THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 9 RECORDOctober 31, 1972 An Official Publication Volume VI, Number 6CONTENTS89 1972-73 UNIVERSITY BUDGET97 CRIME IN UNIVERSITY COMMUNITIES, SECOND REPORT99 ENROLLMENT AND APPLICATIONS, 1971 AND 1 972100 A STUDY OF EMPLOYMENT OF 1970-71 DOCTORATES103 PUBLISH OR PERISH1 06 SUMMARY OF THE 340TH CONVOCATION1 07 THE HUMANITIES AS HUMANITIES109 SUMMARY OF THE 341 ST CONVOCATION1 09 VICE-PRESIDENTS APPOINTED109 TRUSTEE ELECTIONTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOFOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER© 1972 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.1972-73 UNIVERSITY BUDGETOctober 2, 1972To: Faculty, The University of ChicagoFrom: John T. Wilson, ProvostThe University's Consolidated Budget for fiscalyear 1972-73 as adopted by the Board of Trustees at its meeting last May totals slightly over$169 million.1 This exceeds by $12.4 million theadopted budget for last year. As compared toactual expenditures for 1971-72, the adoptedConsolidated Budget reflects an increase of $2million.The Consolidated Budget encompasses revenues and expenditures for all functions of theUniversity (but not including Argonne Laboratory). It is shown in the attachment with totalrevenues and expenditures grouped under foursubsidiary budgets as follows: General Funds(Unrestricted) ; Restricted Funds', A cademic A ux-iliary Enterprises', and Auxiliary Enterprises.Although the Consolidated Budget is of obvious importance with reference to the overallactivities of the University, it is the GeneralFunds (Unrestricted) sub-budget that relates directly to the academic programs of the University. It is this source of funds that permits newinitiatives, that bears the brunt of negative deviations during the year within the other sub-budgets, and that supports various needs of the University in the absence of restricted funds availablefor these needs. As compared to the adoptedbudget for 1971-72, total General Funds (Unrestricted) for 1972-73 have been increased$1,325 million.Whether' one considers the 1972-73 budget inthe context of the Consolidated Budget or fromthe viewpoint of the General Funds (Unrestricted) sub-budget, it is clear that 1972-73 extendsthe period of fiscal austerity that began threeyears ago. At the time 1972-73 budget planning*For previously published memoranda in this seriesof discussions on the University's budget, see: The University of Chicago Record, Special Supplement, December 1, 1969; Volume 4, No. 5, August 31, 1970; andVolume 5, No. 1, October 11, 1971. was initiated, the necessity for a reduction of5 percent in the General Funds (Unrestricted)sub-budget appeared to be highly probable. As aresult of discussions with the Deans, and particularly in light of the effects of the 6.8 percentreduction in the academic budget last year, thethought of further reduction could be entertained only if severe constraints were put onfaculty salaries and on the Library and Expenseand Equipment budgets for this academic year.It was these considerations that were the determining factors in the increased level of theadopted General Funds (Unrestricted) sub-budget.These considerations also led to a decision toincrease tuition by $50 per quarter for all academic units other than the Graduate School ofBusiness, where it has been increased $100 perquarter, with a provision that a portion of thehigher tuition be allocated to the BusinessSchool. Tuition per academic year now standsat: the College, $2,625; Graduate Schools andDivisions (other than Business), $2,775 ; GraduateSchool of Business, $2,925. There also has beenan increase in undergraduate room and boardcharges as well as in those for graduate studenthousing. A policy that all students have medicalinsurance that, among other things, will cover amajor portion of the cost of hospitalization hasbeen adopted, necessitated by increasing costs ofthe student health clinic. With reference to twoother important dimensions, the 1972-73 budgetassumes a continuation of the "no-growth" policy in total faculty size; and Quadrangles enrollment is assumed to be 7,500, including 150 stu-dents-at -large (as compared to 7,400 students inthe 1971-72 budget). With reference to specificacademic units, the budget assumes that Collegeenrollment will remain at 2,100, with an increased size in the entering class to approximately 700 (including 75 transfer students). (Thiswill be the senior year for the reduced class of500, admitted in 1969.) It is assumed that graduate enrollment will hold at approximately 2,850students within the Divisions and 2,400 studentsin the Professional Schools.89Budget discussions with the Deans again tookinto consideration the "total program level" inthe various academic areas. In arriving at allocations within the General Funds (Unrestricted)sub-budget, detailed attention was given to potentially available support horn Restricted Funds,especially that deriving from endowments whichare restricted to specific academic areas.The 1972-73 Consolidated BudgetThe details of the 1972-73 Consolidated Budgetare categorized in the attachment by variousfunctions within the four sub-budgets indicatedabove, along with comparative figures for fiscalyear 1971-72. With reference to budgeted expenditures, the increment of $12,429 million for1972-73 over last fiscal year is composed of increases in the four sub-budgets as follows:General Funds (Unrestricted), $1,325 millionRestricted Funds, $3,469 millionA cadem ic A uxiliary En ter prises, $7 .0 1 4 millionAuxiliary Enterprises, $621,000.The Auxiliary Enterprises: As was the case lastyear, more than half ($7,635 million) of the increase in the University's total budget is accounted for by increases in the two sub-budgetsfor Auxiliary Enterprises. By far the major portion of this represents increased costs in theoperations of the Hospitals and Clinics ($6,707million) and reflects the continuing rise in thecost of health care. Expenditures for the Pre-collegiate program and the Industrial RelationsCenter show increases of $239,000 and $68,000,respectively. Within the other Auxiliary Enterprises, the increases are as follows: Bookstore,$130,000; Housing and Food Services, $313,000;Center for Continuing Education, $105,000; theUniversity Press, $83,000; and Miscellaneous activities, $63,000; Expenditures for InternationalHouse show a decline of $73,000.Budgets for all functions within the AuxiliaryEnterprises, with the exception of Housing andFood Services and Miscellaneous activities, areassumed to be self-balancing from associatedsources of revenues. (As noted, the excess of University Press revenues over expenditures wouldbe more than accounted for if rental and chargesfor carrying inventory were taken into account.)Although Auxiliary Enterprises are self-balancingin theory, approximately a million dollars wasbudgeted in 1971-72 ($976,000) from unrestricted funds to underwrite them.At the same time, an attempt was initiated toreduce the amount of underwriting that would be necessary for these functions. As a result,actual unrestricted expenditures for underwritingAuxiliary Enterprise functions last year werereduced by slightly over $200,000 ($211,000)compared to the preceding year. We are encouraged with the progress that has been madein tightening control over Auxiliary Enterpriseexpenditures and in enhancing revenues relatedto them. Although a deficit in these activitieswill be a continuing problem, last year's experience has encouraged us to make a furtherreduction of $126,000 in unrestricted fundsbudgeted for underwriting them in 1972-73.General Funds (Unrestricted): The sub-budgetsthat are related to the academic activities of theUniversity are General Funds (Unrestricted) andRestricted Funds, especially the former. Expenditures covering the categories within the General Funds (Unrestricted) sub-budget for 1972-73total $52,136 million-an increase of $1,325million (2.6 percent) over 1971-72. This is incontrast to the budgeted decrease of $2,324million in these funds last year.Within General Funds (Unrestricted), expenditures for Instruction and Research and for Library functions have been increased $499,000(1.7 percent). Expenditures relating to Physicalproperty management are up $654,000 (8.3 percent) because of increases in utility costs, primarily in new buildings. Business operations andDevelopment and Public Affairs activities, collectively, are increased by $360,000 (6.8 percent).(In none of these non-academic categories arerestricted funds available to help support thefunctions involved.) Categories in which reductions in unrestricted expenditures have beenbudgeted include:Student Services, $40,000General Administration, $148,000Student Aid, $500,000The reduction in Student aid is offset to a significant degree by an increment in restrictedfunds student aid. Lastly, with reference to expenditure items within General Funds (Unrestricted), the practice of budgeting anticipatedunspent funds at the end of the year which arenot reappropriated to the academic units ("Estimated year-end savings") has been discontinued.The adopted 1971-72 budget assumed that therewould be $500,000 such funds available at year-end, which did not prove to be the case. The disappearance of this item gives some comfort inthe sense that it signifies improved budget esti-90mates, but as a year-end windfall and budgetarysecurity blanket, its disappearance will be missed.General Funds (Unrestricted) revenue sourcesinclude: income from Student fees, from unrestricted Endowment funds, from investment ofthe cash "float," from various royalty payments,from Indirect cost allowances on grants and contracts (largely Federal Government), and fromunrestricted gifts.Revenue estimates in the General Funds (Unrestricted) sub-budget are up by approximately$1.2 million (2.3 percent) for 1972-73 as compared to last year. In the two major categories,Student fee income is estimated to be higher byabout $1.2 million, and unrestricted Endowmentincome is estimated to be $3.2 million higherthan last year. There is a slight increase in Indirect costs revenue. The decrease in anticipatedreturns from temporary investments is accountedfor by a change in the treatment of income fromprofessional fees, which is discussed below ingreater detail. Estimated "Gifts required" tobalance the budget (which include, in additionto gifts, funds carried over from the prior yearthat remain available for expenditure, plus anyadditional funds from an invasion of capitalthat might be required to balance the budget)are estimated to be about $1.1 million less thanfor the 1971-72 budget.With reference to endowment income, it maybe of interest to note that the University, throughaction of the Board of Trustees, has adopted a"total return" policy on virtually all investments.This policy replaces a rather complicated dualpolicy of utilizing only dividends and interestfrom restricted endowment funds, while allocating a portion of capital gains as well as dividends and interest on funds functioning asendowment (those funds where principal may belegally expended). From now on, endowmentincome will be budgeted on a 5.5 percent totalreturn applied to all assets. (The new policy alsotakes inflation into account in a way too complicated to be explained easily here.) Endowmentincome will be obtained primarily from dividendsand interest, with payments from capital gainsbeing made to the extent necessary to bring thereturn up to the required 5.5 percent rate. Theasset base to which the 5.5 percent rate is to beapplied for the current fiscal year will be determined from the average of assets availableover the preceding four quarters. While the "totalreturn" concept will permit a more flexible investment policy and insure the minimal level ofincome for budgetary purposes, it will not pro vide all of such funds needed for the 1972-73budget. Thus, income from endowment sourceswill again have to be supplemented with a capitalpayment from funds functioning as endowment.Restricted Funds: Expenditures in th& RestrictedFunds sub-budget for 1972-73 total $50,119million, up some $3,469 million (7.4 percent)over 1971-72. The major share of the increase isfor expenditures covering Instruction and Research and Library activities ($3,174 million).Student aid support from Restricted Funds hasbeen increased also ($300,000). In the othercategories of Restricted Funds expenditures, support for Student services is down a trace, Physicalproperties operations are increased by $87,000,offset by a reduction in General administrationexpenses by approximately an equal amount. Itis significant that in the case of Student aid, thesharp reduction in Restricted Funds for thispurpose experienced last year seems to havebottomed out. Taken together, the RestrictedFunds and the General Funds (Unrestricted)sub-budgets yield a net increase of $3.47 million(4.3 percent) in support of academic functions,i.e., Instruction and Research, Library, and Student aid, in 1972-73 as compared to 1971-72.Expenditures of Restricted Funds are limited,of course, by revenues associated with the activities being supported. The major sources of theserevenues are: restricted Endowments associatedwith the various academic areas; Government(primarily Federal Government) grants and contracts; and restricted gifts and grants from privatedonors, including private foundations, i.e., Other.The estimated increase in total Restricted Fundsfor 1972-73 stems from increases of $2,035 million in income from restricted Endowment and$1,866 million from "Other" restricted sources.It is estimated that there will be a decrease ofsome $432,000 from Government grants andcontracts.Summary: As we have pointed out, the adoptedbudget reflects an overall increase of $12.4 million over the adopted budget and a $2 millionincrease over actual expenditures for 1971-72.With reference to the latter figure, it is a morerealistic budget than that for 1971-72, which atthe time of original adoption was some $1.6million below actual expenditures for the prioryear. It is also more realistic in that steps havebeen initiated to correct for some of the budgetary difficulties experienced during the past year.The Consolidated Budget for 1972-73, as91adopted, is in balance. Obviously, considerablefaith, to say nothing of hope, goes into makingsuch a statement. As the budget was being puttogether, it was clear that the budgetary stringencies of the past three years have had a salutaryeffect upon both revenue and expenditure estimates within the various sub-budgets as these aregenerated within the academic units. At the sametime, the tightness of budgets over the past threeyears has reduced, to almost a vanishing point,"cushions" which have traditionally come to beconsidered as part of the budget and availablefor emergency and end-of-year deployment. Thereal test, of course, will be whether the University can live within the budget, as adopted, without experiencing significant academic deficit— adecline in the quality of the University.Significant Aspects of the 1972-73 BudgetAt the time the books were closed for 1971-72,preUminary estimates of operating expendituresout of revenues anticipated by the 1971-72 budget exceeded budgeted expenditures by some$2.15 million. This overage was a combination ofan overdraft in the Biological Sciences Divisionand The Pritzker School of Medicine of approximately $1.7 million (in large measure because ofunrealized budgeted restricted income) and overdrafts totaling $450,000 throughout the rest ofthe University. At the same time, related revenues (derived largely from professional fees inThe Pritzker School of Medicine and from improved enrollment throughout the University)exceeded budgeted estimates by about $1,550million. These increased revenues, along withfunds which were available from the sale ofsecurities given to the University as part of theFord Challenge grant, were sufficient to offsetthe overdrafts and thus permit a balanced budgetfor 1971-72.The potential overdraft in the Division of theBiological Sciences and The Pritzker School ofMedicine was anticipated early in December and,as a result, one of the steps taken in developingthe 1972-73 budget was a revamping of the budget for that Division and School. A key featureof the revision was to modify the handling ofprofessional fees generated within The PritzkerSchool of Medicine, to have them remain withinthe Division and be considered as restricted income. This move accounts for most of the increment in "Other" restricted revenue for 1972-73 mentioned above. Underlying and basic tothis decision is a recognition of the necessity forimproved handling of professional (and other) fee billings and collections and the establishmentof a closer relationship between income so generated and the support of program activities inclinical departments within the School. As apreceding step, an Office of Professional Feeshad been established to function under thesupervision of the Deputy Dean for DivisionalPlanning in BSD. Experience thus far with thenew arrangement indicates that there has beenand will continue to be improvement in the generation of income from professional and othermedical fees.In addition, improved expenditure controlshave been introduced in the budget for the Hospitals and Clinics. Although this activity is a partof the Academic Auxiliary Enterprises sub-budget and thus has been completely self-balancing,the potential for excess expenditures over revenues, which would lead to serious impingementupon the unrestricted funds of the University,indicated the need for improved budgetary surveillance.The problems of The Pritzker School of Medicine and those of the Hospitals and Clinics are,of course, directly related to the more generalnational movement to provide adequate healthcare on a total population basis through a socialmechanism as yet to be devised. While theFederal Government is groping its way towardthe creation of some form of acceptable nationalhealth insurance, which is the keystone of anadequate "health delivery system" (to use thejargon of the planners), there is tremendous andincreasing pressure from Federal, State, County,and City governmental levels to harness the resources of the University (financial and otherwise) to become a part of whatever scheme isdeveloped for "the delivery of health care" inthe geographic region of which we are a part.This is the background against which the stepsdiscussed above were initiated during the development of the 1972-73 budget to better orderthe fiscal and budgetary affairs of the BiologicalSciences Division and the Hospitals and Clinics.With reference to the other academic areas ofthe University, the combination of unrestrictedand restricted funds available results in a slighteasing of the budgetary stress experienced lastyear. That is not to say that funds are at levelsdeemed necessary by the Deans. Their preliminary estimates of unrestricted funds required tomaintain programs at 1971-72 levels ran about$2.5 million more than is available in the General Funds (Unrestricted) sub-budget. Of all theacademic units, the Graduate School of Educa-92o o o o O O O o O o o o O O O o <^> O O 00 oo O o o *o o o C> 00o o o o O O o o o o o o O o o o o o o ^o ^ o o o o o o ^ m<n «o o © ©^ iO O <3 o, o^ Q5 o^ o^ O ©. o^ o o> O O en <*> o o o o o o ^ mIX S © o in" CO O O o o vo" On" o lO in o 0s oC s »o vo oo o rf u-i VO t-H l> *r> Sr^ - iO o 00 r- S- ON vo o o fn n- o rH ON ^ o ^n cm en o vo o Ol vo T-H Ol s ^ ?MIN. (O l> i-H »o^ 00 ON^ VO O, i-H »*^i ^ lO i—l °\ •-•"i vo »o CN <^ ON en o- i-H l> <o > O^On vo en of oo T-H en u-T <N ui en c? en en i-h oo of »o t-H VO T-H co" oC04 •o *t «o '* > »*-i VO&e ^ &* €9- 6^- «^. se- «Q- &t* * * * **o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o O <^ o o o Oi O o o O O o O oo o © O o o o o o O ^ o o o o o o ^ o o o Q) O o o o o o <^ oK *°« o ©^ <o u-> <3 o °~ R o Q>^ o o o o o o Qi o o o Oi o Tt vo o o o^ ^ o, oo~ o o T— 1 t-H vO~ rr o o o «*»T T— | -* CN oo «o o cT 00 00 00 V o T-H l> T-H 00 Tf S3 si^1 iO O CN Ol Ol O 00 o o o <^ ^r en es ^ o •o oo o^ en "-> s i-h en t-h en T-H 29 ONS. ON CO <N °\ O ON^ en »o i— 1 uo 00 en Tf <N VO vo CO OO H *\ r^ o oo °* ^ lO s« «^On^1 10 en CN t> 1— 1 1—1 en <rf ^«-^ cT <N en vo" C<$ KO 'r* ^ of w-T t-H VO T-T ST VOCN «o ¦* > en > T**iT-H€/3- €^- €«¦ «^. se- «* «»e- **su^ «^rH Cm< o2.1Oh ¦3a.O *dcd co•G TJ G^o obCOD^ •»-» G a> G IH a CDDh o o 51 o 4B M o «HwPHSWPL, o *GB §"W OO CDOhoco <oG ^!¦§ 5«G.2Oa>C3 G'BG c3)G"SCO ^5o•^ CO a8-1co ci G oW Ga - u•S O cons *S g COCD& coCD#o">S CD5/3 CO GW.£G co"I G•3GCDG-XCO CDC *d3 Gfe «*2 ocd "¦£<< £ 3 OOCDO>CDG3 CD§•D-*oo*GOh 43 -d.22 «1 "d G2 o§ ^>G ><d a> G1on'a Sg£G «J5d GO GCDe3CD>>CD£ ^5•j3 Son O G ga eCD G coCDO"ECDCOG-8G 'm ."5<D '£2 '§la£6 3GCD -^,•d «W St x 3 o£ .s * 2"S3 SB, ? *-• m G pvjU PL. ffi £ s< CD -d 3ti o o£ «2«1 £ §a 5 »5Pis<, O G CDQ n ffi £ •S §G «? *o 2 2U £ ga t aM M GCD CD O "—g -1 So aU P S s ¦ w-d3COGOuo o o O O <^ 8 o o ^b O O 00 oo o O O o o o o ooo o o O o ^ o o ^ o o <o •o o O O o o o Q) »o^n o <3 o O o^ O o^ o o o O O en Oj o o o^ o o o o mIN. o o" iO o vo ¦* en of oC l> lO vo oo" o ON >o" T-H T-H s" r^ ^f£N o o r- o ^— 1 00 ON O Ol ••^ es en o vo o T^ VO ON 00 ON »o OlJN Tfr CN o io °0, Ox en ^ en **^ vo^ »o^ eN fn o\ VO f- ON 00 en »o O^On of »o en l> ^t <N VO o en cT rn en r-^ oo" of •* VO" ,-T tC oT»**( Ol T-H <0 en »— i »o ^t > *-i voT-Hfee- €9- e^- ^3- <&± «^ se- «^.* * * * * *o © o o o <^> o o o Q> o o o o o o o o o o <^ Oo o o o o Ci o o o O o o o o o o o o o o o o<N o o o^ o o^ C> o^ o^ <o <^ o o o c> o ^- VO o o o <^> o, o o o o r-* in" oC «o vo" cT 00 00 00 > o o o- H 00 ON vo" s-ET"1 o o o o 00 °P Vi en uo •o oo cn en <o s io en on en T-H O ONS. n ©^ en en °\ IN- en 00 ^ VO en oo i—i ^n !>• O 00 OO 00 <* oo »oOn T—l of lO r- «o" »-^ -* o T— 1 vo" en vo t-h *^T Ol Tf VO T-H vo voOl ^ »o en ,-H ^> en > »^ *ofee €^ €«¦ ^ 60- €9- se- «^. tV^Q"5 ^ Uo 2 «^— ^ «-« s <Q vT ©H 42 o eM® ^ .s6 b CO*->G CD#QO g O3o te "O oj G. 0H -Mu <D G> G 63) 8 ao HBWP> CO2COCI3 cdsoo.£ S G6 S (DO5 'O CO¦gG CD£oo.£ GCOOGOo « G.S3 O co% % B< His.a a? 2cd '5b ^2 13¦as sb & COCD#o*>S <D93 CO*d g° 3 G*dw.£i+-> CO^ SI?¦ '33l-H }-( COOaCO COCDGI•33h 3— ort Lidcd +->C G G £ CDO rG«t1 o£ GO a$oG COOoo CD.GGcrCD 1 4-»GCD£oG 11 >» 'd 13a « « sS « .s S«< O G SQ « M £ GoCDG,£3 1OGcd a> o*dGW CD•GG CDCQ cSo < 1 *Js Ilia a93tion will experience most difficulty, with thepossible exception of the Library. This is theresult of precipitous decreases in enrollment andin restricted funds from support programs in theOffice of Education and the Ford Foundation.Adjustments have been made in staff and facultywithin the School, in anticipation of the pendingdecrement in funding, but there is always aninherent lag in program adjustment when fundingpatterns shift as rapidly as has been the case inthe agencies involved. Preliminary discussionsamong the faculties of the Graduate School andDepartment of Education have been set to reviewwhat the best future direction might be for education programs within the University.Funding of other academic programs by theFederal Government is estimated to remain relatively steady, despite a growing feeling of uneasewith respect to some sources. One particularlyprecarious situation, which was resolved onlyafter lengthy indecision late last academic year,involves the "materials sciences" program which,as the result of the "Mansfield amendment," wastransferred from the Advanced Research ProjectsAgency of the Department of Defense to theauspices of the National Science Foundation.The insistence of NSF that the research activitiesbeing supported turn toward more applied science goals and the intrusion of the Foundationinto the details of the internal administration ofthe program are becoming increasingly objectionable. This is a particularly disturbing experience,considering the historical purposes of NSF, andone which should contain a message to thosewho hold simplistic views regarding good andevil, as these are related to complex governmentagencies.In the memorandum to the faculty on thebudget for 1971-72 (Record, October 11, 1971),the generally changing character of Federal Government support programs toward goals that arepresumed to be of importance in the solution ofsociety's problems, and the probable impact ofthese changes on the University, were describedin considerable detail. There are no additionalsignificant changes reflected in the President'sBudget for the current fiscal year2 except forthose that are included within the "EducationAmendments of 1972."For those who are interested in the details of various Federal Government research and development programs for 1972-73, see: Science, 28 January 1972 (pp.389-392); 23 June 1972 (pp. 1310-1312); and 7 July1972 (editorial). The "Education Amendments of 1972" arewithout doubt the most complex omnibus education legislation thus far enacted. They not onlyextend and expand most existing Federal Government higher education programs but, in addition,add several new and highly complicated ones.The more important of these cover general aid toinstitutions of higher learning and the new National Institute of Education. Also of importanceis the prohibition against sex discrimination ineducation. Of the thirty-four programs and provisions included within the Act, the features thatare of particular benefit to The University ofChicago are: the relaxed student loan limits andthe proposed secondary marketing association forhandling loans, the revised Title IV-type programcovering graduate student fellowships, and theportion of the institutional aid program thatauthorizes a capitation allowance of $200 perfull-time enrolled graduate student. There is notelling at this point how the appropriation committee will respond to the authorizations, although there has been an announcement by theSecretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare that one widely-heralded portion of the Act— that covering the so-called BasicEducational Opportunity Grants— cannot be initiated this academic year. Theoretically, theUniversity could receive an estimated $1.4 million^ 1.9 million under the authorizations, assuming they were fully funded. Based upon ourexperience with Federal Government medicalprograms last year, we are more realisticallyhopeful that the legislation will provide an increase of $750,000 over and above funds nowbeing received under legislation that the Actreplaces.The most serious threat inherent in the 1972-73 budget is a potential academic deficit becauseof the constraints on faculty salaries. Althoughsalary considerations have seldom been the paramount factor in retaining and recruiting facultyat The University of Chicago, we have been increasingly concerned with the eroding competitive position of the University in the salary levelsthat have been possible with tightened budgets.An analysis of average (mean) compensationdata based upon AAUP annual studies (omittingclinical departments of the medical schools) overthe period 1966-67 through 1971-72 indicatesthat the University, after a beginning closure,has lost ground slightly in the continuing difference between average compensation at Harvard($23,400) and Chicago ($21,500). The significant advantage that the University enjoyed over94both Yale and Stanford in the early years of theperiod has eroded, with Chicago ($21 ,500), Stanford ($21,500), and Yale ($21,300) holding essentially equal positions In the averages. Fromthe viewpoint of academic areas, the HumanitiesDivision is by all odds the most vulnerable tocompetitive inroads.Looking at salary data over the same period,but by academic ranks within the University(again omitting clinical departments of The Pritzker School of Medicine), the impact of thetightened budgets is most seriously reflected atthe full professorial level. The average annualincrement in faculty salaries over the five-yearperiod has been 3.1 percent for professors, 4.2percent for associate professors, 5.1 percent forassistant professors, and 4.2 percent for instructors. The data for the instructor rank are notquite comparable to those for the other three,because of the small number of cases and becauseof different recruiting patterns with reference tothis rank throughout the University.Comparable data to those from AAUP studiesare not readily available for the clinical departments of medical schools. Salary studies by theAssociation of Medical Colleges suffer considerably from the unreliability involved in interpreting the bewildering variety of arrangementsthat characterizes the determination of salarieswithin clinical departments across the country.Looking at only the "full-time" medical schools,and making the best interpretation of the datathat seems reasonable, some of the clinical departments within The Pritzker School of Medicine appear to be competitive with the betterschools while others do not.The constraint on faculty salaries (and onLibrary and Expense and Equipment allocations)relates directly to limited unrestricted funds. Tobalance .ctual expenditures for last fiscal year,$7.5 million in unrestricted gift funds (over andabove those from student fees, endowment, indirect cost allowances, and from other miscellaneous sources) was required. In discussing thissame point in last year's memorandum to thefaculty, we projected a need for $10 million inunrestricted gifts in 1972-73 in order to establisha viable steady-state budget. The smaller amountof "Gifts required" shown in the General Funds(Unrestricted) sub-budget for 1972-73 ($4,811million) has been compensated for by the estimate of increased revenue from endowmentsources. By the time actual expenditures for theyear are met, however, the $10 million figure isnot an excessive estimate of unrestricted gift needs, especially if one were to attempt any relaxation of the constraints in this year's budget.In achieving this goal, a factor of increasingconcern for the University is the current tendency of many donors, including foundations, toplace their priorities on activities other thanhigher education.The past three years have been marked by apersistent difference of $3.5 million-$4 millionbetween unrestricted funds required to meetexpenditures and the unrestricted revenues thathave been generated within a given fiscal year.This difference has been made up with fundsthat remained in the Ford Challenge grant andfrom funds functioning as endowment. The stepsthat have been taken to reduce the rate andimprove the control of academic expenditures—the halt in faculty growth, the review of activitiesthat might be eliminated without harm to theUniversity, the efforts to stimulate student recruitment and to rejuvenate the Summer Quarter, the more effective use of restricted funds inconjunction with unrestricted funds— have beeneffective in curbing what had been an increasingdifferential between revenues and expendituresin the general funds of the University.But these steps have not been sufficient tomeet the problem of insufficient unrestrictedfunds. As stated above, we are increasingly concerned over the serious threat of academic deficitresulting from deficient salary budgets, as well asfrom constrained Library and Expense andEquipment budgets. Of the revenue sources thatare involved in generating unrestricted funds, estimates of endowment income and income fromtemporary investments have been set at levelsthat cannot be pushed higher and still remainwithin reasonable limits. Student fee income is,of course, a function of tuition levels and thenumber of students enrolled. Of these two, thepossibility of increasing unrestricted revenuesthrough higher tuition carries less promise because of market competition and increased student aid requirements, than does the possibilityof increased enrollments, with faculty size remaining constant.In the projections of the University that wereprepared at the time of the application for theFord Foundation Challenge grant, the totalQuadrangles enrollment for 1972-73 (not including students-at-large) was estimated to be 9,603students. They were distributed as follows: undergraduate, 3,600; graduate Divisions, 3,531;and Professional Schools, 2,472. There is a remarkable agreement between the projected esti-95mate for Professional Schools and the current analogous estimate in the 1972-73 budget(2,400). The projected estimate for the graduateDivisions is in excess of the analogous figure inthe budget by about 680 graduate students andthat for undergraduates is a much larger number— 1,500. Using the same student-faculty ratio asthat which was projected for 1972-73 in theten-year plan (8:1), student enrollment, not including students-at-large, should be approximately 8,616 instead of the estimated 7,350 (notcounting 150 students-at-large). Twelve hundredadditional students, or even half that number,would do a great deal to alleviate the pressure onthe general funds of the University.The most important variable in the problem ofunrestricted funds is, of course, faculty size. Ifwe apply the same student-faculty ratio that wasused for 1972-73 in the Ford projections, totalfaculty size assumed by the 1972-73 budgetshould be about 920. When the decision regarding no further increase in faculty size was made,the faculty numbered approximately 1,116 (notcounting those engaged full-time in administrative capacities, i.e., Deans, Directors of Institutes,the President's Office).The initiation of the "no-growth" policy hashad several noticeable effects. December andMarch reviews of faculty reappointments haveresulted in fewer recommendations for reappointment. Recommended new appointments, especially those carrying tenure, have undergonemore critical scrutiny at all levels with referenceto both quality and necessity. The suggestionthat departments take advantage of special (non-budgeted) funds available to the President forthe purpose of recruiting outstanding faculty has resulted in the attraction of five University Professors to the University in the past three years,three of these in the last academic year. Thetotal size of the faculty as of June, 1972 wasdown about 4 percent over the three-year period,to a level of approximately 1,076 (again notcounting those engaged full-time in administrative activities).The faculty is the essence of this University.By any measure, it is the University's primaryresource. It is on the basis of this premise thatwe have expressed concern over the threat ofserious academic deficit in the 1972-73 budget,especially following the difficult budgets of thepast two years. It is this premise that sharpensthe focus on the central problem in planningthe budget for 1973-74— the requirement for aplanned downward adjustment of total facultysize, to a level which is congruent with unrestricted funds available and with first-order intellectual standards.Meeting this requirement will be a more difficult exercise than any the University has facedin the budgets of the last three years. But to putoff the confrontation for another year will notsolve our fundamental budgetary problem. To dothis will, through the effects of continued constraints, initiate a more serious erosion of thequality of the University. If the University is toremain an institution of first rank it cannot,within the best estimates of funds available,maintain as large a faculty as it is attempting tosupport. In our judgment, the 1973-74 budgetmust envisage plans for a reduction in facultysize. It is our intention to so recommend toPresident Levi.96CRIME IN UNIVERSITY COMMUNITIES,SECOND REPORTBY WALTER L. WALKERSeptember 22, 1972Last year's report on crime in university communities was concluded by the statement thatthe Hyde Park-Kenwood community does nothave to be regarded as a soft touch for criminals.1 Since that report, the community and theUniversity have both taken steps to protectthemselves from lawlessness as it directly affectseach of us. This second report seeks to informthose who are concerned with this problem ofthese efforts and of our progress in the fightagainst crime.The "Whistlestop Campaign" under the sponsorship of the Hyde Park-Kenwood CommunityConference with the cooperation of the HydePark Bank has been a major success in providingcitizens of the community with the means ofsummoning help in the event of trouble. TheHyde Park Herald has reported several incidentsalready where the whistles have been useful.Attorney Irving Capitel of the South East Chicago Commission has been working with blockgroups and victims of crime in an effort toachieve a heightened level of cooperation between citizens and the police. Thousands ofpieces of property have been marked with identi-Walter L. Walker is Vice-President for Planning andAssociate Professor in the School of Social Service Administration.Salter L. Walker, "Crime in University Communities," The University of Chicago Record, Volume V,Number 8, December 17, 1971, Page 147. fying numbers as a part of "Project Identification" sponsored by the Hyde Park-KenwoodCommunity Conference in cooperation with theUniversity National Bank. The University of Chicago has provided a mini bus system for itsstudents and faculty that is free of charge andavailable to them from the outlying marriedstudent housing buildings and other Universityfacilities to the University's Regenstein Library.The University of Chicago security force haspurchased new equipment which puts more menon the street and which enables officers drivingpatrol cars to leave their cars and still maintainradio contact with the security office.Certainly, the Hyde Park Herald's continuingseries on measures citizens may take to protectthemselves has made a significant contributionto the heightened awareness and sense of competence experienced by many members of thecommunity. Members of local congregations havereceived encouragement from their spiritual leaders to take concrete measures to improve theirphysical security. The above-named efforts arejust a few of the things that come to mind thatare helping to make sure that the residents of thiscommunity are not defenseless against those whowould commit crimes.Certainly those efforts have not produced acommunity that is completely free from streetcrime, burglary, or auto theft. Even a singlecrime is too much for this community to acceptas normal. Certainly the above-named measureshave to continue to be implemented and otherssought until crime and the fear of crime are nolonger issues in our lives.97Last year's report demonstrated that we arenot alone in this struggle. Other university communities are waging the same fight. The following table should indicate how we are doing.Note that the 21st District had a 10.2 percent decrease in reported crime between 1970and 1971. Note also that our district had fewerindex crimes reported in 1971 than it did in1965. Of the 15 localities included in this survey,only the 21st District in Chicago showed a reduction in reported crime 1965 to 1971.The concern about crime in this and othercommunities is focused on crimes against personsrather than crimes against property. Murder,rape, and assault are the crimes which alarm theaverage citizen. In order to further interpret thedata on index crimes, one has to theorize aboutthe circumstances under which these crimes arecommitted. Murder is thought to be a crimewhere often the victim is known to the murdererunless the crime occurs in the course of a robbery or some other felony. The significant factthat emerges is that most murders are committedby relatives of the victim or persons acquaintedwith the victim. In 1970, killings within the family made up about one fourth of all murders.Over one half of these involved spouse killingspouse, and the remainder involved other familykillings such as parents killing children and otherin-family relationship type murders.Felony murder is defined as those killings resulting from robberies, sex motives, ganglandslayings, and other felonious activities. Theseknown and suspected felonious killings comprised 29 percent of the total murder offenses in1970.One conception of rape is that it is a crime ofopportunity. It often is committed almost as anafterthought during a robbery or a burglary. Theproportion of rapes where the victim is knownto the attacker is also the subject of much speculation.It is known, however, that rape tends to be anunder-reported crime because of fear or shameon the part of the victim. To the extent thatthis is true, community standards of morality,the extent to which there is sympathetic, competent help for the victims, will have a dramaticeffect on the willingness of victims to report thecrime.PERCENT OF CHANGE IN INDEX CRIMES 1965-70 AND 1970-71 INCITIES (POPULATIONS 50,000-200,000) WHERE HIGHEREDUCATION INSTITUTIONS ARE LOCATEDCITY POPULATION1970CENSUS NO. INDEX CRIMES PERCENTINCREASE(DECREASE)1965-70 NO. INDEXCRIMES1971 PERCENTINCREASE(DECREASE)1970-711965 197021st Police Districtin City of Chicago* 100,000 5,495 5,949 8.3 5,340 (10.2)Cambridge, Mass. 100,000 3,541 7,563 113.6 7,177 ( 5.1)Berkeley, Calif. 116,716 2,855 6,442 125.6 7,138 10.8Pasadena, Calif. 113,327 3,425 7,111 107.6 8,078 13.6South Bend, Ind. 125,580 1,725 5,506 219.2 4,793 (12.9)New Haven, Conn. 137,707 2,735 8,473 209.8 7,934 ( 6.4)Madison, Wise. 100,000 1,576 4,620 193.1 5,720 23.8Champaign-Urbana, 111. 50,000 952 2,452 157.6 3,035 23.8Ann Arbor, Mich. 50,000 1,490 5,763 286.8 6,642 15.2Evanston, 111. 79,808 991 1,991 100.5 1,787 (10.2)Evansville, Ind. 138,764 3,477 5,897 69.6 5,459 ( 7.4)Syracuse, N.Y. 197,208 5,238 6,480 23.7 6,869 6.0Providence, R.I. 179,213 5,502 11,091 101.6 11,977 8.0Tacoma, Wash. 154,581 2,313 6,096 163.6 6,005 ( 1.5)Racine, Wise. 95,162 1,392 3,176 128.2 3,366 6.0Source: 21st Police District's Index Crime Releases forthe years 1965, 1970, and 1971 by the Chicago PoliceDepartment and the "Uniform Crime Reports" of theFBI for the same years.Data compiled by the South East Chicago Commission. ^Includes campus and principal housing areas for TheUniversity of Chicago and Illinois Institute of Technology. Area has 4 Hospitals, 2 Medical Schools, CHAHousing 236 & 221 (d)3 Projects, a Model Cities project, and several urban renewal areas.98SELECTED INDEX CRIMES REPORTED IN 1965, 1971, AND 1972IN COMMUNITIES WITH POPULATIONS 50,000-200,000WHERE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS ARE LOCATED*MURDER AND BURGLARY -NON-NEGLIGENT FORCIBLE AGGRAVATED BREAKING ORMANSLAUGHTER** RAPE ROBBER\ ASSAULT ENTERING'65 '70 71 '65 ' 70 '71 '65 ' 70 ' 71 '65 '70 '71 '65 '70 '7121st Police Districtin City of Chicago 35 42 36 92 92 96 1,242 1,400 1,240 700 545 381 1,153 1,510 1,453Cambridge, Mass. 1 1 5 7 41 42 85 256 355 57 276 243 953 2,181 1,978Berkeley, Calif. 4 12 11 21 116 78 165 369 528 89 235 256 1,659 3,846 4,147Pasadena, Calif. 4 9 11 41 106 111 117 459 527 172 415 458 1,548 3,199 3,677South Bend, Ind. 8 9 17 5 17 26 58 430 463 61 134 132 789 2,195 1,843New Haven, Conn. 2 10 18 17 42 52 19 164 251 141 341 334 1,037 3,783 2,977Madison, Wise. 2 3 5 6 29 31 13 86 60 14 28 34 533 1,723 2,302Champaign-Urbana, 11 1. 7 3 5 6 28 23 36 150 161 77 284 302 370 1,091 1,423Ann Arbor, Mich. 0 1 3 6 20 26 23 213 224 47 159 227 346 2,734 3,154Evanston, 111. 3 5 4 7 17 18 56 111 128 103 113 98 375 842 716Evansville, Ind. 5 12 9 24 58 59 93 211 261 175 365 565 1,577 1,922 1,980Syracuse, N.Y. 6 12 5 60 36 38 228 444 528 395 212 284 1,901 2,671 2,968Providence, R.I. 12 16 12 16 13 21 124 524 625 245 416 525 2,169 3,926 4,176Tacoma, Wash. 4 14 10 15 38 44 62 221 310 117 343 297 1,150 2,611 2,493Racine, Wise. 6 6 8 4 18 12 90 253 216 227 256 249 503 1,153 1,337*For those interested in definitions, national trends,and informed speculation about crime, the Annual Uniform Crime Report published by the Federal Bureauof Investigation will be helpful. **Murders in Hyde Park-Kenwood for the years 1968-1971 totalled 13: 1968, 2; 1969, 3; 1970, 5; 1971, 3.Source: Data compiled by the South East ChicagoCommission.The above table provides some basis for further appreciating the types of crime experiencedby communities containing universities.While we can all applaud the reduction in reported crime, we cannot be sanguine about whatthe statistics show. In last year's report, theHyde Park-Kenwood community was urged toreport every crime as a means of establishing ourclaim on the City of Chicago Police Department's resources for our protection. The result ofcomplying with this urging may be an increase inreported crime for 1972. Thus far, this hasn'thappened with index crimes running somewhatlower (9.5 percent) than for the same periodin 1971 in the Hyde Park-Kenwood community.Whether or not the actual incidence of crimein this community goes down as a result of bothcommunity and police efforts in the long runremains to be seen. Whether or not the actualreduction in crime is accompanied by a reduction of fear and undifferentiated anxiety also isin our hands. ENROLLMENT AND APPLICATIONS,1971 AND 1972The following tables represent (1) enrollment onthe Quadrangles in Autumn 1971 and, as of October 9, Autumn 1972; (2) Autumn applicationsfor 1971 and 1972.Although the number of new students entering the College has increased each year for thelast three years, the effects of the small freshman class (500) admitted in 1969 continue to bereflected in a somewhat smaller College enrollment in 1 972 than in 1 97 1 .The total number of applications to the University has risen for each of the last several years.The increase is by no means evenly distributed;however, in 1972 it was felt particularly in theCollege and in Trie Pritzker School of Medicine.Charles D. O'ConnellDean of Students99COMPARATIVE QUADRANGLESENROLLMENT, 1971 AND 1972*1971 1972*COLLEGEFreshmenTransfersTotal New StudentsTotal College 5631086712,107 63169700 + 4.3%2,073 - 1.6%DIVISIONSBiological SciencesHumanitiesPhysical SciencesSocial SciencesTotal 2577164911,4012,865 247 - .4%776 + 8.4%434 -11.6%1,469 + 4.9%2,926 + 2.1%SCHOOLSBusinessDivinityEducationLawGraduate LibraryMedicineSSA**Total 6262291255011363753992,391 640 + 2.2%242 + 5.7%103 -17.6%511 + 2.0%135 - .07%411 + 9.6%434 + 8.9%2,476 + 3.6%Students-at-Large 245 219 -10.6%TOTAL QUADRANGLES 7,608 7,694 + 1.1%* 1972 figures as of October 9, 1972** Social Service AdministrationTOTAL NUMBER OF APPLICATIONSFOR AUTUMN QUARTER, 1971 AND 19721971 1972COLLEGEFreshmen 1,529 2,326Transfers 375 278Total 1,904 2,604DIVISIONSBiological Sciences 279 470Humanities 1,039 1,211Physical Sciences 622 653Social Sciences 2,204 2,483Total 4,144 4,817SCHOOLSBusiness 1,169 1,140Divinity 267 238Education 269 269Law 2,072 2,200Graduate Library 195 192Medicine 2,676 4,009SSA* 826 846Total 7,404 8,894TOTAL APPLICATIONS 13,452 16,315* Social Service Administration100 A STUDY OF EMPLOYMENT OF1970-71 DOCTORATESMay 30, 1972To: Charles D. O'ConnellDean of StudentsAt your request, a study has been made of theemployment situation of 398 students who wereawarded the Ph.D. degree between July 1, 1970,and June 30, 1971. A total of 435 degrees wereawarded; however, 37 foreign graduates who didnot seek employment in the United States wereexcluded. from the study.Each department and professional schoolawarding Ph.D.s was surveyed. Table 1 presents asummary of the employment of Chicago Ph.D.sby type of employment. What is perhaps ofgreatest interest is that of the 398 in the jobmarket, only 3 (below 1 percent) were knownto be unemployed and seeking employment.Table 2 presents an analysis of the type ofinstitution in which 1970-71 University of Chicago Ph.D.s are teaching and doing research. Of the258 presently employed in college and universityteaching and/or research, 14 (5 percent) are atThe University of Chicago, and 94 (36 percent)are employed by other members of the Association of Graduate Schools (AGS) which includes50 of the top graduate schools. Another 78 (30percent) are teaching in institutions which aremembers of the Council of Graduate Schools(CGS), including the Canadian Association ofGraduate Schools.Data collected in this study was comparedwith data for the same period from the Divisionsof Yale University. But whereas The Universityof Chicago data was obtained directly from thedepartments after graduates had earned their degree, Yale used information supplied by graduates at the time of submitting the dissertation.The Yale study, "Survey of Earned Doctorates," by J. William Justusson, Assistant Dean,reveals that 6 percent of Yale Ph.D.s in teachingwere employed at Yale, 30 percent by othermembers of CGS.Yale reports 6 (2 percent) were unemployed.This study also cites one at Cornell which revealed that 29 percent of those in teaching wereat Cornell and other AGS institutions and 33percent at other CGS institutions.These data would indicate that Chicago iscomparable with other major institutions in sending its Ph.D.s into college and university teachingoo<UuOHc/3C*W>poONfaOHZ,wowPQ< /™s ^ /^N /-S ^S /—N /—s3 tfc ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ t-< ,*— v T-H <N <N t-h fN T-H©lO ©^ CD sss 13 13 13 13 13 13vO t-h 43 CN CO »0 40 43 43 43 43 43•O/*" s /— s /-»s ^^ ^^ ^^ ""^^ s— ' s— / s«^ s»/ •^m^ •^-^io r-» oo 00 Tt T-H <n w> cn Os On <N Os T-H r- r* co r- T-H8 co ro 0> UO f« Tt tH VO T-H T-HO rf co <N v»/ w wo © <N 00 ^ HMTJ oto "<fr rj-H^ ^< ^ ^o\CO 00COOn O Os 00 - os /-— \3 ^ SC* r- CO"o Q w COo43u <Ph CO O CO CS ^ oCO Oa DCCO8 CO 00 T-HCDCmO > co O co o CO os CM <N <NCOCOW wo uo£ 00 t> l>COp iO <N CO T-H T-H T-H oPQ/"¦Ts /*"»\^ ^O* ^ ^ /-""s /— v /— s /— S ^—\ /^So ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^73 VO T-H <N CN CO rt <N <N t-( <NoH W v-^ ,— «v /—s ,— \ S~' v-^ s-^ w s-/ s_^ -«-? v-/V} «T> © h-^n CN WO fN OS oo O wo T-H r- r- ro 1^ T-H00 CO UO T-H H^HVO T-H T-Hco co <N/^"S /~\S ^ ^ ®_; /— -S T-Hno ^ 13 S ^s^ ^. /-N ^ ^U IO ^ ^. ^ 13 ^ 13 ^ 13CO C- <N ,£>^.^ ^.^ ^-^ <N <n cn r^ 43 CS 43 -* 43O vo f- <^ O CO t-H t-H CO O "3" CO Tt t-H o T-H CO T-H r-C- i— I io CM s-^ ^.^ ^— ' T-HCO 1— < T-H T-HWQe /-^vQ 0CO s CO ® §^®CO IO VO IO CO T-H5 v— ^ ^^ "—s s^ "^^r- o «>• "3" o o T^H <0 ^ T-H IO Tl" <N o O O H o Ooo t-h tr» c« t-H <N ^ -sj-Pht-H *°. s ^Jp HO »o ^ ^ON t-H T-H CO t-Hffi co io oo CS T-H O O O ^ T-H O O T-H o O <N t-h o Oc-» vo VO0CO s *£ /— V /— s /— s ® ^^~ o ^ ^ sfc CO ^cs WO Tj- <N <N T-H Tj"^^ *w2 Os CO vo t-H O O o vo r- co O CN t-h t-H VO <N O o os TT TT ^ t-H N— ' «NbOGs. .sseData .D.sawarded reign(notinU.S.JobMarket) .D.sinJobMarket (computed) Occupation College&UniversityTeacand/orResearchCollege&UniversityAdmSchoolAdministration PostdoctoralFellowsUniversityofChicagoOtherU.S.InstitutionsForeignInstitutionsTotal her siness&Industry •vernment inprofitOrganizations CDO'>CO•4= >tWorking rtherEducation>tSeekingPosition>tEmployed o 8oa 45 O 45PQ Ph fa Ph -M ^ O OOmOZ jg O 3 O <-)Z fa ,z: 55 p &101HZWISo zJ oHPHffl l-HHen^ Z<uw feCO o* Ohg ><o HQ ><z PQ^ C/Jo Qz ffis finU o< ow «:H u> ffiH ucrt tn* ow> >*HZP P*Q WZ >< Zw POw r-JJ ©O ONu T-Hto(N OPQ< ,ci /-^>OH 00ONCO Q^ vO VO ^ /-N -^"v >S. /*^ ^-sSfc ^ oo ^ ^^2 co cs n- CO Tf t-H t-H Tt•d s-"' w w wG "* th- 00 © 00 t-H OS CO t-H 00s *-* OS VO t-H t-H CO t-H w>5 <N<?300 co co r^ co <N T-< T-H © T-H T-HO Tt" T-H T-H '*H<vs CO Os CM CO CO © o o o © o 00O COotSo PQCO*e3 3.9 < CO © T-H T-H O © © o o o CMCMW3 Ph,0>2 oKPhCO CO T-H CO T— ( T-H (N T-H T-H © © ©> CM <N3COCOg00 CO O VO N M © © O © T-H ^pPQ/*-S z- "S /— Vc» ^ ^ ^^ t^ 00 ^ ® Sco S®13 © w> co cm co CO W0 t-H t-h u*>o woH CO T-H T-H 1-H t^t-h 00 vo VO © 00 CO ©T-< <N T-HUCO ON ^ k£ ^ ^^ ^ c^ ^. ^.u m CO CO CO CM rf CO t-h t-h <NOCO ^t io ON CO uo rj- io <N CO ©Tfr CO T-H (N^Go CO ss ®r- 00 OS CO•22Ph i> IT) CM T-H>s o Tfr r- o © © CO © ©CMP 00 £ C4 CO £ ^ *& ^ ^ ^VO vo CO <N VO t-H VO T-H T-H 00tJ- © tJ- tT t-H T}- OS t-H lO CMCM rH VODCO £- 0O ^ Sc^ ®V£> oo ^ ooO Tfr CM ^ ON t-H OS r-HS CO (S h O O (N rH O (N ^O»H "SS(KJ )HS CDCDH-». t 8P cft 8 o 13C CD '2P4443O.s •Sh G45 C r* O<+., ¦£ ¦ r< 2>» *J3 ."tn c«S w w W O o W) >.•j-2 5b V &"jl cd ^ "£>-?¦ ri J^h O }-hfH .2 & u >* T3 W) ^ >, -fl| ^ S *> • s pCD D_ rj hJ ^ CW) <D ^ M g .g) dft -8CD ¦+->53 3O Cm1 oq ,2 H .> CO co O 4^ Ph ^ g -C CDo £ * o ojd o c O O <Ph U P < u u U co O U fc H oo45c« PfO T3O¦s CO'io <3 oCO O45 C^H -t->CD o oJCO•CD c£ H->'Scj 03 a 6r1! 3 o TtC+H o <O O < CDoo «4H c >cs ra ^ coo 5 5 2S =2 o U g& ?2 ^43 O O< <! 0 CO VJ6%102and research. Yale's total percentage in the Divisions in the three categories of home institution,AGS, and CGS is 68 percent, Cornell's is 62 percent, and Chicago Divisions is 73 percent. Theprofessional schools at Chicago were included inthe overall data because, and this perhaps is significant, the employment patterns are almost identical with the Divisions, particularly with regardJune 9-10, 1972There is a phrase long heard in academic communities which in recent years has been givengreater currency than ever before, so that, Iimagine, everyone here is familiar with it. Thephrase to which I refer is "publish or perish.""Publish or perish" is taken to mean that thereis a general practice in colleges and universitiesto get rid of young teachers by refusing to grantthem tenure, no matter- how good they may beat other things, unless they are successful in publishing scholarly articles or books. Today I wishto discuss this phrase, and the problems it presents, because it strongly affects public attitudestoward higher education, and because I hope tothrow some light on the character of the University which today honors you and which, by yourachievements, you will continue to honor.Perhaps we should notice that the phrase"publish or perish" is almost always used in anunfavorable sense. Obviously no one wants youngteachers to perish, certainly not for anything soapparently trivial as a failure to publish. Consequently the phrase is used to call up the pictureof the brilliant and dedicated young man or woman who loves to teach and work with studentsbut who is fired because he refused to waste histime in the library or laboratory doing dull andtrivial work merely to get something into print.Since there is a wide-spread distrust of thepolicy of making scholarly publication a prerequisite for retention or promotion, we may beginby asking whether there is any good reason for to college and university teaching and research.The Divinity School presents a slightly differentpattern because many of the graduates are employed in schools of religion and church-relatedinstitutions.Anita SandkeAssistant Dean of StudentsTHE 340TH CONVOCATION ADDRESS:PUBLISH OR PERISHBY ARTHUR FRIEDMANthis distrust. The only valid purpose of scholarlypublication is the increase of knowledge. So wemay ask whether the world of learning wouldadvance more rapidly if, on the one hand, pressure for publication on everyone were increasedor if, on the other, pressure on everyone wereremoved. I have no doubt about my answer: Ithink the world of learning— at least as far as Ican judge it from my own area— would be verymuch better off if pressure for publication werepretty generally removed and research and writing were left to people who do it because theywant to or even because they can't help it.First, there is no danger that not enoughscholarly writing will be published; in my ownfield of special interest, even defined quite narrowly, there are more books and articles published every year than anyone can possibly read.With the enormous growth of the universities inrecent years, there have been more and morepeople in the teaching profession who feel thepressure for publication, and more universitypresses have been established to publish booksand scholarly journals. As opposed to thirtyyears ago, when it was extraordinarily difficultto get a scholarly book published, some of thenew university presses, until they began to feelfinancial pressure very recently, were activelysoliciting scholarly manuscripts.In suggesting that too many publications arecoming out of the universities, I do not wish toimply that we are flooded with first-rate schol-103arship. Unfortunately, when the quantity ofscholarly publication doubles, the quantity ofexcellent books and articles— as opposed to thosethat are mediocre or poor— by no means doubles,so that the average quality becomes lower. Andof course even worse is the great mass of writingwhich is written for publication but is never published. Let me illustrate what I mean. I ameditor of a journal in the field of medieval andmodern literature. Five years ago when I becameeditor we received slightly more than 200 manuscripts a year; of these we had space to publish20 to 25. Today we receive nearly 400— that is,nearly twice as many— and we still can accept 20to 25. It is hard for me to see that we receivemany more first-rate contributions than we didfive years ago. I don't remember that we haveever rejected an article merely for lack of space,and of the 375 papers we reject each year notmore than about 25 should ever be publishedanywhere. Of the 400 articles submitted to usannually, I am quite sure that at least 300 neverappear in print, and in most cases the reason isperfectly clear: the papers were written not to beread but to be promoted on. Getting into printthus becomes a kind of game (indeed it is sometimes referred to as the publishing racket), andthe aspiring author, far from being discouragedby a rejection, immediately sends off his paperto another journal. As a result, some of our contributions arrive in a rather battered conditionwith penciled corrections by earlier readers. Indeed once or twice a year we receive, throughthe author's carelessness or cynicism, an articlewe turned down a few months before.I suppose that occasionally good research isdone by people largely because they feel thepressure for publication; conversely, I know thatsome people who seem to enjoy research merelyaren't very good at it. I do think, however, thatsome of the worst abuses in the academic worldwould be largely remedied if research could beleft to the people who do it because they like it.If pressure for publication leads to the kind ofabuses I have mentioned, we may well ask whysuch pressure should be exerted— or, to state thequestion more fairly, why so much emphasisshould be placed on publication in deciding onpromotion. I think there are two general answers.First— and I shall have more to say about thislater-there is the legitimate feeling that in institutions of higher learning people who by researchand writing advance the state of learning are deserving of a special kind of esteem.Second, there is a kind of perversion of thisfirst reason: recognition may be given to any thing that can be made to pass as research, merely because it is easier to count the number ofarticles or pages a person has published than tojudge his abilities in any other way. Let us suppose that in a department three assistant professors are up for promotion to tenure and thebudget will permit promotion of only two.Jones, everyone agrees, students and facultyalike, is an absolutely first-rate teacher, and inalmost every college or university he will be promoted even though he has published little ornothing. About the relative teaching abilities ofSmith and Brown there is some disagreement;both, however, are considered to be quite goodteachers though by no means in the same classwith Jones. It turns out that Brown has published in obscure journals two articles that noone has read, and in far too many schools he willreceive promotion in preference to Smith if forno other reason than that his promotion can bemore easily justified to the dean or president. Itwould be possible to say that Smith perished unfairly for lack of publication, but I think itwould be more accurate to say that he perishedfairly for not being distinguished at anything andthat Brown was saved unfairly by his publication.The case of Jones, the excellent teacher, suggests that a policy of publish or perish is notuniversally applied, and I believe it is by nomeans so widely applied as is generally thought.Leaving out of account junior and communitycolleges, where an interest in research wouldusually be actively discouraged, we would findthat in most small liberal arts colleges therewould be no publishing requirement because,with heavy teaching loads and very poor libraryand laboratory facilities, even people interestedin research would have little opportunity to pursue it. Such colleges might like to have a fewpeople around who have done some publishing,just as they would like from time to time to havea poet or artist in residence, but they know theycannot attract and retain promising scholars. Anyyoung person, consequently, who proves to be avery good and popular teacher and is not suspected of being a trouble-maker will quite certainly be promoted without regard to publication. The best liberal arts colleges are, of course,able to attract scholars of distinction, but someof these colleges as a matter of policy give littleor no attention to publication as a criterion forpromotion.If we turn to the opposite extreme of thelarge state and city universities, with twenty orthirty or forty thousand students, we find a different situation but one usually not hopeless for104the person whose main interest is not in scholarship. First, a person who is really excellent atanything— whether at teaching or research or administration—is pretty sure to get ahead. Second—since there are never enough first-rate peopleto go around— the person who is very good attwo things, combining, say, superior teaching andsuperior scholarship, is quite sure of promotionanywhere. The best of the large universities willtry not to go lower than this— though some ofmy students who have gone to teach at certainstate universities with good reputations tell methey are surprised at how easy promotion seemsto be.As we go down in the scale of institutionalexcellence, the requirements for promotion become less demanding, until at some of the newest state universities, which a few years ago werestate teachers colleges, it is probably as easy toget promotion on the basis of good teaching as itis at most small liberal arts colleges. Perhaps themain difference is that the inferior universitieswill always hope to rise in prestige by the publication of their faculty, and they are likely to promote a person who is bad as a teacher and badas a scholar, just as long as he is not scandalously bad at either. For the journal I edit a largeshare of the unpublishable articles come from theleast distinguished state universities.We see, then, that a policy of rewarding publication is easily abused at universities lackingacademic excellence. But what about the otherextreme? For the universities with greatest prestige is it possible to defend a policy that makessuperior scholarship even more than superiorteaching a requirement for retention and promotion? I think that for a variety of reasons sucha policy can be defended.First and most important, at a great universitythe person who by his research and writingmakes important advances in his field is deservedly going to be granted a kind of honor that theteacher who merely communicates what is already known can never expect to receive. It iseasy to praise the brilliant and dedicated teacherat the expense of the dry-as-dust scholar, and—at least to the extent that these types are notcaricatures— in a liberal arts college this emphasisof praise is perhaps appropriate. But in a greatuniversity there will always be the feeling thatthe Nobel Prize winner in physics or medicineor the scholar who is making important contributions in economic theory or linguistic theoryis deserving of a special kind of esteem; and theteacher who is unable, or does not try, to gainthis kind of esteem will— always with a few notable exceptions— seem less important to thecentral life of the university.Second, while the prestige of a liberal artscollege may depend almost exclusively on theexcellence of its teachers, the prestige of a university will depend very largely on the excellenceof its scholars. A university gains an internationalreputation less by what its teachers say to students in the classroom than by what its scholarssay to their peers everywhere. And it is througha reputation for scholarly excellence that a university will be able to attract and retain thescholars who are making important advances inknowledge. It is through a reputation for scholarly excellence that a university is able to gainthe financial support through gifts and grantsthat makes certain kinds of research possible. Itis through a reputation for scholarly excellencethat a university can attract the graduate students who will become the leaders in discoveryof the next generation.If this is so, then we can see that in a greatuniversity distinguished publication must be themost important criterion for retention and promotion. In such a university every teacher shouldwish to make contributions to his own field oflearning, and these contributions should be important enough to be made known beyond theclassroom. In such a university the teacher whocomplains of a policy of publish or perish wouldseem to be saying that he should be permittedto share in the prestige of his school withoutbeing willing or able to contribute to that prestige.If it is true that at any great university distinguished scholarly publication must be themost important criterion for retention and promotion, then it is particularly true at The University of Chicago. First, as one of the very fewgreat private universities we have to remain greateven to keep going. A state university may receive adequate financial support by gaining thegood will of the legislature, but it is only scholarly distinction that procures us grants and giftsfrom foundations, industry, and private donors,and we have to be able to persuade them constantly that any weakening of the Universitywould be a disaster not only for Chicago but forthe nation and the world.Second, from the inception of the Universityunder Harper this has been— to as high a degreeas any university anywhere— a graduate and professional institution, and one of the proudestdesignations of the University has been "a community of scholars." Clearly teachers who complain about having scholarly demands made on105them cannot be considered part of such a community. Clearly the University cannot do itsessential job of attracting and training the bestgraduate and professional students unless itsgraduate and professional faculties consist ofdistinguished scholars.Third, as a relatively small university we haveto be constantly alert to the danger of dilutingour faculty with mediocrity. A university with afaculty three times the size of ours can maketwo poor appointments for one excellent oneand still have as many distinguished scholars aswe can possibly have.Finally, I would like to express my convictionthat undergraduate education at the Universityis benefited rather than harmed by grantingtenure only to people who give promise of realscholarly distinction. This idea, of course, is completely opposed to the belief, which was for anumber of years the official policy of our College, that the best undergraduate teachers are theones who limit their professional interests toteaching and problems of general education without being distracted by research. From my experience with my own department, which is oneof the largest in the University, there is nothingto support this once cherished belief. Althoughoccasionally a very competent and popular undergraduate teacher has been let go because of alack of scholarly promise, I see no evidence thatthose who have been retained have let their research interfere with their teaching. Certainlyover the last ten years the people promoted aspromising scholars have been, taken as a group,very much more highly regarded by undergraduates than those who have not been retained.Occasionally there is an extraordinary undergraduate teacher who thrives in the atmosphereof a great university and goes on until retirementwith the love of his students and the admirationof his colleagues; but— as with all forms of greatness—this person is the exception. More frequently the undergraduate teacher who is the students'idol at thirty has lost some of his popularity bythe time he is fifty, and he is in danger of endinghis career without the admiration of the studentsor the esteem of his colleagues. It would seem tobe to the advantage of the University to have theyoung teacher-scholar devote much of his timeto undergraduates while he is still vigorous andthen, as he progresses with his research, to havehim turn increasingly to graduate teaching. As heloses his usefulness and popularity on one level,he can recover them on another, and he will beable to approach the end of his career as a teach er with the prospect of having gained enduringesteem from scholars everywhere.We may conclude, then, that— although a policy of publish or perish would do far more harmthan good if rigidly enforced at all colleges anduniversities— the best universities can maintaintheir greatness only by making distinguishedresearch and publication the most importantcriterion for promotion. At The University ofChicago teachers dedicated to the increase ofknowledge are most likely to convey a sense oftheir enthusiasm for discovery to future generations of students who will be, we can only hope,as challenging as those graduating today. To encourage such a combination of students andteachers is to help assure that our highest idealswill not perish.Arthur Friedman is Distinguished Service Professorof English and in the College and editor of ModernPhilology.SUMMARY OF THE340TH CONVOCATIONThe 340th Convocation was held in three sessions, Friday and Saturday, June 9 and 10, inRockefeller Memorial Chapel. President Levi presided.A total of 1,441 degrees were awarded: 382Bachelor of Arts, 15 Bachelor of Science, 390Master of Arts, 52 Master of Science, 8 Master ofFine Arts, 6 Master of Arts in Teaching, 4 Masterof Science in Teaching, 226 Master of BusinessAdministration, 2 Master of Laws, 1 Doctor ofComparative Law, 153 Doctor of Law, 6 Doctorof Ministry, 72 Doctor of Medicine, 124 Doctorof Philosophy.The principal speaker at all three sessions wasArthur Friedman. His address, "Publish or Perish," appears above.106THE 341ST CONVOCATION ADDRESS:THE HUMANITIES AS HUMANITIESBY BERNARD WEINBERGSeptember 1,1972We are convoked to do honor to a group ofyoung scholars whose official career as studentsreaches a turning point, if not a termination,today. It is traditional, on such occasions, towish them well; and so I do. It is also ritual, as apart of the well-wishing, to survey what has happened, in the changing world of the intellect,during the years of their stay in the academy. Iwant, this afternoon, to look briefly at what hashappened in the domain of the humanities.We are all humanists, whether we "profess"the humanities or merely live our lives. When wejudge the merits of the argument in that editorialin the morning paper, we function as humanists.When we read a book, a part at least of our enjoyment consists in the critical acts by which weunderstand and appreciate it. Our experience ofa concert, or a play in the theater, or a painting,is a product of our whole formation as people towhom the arts are accessible— and pleasurable—because we have had humanistic educations. Eachtime that we relate an event or a judgment or awork to its historical context, we make thosefruitful rapprochements between past and present that are a part of the humanist's purview.Even when we hear an election speech or a public debate between candidates, we judge— toblame or to approve— in our roles as practicalphilosophers, trained— through our experience inour lives, through those sessions over coffee,through our life in this University— to listencritically to what we hear, to separate the persuasive from the specious, to measure and weighwhat is affirmed and what is deduced.It is perhaps because the humanities are sogeneral and so thoroughly diffused in all our activity that some are tempted to think (and say)that there is no separate "profession" of thehumanities. Obviously, there is. Its special business is to learn and to teach those ways of reading, understanding, and evaluating any work;those ways of making and presenting an argu ment; those ways of seeing life in the mirror ofhistory, that are the private perquisites of philosophy, history, and the arts. I use "reading" inthe broadest sense; we "read" a painting whenwe stand before it and inquire into the ways inwhich it is put together. We "read" a symphonywhen, as we hear it, we are attentive to the elements of its structure and organization. We"read" a work of philosophy only when we translate its words into propositions and these, inturn, into the argument that constitutes thework. The arts of "reading" are a central partof the disciplines of the humanities. So are thearts of "evaluation" and "appreciation," in whichto the act of understanding is added the act ofjudgment— and the pleasure or approbation thatfollows upon favorable judgment. The professional in the humanities learns and teaches theacts through which judgment may be correctlymade and appreciation correctly founded.It is perhaps also because the humanities are sogeneral that some are tempted to think (and say)that they do not exist at all— or at least that theyhave no private, separate, and distinctive methods of their own. The temptation to think andspeak in this way has always existed, whereverand whenever those who addressed themselves tosuch matters started with the premise, or endedwith the conclusion, that there were no separatesciences or disciplines and that all must be discussed in terms of the universal Whole. It hasexisted in a special way in recent years— duringthe years of your stay at this University— whenever a generalist, pleading a special case, has insisted that all other disciplines must be subordinated to that particular science, his own, whichhe wished to raise to the status of the universalOne. The sociologist, believing that all mattersmust be treated in relationship to their socialconsequences, has maintained that all worksmust be "read" as sociological documents andmust be "judged" for their social impact. Thecultural anthropologist has preferred to regardall manifestations of the human spirit as mani-107festations of cultural forces, as witnesses to permanent cultural drives in the race. The politicalscientist, concerned with political forms, hasinterpreted "causes" or "effects" for the individual work in the light of political institutions.In what may seem to be a paradoxical collaboration, two other specialists have joined tosubordinate the humanities to their distinct, butnow sometimes associated, ends. These are theFreudian psychoanalyst and the Marxist dialectician. It is now over a half century since theMarxist, determined by his one principle of subjecting all human activity to his one concept ofthe state, has seen the theoretical necessity oftransforming all the arts, all the sciences, all waysof thought, into political instruments. In thepractical world, this has resulted in Soviet policies toward the arts. For almost as long a time,the Freudian has extended his methods of analysis from acts to works, from real men to fictionalcreations, from the living subject to the artistlong since dead. Now, in our own day, newschools of thought have arisen which effect ajoining of the two. What is basically strange andparadoxical about this joining is that Marxismdisregards the individual man, who becomes lostin the State, whereas— in complete contrast—Freudianism (like other forms of psychoanalysis)disregards the collectivity in order to center itsattention upon the individual.I think that it is possible to see, historically,how these two opposites came together in certain contemporary schools of thought. I find itmore useful on this occasion, however, to askhow such attitudes affect the study, the teaching,and the practice of the humanities. Let us beginwith the matter of "reading." There are alwaysmany options for the "reading" of a work, in thearts, in literature, in history, in philosophy. Itmay be put into any one of a number of con-texts-or in all at once; in each context, it willbe read and understood in terms appropriate tothat context. One of these contexts alone is particularly germane to the work, belongs to it in aprivate and special way, and that is the principlesof the art or science which generated the work.If it is a work of music, built according to theprinciples of musical structure, it must be "read"according to those same principles if it is to beproperly understood. If it is a work of poetry,only the aesthetic bases of its artistic construction will enable us to "read" it as a work ofpoetry, as a work of art. If it is a work of philosophy, presenting an argument or a demonstration, the logical principles governing such constructions will give us the key to its correct "reading." The business of the humanist wholearns or teaches how to read is the discovery ofthe principles that are appropriate in each case.Neither the Marxist nor the Freudian knowshow or wishes to do these things— the first because all his principles are political or economic,the second because all his techniques lead himaway from the work rather than into the work.Both are fundamentally anti-humanistic.That is also the case when we consider thematter of "judging," even more so for the matterof "evaluating" or "appreciating." The Marxistjudges; but he judges according to criteria thatare non-literary, non-artistic, non-philosophical,and his judgments concern the functioning ofworks either as reflections of society or as devicesfor affecting society. His evaluations are political;his "appreciations" are non-existent. The Freudian neither judges nor appreciates. As a scientist,he is concerned with observation, with the discovery of causes, with the invention of remedies.(Remedies are of course not pertinent to a fictional character or a dead author.) Like theMarxist, his criteria are non-humanistic; the techniques used by both spring from non-humanisticdisciplines and produce non-humanistic results.I shall close with the customary exhortation.Do not mistake me. I am not proposing that you,as educated men and women, should desert yourchosen professions in order to become professional humanists. What I am suggesting is thatthe humanistic parts of your education will bemost useful and most satisfying to you if youkeep clearly in mind what you— and others— aredoing when you— or they-enter upon a humanistic enterprise. If the degree you are receivingtoday happens to be in the Humanities, you willknow what approaches and techniques are yourvery own. You must be sure that you use themcorrectly and you must try to persuade othersnot to misuse them. If it happens to be in someother area-and most of them today are-try tosee when it is and when it is not 'appropriate foryou to use the disciplines of the humanities; andwhen you do use them, see to it that you do notdeform or corrupt them by combinations or conjunctions with incompatible procedures. Keepyour distinctions up, look under the bed for anti-intellectuals, and be sure that the latch is on thefront door.Bernard Weinberg is the Robert Maynard HutchinsDistinguished Service Professor in the Department ofRomance Languages and Literatures and the College.108SUMMARY OF THE341ST CONVOCATIONThe 341st Convocation was held on Friday,September 1, in Rockefeller Memorial Chapel.John T. Wilson, Provost of the University, presided.A total of 741 degrees were awarded: 59Bachelor of Arts, 223 Master of Arts, 18 Masterof Science, 3 Master of Fine Arts, 49 Master ofArts in Teaching, 31 Master of Science in Teaching, 198 Master of Business Administration, 2Doctor of Law, 2 Doctor of Ministry, 156 Doctor of Philosophy.The principal speaker was Bernard Weinberg,the Robert Maynard Hutchins Distinguished Service Professor in the Department of RomanceLanguages and Literatures and in the College; histopic was "The Humanities as Humanities."VICE-PRESIDENTS APPOINTEDJean Allard has been appointed Vice-Presidentfor Business and Finance, effective May L 1972.Mrs. Allard, who received a J.D. from The University of Chicago Law School in 1953, was theGeneral Counsel and Secretary of Maremont Corporation in Chicago and a former Assistant Deanof the Law School (1956-58). She succeeds Gil bert L. Lee, Jr., who resigned to accept thepresidency of the Association for UniversitiesResearch in Astronomy.D. J. R. Bruckner has been appointed Vice-President for Public Affairs, effective August 1,1972. Mr. Bruckner, a former Rhodes scholar,has been the national affairs columnist for theLos Angeles Times; during the early sixties, hewas the labor reporter for the Chicago SunTimes. He succeeds Eddie N. Williams who resigned to accept the presidency of the Joint Center for Political Studies in Washington, D.C.TRUSTEE ELECTIONFour new members have been elected to TheUniversity of Chicago Board of Trustees. Theyare:Max Palevsky, Los Angeles, California, Director,Xerox Corporation, and an alumnus of the University.Arthur E. Rasmussen, Jr., Winnetka, Illinois,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of theHousehold Finance Corporation and an alumnusof the University.Robert W. Reneker, Chicago, President of Swift& Company and an alumnus of the University.Edgar B. Stern, Jr., Aspen, Colorado, Director,Sears, Roebuck and Company.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDOFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRSRoom 200, Administration Building109HPCM<oownosoaCTQ2.ONo z-o x omj c 33D O TJS > — CO 3POSTAAIDiO,ILLI O(3$»32 Z CD n"05-^ o rn¦*" 7^ OCO 3