THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO SEICOEDOctober 11, 1971 An Official Publication Volume V, Number 7CONTENTS107 EFFECT OF THE "WAGE-PRICE FREEZE"ON UNIVERSITY OPERATIONS108 1971-72 UNIVERSITY BUDGET117 TO THE NEW UNDERGRADUATES120 POST-CONVOCATION PLANS OF DEGREERECIPIENTS, 1966-1970125 THE PLACE FOR SCHOLARSHIP126 SUMMARY OF THE 336TH CONVOCATION127 QUANTRELL AWARDS. 129 IN SEARCH OF WISDOM131 SUMMARY OF THE 337TH CONVOCATION131 APPOINTMENTS TO DISCIPLINARY PANELSTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOFOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER©1971 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDEFFECT OF THE "WAGE-PRICE FREEZE"ON UNIVERSITY OPERATIONSSeptember 20, 1971To: Students, Faculty, and StaffFrom: G. L. Lee, Jr.Vice President for Business and FinanceQuestions have been raised as to how the recentPresidential Executive Order freezing wages andprices will affect the University and its students,faculty, and employees. The implementation ofthis Order places certain restrictions upon theUniversity.Effect on Salaries and WagesOn the basis of the regulations and interpretations issued to date, the University is requiredto proceed as follows during the period of the"freeze":1. To pay salaries and wages at the rate ineffect prior to August 14, 1971, and on thebasis of which services were performed duringsaid prior period. This means:(a) That any salary adjustments for faculty, staff and employees which were madeprior to August 14th and were effective priorto that date, are not affected by the "freeze";(b) That any commitments made prior toAugust 14th for a salary adjustment to beeffective on and after August 15th may notbe implemented during the period of the"freeze"; and(c) That no upward salary or wage adjustments can be put into effect during theperiod of the "freeze" except where a bonafide promotion is made to an established jobwith greater responsibilities, and then theamount of the increase may not be greaterthan the incremental amount in effect priorto August 14th. 2. Not to make any promises for salary adjustments to be retroactive when the "freeze"expires. Moreover, any commitments or promises for salary adjustments subsequent to theperiod of the "freeze" can only be made subjectto the regulations then in effect.Effect on Tuition, Room, and BoardThe Cost of Living Council has ruled that previously announced increases (a) in tuition applicable to the 1971-72 school year, and (b) incollege room and board rates are permittedsince in a substantial number of cases paymentsor deposits on the basis of the increased rateswere made prior to August 14th. Accordingly,the previously announced increased tuition androom and board rates will be in effect. In thisconnection, it should be noted that (a) approximately 75 percent of the faculty appointmentsare effective July 1st; (b) over 70 percent ofacademic non-faculty personnel appointmentsare also effective July 1st; and (c) approximately 70 percent of the non-academic personnel have annual salary review dates on orabout July 1st. Salary adjustments applicable topersons in these groups were in effect prior toAugust 14th and the University is thereforecommitted to these adjustments despite the"freeze." It should also be noted that decisionson student aid (which benefit a large majorityof the student body) were based upon tuitionas well as room, board, and rental rates at theincreased levels, and the University is thereforecommitted to the dollar amount of student aid(other than student aid in the form of employment) which it agreed to make available toindividual students. The rules applicable to salaries and wages appear to apply to compensationpaid to students employed as research assistants.However, a ruling on this question is beingrequested.Effect on Rent for Apartment Unitsin Married Student Housing SystemUnder the regulations, the ceiling rent duringthe period of the "freeze" for each apartment107shall be no higher than the rent charged duringthe base period (July 16, 1971 through August12, 1971); 305 apartments out of the 1,165apartment units for married and single studentsin the Married Student Housing system wererented as of July 1st on the basis of the previously announced rental rates. Under the regulations, the University may legally charge theincreased rental rates for these 305 apartments.In order to maintain uniformity in the system,however, the University will voluntarily rollback this increase and charge only the rentalrates which were in effect during the previousacademic year. Laboratory SchoolsOn the basis of information received to date 'tappears that the University is prohibited durinthe "freeze" period from paying the increaseto Laboratory Schools teachers which \yeragreed upon prior to August 14th. The University believes that the unique circumstances involved justifies that an exception be authorizedwhich would permit the University to pay theincreased salaries. A ruling on this matter isbeing sought. If the ruling should prove to benegative, the University will voluntarily deferthe effective date of the previously announcedtuition increase for the Laboratory Schools.1971-72 UNIVERSITY BUDGETSeptember 7, 1971To: Faculty, The University of ChicagoFrom: John T. Wilson, ProvostBackgroundThe purpose of this memorandum is to discussthe University's operating budget for 1971-72.Although it is not necessary for faculty whowere on campus, I perhaps should point out forthose who were away, and for new facultymembers, that we have closed the books on afinancially austere academic year.In describing the budget for last year (1970-71),1 I pointed out that it was based upon:( i ) a 3 percent increment in the academicareas (applied not uniformly, but asequitably as possible among the units);(ii) a tuition increase of $225;(Hi) an assumption that Quadrangles enrollment would be approximately 8,200students (including some 300 studentsat large) ; and(iv) an assumption that the total number offaculty would not exceed in 1970-71the total of academic year 1969-70.Last September, in preparation for the development of the budget for 1971-72, I wroteto each of the Academic Deans stating thatmeasures such as were recommended for the1C/. Record, Special Supplement, December 1, 1969,and Record, Volume IV, Number 5. 1970-71 budget would be inadequate to meetthe conditions of the coming fiscal year. Ipointed out that:"If we are to successfully work through theproblems in the academic budget for this andthe next academic year, I believe two actionson your parts are essential:"The first is a need to specify in relativelyconcrete fashion the academic activities withinyour area that you hold dearest and to whichyou give the highest priority for protection inthe light of the budget difficulties that weface ...."The second need is for a review of activitieswithin your area which might be reduced oreliminated with significant relief to the budget but without undue damage to your academic program ...."In addition to the importance of these twosteps as they relate to the budget, particularlyfor the work of the Deans' Budget Committee, they should result in information whichwill be useful in our discussions with themembers of the Board of Trustees who arecarrying the responsibility for our continuingfund-raising effort."In late October, the Deans' Budget Committee began its discussions in an atmosphere thatincluded, among other storm warnings, anAutumn Quarter enrollment some 600 studentsbelow the level upon which the 1970-71 budgetwas predicated. The Deans' deliberations led to108a recommendation for a 5 percent reduction inthe academic portion of planned general fundsexpenditures for 1971-72. This recommendation was in the direction of, but below, anearlier pronouncement by President Levi, inwhich he stated that, in his judgment, a 10percent reduction would be necessary.As we started preliminary discussions withthe Deans, we had in mind such a possibility,although recognizing that a reduction of thatmagnitude:( i ) probably would be very difficult for theCollege and for the Library;(ii) probably would not be possible for thedivisions; and(iii) would most likely be attainable for theprofessional schools.As I shall later point out, the reduction achievedwas approximately 7 percent, depending uponhow various expenditures are categorized.Budget discussions with the Deans took intoconsideration the "total academic programlevel" in each of the areas. To emphasize thispoint, I should say that in past years budgetreviews have stressed that portion of the area'ssupport that derives from unrestricted University income: student fees, unrestricted endowment, unrestricted gifts, indirect costs, etc. Thisyear we gave detailed attention to availablefunds from restricted sources, in addition tofunds traditionally identified as the "generalbudget." Thus, in arriving at the allocations fromunrestricted University funds, we tried to maintain existing academic program levels by theincreased employment of restricted funds available for the use of a given academic area. Whererestricted funds were relatively readily available, particularly where they had been accumulating, this was not difficult, although I wouldnot describe it as having been entirely painlessto the Deans and the departments. In otherareas, where restricted funds were not so readilyavailable, and especially where Federal Government funding has deteriorated, it was more difficult. Consequently, some "general budget" allocations were less amenable to reductions thanwere others.With reference to other important parameters,the 1971-72 budget assumes a continuation ofthe "no-growth policy" in total faculty size. Inother words, we are aiming this year at havinga faculty no larger than last year's faculty,which in turn was no larger than that of the1969-70 academic year. To avoid a "freeze" in the pattern of the faculty within academic areas,the Deans are free to balance off acquisitionsand departures within areas and schools, givinghighest priority to recommendations for reappointments and recruitment that will significantly enhance the quality of the University. Itmay be of interest to know that, at the end ofthe 1970-71 fiscal year, the University wasquantitatively within its stated policy with reference to faculty size. More importantly, I believethere has been, at the same time, a qualitativeimprovement.Quadrangles enrollment in 1971-72 was projected to be between 7,300 and 7,400 students,including students at large. Although applications declined in many areas (the Law Schooland The Pritzker School of Medicine being thestriking exceptions), increases in proportions ofstudents accepted by the various academic areasmay to some extent offset reduced applications.For the College, an entering class of 725 students (including freshmen and transfers) wasassumed. It was further assumed that total College enrollment would be 2,100 as compared to2,200 in 1970-71. The total College enrollment,of course, reflects the cumulative effects of thedecision made in 1969 to cut back the size ofthe entering class to 500. The major contributing factor to the graduate student enrollmentproblem is the reduction in various FederalGovernment support programs, especially in,but by no means limited to, the sciences.Consideration of issues relating to incomefrom student fees during budget discussions ledthe Deans' Budget Committee to recommend anincrease in tuition of $50 per quarter. This isin keeping with the recommendation made bythe Committee in 1969 of increases of $150 peryear each year from 1971-72 until furthernotice. The increase brings tuition cost forundergraduates to $2,475 and for graduate students to $2,625 for a normal three-quarteracademic year. The Committee also recommended an increase of 10 percent in room andboard for undergraduates and a 10 percent increase for married student housing, beginningAutumn Quarter, 1971. The 1971-72 budgetwas built and adopted on the basis of theserecommended increases.All of these recommended increases, as wellas various other pending actions relating tosalaries throughout the University, were, ofcourse, subsequently subject to the conditionsof the "wage-price freeze" imposed by PresidentNixon. However, despite a considerable amount109of uncertainty regarding some aspects of theOrder, it does not appear that the "freeze" willhave a significant impact on the University's1971-72 budget.The 1971-72 Consolidated BudgetThe University's Consolidated Budget for 1971-72 as adopted is shown in the attachment. It iscomposed of four sub-budgets as follows: General Funds (Unrestricted); Restricted Funds;Academic Auxiliary Enterprises; and AuxiliaryEnterprises. As was pointed out in last year'smemorandum, the difference in degree of freedom enjoyed by the University with referenceto the Unrestricted and Restricted categories issomewhat illusory. While Restricted funds whichare available for specific purposes are indeedlimited to those purposes, the functions carriedout are generally those which the faculty is doing by choice and which would be eligible forgeneral University support if sufficient unrestricted funds were available. In turn, Unrestricted funds are not completely unrestricted inthat they are encumbered, for example, by tenure and term contracts. The line items includedwithin the Auxiliary Enterprises categories areself-explanatory. Because they are less concernedwith our immediate interests, I shall brieflytouch upon the two Auxiliary Enterprises sub-budgets before taking up the details of the Unrestricted and Restricted Funds sub-budgets.The projected Consolidated Budget totals$156,597,000, up $5,130,000 over the analogous figure for 1970-71. The increase is morethan accounted for by increments in the twoAuxiliary Enterprises sub-budgets — expendituresfor which total slightly over $55 million, an increase over last year in excess of $6.5 million.One category, Hospitals and Clinics, accountsfor $5.6 million of this increase, reflecting thesharp rise in the cost of health care. With theexception of the University Press and the Industrial Relations Center, which respectively showreduced expenidture budgets of some $300,000and $260,000 as compared to last year, all otherAuxiliary Enterprises activities anticipate increased expenditures. Collectively, these accountfor the remainder of the $6.5 million incrementin the two Auxiliary Enterprises sub-budgets.Theoretically, all auxiliary enterprises arefinanced out of related revenues and thus are"self -balancing." However, in fiscal 1971-72approximately a million dollars from unrestricted University funds will be required to underwrite various auxiliary enterprises nr«marily student housing, University food serviceand the Center of Continuing Education. Xh''represents approximately the same level 0funderwriting as was budgeted in 1970-71. Concurrently with the announced rise in room andboard rates, business functions relating to undergraduate student housing were assigned to theDean of Students for supervision. During thecurrent academic year, a great deal of time andeffort will go into an attempt to reduce theamount of underwriting necessary for thesefunctions. I am certain that some degree ofsuccess will be achieved.Turning to the two sub-budgets that have adirect bearing upon the University's academicprograms, General Funds (Unrestricted) expenditures are budgeted at $50,811,000, a reductionof $2,324,000 (4.4%) from last year's level.The largest line item within this sub-budgetcovers expenditures for Instruction and Research, which were reduced slightly over $2million (7%). Taking into account all activitiesthat are related to the "academic" portion ofthe General Funds (Unrestricted) sub-budget,the reduction amounts to 6.8 percent. Reducedexpenditures for student aid from unrestrictedfunds amount to $825,000, in line with theanticipated reduction in Quadrangles enrollment. The impact of this reduction will also besoftened by increased use of student loans.With the Regenstein Library reaching a level offull operation, the Library expenditure budgetcould not be reduced from its 1970-71 leveland will probably have to be supplemented fromcontingency funds to meet increased costs.Estimated year-end savings for 1971-72 fromvarious sources are expected to be about$500,000 less than last year, when they werebudgeted at a level of $1,000,000. Consequently,an escrow fund of $250,000 has been includedwithin expenditures for General Administration,and any recouped funds will be added as theybecome available throughout the year, to compensate for unrealized year-end savings in1971-72. Non-academic functions within theGeneral Funds (Unrestricted) expenditure budget were less amenable to pruning because ofthe absence of substitute restricted funds andbecause of increased maintenance and operationcosts of Regenstein Library and Albert PickHall. A reduction of approximately $50,000was applied to these activities.General Funds (Unrestricted) expendituresare related, of course, to estimated revenues110from the sources that contribute to unrestrictedUniversity funds. These sources are: studentfees, unrestricted endowment income (includingcapital gains, where permitted), income fromtenlp0rary investments, royalties and other(formerly called "Sundry Income"), indirectc0St allowances from grants and contracts (primarily from the Federal Government), and unrestricted gifts. General Funds (Unrestricted)revenues are budgeted at $51,787,000 for 1971-72, down $2,148,000 (about 4%) compared tolast year's budgeted revenues.Comparing the five unrestricted revenuesources, the reliabilities of the estimates vary,but in all instances — and with last year's experience in mind — we believe they are reasonable. Income from student fees is, of course, afunction of the degree to which enrollment projections are achieved. Despite the uncertaintiesalluded to above, we believe this estimate isconsiderably firmer than that of last year, whichwas overestimated by about a million dollars.Unrestricted endowment income should be significantly higher in 1971-72 (by an estimated$3,200,000) as a result of the University'schanged investment policy, which places increased emphasis on current income and on ahigher percentage return in capital gains fromfunds which are permitted to make such payouts. A drop in estimated income from temporary investments, royalties, etc., is partially offset by an estimated increment, in anticipatedrevenue from indirect cost allowances. Thelatter is a function of an improved negotiatedrate in allowable indirect costs on governmentgrants and contracts. The increment in "overhead" should be realized despite a decrementin the estimated restricted income from thissource, which is down slightly more than amillion dollars compared to the estimate for lastyear.The remaining category, Gifts Required,which completes the sources of revenue forunrestricted income, is budgeted at $5,987,000,as compared to $10,435,000 last year. Thiscategory should be explained. It is a euphemism,historically used to indicate in the budget theamount of funds necessary to balance expenditures over and above those estimated as beingavailable from other revenue sources. It issomething of a misnomer in that, in addition tobeing composed of gifts that might be expectedin a given budget year, it also includes fundscarried over from the prior year that remainavailable for expenditure, plus any funds beyond the total of these two sources that are necessaryto balance the budget. At the time of budgetapproval, the source of these additional fundsis not obvious, other than by an invasion ofcapital. We shall comment further on this estimate below.In keeping with the "total academic programlevel" concept as discussed with the Deans, thereduction in General Funds (Unrestricted) revenues and expenditures has been offset by an increase in budgeted revenues and expenditures inthe Restricted Funds sub-budget. The total increase in the revenues and expenditures forrestricted funds is slightly over $900,000. Thesignificant item in this sub-budget is the increased restricted expenditure for Instructionand Research, which amounts to $2,458,000over last year. A second significant item is amajor reduction (about $1.4 million) in expenditures for student aid within the RestrictedFunds sub-budget, which reflects the reductionsin government programs referred to above. Thismay be a more pessimistic estimate than willturn out to be the case. It was made at a timewhen the future of NDEA legislation was at itsnadir. This situation improved in the legislativephase. It remains to be seen whether the Executive Branch will utilize the funds that have beenappropriated, or put them into escrow.Expenditures from Restricted ExpendableFunds are, of course, limited by the amountsavailable through restricted endowment income,through government grants and contracts, andthrough other sources such as restricted gifts.Restricted income estimates are obtained fromthe Deans and reviewed by the Comptrollerand the Provost during the budget-making process. This year, because of the important role ofrestricted funds in maintaining program levelswithin academic areas in the face of reducedunrestricted funds allocations, we have paidspecial attention to these estimates. It is our intention to continue our effort to improve bothbudgeting and control of restricted fundsthroughout the University.The Consolidated Budget for 1971-72 asadopted is in balance. This statement, of course,assumes a reasonable degree of reliability inthe revenue and expenditure estimates withinthe sub-budgets, particularly that the Gifts Required estimate is an attainable goal. To resumethe discussion of this item, last year estimatedGifts Required, as budgeted, amounted to $10,-435,000. At the time of budget adoption, it wasthought that this was probably in excess of111possible gifts and available carryover funds bya little over $4 million ($4,195,000). By earlyAutumn, after enrollment figures were in andafter a firm determination of the capital costsof moving the bookstore and the UniversityPress (costs which are not normally coveredin the operating budget), the estimated shortfall (frequently referred to as the deficit) inGifts Required had risen to over $6 million. Bythe time of the closing of the 1970-71 books,with the added shortage in year-end savings,the actual shortfall in the budget for last fiscalyear amounted to slightly over $8 million. Thedeficit was met and the budget was thus balanced by: 1) a special distribution of capitalgains from funds functioning as endowment;2) from cash realized by the sale of a majorportion of holdings originally obtained in theFord challenge grant; and, 3) by a change inthe method of recording investment income,which moved forward into the 1970-71 budgetyear funds that would have been, under thecash accounting method formerly used, unavailable until 1971-72. This last item is, ofcourse, a non-repeatable exercise. More importantly, the use of the funds from the Fordchallenge grant leaves the University withoutwhat has been over the last several years amajor source of available unrestricted funds.The Year Ahead and BeyondPerhaps the most fundamental point regardinglast year's budget experience was the decisionof the Board of Trustees to modify its investment policy. In so doing, the impending budgetary crisis was met and some breathing roomfor the 1971-72 budget was created. This decision was reported by President Levi in hisFebruary, 1971 State of the University message:"To meet both the deficit for this year andthe needs of the budget next year, the University has changed its investment policy toplace greater emphasis on current income,and also to pay out a higher percentage,where permitted, of capital gains ...."Further, steps have been taken to phase theuse of the remaining amounts of the Fordchallenge grant over this year and next. Theprogram has been arrived at after a gooddeal of thought and soul-searching. It seemsto us the best possible response to our presentproblem. It does take somewhat from thefuture to pay for the present, and perhapsmore so because of the conditions under112 which this shift had to be made. But it is notcareless about the future. The curtailment ofacademic budgets is always painful — and Ido not welcome this curtailment, althoughthis is one of the things one says on suchoccasions, as bringing us closer to the realityof choice. But the increased amounts of usable income made available for next yearshould help us maintain, if we are wise, theacademic excellence which is our main asset."As one who has been closely involved in thebudgetary process, I can say with a high degreeof confidence that the 1971-72 budget is replete with examples of the reality of makingdifficult choices. I am sure the Academic Deanswill agree. In all areas they were asked and inall areas they responded to the necessity forpiecing together available restricted funds withthose allocated from general funds to meet theirbudgets. Although the result will necessitateextraordinary efforts on the part of all academicunits, I believe the allocations represent viablelevels for 1971-72.A second aspect of this year's budget (andfor budgets in the years immediately ahead)which is next in importance to that of the University's decision regarding investment policy,relates to the support received by various academic programs within the University from theFederal Government. The Federal budget forfiscal year 1972 reflects a number of new directions in the support of higher education andacademic science which have particular significance for The University of Chicago.We already have discussed in some detailstudent assistance programs under the auspicesof the Office of Education. Three other pertinent developments within the programs of thisOffice deserve mention. The first is that the1972 budget for the Office of Education appearsto be responsive to last year's appeals to continue support for language area and trainingactivities. The second has to do with the Educational Research and Development program.Although a small increment appears in fundsbudgeted for this activity in 1972, action withinthe Office of Education itself, putting the remaining funds for 1970-71 into escrow, wouldseem to indicate that there are troubles aheadfor activities funded from this account. Thethird development in Office of Education activities is the proposed National Foundation forHigher Education. A proposal made last yearfor such an agency died aborning, but a modi-fied pian ^or tne new Foundation is recommended under proposed legislation. Accordingto the language in the budget, the Foundation"will provide funds to colleges and universitiesthat wish to experiment with new educationalforms and techniques and assist in the development of national policy in higher education."Although it is difficult to determine howpending Office of Education legislation willemerge from the Congress, it is apparent thatstudent aid programs will take the form of acombination of grants, work-study payments,and subsidized loans. Emphasis will be onlower-income students, with students whosefamily income exceeds levels set by the FederalGovernment being eligible only for unsubsi-dized guaranteed loans. It also seems clear thatprograms will emphasize "innovation" over traditional approaches to higher education. Another, and a somewhat controversial development, would provide direct institutional supportto both private and public universities and colleges to help meet increasing operating costs.Although the Federal Government has aidedinstitutions of higher education in building facilities and with research grants, it has notpreviously provided funds for actual operatingexpenses.Of the specialized manpower and trainingsupport proposals contained in the 1972 Federal budget, one which carries great significancefor the University is the Health ManpowerEducation program. The legislation proposedis based upon a capitation payment for eachgraduating medical student. Its purpose, in thewords of Secretary Richardson, is "to providethe basic operating support for the essentialprogram components of medical schools without accounting for its use for education, research, or other basic function." An importantpoint is that the funds to be provided are inaddition to continued funding for grants forincreased enrollments, for experimenting withcurricula, and for specialized training activitieswithin medical schools.One characteristic of graduate student assistance from government sponsored programs in1971-72 will have an adverse effect upon aidfor graduate students in the sciences. The planis to finance graduate students in the scienceslargely through problem-oriented research grantsrather than by traditional Fellowships or Train-eeships. The theory behind the plan is thatbetter control can thus be maintained over theproduction of scientific manpower to meet so cietal needs. The theory is being applied especially to National Science Foundation programs,but it is also reflected in the press to reduce oreliminate National Institutes of Health traininggrants. In addition to a basic doubt regardingsuch a theory in general, there are particulardifficulties with it as far as National Institutesof Health training grants are concerned. Theelimination of these training grants will affectbiomedical research beyond reducing the number of graduate students. Unlike the discontinued National Science Foundation traineeshipprogram, about half of training grant fundsfrom the National Institutes of Health consistof support for faculty, post-doctoral trainees,and technician salaries, as well as general research.Turning to substantive areas, of central importance to the University within the portionsof the 1972 Federal budget supporting highereducation are those programs which supportacademic science, particularly research and related activities. To give you some perspective,total obligations for research and developmentin fiscal year 1972 are budgeted at $16.7 billion, up about $1.2 billion over last year (abouta billion dollars of this is for defense researchand development). Of this total, some $1.89billion is for research and development withincolleges and universities. This represents an increase of $243 million, all of which, as proposed, would come from civilian agencies. Moreimportant than the numbers are the policythemes in the rhetoric of the budget, which are:(i) increased emphasis on research aimedat solving society's problems — health,environmental pollution, energy, crime,transportation, etc.; and(ii) a determination to maintain and increaseour eminence in basic research, with theNational Science Foundation playing acentral role.In support of these policy themes, much ofthe university-related research programs of theNational Aeronautics and Space Administrationand the Department of Defense are scheduledto move to the National Science Foundation.Indications are that the National Science Foundation is not expected to pick up all of thisactivity, but will make transfers on a selectivebasis after review by the Foundation. The tightness in the budget of the Atomic Energy Commission university program will also force thosewho have formerly been supported by that113agency to seek support from the Foundation.Programs of the National Institutes of Health,as budgeted, reflected various ups and downs.For example, in keeping with the applied research theme, the general medical research effortwas reduced. However, subsequent appropriationactions not only approved all requested increases, but brought back to 1971 levels allresearch and training grant programs that werereduced below that level in the budget as submitted. A particular development of interest isan "expanded and broadened effort" in cancerresearch for which special legislation is beingsought.Although the increase in the Foundation'sbudget was accompanied by a statement fromthe Science Advisor regarding the maintenanceof the Nation's eminence in basic research,there has been a paradoxical restructuring inthe National Science Foundation, in terms ofits directions and its programs. Foundationsponsored research will give new emphasis to"research applied to national needs" throughsupport of interdisciplinary work in areas likeoceanography, social sciences, and engineering.Four other agencies with little or no previousresearch activities (the Justice Department, thePost Office, the Department of Transportation,and the Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment) show increased emphasis on research and development programs in the budget. Generally speaking, the programs of thesefour agencies contain a preponderance of development work. Consequently, the funds willfind their way into industrial and independentresearch laboratories, rather than universities.Salaries A Prime TargetA matter of special concern regarding Federal Government support is the growing tendency, as reductions in funds are experienced,to make academic year salaries a prime targetfor reduction within various support programs.The problem appears in two different forms.The first form involves the substitution of grantfunds for University budget funds, reflected as"salary savings" in any given year. This is obviously an important way of helping the academic budget. Up to this time it also has beena reasonably controllable feature of the budget.The second form of salary underwriting fromgovernment funds has been used in programssupporting the esoteric language areas. In theseprograms, funding has included support forfaculty appointments as an integral part of the support pattern. If the pressure to reduce theseprograms is not successfully countered, the Uni-versity will be faced with the responsibilityNforthese faculty salaries which must be met fromother, non-government funds.What do these developments mean for theUniversity? What are the most appropriateresponses to them?From the viewpoint of the academic programs, there is no doubt that we are goingthrough a period of readjustment, probablyapproaching a more "steady state" than hascharacterized the University during the periodsince World War II. The readjustment is goingto be more difficult for some areas than forothers, with the sciences experiencing the mosttrauma.Considering the general pattern of supportfor various academic activities within the University, I am not certain, if one were startingfrom scratch, what the best theoretical modelfor the distribution of funds in varying amountsand from various sources might be. I am prettysure that everyone would wish to have a largerportion of unrestricted support. Beyond that,perhaps the most important consideration is theavoidance of overdependence upon funds thatare not subject to reasonable prediction in termsof their availability for support of programsthat are central to the University.This is, of course, the current problem withreference to certain government programs.Taken as a whole, the percentage of supportfrom government sources for the academic programs does not strike me as excessive. On theother hand there is no doubt, taking individualacademic units into account, that one mightwish for a better balance. With specific reference to present trends in Federal Governmentscience policy, which appear to be aimed atdiverting support from basic scientific researchtoward applied goals, we should make the pointat every opportunity that, although it is withinthe rights and duty of the Federal Governmentto offer incentives to universities to undertakespecific "categorical" programs, the governmenthas a simultaneous obligation not to erode thecountry's work in basic science, or to subvertits academic institutions into taking directionsinconsistent with their essential functions.If we are to maintain the improved qualitativethrust that has characterized the University overthe recent past, there is an obvious need foradditional funds. In the unrestricted category,I believe endowment and gifts are the two114sources of income upon which we are going tohave to depend most heavily. I do not believethat tuition income, even if increases occur asprojected in the recommendation of the Deans'Budget Committee, or if we were to go in thedirection of a pay-as-you-earn plan of somekind, can be increased sufficiently to recover thelevels of support from unrestricted funds thatwill be needed in the academic budget for1972-73 and the years beyond. If, for example,We could meet a goal of approximately $10million in unrestricted gifts in the 1972-73budget, and for the next two or three yearsthereafter, it would be a long step in the direction of arriving at a viable steady state. Thisestimate involves various assumptions regardingrestricted support, particularly the reliability ofvarious Federal Government funding sources.It also assumes continuation of faculty size ata level of about 1,075-1,100 and a student bodyof 7,500-7,800 composed of current proportions of undergraduate and graduate students.Most importantly, it assumes that we will besuccessful in replacing unrestricted funds whichwere available from the Ford challenge grant."Other" Restricted IncomeAs for restricted income, particularly in the"other" category, it seems to me that all of theacademic units must make clearly visible programs that have appeal to external sources offunds, and work hard to make appealing thoseacademic areas that do not now appear so. Inthis regard, a recent reliable estimate indicatesthat the fifteen largest private foundations willbe required by the Tax Reform Act of 1969 tomake additional grants of $75 million in 1972,this figure increasing to $175 million by 1975.The University is in an excellent competitiveposition for these funds, if it goes after themvigorously. A very bright spot, for example, isthe Regenstein Library. The Regenstein is, inmy judgment, the greatest non-faculty assetavailable to any university in this country. Theskillful use of this resource in attracting to theUniversity faculty and students, as well as sustaining funds, demands our best thoughts.Regarding Federal Government programsand the problems relating to them, we haveentered an anxious period. At the same time,this University is not at a differential disadvantage with reference to these programs. On thecontrary, we have as good, and perhaps abetter, understanding of their working mechanisms than other institutions in our class. In addition, there is sufficient flexibility inherentin this University to invent ways which will helpus fit the things we wish to do into the changingnature of the programs. It is mainly a problemof responding with imagination and energy, notonly to programs as they are administered, butto programs as they are conceived, as they areput into legislative form, and as they are shepherded through the Congress.As for student and faculty problems, thereare a variety of responses necessary. There is,for example, a great deal of discussion takingplace within the academic units and within theoffice of the Dean of Students as to how recruitment of students can be enhanced. These discussions include such possibilities as the revivalof Master's degree programs and cooperativedegree programs between areas within the University as well as between the University andMidwestern undergraduate colleges. Four departments (Biology, Economics, English, andPhysics) this year initiated a procedure whichinvited students, at the time of application, tofurnish information regarding their financialresources. On the basis of such information,offers were made that involved various combinations of student assistance, loans, fellowships,stipends, etc. This procedure will be broadenedto other departments next year in an effort toutilize more effectively available student aidfunds.Our response to the problem of holdingfaculty size constant, while at the same timetrying to improve quality, has been to urge theDeans and Department Chairmen to be highlyselective in recommending reappointments andto take full advantage of the special funds madeavailable to the President by the Board for thespecific purpose of recruiting outstanding faculty. The particular conditions that adhere tothe use of these funds — that they are availableonly for outstanding appointments and that therecommendation for recruitment is a functionof a University-wide committee — attach to thema value beyond that inherent in regularly budgeted funds.It would be pleasant to close this now overly-long memorandum by saying that I believe weare out of the fiscal woods. Obviously, that isnot true. Many problems, budgetary and academic, remain to be solved. But I do believe weare in a much sounder position than was thecase last year, even if only because we have abetter perspective on the nature and the magnitude of the problems.115oooooooooooooooooooo>o o o <o »o o^o o o o00" o" © *h t-h" vo" rf o" ©" o"CN£/5- O O © O O OOO ooo oo^o^o^vo" ^f rf oo" u-T o"c^ cn cn ^ ovo" cn" ooo Oooo oooo oOOO^ ON^t *o r- voMhX ncn cn r-cn cn&r V3- o o o o o oooooooqitvoqo oo" i-T tC r-T oo" tj-"t-^o^oo © vo >o^ - oooooooooooooooooooovo ©^ r^ ©^ r-^ ©^ ©^ ©^ ©^ ©^ddoooCoVHV>odooiomo\oooohoo©^cn cn t^r-- ^^^^ ©oo"cnoft^ T-Tcnvo" i-h oooooooooooooo" »o" Tt" cn" o" o"vo^oo vo >oON^f NOcn »o OOO oooo oooo oOTf O tJ-cn cN cn 00O wn t-h VOcn f- t^CN cn«y* V* O O O O o oOOOOoOO^O^O^OoOdrtd^^Ho r-- vo vo »/-> oo©^VO^f-ONON"1*CNTt" V©"t-TI IT-l ^"*3StsoSmgQZQZ<GOwPi!HWOQPQQmHO 5oo ki. a o%co rt§'f:l> o a Ph oo 00<D ^21^1*j £ h-1 co Ph 0 Q PQ t/D c/5o oo ooo^o"o"ooCN Oooooooo"o"ooW\ oo >> a•d oO £-1W cco o-2si¦ o c ^* ^"3 Oh-S 51 «jooo oooo oooo ooor- r-O O OO oocn cn on r-vn »m»oV5-OOO oOOO oOOO oO oon >oO O cn cnVO VOrt ONvovo o cn^— ' >o€/5-1I«8IO (DTI OS^ « «« .^ ^ ° & P"S > jaid c o ^O^ p rt ft>^ ^^«3 X5 ^J£355 §S1PhO^05ooo oooo oooo oOn CNjrJ- li~>f-- cn rs> cnOn oo on t^rf cn ^h ocn r-H >o•£«¦ ^5-OOO oOOO oooo ot^r-^r^ ON>OTtcSl t—It-h ON f- 00mTj-^H ONcn th Tf<&r ^^2 o.S °^ E u5 > Swoo 5 &3•§a C• <L>C GS O£ ° cPh ffi I— ( §1 «1 :'i¦|8aO <DOOO O000 O000 O00 O T-l OnTfr w> f- VOC-} t-i 00 CNIcn cn r-cn cn^3- V3-OOO OOOO O000 OOt!" 0 Tfcn ol cn 000>0 _i VOcn t-- t-hr4 cnV5- V3-IS•Sia <D ) cd^ ^O Ci33 (D an<D *+^ PUc%•«QO^ ^£b <w,N ffj ct§ 2 °0 £p'S*3 C edr^ «5 "- CJ•S O P D'^ P5ffi£a^ UUi COl- ° iSco j5 ^S- l-i r— 1<U <L> 0)"S > °C-rj coOPSooooooooooooO^Tf vo^o^o^o^o"o"i^t-h"oo"on"r- «o cn On cn t-hr^o^oo 00 00^ Tfri^f vo"t-TOOOOOOoooooo0^0^ 0^0^ 0^0^o" ^ o" cn" to" o"O 00 vo t-h rt cno^vq^r-- on y-*y\ofcn" C^'-^a ^ Ps °t> ro o aja Io 'UPh P -Jo ?rto.5 cjT* "J M0 S B 0)c„ ^1 I^H<D O <U*3 > OC'p.22116TO THE NEW UNDERGRADUATESRemarks by EDWARD H. LEVI*September 26, 1971It is with genuine pleasure that I greet youtoday and welcome you to The University ofChicago. I am conscious, of course, that I amspeaking not only to entering students, but inthe presence of many of the parents. This combination heightens the meaning of this occasion.There is a sense in which the parents nowbecome observers. They are witnesses to thecoming of generations. Societies and the individuals in them have few more important tasksthan the transmission of the cultures of thepast, the ways of thought and exploration,which will add to man's comprehension andskills, and help us to understand and translatevalues into practice.The parents are observers of an importantnew stage in the careers of a generation towhich they have ties of affection and concern.To some extent, parents are always observers.If it is true that no man or woman is an island,it is also true that each individual has his ownintegrity and contains a mystery. I can onlysympathize with, and yet congratulate, theparents on the fact that the mystery of whichthey have always been aware will grow nowwith accelerated pace.I have spoken of the parent-observers as witnesses, and witnessing is not passive. I am suretheir presence today not only bespeaks affection,but reaffirms their own commitment to thatprocess of learning and understanding which isan everlasting moral duty for each one of us,and which I know is exemplified to an unusualdegree in many of them. I am sure that manyof the parents — whatever their accomplishments,and perhaps the more so the greater their accomplishments — will envy the opportunity whichlies ahead for these students. That commitment has meaning for each one of us. It is anaffirmation not only of life, but a way of life.But the parents are observers, and they willunderstand that what I have to say is spokento our entering students.I am sure you wonder what kind of uni-*Edward H. Levi, President of the University, spoketo the new students at a meeting for entering studentsand their parents that opened Orientation Week. versity this really is, and what the life of anundergraduate in it will be like. If this is ofany help to you, let me say I have often wondered what kind of university this is. It is aninstitution of many qualities which, by its verynature, depends to a considerable extent uponthe quality of the individual who relates to it.I say this even though I believe it to be truethat this University knows more about itselfand is more determined about its own directionthan any other comparable university. The kindof university you will find this to be, and thekind of life you will lead in it to a large degreewill depend on your own interests, your ownenergy, your own ability. This can be said ofmany institutions. I think we can say somethingmore.The original idea of this University is instructive. This University was not founded as acollege, and did not grow, becoming a university. That was the normal pattern until thisUniversity was created in 1891 as one of themajor events in higher education of that time.This University started both as an undergraduate college and as a major center for graduateand professional study. It placed its emphasisboth on the liberal arts and upon the overwhelming importance of investigation. Thiscombination of undergraduate and graduatework, of teaching and research, was regarded asa bold but foolhardy experiment— an attemptto put together the special but different attributes of the English colleges and of the Germancenters of learning, and to do so in a mostunlikely place geographically. Many of theexperts were sure the experiment would fail.The parts of the institution, it was believed,hardly could exist together. They would notmake for a common strength. The place wouldfly apart. The institution was called a veritablemonstrosity. It was known as "Harper's Bazaar."And yet I believe all informed persons wouldagree that from the very beginning, this institution has found the closest relationship amongits parts, and the greatest interaction among itsscholars and between the disciplines. The University has honored the diversity of individual117scholars and the structure of separate disciplines. But it has constantly searched for anunderstanding of a common mission. It has attempted to make pervasive throughout theentire institution, and at all stages, its dualemphasis on the liberal arts and on investigation.In short, it has never accepted the dichotomywhich is supposed to separate teaching fromresearch. It believes that discovery, itself, is thegreatest form of teaching, and that mutualefforts to understand, whether in the classroom,the seminar, the laboratory, or the library, notonly give the institution its unity, but linkscholars over time and across national boundaries and disciplines. Mind you, I have not saidUtopia has been achieved, but rather that theidea has been deeply felt and is compelling.This University has in it considerable diversity. It believes in this diversity. But probablymore than any comparable university, it hasachieved a unity of purpose and practice andcommon endeavor.I have suggested that this idea of unity andintellectual borrowing from one area for anotherhas unusual strength here because it was somuch involved in the original conception. Icannot help but think of a striking althoughperhaps typical example of this original spiritas it showed itself in the early years.James Breasted, distinguished Egyptologist,was engaged in excavations which revealed forthe first time much of the culture, history, andeconomy of the ancient Middle East. Naturalscientists in the laboratories of the Universitywere classifying species, finding new chemicalreactions, discovering truths about cellulargrowth. Albert Michelson was performing hisexperiments, which were one of the factors inthe later development of the theory of relativity.John Dewey was pursuing his theories of education in the primary grades of the LaboratorySchool of the University. The University Recordof those years shows the alertness which theLaboratory School had of almost instant infusion into the teaching of the primary grades ofthe discoveries of Breasted and of the scientists.One gets the impression that no building couldbe discovered and excavated in Egypt withouthaving, in not more than several months, amodel made of it by children in the LaboratorySchool, and that no significant work could bereported from the laboratories without havingthe experiments explained and sometimes duplicated in the primary grades. One could suggest that this shows the conceitof a simpler time when truth was being discovered and packaged for immediate deliveryOn the contrary, it was a way of showing howinquiry and doubts and problems should movetogether. Nor was this a one-way street.Dewey published monthly, sometimes weeklyin the University Record a long — and, I mustadmit, often boring — account of what the children were doing hour by hour in their classesfor all the faculty of the University to see. Itwas Dewey's way of saying that research onthe learning process itself is one of the areaswhere discovery is most needed. To those whowould allocate research to graduate study andteaching to the undergraduate college, thisUniversity responded by denying the wisdom ofsuch barriers, and by insisting that the theoryof inquiry must be made to work at all levels.There are two other related ideas which Ishould mention. One of these is occasionallyunder a cloud during this period of change; theother is very popular, although the limitationsand implications from which it gains meaningand strength are frequently not understood.The idea under a cloud is that a universityof this type must place intellectual excellence asits principal standard. Now, of course, everyonein some sense is in favor of excellence, and allwould agree there are areas of life which arenot primarily intellectual, but which are extremely important, good, and to be soughtafter. One must ask of these other areas, however (and the answer is not always clear), whatparticular competence this University has togive to them.So far as excellence itself is concerned, thereis a great and understandable desire to moderatesuch objectivity as it has — to make it meandoing the best a particular individual can do.This is a worthy and necessary goal for eachone of us. But the discovery and understandingof intellectual truth is more demanding. Itmeans the commitment to a process of inquiring, explaining, and responding to criticism,and requires the integrity and competence ofknowing the discipline within which one works,or answering for the discipline which one creates. It requires unusual ability, boldness, andgood fortune to create new ideas or to makenew applications, and it requires the highestmorality to subject these ideas and their proofto the criticism of an on-going process.You may say this is all very discouraging.Few among us will achieve that standard of118excellence which will actually enlarge the knowl-e(jge and appreciation of the world and theunderstanding of mankind. But it should nothe discouraging. The standard sets the measure0f the endeavor. It gives meaning to the distance we and others can go. It links the world0f scholarship. No scholar, not even the best,has stood alone. Each has left much undone.And each has received the essential support ofthe inquiring minds of his own time.Your class may be a significant part of thatgroup which may influence the climate for intellectual endeavor in future years. Some ofyou, indeed, may be of that privileged few whomake the great contributions to knowledge andunderstanding which will influence the world ofideas and of practical affairs. That has been thehistory of this place. In any event, you canunderstand why a university which has placedteaching and learning in the context of the newdiscovery of truth and understanding, shouldplace before itself this standard of achievement.The Individual MindI said there was a related idea, greatly popular and perhaps misunderstood. Foremostamong the beliefs which have given this University its style and viability is our confidencein the individual scholar. It is the individualmind, never quite alone, trained by the disciplines but prepared to change them and to go italone, which can take the forward steps tounderstanding and knowledge, reawaken ourappreciation for the old, and make us see whatwe have not seen before. Groups are important,but education is for the individual. No matterhow the University is organized, or in a sensenot organized at all, it is the individual whocounts.I have suggested that the University willappear in different aspects to you from time totime. But you know a good deal about an institution if you can find the ideas to which it isresponsive. The idea of teaching and learningas an adventure in discovery, with the unitywhich this implies; the belief in the actualityof discovery which will add not only to ourknowledge but to the knowledge of mankind;and the emphasis on the individual scholars are,in my view, central among these ideas. Alas,but perhaps fortunately, these ideas can all bestated differently. I have not claimed they arealways realized — of course they are not — andthe list is not exhaustive. Thus I am aware, as you must be, that I have not deprived you ofthe adventure of finding out for yourself. Butthese ideas perhaps may illuminate your firstview.You have come to an institution which always has had an outstanding record in researchand in undergraduate and professional education. Some of the new sciences, such as sociology, found here their most creative period.Many of the faculty you will meet are makingunique advances in man's efforts to understand. They will welcome you for your brightness, your ability, your tenacity to overcomeobstacles, and, in part, because they see thefuture in you. It should mean something to you— it does to me — that the Dean of your College,Roger Hildebrand, partially interrupted a distinguished career in high energy physics, to devote his time not to teaching in the College (hehad been doing that anyway), but to the jobof administration to bring about the arrangements for the best undergraduate education.His predecessor, Wayne Booth, whom many ofyou will come to know, took on the same assignment, interrupting work in literary criticismwhich had already produced a classic. Throughthe Dean and the Masters, the College has themost extraordinary leadership of any college inthe United States.When Albert Crewe, who is Dean of thePhysical Sciences Division, thinks of the students in the College and their introduction toresearch, he no doubt thinks also of the moreadvanced students who helped him develop theelectron scanning microscope which enables theworld — and what a teaching that is — to see individual atoms within molecules.I have spoken very little about students orfaculty as separate groups — one as learners andthe other as teachers. And the reason for thisis that in a university of this type, all facultyare students. There is perhaps more meaningin this phrase than I have made clear. It means,for one thing, that many of the difficultieswhich all students face — self-doubts, the needfor persistence and energy — are shared with allof us.You have not come to a giant-size institution,largely undergraduate. The total institution issmall as universities go, about 7500 students,and somewhat less than 1100 faculty. Of thisnumber, the College will have about 2000 or2100 students. About half of the University'sfaculty will take part in teaching at the undergraduate level. I do not mean that each of these119members will find all or most of their teachingin the College. Most of the College faculty havejoint appointments in various graduate areas,and many of the graduate faculty who happento have no College appointment will nevertheless teach College students.We believe most strongly in the importanceof the separate College — in the opportunitythis gives, and the necessity it imposes, to viewknowledge in a wider context, helped greatlyby the exchange of learning which takes place.The College is always at the frontier of learning, with the sometimes frustrating experienceof having to master the disciplines while pursuing new insights. But this experience is genuine. In varying degrees, it is at the heart ofthe learning and discovery process at all levels.One should not run away from the problemsof overgeneralization and over specialization.The College and the University must continually confront these problems, and one shouldnot forget that the very idea of the liberal artsimplies both a versatility and a mastery. Thesame thing, I should add, can be said and mustbe said about graduate and professional education. We believe most strongly that the interrelationships within the University, includingthe College, have provided us with the basis inthe past, and will provide us with the basis now,for substantial improvements in the structure ofSeptember 10, 1971On all degree levels, although the national scenehas had some effect on our student body, wecontinue in the directions that have becometraditional for The University of Chicago.We continue to send large percentages of ourundergraduates, both male and female, on tograduate study. Impressive numbers still seekadmission in the arts and sciences althoughinterest in professional training has increased.Most of our Masters plan to continue working toward a Ph.D. Those who seek positionstend to seek them in an educational milieu. OurPh.D.s overwhelmingly seek college or university teaching and/ or research positions. higher education. I have, no doubt you will hearmany discussions along this line. I have n0doubt many of you will take part in them.It is often said — and because it is said it makesit at least somewhat true — that this is a particularly difficult time to come to a university. Theworld is either too much with us or we are tooremote from the problems to be solved. It isone of the characteristics of our age that wethink we are unique in having terrifying problems. We do have terrifying problems. Many,although not all, are man-made. But otherperiods of history also thought they were unique,and also had terrifying difficulties. The progressof mankind is tortuous. There has not alwaysbeen progress.The greatest inheritance which mankind hasis the ability to know and to understand. Thatvery ability has given new and frighteningforms and strange complexities to the problemsto be overcome. But these problems, and theeffort to understand them and to solve them,are a challenge to your abilities. They alsochallenge your ability and willingness to helppreserve and perfect for mankind those powersand insights which should be a reflection ofmankind's better self. The search for knowledgeto accomplish — and for discovery to understand— is your inheritance. I welcome you to thisendeavor.Bachelors' RecipientsBachelors' post-convocation plans over a five-year period not only reflect the events whichhave occurred on the national scene amongstudents, but also reflect the unique characterof the student body of The University of Chicago.Graduate StudyThe percentage of students planning to entergraduate study remains high when comparedwith other institutions. Nevertheless, the dipsin percentages reflect the national trends. Froma high of 91 percent of males planning graduatestudy in 1966 (when a male could be almostPOST-CONVOCATION PLANS OFDEGREE RECIPIENTS 1966-1970120certain of draft deferment if accepted by agraduate school) there was a steady decline innumbers through 1969-70 when it dipped to63 percent. However, 1970 shows some recovery, to 70 percent.Female plans dipped in 1967-68, but returned to a fairly consistent percentage of 55percent in 1970.Perhaps the most significant change noted inthis five year study is the beginning of indecisive plans in 1967-68. In 1966-67 both maleand female students seemed precise in theirplans. For males, the choice was clear with 91percent indicating plans for graduate study.This was the last year a graduate was assuredof draft deferment if accepted by a graduateschool. However, by 1967-68, the changes inSelective Service had its effects on both maleand female students. Fewer males and femalesopted for graduate study.Selective ServicePlans to attend graduate school continued atthe 70-75 percent level for males following thechanges in Selective Service in 1967-68. Fewerfemales planned graduate study in 1967-68;indecisiveness of plans was also indicated inthat year. Females particularly reported thattheir plans were dependent upon those of theirfiances, whose plans in turn depended upontheir draft situation.Women's LiberationThe effects of women's lib might be noted inthe percentage decline of women who reportthat they plan to be housewives. However, therewas no increase in the number planning toattend graduate school. Except for the decreasein 1967-68 indicated above, roughly 55 percentof the females consistently plan on graduatestudy.JobsFor the first time in this five-year study, theclass of 1971 indicated an interest in pursuingarts and crafts or blue-collar jobs. The latteris mainly an interest in carpentry. There is alsointerest in music as an occupation. The interestin business and industry (always low amongour undergraduates) remained fairly consistentwith findings in previous years.Interest in social and community agency workcontinued to show a decline among men particularly, and interest in teaching showed adefinite decline among women. Masters Recipients (Graduate Divisions)Continuing EducationMost male Masters recipients plan to continue to the Ph.D. level and do not anticipateentering the labor market at this time. This hasbeen consistent over the five years. Women,however, fluctuate more with regard to furtherstudy, and dropped from a peak of 64 percentin 1969-70 to 46 percent in 1970-71.JobsAlthough there is a decline in interest inteaching, the educational milieu continues toattract more Masters candidates than any othercategory. Business, industry, and governmenttraditionally attract few graduates. The percentage of males entering these fields remained constant; the percentage of females declined. Military/alternate service reached its peak of 5percent among males in 1968-69 and for thepast two years has declined. Indecision aboutjobs continues to increase among both males andfemales. Since plans are indicated in the quarter in which the degree is awarded, it is difficultto understand this indecisiveness. One wouldexpect plans would be known in the last quartereven if specific placement is not available.Ph.D. Recipients (Graduate Divisions)Post-Doctoral FellowshipsIn spite of the decrease in fellowship funds,the number of male Ph.D. recipients who expect post-doctoral fellowships shows a slightrise each year in the past three years. Femaleexpectations of post-doctoral fellowships peakedat 10 percent in 1969-70, but in 1970-71 fellbelow the 1 percent level, lower than in 1968-69.JobsCollege teaching and/ or research have beenthe traditional occupations of the greatest proportion of Ph.D.s, with government, businessand industry claiming a small percentage fromthe Physical and Social Science Divisions. Inthe past few years, however, perhaps reflectingthe downward economic trend in the latter, theproportion planning to enter teaching and research in an educational milieu is up, with acorresponding decline in government, business,and industry.Anita S. SandkeDirector of CareerCounseling and Placement121TABLE 1POST-CONVOCATION PLANS OF BACHELORS' DEGREE RECIPIENTS, 1966-70(in percentages)1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71Graduate StudyMale Female JobMale Female Vista/ Peace CorpsMale Female Militaty / Alternate ServiceMale Female HousewifeFemale TravelMale Female Undecided (no plans)Male Female 91% 76% 72% 63% 70%56 42 52 56 553 13 13 16 1537 43 25 16 303 Bel-2 3 2 Bel-11 1 1 0 03 6 2 1 10 0 0 Bel-1* 0Bel-10 0 0 0 Bel-20 0 4 0 Bel-20 4 10 18 120 12 16 28 12* Officer Candidate School — USNTABLE 2FIELDS CHOSEN BY BACHELORS' DEGREE RECIPIENTS ENTERINGGRADUATE SCHOOLS1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71Arts & SciencesMale FemaleProfessional SchoolsMale FemaleField not specifiedMale Female .... 59 62 76 38 4269 69 76 43 4841 38 24 41 4931 31 24 382120 42910122TABLE 3PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS CHOSEN BY BACHELORS' DEGREE RECIPIENTS—1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71By Professional School M F M F M F M F M FArchitecture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bel-1 1Business 5 0 6 0 2 3 3 1 7 3Dentistry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bel-1 0Education 2 17 3 14 2 8 Bel-1 11 Bel-2 8Engineering Bel-1 0 Bel-1 0 0 0 0 0 Bel-1 0Law 15 Bel-2 12 3 7 1 14 11 21 13Library Science 0 0 0 Bel-2 0 0 Bel-1 3 0 0Medicine 16 6 16 4 10 7 18 10 17 12Medicine (auxiliary*) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2Social Work Bel-1 7 0 7 0 3 Bel-1 0 0 1Theology 2 0 1 0 2 0 4 1 1 2Theatre 0 0 0 0 Bel-1 1 0 0 0 0Veterinary Medicine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1This is a new category — includes 1 in Nursing, 1 in Medical TechnologyTABLE 4JOBS CHOSEN BY BACHELORS' DEGREE RECIPIENTSJobs 1966-67* 1967-68* 1968-69M F 1969-70M F 1970-71M FArts and Crafts 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0Blue Collar 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0Business and Industry 15 11 18 14 8 5 15 9Government (Civilian) 17 4 3 5 8 10 2 7Hospital 0 0 11 2 3 5 2 0Library, Museums 0 6 0 10 0 0 5 0Musician 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0Publishing & Media 10 5 11 2 13 25 5 4EducationResearch 2 8 0 0 8 10 5 14Teaching 12 38 37 36 54 25 15 18Auxiliary(non-Academic orAdministration) 0 8 0 0 3 0 0 0Self-Employed(no specifics) 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 0Social or CommunityAgency 22 15 11 17 5 20 5 13Other ** 5 7 11 10 0 0 0 4Undecided 17 0 0 0 0 0 27 32Figures by sex were not determined in 1966-67 and in 1967-68 because few males indicated aninterest in entering the labor market. As the percentage of males interested in jobs rose, it wasdecided to keep statistics on a sex basis.Includes theatre, commercial flyer, film technician, language interpreters, modeling.123TABLE 5POST-CONVOCATION PLANS OF MASTERS' DEGREE RECIPIENTS(GRADUATE DIVISIONS)1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71M F M F M FContinuing Education 71 51 61 35 72 64 67 46OccupationCollege teaching 10 20 16 21 9 7 7 24School teaching 7 11 4 19 3 9 2 11Other education 4 7 3 8 0 0 4 5(21) (38) (23) (48) (12) (16) (13) (40)Government (civilian) 3 3 3 1 2 3 1 Bel-1Business and Industry 3 4 3 4 2 2 6 Bel-1Social or CommunityAgency 1 1 0 Bel-1 Bel-1 Bel-1 Bel-1 3Publishing/media 0 0 Bel-1 Bel-1 1 1 1 1Military /Alternate Service 0 0 5 0 3 Bel-1 2 0Housewife 0 0 0 Bel-1 0 0 0 Bel-1All Other 1 3 3 3 4 5 3 Bel-1Undecided 0 0 2 7 4 6 6 9TABLE 6POST-CONVOCATION PLANS OF DOCTORAL DEGREE RECIPIENTS(GRADUATE DIVISIONS)1966-67 1967-68 1968-69M F 1969-70M F 1970-71M FContinuing Education(M.D., J.D. or second Ph.D.) 0 0Post Doctoral Fellow 8 14Intern/ Resident 0 0OccupationCollege or UniversityTeaching 54 55College or UniversityAdministration 3 Bel-1College or UniversityResearch 14 13(71) (68)School Teaching 0 Bel-1School Administration Bel-2 1School Research 0 0Other EducationalAgencies 2 2Government (Civilian) 6 5Business and Industry 2 3Social or CommunityAgency 0 0UndecidedAll other 9 6Military/Alternate Service Bel-1 Bel-1 3102 020 Bel-1122 3 Bel-1 210 14 Bel-10 Bel-1 057 69Bel-1 0 64 680 61 7314 10 7 3 13 12(71) (79) (75) (71) (76) (87)0 2 0 0 0 02 0 Bel-2 0 Bel-1 00 0 0 0 0 01 2 2 0 Bel-2 03 6 Bel-2 3 1 02 0 Bel-2 0 2 03 4 0 0 Bel-2 62 4 1 10 Bel-1 Bel-2Bel-1 13 0 0Bel-2 0 Bel-1 0THE 336TH CONVOCATION ADDRESS:THE PLACE FOR SCHOLARSHIPBy S. CHANDRASEKHAR*June 11, 1971Robert Hutchins once defined a university as acommunity of scholars. The implications of thisdefinition are that scholarship is worth pursuingand that a university is a place for it. But theseimplications can no longer be taken for grantedas they once were, for the values of scholarshipare now under serious question. They are questioned, for example, by a substantial segmentof the students who are concerned with the lackof social and human justice in contemporarysociety. Let me illustrate the nature of thesequestionings.About a year ago, I appeared with twoyounger colleagues before a gathering of students to discuss the motivations underlyingscholarly pursuits. On that occasion I was askedhow I could justify myself for being an astronomer, coming, as I do, from a country in whichpoverty and semi-starvation are common waysof life; and how under these circumstances onecan support the effort and the expense involvedin building observatories and laboratories.Questions such as these cannot be evaded ordismissed. While I shall not attempt a directanswer, I shall talk about some peripheral matters which may suggest an answer. But first Ishould like to raise some similar questions.It is hardly necessary to expand on the inhumanity and the injustice to which the peoplesof Africa have been subject during the pastcenturies. Consider in this context the fact thatthe National Museum of Kenya has sponsoredand supported extensive excavations in the region of Lake Rudolf in Northern Kenya. Inthe past two years these excavations have unearthed no less than 16 bone specimens belonging to the genus homo, of which man is thesingle species. This unique collection providesthe first appreciable sample of early Pleistocenehominids from a single dated locality and addstwo million years to the history of human evo-*S. Chandrasekhar is the Morton D. Hull Distinguished Service Professor in the Departments ofAstronomy and Astrophysics, and Physics, the EnricoFermi Institute, and the Committee on the ConceptualFoundations of Science. lution. In the present context of Africa, is itjustified to support and sponsor these expensivestudies?Again, it is not necessary for me to expandon the encroachments and exploitations thatcontinue against the Indians on reservations.Under these circumstances, can one justify theexpense that is involved in preserving, in theMesa Verde National Park, the delicate artistryof the Pueblo Indian cliff dwellings of the ninthto the thirteenth centuries? And yet the protection of these same dwellings against sonic boomswas one of the persuasive arguments usedagainst supersonic air transport.Finally, was the Metropolitan Museum ofNew York justified in acquiring the great portrait of Juan de Pareja by Velasquez for $5,-544,000? The directors of the Museum havebeen accused of callousness to the urban problems of New York City for purchasing thisportrait at such a price. Are the accusationsjustified?The one common feature of the question putto me and the further questions that I haveraised is that they involve value judgments inthe context of pressing human needs. On thisaccount it may be instructive to see how thevalue judgment of others at other times hasbeen affected by social and political environment.It will be conceded that the period of theFrench Revolution and the Napoleonic era thatfollowed was a time comparable to ours in manyways. Recall, for example, that the great chemist, Antoine Lavoisier, who released chemistryfrom the dead hand of the phlogiston theory,was guillotined. This senseless act elicited fromthe great mathematician, Joseph-Louis Lagrange, the memorable comment, "It requiredonly a moment to sever that head and perhapsa century will not be sufficient to produceanother like it." Yet the reaction of two menof genius — Mozart and Beethoven — to thestresses of that time were very different.It is significant that Mozart, who literallylived in the midst of the French Revolution,never once mentions it. As one of his biog-125raphers has remarked, Mozart, in his apparentunconcern with the political circumstances ofhis time, resembles Shakespeare. On the otherhand, Beethoven, though he was mostly apolitical, did respond to the sentiments of the FrenchRevolution, and admired Napoleon because heseemed sensitive to its ideas. Beethoven dedicated his great "Eroica" symphony to GeneralBonaparte. When he heard that Napoleon hadbeen proclaimed Emperor, however, he tore offthe dedication page and with difficulty was prevented from destroying the entire score. Contrast Beethoven's impulsive reaction to destroythe score of one of the greatest musical compositions of all time to Mozart's preoccupationwith his Magic Flute and apparent unconcernwith the events of his time. After nearly twocenturies, how do we, as individuals, rate theinfluence of Napoleon, of Mozart, and of Beethoven on our own lives?Let me turn from these specific instances toa more general reference frame. Kenneth Clark,in his recent magnificent television series, "Civilisation," defines civilization in terms of creative power and the enlargement of humanfaculties. He has expressed the view that "almost everything of value which has happenedin the world has been due to individuals," andfurther that a society is valuable only to theextent it makes possible the existence of individuals of genius. Whether or not one subscribes to this view, one cannot help feelingthat the great figures in history — Michelangelo,Shakespeare, Newton, Beethoven, Tolstoy — areto some extent the summation of their times.Let us now consider the values that are to beattained by scientific pursuits.In the final analysis, the case for science isthe same as the case for any activity that enlarges human faculty and human understanding. It is in this sense that we must understandwhat an Arabian scholar of the eleventh century, Abu 1-Qasim Saidibn Ahamad, said in hisbook The Category of Nations: "The categoryof nations which has cultivated the sciencesform an elite and an essential part of the creation of Allah." He enumerated eight nations asbelonging to this class: the Hindus, the Persians,the Chaldeans, the Hebrews, the Greeks, theRomans, the Egyptians, and the Arabs. Thisconfident assertion extolling science was madenine centuries ago; it would hardly be madetoday. For this reason it may be well to restatethe compelling motives which stimulate science.In a very real sense the motives derive from a simple curiosity that seeks to comprehend theharmony in the Universe. While we no longerseek this harmony, as Kepler did, in the staticforms of regular solids, we still share Kepler'sbelief in the mathematical harmony of the Universe and seek it in the dynamic laws thatgovern it. I will clarify these generalities bya concrete example.The fact that the sun is the source of allthings and all manner of things led in ancienttimes to a worshipful attitude towards it. Indue course, this attitude changed into a questfor the source of the life-giving radiant energyof the sun. Is the solar energy limitless? Andif it is not, how long has it endured, and howlong will it last? Questions such as these haveconstantly recurred to contemplative man. Itis difficult to believe that this quest after thesource of solar energy would have been abandoned and the questions left unanswered.The broad outlines of the answers to thebasic questions concerning solar energy havegradually emerged during the past two decades.But the larger problem of the ultimate sourceof energy in the astronomical universe has byno means been solved. It now appears, for example, that the centers of galaxies such as ourown Milky Way system are seats of violent processes where energy is liberated on a scale and aprofuseness that baffles our present comprehension. Again, I cannot believe that the questafter the new knowledge needed to unravelthese newly discovered phenomena will ceaseas long as man retains that curiosity that hasbeen a part of his making from the beginning.I started with some questions concerningjudgments and have not attempted to answerthem directly. But it seems clear to me thathuman endeavor, at its best, is directed towardstwo goals: the assurance that society has "agiant's strength" but is not "tyrannous to useit as a giant"; and a long-range goal to makemen individually approach the idea of Hamlet'ssoliloquy:"How noble in reason, How infinite in faculties."SUMMARY OF THE336TH CONVOCATIONThe University awarded 1601 academic degrees, five honorary degrees, and two Rosen-berger Medals at its 336th Convocation, which126was held in three sessions, two on June 11 andone on June 12. Edward H. Levi, President ofthe University, presided at all sessions, and thespeaker for all sessions was S. Chandrasekhar,the text of whose address is given above. Academic degrees awarded were: Bachelor of Arts,391; Bachelor of Science, 24; Bachelor of FineArts, 1; Master of Arts, 422; Master of Science,74; Master of Fine Arts, 6; Master of Arts inTeaching, 31; Master of Science in Teaching,2; Master of Business Administration, 295;Doctor of Law, 149; Master of ComparativeLaw, 5; Doctor of Ministry, 7; Doctor of Philosophy, 127; and Doctor of Medicine, 67.Honorary DegreesDoctor of Humane LettersDon Cameron Allen, the Sir William OsierProfessor of English Literature at the JohnsHopkins UniversityDistinguished scholar of Renaissance literature, critic, and former editor of severalscholarly journals, he has conducted a national inquiry into Ph.D. programs in English.Shelomo Dov Goitein, former Director of theSchool of Oriental Studies at Hebrew University, Jerusalem, and Professor Emeritus ofArabic at the University of PennsylvaniaOne of the foremost contemporary Arabistsand humanistic scholars, his high regard andsympathy for the culture of Islam has earnedhim the respect not only of Western scholars,but of Arab thinkers and writers as well.Doctor of LawsFairfax M. Cone, leader in advertising andformer Chairman of the Board of Trustees atThe University of ChicagoDirector of the advertising firm Foote, Cone& Belding and Life Trustee at the University,he is also active in Chicago civic affairs anddirector of WTTW (Channel 11), Chicago'seducational television station.Doctor of ScienceAlbert Eschenmoser, Professor of Chemistryat the Eidgenossische Technische Hoshschule,Zurich, SwitzerlandOne of the world's leading chemists, he de veloped the first comprehensive biogeneticscheme for the formation of terpenes in nature and the ultimate synthesis of numerousbiologically important compounds.Mysore Narasimhachar Srinivas, Professor ofSociology at the University of Delhi, IndiaFounder and head of the Department ofSociology at the University of Delhi, regardedas India's leading social anthropologist, hehas pioneered in bringing modern social anthropology to India and in developing itscentral concerns, methods, and uses.Rosenberger MedalsEdward G. Begle, Director of the SchoolMathematics Study Group and Professor inthe School of Education at Stanford UniversityIn recognition of his decisive contributions tothe improvement of mathematics educationin the United States as Director of the SchoolMathematics Study Group.Robert M. White, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C.In recognition of his scientific achievementsin meteorology and his years of effectivepublic service as Chief of the United StatesWeather Bureau, Administrator of the Environmental Science Services Administration,and currently Administrator of the NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration.QUANTRELL AWARDSFour Llewellyn John and Harriet ManchesterQuantrell Awards for excellence in undergraduate teaching were awarded at the 336th Convocation, June 11, 1971.Philip Craig Hoffmann, Assistant Professorin the Department of Pharmacology and theCollegeAn active scientist, Philip Craig Hoffmannhas already made important contributions byutilizing drugs in a sophisticated manner to127analyze the chemical regulation of metabolism and of mental behavior. The keen intellectual ability, curiosity, and enthusiasm thatcharacterize his scientific research also pervade his teaching. His grateful students inmedicine, in graduate studies, and in the College have offered an accolade in appreciationof that teaching. His concern for the qualityof student life is indicated by his service asResident Adviser of Tufts House in PierceTower. As a member of the UndergraduateResearch Committee, he has encouraged students to avail themselves of the opportunities for research and tutorial study. He hasparticipated in a voluntary and informal seminar with students and faculty interested inthose social issues to which biology makes anespecially significant contribution. Studentsand faculty have thus come to know in PhilipHoffmann an extraordinary gifted teacher whobrings to his teaching a love and deep understanding of science and a mature respect andconcern for students.Donald N. Levine, Associate Professor in theDepartment of Sociology and the CollegeDonald N. Levine has served the College inmany ways: as instructor in the CommonCore, group tutorials, and required sociologycourses; as chairman of Social Sciences 121-122-123; and as Master of the Social SciencesCollegiate Division. His ability to organizediscussions and reveal the relationships of thereadings, his tolerant response to studentpoints of view, his very exacting standards ofanalysis, all have enriched the quality of workin the College. He has set an example forthose who would combine scholarship, teaching, and leadership in advancing the work ofthe College.Richard Peter McKeon, the Charles F. GreyDistinguished Service Professor in the Committee on General Studies in the Humanities,the Committee on Analysis of Ideas and Studyof Methods, the Department of ClassicalLanguages and Literatures, the Department ofPhilosophy, and the CollegeNo man has had a more extensive or profound influence on teaching in the Collegethan Richard McKeon. Many of the distinctive features of the College in the last thirty-five years derive from him, and no one is more active today in proposing and demonstrating new ways to assure the continuingrelevance of the ancient tradition of HumanUtas. Always controversial, his thought andpractice have constantly stimulated the creative debate through which the College facultyhas defined its role. A remarkable proportionof those recognized by Quantrell Awards fortheir own excellence in undergraduate teaching have been his students and associates.Not everyone has the temperament or intellectrequired to benefit fully from a course withMcKeon, but those who have done it neverforget their encounter with intellectual endeavor in its most demanding form. Presumptuous as it may seem to add yet another honorto an already long list, it is nevertheless particularly appropriate that Richard McKeonbe recognized explicitly for this enormouslysignificant aspect of his service to the University and to many generations of students.Peter Meyer, Professor in the Department ofPhysics, the Enrico Fermi Institute, and theCollegeThe study of electrons in the cosmic radiationrequires great breadth of understanding ofphysics, from the details of processes involving minute elementary particles to the enormous complexity of nature on a vast galacticscale. Through this breadth of appreciationof physics, and through his personal warmthand interest in students, Peter Meyer hasmade the subject come alive both for scientifically oriented students, and for those notpredisposed to enjoy the study of the physicalsciences. By means of lectures that are modelsof clarity and charged with enthusiasm, hehas been successful in developing in his students an understanding of the intellectual andesthetic value of science, and a curiosity toprobe further into the nature of the physicalworld. He represents the happy combinationof an outstanding research physicist participating in "big science," and a diligent, personally accessible teacher in the laboratory andclassroom.Reprints from the Record may be orderedat a nominal cost from the Office of PublicInformation.128THE 337TH CONVOCATION ADDRESS:September 3, 1971Convocation addresses are probably no one'sfavorite diversion or source of enlightenment.When the speaker, an academic with an excessof expansive conscience, feels it necessary torange far beyond his own area of specialization,the result can be embarrassingly naive — a commentary on the highly specialized academicianwhom society absent-mindedly calls "educated."A student told me not long ago that altogethertoo many scholars are actually technicians. Hiscomplaint, legitimate though hardly new, wasthat Egyptology kept his nose to the grindstoneof the hieroglyphic system of writing and thelexicography and grammar of the language,while he was impatient to advance to someunderstanding of the culture as a whole. Heunderstood, however, that any attempt at understanding the ancient people would be impossiblewithout the minutiae which the technicians hadlaboriously ferreted out in the last century anda half.This modern plague of the academic world,the proliferation of knowledge and the resultantspecialization, is certainly part of the problemimposed upon the unending human search fora larger understanding and some guide to maturethought and responsible conduct in a world thatproduces new, unmanageable problems as rapidly as it produces knowledge.On the one hand, we develop in a universitycommunity like this such a high regard for factand such a healthy respect for the opinion andjudgment of the specialist in a given discipline,that we do not readily venture into his field ofcompetence, nor expect to be taken seriously ifwe do. On the other hand, as citizens and members of society, we must take positions and actupon widely different issues in a highly complexsystem without knowing the facts, or evenknowing a reliable expert. We may feel that weare cast back upon nothing more than our own*George R. Hughes is Professor and Director of theOriental Institute and Professor in the Department ofNear Eastern Languages and Civilizations. IN SEARCH OF WISDOMBy GEORGE R. HUGHES*predilections, which may be as biased, irrational, and immoral as any one else's.Our own experience and knowledge of theexperience of mankind remind us that evenreliable knowledge of the facts is not enoughand even the best of commitments may proveshortsighted and disastrous if rationality andvirtue are overestimated.In an ancient poem in the Book of Job, thepoet marvels at the mastery man had developedin his day in the mining and processing ofmetals and the discovery of precious stones:Man puts his hand to the flinty rock,and overturns mountains by the roots.He cuts out channels in the rocks,and his eye sees every precious thing.He binds up the streams so that they do nottrickle,and the thing that is hid he brings forth tolight.But where shall wisdom be found?And where is the place of understanding?Wisdom and understanding, said the poet,cannot be gained by all the skill and wealththat man is capable of producing; he concludedwith the question:Whence then comes wisdom?And where is the place of understanding?The question has troubled men not only in theinfancy of civilization in the ancient Near East;listen to T. S. Eliot:Where is the Life we have lost in living?Where is the Wisdom we have lost in knowledge?Where is the Knowledge we have lost in information?Should you distrust poets, ancient and modern, then listen to the wistful words of thePresident of Harvard University in 1968:"The university should continue quietly butsteadfastly about its business which, I take it,is not arrogantly to seek to tell the world what129it should do in every immediate situation, butrather patiently to cultivate learning and constantly to seek to draw succeeding generationsinto responsibility for understanding, concernand decency. Above all, to inculcate respect forfact and regard for fairness — virtues whichfewer and fewer seem now to care for."And the quest for understanding and wisdomis centuries older than the poem in the Book ofJob, older than the Proverbs of Solomon —themselves a compilation of instructions andaphorisms for the young, to use wisdom andunderstanding as a guide to the good life.The ancient Egyptians probably originatedthe idea of collecting teachings for the goodlife. One manuscript of such instructions,written almost two thousand years before thebeginning of the Christian era, supposedly records the instructions five hundred years earlierof a vizier to his son.This civilization had so far developed forty-five hundred years ago that there was no escaping the importance of personal conduct in anorganized society. If that dawn of social awareness should seem remote, remember that, eventhough we are removed some four and a halfmillennia from the early Egyptian moralists,the twentieth century is closer to them by many,many millennia than they were to the firstcreatures that could be called men. Perhaps anawareness of the tens of thousands of years ithas taken mankind to reach what it is at present ought to induce some appreciation of whattwentieth century America represents; it mayameliorate our frustration if we cannot make itan ideal society in this generation.The first Egyptian author of a wisdom book,probably in the third pre-Christian millennium,established a literary genre, whatever else hemay have failed to accomplish. The literaryform persisted as a standard for twenty-fivehundred years. The latest such books are twowritten, or at least recorded, at about the beginning of the Christian era. One of the laterbooks of precepts became the source of a section of the Biblical Proverbs of Solomon.Each of the Egyptian books was a new composition, but not a reasoned and orderly systemof ethics. The instructing father was a vizier,prince, or king in the earlier books; his stationin life after 1,000 B.C. was more modest. Thismade a considerable difference in the choice ofadmonitions and in the outlook beyond thedifferences which the passage of centuries and the changes in the national fortunes and conditions of life had brought.The temper of the earliest books was one ofserene optimism, never matched in later centuries. The age of the pyramid builders wasexpansive and optimistic. It seemed all hadgone well with Egyptians for generations. Thestate was well ordered and so was life; theorder was so secure that it appeared ordainedby the gods themselves. A successful and eminent father could logically set down the insights of his experience, confident that theprecepts would always be valid. Some of themreveal a sensitivity and an appreciation of humannature still valid:"Do not be arrogant because of your knowledge.""Take counsel with the ignorant as well aswith the learned.""If you are one to whom petition is made,be kind when you listen to the petitioner.... A petitioner likes attention to hi$words better than the accomplishment ofthat for which he came."Some of the precepts were merely rules ofetiquette for the young man's deportment on avariety of occasions toward those superior tohim. It was wise to be deferential to superiors,and, upon attaining eminence, the youth wascounselled to be just, fair and solicitous of thosebeneath him whose welfare was in his hands.The emphasis was almost entirely upon hierarchical, vertical relationships rather than uponhorizontal relationships with equals. The shiftto emphasis on the latter came in later centuries. There was no hint of cynicism abouthuman nature in the oldest books; that, too, wasto surface as the centuries passed.The oldest books were almost devoid of anyreference to religion, and there was no resortto divine sanction to justify the precepts. Therewas a minimum of exhortation to piety towardsthe gods, although a due measure of piety wasassumed. There was not even an appeal to rewards and punishments in the after-life. Theappeal to authority or justification for the ethiccome to the fore in later millennia. Relianceupon religious sanction, the demands of piety,and rewards in the life after death would havebeen marks of uncertainty about society whichEgyptians of the Old Kingdom did not feel.The earliest recorded Egyptian wisdom consisted of an achievement ethic. We are told130today that the cause of the rebellion of American youth in the last decade has been adeep-rooted disillusion with the "dysfunctionalcharacter of the old achievement ethic" in oursociety. But that ethic is as old as recordedhistory — and disillusion with it is almost equallyold.The most ancient Egyptian achievement ethicwas, of course, on a collision course with thefacts of life in a less serene world. Achievingthe good life was a personal, individual matter.The eminent father said to his son: "If you arediscreet toward superiors, diligent and reliable,honest and just to all men, and generous towardthe less fortunate, you are certain to succeed inyour career, to be prosperous, and to be highlyregarded among men beyond your lifetime."This simple personal ethic worked in thestable, successful, materialism of the EgyptianOld Kingdom. The fatal defect was equating itwith success. Virtue was not its own reward;character was not an end in itself.The challenge that came was not ideological;it was in the breakdown of the stable world inwhich the ethic had operated. The strongmonarchy became weak; the central authoritythat had held the system together broke down.No one set out to challenge the closed systemor the ethic that had operated so well within it.But, according to a few distraught writers of theperiod, the collapse was complete, extendinginto every level of society. "I show you theland upside down," wrote one woeful participant, "that which never happened before hashappened."So far as we know, he was right: it had neverhappened before to the youthful, although centuries-old, civilization whose collapse into chaosand barbarism he mourned v If he was amongthe first humans to lament the passing of anenergetic, aspiring, optimistic system that hadbeen responsible for great achievements both inthe material world and in the world of the mind,he was not to be the last. If he had contemporaries who wished for the disruption and whosaw hope of a new and better start in the chaos,we know nothing about them.Modern Americans have been prone to lookupon their national beginnings much as theancient Egyptians looked upon theirs, and formuch the same reasons. Benjamin Franklinaphorisms in Poor Richard's Almanac were notvery different from the wisdom of the earliestEgyptians and were based upon the same assumptions. But now disillusion and doubt have comeupon us, bringing dissension, disharmony anddisunity. Uncertainty and disorder are notconditions that mankind has ever deliberatelysought. The long view of mankind's past wouldappear to assure us that there is great hope, notcause for despair, in the fact that America istroubled precisely because more people areactively concerned about goals and prioritiesand about inequities and injustices in society.The search for wisdom and understanding inthe conduct of life, as old as mankind, stilleludes formulation. It probably always will.Not long ago, we gave up the ancient Egyptian belief that the schoolboy's copying of wisesayings and precepts would not only train himto be a good scribe but would also provide himwith wisdom and understanding for life. Butwe have not given up the idea that an educationought to provide the learner with more thaninformation, knowledge, skill, or a profession.It ought somehow to make him a different andbetter kind of social being, and give the studenta critical habit of mind, a respect for excellence, a humility in realization of his own fallibility, an appreciation of frequent ambiguities,and other such traits and qualities. These qualities should be a byproduct of secular education,resulting in a wise, or a wiser, human being.SUMMARY OF THE337TH CONVOCATIONThe University awarded 673 academic degreesat its 337th Convocation on September 3rd.John T. Wilson, Provost of the University, presided. The text of the address by ProfessorGeorge R. Hughes is given above. Degreesawarded were: Bachelor of Arts, 55; Bachelorof Science, 1; Bachelor of Fine Arts, 2; Masterof Arts, 142; Master of Science, 24; Master ofFine Arts, 5; Master of Arts in Teaching, 69;Master of Science in Teaching, 39; Master ofBusiness Administration, 206; Master of Theology, 1; Doctor of Ministry, 4; Doctor of Law,2; and Doctor of Philosophy, 123.APPOINTMENTS TODISCIPLINARY PANELSFaculty members appointed by President Levito serve on disciplinary panels during 1971-72,131pursuant to the Disciplinary Procedures enactedby the Council of the University Senate in 1970,I. Mark AshinDr. James E. BowmanEdwin McClellanHarry V. RobertsMargaret K. RosenheimII. Donald W. BelessMary Jean BowmanJames C. BruceDr. Wolfgang EpsteinOwen M. Fiss III. Robert J. GordonAkira IriyeDr. Ann M. LawrenceDavid T. RoySusan S. StodolskyIV. Dr. Lloyd A. FergusonJohn E. JeuckWilliam H. MeyerJane H. OvertonManley H. Thompson, Jr.V. Dr. Jarl E. DyrudEdgar G. EppsPhilip C. HoffmannRichard A. PosnerMary Ann Swartz132THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDOFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRSRoom 300, Administration BuildingHXmam*-<Hooxo>oomoO0osr8orgoooasu>n Zm ± c o35 n ¦fl£ > TJ cn O3>zPp p > "VOcn o5si a -i>O a3<N*O22 mcn 3