THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 8 1ECORDMarch 7, 1972 An Official Publication Volume VI, Number 2CONTENTS17 THE STATE OF THE UNIVERSITYBy Edward H. Levi, PresidentTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOFOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER© 1972 by The University of Chicago. All Rights reserved.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDTHE STATE OF THE UNIVERSITYBy EDWARD H. LEVIFebruary 25, 1972I ask your indulgence for a brief recital of oldevents.With an allowable margin of error, we canclaim The University of Chicago is in, or isabout to begin, its eightieth year. The University was incorporated on September 10, 1890.The official founding date has come to beJuly 1, 1891, when William Rainey Harpertook office. The opening occurred on October 1,1892, a Saturday, when the first classes and achapel service for the members and friends ofthe University were held in an unfinished CobbHall.The simplicity of the opening was intended,reflecting Harper's assurance that this wouldbe "a day of great importance in the history ofAmerican education," but that the Universityshould begin "as if it were the continuationof a work which had been conducted for athousand years." Mr. John D. Rockefeller,Founder of the University, and one of its incorporators, was specially invited to the event.He did not come. Instead, he made use of theoccasion in his responding message to emphasize his belief that a donor should not interferein the life of the institution. "Donors can becertain that their gifts will be preserved andmade continuously and largely useful, aftertheir voices can be no longer heard, only insofar as they can see wisdom and skill in themanagement quite independently of themselvesnow," the message read.The beginning came from many efforts.There had been a prior University of Chicago,created in 1856, a Baptist-related institution onland donated by Senator Stephen A. Douglason Cottage Grove Avenue near 35th Street.It has been written that the "foremost citizensof Chicago" at that time "were members of[its] Board of Trustees." The names of Hull,Scammon, and Ogden are carried in the present University. The old University of Chicago had a preparatory department, a college, and a lawschool. It boasted possession of the largesttelescope produced up to that time, housedin an observatory — Douglas Hall. The University lived through the Civil War, the Chicagofire, the panic of 1873. But its financial problems increased and became unmanageable. In1885, the mortgage on its property was foreclosed. The school failed to secure funds toreorganize. Indeed, it could not raise $10,000to pay current expenses.In 1886, it tried to elect Dr. Harper, thena professor of Hebrew in the Baptist UnionTheological Seminary at Morgan Park, as itsPresident. He declined and accepted a professorship of Semitic Languages at Yale, whileretaining a lectureship at the Seminary. Theold University of Chicago went out of existencea few months later. When the new Universityof Chicago was founded a few years later, itconfirmed degrees of the alumni of the oldUniversity and took them as alumni for itself.A companion institution to the old University of Chicago, and in part created throughits influence, was the Baptist Union TheologicalSeminary. Plans for the closest collaborationbetween the old University and the Seminarynever fully materialized; in 1877, after an unsuccessful building venture in the city, theSeminary moved to Morgan Park. Thomas W.Goodspeed and E. Nelson Blake, a Baptistclergyman and a Baptist layman, became leaders in a drive to secure an endowment for theSeminary.John Davison Rockefeller was a principalbenefactor of the Seminary. Through his relationship with the Seminary, he was aware ofHarper's extraordinary talents. He knew ofthe Yale offer to Dr. Harper and, indeed, hadwritten to Mr. Goodspeed to alert him of thisdanger. He knew also of the dismay with whichthe members and friends of the Seminarywatched the demise of the old University of17Chicago. Mr. Goodspeed wrote Mr. Rockefellerabout a plan to save the University, to moveit to Morgan Park, and to install Harper asPresident. "We, who are connected with theSeminary," Goodspeed wrote, "feel that thedestruction of the University would be an unspeakable calamity, that this great center isthe place above all for building up a greatand powerful University. . . . The circumstancesseem to us to point to Dr. Harper as the providential man. Yale is pressing him for a decisiveanswer. . . . We feel that matters are in a verycritical shape. . . . We could easily excuse ourselves and say 'we are only responsible for theSeminary and others must look after the University.' But we are not able to do this. . . . Wecannot sit down and congratulate ourselvesand see the University perish." To this Mr.Rockefeller replied, "I really do not knowwhat to say about the University. I realize, ofcourse, it is desirable, very, for the Seminaryto have it continue."The old University of Chicago was not saved.But the next four years saw extraordinary efforts to create a new one. These efforts broughttogether Goodspeed, Blake, the Reverend Frederick T. Gates, who became the correspondingsecretary of the newly formed American Baptist Education Society, John D. Rockefeller,and William Rainey Harper. It was a periodof mutual wooing. A major obstacle was thequestion of whether a full-fledged university,rather than a college, was intended for Chicago,and would have the support of the newly formedSociety. This issue was decisive. It threatenedthe whole effort. To Harper the word "university" connoted an emphasis on graduate departments and investigation, beyond that presentin any existing institution, as well as emphasison a college and instruction. These would constitute the university proper upon which additional programs and experiments would bebuilt.Harper's commitment was wholly and probably solely to the opportunity for this kind ofa university — he frequently said to this "newand different kind of university." But there wasconsiderable opposition. There was a movementto establish the "Great University" in the Cityof New York. The two ideas were competitive,even though Harper's advisers urged him tomake the point they were different, for theNew York University was to have only grad uate departments and no undergraduate college.It would have been impossible for the Educational Society to have undertaken two GreatUniversities at the same time, and it was theGreat University that Mr. Harper was after.Mr. Rockefeller "talked for hours in reference to the scheme of establishing the GreatUniversity at Chicago instead of New York.... He himself made out a list of reasons whyit would be better to go to Chicago than toremain in New York," Mr. Harper reportedin a letter dated October 13, 1888, describinga meeting with the philanthropist at Vassar,where Harper was giving weekly Bible lectures.But then in January, 1889, Mr. Rockefellerwrote Dr. Harper. "So many claims have beenpressed upon me I have not really needed aUniversity to absorb my surplus. ... Of late Ihad rather come to feel that if Chicago wouldget a College and leave the question of a University until a later date, this would be morelikely to be accomplished." The Committee ofInquiry for the Society finally endorsed theidea of a "well equipped college for Chicago,leaving any desirable further development tothe natural growth of time."One must conclude this limitation was unacceptable to Harper. His own conviction ofwhat was possible and necessary led him tointerpret Mr. Rockefeller's assurance that the"correct thing for us to do, is to establisha College in Chicago" as meaning it "is certainas there is a God in heaven" that Mr. Rockefeller "is going to take hold of the ChicagoUniversity." Dr. Harper was moved by hisown determination to the belief, although notwithout anxiety, that he had a creative understanding with Mr. Rockefeller, transcendingthe barriers of ambiguous or precise language.In this setting, the resolution of the Boardof the American Baptist Education Society forthe founding of a well equipped college in theCity of Chicago, and the pledge of $600,000by Mr. Rockefeller, as soon as the resolutionwas passed, to the Society, for an endowmentfund for a college to be established at Chicago"providing $400,000 more is pledged by goodand responsible parties ... on or before June 1,1890," set the stage for the creation of theUniversity. To raise the matching sum, Baptistgroups were organized throughout the MiddleWest; an appeal was made to the citizens ofChicago; the backing of civic leaders obtained;18different denominations and diverse religiousgroups adopted the project as their own, contributions came from all the states and territories and numerous foreign countries; manyof the alumni of the old University subscribedto the fund.After a slow start, by May the matchingpledges had been received. Over and abovethe $400,000, Marshall Field had donated landeast of Ellis Avenue between 56th and 57thStreets. The organization of the Universitycould begin, although the funds were seriouslyinadequate for this purpose. When Mr. Rockefeller was notified, he replied, "I rejoice. . . .and hope our most sanguine expectations forthe University will be fully realized."Dr. Harper had been right about the creativeunderstanding. "I do not forget that the effortto establish the University grew out of yoursuggestions to me at Vassar," Mr. Rockefellerwrote him in a letter which expressed confidence that "we will add funds, from time totime ... to place it upon the most favored basisfinancially." Prior to the time Mr. Harper accepted the Presidency, Mr. Rockefeller hadadded another million, and an additional million before the opening of the University, inturn matched by a million raised in a ninety-day period by the civic leaders of Chicago.Without these funds the University would nothave had its first buildings or its original faculty. Even so, two months after the opening,Mr. Harper, overwhelmed by the institution'sfinancial problems, wrote Mr. Gates, "If therewere any honorable way of giving it up, Ishould drop it immediately."Perhaps it is odd to preface this report onthe State of the University in the academicyear 1971-1972 with this recital. It is no longerthe fashion to have the Commemorative ChapelAssembly in October, or the Founder's Dayon July 1st, as once was the case. But if ourUniversity has value, we have every reasonto cherish the accomplishments of those earlydays.Our University has been uniquely fortunatein its scholars, its Trustees, and its donors. Weshould not be laggard in this acknowledgment.The beginning reminds us of both the fragilityand the strength of private institutions. Thebeginning set the ideal. A college to grow laterwould have been an entirely different place.The Great University — a phrase of art and not self-commendation, as it has come to be —signified an enlargement and a unity for independent inquiry and teaching, imposed arequirement of the highest scholarship, andembodied a conception of the service of scholarship. Its impact was immediate because itdetermined the selection of the first faculty.Harper's plan for what he termed the University Proper established a direction for a neworder and cohesiveness among graduate andprofessional schools and the College.Each part was to pass the test of its contribution to the whole. The test was given meaning through the emphasis on the standards andinterrelationships of scholarships — otherwise theUniversity would have sprawled into disappearance. Within the University Proper, a host ofdevices, such as the summer school and qualifying examinations, were to help students goas fast as they were capable. Beyond the University Proper, the institution was to reach outthrough Extension, the Press, and numerousaffiliations. There would be many experiments.But the force of a larger tradition was to bedeeply felt. So from the first day, it was asthough the institution had existed for a thousand years.The Unusual ScholarThe original plan evolved and changed.Much of what was novel then is now commonplace among many institutions. The uniquenessof a certain characteristic remains. Harper wascorrect when, in his decennial report, he wasable to say the essential characteristic of theinstitution had been determined. He meant bythat a primary emphasis on graduate studyand research. To this was attached and coordinated an undergraduate college which wouldfind unusual vitality because of this centralemphasis. The original emphasis on research,investigation, or new understanding was notcreated by nor dependent upon the supportof the Federal Government. It was not createdin response to the demands of an unemployment market. It was not subject to externaldirection. Nor was it tied to the elaborationof the interstices of existing disciplines.Research was deemed important because itwas the way to discovery. Discovery was possible because of the power of mind of theunusual scholar. This was the measure of ability19for membership on the faculty. There was noidea of assembling a sample of the population.The concept was the Great University, a newkind of select institution. It was not surprisingthat in 1925, when the first systematic surveyof graduate study and research in the UnitedStates was made, The University of Chicagooccupied the first position.Teaching, including undergraduate instruction, was not regarded as incompatible withresearch. "In general," it was said, "that investigator will accomplish most who is closelyassociated with a group of students." "If aman is unable to teach," Harper wrote, as hewas assembling what was perhaps the mostdistinguished group of scholars in the country,"he cannot rightly receive an appointment inthe University." Moreover, the special environment would result in mutual learning amongthe faculty and between the disciplines.Throughout the University, the focus wason the individual mind. The College was notto be a machine. "Every year of a man's lifeis important. If he can finish his work in aperiod of time shorter than that usually givenby six months or a year, let him have thesatisfaction of entering upon his life work somuch sooner." Thus began a series of experiments to redefine the stages and objectives ofundergraduate education in this setting, wherea relatively small college could draw uponthe extraordinary intellectual resources of apredominantly graduate university. Out of thiscame the idea of the junior and senior college,the organization of the college into units, whichwhile small, deliberately transcended the departments, and various arrangements intendedto permit students to concentrate and achievea mastery not generally thought possible in sobrief a time.The approach was not a following of fashion,although the new institution swept up many ofthe ideas which had been debated. It was outof step with the college of manners. For thevery reason that it was a predominantly graduate institution, it imposed a persistent questionconcerning the aims of undergraduate instruction. This question later brought it into conflictwith the prevailing practice of the selectivesystem. It also set the institution on a pathquite different from that taken by those collegesand universities which viewed research as somehow different from their basic educational pur pose; perhaps to be furthered as a resourceavailable for hire, or in response to specialneeds, or as a kind of professional instruction,thus free to have separate rules and a differentquality, or if having superior quality, to be isolated in some center or institute of advancedstudy regarded as the top of the heap.When the University's first plans and organization were announced, President Elliot ofHarvard commented: "While Professor Harper's ideas are not altogether original — and Ido not understand that it is pretended that theyare — the scheme as a whole is new." Thescheme as a whole provided a dynamism anda difference which persist and characterize thepresent University.The Scheme as a Whole TodayThe College, with slightly more than 2,100students, remains small within a total University student body of 7,600. It is third in sizeafter the divisions and professional schools. Ofa total divisional, professional school, and College faculty of 1,084, approximately 450 facultymembers are taking part in regular undergraduate instruction. This includes 177 full professors, or 381 of professorial rank. The averageCollege class last year had no more thantwenty students.The policy of the University does not favor,indeed it does not permit, the use of teachingassistants, although I am aware that in someinstances this nomenclature and practice, socommon elsewhere, have overtaken us. We dohave laboratory assistants, and we favor theuse of collaborative teaching, as with DanforthFellows, when the faculty member is activeat all sessions.The College is well known for its insistence,now mostly out of fashion, that every studentacquire some mastery over the ways of thoughtand the structure of the disciplines dividedinto four major intellectual fields. This is notthe usual requirement for course distribution.It is a major commitment upon the part of thefaculty, through the preparation and teachingof coordinated year-long sequences, to confrontthe changing problems of general and specialeducation, and to take account of the interaction between discovery, current intellectualfads, and the substance of liberal education.In the last few years the University hasembarked upon a program of permitting or20fostering variations in these core courses. This,undoubtedly, removes some of the advantageswhich pertain when all students at a certainlevel are discussing the identical material. Butit has not removed — perhaps it has increased— the sharing of the commitment. And it hasundoubtedly contributed to the spontaneity andcreativity of the instruction.There are major unsolved problems, andthere probably always will be, in the teachingof these general education courses. There isdifficulty in the teaching of the Physical Sciences sequence to those otherwise able studentsto whom the symbols of this instruction frequently present more of a barrier than anexplanation.I note that the Humanities Collegiate Division is offering undergraduate work next year,applying the arts and methods of the disciplineof the Humanities to the Natural and SocialSciences. Perhaps the scientists have wiselyrejected for their purposes an historical approach as not constituting the doing of science.If so, the challenge to speak in English, notlimited to this field, of course, cannot beavoided if coherence to an intellectual traditionis to be restored. This is an area for discoveryof considerable importance.The problem in the Social Sciences sequenceis of a somewhat different order. Here onemust come to terms not only with the necessityof finding basic concepts or themes amongdisparate approaches, but the need to emphasize choices, values, and institutions, when theseconcerns for the time being in their largeraspects may not be central to contemporaryresearch. The working through of this problem,however, may be a helpful reminder of thewisdom of reflecting upon the meaning of contemporary investigations in the context of thegood society. The suggestion is that the needappears as well at the graduate level, requiringsome combination of the Social Sciences tolook directly in a basic way at public affairs.On the other hand, it is pleasant to reportthat, under the direction of the Master, Professor Arnold Ravin, in the last three yearsremarkable progress has been made in theorganization of the Basic Biology sequence.The continued reshaping of these generaleducation courses has a special appropriatenessfor a graduate university concerned with communication among disciplines, and the relation ship between the advances of scholarship andthe education of the citizen.A Question of TimeWith the increase in the number of studentsgoing on to do graduate work in our country— even though the trend may now diminishsomewhat nationally — and with the parallellengthening of the years required for professional study, the time-bound requirements fora college degree come under renewed questioning. The Harper insistence that a student bepermitted to go as fast as he is capable — whichchiefly meant the increased use of the summerquarter for formal study — and the Hutchinsdramatic moves to relocate and thus shortenthe total required years, coupled with the useof general examinations, may not have comeinto their own, but they are being rediscovered.The economic pressure which accompanies theenormous increase in college enrollments nationally, as well as perhaps the basis uponwhich higher education has been sold, hasforced second thoughts about the structure,and divisions within the structure, of highereducation.A discussion about shortening the time shouldhave some relationship to what are regarded asthe appropriate substantive requirements for acollege education. The basic ingredients forundergraduate education at Chicago are: ageneral understanding of the major disciplines;a requirement for mastery of a more specializedbut still general field within them, as well asperhaps some continued work outside thischosen area; demonstration of the acquisitionof particular designated skills and of the abilityto do successful intensive individual scholarlywork. In the past, Chicago pioneered in experiments with qualifying and general examinationswhich would give either advanced standing orlater confirm the student's achievement on hisown. The considerable amount of concentrationin a subject area now required, coupled withthe reduction in the time allotted to the generaleducation courses, suggests benefits may comefrom coordinating college specialized work withgraduate study. The program being developedwith Medicine should save some students atleast one year. The new program in Economicswill enable the gifted student to achieve thebaccalaureate and the master's degree in four21years and one additional quarter. Similar programs are being devised in Mathematics, Linguistics, History, and English. This movementnow involves each of the four divisions. Myguess is that with the informality of our University, many such opportunities have beenavailable to students on an individual basis.It is important to note these programs do notsave time by eliminating the liberal educationcomponent.Along with the collaboration for joint degrees, the increased participation of the University faculty generally continues to enrich theCollege curriculum. The Committee on HumanDevelopment has undertaken one such programthis year, and members of the Law faculty,along with the New Collegiate Division, havebeen working on another, which it is hopedwill be ready next year, studying Law as aninvention for self -protection and as an instrument for social change and exercise of thepublic will.A Mechanism for CollaborationThe same concerns which have led to jointbaccalaureate and advanced degree programs,and special programs at the undergraduatelevel, might well cause a more general reconsideration of the importance of the master'sdegree. For universities "of the highest rankand character," to use Harper's language, themaster's degree may be a more useful instrument than the junior college or the presentlymuch discussed three-year baccalaureate degree. In the Social Sciences Division, thenumber of students enrolled in the DivisionalMaster's program has gone from sixteen fiveyears ago to ninety-nine at the present time.The Divisional Master's Degree, at least forsome of the divisions, has the opportunity toemphasize programs reaching across the departments. Some of these programs can gainadded strength by having roots in undergraduate instruction. The interest in these divisionalprograms (and perhaps much more can bedone with them than is now the case) is areminder that the divisional structure at thegraduate level was intended to provide a mechanism for collaboration among facultywhether or not they are in the same department. It was also intended to be a structure-compelling review of important gaps in inquiry or instruction, the setting of priorities, therecognition that over-narrowness at this levelcan be a matter of concern. In many waysthe committees, such as the Committee forthe Comparative Study of New Nations, or inthe Division of the Biological Sciences, or theCenter for Urban Studies have operated acrosslines, brought scholars together, and encouragednew direction.The fact remains that there is a divisional— which means a faculty — responsibility, forweak departments, when a different combination would bring strength; for multiple unitswhich cannot be justified; and for gaps in programs. I am not unmindful of the result ofthe proposal in 1951 to restructure the Humanities Division into four large departments:Philosophy, Literature and the Arts, Language,and History. It was then said the proposalmight be a good idea, but it was ahead of itstime. Whatever the results of its work, onemust applaud the present effort of the facultyin the basic Biological Sciences to come tosome judgment about the number and arrangement of its present departments.Responsibility for InnovationNo one familiar with the history of thisUniversity, its strong innovating thrust towardExtension work, its development of home study,its affiliations with colleges all over the MiddleWest, can help but wonder whether there arecounterparts, beyond what we are doing, whichshould be encouraged. A statement such as thisconjures up for some the use of wonderfuldevices such as cassettes and cable television.Two faculty committees, one headed by Professor Cyril Houle and the other by ProfessorEdward Rosenheim, are writing essays to tellus how to think about our responsibilities inthese areas.In the meantime, there has been a small butpromising start along lines frequently pursuedin the past. Through the Extension Division,the Chicago Humanities Project has, since lastApril, held two institutes: the first on Theoriesof Literary Criticism; the second on HumanisticInquiry: History, Philosophy and Literature.These institutes, made possible by a grant fromthe Woods Charitable Trust, were conductedby members of our faculty for teachers andscholars from the private liberal arts colleges22in the Middle West. There seems to be nodoubt these institutes fill a need. We hope tohold four more of them in the next fourteenmonths. Perhaps this model, which seems somuch in our tradition, will furnish some encouragement for emulation by faculty in theNatural and Social Sciences.The Faculty-Student RatioOne year ago I reported to this Senate onthe financial situation then existing with apotential deficit of $6,500,000 in the currentoperations at that time. One of the factors —but only one — in restoring the balance lastyear, and in planning a balanced budget forthis, was the change in the University's investment policy to place greater emphasis on current income, and the payment of a higherpercentage, where permitted, of capital gains.The 1971-72 budget, when adopted, compelleda reduction in the general or unrestricted expenditures of the University of approximately4.3 per cent this year over last. These restrictions have resulted in a slight decline in thenumber of faculty, including a net loss of 21at the full professor level. The faculty-studentratio has moved from 1 to 6.7 last year to 1 to7 this year, a ratio still favorable from aneducational point of view.The Generosity of FriendsThe friends of the University have beenmost generous to it. The special Campaign forChicago was announced October 20, 1965.You will recall that by December 31, 1968,$160,500,000 had been raised. Since that campaign, from January 1, 1969 through December 31, 1971, $81,700,000 has been raised.To have some perspective on these totals onemust keep in mind that the annual consolidatedbudget of the University is at the $156,000,000level, not including major capital expenditures.In 1971, the University received from privatedonors (including, of course, foundations)$28,181,377. The level of corporate gifts was$2,700,759, of which $1,193,878 was for unrestricted purposes.The special significant help of this latterfigure is apparent when it is realized that inthe last few years, outside of the Ford challengegrant, the annual total of completely unre stricted gifts for the help of the regular budgethas been only approximately $2,300,000. It ismost important for the University to increasethis figure. One reason for the extraordinaryimpact of the $25,000,000 Ford challenge grantwas that this fund was entirely unrestrictedand could be used to support the ongoingbudget for those expenditures where it wouldmake the most difference. After next year, theremaining portions of the Ford challenge grantwill have been used up.At the same time that Federal aid for thesupport of graduate students has been declining, important foundation fellowship programshave been terminated. The expectation someyears ago that these private programs wouldbe continued through Government support hasnot been fulfilled. The number of graduatestudents receiving Federal aid, exclusive ofresearch assistants, has diminished from 1,174in 1968-69 to 834 this year. The Ford Foundation Four- Year Fellowship graduates programruns out in 1973-74; the Woodrow WilsonFellowships are suspended as of next year.The New York State Regent Fellowships havebeen discontinued. This is the last year of thegrant period of the Ford Foundation fundingfor International Studies which has providedthe University with more than a million dollarsa year for faculty salaries, student scholarships,and help for the Library. The InternationalEducation Act of 1965, itself, has never beenfunded.The costs for private higher education continue to rise; in part automatically, as, forexample, when such items as utility rates increase; in part because of the conditions ofliving for institutions, particularly those in anurban setting, and in part because of new socialpressures.The Biological Sciences and MedicineThe characteristics of this period are writtenlarge if one looks at the Division of the Biological Sciences and The Pritzker School ofMedicine. In numbers of faculty, the Divisionis the largest in the University, having morethan 400 in total, and approximately 300 inthe clinical areas. The Division has 254 graduate students in the Basic Sciences, 374 medicalstudents, and 280 interns and residents in postgraduate medical training. The structure of the23Division is somewhat unique in that it bringstogether Basic and what might elsewhere betermed Preclinical, and Clinical Departments;and that the clinical faculty are all full-timemembers of the University. The Division is anessential part of the University. Its primaryemphasis is upon investigation and research.The plans of Harper are instructive. "I donot have in mind," he said, "an institution ofcharity, or an institution which shall devoteitself merely to the education of a man whoshall be an ordinary physician; but rather aninstitution which shall occupy a place besidethe two or three such institutions that alreadyexist in our country . . . one in which honor anddistinction will be found for those only whomake contributions to the cause of medicalscience." The institution would be concernedwith basic knowledge and thus would studythe prevention of disease as well as its cure.It would push forward the boundaries of medical science to the extent that from it announcements might "be sent from time to time sopotent in their meaning as to stir the wholecivilized world."This was not a program of indifference tohuman suffering and social condition. "Thepoor throughout the crowded districts of ourcity," Harper said, "would be more directlybenefited in this way than in any other." "Ourchildren through all the generations wouldenjoy the benefits." The institution would "drawfrom all parts of the world men and womenwho would find incentive and opportunity todo something for the mitigation of humansuffering, for the amelioration of human life."Harper set as one prerequisite "an endowment large enough to provide the facilities ofinvestigation and research." That portion of theUniversity's endowment which is restricted tothe support of the Biological Sciences and ThePritzker School of Medicine amounts to almost$90,000,000. By far the greatest portion of thisis for the research of the clinical area. Thesegifts were largely given in recognition of thespecial purposes of the institution. The University owns and operates its own hospitals, whichprovide 665 patient beds. The annual totaldollar flow for the operation of the Divisionand the hospitals is annually more than$61,000,000. The number of ambulatory patients, treated in the emergency room or in theoutpatient clinics has been rapidly rising. Five years ago the annual number was around196,000. Today, without including such unitsas the Woodlawn Child Health Center, thenumber is more than 252,000.The rise of Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Medicare, Medicaid and other third party deviceshas dramatically decreased direct payment bypatients. As late as 1968-69, a quarter of thepayments were still coming directly from thepatients. Today this has fallen to 8 per cent.Apparently inherent in such procedures andgrowth is a delay in payments. The HospitalAccounts Receivable moved from slightly morethan $3,000,000 in 1966 to over $12,500,000in 1971. Hard-pressed Government agenciescontinually press to see how much of the costof care for indigent patients the Universitycan be made to carry. The State of Illinois,up to now, for example, has failed to pay thecost of the faculty doctors' services.The Unity and the ComplexityI have sketched in quick detail somethingof the size and complexity of the Divisionand The Pritzker School as a way of indicatingboth the University's commitment and theproblems which are faced. The University'sunique value, and one which it continues tofulfill, is in the direction of discovery and instruction, which in the clinical area (but notonly in the clinical area) has made for prevention, cure or treatment, and the trainingof the physician-scientist and researcher. Thisrequires interdisciplinary work, across the spectrum of the Division and with other parts ofthe University as well. The collaboration withphysical scientists is a major strength. Differentvariations of the organization are, of course,possible. The substantive question is how bestto fulfill the dominant purpose; how to maintain to a sufficient degree the unity of a university in which each part is not only tested byits contribution to the whole, but is made moresignificant by its membership.Progress in FacilitiesDuring the last year the Albert Pick Hallfor International Studies and the Ben MayLaboratory for Cancer Research were dedicated. The new Cummings Life Science Centeris nearly 50 per cent complete and approaching24its full height of eleven stories. As presentlyplanned, it will be the home of the Departmentsof Biochemistry, Biophysics, and Microbiology.Ground was broken last October for theCochrane-Woods Art Center and the Davidand Alfred Smart Gallery, part of a complexthat at some future time will include a musicbuilding, theater, and art library. The creationof an undergraduate center in Harper andWieboldt Hall is proceeding in stages. Thesecond phase of the project, the structuralstrengthening of the East Tower, has been completed, making available twenty-one facultyoffices. In May it is hoped to begin the finalportion of the remodeling, which will providea complex of classrooms, seminar rooms, andother undergraduate facilities. Funds for thisproject were given by the Kresge Foundation,the Mellon Foundation, alumni of the College,and other friends. It is not yet fully funded.The remodeling of Rosenwald Hall, the formerhome of the Departments of Geography andof the Geophysical Sciences, for the GraduateSchool of Business is under way, and fundsare being sought, successfully, I trust, for therenovation of Business East. In speaking ofour new facilities, one still must make referenceto the magnificent Joseph Regenstein Library.Much as one might wish it were unnecessaryto construct further facilities, we know that isnot the case. We must proceed with the construction of the Brain Research and SurgeryBuilding, create improved facilities for theOutpatient Department and Emergency Room,accelerate the remodeling of Billings Hospital,modernize Abbott Hall, and at the very least,and perhaps more, make major improvementsin the Chicago Lying-in Hospital. A new Physical Sciences building must be constructed, and there are immediate and long-run problemswhich must be met for the science libraries.Our student facilities are inadequate. Theymust be added to and improved.A Special VirtueThe greatest strength of the University is inits superior faculty. We have suffered and weundoubtedly will suffer major losses. But therehave been, and there will be, major additions.I should like to take this occasion to thankthe many departmental chairmen who, in addition to their scholarly work, have assumedadministrative duties, to express the University'sappreciation to Arcadius Kahan for his serviceas Master of the Social Sciences CollegiateDivision and to Leonard Olsen for his serviceas Acting Master of the Humanities Division.I welcome Norman Bradburn and Warner Wickto these Masterships. The University's indebtedness is great, indeed, to A. Adrian Albert,who served as Dean of the Division of thePhysical Sciences from 1962, to Albert Crewe,who has succeeded him, to Herman Fussier,Director of the Library from 1948, and toD. Gale Johnson, who has taken on, at leasttemporarily, the added responsibility of theDirectorship.This report of the University in the year1972 does not do justice to the enterprise. Itomits the mention of many areas of extraordinary strength. It is obvious we have manyproblems. We also have many friends. It wasthat way in the beginning. Our institution continues to be, in Harper's term, the Great University. It is one of the few. In its eightiethyear we would be derelict if we did not rejoiceand give thanks.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDOFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRSRoom 300, Administration Building25HXmflm50HooSn>ooSOmooeran "J?8 •H>¦i rvj "ij w"> h> -*?"> 0?I'p- rf*^ p?V >* %«¦¦*• u*? ^5: H~£ H 4"***ni 7*3/*"*?**> ?. *** o w^••* -£ o Hif) p™ % *>t?~* 6 2:"S* f- *i m Hz* w n ^-VCi'i ',*'$ «.f >?*.-'¦ "12? **¦¦* IP*;«l o-< 2HiA MH* 3ooON^1z-« 0 013 I 3m ^31 O C ¦"0^ >H O > COO 1OZ 1. •¦¦ CO •n55 z O 5!0 3N7" O m¦f* r- S-CO O3