THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 0 RECORDAN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF FACULTIES, VOLUME 5, NUMBER 1A RATING OF GRADUATE PROGRAMSA Report of the AmericanCouncil on EducationAn Analysis by D. Gale Johnson*The second in a series of surveys of the qualityof graduate education was undertaken under theauspices of the American Council on Education.The most recent survey was undertaken in 1969,while the first was for 1964.A Rating of Graduate Programs presents theresults of the second survey of the quality ofgraduate programs in the United States. Theearlier survey was based on data collected in1964, while the most recent survey was madein 1969. The ratings of graduate programs arebased upon responses to questionnaires distributed to faculty members; respondents wereasked to give their opinion of the quality ofthe graduate faculty and could classify a givendepartment as Distinguished, Strong, Good, Adequate, Marginal and Not Sufficient for doctoraltraining. The respondent was instructed not torate more than five departments as Distinguished.There are a number of differences in thepresentation of the results of the two surveys.In 1964 the number of arts and science disciplines surveyed was twenty-five; in 1969 thenumber of disciplines included was thirty-two.Major changes in disciplines were made in thehumanities and biological sciences. In 1964 therewere approximately the same number of disciplines surveyed in each of the major divisionsof the arts and sciences. However, the 1969 survey presents information for ten disciplines inthe humanities and biological sciences, seven inthe social sciences and five in the physicalsciences. Psychology was categorized as a biological science in 1964 and as a social science in1969.*D. Gale Johnson is Professor in the Departmentof Economics at The University of Chicago. Hisanalysis responds to widespread interest of facultyin such university rankings. He emphasizes, however, that rankings of this nature are imperfect. CONTENTS / January 15, 19711 A Rating of Graduate Programs8 Educational Review Commission9 Report of the Evaluation Committeeon the Department of Chemistry1 1 The Roads and the Purposes15 334th Convocation Address18 Honorary Degrees18 Disciplinary Review Board18 rosenberger medalist19 Alumni Activities21 Student Aid at The Universityof Chicago25 Report on Emergency RoomPractices at The Universityof Chicago26 New Faculty AppointmentsA second important difference in the presentation of the ratings is absence of the averagedepartmental score by university department in1969; in 1964 an average departmental score wasderived from the ratings given by the respondents.1 A third important difference is that thedistinction between Distinguished and Strongwas not made in 1969. The primary commonxIn both 1964 and 1969, respondents were askedto rate departments as Distinguished, Strong, Good,Adequate, Marginal and Not sufficient to provideadequate doctoral training. Each of the categorieswas assigned a numerical weight from five for Distinguished to zero for Not sufficient to provide adequate doctoral training. An average departmentalscore was calculated for each included departmentand the ranking of departments was based on thesescores. In 1964 these departmental scores and therankings were published; in 1969 only the rankingswere published.1element in the presentation of the results of thetwo surveys is the ranking by universities ofthose departments that received average scoresof 3.0 or more.My purpose in preparing this note is primarilyto give some perspectives on the changes inevaluations of graduate programs over the periodfrom 1964 to 1969, with special attention to TheUniversity of Chicago.1 While it is possible tomake comparisons of the relative standings ofthe graduate programs in the arts and sciencesamong the top universities — and some are presented later — the indications of changes in theevaluations are probably subject to less errorthan are the relative rankings of the variousuniversities.A. Changes in Evaluations of Departments atThe University of ChicagoThough departmental scores were not published, each university included in the ratingswas provided with the average scores for itsdepartments. Based on this information as wellas the published data, some of the changes inthe evaluation of departments at the Universityof Chicago between 1964 and 1969 can beshown.Number of departments ranked as Distinguished: In the 1964 survey an average score forthe quality of the graduate faculty of more than4.0 resulted in a ranking of Distinguished. In1964 there were seven departments ranked asDistinguished; in 1969 five additional departments were so ranked and each of the seven soranked in 1964 retained that ranking.Changes in departmental scores: Of the twenty-five departments that were included in bothsurveys, thirteen departments received higherscores, seven the same score and four had lowerscores in the recent survey.Number of departments in the top five andtop ten: In 1964 twenty-five departments wereincluded in the survey. At that time Chicago hadseven departments in the top five departmentsand thirteen in the top ten. In 1969 thirty-twodepartments were included in the survey andfourteen of the Chicago departments were inthe top five and twenty-two in the top ten. Inboth cases the increase in number of top rankeddepartments was substantially greater than wouldxThe two surveys include ratings of engineeringdepartments but do not include ratings of otherprofessional schools. All of the comments in thispaper refer only to the arts and science disciplines. have been expected due to the increase in thenumber of departments included in the survey.B. Comparison of the Number of Top RankedDepartments, 1964 and 1969One comparison that can be made from thedata provided in the 1964 and 1969 surveys isof the number of departments at different universities that were in a given relative position,such as the top five and top ten. The top fiveapproximates the category of Distinguished departments as used in the 1964 survey, while thetop ten includes the Distinguished departmentsand the best of the departments that were formerly rated as Strong (with average scores from3.0 to 4.0). In the following tabulation, universities are ranked by the number of departmentsin the top five departments; in the case of tiesthat include the fifth or tenth ranked department,all departments were included that are so tied.It is clear that Berkeley and Harvard had asubstantially larger portion of their departmentsranked in the top five in both 1964 and 1969than any of the other universities. In 1969 Chicago had the third largest number, followedclosely by Yale, Stanford and Princeton. Againfor 1969 in terms of the departments rankedin the top ten, Berkeley and Harvard lead, thoughthe distance between them and the next severaluniversities is not so great as in the case of thetop five departments.Because of the difference in the number ofdepartments included in the 1964 and 1969 surveys, a direct comparison of the change in thenumber of departments in the top five or top tenis somewhat difficult to interpret. As noted above,twenty-five departments were included in 1964and thirty-two in 1969. Only two of the highranking universities (Chicago and Stanford)had an increase of seven in the number of topfive departments between 1964 and 1969; Berkeley and Harvard each had an increase of five.Chicago had the largest increase in the numberof departments in the top ten — ten — followedby Cornell with eight, Berkeley and Stanfordwith six, and Harvard with five.C. Changes in Rankings, 1964 to 1969Comparisons of the number of departmentsrated as among the top five or top ten impliesno distinctions among the departments withineach category. In the absence of average scoresby department and university, it is possible to2differentiate and aggregate the data by assigninga score to each department based on its actualranking as first, second, third or any other rank.Two such comparisons, with an emphasis uponchange between 1964 and 1969, have been made.One is based upon the departments that wereranked from first to tenth and the other upondepartments ranked from first to fifteenth. Inthe first case, a department that was ranked firstwas given a score of ten, a second rank a scoreof nine, and so on until the tenth ranked department was given a score of one; departmentsranked lower than tenth received no score. Inthe second case, the first ranked department received a score of fifteen and each departmentranked between second and fifteenth receivedscores of fourteen to one. The scores so derived can be summed either for each universityor for the four broad areas within the arts andsciences (humanities, social sciences, biologicalsciences and physical sciences).There are two problems in the comparison ofsuch total scores. One is that the number of disciplines surveyed within the broad divisions of thearts and sciences is a function of the extent towhich specialization has resulted in the creationof separate fields for the Ph.D. Thus the physicalsciences are represented by only five disciplines,while there are ten each in the humanities andbiological sciences. Thus, to total the scores fora university as a whole is, in effect, giving twiceas much weight to the humanities than to thephysical sciences. A general guide to the appropriate weights by division might be the distribution of doctorates awarded. In 1966 the approximate number of doctorates awarded were: Physical sciences, 3,800; social sciences (includinghistory), 3,300; humanities, 1,800 and biologicalsciences (excluding agriculture), 2,300. Thus interms of relative emphasis in graduate education,the physical and social sciences should havesignificantly greater weight than the humanitiesor biological sciences. Except for a calculation included in an appendix note, the calculations presented in Tables 2 and 3 weight the four divisions equally.An alternative procedure which relies onmedian departmental ranks, as presented in theHarvard Gazette, is described in the AppendixNote.Comparisons Based on the DepartmentsRanked in the Top Ten and Top FifteenIn the next two tables, the higher the totalscore, the higher is the implied ranking of a university's graduate faculty. In these two tables,the average scores, based on equal weight foreach of the four divisions, are given for 1964and 1969. The average scores for each divisionfor each included university are given in tablesat the end of this note.1 The change in averagescores from 1964 to 1969 are also given.Perhaps a word is in order concerning the interpretation of the size of the average scores. Inthe scores based on the top ten ranked departments, if all departments in a given universitywere ranked first, the score would be ten; if alldepartments were in the top ten and the averageranking were five, the university score would besix. For the scores based on the top fifteen departments, a similar interpretation holds thoughthe maximum score is increased to fifteen andthe score for a university with an average ranking of five would be eleven.Tables 2 and 3 are based on the average ranksof departments by university for the nine universities that ranked highest in 1964, based onaverage departmental scores. In 1964 the rankings based on average departmental scores wereHarvard, Berkeley, Yale, Princeton, Chicago,Stanford, Wisconsin, Michigan and Columbia.The averages of the scores based on the rankings of the top ten departments (Table 2) indicate that six universities suffered declines, withthe largest declines being for Harvard andColumbia. A decline of 1.00 implies an averagedecline in departmental ranking of one position.Chicago and Stanford increased their averagedepartmental ranking by one, based on thetop ten ranked departments.The average of scores based on the rankingsof the top fifteen departments (Table 3) showmuch the same picture. Four universities had adecline in average departmental rankings, withHarvard having the largest decline and Wisconsin the second largest. Princeton had a smallincrease in score between 1964 and 1969 basedon the top fifteen departments in contrast to asmall decline when scores were based on the topten departments. Chicago and Stanford had substantial increases in average scores, with Chicagohaving the largest increase when the top fifteendepartments are included and Stanford the largestincrease based on the top ten departments.xThe scores are averaged rather than totalled fortwo reasons: First, to avoid difference in scores dueto the number of disciplines included in the twosurveys, and, second, to facilitate the weighting ofthe divisions to arrive at an average for an entireuniversity.3Clearly the distance between the top two universities (Harvard and Berkeley) and the nextfour (Yale, Chicago, Stanford and Princeton)was diminished over the five year period.D. Other UniversitiesThere are universities other than those included in Tables 2 and 3 that have significantnumbers of high quality graduate programs inthe arts and sciences. Three universities — Massachusetts Institute of Technology, California Institute of Technology and Rockefeller University— each have several departments that rank inthe top five or top ten and generally rank veryhigh in the limited number of disciplines thatthey emphasize. Other universities, as indicatedin Table 1, have several top ranking departments.Based on the rankings of the top fifteen departments in the arts and sciences, the nineuniversities listed in Table 3 are the universitieswith the highest average ranks. These universities are followed by MIT, California Instituteof Technology, Cornell, University of California,Illinois, Pennsylvania, Johns Hopkins, Indianaand Minnesota.1 Based on the rankings of thetop ten departments, Massachusetts Institute ofxThe scores based on the rankings of the top fifteen departments ranged from 5.05 for MIT to1.40 for Minnesota. Technology moves ahead of Columbia into ninthplace and Columbia and California Institute ofTechnology are tied for tenth.APPENDIX NOTEA. Weighting of Divisions by Graduate DegreesAwardedThe authors of A Rating of Graduate pro~grams state (page 33) : "There still exist seriousdifficulties in determining how disciplines shouldbe weighted. Should classics count as heavily aspsychology or electrical engineering?" There isno doubt that a serious problem exists. In theprevious material it has been assumed that thereshould be no distinction in weighting amongdepartments in the same division of the arts andsciences and that each of the divisions (humanities, social sciences, physical sciences and biology) should be, in turn, given equal weight.There are other reasonable weighting systemsthat could be used. One is the distribution ofgraduate students among disciplines as measuredby the number of doctorates awarded in recentyears. It would be possible to weight each department or discipline by the percentage of alldoctorates in the arts and sciences awarded ina given year or period. The other possibility,and one illustrated here, is to weight theTABLE 1Number of High Ranking Departments in the Arts and Sciencesfor Selected UniversitiesUniversity Number of DepartmentsTop Five* Top Ten21969 1964 1969 1964University of California, Berkeley .Harvard Chicago Yale Stanford Princeton Michigan MIT California Inst, of Tech Wisconsin Columbia Rockefeller University 28 23 30 2427 22 29 2414 7 22 1213 9 22 1412 5 21 1512 8 17 1410 7 19 168 3 13 78 5 9 88 7 19 175 6 13 155 4 5 4!The following institutions had two to four departments ranked among the top five in 1969: Illinois (4),Texas (4), Cornell (3), Pennsylvania (3), and Minnesota <2).2Only seven Russian departments were individually ranked.4major divisions by the percentage of doctoratesawarded in the arts and sciences in 1966.1Based on the 1966 data on doctorates awarded,approximately thirty-four per cent of the degrees in arts and sciences were in the physicalsciences, thirty per cent in the social sciences,twenty per cent in the humanities and sixteenper cent in the biological sciences. In AppendixTables 1 and 2, the average departmental scores(based on rankings) for each division areweighted by these percentages to arrive at aiThe data are from the National Academy ofSciences, Doctorate Recipients from United StatesUniversities, 1958-1966 (Washington, 1967), pp.10-11. Doctorates in agriculture and forestry havebeen excluded from the biological sciences and history has been included as a social science since itis so designated in A Rating of Graduate Programs.Degrees in engineering are not included. university average score. As is evident from Appendix Tables, the method of weighting useddoes make a difference. Appendix Table 1 isbased on departments ranked in the top ten andis thus comparable to Table 2, except for thedifference in weighting. Appendix Table 2 isbased on the scores for the top fifteen departments and is comparable to Table 3 above.Appendix Tables 2 and 3 also include the average departmental scores by division based on therankings of the disciplines within each divisionfor nine universities. These average departmentalscores by division were used to derive the resultsin Tables 2 and 3.The major effect of the weighting of thedivisions by the proportion of doctorates awardedin the arts and sciences was to change the rankings of Yale and Chicago in 1969 for scoresbased on either ten or fifteen departments. Chi-TABLE 2Average Scores by University for Departments Based on Top TenRanked Departments, 1964 and 1969*Average ScoreUniversity1969 1964 Change1964 to1969Berkeley. .Harvard . .Yale Chicago. .Stanford. .Princeton .Michigan .Wisconsin .Columbia . 7.63 8.20 —0.637.48 8.50 —1.023.94 4.03 —0.093.86 2.86 + 1.003.64 2.66 + 0.983.44 3.72 —0.283.01 2.47 + 0.542.68 3.10 —0.321.82 2.88 —1.08"Includes arts and science departments.TABLE 3Average Scores by University for Departments Based on TopFifteen Ranked Departments, 1964 and 1969*Average ScoreUniversity1969 1964 Change1964 to1969Berkeley. .Harvard. .Yale Chicago. .Stanford. .Princeton .Wisconsin .Michigan .Columbia . 12.50 13.19 —0.6911.93 13.22 —1.297.93 7.75 + 0.187.59 5.80 + 1.797.41 6.06 + 1.356.74 6.41 + 0.335.68 7.33 —0.656.37 6.01 + 0.365.35 6.18 —0.83* Includes arts and science departments.5a> r+ 3gooo o o 5. ^ *do tr^d ^£T o£"• °*S 23td ??gwS0ww^JffiOW>^^2sro^Q>p* o3 aTP MP OO era qtd cro ^ 3O ^ 'cT o pv fC o 3^ op «< ps4 2.3 acT o 2h> a o& M ^a p Hi1 2>Hjj JTJ pa * 5?ft" P§8i— ii— itOU>U>i— ' W N) NJNi-i^MN>HWWWWu(Ots)fo^W-P>.HUNbOO\ OOHMtOMUMWM M^4^O0NJMM4XK)M HUlMMtOMOOHWtOHtO -O^^OOO-^^^OO^^OO 00 ONOJO\4^00^W^a\^COl^^v4U<^N)00 4^MvJ4i,touiWiyi^H\OH on 4*>- <-»J <-^> -O. ^ ^ ^^^N)sJ^v4K)hh\d^ Ui^H^tOl-^H-il-^l-^N) I-*^Ws)w(OUiWvJ to 4^ 4^ (J\ \0 v) \£) ^ i^rx \Q h-* to u, w ^. W ^ N>lyn ON 4^ OJ UJVO h-« 4^ 00 (O h K) Ui m ^ U -O, ^O --4 ^ O U» O) ON ^ ^ toH^>— ^tOK-i _^M> tO JO h^h-^^ h-4^0^04^00-^roONtN) WNJW^WUiOONJvJW^NqwONOOjiMvJUrsJ O-h* l/i >-* to i-* Un to 4^ f-k onU U -^ U ^O -4 LntO ON *»J N ONw \o w oo On u» "^4 vjg^^i^^^sjoouiWi-'Ww 4^- ^l^h^ux oo^ H* tO tO H-k tO M tOtOH^ _l h- h-^H-* H^-J O *^D OO i— * 00 -vl W U Ui ij\ 4X nJ m U( tO«^4^tO00NC>4^ONtOONtOU) ^ CD o£>rT<<o oo 3H wo s,M to to^ Ui ^ to 4^6APPENDIX TABLE 1Average Scores of 10 Top Ranked Departments by Divisions and byUniversities with Divisions Weighted by Doctorates Awarded in 1966.A— 1969Division Harvard Berkeley Yale Chicago Stanford Princeton Wisconsin Michigan ColumbiaHumanities 7.65Soc. Sci 7.21Biology 5.95Phy. Sci 8.60WeightedAverage Score 7.57Humanities 9.50Soc. Sci 8.14Biology 7.57Phy. Sci 8.80 7.45 6.50 3.45 2.00 5.60 1.90 3.25 3.357.79 4.93 6.50 3.36 2.14 3.36 6.21 2.146.80 2.35 1.70 4.40 0.50 3.95 2.40 0.008.50 2.00 3.80 4.80 5.50 1.90 0.20 1.807.80 3.83 4.20 3.74 3.71 2.68 2.97B— 1964 1.928.34 7.00 1.67 0.33 6.25 2.42 2.25 4.087.93 5.21 6.35 2.93 2.43 4.07 4.00 3.787.89 1.71 0.00 2.86 0.00 4.14 2.86 0.148.50 2.20 3.40 4.00 6.20 1.70 0.60 3.50WeightedAverage Score 8.55 8.23 3.98 3.40 2.86 4.09 2.96 2.31 3.16C— Difference, 1969—1964Difference1969—1964 . . . —0.98 —0.43 —0.15 +0.80 +0.88 —0.38 —0.29 + 0.66 —1.34APPENDIX TABLE 2Average Scores of 15 Top Ranked Departments by Divisions and byUniversities with Divisions Weighted by Doctorates Awarded in 1966.A— 19697.25 5.35 10.10 4.85 7.40 7.0010.80 7.08 4.93 8.01 11.23 5.513.70 8.40 1.85 7.95 4.85 2.508.60 8.80 10.10 5.90 2.00 6.508.21 7.53 7.22 6.657.05 6.40 7.13 7.35 6.30 5.66Division Harvard Berkeley Yale Chicago Stanford Princeton Wisconsin Michigan ColumbiaHumanities 12.65 12.45 1 1.50Soc. Sci 11.51 12.81 8.86Biology 9.95 11.25 5.45Phy. Sci 13.60 13.50 5.90WeightedAverage Score 12.20 12.72 7.84B— 1964Humanities 14.50 13.50 11.50Soc. Sci 12.71 13.06 8.92Oology n.85 12.71 3.57Phy. Sci 13.80 13.50 7.00WeightedAverage Score 13.30 13.24 7.93C— Difference, 1969—1964Difference1969—1964 —1.10 —0.52 —0.09 +1.16 +1.13 +0.09 —0.70 +0.386.17 3.33 9.42 6.17 6.25 6.830.64 6.78 5.28 9.35 9.00 7.640.70 6.14 0.35 7.71 5.70 1.867.40 8.00 10.60 6.10 3.10 8.405.92 6.81-1.15cago ranks third and Yale fourth when weightingby national doctorate production is used.B. The Use of Median RankAnother approach for determining the relativeevaluation of various universities is to calculatethe median rank of the departments. The medianrank is determined by arraying the departmentalrankings of each university from the smallest tothe largest and determining the midpoint; therank at the midpoint is the median rank.This approach has been used and the resultsreport in the Harvard Gazette. It has the disadvantage that the relative position of a university is very largely dependent upon the distribution of ranks near the median. The approximatemedian rank as denned in the Harvard study is"Half or slightly more of the rankings for theuniversity lie at this rank or better, neglecting thenot ranked category." This is not an exact definition of the median when the number of departments ranked is even, but this point is not at issue here. I have recalculated the ranks for eightuniversities for the arts and sciences. Chicagohas thirty departments that were ranked; theapproximate median rank would be the rankof the department that stood fifteenth in theranked list of Chicago departments. As indicatedin Table 1, Chicago had fourteen departmentsranked fifth or better. However, it had no departments ranked sixth or seventh and five departments ranked eighth. Thus the median rankfor Chicago was 8. If universities are ranked bythis measure, Chicago would rank eighth.The sensitivity of this measure to small, andsomewhat paradoxical, changes in the rankingsof departments near the median can be illustrated. If, of the four Chicago departmentsranked fifth, three had actually been rankedsixth and if one of the five departments rankedeighth had ranked sixth, the median rank forChicago would be 6 and Chicago would be tiedfor third among the universities. These changeswould have reduced the averages presented inTables 2 and 3 and Appendix Tables 1 and 2 byabout 0.04 (from 3.86 to 3.82 in Table 2, forexample).If three of the four Michigan departments thatranked third had ranked fourth, and if thethree departments that ranked seventh hadranked sixth, Michigan would have also tied forthird instead of being tied for sixth. A third example: If one of the two Yale departments thatranked sixth had, by chance, ranked fifth and the other ranked seventh, Yale would have hada median rank of 7 instead of 6. This changewould have dropped Yale from a tie for thirdto a tie for sixth. Since the averages from whichthe rankings are derived will frequently differby less than 2.5 percent between adjacent rankings (say from 4.0 to 4.1), shifts in rankings ofthe type used in the above illustrations couldwell occur as a result of sampling error. In factbecause of rounding to the nearest tenth, the difference in the averages derived from the respondents' ratings could be only slightly more thanone percent.I conclude that a ranking of universities basedon a statistic so sensitive to small and actual ornearly equivalent shifts in the rankings of individual departments with a university has seriousdeficiencies for this purpose. Obviously any ofthe methods used is subject to criticism, but thescores presented in Tables 2 and 3 are not affected by numerically equal improvements anddeterioriations in departmental rankings. It israther anomolous that for Chicago a deterioration in the average (mean) rank (three losses ofone rank and one gain of two ranks) would haveimproved its median departmental ranking from8 to 6, and thus would have put the University inthird place among all institutions.EDUCATIONAL REVIEW COMMISSIONAn Educational Review Commission has beennamed to work out major directions and possible changes in direction at The University ofChicago.Twenty-four faculty members of the University have agreed to serve on the Commission atthe request of University President Edward H.Levi.In announcing the formation of the Commission, President Levi said:"The work of such a commission will bedifficult. It has been asked to look at theUniversity as a whole; to see the relationships among programs; to express its judgment as to what we should emphasize, and,perhaps, what to abandon; how to properlymaximize the kind of academic strength wehave; and what new directions may help usbetter realize the values which should beparamount."Chairman of the Commission is Chauncy D.Harris, Samuel N. Harper Professor of Geogra-8phy and Director of the University's Center forInternational Studies.President Edward H. Levi and Provost JohnX. Wilson will serve as ex officio members of theCommission.Other members include:Jeremy Azrael (Professor of Political Science)Wayne C. Booth (the George M. Pullman Professor of English and in the College)Morrel H. Cohen (Professor of Physics, onthe Committee for Mathematical Biology, inthe College and Director of the James FranckInstitute)Albert V. Crewe (Professor of Physics, in theEnrico Fermi Institute and in the College)Kenneth W. Dam (Professor of Law)Lloyd A. Fallers (Professor of Anthropologyand Sociology)John Hope Franklin (the John MatthewsManly Distinguished Service Professor in theDepartment of History)Dr. Ann M. Lawrence (Mrs. Roy) (AssociateProfessor in The Pritzker School of Medicine)Norman H. Nachtraub (the Thomas E. Donnelley Professor in the College and Professorof History and Humanities)Helen Harris Perlman (Mrs. Max S.) (theSamuel Deutsch Professor in the School ofSocial Service Administration)Joseph J. Schwab (the William Rainey HarperProfessor in the College and Professor of Education)Edward Shils (Professor of Sociology and inthe Committee on Social Thought)Jonathan Z. Smith (Assistant Professor in theNew Collegiate Division and in the DivinitySchool)Lorna P. Straus (Mrs. Francis H. II) (Assistant Professor of Anatomy and in the College and Assistant Dean of UndergraduateStudents)Edwin W. Taylor (Professor of Biophysics andin the College)Henri Theil (University Professor of Businessand Economics)Const antine A. Trypanis (University Professor of Classical Languages and Literatures)Edward Wasiolek (the Avalon Foundation Professor of Humanities and in the Departmentof Slavic Languages and Literatures) Karl J. Weintraub (the Thomas E. DonnelleyProfessor in the College and Professor ofHistory and Humanities)Samuel B. Weiss (Professor of Biochemistryand in the Committee on Genetics)Peter J. Wyllie (Professor of GeophysicalSciences and in the College)REPORT OF THE EVALUATIONCOMMITTEE ON THEDEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRYNovember 17, 1970Members of the CommitteeJohn D. Roberts, California Institute of Technology, (Chairman)James R. Arnold, University of California atSan DiegoRichard B. Bernstein, University of WisconsinF. Albert Cotton, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnologyThe Department of Chemistry of the Universityof Chicago is fairly to be regarded as one ofthe dozen best departments in the country fromthe standpoint of caliber of its staff, researchquality and productivity, as well as the strengthof its graduate and undergraduate teaching programs. There is particularly high level of accomplishment in physical chemistry and chemicalphysics, of which the University can be justlyproud. On the other hand, some other areas ofchemistry seem to have been less vigorouslypursued.The undergraduate program is, on the whole,based on fairly conventional patterns of courses,without much formal change in recent years,but the material taught is grounded on modernconcepts, and the program has the general support and participation of the chemistry faculty.In some areas, more direct concern with thelaboratory instruction by senior faculty mightbe helpful.The Fermi and Franck Institutes are somewhat of a mixed blessing to the Department.On the positive side, they clearly provide almost unique opportunities for interdisciplinaryresearch of the highest caliber and seem to havecontributed substantially to a breaking down ofinterdepartmental barriers. A negative effect isan apparent weakening of the unity of the departmental structure and a feeling by some ofthe department members of being in less favored9positions vis-a-vis those privileged to belong tothe Institutes.' Many members of the staff are of the opinionthat neither the number nor the quality of thegraduate students in chemistry are high enough.This seems especially true in the organic andinorganic rather than in physical chemistry. Weconfirm this opinion and, in our view, the problem is likely to be due in part to factors whichcan be easily changed:(a) The stipends for teaching assistant-ships must be raised to at least the nationalaverage and could well be further increasedto take account of the additional expenseof living in the Chicago area.(b) The first year of the graduate programin chemistry gives the appearance of beingunduly inflexible and discouraging to reallyresearch-minded potential graduate students.Without serious sacrifice of standards, thiscan be remedied, as suggested below.At present, "Basic Examinations" aregiven to uncover deficiencies in undergraduate preparation, followed by remedialcourse work, and then followed by "MajorExaminations" which must, in fact, covermuch of the same ground as the prescribedcourses. Admission to Ph.D. research isnormally not granted until the major examinations are out of the way, which meansthat many students' graduate careers canbe terminated on the basis of less-than-satis-factory course work alone rather than anydemonstrated lack of ability in research.Indeed, the philosophy of the first-yeargraduate work seems to reflect a defensiveattitude which overstresses a desire to weedout the weaker students and strengthenmarginal ones in pre-specified ways, evenat the risk of harassing the gifted students,who should not need this major examination to prove their worth. In character withthis is the apparently inordinate time whichthe department as a whole spends in facultymeetings, sitting in judgment over the relatively few borderline students who lack onecourse or other to fulfill, or approvingminor departures from, the standard courseprogram. It seems that a more positive attitude to the potential quality of the students might, in fact, lead them to performaccordingly. Considering the small ratio ofgraduate students to faculty, it should bepossible to tailor each individual's programto his needs through a better personal ad visor system, with more responsibility delgated to the advisor.The Committee feels strongly that thwhole question of course and examinatiorequirements must be reexamined and stenbe taken to bring the requirements more inaccord with the successful, more flexiblesystems used in other leading universities(c) The regulation that "the student mustsatisfy all minor requirements before starting research for his dissertation" seemsquite unnecessary. It is another example ofthe type of rigidity of thinking which concerns us.Faculty recruitment at the high professionallevels has apparently not been successful inrecent years. It is our view that this situation isnot likely to change so long as the Departmenttries to attract people from the top ten orfifteen other departments in the country. Thesalary scales, the geographical location and theamenities the Department can offer to facilitateresearch are seldom favorable enough to overcome the loss of productive research time whichis normal to a move, at least for an experimentally oriented professor. Nonetheless, the University has a marvelous opportunity to offeryoung people, especially in today's tight academic job market. However, a real argumentcan be made against such junior appointmentson the grounds that, until good graduate students in sufficient quantity are available, theresearch program of the young man cannot become established here, and he will wither onthe vine. This argument would lose its forceif the University were to set up its own Sloan-type support program for young people — guaranteeing them, if need be, funds for postdoctoralpositions to help get research going. The cost ofsuch a program would surely be less than thatinvolved in bringing in senior people with prestigious (and expensive) professorships, repletewith various kinds of research supplements asadded inducements. The department has hadreal success over many years in "growing" itsown good people. This policy could well bepursued and the conditions for success furtherimproved.Areas other than physical chemistry requirespecial consideration. The principal one is inorganic chemistry where the effort seems toosmall to be in accord with the present intellectualcontent of the field. Another is biological chemistry which would seem to provide an especiallyfruitful way to augment the offerings of the10Department without large increases in staff, andwith the resulting strengthening of ties betweenthe fields of chemistry and biochemistry. Muchof the proposed program of the faculty interested in this area could be implemented veryquickly if the highly restrictive system of majorexaminations and the course work associatedwith them were loosened. The biological chemistry program could bring the advantages of theInstitute style of operation to biologically oriented members of the Department who are notmembers of the heavily "physical" Institutes.A number of smaller items for considerationfollow:1 . A mechanism should be developed wherebyfirst-year graduate students talk with a muchwider range of staff members about potentialthesis research projects. Although it is desirablethat they start Ph.D. research early in theircareers, the decision on research field should bebased on extensive consideration of the offeringsin all areas of chemistry in the Department.2. Interdepartmental relations between chemistry and physics with respect to revisions oftheir undergraduate programs have not beengood. The chemistry faculty feels that their undergraduate program has been seriously hampered by changes in the physics courses whichwere made without consultation with the chemistry department. The dean's responsibility incoordinating the science offerings does not appear to have been fully met.3. A substantial need exists for computingfacilities for both undergraduate instruction andgraduate research. The present University computing facilities appear to be quite inadequatefor the needs of the Department and requireimmediate attention. An outside visiting committee should be invited to appraise the computing center's activities and try to recommendmeans of improving its service capabilities.4. It is not clear that the Department is uniformly puting forth its best efforts, through research support, teaching and space assignments,to help get young staff members established. Inthis connection, ways should be found to paysummer salaries to younger staff who do nothave research grants.5. It may be desirable to establish some special first-year graduate fellowships to attractgraduate students in certain areas of research.6. There seems to be an element of divisive-ness among the staff which might be alleviatedby a greater expression of interest, especially bysenior faculty members, in efforts outside of their own special areas of research or geographical locations.7. The office and laboratory space may notalways have been allocated with proper regardfor the overall needs of the Department. A flexible spirit of cooperation in this area betweencolleagues in the same, or different, subdisci-plines, is needed at Chicago, as at many otheruniversities.8. There appear to be insufficient funds available for maintenance and for rehabilitation ofbuildings.In conclusion, the Visiting Committee has appraised the strengths and weaknesses of the Department and finds it to be in general goodhealth, with relatively minor areas of weakness.However, with rather modest effort and expense,many of these weaknesses can be corrected andthe Department can continue in its position ofleadership among the academic chemistry departments of the U.S.THE ROADS AND THE PURPOSESFollowing is the text of an address delivered byPresident Edward H. Levi on Thursday, October29, 1970, at the Annual Meeting of the Association for General and Liberal Studies, Center forContinuing Education, The University of Chicago.This seems to be a period when a reexaminationof undergraduate education is not only desirablebut necessary. The burden on undergraduateeducation has greatly increased. It is engaged inmass education to an extent never before true,and because it is now mass education, perhapsits purposes must be more diverse than ever.Taken as a whole, the educational enterprise isextremely costly. In its present form it may beunsupportable, and its best attributes may belost in favor of its least justified qualities.Because the purposes are diverse and thefinancing difficult yet essential, and for otherreasons as well, the directions of undergraduateeducation are particularly susceptible to fad-dism which seeks not only dollars but popularapproval. New areas for inquiry, service andrelevant education are periodically and unceasingly discovered and just as frequently criticized.The amount of criticism and apparent dissatisfaction are high anyway. I do not mean to overemphasize this. A great deal of the criticism isof a kind which education has always received11over many centuries and really thousands ofyears, despite the variety and forms which education has taken. Some of the criticism seemsstrangely misplaced, appearing to echo itselfmore than to describe reality. But many livesare involved. Some of the assumptions widelyheld concerning collegiate education are mostdisturbing. For example, it is sometimes suggested that the educational establishment is usedto keep young people out of the job market inorder to protect the economy, and then on thecontrary it is said that the system is used primarily to prepare people for the requirementsof an industrial machine. I suppose both couldbe true, although the first seems foolish, andthere would seem to be better ways to accomplish the second. These assumptions and similarcriticisms, however, are a reminder that onecannot really look at undergraduate educationby itself. One must see it within the spectrum offormal education as a whole, and also as but apart of a larger society which could and ^doeshave many different ways of providing trainingand cultural pursuits. The public library is,after all, the descendant of great museums. Theseinstitutions, vocational schools, on-the-job training and a variety of other possible arrangements,including new forms of communication, aremuch in the picture. It should give us a pause,perhaps pleasure or alarm, to realize that thepresent system need not be immutable. Almostany idea we can think of has been tried out inthe past. It is the dimensions, and related tothat, the compulsions of formal education whichare new, but these can make a good deal of difference. We have to think about that educationwhich everyone or most should have. We haveto think about specialized training and the preservation or creation of quality. These are notnew questions, but they are in a new contextbecause of the numbers of people involved, thecosts, and the length of time our present systempreempts.Since the field we must plow is filled withdistractions, difficulties and strong allegiancies,let me state my conclusions. The points I havein mind are the following.Despite the doubts which are among the chiefattributes of our present civilization, and perhaps because of them, I believe our educationalsystem requires a reaffirmation of the reality andvalidity of the truth-finding process, intellectually based, with the acceptance of requirements of civility, criticism, and integrity.Overall, we require a greater amount of open ness within, to and from our educational structure. The problem is to encourage and preservethe autonomy and diversity of institutions andto permit and sponsor greater freedom for theindividual student. This means that there shouldbe more choices, but, of course, it does not meanthat the choices won't have consequences.In order to create more openness and to giVemore choices, I suggest we should begin experimenting with a system of national examinations, dealing with separate subjects, not attempting a certification in general areas, not determined by the requirements of any particular institution, but perhaps sponsored by cooperatinginstitutions and administered by independentagencies. In this way, I believe these examinations will give emphasis to and encourage diverse educational roads.I believe we must be much more serious aboutthe levels of education, not only because costfactors and, therefore, need and the allocationof resources are involved, but because the mixture of compulsion, voluntariness, competenceand the necessary interrelationship among scholars and disciplines differ from one level to another. More points of entrance and exit withaccomplishment and recognition from the formaleducation system would be desirable for students.I think it is likely that new kinds of institutions and new forms of instruction will have tobe developed if the goals of mass education andcontinuing education are to be more nearly realized. Some of these new forms will turn out tobe highly desirable in particular ways. Somemay be harmful to the quality of education wenow have. This is one reason why increasedopenness within the system and some non-institutional standards will be desirable.I believe it is essential that institutions ofeducation be much more concerned than theyhave been with the length of time preemptedby formal education. Shorter alternative roadsshould be made available and tried out. I believe this applies in a major way to undergraduate education, but also to graduate and professional training. All kinds of requirements andregulations now stand in the way. But I wouldurge that such alternatives could contribute tothe quality of both instruction and research.I have referred to the doubts which areamong the chief attributes of our civilization. Itis with these doubts, I believe, we must come toterms. The concepts which we use, as, for example, for liberal as well as general education,12somewhat outmoded if we take them in someariginal meaning. They imply divisions of so-. which we reject. And general education,. Edition to saying something ambiguous aboutthe organization of knowledge, now must meanthat education which should be generally available.The flexibility and unceramty of these con-epts help push us to a consideration of thecharacteristics of the kind of higher educationwe prefer. They are also a reminder, however,that one of the peculiarities of our system ofeducation has been its emphasis not on morality,but upon the intellectual disciplines. Perhaps itis more accurate to say our system embodies thebelief that morality can be more effectivelytaught through, and is implicit in, the intellectual disciplines viewed as a process — a moralitythus arising out of the recognition of excellenceand the honesty enforced by self-criticism.Other systems with different emphases are certainly imaginable for us. Some of their attributes have crept into some of the peripheralobjectives of some of our colleges and universities, and are, at times, more central than that.Thus, physical prowess, Spartan virtues andabilities, service to the community, perhaps weshould include proficiency in performance ofsome of the arts, have been seen in some placesas fairly central appropriate objectives for theirkind of liberal or general education. But themain thrust and the claim to independence forour institutions of higher learning and theirscholars have been based upon the possibilityof an honest and disciplined intellectual searchfor understanding. This does not mean that institutions of higher learning have not been labeled through time, sometimes correctly, as centers for unrest and revolutionary thought, or asinstruments for the establishment. It does notmean they are not part of the civilization whichcreated them. It does mean they have foundtheir integrity in a sufficiently shared belief inthe reality of intellectual truth. Much of mankind often has not believed in this kind of basefor higher education. A varying part of thereligious impulse is certainly contrary. Thereneed be no claim that the perception and searchlor intellectual truth is the only kind of understanding or experience worth having, or, indeed,the highest kind. The maintenance of this kindof base for higher education has never beeneasy. Few societies, including our own, have notwitnessed the exaltation of the breaking of ink-Pots, the banning of scholars and books. But we have a special problem. We have asociety in which, as Sir Isaiah Berlin has described, the normal or periodic peaking of enthusiasm for the irrational — which can be anunderstood and appreciated phenomenon — isnow combined with the fruits and thrust of intellectual movements themselves as shaped andreformulated through popularization. This kindof joining is not unique, but it now constitutesa new and powerful influence. The intellectualdescriptions of the forces of the irrational andthe unconscious, assumptions about the auto-maticity of scientific laws which control ourperceptions, an ardent belief in the almost unlimited power of institutions and technology tocompel values and behavior — all these are usedto downgrade the conception of objective truthand the validity of the rational process. Theconclusions of this argument probably run somedistance from the way they are taken. Perhapseven the most extreme paradoxes in it can beresolved. It will be pointed out also that free inquiry, if it is to be free, benefits from otherfaiths and skepticism. If terms other than intellectual and rational must be used to make theclaim for the validity of inquiry, no doubt thiscan be done. The question, however, is the effectof these movements on the independence, integrity and worthwhileness of our present institutions of higher learning. I doubt if we areprepared to say that if the intellect has, indeed,eaten itself, so much the better for poetic justice.The movements can destroy excellence fromwithin and make the institutions particularlyvulnerable to pressures from without. The veryfact that much of education is compulsory,formative and supported by the state makesthe claim for a base for independent valuesparticularly important. But if education and inquiry are to be regarded either as technical exercise which might just as well be externallydirected, or as the imprinting of a set of givenvalues where the attempt to understand is sham,for the mind is not sufficiently free, then education is in a power struggle which there is noparticular reason it should win, and many reasons it should lose. Hence, unless we find someother basis for excellence and independence, ordiscard these values, I believe a reaffirmation isrequired — a reaffirmation which accepts, protects and regards as important the ways of intellectual inquiry. This reaffirmation is not suggested as a test oath or a statement to be signed,or a formal or informal declaration of any kind.It will exist, if at all, as a personal matter result-13ing in a sufficiently shared spirit and shared waysof conduct which will keep our institutions viable and important during this most difficult period of readjustment. If this does not occur, perhaps it means the institutions are not worthsaving anyway.I believe both the continuation and integrityof our institutions of higher learning are important. I doubt whether they should have thekind of sovereignty which seems to have beenunwittingly given to them, and perhaps equallyunwittingly accepted by them. The notion that afour-year college is the necessary gateway to lifeor a screening device for industry or for graduatetraining is, itself, anti-educational. It depreciatesself-education. Not only does it state a formulafor learning in terms of the passage of time, butit has worked in practice to increase the requiredlength of time. The prestige does not go to theinstitution which can do the best job in thebriefest period. So the long road has grownlonger, and with adverse consequences. To someextent the system feeds upon itself. Graduatetraining becomes a requirement for teaching.Professional education is buttressed in its insistence upon more years by the rules of its ownassociations, licensing requirements, and university regulations. Faced with the boredom of students, professional schools are now urged toincorporate within their curricula the kind ofpractice and training which had previously escaped the hold of formal education. An alternative, and perhaps better road, would be toshorten the time.Strangely enough, this apparent mandate tothe institutions to control and develop educationas they think best has not worked to create greatdiversity or to provide as many options as onemight have imagined. The particular institutionpresumably is free within the broadest rangeto develop a new structure to exemplify a liberalarts or general education for our day. The drearyrepetition of distribution requirements, orcourses announced as general, or courses whichmirror the specific explorations of members ofthe faculty, but are said to be particularly goodbecause a professor does best what he knowsthe best, generally mark the academic scenefrom one place to another. One could say thecurriculum is not that important, but it is hardto say that in view of the length of time whichnow stretches ahead for many students.If the lack of diversity in institutional approaches is depressing, more depressing aremany of the forced so-called experimental pro grams which explore and build upon friendshipand community, and which are often shepherdedby the weakest disciplines and the weakest faculty. A recent, I gather highly regarded, article in the Saturday Review, which knows aboutthese things, makes this personal pronouncement, speaking of our colleges and high schools:"I used to imagine that one fine afternoon thedoors of all the offices would open wide with atrumpet blast and teachers and students wouldemerge to dance hand in hand in total goldennakedness on the campus lawns in a paroxysm oftruth." The point, of course, as the article says,is an emphasis, which the writer is for, on "akind of psychic survival: our ability to livedecently beyond institutional limits and to provide for our comrades enough help to sustainthem." Perhaps so. And perhaps this romanticism would make the forced sojourn of a degreeprogram more palatable. The colleges and universities may have become the escape and substitute for life, but we should have some way ofsaying this isn't the only way to get an education. After this quotation let me say that thelack of experimenting with new techniques forinstruction seems particularly surprising. Againprestige factors seem to be at work. Small classesare better than big ones. Discussions are betterthan lectures. Books are better than films. Howdo we know? If it cost less for students to be in abig class, which would they choose, and do weknow where they would learn the most? What, ifit were to be found they enjoy it less but arelearning more? I realize this flies in the face ofmany of the things we love, but isn't that partof the problem?What I am trying to suggest is that we havenot achieved diversity by an institutional approach, and the attempt to introduce diversitythrough the forced feeding of subsidies for thekinds of programs government and foundationsare likely to favor has probably often reducedquality. Why should a subsidy be required anyway for an attractive experimental programwhich an institution wishes to introduce? If therewere pressures on an institution to do a betterjob, then it might require a subsidy to keep itfrom dropping a program it regarded as poor.The institutional framework does not seem tohave been particularly conducive to exploringthe substance of what should be taught forvarious levels of education, and the way the subject matter should be taught. I overstate, ofcourse, but it takes a distracting act of will tobegin one of these revisions. I believe our prob-14m is to find some way to free the institutionsfrom the apparent necessity to do the standardthins wttn the usual experimental varieties, togive to the institutions some feeling of achievement when they are able to do the job fasterthan before, and to give them some greater assurance that students stay on because they wantto and have some serious scholarly purpose toachieve, and not because they are trapped.The remedies I suggest are worth a try; thatis the attempt to introduce greater flexibilityby reintroducing a degree for general education,perhaps (to speak in terms of time which Iwould like to avoid), after something like twoyears of college work; the rearrangement ofprofessional and graduate work so that they canbegin after this two-year period; the further reduction in time of much graduate and professional work; and the introduction — perhaps ofa timid introduction, through joint arrangementsamong some colleges or universities — of nationalexaminations administered by an independentagency, with the hope that these examinationsmight be sufficiently useful so that students andnon-students would find it desirable to takethem. If the examination system works, then Iam sure many more kinds of institutions willfind they are ready to help the students prepare.I realize there are all kinds of problems with external examination systems. They in themselvescan become a pernicious form of control furthering the cartelization of education or becominginstruments of dominations. For this reason itis important that the examinations not attemptto be a new packaging of education but ratherbe on separate and in that sense narrow subjects,as one way of testing competence in those areas.This will make for a much greater truthfulnessas to what the examinations are about. I do notthink they should be competitive with degreesexcept in the sense that they represent a differentapproach. So far as shortening the time is concerned, I do not suggest the briefer programs asthe only road. They should represent alternativeways.We are all concerned about the ability of education to respond to diverse tasks which havebeen placed upon it. These tasks require manymore kinds of institutions, much more flexibilityin the kinds of programs and means of instruction. Some means has to be found, and I donot believe the road of subsidy, by itself, will accomplish it, to encourage the appearance andparticipation of these institutions, and the tryingout of programs and methods of instruction. A more open system has risks, but it couldreassemble to greater advantage the strengthwhich is there. Obviously, such an open system,with national or independent examinations, withshorter alternative roads, and with the ability toaccommodate more to the student's own pace,will not, itself, substitute for the help whicheducation requires at many levels. It would be,however, a serious attempt to provide alternativeand useful roads to accomplish the purpose ofa general education for all.334th CONVOCATION ADDRESSDecember 22, 1970WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?by Sidney Davidson, the Arthur YoungProfessor and Dean of the Graduate Schoolof BusinessOne of the more perilous occupations of theseexciting times is that of a university president ordean. It was not always so. A dean could oncecount on a certain number of predictable vocational hazards. He knew that he had to deal withan unreasonable central authority, temperamental faculty, jealous peers, and occasionally querulous alumni. But these were familiar concerns,and if he had keen eyesight and fast footworkhe could generally escape mortal damage.The job has become more hazardous, however, in unfamiliar ways. The silent generationof the 1950's has become the vocal one of the'60's and 1970. Students have discovered thepower of speech and action; they have foundtheir tongues and are exercising them with considerable gusto and only occasionally questionable content. This has helped to make an ad-minstrator's life more exciting in new and unpredictable ways.My intention is not to involve you in the concerns of the deanhood, but to offer a relatedadmonition that I hope will remain with youafter you leave these sheltering walls. If I have aprayer for you in your post-university life, it isthat your continue to cultivate what we haveworked to inculcate — an attitude of benignskepticism about virtually everything — a constant query of "where is the evidence?" in support of ideas and institutions, new and old.Perhaps this plea is related to my own professional background in accounting and auditing15which constantly seeks the supporting evidencefor published financial statements in order thatthe independent public accountant may applyhis certificate attesting to fairness of presentation. But I believe it is more pervasive — it is atthe heart of the University of Chicago tradition, indeed it is the hallmark of an educatedman.Ours is an era of sham and pretense, and ourpublic life and even our universities, includingthis one, are not free from these evils. Both indefense of existing institutions and in pleas fortheir change or destruction, there has come tobe a reliance on spirited exhortation rather thanreason, on calls to arms rather than calm marshalling of evidence. It is our task — yours andmine and that of all universities — to help restorethe supremacy of logic and to insure the "freedom from coercion" that Dean Phil Neal calledfor last year from this lectern.You came here to acquire a fund of knowledge and a degree or degrees to post after yourname. These goods now are yours, but theirvalue will be less if you have not also acquiredthe questioning posture that goes with educationhere. Unlike the Founding Fathers, we at Chicago hold no truths to be self-evident. The distilled essence of the Chicago experience is andmust be the quest for evidence. My admonitionis to never flag in the search for it. Uncover it;examine it; weigh it; fit it into the pattern. Getit and use it for any position, belief, or decisionthat you are constrained to take, assume, ormake. You and all of us will be better off for it.This is, as you recognize, a very difficultprescription. It is not always to be filled in accordance with the heart's desire. My good friendand former Dean of the Graduate School ofBusiness, George P. Shultz, could tell you aboutthis. George used to talk about the little bits ofevidence — accumulating them, letting them pileup until decisions were easy. That was in lessfrantic days. Now he is Director of the Officeof Management and Budget, and boss of theworld's biggest spending and management job.There no longer is time to accumulate and analyze all the evidence. Hard decisions involvinggreat commitments must be made on the basisof insufficient or partially-digested information.Some indication of the enormity of the job camefrom Arnold Weber, also of our Faculty andGeorge Shultz' Associate Director of OMB.Weber commented recently that theirs is theonly office in the world where .1 means a hundred million dollars. Even though the job is impossible, I'm glad itis Shultz and Weber who are trying to do it-what we need everywhere, and in Washington inparticular, is the Chicago "show me" approachThat approach may carry you best through thesestrange and difficult times. The weather is thickout there, and it has become a bit rough in hereas well. None of us is spared the agony of deciding upon inadequate and inconclusive evidencewhether we reckon the consequences in billionsor in more comprehensible and manageableterms.Those of you who enter industry will learn thatthere is a December 31 deadline for conclusionsand measurements. One of the great advantagesof the University is that we do not fear December 31; if all the evidence is not yet in, wedo not publish. The deadlines in academia aregenerally extendible and the search for bits andpieces of fact generally can be maintained. Thatis why we can occasionally produce a wiserwisdom or profounder truth. It is one of thereasons why research of a long-range and basicnature flourishes best in a university setting.But let us get back to you who will depart.My admonition that you hunt for facts, for harddata, is in part unnecessary; often the facts willseek you out.Whatver the source of your information —whether you dig it out or net it from the air —it needs processing, and as a first step I shouldsay it is necessary to distinguish fact fromopinion. This may be elementary, but it is complicated by the meanings people impute towords — it is bound up in our understanding oflanguage, and also by our varied stances orbiases, so that what is fact to one man is opinionto another, and vice versa. I do not wish to become entangled in the philological and philosophical thickets of that idea, but I give youBarbara Tuchman, the literary stylist and writerof history, on the point:"If a historian writes that it was rainingheavily on the day war was declared, thatis a detail corroborating a statement, let ussay, that the day was gloomy. But if hewrites merely that it was a gloomy daywithout mentioning the rain, I want to knowwhat is his evidence; what made it gloomy.Or if he writes, 'The population was in abelligerent mood,' or, Tt was a period ofgreat anxiety,' he is indulging in generalstatements which carry no conviction to meif they are not illustrated by some evidence."16I would add to Miss Tuchman's view of the matter that if the supporting evidence is present,the conclusion becomes redundant. The facts,in an old phrase, speak for themselves.I would also add that both facts and opinionsare evidence. Our Bayesian statisticians assignvalues to subjective views and tote them up inthe results. But fact and opinion do have vastlydifferent weights, and should not be confusedwith one another.Thus my admonition, "seek the evidence,"has sprouted a twig, "distinguish fact from opinion." There are many twigs; they have to do withthe evaluation and application of evidence. Letme describe them briefly, in the hope that youwill recall and employ them.I hope first of all that you have learned something about the techniques and applications oflogic, and that you also have learned that logicis a way of going wrong with confidence.I hope you also have learned that your sensescan perceive the truth — and also can be deceived by illusion.I hope you have learned that to identify athing and put a name to it is not the same asunderstanding it.I hope you are aware that empirical evidencealone can lead you into error, but also thattheory without evidence remains theory alone.I hope you perceive that certainty is the comfort of the unschooled, and that there is no convincing evidence for its existence.I hope you have learned that intuition canleap mountains, but more often stumbles onmolehills.I hope you have learned not to be trapped byreliance upon numbers alone, however importantquantitative data have come to be.I hope you have learned that, as Occam'sRazor would have it, the most economical answer is best, but that simple answers are notsimply arrived at.I hope you have learned that truth is provisional and subject to the development of additional evidence. If this were not so, the worldwould be flat.I hope you have learned that the walls whichseparate one field of knowledge from another arehighly permeable membranes.For reasons of which we are as yet only dimlyaware, the perceptions of diverse people are notthe same with respect to the same evidence. Oneof my colleagues finds it hard to understand whyanother, who reads what he does in the NewYork Times, takes a diametrically opposed po litical position. Of course people screen, filter,and censor evidence in varying ways.I do not know why it should be so, but I doknow that conceptions of evidence change fromperson to person, and also from time to time.Old screens come down; often new ones go up.Not too long ago we tended, as a society, toview matters in much starker yes — no termsthan we now employ. We have come around toa belief that the degrees of "maybe" containlarger proportions of the truth.Simplistic attitudes and explanations, yes — noresponses, continue to dominate in much of oursociety, however. Some of the lags are institutional, as in education, where children are required to furnish unequivocal answers to questions that contain unavoidable ambiguities. Theperceptive child may mull over these mattersand fail the test. In this area, as in so many,rewards are granted for compliance and not forthought.One paradox in human affairs has to do withthe inverse relationship between evidence andconviction. The more a man learns about a subject, the more ambiguity he finds; the less heknows, the stronger his opinions on it. Thisseems to hold with particular force in the political realm. Exceedingly complex phenomena tendto be reduced to extremely simple yes — no terms.People think and talk in stereotypes, in three-and four-letter epithets, or in the peculiar jargonby which political sectarians communicate withone another.Perhaps it is the language of communicationthat shapes the sometimes circular thinking ofthe communicants. I cherish an example clippedfrom a recent edition of the Maroon. In a letterto the editors, a young man heartily endorsedfreedom of speech, but then added, "lies anddistortions should not have to be included."Examples of elegant thought are availableelsewhere in our society. In one instance, following the November elections, we were toldthat a political defeat was actually a victory.Soon after, we learned that a rescue missionwhich found no war prisoners was actually abrilliant success.In an attempt to better understand the spiritof those comments and reports I returned toGeorge Orwell's 1984, and re-read the slogans ofthe Ministry of Truth:War is PeaceFreedom is SlaveryIgnorance is Strength.17I have admonished you enough for one Convocation. Let me end this discourse on evidencewith the plea that we not permit this searchfor evidence to paralyze our activity seeking improvement, to stay our quest for the impossibledream. We are surrounded by conditions aboutwhich it is inhuman to remain passive, by issuesabout which it is inhuman to remain silent. Butlet us exercise our humanity by seeking answers,in whatever time is available to us, by first asking the educated man's query — What is theEvidence?HONORARY DEGREESTwo honorary degrees were awarded at the334th Convocation on December 22, 1970.Doctor of Humane LettersOliver Strunk, Professor Emeritus of Music,Princeton University, and Director of theMonumenta Music ae ByzantinaeEncyclopedic master of musicology, whoseoriginal investigations have illuminated nearlyevery phase of Western music; founder of thescientific-philological approach to the study ofByzantine music, its notation, style, and liturgy; distinguished editor, and exemplaryteacher.Doctor of ScienceA. Francis Birch, Professor of Geology, Harvard UniversityDistinguished scientist and innovator, whosestudies in solid-earth geophysics have beenlargely responsible for our current knowledgeof the earth's interior.DISCIPLINARY REVIEW BOARDSection 8 of the disciplinary legislation enactedby the Council of the Senate mandates theestablishment of a Disciplinary Review Boardwith authority to review decisions of UniversityDiscipline Committees. The composition of theboard is as follows:(a) the Dean of students in the University orhis designated deputy,(b) one of the Academic Deans selected bythe Provost,(c) a senior member of the faculty appointedas Chairman by the President of the University, (d) an undergraduate student selected at random from the panel of students nominated formembership on University Disciplinary Committees,(e) a graduate student selected at randomfrom the panel of students nominated for membership on University Disciplinary Committees.For 1970—71, the members of the Review Boardare:William H. McNeill, ChairmanCharles D. O'ConnellHarold A. RichmanRobert Michael Rainey (undergraduate)Patricia Mary Starzyk (graduate)Student Members of UniversityDisciplinary Panel 1970-71Undergraduates GraduatesROSENBERGER MEDALISTThe Rosenberger Medal was conferred at the333rd Convocation on September 4, 1970.Ralph Winfred TylerIn recognition of his years of leadership inthe social sciences and particularly in thescholarly study of education, his contributionsto The University of Chicago as professor andadministrator, his achievements as creatorand first director of the Center for the Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, hisdistinction as a founding member and firstPresident of the National Academy of Education, and his other major services to Americaneducation.Chudnoff, LaurenClark, DavidDahlke, JerryGoldberg, GeneHaefemeyer, JamesMatchett, AndrewMcQuilken, PatriciaMohr, RichardNevitt, MichaelPerlman, JudithRagan, MarkRainey, MichaelSaltman, DavidZitek, Carol Brown, ChristopherBrown, RonaldCohen, VictorDickie, WalterDandurand, GaryGillum, GaryKranz, PeterLewy, AlfredMcGuire, ErrolMobasser, JamesQuinn, TerryReed, KarlSchwartz, RosemaryShadur, RobertStarzyk, PatStreit, RobertThomas, A. MichaelTorgenson, Michael18ALUMNI ACTIVITIESNovember/December, 1970November 4 AtlantaNovember 7November 8 Minneapolis/ St. PaulMiami, FloridaNovember 9 BostonNovember 10 ProvidenceNovember 10November 15 Kansas CityNovember 16 PortlandNovember 18November 22November 30December 16December 18December SeattleWashington, D.C.(Young alumni —graduates of theCollege 1960-1970)December 9 Chicago(College Alumni)December 9 PhoenixDecember 14 New York Dr. Benjamin Mays, Chairman of the Atlanta SchoolBoard, "Thoughts on Education."Ballots for annual election of Cabinet members insertedin July/ October, 1970 issue of The University of ChicagoMagazine mailed to 63.413 alumni of known address.Schools Committee organizational meetings.Roy P. Mackal, Associate Professor of Biochemistry,"The Mystery of Loch Ness."Roy P. Mackal, "The Mystery of Loch Ness."First mailing to Awards Committee with resumes of candidates.Edward P. Rosenheim, Jr., Professor and AssociateChairman, Department of English, "Is Literacy a LostCause?"Julian Levi, Professor of Urban Studies and ExecutiveDirector of the South East Chicago Commission, "UrbanAmerica— 1970."Julian Levi, "Urban America — 1970."Marvin Zonis, Assistant Professor of Political Scienceand Social Science, speaking on campus life.Election of new Cabinet members completed. 3,155 ballots returned and tabulated."An Evening at Second City."Business Forecast Luncheon. Walter D. Fackler, Professor of Business Economics, Irving Schweiger, Professorof Marketing, Beryl W. Sprinkel, Vice President, HarrisTrust and Savings Bank.Jeremy R. Azrael, Professor of Political Science andChairman of the Committee on Slavic Area Studies,"After the Thaw: Freedom and Coercion in the U.S.S.R."Meeting of the Executive Committee of the Alumni Association Cabinet.Letter of welcome from Alumni Director to December'70 graduates. Membership card and questionnaire enclosed.Addition of 390 December graduates to the Alumni files.Arrangements completed for group tour to England inApril, 1971 for members of the Alumni Association andtheir immediate families.19Schools Committee Christmas PartiesDecember 23 ClevelandDecember 26 PhoenixDecember 27 AlbanyDecember 28 DenverDecember 28 MilwaukeeDecember 28 OmahaDecember 28 PortlandDecember 28 RochesterDecember 28 San FranciscoDecember 29 AtlantaDecember 29 DetroitDecember 29 Los AngelesDecember 29 Louisville, Ky.December 29 Minneapolis/ St. PaulDecember 29December 29December 29December 30December 30December 30 New YorkNorthern NewJerseyWashington, D.C.BaltimoreBostonMiamiDecember 30 PhiladelphiaDecember 30 Pittsburgh James W. Vice, Dean of Freshmen.Francis H. Strauss, II, Assistant Professor of Pathologyand Lorna P. Straus, Assistant Professor of Anatomy.Mary L. Fisch, Assistant Dean of the College.Roger W. Weiss, Associate Professor Division of SocialSciences and the College.Charles D. O'Connell, Dean of Students.Francis H. Strauss, II, Assistant Professor of Pathologyand Lorna P. Straus, Assistant Professor of Anatomy.Roger H. Hildebrand, Dean of the College.Virgil Burnett, Associate Professor of Art.Paul J. Sally, Jr., Associate Professor of Mathematics.Charles D. O'Connell, Dean of Students.Kenneth J. Northcott, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Germanic Language and Literatures.Roger W. Weiss, Associate Professor Division of SocialSciences and the College.Wayne C. Booth, George Pullman Professor of English.David Greenstone, Associate Professor of Political Science.Herbert L. Kessler, Associate Professor of Art.Herbert L. Kessler, Associate Professor of Art.Eric W. Cochrane, Professor of History.Virgil Burnett, Associate Professor of Art, and AnneBurnett, Associate Professor of Classical Languages andLiterature.David Greenstone, Associate Professor of Political Science.Kenneth J. Northcott, Professor and Chairman of theDepartment of Germanic Language and Literatures.Scheduled Alumni EventsJanuary 15 San FranciscoJanuary 21 Los AngelesJanuary 26 Washington, D.C.January 28 DenverFebruary 2 Chicago20 Private showing van Gogh Exhibit.Willie Davis, MBA '68, "Inside Football."James Lorie, Director of the Center for Research inSecurity Prices, Professor of Business, and Abner J.Mikva, Illinois Congressman, "Nixon's Economic Policies."Aristide Zolberg, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Political Science, "The Changing Culture ofPolitics in America."Jazz Symposium.February 2 ElkhartFebruary 2 PhiladelphiaFebruary 26/ 27 ChicagoJune 4/5 Chicago Larry Hawkins, Director of the Office of Special Programs, "A Very Special Program."Bruno Bettelheim, Stella M. Rowley Professor of Education, Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry, "Childrenof the Dream."National Cabinet Meeting.Annual June Reunion.Scheduled i Professional SchoolFebruary 2 Chicago(Business)February 9 Honolulu(SSA)February 27 Chicago(Law)March 18 Chicago(Business) ProgramsExecutive Program Luncheon. Norval R. Morris, JuliusKreeger Professor of Law, "A Businessman's Guide toCrime Control."Helen Harris Perlman, The Samuel Deutsch Professor,SSA.Reunion.Management Conference. Edwin Land, Chairman of theBoard of Polaroid.STUDENT AID AT THE UNIVERSITYOF CHICAGOJanuary 11, 1971The following is the first of two reports byCharles D. O'Connell, Dean of Students, onstudent aid at the University. This article coversthe major sources of student aid; the second willdiscuss the distribution of student aid, both thecriteria and the procedures, and will raise someof the issues in student aid affecting the University of Chicago and higher education generally.The reports have been prepared for the Dean'sCommittee on Student Aid, chaired by Mr.Phil C. Neal, Dean of the Law School.Any discussion of student aid at the Universityof Chicago involves semantic pitfalls which needto be flagged clearly from the very beginning.Nothing illustrates this fact better than a seriesof statements about the University's student aidprogram, all of which have been made at onetime or another by a student or faculty memberat the University. Most of them seem hopelesslycontradictory, yet all can be said to be "true,"given the speaker's particular view of what constitutes student aid:"My student aid was cut back this year. Instead, they substituted a loan." "The University spends virtually as muchmoney on student aid as it takes in fromtuition and fees.""Thank God, I never had to depend on theUniversity for any student aid. I workedmy way through by working twenty hoursa week in a University lab.""The average University of Chicago student in 1968-69 received approximately$2,350 in student aid, $250 more than histuition."Each of these statements depends for its"truth" upon the speaker's special sense of whatconstitutes student aid. Does student aid, forinstance, include loans that must be repaid butwhich are offered interest-free or at a rate ofinterest so low that it can not be duplicated outside the University? Are opportunities for student employment made available by the University itself to be considered a legitimate part ofthe University's student aid program? Does astudent aid policy that is based in part on assessing a student's own financial resources as wellas his academic promise— the College is a goodexample — have a right to expect higher summerand term-time earnings from an upperclassmanthan from a freshman? The answers that eachperson gives to these questions will affect hisviews about the University's student aid program— and the statements about that program citedabove.21But whatever a person's answer to those specific questions, the University's student aid program looms large in almost every student's lifeand equally large in the University's officialbudget.In 1968-69, the last fiscal year for which adetailed official budget report was available whenthis article was being prepared, student aid atthe University was listed as totalling $19,692,000,virtually as much as tuition income for the sameyear. Even then, the figure does not includestudent employment. If the figure of almost$20 million has any significance at all as a sumof the University's expenditures in student aid,however, it is apparent that it amounts to approximately $2,350 for each of the 8,335 degreecandidates on the Quadrangles that year, whentuition was $2,100.Where did the $20 million come from? Ofwhat did it consist? Where did it go? These arequestions of obvious interest.First of all, $5,700,000 of the $19,692,000came from the 1968-69 operating budget; thatis, from income received by the University during the same year from student fees and othersources. This so-called University Unendowedportion of the student aid budget — unrestrictedfunds which could be used for other purposesbut which are earmarked for student aid — isadministered through the Office of the Dean ofStudents and allocated to the various academicunits of the University for distribution to theirstudents in the form of tuition and stipends.Approximately twenty percent of the total,$1,169,500, was distributed to undergraduates in1968-69, the rest to graduate and professionalstudents. For 1970-71, two years later, the University allocated $6,325,000 from its operatingbudget to student aid, an increase of nineteenper cent over the original 1968-69 allocation andeleven per cent higher than the $5,700,000 actually spent in 1968-69. Meanwhile, tuition increased eighteen per cent for graduate students,eleven per cent for undergraduates, and enrollment declined from 8,335 to 7,386, or elevenper cent.Another $582,000 in the 1968-69 student aidprogram was derived from Restricted Endowment accounts, that is, such "named" scholarship and fellowship awards as LaVerne Noyes,Murphy, and Smith Scholarships, which havetheir own completely supporting endowmentsand from which the University is permitted tospend the income each year on student aid. In1968-69, this income amounted to $582,000. Like the University Unendowed, it was distributed to the various academic units of the University, approximately sixty per cent of it to graduate students and forty per cent to students in theCollege.Children of faculty and University staff havetraditionally been entitled to full or partial tuition remission to attend the University, elementary school through the College. The Universitydevoted $627,000 to this purpose in 1968-69,$68,500 of it to support tuition expenses of faculty and staff children in the College. (It mightbe noted that the University spent another$317,000, not included in the $627,000 or in theUniversity's student aid budget, to send childrenof faculty to other colleges and universities towhich they were admitted.)More than forty per cent of the aid receivedby students at the University in 1968-69 camefrom the federal government. Federal fellowships and traineeships granted directly to students, but administered through the University,amounted to $3,004,000. The principal programs included in this component of the studentaid program are National Science FoundationFellowships, National Science Foundation Traineeships, and National Defense Education ActFellowships under Title IV and Title VI. 1968-69 was a peak year for these programs, bothnationally and at the University of Chicago.Five hundred and eighty graduate students, primarily in the Divisions, were supported in1968-69 through federal fellowships under theprograms named. This year, 1970-71, the number has fallen to approximately four hundred,a drop of thirty-one per cent. In dollars the decline in direct federal support to students at theUniversity through these programs has amountedto about one million dollars in two years.An even larger source of support for University graduate students in recent years hasbeen federal traineeships provided through individual faculty grants, particularly PublicHealth Service Traineeships. In 1968-69, studentaid from this source, again virtually all for graduate students, amounted to $4,019,000. Again,the University has suffered a sharp decline overthe past two years in federal assistance from suchtraineeships. Approximately one-hundred-seventyfewer graduate students than in 1968-69 arebeing supported in 1970-71 from such federalprograms provided through faculty grants; thedollar loss in student aid is again in the neighborhood of one million dollars.22The number of graduate students at the Uni-rsity, then, whose study is supported fromf deral fellowships or traineeships of one kindanother has declined from approximately1025 in 1968-69 to 675 in 1970-71, a dropf thirty-four per cent; the decline in federal dol-i r assistance to University students over thesame period from these programs is approximately two million dollars. Increases in University student aid funds have been simply unable tocompensate for this loss in federal support.Research assistantships, a significant source ofgraduate student support coming from the federal government and other outside agencies, areconsidered a form of student employment. Assuch, they are not listed in the University budget under "student aid," and will be discussed ina future report.Another major source of financial aid to students, exclusive of loans and student employment, is gifts from private foundations or privateindividuals intended for specific academic partsof the University, specific programs, or even theresearch of specific faculty members which involves student assistance. The Ford Foundation'ssupport of doctoral candidates in eight departments of the Humanities and Social Sciences isan example of such student aid. In 1968-69,$2,795,000, a little over fourteen per cent of theUniversity's total student aid budget, came fromsuch private sources.So much for "gift" assistance to the University's students. One definition — or at least, description — of student aid, however, would saythat it consists of funds which permit studentsto pursue their studies free of extreme financialpressure and which may take the form of tuitionscholarships, living stipends, educational loans,campus employment, or any combination ofthese forms of assistance. Even a more restricteddefinition of student aid than this would haveto include in its scope those educational loanswhich carry little or no interest while the studentis in school and which, in some cases at least,carry with them "forgiveness" clauses which canultimately convert the loans in large part toretroactive scholarships.In 1968-69, the University of Chicago distributed almost three million dollars, $2,965,000 tobe exact, to its students in the form of educational loans — fifteen per cent of its over-all aidto students. Of this amount, almost one milliondollars was in University funds: $839,000 intuition deferment loans and $113,000 in so-called "restricted" loans, that is, loan funds do nated to the University for students in particularfields of study or with particular qualifications.Another $2,013,000 was loaned to students in1968-69 from National Defense Student Loanfunds and the Health Profession Loan funds,both federal programs but toward which theUniversity is required to contribute one-ninthof the^ federal contribution. 2,360 students,twenty-eight per cent of these enrolled on theQuadrangles in 1968-69, borrowed funds fromone or another of these programs. Approximately forty-six per cent of the available loanfunds went to students in the Divisions, fortyper cent to students in the Schools, and fourteenper cent to students in the College.These, then, were the components of the1968-69 University student aid budget. The$19,692,000 total can be viewed in anotherway that might be illuminating:1. From its general operating budget in 1968-69,the University provided $7,229,300 in studentaid, 36.7% of the total:Fellowships and scholarships $5,562,000*Tuition Remissions tochildren of faculty and staff 627,000Student loans 1 ,040,300* *2. From its endowment income in 1968-69, theUniversity provided $833,000 in student aid,or 4.8% of the total:Partially endowed "name accounts"in the University UnendowedStudent Aid Budget $ 1 3 8,000Restricted Endowed Student Aid 582,000Restricted University Loan Funds 1 1 3,0003. From federal sources in 1968-69, the University received and distributed $8,834,700, or44.3% of the total:Fellowships and NSFTraineeships $3,004,000*This omits $138,000 in partially endowed"name accounts" which are part of the $5,700,000 Unendowed Student Aid budget.**This includes the University's tuition deferment loans of $839,000 and the University'scontribution to federal loan programs, $201,300.23Training grants (throughindividual faculty or departmental grants) $4,019,000Federal share of NDEA andHealth Professions Loanprograms $1,811,7004. From private sources outside the Universityin 1968-69, the University received and distributed $2,795,000, or 14.2% of the total:Gifts and grants to Schools orDepartments or individualfaculty $1,339,000Private foundation grants to theUniversity 1,456,000It is important to note that the percentagescited — 44.3% federal, 41.5%. University, and14.2% private non-University — are proportionsof the student aid dollars distributed to Universitystudents, NOT proportions of the total studentshelped. Federal awards administered through theUniversity, by and large, carry fixed stipendsand are considerably larger than Universityawards. A typical federal fellowship, for instance,brings a student full tuition for the four-quarteryear, ($2,800 in 1968-69) and a living stipendof $2,400-$2,800. A typical University fellowship, by contrast, brings a student tuition forthree quarters ($2,100 in 1968-69) and a stipendof $1,800. But with a typical federal fellowshiptotalling $5,400 in 1968-69 and a typical graduate University award totalling $3,900, it maybe easier to see why the fourth statement at thebeginning of this paper is indeed "true" in avery special sense, if almost meaningless inanother.Even the twenty million dollars listed in theofficial University budget for 1968-69 under theheading, Student Aid, does not cover the fullextent of financial assistance University of Chicago students received that year, from sourcesother than their parents, to help meet their educational expenses.We have already referred to research assistant-ships. In addition, a significant number of students receive assistance directly from privatefoundations or corporations, and in most casesthe University is not aware of either the assistance or the number of students receiving it.One example of a substantial program, about which the University does know but which •not administered through it and is not aof its "official" student aid program, is tv»Danforth Fellowship program. In 1968-69 fexample, forty graduate students at the Univesity, most of them in the Divisions, receivedDanforth awards for full tuition (for threefour quarters) and a stipend of about $2 500The total assistance to University of Chica?students from Danforth for 1968-69 was in thneighborhood of $200,000.Similarly, almost four hundred students in theCollege were awarded Illinois State Scholarships in 1968-69, for a total of over $400,000Similar awards, in the form of scholarships orloans or both, were made to University studentsfrom perhaps five or six other states which permit their residents to carry scholarships or loansto schools out-of-state.The fastest growing loan program in theUnited States in which the federal governmentis involved is not the National Defense StudentLoan program but the more recent State Guaranteed Loan program, under the provisions ofwhich students borrow funds from local banksand, if their families' adjusted income is below$15,000, divide the interest charges after graduation with the federal government. The University is involved in this program only to theextent of certifying to the lending agency thefact of the student's enrollment. Although noaccurate records are available for 1968-69, weknow that in 1969-70, University of Chicagostudents borrowed approximately $500,000through State Guaranteed Loan programs.And, finally, one of the major sources of financial assistance to University students is theUniversity's own campus employment program.Since neither a scholarship nor a low-interestloan is involved, but compensation for service,some would exclude part-time campus jobs fromtheir definition of student aid. Indeed, the University does not include it as such in its budgetreports. Nonetheless, as the federal College WorkStudy program illustrates, many people whothink about student aid view campus employment as one of its integral components. Over thetwelve months of fiscal 1968-69, about 825campus jobs, both full- and part-time, were heldby University students, a good number morethan 825 students were employed, of course,since many of the jobs "changed hands" morethan once throughout the year. It is significant,however, that the total annual compensation forthe 825 jobs exceeded $1,400,000.24REPORT ON EMERGENCY ROOMPRACTICES AT THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO HOSPITALSEmergency rooms throughout the country havebecome the vanguard of the urban health caredelivery system, and the two 24-hour emergencyrooms in The University of Chicago Hospitalsand Clinics are no exceptions.The number of emergency room visits to Albert M. Billings Hospital and the Silvan andArma Wyler Children's Hospital has increasedfour hundred per cent in the last nine years.The rate of increase for seventy-nine other hospitals in Chicago and Cook County was onlyninty-five percent, according to a recent survey.The University's medical facilities handle morethan 5.5 percent of all emergency room visits inChicago and are second only to Cook CountyHospital emergency rooms in the number ofvisits per year.These are among a number of findings in astudy entitled '/Emergency Medical Services inthe Chicago Area," which was funded by theChicago Hospital Council (CHC) and the IllinoisRegional Medical Program (IRMP). The studysurveyed eighty non-federal, general, short-termhospitals — fifty-nine in Chicago and twenty-onein suburban Cook County.The study also shows that the annual increasein emergency rooms visits for the past five yearswas thirty percent at the University while it wasonly six percent for the seventy-nine other hospitals surveyed.More than 70,000 patients are seen annuallyin the emergency rooms of Billings Hospital andWyler Children's Hospital. An average of onehundred twenty-nine visits per day were loggedin the Billings Emergency Room and one hundred visits per day in the Wyler EmergencyRoom during September 1970.Admission to any hospital depends upon thenumber of beds available. At the University Hospitals and Clinics, beds are literally "created"for all patients who the physicians feel requireurgent or emergency hospitalization and treatment. Beds are created by rescheduling personswhose admissions were scheduled in advance butwhose illness is considered by the physicians tobe "less-urgent." If there are no beds available,patients who require hospitalization on a nonurgent basis may be transferred to nearby hospitals that have beds available. According to the CHA-IRMP study, fewer than one percent of allemergency room cases at the University aretransferred to other hospitals.The University emergency rooms are operatedon the triage system. Under this system, eachpatient is seen by a doctor within minutes of hisarrival. The doctor classifies the patient according to his medical need and determines theorder in which patients are treated. The mosturgent are treated first.As a result of the increasing demands on theUniversity's two emergency rooms, the staffand related services have been expanded. Fourdoctors are present in the Billings emergencyrooms during the hours of peak activity. Threedoctors are on duty at all times, including asurgical resident, with specialists on 24-hourcall within the medical complex. Eleven clerksserve the Billings Emergency Room in threeshifts around-the-clock. A nursing supervisor, ahead nurse, nine registered nurses, two licensedpractical nurses, and six nursing assistants staffthe Billings Emergency Room around-the-clock.An emergency room manager is on twenty-four-hour duty or call. In addition, an emergencyroom administrator is always on duty or on call.At least three doctors are on duty in the WylerEmergency Room at all times. A pediatric surgeon is on twenty-four-hour call. Consultationsin all subspecialities and additional medical staffare always available. Five registered nurses staffthe emergency room on a twenty-hour basis. Inaddition, at least one nursing assistant is alwayson duty. During peak periods, additional stafffrom the out-patient clinic can be rotated to theemergency room.Twenty-four-hour service also is availablefrom X-ray technicians, the medical recordroom, pharmacy, blood bank, inhalation therapy and the chaplain. Laboratory techniciansare available twenty-four hours per day.A fee of $15 is charged each Billings emergency patient. It can be paid through insurance(third party). No patient ever is turned awaybecause he lacks funds to pay the fee.During fiscal 1969-70, cash loss from hospitaladmissions through the Billings Emergency Roomfor persons without medical insurance or abilityto pay totaled about 1.1 million dollars. Endowment income intended to be used to pay forthese services is only able to support approximately half of this amount.The remainder of the deficit is paid by moniesthat would normally be spent upon new equipment for the Hospitals and Clinics.25A fee of $12 is charged each emergency roompatient at Wyler Hospital. An additional servicefee of $5 is required for patients who have notbeen seen in the University Hospital and Clinicspreviously, to help defray the expenses of initiating a patient record and certain routine laboratory tests.During the last fiscal year, the Wyler Emergency and the Wyler Outpatient Department(which operate as a single financial and administrative unit) sustained a cash loss of $110,307.Monies to cover this deficit also are divertedfrom funds that normally would be spent uponequipment.Analysis of the patients using the UniversityEmergency Rooms reveals that eighty-four percent of the Billings Emergency Room patientsare black, twenty-one percent are from theWoodlawn community and twelve percent arefrom South Shore. Ninety-one percent of thepatients of the Wyler Emergency Room are non-white. Thirty percent are from Woodlawn andnine percent are from South Shore. Eighty-onepercent of the patients of the two emergencyfacilities live within a three-mile radius of theHospitals and Clinics.Only one-third of the emergency room patientshave family doctors. This is reflected in the factthat fifty-nine percent of the patients seen inthe emergency rooms are classified as "nonurgent" — that is, they could be seen in a clinic —and an additional seventeen percent are sched uled returns for such routine procedures as suture removal.Recognizing both the needs of the communityand the University's commitment to medicalcare, the University Hospital and Clinics arestudying the feasibility of developing an ambulatory care unit. Such a unit could providetreatment for sore throats, sprains and othernon-emergency medical conditions. The ambulatory care unit could be built adjacent to thehospital emergency room and the existing triagesystem could be used to route patients to eitherthe emergency room or the ambulatory careunit.An ambulatory care unit is only one exampleof innovation in health care delivery by TheUniversity of Chicago Hospitals and Clinics.The University Hospitals and Clinics, in cooperation with the Chicago Hospital Council, willcontinue to examine and evaluate solutions tohealth care problems in the University community and throughout the city of Chicago.RETIREMENT CHANGEThe Board of Trustees voted on December 21,1970, to amend Statute 18, which deals withretirement, to permit voluntary retirement atage 58 upon recommendation by the Presidentand approval by the Board of Trustees. Theprevious voluntary retirement age was 62.NEW FACULTY APPOINTMENTS AS OF JANUARY 1, 1971This list is meant to include all appointments completed after those listed in The University of ChicagoRecord of January 9, 1970 (Volume IV, Number, 1). The date listed with each name is the effectivedate of the appointment. The Secretary of the Faculties would appreciate any information on omissions or corrections.DIVISION OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCESStuart Altman Professor 10/1/70 Anatomy, Biology, CollegeLuis Larramendi Professor 9/1/70 AnatomyDr. Victor Eugene Pollak Professor 9/1/70 MedicineKenneth Robbins Professor 5/1/70 MedicineDr. Samuel Spector Professor 1/1/71 PediatricsElmar H. Zeitler Professor 1/1/70 BiophysicsDr. Joseph L. Barudo Associate Professor 4/1/70 PediatricsDr. Gerald Burke Associate Professor 4/1/70 MedicineDr. Clarence Cohn Associate Professor 5/1/70 MedicineMorton C. Creditor Associate Professor 7/1/70 Medicine26Dr. Leonard R. Proctorpr' Frederick Rabinerpr" Irwin Rosenberg,pr. Kaija VirolainenWinston A. Anderson]Viarluce BibboDr. Harold Brookspr. Frederic L. Coepr. Terry J. Ernestpr. Lorenzo Gonzales-Lavinpr. John HammerstadSherwin A. Kabinspr. Elliott D. Keiffpr. Moon H. KimDr. Heinz KohlerBidy D. KulkarniDr. Stanford LambergDr. Agnes D. LattimerDr. Carol LebeikoDr. Nicholas LennChung- Yuan LinDr. Marshall LindheimerTerrance MartinJosephine A. MorelloColin MorleyDr. Theodore SteckDr. Anthony J. SteffekA. Carl VerrusioDr. Nicholas VickDr. Edwin AprilWilliam BogganDr. Fred ChampagneDr. Tze-chun ChiangDr. Leticia Chy-KoaDr. Domingo J de la FuenteDr. Leonard ElkunDr. Ana Abayang EngChristopher FieldingDr. Miguel GambeetaDr. David GehloffDr Gordon A. GenoeDr. Larry L. HeckPaul G. HeltneDr. John HopperDr. Abdolhamid HosseinianDr. Robert Hunter, Jr.Dr. Lawrence KaytonDr. Fazlur R. KhanDr. Hyo Sook KimDr. David KlassDr. Ronald KroneDr. Silviu F. LandmanDr. Harry LippDr. Chien-tai Lu Associate Professor 5/11/70 SurgeryAssociate Professor 4/1/70 MedicineAssociate Professor 8/1/70 MedicineAssociate Professor 9/9/70 Zoller Dental ClinicAssistant Professor 9/1/70 AnatomyAssistant Professor 9/1/70 Obstetrics and GynecologyAssistant Professor 7/1/70 MedicineAssistant Professor 4/1/70 MedicineAssistant Professor 10/1/70 SurgeryAssistant Professor 1/1/70 SurgeryAssistant Professor 7/1/70 MedicineAssistant Professor 6/1/70 MedicineAssistant Professor 7/1/70 MedicineAssistant Professor 5/1/70 Obstetrics and GynecologyAssistant Professor 7/1/70 PathologyAssistant Professor 8/7/70 Obstetrics and GynecologyAssistant Professor 1/1/70 MedicineAssistant Professor 4/1/70 PediatricsAssistant Professor 10/1/70 PediatricsAssistant Professor 7/1/70 PediatricsAssistant Professor 7/1/70 SurgeryAssistant Professor 7/1/70 Medicine, Obstetrics and GynecologyAssistant Professor 1/1/71 BiologyAssistant Professor 1/1/70 Medicine, PathologyAssistant Professor 9/1/70 Medicine, CollegeAssistant Professor 7/1/70 MedicineAssistant Professor 7/1/70 Zoller Dental ClinicAssistant Professor 7/1/70 Zoller Dental ClinicAssistant Professor 7/1/70 MedicineInstructor 7/1/70 RadiologyInstructor 7/1/70 PsychiatryInstructor 1/1/71 AnesthesiologyInstructor 9/1/70 RadiologyInstructor 7/1/70 PediatricsInstructor 7/1/70 MedicineInstructor 7/1/70 PsychiatryInstructor 7/1/70 MedicineInstructor 7/1/70 MedicineInstructor 7/1/70 MedicineInstructor 7/1/70 PsychiatryInstructor 7/1/70 RadiologyInstructor 7/1/70 RadiologyInstructor 1/1/70 AnatomyInstructor 7/1/70 MedicineInstructor 7/1/70 Obstetrics and GynecologyInstructor 7/1/70 PathologyInstructor 3/1/70 PsychiatryInstructor 2/1/70 RadiologyInstructor 7/1/70 AnesthesiologyInstructor 7/1/70 PsychiatryInstructor 7/1/70 MedicineInstructor 7/1/70 RadiologyInstructor 6/1/70 MedicineInstructor 7/1/70 Radiology27Andrew J. Meholic Instructor 10/1/70 RadiologyDr. Joel Elizabeth Murray Instructor 7/1/70 MedicineDr. Bernard Oppenheim Instructor 9/1/70 Radiology, Argonne Cancer Research HospitalDr. Charles S. Paine Instructor 7/1/70 PathologyDr. Donald W. Palmer Instructor 7/1/70 MedicineDr. Pedro L. Roda Instructor 7/1/70 AnesthesiologyDr. William L. Schey Instructor 2/1/70 RadiologyDr. John F. Schneider Instructor 7/1/70 MedicineDr. Daina Variakojis Instructor 7/1/70 PathologyDr. Solomon Victor Instructor 1/1/70 SurgeryDr. Frank Yanowitz Instructor 7/1/70 MedicineDIVISION OF THE HUMANITIESFahir Iz Professor 7/1/70George Kent Professor 10/1/70Manfred Hoppe Associate Professor 10/1/70Peter Jonikas (Part-time) Associate Professor 7/1/70Frantisek Svejkovsky Associate Professor 7/1/70Charles Cohen Assistant Professor 10/1/70Rene deCosta Assistant Professor 7/1/70Gerald Diffloth Assistant Professor 7/1/70Ruth Duckworth Assistant Professor 10/1/70Giorgio Galansino Assistant Professor 10/1/70Gene Gragg Assistant Professor 7/1/70Samuel Jaffe Assistant Professor 10/1/70Eleanor Roach Assistant Professor 10/1/70William Wimsatt Assistant Professor 1/1/71Richard Weisberg Assistant Professor 1/1/71Eric J. Gangloff Instructor 10/1/70Jan W. Herlinger Instructor 10/1/70Laura Volkerding Instructor 7/1/70Kenneth J. Zimmerman Instructor 10/1/70 Near Eastern LanguagesEnglish, CollegeGermanic Languages, CollegeSlavic LanguagesSlavic LanguagesArt, CollegeRomance Languages, CollegeLinguisticsArtArtLinguistics/ Oriental InstituteNear Eastern LanguagesGermanic Languages and Literature, CollegeRomance Languages, CollegePhilosophy, CollegeRomance Languages, CollegeFar Eastern Languages and CivilizationMusic, CollegeArtRomance Languages, CollegeDIVISION OF THE PHYSICAL SCIENCESLewis D. Kaplan Professor 10/1/70Charles Fefferman Assistant Professor 10/1/70Zachary Fisk Assistant Professor 10/1/70Dieter Forster Assistant Professor 10/1/70Virgil Goedken Assistant Professor 10/1/70Shelby Haberman Assistant Professor 10/1/70Max A. Jodeit, Jr. Assistant Professor 10/1/70Ronald H. Kluger Assistant Professor 10/1/70Dietrich Muller Assistant Professor 10/1/70Wu-Ki Tung Assistant Professor 7/1/70 Geophysical SciencesMathematicsPhysics, James Franck InstituteCollegePhysics, James Franck InstituteChemistryStatisticsMathematics, CollegeChemistryPhysics, Enrico Fermi Institute CollegePhysics, Enrico Fermi Institute28James R. BunchBrian Daylb MadsenWilliam J. MitchellPeter PercellChao-Ho Sung InstructorInstructorInstructorinstructorInstructorInstructorDIVISION OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCESGary S. BeckerEdgar EppsErika FrommEvelyn KitagawaMihaly CsikszentmihalyiStanley FischerRichard B. FreemanJulius KirshnerJoseph R. NoelGeorge PedersonBarry SchwartzJudith Rae ShapiroDiana SlaughterHoward WainerJohn E. WoodsRichard P. AlbaresJames R. MurrayJames Peterson University ProfessorProfessorProfessorProfessorAssociate ProfessorAssistant ProfessorAssistant ProfessorAssistant ProfessorAssistant ProfessorAssistant ProfessorAssistant ProfessorAssistant ProfessorAssistant ProfessorAssistant ProfessorAssistant ProfessorInstructorInstructorInstructor 10/1/70 Mathematics, College10/1/70 Mathematics10/1/70 Mathematics, College10/1/70 Mathematics, College10/1/70 Mathematics10/1/70 Mathematics, College10/1/70 Economics7/1/70 Education10/1/70 Psychology10/1/70 Sociology7/1/70 Human Development College10/1/70 Economics1/1/70 Economics7/1/70 History, College10/1/70 Psychology7/15/70 Education10/1/70 Sociology10/1/70 Anthropology, College10/1/70 Education, Human Development7/1/70 Psychology7/1/70 History10/1/70 Sociology, College7/1/70 Human Development10/1/70 SociologyTHE COLLEGEBiological Sciences DivisionStuart Altman Professor 10/1/70 also Biology and AnatomyColin Morley Assistant Professor 9/1/70 also MedicineWilliam Wimsatt Assistant Professor 1/1/71 also PhilosophyHumanities DivisionGeorge Kent Professor 10/1/70 also EnglishManfred Hoppe Associate Professor 10/1/70 also Germanic LanguagesCharles D. O'Connell Associate Professor 4/1/70 also Dean of StudentsCharles Cohen Assistant Professor 10/1/70 also ArtRene deCosta Assistant Professor 7/1/70 also Romance LanguagesSamuel Jaffe Assistant Professor 10/1/70 also Germanic LanguagesEleanor Roach Assistant Professor 10/1/70 also Romance LanguagesRichard Weisberg Assistant Professor 1/1/71 also Romance LanguagesJan W. Herlinger Instructor 10/1/70 also MusicWilliam Swenson Instructor 10/1/70Kenneth J. Zimmerman Instructor 10/1/70 also Romance LanguagesPhysical Sciences DivisionZachary Fisk Assistant Professor 10/1/70 also Physics, James Franck InstituteMax A. Jodeit, Jr. Assistant Professor 10/1/70 also MathematicsDietrich Muller Assistant Professor 10/1/70 also Physics, Enrico Fermi InstituteJames R. Bunch Instructor 10/1/70 also Mathematicslb Madsen Instructor 10/1/70 also Mathematics29William J. MitchellChao-Ho SungSocial Sciences DivisionMihaly CsikszentmihalyiJulius KirshnerJudith Rae ShapiroRichard P. AlbaresBarbara LozarGeorge M. RobinsonNew Collegiate DivisionC. Ranlet LincolnRoy D. Morrison, IIWendy Olmsted Instructor 10/1/70 also MathematicsInstructor 10/1/70 also MathematicsAssociate Professor 7/1/70 also Human DevelopmentAssistant Professor 7/1/70 also HistoryAssistant Professor 10/1/70 also AnthropologyInstructor 10/1/70 also SociologyInstructor 10/1/70Instructor 10/1/70Associate Professor 4/1/70Assistant Professor 9/1/70 also DivinityInstructor 10/1/70GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESSMarshall L. Fisher Assistant Professor 10/1/70James O. Flynn Assistant Professor 10/1/70Jacob Frenkel Assistant Professor 10/1/70Stanley J. Garstka, Jr. Assistant Professor 7/1/70Regis F. Kenna Assistant Professor 4/1/70Joseph D. Blackburn Instructor 7/1/70John W. Dickhaut Instructor 10/1/70Robert Ling Instructor 10/1/70Subrata K. Sen Instructor 9/1/70Clyde P. Stickney, Jr. Instructor 10/1/70DIVINITY SCHOOLRoy D. Morrison, II Assistant Professor 9/1/70 also New College Division.AW SCHOOLGary H. Palm Assistant Professor 5/11/70Janette Barnes Bigelow TeachingFellow/ Instructor 9/10/70Donald W. Fyr Bigelow TeachingFellow/ Instructor 9/10/70Wayne McCormack Bigelow TeachingFellow/ Instructor 9/10/70Pauline F. Vaver Bigelow TeachingFellow/ Instructor 9/10/70Donald John Weidner Bigelow TeachingFellow/ Instructor 9/10/70SOCIAL SERVICE ADMINISTRATIONStephen Z. CohenEarl L. DurhamLaura EpsteinJerome HammermanJames E. Miller, Jr. Assistant ProfessorAssistant ProfessorAssistant ProfessorAssistant ProfessorAssistant Professor 10/1/7010/1/709/1/7010/1/707/1/7030GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATIONLucy Ann Geiselman Assistant Professor 7/1/70Richard M. Krasno Assistant Professor 9/1/70William Douglas Page Assistant Professor 9/1/70Henrietta Schwartz Assistant Professor 10/1/70DEAN OF STUDENTSBrigid MacTier Gruss Instructor 10/1/70 Physical Education, WomenReprints from the Record may be orderedat a nominal cost from the Office of PublicInformation.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE FACULTIESHXwC<H*!OnEo>owooaooooONoasu>n Zm ± oc 35 n? >=i O TJ c/> no|zPO p > O o5si a -1> a3<O n'os22 m