THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 9 1ECOEDAugust 7, 1973 An Official Publication Volume VII, Number 6CONTENTS197 REPORT OF THE BOARD OF THE LIBRARY200 REPORT OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE ON THEDEPARTMENT OF THE GEOPHYSICAL SCIENCES205 REPORT OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE ON THEDEPARTMENT OF RADIOLOGY210 REPORT OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE ON THEDEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS212 DISTINGUISHED SERVICE, NAMED, AND UNIVERSITYPROFESSORSHIPS218 CENTER FOR POLICY STUDY FACULTY FELLOWS220 IN MEMORIAM: BERNARD WEINBERG, 1909-1973220 TRUSTEE ELECTION220 FACULTY COMMITTEE ON PHILANTHROPY220 COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITYSENATE221 COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, 1973-74221 SUMMARY OF THE 342ND CONVOCATIONTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOFOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER© Copyright 1973 by The University of ChicagoTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDREPORT OF THEJune 11, 1973The special position of The University of ChicagoLibrary in the University structure merits periodicreports to the community about its status, goals, andproblems. This document is such a report.The University of Chicago Library is an outstanding feature of the academic life of theUniversity. The magnitude and quality of itscollections, the attractiveness of its new facilities,and the professional nature of the staff contribute tomany objectives and to all levels of the University,from the undergraduate student to the most advanced research activity. At the same time, theLibrary, as part of a living organization, is in a stateof change. It is striving for more efficient ways toperform its functions, it has at least as greatfinancial problems as the rest of the University, andit is caught up in many personnel problems, some ofwhich are more typical of the outside world than ofan academic community.This Report summarizes the status of theLibrary, the directions in which it is moving, arid itsmost important problems. In addition to providinginformation, this Report invites thoughtful suggestions from the academic departments of the University concerning ways in which the Library can betterperform its function while emphasizing the interactions between different parts of the University,which are uniquely characteristic of a centralLibrary operation.The Library, as befits a university of Chicago'sdistinction, is one of the leading academic andresearch libraries in the world. It holds strongcollections in all fields of interest to the Universityand is especially rich in the fields of languages andliteratures, law, political science, history, economics,education, sociology, psychology, the physical andbiological sciences, maps and bibliography. Theseresources are supplemented by extensive collectionsin microform and by archival and manuscript BOARD OF THE LIBRARYmaterials of substantial size and significance. TheLibrary ranks twelfth in size among academiclibraries in the United States, but in quality itprobably ranks higher than a number of largerlibraries that frequently duplicate holdings inserving larger enrollments and that encompass abroader range of disciplines, as, for example, theapplied sciences.We have reason to think that the Library hashelped attract and retain students and faculty ofoutstanding ability simply because of the wealth ofits collections, the excellent physical facilitiesafforded by the Regenstein Library, and the convenience of the departmental library collections.A number of problems have arisen in recent yearswhich threaten the continued high quality of theUniversity Library. A major source of difficulty isthe rapid increase in the rate of publication coupledwith inflating prices. During the period of thesixties, for example, the number of publicationsissued in the United States doubled in quantity andprices also doubled. Consequently, it would requirefour times as much money in 1970 to obtain thesame proportion of new U. S. publications. The rateof increase in serials publishing is equally dramatic.In 1965-66 the University Library was receiving27,338 titles at a cost of $155,160, and in 1971-72the corresponding figures were 41,348 titles for$377,245. During this period of increasedpublication activity and higher costs, the Librarybook budget has remained almost constant and theacquisition of monographic materials has declinedby nearly 50 percent in the past five years. The latestcomparative data for other major academic librariesin the United States (1971-72) indicate that TheUniversity of Chicago Library now ranks 25th inexpenditures for library materials. These data makeit clear that unless substantially increased bookmonies are found, there will be a relativedeterioration in the quality of existing collections.197Another major problem is the rapid increase instaffing costs. During the five-year period 1967-68through 1971-72, the number of staff positionsdropped slightly but salary costs increased by 48percent. In 1971-72 the average cost per full-timeequivalent (FTE) staff member was $7,245; today itis $8,265. Although the 1971-72 cost per FTE staffmember ranks ninth among the twenty majoracademic libraries, the trend is disturbing. Approximately the same salary budget at Ohio Stateprovided 90 more positions that at The University ofChicago, and the lower cost per FTE at Northwestern would have saved $70,000 in salary costs atThe University of Chicago.It is apparent that the rate of increase in theLibrary budget over the last six to eight years hasbeen sufficient to absorb the rapidly inflating costsof staffing and publications. The tendency has beento increase salary levels while holding the bookbudget relatively constant. Between 1967-68 and1971-72 the ratio of book and binding expense tototal Library expenditures has declined from 34.9percent to 28.7 percent. In the current fiscal year,the size of the staff had to be reduced by nineteenpositions to improve salary levels.The Board of the Library is aware that reductionin staffing, while the workload continues to mount,has had an adverse effect on staff morale. Themorale problem has been further complicated by theneed to adjust to the consolidation of many functions in the new Regenstein Library, by the loss of anumber of key administrative personnel, and by theemergence within the library profession of a desireon the part of librarians for a greater role in decisionprocesses. The management improvement programintroduced by the Library administration with theassistance of the Industrial Relations Center appears to be a constructive approach to thesecomplex organizational and personnel issues.The Library's tentative budget allocation for1973-74, even though it provides an 8.5 percentincrease in the funds derived from the Universityregular budget, will not alleviate current financialpressures. The gain is largely offset by the loss ofHEW and other grant funds in the amount of$224,000 which must be absorbed. As a consequence, most categories of the budget remain atcurrent levels and make no provision for inflation ordollar devaluation. Cost of living increases for thestaff can be provided only by further reductions instaff size. Preliminary estimates for 1973-74 werethat total income to the Library from all sourceswould need to increase by 8.5 percent to maintainthe current operating level. The prospects now arethat only a 1 percent increase will be available. Several alternatives are available in the Library toimprove its budgetary situation, but none of thempromises relief in the short term. Pending an increase in the level of funding, the Library will needto rely primarily upon ingenuity and imagination inthe use of whatever resources it has.The Library is continuing to pursue cooperativeprograms with the Center for Research Libraries,the Committee on Institutional Cooperation, theIllinois State Library, and the Association ofResearch Libraries. The most promising of theseendeavors is the periodicals bank being established'under grant funding at the Center for ResearchLibraries. This program is an effort to demonstrate,on a limited scale, the feasibility of providing efficient access to infrequently-used journals. Ifsuccessful, this program could lead to savings in theserial and binding budgets without significant lossof access. At present, the project encompassesnearly 100 libraries, but with funding for only 5,000titles and, hence, at best it can have only a modestimpact on the current Library budget.The most promising approach to controllingLibrary staffing costs is the Library DataManagement Program. Under joint funding by theCouncil on Library Resources and the NationalEndowment for the Humanities, the Library plansto implement in the fall of 1974 a computerizedsystem for storage and access to acquisition,cataloging, and circulation records. Full funding forthe hardware necessary to implement this systemhas been assured through a recent grant from theJoseph and Helen Regenstein Foundation. Whenimplemented, this system will significantly changethe pattern of operation of the Library and willprovide on-line access to most of the records of theLibrary at a number of remote locations. Completecatalog information, for example, will be availableat all Library service points on the campus foracquisitions in the Roman alphabet since 1968.Information about materials on order or inprocessing, as well as circulation data, will beequally accessible. It is anticipated that cost savingswill be made through the system and that services tostudents and faculty will be improved significantly.The Director of the Library will submit a morecomplete report on this program when the designand testing phases are completed.The Library is also continuing its efforts to securefinancial assistance from private donors andgranting agencies, but only modest support isanticipated in the 1973-74 fiscal year. Consequentlyit seems imperative to reassess current budgetarypriorities.198The Board of the Library has examined thecurrent and anticipated financial constraints uponthe Library and has determined that the prioritiesdiscussed below must be observed if the Library is tocontinue to maintain its appropriate central role inthe academic community.It is the judgment of the Board of the Library thatthe highest priority should be to maintain anadequate level of acquisitions. This means thatfunds should be allocated to insure the acquisitionof all new publications necessary to support existingteaching and research programs. Retrospectivedevelopment should be continued in fields whereexisting collections do not adequately supportcurrent or anticipated programs of research andinstruction. Provision should be made to replaceitems in the working collection that become lost ordamaged or that require repair for preservation.A program of retrospective development of evengreater depth and scope should be pursued as fundspermit or as outside support can be secured.Retrospective buying should not, however, proceedat the expense of current acquisitions.The Library should provide enough support staffto keep the acquisitions and cataloging workcurrent. The binding fund should be large enough topermit the binding of all new acquisitions and tosupport a systematic program of preservation andrestoration. The operating budget (for equipment,supplies, and contracted services) should be sufficient to support acquisitions and services on acurrent basis.The priority of services should provide access tothe collections on a schedule of service hours thatwill meet the reasonable needs of a majority of itsusers (defined as the current hours of access).Support services (for example, charge out, doorcheck, stack access and maintenance) should beconsistent with the hours that the collections areaccessible. Reference and interpretive servicesshould be maintained during periods of heaviestlibrary use (that is, approximately the presentschedule). Reference and bibliographic assistanceshould be provided for each broad subject or areastudy program to facilitate the work and conservethe time of students and faculty, but thesespecialized services have a relatively lower priorityand may need to be curtailed in times of financialstringency.The Library should implement and support policiesthat will insure a staff of high professional competence and effective performance. The Board of the Library recognizes that implementation of these priorities may require that thelevel of staffing be reduced to preserve acquisitionlevels and that some desirable services may need tobe curtailed. It is also recognized that the level of theacquisitions program will determine staffing levelsin Technical Services and will set priorities inbinding and other operating areas that may in turnadversely affect public service budgets. The Boardbelieves, however, that the quality of service isultimately dependent upon the quality of theLibrary's collections, and that in times of financialstress the level of acquisitions must be protected.The fiscal problems of the Library are not unique toThe University of Chicago. Most of the majoracademic libraries of the United States are facedwith similar constraints. In the short term somereconsideration of priorities is required to makeeffective use of limited resources. In the long run,however, increased support is required as well asdevelopment of cooperative approaches to efficientsharing of resources and imaginative uses ofcomputer technology to increase productivity and tolower costs.A broad range of development activities has beeninitiated by the Library to attract additional outsidesupport. In addition, the Library is a high priorityarea in the University's fund-raising efforts. It isanticipated that the Library's financial situation willimprove through the efforts outlined above.The Board of the Library trusts that the academiccommunity will appreciate the limitations faced bythe Library as it strives to serve the University'sneeds, and will support its efforts to build andmaintain a Library of high quality both in collections and services. Both students and faculty willfind that in the long run efficient utilization of theLibrary will be easier for all if they adhere toregulations designed to promote equality of accessfor all members of the University community.Klaus BaerRalph M. LernerStanley McElderryNorval R. MorrisGeorge W. PlatzmanDr. Ronald SingerJonathan Z. SmithAnthony TurkevichThomas L. Whisler (Chairman)199REPORT OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE ON THEDEPARTMENT OF THE GEOPHYSICAL SCIENCESTo President Edward H. LeviJune 19, 1973A skeletal historical sketch of the Department of theGeophysical Sciences serves to point out the antecedents of the present Department. The Universityof Chicago achieved international preeminence inthe earth sciences early in the century during thetenure of Chamberlin, Salisbury, Williston, andWeller, and its Department of Geology was notedfor both its eminence and diversity. During the foursucceeding decades, the Department maintained itseminence among the leading institutions in the field,in the United States and worldwide.The Department of Meteorology was establishedin 1940. Started by C. G. Rossby, the Departmentcreated a new style in the field of atmosphericphysics; the Chicago school applied notions of fluiddynamics with a strong infusion of appliedmathematics to the problems of atmospheric circulation. The Department has also had an appreciable tradition of excellence in cloud physics,beginning with the Thunderstorm Project,organized in the immediate post-war years by H.Byers. From its inception, it continued to be rankedamong the foremost departments of meteorology inthe United States.The two departments were fused into a newDepartment of the Geophysical Sciences in 1961.This was a time when traditional boundaries amongthe various earth sciences were becoming morevague. The objective was to create a new arena thattranscended the older subdivisions. In particular,the concept was developed that the Earth should bestudied as a definable object whose subparts, theatmospheres, oceans, and solid earth takentogether, formed a coherent pedagogic field.This amalgamation was a bold and farsightedventure, taken in anticipation of an expected trendin other universities in the United States. But with afew notable exceptions, other universities have notfollowed the Chicago pattern. Although departments in many major universities now have"Geophysics" or "Planetary Physics" or equivalentterms in their titles, with few exception, these in stitutions have tended to retain the departmentsinvolved in studies of the fluid and solid parts of theearth separately; at Cal Tech and Berkeley, forexample, Geophysics has been acknowledged as atitular, coequal adjunct of Geology. In the solidearth sciences, the subdisciplines may have beenmore tightly fused, but the atmospheric scienceshave largely remained decoupled from the solidearth departments. Of secondary importance is thefact that such a fusion, as has taken place atChicago and elsewhere, has had expectable administrative advantages in departmental stabilityand efficiency.The objective of this review has been to determine the success of the original project to unify theGeophysical Sciences, and to determine whether thehistorical, lustrous quality of the former Departments has been preserved in the new.ResourcesThe departmental resources are significant andimpressive. The number of budgeted regular facultyis 23, excluding members whose resignations arelikely as of July 1, 1973. This Department has one ofthe largest faculties in the Geophysical Sciences inthe United States.The Department has recently moved into newquarters in the Hinds Laboratory, an outstandingfacility which provides an attractively constructed,appointed, and equipped environment in which tocarry out the work of the Department. In somecases, however, parts of the building were designedto fit the needs of individual members of the faculty;should resignations or reduction in extramuralsupport of these particular activities occur, wesuspect that rededication of their use may involve asubstantial expense.In addition to these more visible resources, theprogram of the Department is strengthened byinteraction through joint appointments with theDepartments of Chemistry and Mathematics, theinterdisciplinary Committee on EvolutionaryBiology, and the Research Institutes. Thelaboratories and specimen collections of the Centerfor Graduate Study of the Field Museum of NaturalHistory are available to the staff and students of theDepartment.200Stature of the DepartmentIt is difficult to provide a ranking of the Departmentin comparison with other departments in the UnitedStates and abroad because few departments havefollowed the precise pattern of The Department ofthe Geophysical Sciences in fusing (1) geophysicalfluid dynamics and meteorology, (2) solid earthgeophysics and geochemistry, and (3) evolutionarybiology through the paleontological disciplines,under a single departmental umbrella. In view of theabsence of an appropriate normalization forcomparisons on a department-wide scale, wepropose to compare the subunits of the Departmentwith counterparts in other universities.Atmospheric science. The major strength of thisgroup is in fluid dynamics, with additional strengthin cloud physics, radiation, radar, and meso-meteorology. The fluid dynamics is concentratedprimarily on theory and laboratory experiments, asopposed to outdoor observational studies. Theindividual faculty members are productive and ofuniform high quality. Collectively they merit arespect as great as that accorded almost any othergroup of equal size and must be rated as beingamong the top half-dozen groups of comparablesize. Some of the most recent resignations, appointments, and shifts in research funding have,however, had the effect of weakening the group'snon-theoretical (for example, observational) interestand capabilities vis-a-vis its strength in theory. Thisdrift must be halted if the theoretical program is notto be weakened in turn through reduced contactwith the real world of observation.Mineralogy and experimental petrology. The workin the Department in the studies of the physicalproperties of earth-forming material, both atsurface pressure and temperature and at elevatedpressures and temperatures, is outstanding. Thework tends to be heavily oriented to an experimentalprogram, with a minimum of field studies andtheoretical studies. Notable strengths include workon the properties of solids and liquids at pressures ofthe order of 100 kilobars in static experiments andat much higher pressures in shock wave experiments; work on the melting of rocks under dryand aqueous conditions; isotopic studies; analyticaltools for mineralogical studies; forays into the interface between topology and mineralogy. The sizeand stature of the mineralogy-petrology programplaces the group near the top laboratories in theUnited States; it ranks with such institutions asUCLA, Penn. State and the Geophysical Laboratoryof the Carnegie Institution of Washington. This mineralogy-petrology group is also of the quality ofthe internationally renowned groups at Canberraand Tokyo.Paleontology. Although endowed with a relativelysmall faculty of only three members, the work inpaleontology qualifies this Department: for rankamong the top half-dozen groups in the country.The Department does not embrace work in vertebrate paleontology. Emphasis is placed instead onevolutionary, ecological, and biostratigraphicalproblems among the invertebrates. Strength isadded to the group, as already noted, by virtue ofaccess to the facilities and collections of the FieldMuseum of Natural History. The Department isheavily and successfully involved in the study of suchproblems as the nature of evolutionary processesand population and environmental pressures onbiological systems. By virtue of its present commitments, the Department is less concerned with thestudy of the early history of the earth as displayedthrough the fossil record; this area representsperhaps the most important contribution thatpaleontology can make to the "GeophysicalSciences."Although we consider the Department to rankhighly in the three subdisciplines, hone of themembers of the Department have been elected tothe National Academy of Sciences and only onemember of the Department is a member of theAmerican Academy of Arts and Sciences.In summary we find that the Department of theGeophysical Sciences has considerable strength.However, the Department deploys most of itsresources in rather narrow sub -areas within theareas of solid earth studies and paleontology, and toa less narrow degree in the atmospheric sciences. Inorder to create a broader imprint of activity in theGeophysical Sciences, the Department should havefaculty representation in a number of fields wheresuch representation does not now exist: seismology,empirical paleontology, structural geology, rockmechanics and rheology, oceanography. We notethat field work in meteorology and oceanographycan be extremely expensive; moves to expand thesetypes of studies might not be advisable at this time.The faculty profile is that of a mature Department. The tenured faculty ranges in age from 33 to58 ( with median age 49), with positions occupied bymembers of actual and potential distinction ratheruniformly spread over the entire age group. Onlytwo of the faculty positions are filled by AssistantProfessors. Thus, taken over all, the Department is201at, or close to, its foreseeable apex in terms ofstature. We cannot foresee any drastic changes inthe image of the Department within the next fiveyears, unless there is an infusion of additional newresources into the Department. The stature of anydepartment depends almost completely on thequality of its faculty, and in this case the Department is not likely to be significantly better or worse,or indeed very much different, over the next five toten years, unless new faculty are added.Success in Achieving Historical GoalsOne of the goals of the Department at the time of itsformation in 1961 was to acheive a fusion acrossdisciplinary lines of the three sub-areas represented.We believe that although a physical merger hasoccurred, and although some progress toward fusionhas also taken place, the primary goal has not beenattained. A decision was made to build up strengthin geophysical fluid dynamics, a subject whichembraces the gaseous, liquid, and semi-solid partsof the earth, and hence could serve as a unifyingfocus and intellectual support for the new departmental title. For the most part, the geological andpaleontological groups then, as now, do notrepresent the more mathematical or observationalaspects of solid earth science, and attempts tobroaden these two latter groups by appointing solidearth geophysicists were unsuccessful. As a result,there appears to have been little or no erasure of theoriginal disciplinary boundaries with the exceptionof one recent thesis involving the dynamics of sea-floor spreading and some proposed work by Fujitaand Ziegler on paleoclimatological problems. Thevarious sub-units are still sharply identifiable todayas discrete structures within the Department.Diffusion across subdisciplinary lines has not yetbegun to break down these barriers. Individualfaculty still identify themselves by their sub-disciplines, that is, geochemist, paleontologist,meteorologist, instead of identifying themselves as"geophysicist" or, more appropriately to the nameof the Department, as "geophysical scientists."Students seem to be similarly encapsulated, andexhibit little contact with faculty or students in theother sub -areas.Some members of the faculty believe that theprocess of fusion has been somewhat successful, butsuch a result was not clearly evident to us. Althoughthe administrative advantages of merger, in terms ofweight, stability, and efficiency have been achieved,we are concerned over the continued polarizationalong subdisciplinary lines and the apparentlylimited communication across the boundaries among them. We cannot expect that individualfaculty members would give up their identity andinterests at the time of merger. However, appointments to the faculty, made within the pasteight years or so, have tended to reinforce existingstrengths, instead of bridging across the gapsbetween them. The generation of a more flexibleappointment policy, directed toward the addition offaculty to fill obvious gaps, represents the principalarea in which we think notable progress can bemade toward the goal of fusion.The problems of stimulating a greater amount ofcross-disciplinary interaction are connected in partwith those of setting up stronger channels ofcommunication. The problems are not simple, butwe feel that they might not be as great as they are ifthe size of the graduate student body were largerand requirements for degrees were broadened. Thetotal number of students in academic year 1972-73is 44, slightly reduced from the figures in previousyears. The student-to-faculty ratio is very low andteaching loads are light. The Department tends toresemble more a research institute than a teaching,graduate Department which is involved ingenerating a graduate education sculptured alongbroad educational lines.If an increased enrollment were to occur, webelieve that there should be fewer tailor-maderequirements for the first-year graduate student.The present arrangements tend to involve graduatestudents too early in a narrow research programinstead of in a curriculum with a broad base.Students might be given exposure to subject matterin the other sub-areas. The Student Handbook ofthe Department states that the Written PreliminaryExamination to the Ph.D. should have the purposeof evaluating "general intellectual ability andbackground in a number of subject areas pertinentto the student's research interests." While this is acommendable goal, we believe that a modification ofthe student degree program toward breadth insubject areas outside the student's research interestsmight become a part of the process whereby increased departmental communication might beestablished.The present complement of postdoctoralassistants, five or six in number, might be broughtmore deeply into the educational process, almost asif they were junior faculty with some involvement,not only in the laboratory experience of an individual student, but in an interactive mode withmost of the graduate students. They could be involved in departmental business relating to almostall matters except those of appointments.Some of the faculty give the impression of being202individuals of catholic interests; others decidedlyless so. The present scheme of weekly facultyluncheon meetings appears to be a satisfactorymeans whereby the faculty members are exposed toeach other's research interests. Occasionalpresentation of background reviews in thesemeetings, and in the weekly departmental seminars,might increase the effectiveness of the Department'slaudable efforts at enlarging the understanding thatindividual staff and students have of the intellectualareas encompassed by the adjective "Geophysical."We believe commendable and occasionallyheroic efforts have been made to overcome isolation.However, two areas of additional work need attention to improve communication, since we believethat the ultimate success of the program of fusiondepends on the success in intradepartmentalcommunication. These two areas are in theproblems of staffing and in the role of students inthe educational process. With regard to staffingproblems, we strongly recommend that new appointments be considered, preferably at the juniorlevel, in those areas which will bridge existingstrengths. We consider the role of the students in thenext section.Graduate StudentsThe number of students is quite small for a facultyof this size; student morale is good. The reasons forthe small size of student body are not clear sinceother departments of geophysics are also havingdifficulty getting adequate numbers of goodstudents. In part, however, the rather limited rangeof interests of the Department may discourage thosestudents seeking breadth of exposure.We have been impressed that in some casesresearch assistantships have not been filled becauseof inadequate size of the graduate student body.Although there has been no pressure from theAdministration of the University to increase the sizeof the student body, we feel that an enlarged studentbody of quality would have a salutary effect on theeducational and research programs of theDepartment. A more vigorous program ofrecruitment of good graduate students should beundertaken through increased publicity —indicating that assistance is available — throughactive recruitment at professional meetings, throughstimulus of alumni, through personal calls fromstaff. Undergraduates at The University of Chicagomight be a source of additional students, especiallywith the recent decrease in attractiveness of physicsand chemistry as career choices. (Among the currentroster of graduate students, the students with the most recent baccalaureate from Chicago receivedthat degree in 1968.) We believe that, in order to becompetitive with other institutions, some effortshould be made to dispel any impression thatgraduate students are treated as apprentices to aspecific research program, but are invited to join ina broadly-based educational activity. While werecommend an increased size of the student body,we do no recommend an increase for the sake ofnumbers. We strongly urge more vigorousrecruitment of good graduate students; admissionsstandards should not be lowered in the interest ofincreasing enrollment.Although the catalog listing is exceptionallylong, the students do not appear to be taking advantage of the opportunities to expose themselves toa diverse range of geophysical topics. Paradoxically,because most of the courses correspond to theparticular specialities of the staff, certain pertinentcourses are not offered. (Seismology, for example,which is without question the most powerful observational tool for inferring the structure of theearth, is relegated to a few lectures in an undergraduate course). The Department shouldconsider a simplification of the catalog into ashorter listing but with greater breadth for eachcatalog item.The Department might consider tightening upon examination procedures, with regard to thebreadth of the examination and the elapsed timebetween the preliminary examination and the pass-fail decision.With regard to the peripherals surrounding thechoice of institutions, we believe the stipends offeredto prospective research assistants are among thelargest of any major institution. We agree that thefrequently stated undesirable, urban, Midwesternlocation of the University is a deterrent to someprospective students; nevertheless, we do not feelthis is an insuperable obstacle to the increase in sizeof the student body. One possible deterrent to size,as some of us see it, is that of a brilliant facultywhose special interests are too narrow to meet thedemands of today's graduate students.StaffingWe believe that the fusion of the merged disciplinescan be more readily brought about, the nationalimage of the Department can be made even betterand the Department made more attractive tostudents by an aggressive program of staffing to givegreater interconnection between the subdisciplinesand hence greater breadth to the Department.In planning for the future, attention must be203given to conserving present strengths. Recent losses,especially in the atmospheric sciences, have beencostly. We believe a strong case can be made foradding new members to the faculty, not asreplacement for the members who have left, but asstimulus to a program of intercommunication. Webelieve emphatically that this staffing should beaccomplished at the lower academic levels. Ofcourse, exceptions should be made if it is possible toget a new faculty member of truly superb talent andbreadth.Past appointment policy seems to have beenpermeated with a spirit of "excellence rather thanbreadth." We agree that appointments should notbe made solely to gain faculty to represent certainproblem areas. Instead we believe the hallmark ofpresent policy should be "excellence plus breadth."Part of the reason for the restricted nature ofdepartmental activities would seem to be familiarityof faculty with strengths in their own subdisciplinesand less familiarity outside them. This would indicate that an argument can be made against appointing recent Chicago graduates to the faculty.Encouragingly, however, the most recent appointment of a Chicago graduate to the faculty,P. B. Moore, is an impressive and valuable one; he iscarrying out imaginative work in a potentially cross-disciplinary field of research.Much of the departmental activity is concernedwith laboratory or theoretical studies of geophysicalphenomena or processes, rather than investigationsof what the earth is really like. We believe moreattention should be given to exploration of theproperties of the earth of today and of the past.We suggest that additions to the faculty whohave expertise in the following areas might help tobridge the gulfs between disciplines and help focuson the characteristics of the earth:Geodynamics — to make measurements of theinterior structure of the earth and to synthesizethese observations to study large-scale motions ofthe earth's interior.Intercontinental geochronology— the use ofpaleontological methods to study the evolution ofclimates and continental drift.Synoptic meteorology — to analyze and describethe properties of the atmosphere on scales exceedingseveral thousand kilometers.Chemical sedimentology — to study thehistories of great sedimentary basins.Radioisotope geochronology — to study the earthhistory of the continents and oceans, fractionationin the crust, origin of oceans and atmospheres.Rock mechanics and rheology — to study fractureand flow in rocks and to relate these observations to diverse fields such as earthquake prediction andconvection in the mantle.We believe that the supply of outstanding youngscientists, skilled in these and other equally important areas, is increasing in relation to thenumber of available positions. Many competitorsshould be screened for those appointments whichwill provide depth, youth, and additional brillianceto the Department.SummaryThe Department of the Geophysical Sciences is anexcellent one, but it can and should become better.Within their specialities, each faculty member is,almost without exception, near the top of his field,although rarely at the top.A major shortcoming of the Department is thatthere is not enough interaction among the membersof the faculty in different sub-areas. To this extent,the aims of combining the intellectual interests andactivities of the original Departments ofMeteorology and Geology into one representative ofthe "Geophysical Sciences" have not yet been fullyrealized. The external image of the Department isnot that of an educational center seriously embracing most of those areas of the geophysicalsciences which are most active today. This wouldappear to affect the ability of the Department torecruit and retain outstanding new faculty membersas well as students.A remedy to some of these problems can befound, at least partly, in the addition of first-ratefaculty members. New appointments should emphasize youth and broadening of the departmentalactivities beyond those already represented. TheDepartment has staffed in the past with regard toexcellence, usually emphasizing departmentaldepth. This procedure should be modified to includeboth depth and breadth. Strategic staffing to include several broad-gauge individuals able to bridgedisciplines is urged.Another benefit deriving from integration ofdepartmental interests would be a more attractiveintellectual environment for graduate students.Hopefully, this will lead to the enrollment of agreater number of good students. The Departmentshould take a more aggressive role in recruitinggood students.Louis J. Battan, University of ArizonaLeon Knopoff, UCLA (Chairman)Norman D. Newell, ColumbiaNorman A. Phillips, MITOwen M. Phillips, Johns HopkinsBrian J. Skinner, Yale204REPORT OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEEON THE DEPARTMENT OF RADIOLOGYTo President Edward H. LeviMarch 22, 1973This Report will be divided into three sections: (1)the environment within which radiology is practicedat The University of Chicago; (2) the impact of thisenvironment on the Department of Radiology; and(3) alternatives to the present organization andprocedures. Although this Report will not linkspecific cause and effect relationships, it is hopedthat within this text some of these relationships willbe clarified. The visiting team will not try to ordertheir comments in a system of priorities, but ratherrecount experiences as they were perceived.We compliment the offices of the President, theProvost, the Dean, hospital administration, andmembers of the Department for the preparation ofconsiderable background material and for thefrankness with which sensitive problems werediscussed. Together with this material, interviewswith members of the Department of Radiology,President Levi, Provost Wilson, Dean Jacobson,Deputy Deans Vermeulen, Kirsner, and Gurney,members of other departments, and members of theSearch Committee for the selection of a newchairman comprise the information base for thisReport.I. EnvironmentThe environment may be subdivided into severalcategories: physical, administrative, professional,intellectual, and financial.Physical. The physical environment was depressing.With a few exceptions to be mentioned later, thepublic thoroughfares throughout the center weredirty and poorly maintained. There appeared to belittle relationship between operational considerations and maintenance. Hallways and individual examining rooms were poorly cared for,disorganized, and crowded. This situation is clearlya function of lack of space, "lack of caring," andundoubtedly a reflection of an. administrative-financial cutback in maintenance services due to budgetary restrictions. A refreshing exception wasRadiation Therapy which appeared crowded butrelatively uncluttered and, at least, clean. Whenthose responsible were questioned concerning thissituation, the reply was: "We care out of deferenceto our own self-esteem and our patients, andtherefore things left undone by Housekeeping we doourselves." The key here is the fact that thoseresponsible perceived that the overall milieu isimportant and exerted themselves to do somethingpositive about it.Administrative. From the organizational standpoint, there seemed to be a two-way credibility gapbetween the former chairman and higher administrative officers in the School of Medicine, andto a lesser extent this same gap seemed also to existbetween the chairman and his Department personnel. This credibility gap appeared due to a lackof understanding of the components of a modern,efficient management system, and extended fromthe Office of the Dean into various technical fieldswithin the School of Medicine. A lack of appreciation of the highly interdependent nature ofdepartments in a modern medical center seemed toexist and, consequently, a lack of development ofmethods by which interdisciplinary cooperationmight be fostered. The establishment of separateunits for pediatric cardiology and angiocardiography, adult cardiology and coronary arteriography, and peripheral and neuroangiographyrepresents a prime example of this situation. Thevisiting Committee felt strongly that the solution ofthe dispute between the adult cardiology group andthe radiology-cardiology group, by means of atensely negotiated written agreement, although wellmeaning, represented a breakdown of interdepartmental cooperation and trust. The merefact that a written agreement was resorted to seemeda symptom of inadequate management. From apractical fiscal viewpoint, it would seem much moresensible to group these activities in a central well-equipped special procedures area so that capitalinvestment in equipment could be minimized, andcross-fertilization of the facility could bemaximized.205Within the Department of Radiology, comprehensive, competent administrative assistance wasnot available. The departmental administrator,although perceptibly the only person in theDepartment who knew where everyone worked andwhere all the space was located, appeared severelyover-extended, being charged with a range ofresponsibilities which were too broad for one individual. Thus, there was a lack of long-rangeplanning which fostered operational decisions on acrisis basis. The movement from crisis to crisisinevitably has produced frustrations which might beeasier to tolerate within the framework of a cohesivelong-range plan. These frustrations in no smallmeasure contributed to the past chairman's decisionto resign and the surfacing of a morale crisis,particularly with the Diagnostic Division. Withoutan integrated long-range plan, each section withinthe Department is forced to compete for rare resources, space being a prime example.Professional. Professionally, the Diagnostic Divisionis seriously understaffed, being responsible for120,000 examinations this year. We feel thereshould be one senior staff for every 8,000-10,000examinations. This would require 12 to 16 faculty atthe rank of Assistant Professor or higher, ratherthan the present staff of 8. We observed thatmembers of the non-radiological faculty (clinicians)do not rely upon the written X-ray consultation, butinstead either attempt to read the films themselvesor take the films to their one or two favoriteradiological colleagues for interpretation. Althoughthis may be a common practice in DiagnosticRadiology — that is, that clinicians tend to developa personal working relationship with specificcolleagues in radiology — we find the extent of thispractice out of step with other departments whichstrive to make all reports highly credible and objectively valid. We believe that this situation isfostered by the fact that a large portion of thereporting is done by either residents or instructorswho are, in fact, still in training. We recommendthat the fourth-year instructor group be drasticallyreduced and that residents at a lower level havemore supervision. Although the problem is not asacute in the Therapy section, the director appearsover-extended in his clinical responsibilities. At leastone additional person is needed at the senior level.True, two junior members in the Therapy Sectionare highly regarded and making excellent progress.However, at this stage in their careers, they are at adisadvantage when compared to their more seniorand stronger counterparts in medical and surgicaloncology. It was difficult to fully appreciate the professionalatmosphere in the Section of Radiation Biology andExperimental Oncology since this section has beenreorganized recently. The new section chief has nothad time to develop his program fully. It wasstriking, however, that there was less than fullcooperation between the Section of Radiotherapyand the Section of Radiation Biology. At least twoprestigious radiobiologists who are affiliated withthe Department are poorly utilized in the teachingand research program, although they have beengranted professorial status within the University andhave made repeated offers to participate.The faculty in the Section of RadiologicalSciences is strong and well -integrated. A stimulatingand exciting program is being mounted in thisSection. However, the morale is not high because ofa lack of space, lack of sufficient administrativeassistance, and a lack of interchange with thediagnostic radiologists. Again, the lone departmental administrator was expected to supply theonly administrative support for this large andcomplex program.From the professional standpoint, the NuclearMedicine and Medical Physics sections appeared tobe well-rounded and productive. As in other sections, however, there was a lack of space and administrative support.Intellectual. The intellectual atmosphere at TheUniversity of Chicago is well known to be high.Although most members of the Department appreciate this and view it as a distinct incentive towork in such a stimulating atmosphere, somehowthey felt left aside, as if they were not really participating in the overall scholarly activities of theSchool of Medicine. There seems to be an adequatelevel of research activity in most of the sections ofthe Department except in the Diagnostic Section.The press of service responsibility here is so greatthat there is neither the time nor the inclination forresearch. This can only be corrected by an expansion of the faculty to the levels noted above, andby the selection of new members on the basis ofresearch interest, past performance, and superbtraining in the radiologic subspecialties, such asneuroradiology, pediatric radiology, and cardiacradiology. A feature of the departmental activitieswhich was not reviewed and which, in fact, did noteven surface during the visit, was the Department'sundergraduate teaching program and the relevantresponsibilities of the members of the DiagnosticSection. The fact that this did not emerge wasevidence of either a diminished intellectual contentor preoccupation with other matters.206Financial. The financial environment for theDepartment was extremely difficult to evaluate.Apparently there has been a recent, seriousorganizational attempt to upgrade accountingpractices throughout the Medical Center andMedical School. These efforts are commendable anddo provide an overview of the larger budget picture.On the other hand, from the standpoint ofdepartmental operation, the accounting process isnot sufficient to give the departmental chairman anaccurate cost-accounted picture of the departmentalbusiness. Clearly there is something wrong with oneor more of the following: (a) fee structure, (b) billingpractices, (c) collection practices, or (d) accountingprocedures. Neither the acting chairman nor any ofthe clinical section chiefs knew whether radiologyservices were billed on a fee-for- service basis or acost-reimbursement formula. For example, somethought one plan was used while others thoughtanother plan was used. It appeared that the 80percent recovery for faculty participation in servicewas established some time ago, even before the mostrecent chairman. No basis for this 80 percentrecovery figure was uncovered and, indeed, it wasimpossible to determine whether this had any relevance to actual billings and collections. Therefore,from the standpoint of those working in the Department, only an overall financial loss could be perceived, and this in the face of what was regarded as agenerally low salary scale and obsolete and inadequate equipment, and an ever increasing patientwork load.The visiting Committee was not impressed withthe activity in the Department at 8:30 a.m.Similarly, the activity seemed to decline in the lateafternoon. An incentive for "doing better" from thehighest professional levels down through all stafflevels did not exist, since most were depressed by thefact that no matter what they did the operationseemed to lose money, and there was no incentive tobetter the Department by a more efficient andfiscally sound operation. If the cash flow situationcould be reversed and some of the proceeds turnedback for amortization of equipment and improvedsalaries, an incentive to "do better" at alloperational levels could be created. Recent salaryadjustments had been achieved at the full professorlevel, yet these salaries still appeared below thenational average; and at lower academic ranks, thesalary structure is clearly not competitive withsimilar institutions.We heard repeatedly from the faculty who wereinterviewed that The University of Chicago is a"full-time" university, with the implication that themembers of the faculty in the School of Medicine were not interested in financial incentives andwished to preserve their academic freedom by virtueof the full-time system. A significant inconsistency,however, was observed in that outside consultativework existed, and actual outside practice ofmedicine for some members of the faculty (notnecessarily in radiology) was rumored. It wouldseem better to permit the incentives to developwithin the institution and within the framework ofthe full-time system than to establish a financialenvironment which promotes something akin tomoonlighting. A fiscal practice which is unrealisticfor the clinical staff could destroy academic freedomfor everyone.II. ImpactThe overall impact of the different environmentalfactors described above was manifest in differentways but, in general, the sense was the same. Allhoped for better administrative organization, long-range planning, control of the Department budgetwith a built-in incentive plan, salary increases, newequipment, more space, an infusion of new diagnostic radiologists from elsewhere, and a greatersense of interdisciplinary cooperation. It was alsoobserved that many members of the RadiologyDepartment felt they were compelled to devote a farhigher percentage of time to purely clinical servicethan were members of other departments. This, ofcourse, was disputed by some. Nevertheless, theimpression was there, and the true state of affairsbegs for clarification.We were asked to comment specifically on theequipment needs of the Department. In general, weagree with the list which has been prepared by Dr.James Williams, but we were unable to do justice tothis request within the time available to us. We willrecommend a solution to this problem in our finalcomments.We found the division of the Department into sixsubsections had both benefits and disadvantages.Some of the disadvantages stem from the fact thatthe Department is very large and geographicallywidely dispersed. The financial base for eachdivision varies considerably. And as Therapy grows,new methods of maintaining leadership, direction,and cooperation among Therapy, TherapeuticPhysics, and Radiobiology may be necessary. Thebenefits stemmed from the fact that as essentiallyindependent sections, several, particularly those inbasic research, have been successful in competitionfor research funds and program project grants. Wewere asked to comment as to whether or not therewas a mal-distribution of effort and funding bet-207ween basic science and clinical service. The basicscience programs appeared to be healthy and almosttotally funded from external sources and, therefore,were not competing vigorously for developmentalfunds within the Department. On the other hand,the almost total lack of budgetary contribution fromthe School to the basic science sections, and the factthat these sections had almost no input into theirown budget planning, inhibited programdevelopment. One of the drawbacks to this type oforganization is that since each group must operatenearly independently, there exists a low level ofintersectional cooperation and a high level of in-tersectional competition for space and personnel.This situation reflects inadequate administrativeorganization throughout the Department. Forexample, we noted that the radiology shop, althoughhistorically a fine shop, really represented aholdover from a previous era when most of theradiologic equipment was handmade within theDepartment. This practice has not beeneconomically sound for some years. This criticallyneeded space encroaches upon the sections ofRadiotherapy, Radiobiology, and Medical Physics.It would seem that the size of the shop could bereduced or, preferably, relocated, and the budgettrimmed. If that, for example, went towardamortization of needed equipment, this would bevery helpful.It appeared that the Diagnostic Section has notresponded sufficiently to the needs of other interrelated departments. In turn, these departments,instead of demanding superior diagnostic radiology,have responded by creating their own sub -services,thus destroying the potential within Radiology fordeveloping the expertise needed by the entire institution. This situation is particualrly true in thearea of pediatric and adult cardiology, and may beon the horizon for nuclear medicine with unresolvedissues pivoting on who will be responsible forradioimmunoassay. Professionally, this area isgenerally regarded to be within the province ofnuclear medicine.The lack of overall planning has caused thedismemberment of the Department of Radiology asevidenced by the existence of numerous satelliteinstallations. The Committee recognizes that somedecentralization of the Department may benecessary owing to local architectural constraints.Nevertheless, when a department is fragmented, thismust be offset by the organization of the satellitesubsections into the total unit so that a full range ofservices and professional input can be realisticallyaccommodated. In the pediatric area, for example,one radiologist operating in rather inadequate facilities apart from the general Departmentoperates in a vacuum, lacking intellectual reinforcement and support. If the unit were enlarged toprovide a full range of facilities plus the incorporation of the pediatric cardiology unit, and ifthree pediatric radiologists worked in this area, thena critical intellectual mass might be achieved. Asimilarly adverse situation may be expected whenthe adult cardiology unit is activated, since this willsegregate one radiologist from the main departmental activities.HI. Alternatives to the Present OrganizationAnd Strategies for ChangeThe need to recruit a new, "strong" chairman whomight be able to "put things in order" within theDepartment of Radiology was suggested repeatedlyas a solution to the revitalization of the Department.Yet two "strong," highly motivated and highlyregarded chairmen have resigned within the pasttwo years. Therefore, it seems unlikely that theresponsibility for rehabilitation of the Departmentshould be placed upon the shoulders of thechairman, alone. Thus before a new candidate isapproached, certain operational changes should beagreed upon by the administration. Without some ofthese changes, at least, the recruitment of a newchairman may prove extremely difficult. Givencertain changes in philosophy, the prospective newchairman then could negotiate the details. Thecandidate for chairmanship will likely request muchmore space, more faculty, better salaries, fiscalresponsibility, and some reorganization. The atmosphere for some reorganization in Radiology, andthe School in general, is probably at a high pointnow, with President Levi, Provost Wilson, and DeanJacobson all obviously concerned about the future ofthe Department of Radiology. This concern ismanifest by the recent appointment of Dr. CliffordGurney to deal with these matters at the facultylevel. Dr. Gurney appears to enjoy considerablefaculty support and confidence.The recent agreement between Radiology andAdult Cardiology should be re-examined by exploring the concept of grouping all specialprocedures requiring highly-specialized equipmentinto a single unit. The present plan not only willresult in equipment duplication, but will requireduplication of nursing and technical personnel andbackup facilities. By consolidating this effort, acritical mass might be achieved in which severalradiologists and cardiologists can work harmoniously with increased opportunity for intellectual interchange.208The financial operation of the Departmentshould be thoroughly reviewed and restructured sothat more fiscal responsibility is carried by theDepartment with no strings attached. Departmentalpurchasing should be by competitive bidding fromvarious vendors.One of us (Dr. Bagshaw) is not certain that asudden shift from the cost-reimbursement formulato a full fee-for-service system is necessarilydesirable or, in fact, even possible for a singledepartment. There appears to be no doubt that afee-for-service approach would generate more income than the current cost-reimbursement formula.On the other hand, the current cost-reimbursementformula may be unrealistic and, if properlyreorganized, might meet the fiscal requirements ofthe Department. There appears no doubt that Medicare, Medicaid, and private third party carriers willattempt to move toward cost-reimbursement fiscalpolicies, at least as they relate to medical faculties.In order to effectively oppose this move, it might benecessary to consider a partnership arrangement forthe entire clinical faculty. This, then, becomes aformidable organizational and legal problem.Operating from the base as a partnership, it may beeasier to resist cost-reimbursement and protect fee-for-service, which seems to be more compatible withthe way the rest of the profession practices medicine.At any rate, the choices are difficult and probablywould involve participation of the faculty withconsiderable legal assistance.The question of incentives should be aired by thefaculty at large and resolved sb that it does notremain an open issue which has the potential ofpromoting devisiveness. Staffing requirementswithin the Department should be studied, and amore reasonable staff profile developed so that theSchool will have a better idea of the requirementswhen the time comes for negotiating with aprospective chairman.The Radiotherapy Division needs a reorganization of space and, at the very least, a new4 MeV linear accelerator. The plans reviewedreclaiming the space now occupied by the steelstorage tanks at the cost of approximately $200 persquare foot may not represent the best solution tothe space problem. Even if this were accomplished,the patient and personnel circulation inRadiotherapy appeared to be poorly planned andunattractive, with a potential for traffic jams oc-curing near the entrance to the Therapy Section.Alternate plans for remodeling should be considered which would include removal of the diagnostic shopand some relocation and consolidation of physicsspace. Other alternatives should include buildingnew space. Some confusion existed as to whether ornot adjacent real estate was available for therapydevelopment, some stating that space exists andothers saying it does not. The resolution of thisprobably depends on an overall master plan involving the proposed new surgical wing. It wouldseem that the overall space organization of theMedical Center could stand a thorough review by anoutside planning firm.With a significant commitment to carry out theplans noted above, the School would then be in agood position to recruit a new departmentalchairman. The chairman should then be broughtinto the planning phase as soon as possible so thathe may participate in all aspects. There wasunanimous agreement that the new chairmanshould be a diagnostic radiologist. The SearchCommittee, however, should be aware that a newchairman might request the separation of theDepartment of Radiology into two new departments. In this case, logical reorganization wouldgroup diagnostic radiology, radiological sciences,and nuclear medicine into one department, andradiation therapy, medical physics, and radiationbiology and experimental oncology into anotherdepartment. It must be fairly pointed out that nogreat enthusiasm for this reorganization was encountered within the Department but, on the otherhand, there had not been much consideration givento this approach. It is altogether likely that an incoming diagnostic radiologist may not wish to dilutehis efforts by having to cope with administrativeresponsibility for the non-diagnostic sections.Finally, one or two representatives of the Deanand or the Search Committee might find it of valueto visit several other radiology departments inprivate medical schools which have a basic full-timeorganization similar to that of The University ofChicago. They would be welcome at Stanford andJohns Hopkins. The Department of Radiology at thePeter Bent Brigham Hospital is also suggested.Malcolm A. Bagshaw, M.D. (Chairman)Stanford University Medical CenterRussell H. Morgan, M.D.Johns Hopkins School of MedicineArch W. Templeton, M.D.University of Kansas Medical Center209REPORT OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEEON THE DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICSThe Department of Linguistics at The University ofChicago is an excellent Department. Its strengths liein the membership of the Department, both facultyand student, in a good balance of interests andspecialties, and in the extent to which it can draw onresources in related areas of the University. Thequality of the faculty ranges from very good tooutstanding, with several internationally-knownscholars of high repute as well as several excellentyounger people. We were much impressed with thestudents with whom we talked and by the initiativethey have shown in such projects as the ChicagoLinguistic Society with its annual meetings andpublications. The balance is apparent in the varietyof theoretical viewpoints of the staff and in theirareas of specialty. If we take into account the wholefamily of specialists in language and language-related disciplines at the University — the group withprimary commitments to linguistics as well as the"extended Department" including faculty withappointments in several departments — we areespecially struck by the good balance between interest in linguistic theory and interest in particularlanguages. Our suggestions below should be considered against the background of our favorableassessment of the program as a whole.In our remarks we have tried to take into accountthe nature of The University of Chicago and itsspecial goals: a primary commitment to excellenceas an institution for furthering human knowledge,with emphasis on graduate education and research.We assume that no significant expansion of the sizeof the University or the Department is envisaged.Physical NeedsThe physical setting and facilities of the Departmentcomprise the area where the most urgent needsexist.1. Phonetics is an essential part of linguistics.Although the Department has recently added aphonetician to its staff, there are no facilities fortraining students in phonetics or for research. Werecommend that at least $10,000 be provided assoon as possible so that the Department may havethe beginnings of a training laboratory in phoneticsand that adequate space be found for this purpose.In particular, a minimal budget would provide for the following: sound spectrograph; tape recorders;inkwriter (oszillomink); oscilloscope; microphones,earphones; noise generator; pure tone generator;counter.In addition, $500 should be budgeted annuallyfor purchase of consumable supplies. Two pointsshould be emphasized. First, the above comprises aminimal amount for training only and does not doanything for the research needs of the Department.Second, although it is possible to find outside fundsfor purchase of equipment for research, it is virtually impossible to do so without some "seeding"funds from the institution involved, so that theabove expenditures represent a necessary prerequisite to finding outside sources for phoneticequipment adequate to long-range research needs.(In connection with plans for a phonetics laboratory,adequate computer tie-up should eventually be provided).2. The space arrangements for staff and studentsare woefully inadequate. We assume that adequateoffices will be provided as soon as possible for thestaff. More pressing are the needs of students. To alarge extent progress in research and learningproceeds by frequent interactions among individuals. At present there is no area where studentsand staff can gather for informal discussion. Werecommend that the Department be providedimmediately with a common room where suchcommunication Would be fostered. Further, werecommend that working spaces for students befound. For most linguists, "laboratory" equipmentconsists of a desk, a blackboard, and a typewriter.Departmental StructureLinguistics departments are relatively new inacademic communities. Typically they have grownout of informal groupings of people in departmentsof various sorts, primarily language departments,but also departments of psychology, philosophy, andso on. Generally, the first formal groupings havebeen interdepartmental programs with no budgets.Finally there is a step to fullfledged departmentalstatus. This typical history is reflected at TheUniversity of Chicago in the size and composition ofthe Department. We mentioned above that one ofthe strengths of the Department lies in the range of210interests represented in the whole linguistic community. But in the light of our experience this verystrength is a potential source of problems. Althoughno one brought to our attention any actual difficulties that have arisen from the size and loosestructure of the Department, we feel that in the longrun, a stronger program will result if the actualdivision into a central group and a more looselyaffiliated group is formalized in some way. Atpresent, all members of the Department have equalsay in matters of program planning, curriculum,staffing, and so on. But apparently for most purposes the central core of the Department carried outmost of the actual decision-making. We suggestthat the Department be divided into two groups: aset of full members who would exercise votingprivileges on such matters, and a set of associatemembers who would take a more advisory role incarrying on the business of the Department. It isdifficult to state a clear-cut criterion for fullmembership, and the matter should certainly beaired among all concerned before a decision isreached. Perhaps a start could be made by countingas full members all faculty members who teach theregularly offered courses in the Department, andthen providing some mechanism for the addition ofother individuals.StaffIn the light of what has been said, we have fewsuggestions in regard to changes or additions in thefaculty and staff. But a few comments andsuggestions may be made.1. In developing phonetics facilities, it is essentialthat a laboratory technician be made available tothe Department directly. That is, rather thandepending on borrowing someone from some otherplace (language laboratory, or the like), a technicianshould be assigned to the Department for a fixednumber of hours per week, both for setting up newequipment and maintaining it.2. One area of linguistics that is becoming increasingly important is sociolinguistics, partly, wesuspect, in response to the needs of the society inwhich we live. Particularly in a rich area for urbanstudies like Chicago, the addition of a sociolinguistwould be a very desirable move.3. The program is very well staffed for work inhistorical linguistics, both in the narrowerDepartment per se and in the variety of linguistsworking primarily in other departments. It isessential to have along with the more traditionalscholars, someone with a lively interest in the theory of language change and in the connections betweencurrent linguistic theories and historical research. Inthe event that some of the younger people in theDepartment with such concerns might move away,the Department should make sure that they arereplaced by people with such interests.4. Since the program is rather small and sincethere is no expectation that it will grow significantly,there is some danger that students will not be exposed to a variety of viewpoints on current linguistictheory. We believe that the program could profit agreat deal from having a regular visitingprofessorship to be filled by a wide variety ofscholars, both from abroad and from the UnitedStates.Student NeedsDuring the visit, we had a very stimulating sessionwith the students. In general, the students were veryfavorable in their remarks about the program andindividual faculty members. There were a fewsuggestions that we feel are worth repeating. First,several first-year students complained that they wereleft too much to their own devices in the early partsof their careers. Apparently, the Department isundertaking a revision of its advising system andwill take into account the need of entering studentsto receive more personal guidance at an early stage.Second, several students felt that faculty memberscould do much more in taking an interest in originalresearch done by students, in encouraging them topresent papers at conferences and to publish. Withfew exceptions, the faculty does not seem to seekoutside research support to any great extent. Giventhe excellent faculty, we feel that such support couldbe obtained and that several needs might be met inthis way: the sparse financial support for students,particularly noticeable at an institution that doesnot have regular graduate student teachingassistants, and the just-noted need for more involvement with creative work of students on the partof the faculty. Finally, some students suggested thatmuch more could be done in the way of providinginformation about possible support for students,especially with regard to part-time teachingpossibilities in the Chicago area.Emmon Bach (Chairman), Queens College and CityUniversity of New YorkUse Lehiste, Ohio State UniversityJohn R. Ross, MIT211DISTINGUISHED SERVICE, NAMED, AND UNIVERSITY PROFESSORSHIPSEdward Anders Horace B. Horton Professorship in thePhysical Sciences ChemistryGeorge W. Beadle William E. Wrather DistinguishedService Professorship BiologyGary S. Becker University Professorship in Economics EconomicsBrian J. L. Berry Irving B. Harris Professorship in UrbanGeography GeographyBruno Bettelheim Stella M. Rowley Distinguished ServiceProfessorship EducationBenjamin S. Bloom Charles H. Swift Distinguished ServiceProfessorship EducationWayne C. Booth George M. Pullman Professorship inEnglish EnglishJerald C. Brauer Naomi Shenstone DonnelleyProfessorship Divinity SchoolFelix E. Browder Louis Block Professorship in thePhysical Sciences MathematicsS. Chandrasekhar Morton D. Hull Distinguished Service Astronomy andProfessorship AstrophysicsLuis A. Cibils Mary Campau Ryerson Professorship in Obstetrics andGynecology GynecologyR. H. Coase Clifton R. Musser Professorship inEconomics LawMorrel H. Cohen Louis Block Professorship in the PhysicalSciences PhysicsJames S. Coleman University Professorship in Sociology SociologyHerrlee G. Creel Martin A. Ryerson Distinguished Service Far EasternProfessorship LanguagesJames W. Cronin University Professorship in Physics PhysicsSidney Davidson Arthur Young Professorship ofAccounting Graduate School of BusinessAllison Davis John Dewey Distinguished ServiceProfessorship Education212Kenneth C. DavisAlbert DorfmanAllison DunhamDavid EastonFrederick R. EgganBenedict EinarsonMircea EliadeEdgar G. EppsLloyd A. FallersEugene F. FamaH. Fernandez-MoranJohn Hope FranklinDaniel X. Freedman John P. Wilson ProfessorshipRichard T. Crane Distinguished ServiceProfessorshipArnold I. Shure Professorship in UrbanLegal StudiesAndrew MacLeish Distinguished ServiceProfessorshipHarold H. Swift Distinguished ServiceProfessorshipEdward Olson Professorship in GreekSewell L. Avery Distinguished ServiceProfessorshipMarshall Field IV Professorship inUrban EducationAlbert A. Michelson DistinguishedService ProfessorshipTheodore O. Yntema Professorship ofFinancePritzker Professorship in the BiologicalSciencesJohn Matthews Manly DistinguishedService ProfessorshipLouis Block Professorship LawPediatricsLawPolitical ScienceAnthropologyClassical Languagesand LiteraturesDivinity SchoolEducationAnthropologyBusinessBiophysicsHistoryPsychiatryLawrence Z. FreedmanJosef FriedArthur FriedmanMilton FriedmanIgnace J. GelbJacob W. GetzelsJulian R. Goldsmith Foundations Fund ResearchProfessorship in PsychiatryLouis Block Professorship in theBiological SciencesDistinguished Service ProfessorshipPaul Snowden Russell DistinguishedService ProfessorshipFrank P. Hixon Distinguished ServiceProfessorshipR. Wendell Harrison DistinguishedService ProfessorshipCharles E. Merriam DistinguishedService Professorship PsychiatryChemistryEnglishEconomicsOriental InstituteEducationGeophysical Sciences213Leo A. GoodmanRobert M. GrantJames M. GustafsonHans G. GiiterbockMorris JanowitzJohn E. Jeuck Charles L. Hutchinson DistinguishedService ProfessorshipCarl Darling Buck Professorship inHumanitiesUniversity Professorship in the DivinitySchoolTiffany and Margaret BlakeDistinguished Service Professorship StatisticsDivinity SchoolDivinity SchoolOriental InstituteShelby Joel Haberman Leonard Jimmie Savage AssistantProfessorship in Statistics StatisticsJack Halpern Louis Block Professorship in theDepartment of Chemistry ChemistryEric Hamp Robert Maynard Hutchins DistinguishedService Professorship LinguisticsHarry Harootunian Max Palevsky Professorship in Historyand Civilizations HistoryChauncy D. Harris Samuel N. Harper Distinguished ServiceProfessorship in Geography GeographyRobert Haselkorn Pritzker Professorship in the BiologicalSciences BiophysicsPing-ti Ho James Westfall Thompson Professorshipin History HistoryCharles B. Huggins William B. Ogden Distinguished ServiceProfessorship Ben May LaboratoryClyde A. Hutchison, Jr. Carl William Eisendrath DistinguishedService Professorship ChemistryHalil Inalcik University Professorship in theDepartment of History HistoryMark G. Inghram Samuel K. Allison Distinguished ServiceProfessorship PhysicsLeon 0. Jacobson Joseph Regenstein Professorship in theBiological and Medical Sciences MedicinePhilip W. Jackson David Lee Shillinglaw Distinguished EducationService ProfessorshipDistinguished Service ProfessorshipRobert Law Professorship SociologyGraduate School ofBusiness214D. Gale JohnsonHarry Kalven, Jr.Irving KaplanskyJoseph B. KirsnerHeinrich KliiverLeonard KriegerWilliam H. McNeillBernard D. MeltzerLeonard B. MeyerMerton H. MillerWilliam W. Morgan Eliakim Hastings Moore DistinguishedService ProfessorshipHarry A. Bigelow ProfessorshipGeorge Herbert Mead DistinguishedService ProfessorshipLouis Block ProfessorshipSewell L. Avery Distinguished ServiceProfessorship EmeritusUniversity Professorship in theDepartment of HistoryRobert A. Milliken Distinguished ServiceProfessorshipJames Parker Hall ProfessorshipPhyllis Fay Horton Distinguished ServiceProfessorship in the Department ofMusicEdward Eagle Brown ProfessorshipBernard E. and Ellen C. SunnyDistinguished Service Professorship EconomicsLawMathematicsMedicineBiological SciencesHistoryWilliam H. Kruskal Ernest DeWitt Burton DistinguishedService Professorship StatisticsDonald F. Lach Bernadotte E. Schmitt Professorship inHistory HistoryJohn R. Lindsay Thomas D. Jones, Professorship inSurgery SurgeryEdward E. Lowinsky Ferdinand Schevill Distinguished ServiceProfessorship MusicSaunders Mac Lane Max Mason Distinguished ServiceProfessorship MathematicsNorman F. Maclean William Rainey Harper Professorship inthe College EnglishArthur Mann Preston and Sterling MortonProfessorship in American History HistoryRachel B. MarksRichard P. McKeon Samuel Deutsch ProfessorshipCharles F. Grey Distinguished ServiceProfessorship Social ServiceAdministrationClassical Languagesand LiteraturesHistoryLawMusicGraduate School ofBusinessAstronomy andAstrophysics215Norval R. MorrisAron A. MosconaJohn F. MullanRobert S. MullikenYoichiro NambuFrank NewellElder J. OlsonEugene N. ParkerHelen H. PerlmanMurray RabinowitzErica ReinerStuart A. RicePaul RicoeurClemens C. J. RoothaanSidney SchulmanTheodore W. SchultzJoseph J. SchwabNathan A. Scott, Jr.Edward A. ShilsJohn A. Simpson Julius Kreeger Professorship of Law andCriminologyLouis Block Professorship in theBiological SciencesJohn Harper Seeley Professorship in theNeurological SciencesErnest DeWitt Burton DistinguishedService Professorship EmeritusDistinguished Service ProfessorshipJames and Anna Louise RaymondProfessorship in The Pritzker School ofMedicineDistinguished Service ProfessorshipDistinguished Service ProfessorshipSamuel Deutsch Distinguished ServiceProfessorship EmeritusLouis Block Professorship in theBiological SciencesJohn A. Wilson Professorship in theOriental InstituteLouis Block Professorship in the PhysicalSciences LawBiologySurgeryPhysics andChemistryPhysicsOphthalmologyEnglishPhysicsSocial ServiceAdministrationMedicineOriental InstituteChemistryJohn Nuveen (B.T.U.) Professorship Divinity SchoolLouis Block Professorship in the Physical Physics andSciences ChemistryEllen C. Manning Professorship in MedicineNeurologyCharles L. Hutchinson, Emeritus EconomicsDistinguished Service ProfessorshipWilliam Rainey Harper Professorship in Biology andLiberal Education EducationShailer Mathews Professorship in the Divinity SchoolDivinity SchoolDistinguished Service Professorship SociologyEdward L. Ryerson Distinguished PhysicsService Professorship216Milton B. SingerRonald Singer /David B. SkinnerJonathan Z. SmithDonald F. SteinerGeorge J. StiglerRobert E. StreeterHewson H. SwiftStuart M. TaveJoshua C. TaylorValentine TelegdiHenri TheilJ. Alan ThomasConstantine TrypanisAnthony TurkevichRobert B. UretzJohannes A. B. Van BuitenenEdward WasiolekKarl J. WeintraubGeorge L. Wied Paul Klapper ProfessorshipRobert R. Bensley Professorship inBiology and Medical SciencesDallas B. Phemister Professorship inSurgeryWilliam Benton Associate Professorshipin Religion and Human Sciences in theCollegePritzker Professorship in the BiologicalSciencesCharles R. Walgreen DistinguishedService Professorship of American InstitutionsDistinguished Service ProfessorshipDistinguished Service ProfessorshipWilliam Rainey Harper Professorship inthe CollegeWilliam Rainey Harper Professorship inthe CollegeEnrico Fermi Distinguished ServiceProfessorshipUniversity Professorship in Business andEconomicsWilliam Claude Reavis Professorship inEducational AdministrationUniversity Professorship in ClassicalLanguagesJames Franck Distinguished ServiceProfessorshipRalph W. Gerard Professorship in theBiological SciencesDistinguished Service ProfessorshipAvalon Foundation Chair in theHumanitiesThomas E. Donnelley ProfessorshipBlum-Riese Professorship in theBiological Sciences AnthropologyAnatomySurgeryDivinity SchoolBiochemistryEconomicsEnglishBiologyEnglishArtPhysicsEconomicsEducationClassical Languagesand LiteraturesChemistryBiophysicsSouth Asian Languagesand LiteraturesSlavic and ComparativeLiteraturesHistoryObstetrics andGynecology217H. G. Williams-Ashman Maurice Goldblatt Professorship in theBiological Sciences BiochemistryRobert W. Wissler Donald N. Pritzker Professorship in theBiological Sciences PathologyAlbert Wohlstetter University Professorship in PoliticalScience Political ScienceIra G. Wool A. J. Carlson Professorship in theBiological Sciences PhysiologyWilliam H. Zachariasen Ernest DeWitt Burton DistinguishedService Professorship Emeritus PhysicsArnold Zellner H. G. B. Alexander Professorship Graduate School ofBusinessFrederick P. Zuspan Joseph Bolivar DeLee Professorship in Obstetrics andObstetrics GynecologyAntoni Zygmund Gustavus F. and Ann M. SwiftDistinguished Service Professorship MathematicsCENTER FOR POLICY STUDY FACULTY FELLOWSRobert McC. Adams, Dean of the Division of SocialSciences, and Professor in the Departments ofAnthropology and Near Eastern Languages andCivilizations, and in the Oriental Institute.George W. Beadle, President Emeritus and theWilliam E. Wrather Distinguished Service Professorin the Department of Biology and in the College;Honorary Trustee of The University of Chicago.Saul Bellow Professor and Chairman in theCommittee on Social Thought and Professor in theDepartment of English.Brian J. L. Berry, Irving B. Harris Professor inUrban Geography and Chairman of the TrainingProgram, Center for Urban Studies.R. Stephen Berry, Professor in the Department ofChemistry, the James Franck Institute, and in theCollege.Leonard Binder, Professor in the Department ofPolitical Science.Walter J. Blum, Professor in the Law School.Jerald C. Brauer, The Naomi Shenstone Donnelley Professor in the Divinity School.D. J. R. Bruckner, Vice-President for PublicAffairs and Director of the Center for Policy Study. James W. Cronin, University Professor in theDepartment of Physics and in the Enrico FermiInstitute.Dr. Jarl E. Dyrud, Professor and Director ofClinical Services in the Department of Psychiatry.Edgar Epps, The Marshall Field Professor ofUrban Education in the Department of Education.John Hope Franklin, The John Matthews ManlyDistinguished Service Professor in the Departmentof History.Dr. Daniel X Freedman, Chairman and the LouisBlock Professor in the Department of Psychiatry.Milton Friedman, The Paul Snowden RussellDistinguished Service Professor in the Departmentof Economics.Jacob W. Getzels, The R. Wendell HarrisonDistinguished Service Professor in the Departmentsof Education and Psychology.Julian R. Goldsmith, The Charles E. MerriamDistinguished Service Professor in the Departmentof Geophysical Sciences.Chauncy D. Harris, The Samuel N. HarperProfessor in the Department of Geography andDirector of the Center for International Studies.218Philip M. Hauser, Professor in the Department ofSociology and Director of the Population ResearchCenter of the Chicago Community Inventory.Roger H. Hildebrand, Dean of the College andProfessor in the Department of Physics and in theEnrico Fermi Institute.Ping-ti Ho, The James Westfall ThompsonProfessor in the Departments of History and FarEastern Languages and Civilizations.Philip W. Jackson, Director of Pre-CollegiateEducation, Laboratory School, and the David LeeShillinglaw Distinguished Service in the Department and Graduate School of Education andProfessor in the Committee on Human Development.Morris J anowitz, Distinguished Service Professorin the Department of Sociology and Director of theCenter for Social Organization Studies.D. Gale Johnson, Eliakim Hastings MooreDistinguished Service and Professor and Chairmanin the Department of Economics.Harry G. Johnson, Professor in the Departmentof Economics and Editor of the Journal of PoliticalEconomy.Morton A. Kaplan, Professor in the Departmentof Political Science, Chairman of the Committee onInternational Relations, and Director of the ArmsControl and Foreign Policy Seminar in the Centerfor Policy Study.Philip B. Kurland, Professor in the Law School.Edward H. Levi, President and Trustee of TheUniversity of Chicago, and Professor in the LawSchool.Julian H. Levi, Professor of Urban Studies in theDivision of Social Sciences, and Executive Directorof the South East Chicago Commission.Donald N. Levine, Associate Professor in theDepartment of Sociology and in the College.Richard C. Lewontin, The Louis Block Professorof Biological Sciences, Professor in the Departmentof Theoretical Biology, in the Committee onConceptual Foundations of Science, and in theCollege, and Chairman of the Committee onEvolutionary Biology.James S. Lorie, Professor and Director of theCenter Research in Security Prices in the GraduateSchool of Business.Martin E. Marty, Professor and Associate Deanof the Divinity School.William H McNeill, The Robert A. MillikenDistinguished Service Professor in the Departmentof History.Soia Mentischikoff, Professor in the Law School.William R. Polk, President of the AdlaiStevenson Institute of International Affairs, andProfessor in the Department of History. Stuart A. Rice, The Louis Block Professor andChairman of the Department of Chemistry, theLouis Block Professor in the James Franck Institute,in the Department of Theoretical Biology, and in theCollege.Margaret K. Rosenheim, Professor in the Schoolof Social Service Administration.Robert G. Sachs, Director of Argonne NationalLaboratory, and Professor in the Department ofPhysics, and in the Enrico Fermi Institute.Edward Shils, Distinguished Service Professor inthe Committee on Social Thought and in theDepartment of Sociology.John A. Simpson, The Edward L. RyersonDistinguished Service Professor in the Departmentof Physics, in the Enrico Fermi Institute, and in theCollege.Dr. David B. Skinner, Chairman and the DallasB. Phemister Professor in the Department ofSurgery.George J. Stigler, The Charles R. WalgreenDistinguished Service Professor of American Institutions in the Department of Economics and theGraduate School of Business, and Editor of theJournal of Political Economy.Bernard S. Strauss, Professor and Chairman ofthe Department of Microbiology and Committee onGenetics, and Professor in the College.Robert E. Streeter, Distinguished ServiceProfessor in the Department of English and in theCollege, and Dean of the Division of theHumanities.Sol Tax, Professor in the Department of Anthropology and in the College, and Director of theSmithsonian Institution Center for the Study ofMan.Tang Tsou, Professor in the Departments ofPolitical Science and Far Eastern Languages andCivilizations.Anthony Turkevich, The James FranckDistinguished Service Professor in the Departmentof Chemistry, in the Enrico Fermi Institute, and inthe College.Paul Wheatley, Professor in the Department ofGeography and Committee on Social Thought.John T. Wilson, Provost of The University ofChicago, and Professor in the Departments ofEducation and Psychology.Robert R. Wilson, Professor in the Department ofPhysics, in the Enrico Fermi Institute, and in theCollege, and Director of the National AcceleratorLaboratory.Albert Wohlstetter, University Professor in theDepartment of Political Science.Aristide R. Zolberg, Professor in the Departmentof Political Science.219IN MEMORIAMBERNARD WEINBERG, 1909-1973The Board of the University Library, at its meetingon February 14, 1973, adopted the followingresolution:The death of Professor Bernard Weinberg hasremoved from the University a distinguishedscholar, teacher, and humanist in the broadest andbest sense of these words. It has also removed agreat and staunch friend of the University Library,Over the years Professor Weinberg was a quiet andexceedingly generous donor to the Library's fundsfor the acquisition of books and manuscripts ofenduring scholarly significance. During his lifetimehe also presented a variety of extremely importantbooks from his own collection, and had made itknown to a few that it was his intention to have hisvery remarkable personal library come eventually tothe University.However, Professor Weinberg's generosity andinterest in the Library went well beyond thesemeasures. He served as a wise and conscientiousmember of the Board of the Library for four years,during a period associated with the planning,construction, and initial use of the RegensteinLibrary. His wise counsel was sought and invariablygenerously given on countless other occasions.Those of us who had the opportunity to work withhim found ourselves and our work enriched. Futuregenerations of students and scholars will be thebeneficiaries of his generosity, wisdom, and devotionto this University and its Library.TRUSTEE ELECTIONFour new members have been elected to TheUniversity of Chicago Board of Trustees. They are:A. Robert Abboud, Executive Vice-President ofThe First National Bank of Chicago.Roger E. Anderson, Chairman of the Continental Illinois Corporation and the ContinentalIllinois National Bank.Stanton R. Cook, Publisher of the 'ChicagoTribune and President and Chief Executive Officerof the Chicago Tribune Company.Henry W. Meers, Vice-Chairman and Directorof White, Weld & Company, Inc., an internationalinvestment banking firm. FACULTY COMMITTEE ONPHILANTHROPYThe following faculty members have been appointedto serve on the Committee on Philanthropy.Saul Bellow, Professor and Chairman of theCommittee on Social Thought and Professor in theDepartment of English.Walter J. Blum, Professor in the Law School.Frank R. Breul, Professor in the School of SocialService Administration.James M. Gustafson, University Professor in theDivinity School.Neil Harris, Professor in the Department ofHistory.Barry D. Karl, Howard L. Willett Professor inthe College and Professor in the Department ofHistory.Tetsuo Najita, Associate Professor in theDepartments of Far Eastern Languages andCivilizations and History.Milton B. Singer (Chairman), Paul KlapperProfessor in Social Sciences and in the College andProfessor in the Department of Anthropology.COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCILOF THE UNIVERSITY SENATEThe following faculty members have been elected tothe Committee of the Council of the UniversitySenate.Jarl E. Dyrud, Professor and Director of ClinicalServices, Department of Psychiatry.John E. Jeuck, Robert Law Professor in theGraduate School of Business and Director ofBusiness Research.Richard K. Lashof, Professor in the Departmentof Mathematics and in the College.James H. Lorie, Professor and Director, CenterResearch in Security Prices, Graduate School ofBusiness.Charles E. Oxnard, Professor in the Departmentsof Anatomy, Anthropology, the Committee onEvolutionary Biology, and in the College; Master ofthe Biological Sciences Collegiate Division andAssociate Dean of the College and the Division ofthe Biological Sciences.Lorna P. Straus, Assistant Professor in theDepartment of Anatomy and in the College andDean of Undergraduate Students.Stuart M. Tave, William Rainey HarperProfessor in the College and Professor andChairman of the Department of English.220COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITYSENATE, 1973-74Richard W. BealsBrian J. L. BerryEasley BlackwoodJames E. BowmanJerald C. BrauerJoseph CeithamlRobert N. ClaytonTed CohenLeslie J. DeGrootRobert DreebenJarl E. DyrudEdward N. EhrlichEdgar G. EppsEarl A. Evans, Jr.Donald W. FiskeJohn C. GlidewellJulian R. GoldsmithRobert M. GrantArthur HeisermanAlfred HellerJohn E. Jeuck Stanley N. KatzChase P. KimballRichard K. LashofNorman R. LebovitzStanley LiebersonLeonard LinskyJames H. LorieSaunders Mac LaneWilliam H. McNeillJack MeltzerMarvin W. MikesellNorval R. MorrisBernice L. NeugartenPeter NovickCharles E. OxnardGeorge L. PlayeKenneth PrewittErica ReinerHarry V. RobertsD. Nicholas RudallWilliam H. Sewell Stuart A. SolinSamuel S. SpectorFrancis H. Straus IILorna P. StrausStuart M. TaveJohn E. Ultmann Karl J. WeintraubJohn L. WestleyFrederick P. Zuspan(ex officio)Edward H. LeviJohn T. WilsonSUMMARY OF THE 342NDCONVOCATIONThe 342nd Convocation was held on Friday,December 15, 1972, in Rockefeller MemorialChapel. President Edward H. Levi presided.A total of 410 degrees were awarded: 46Bachelor of Arts, 1 Bachelor of Science, 104 Masterof Arts, 15 Master of Science, 7 Master of Arts inTeaching, 1 Master of Science in Teaching, 95Master of Business of Administration, 141 Doctor ofPhilosophy.The principal speaker was Soia Mentschikoff,Professor of Law; her topic was "Awareness."THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDOFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRSRoom 200, Administration BuildingHXwBoo33o>owooao08.ONo z"U I om — c 333 P 13?> -co 3POSTAAID10,ILLItno.: oco32 z o N0>-* O m4^ — 5'CO 3