulation was provided in the University HealthServices Clinics primarily by physicians not specifically trained in gynecology. Consultation wasprovided by house officers from the Departmentof Obstetrics and Gynecology. A gynecologyclinic was held two half days per week with onephysician, one nurse, and one examining room.It is not known how many patients were seen,because specific records were not kept, but itwas in the range of five hundred visits per year.It was not unusual for the student to wait eightto ten weeks for an appointment. Because oflong waiting periods for appointments, studentsfrequently took their medical problems else-*.This report is reprinted from the September 21,1970 Special Supplement of the Record.15where. To the credit of the Student Health Service, two policies were developed which at thetime were far-sighted in scope: 1) that healthmatters are a concern between a physician anda patient which should not be constrained byadministrative policy, and 2) that a legitimatefunction of a student health service reachesbeyond treatment of the acute illness to preventive medicine and health care education.Thus conception control became a vital concern of this clinic.In 1966 a minor revision was made in theService. Junior faculty from Obstetrics andGynecology were used to staff the clinic. Thisprovided somewhat better service so that thenumber of yearly visits rose to approximatelynine hundred. With this increased patient loadthe waiting period still remained at eight to tenweeks. By mid- 1969 it became apparent that theservices provided were not satisfying the students'needs. The students' main concerns were thefollowing:1) excessive waiting period for appointments;2) lack of educational experience in mattersof gynecologic health care;3) treatment or advice frequently administered in a moralizing atmosphere; and4) impersonal care regarding personal problems.In order to alleviate these criticisms, the Student Health Gynecologic Health Unit was reorganized July 1, 1969 with the following changes:1) The clinic was physically moved to theLying-in East Office where four examiningrooms were made available, along with twonurses and two staff physicians. With this thepatient population tripled to approximately2,700 clinic visits. The waiting period decreasedto one week but soon returned to eight weeks.The students were treated more like privatepatients and were usually seen by the samephysician.2) Informal seminars and discussion groupswere held in dormitories, at the students' request.3) An academic course entitled "Human Reproduction" was offered by the Department ofObstetrics and Gynecology in the College. While this configuration improved the serviit still did not fulfill the need. On July 1 io7nthe Service was again reorganized.1 ) The clinic was moved to its own quartein Room 163. It meets three half days per week^.Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. The facilitvconsists of three examining rooms. The University Health Service provided the clerical help twnurses per clinic, the cost of supplies, and all laboratory work. -Any registered student who haspaid the student health fee may be seen in thisclinic. We anticipate 3,500 to 4,000 clinic visitsthis year.2) The following services are provided:a) routine pelvic examinations, includingcancer screening (pap smears) and venereal disease screening;b) conception control;c) counseling service (premarital, problempregnancy); andd) treatment of gynecologic diseases.3) The waiting period for a clinic appointment has been decreased to a maximum of forty-eight hours. In more acute situations the timeis shorter.4) Two sex education counselors have beesincluded with the clinic staff. The functions ofthese individuals are to interview and counselstudents in conjunction with the physician and toanswer questions and ascertain problems. Thesetwo individuals have succeeded to a large extentin opening communication lines between thestudent and the staff which did not exist in thepast.5) Educational material for students is beingwritten in the form of a Student GynecologyHandbook. This was necessary because, in ouropinion and in the students' opinion, no decentstudent-oriented material is available. This material is being planned with participation of thestudents themselves.Dr. James L. BurksChief-of-StaffGynecology Clinic16THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE FACULTIESHXwawH*!onoowooaoo0Qoou>n Zm ± c o35 n? >=i O TJ c/> no|zPO p > •vO o<3si a -i> a3<O n'o122 m