THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 9 RECORDMay 28, 1974 An Official Publication Volume VIII, Number 4CONTENTS97 REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON STUDENT ENROLLMENT103 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO EVALUATE THE DEPARTMENTOF HISTORY108 COMMENTS ON THE REPORT119 REPORT OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENTOF PHYSICS122 THE CLOUD OF UNKNOWING124 SUMMARY OF THE 348TH CONVOCATION124 NEW DEPARTMENTS NAMED125 POST-GRADUATION PLANS OF BACHELOR'S DEGREE RECIPIENTS-CLASS OF 1973127 A STUDY OF EMPLOYMENT OF 1972-73 DOCTORATESTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOFOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER© Copyright 1974 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDREPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEEON STUDENT ENROLLMENTMarch 20, 1974I. Scope of the ProblemThe solution to the problem of student enrollmentappears to this committee to be significantly dependent on faculty effort, susceptible to major improvement, and crucial to the resolution of the University'sfinancial difficulties.Our failure to meet past enrollment projectionseither in the long run or the short run has been adirect cause of our present deficits. The 1965proposal to the Ford Foundation, on which fundingand faculty growth were then based, projected a1974-75 quadrangles enrollment 2,700 above thecurrent actual figure (10,204 vs. 7,496). The year-to-year projections by the various departments andother academic units in preparation for yearly budgetplanning have been seriously over the mark — 200 thisyear; 600 in 1970. (There are, of course, manyacademic units which have been diligent in theirrecruiting efforts and accurate in their projections;we refer here to the sum of the various estimates.)Futhermore, the continuing decline in enrollmentimpedes the initiation of a campaign for outsidefunds. Donors more willingly support universitieswith growing lists of applicants. It is urgent and imperative that we reverse the downward trend of thelast four years.The problem has had the serious attention of theDeans' Budget Committee. In their Autumn 1973budget review they concluded that "profoundchanges in many practices, operations, andstructures of the University need to be consideredwith respect to the fiscal soundness of the institutionover the long run, not excluding such matters asfaculty-student ratios in planning the future size ofacademic units. . . ." They recommended "increased attention to enrollment in the existingdivisions, departments, committees, professionalschools, and the College and increased attention tonew academic programs which could be manned by existing faculty and which would increase enrollmentand tuition income, to greater flexibility in admittingstudents at various times of the year, and to greaterattention to transfer students." (Quotations fromPresident Levi's Special Message to the Entire University on the 1974-75 Budget, The University ofChicago Bulletins, January 7, 1974.)In this report we propose goals and recommendspecific actions for their achievement. In doing so wedo not ignore or minimize the effects on the University of serious national trends that have affectedadversely enrollment in all of private highereducation or the equally serious but more particularproblems that bear uniquely on this campus. Theseproblems bear unquestionably upon the long-rangeenrollment efforts of the University. And those whichbear particularly upon us must have the unstintingand imaginative attention of specific administrativeoffices if they are to be solved. They must be solved, orat least greatly attenuated, if the goals and recommendations listed in this Report are to have enduringeffects.Nationally, private higher education is facingimmense financial pressures produced in part byeconomic recession and, more specifically, by thecontinuing withdrawal of the federal governmentfrom programs of graduate student aid. Thegraduate (as distinguished from professional school)enrollments at a group of 20 leading privateuniversities over the past seven or eight years havedeclined 5 to 20 percent We are closer to the latterthan the former figure. Since about two- thirds of ourenrollment is graduate and since we are by tradition"teachers of teachers," we have been particularly hitby the declining academic job market and the "Ph.D.glut." It is important for The University of Chicagonot to accept this situation fatalistically. To do sowould be to accept implicitly the view that "If youhave seen one Ph.D., you've seen them all." If ourPh.D.s are indeed of high quality, we should not cutback on the number of them because of difficulties inthe national job market. The cutbacks should come,97as there is some reason to believe they are, in doctoralprograms elsewhere.But beyond national pressures The University ofChicago has special problems which this Committeeurges appropriate offices of the University to attackwith increased energy and imagination:1. The neighborhood or, more accurately, theperception of the neighborhood and campus held byprospective students, faculty at other universities,and the public at large. The neighborhood offers realproblems; we know it does. But we speak here ofthose additional problems created by the false perception of a "concrete high-rise campus in a crime-infested ghetto." Eighty years of "public information" have failed to inform the public that this is aprivate university with a large campus and a smallcollege.2. Student life. The common perception ofstudent life at the University is that it is grim andtotally lacking in both flavor and facilities. We do indeed have serious deficiencies which appropriatecommittees and staff are seeking to correct. Againthere is a problem of perception.This Committee appreciates the difficulties ofdealing with these problems, but we feel obliged toemphasize their importance to enrollment.We have concentrated our attention on specificrecommendations that can be rapidly implemented.Our recommendations call for effort by the entirefaculty and by every academic unit that contributesor should contribute to teaching.II. Enrollment FiguresThe total quadrangles enrollment now stands at7,496 divided roughly in thirds among the College,the divisions, and the professional schools.Like all recent counts, this one was taken in December just before fall graduation and is therefore higherthan the average for the year.The faculty "total budget count" which includesadministrators, chaplains, and athletic staff and forwhich we have a historical record is now at 1,122. The"net budget count" is 1,077 or 4 percent lower.The trends in quadrangles enrollment (Decembercount), faculty size (total budget count), and student-faculty ratio since 1900 are presented in Figures 1, 2,and 3. A Comparison with other institutions is presented in Table II.We call attention to the following:1. The student-faculty ratios of the last four yearshave been among the lowest in the history of the University.2. Among the 14 institutions surveyed by CornellUniversity, The University of Chicago was found to Table 1. 1973-74 Quadrangles EnrollmentCollege 2,115DivisionsBiological Sciences (excl. Medicine) 241Humanities 743Physical Sciences 424Social Sciences 1,274Total Divisions 2,682SchoolsBusiness 668Divinity 238Education 124Law 495Library Science 103Medicine 436SSA 397Total Schools 2,461Quadrangles Degree Cand. 7,258Students- at- Large 238Total Quadrangles 7,496have the lowest student-faculty ratio (Table II; surveyfigures for Chicago based on December studentcount and net faculty count).3. In 1925, The University of Chicago ranked firstin the country according to the Hughes rating, a precursor of the ACE ratings of graduate faculties. Inthat year we had 5,723 students and a faculty of 539including the faculty of Rush Medical College, then aUniversity affiliate. The student-faculty ratio wastherefore over 10.6 (we have no record of the size ofthe Rush faculty and therefore have omitted the 1925faculty point from Figure 2).4. In earlier years, especially the 1920s and 1930s,there were very active summer programs so that thetotal number of students on campus at one time ofthe year or another was much higher than theDecember count. In 1925, for example, the "un-duplicated count" was 10,792. We could well reviveattention to unduplicated counts.5. From time to time the University has broughtabout or has accommodated itself to major changesin the character of the student body with respect togeographic origin, age at entrance, previous education, length of residency, type of degree sought, andeducational goals. Few of the changes we now pro-98Table II. Student-Faculty Ratio at Selected Institutions x(Autumn 1972)Full-Time StudentsStudents Equivalents Full-Time (Full-Time Equiv.)Institution Enrolled Enrolled Faculty2 FacultyChicago (1972) 7,6353 7,635 3 1,099 6.9Chicago (1973) 7,496 7,496 1,077 7.0Mass, Inst, Tech. 7,834 7,556 877 8.6Cornell Univ. 16,655 16,655 1,906 8.7Princeton Univ. 5,601 5,601 624 9.0U. Pennsylvania 19,214 16,1964 1,411* 11.5Yale Univ. 9,012 8,9505 766 11.7Stanford Univ. 12,403 11,3844 945 12.0Dartmouth Coll. 3,995 3,970 326 12.2Columbia Univ. 14,951 11,6654 951 12.3Brown Univ. 6,292 6,018 457 13.2U. Rochester 8,391 7,0024 528 13.3Northwestern U. 14,418 12,1854 847 14.4Harvard Univ. 15,322 15,050 975 15.4Syracuse Univ. 14,417 13,4014 834 16.11. Data source: Comparable Institutional Data Survey; Cornell University Division of Management Systems andAnalysis, April 1973.2. Includes both 3Q and 4Q appointments.3. The Cornell survey indicates 7,731 students. We have changed this to agree with our own records.4. 10-33 percent of enrolled students are part time.5. Estimated.pose are new; none is drastic in comparison with pastexperience.III. GoalsOur difficulties cannot be resolved by major reductions in the size of the University. The physical plantexists and has fixed operating costs. The size of thefaculty can be only moderately reduced without lossof quality and vitality.We assume a faculty reduction in three years to1,000 or slightly below ("new budget count") asrecommended by the Deans' Budget Committee andpresented in the president's special message (January7, 1974, Bulletins), "It is suggested that the numberof faculty be reduced by twenty-five to fifty in 1974,and by similar amounts in each of the following twoyears." (Present count 1,077.)We believe the following goals to be necessary,achievable, and well within the teaching capacity ofour faculty (even somewhat reduced) working in theexisting academic facilities.The proposed growth rate (200 per year) is well belowthe rate sustained during the decade beginning 1955(271 per year). We see nothing undesirable in this99earlier rate. Indeed, it should benefit both our viability and vitality if we could grow at a rate above 250a year until we reach a level of about 8,600. But inview of the current enrollment trends in private universities and the efforts which have beenTequired insome areas of the University even to slow the recentdecline, we think it unrealistic to plan on the basis ofhigher figures. Even the proposed rate will requirevigorous effort throughout the University. We warnagainst any notions that the task can be left entirely,say, to the College or to the professional schools. It isessential that each major area of the Universityshould contribute to the effort.Table III. Proposed Enrollment GoalsYear Enrollment1973-74 7,496 actual1974-75 7,600 current budget estimate1975-76 7,8001976-77 8,0001977-78 8,2001978-79 8,4001979-80 8,600IV. RecommendationsTo achieve the proposed growth in the first year willrequire immediate attention to matters of admissionsschedules, literature, and admissions machinery. Tosustain the growth will require prompt efforts towarddevelopment of new sources of students and the creation of new programs suited to their needs.A. Recommendations for Immediate GainsCollege Admissions Schedule. We recommend1. That beginning in the Spring of 1974, transferstudents be admitted to the College at the beginningof all quarters.2. That beginning not later than the academicyear 1974-75, freshmen be admitted to the College atthe beginning of some or all quarters in addition toautumn, the choice of quarters to be determined bythe College.The adoption of these recommendations willcreate problems in arranging and staffing coursesand in advising students. We note, however, that theCollege successfully implemented similar actions inthe early fifties when it was necessary to reverse aserious decline in enrollment. More recently theCollege has been prepared to admit transfer studentsfrom Shimer College at midyear. A majority of ourdepartments now admit graduate students in anyquarter.Part-Time Students. Data furnished by CharlesBidwell, Chairman of the Committee on Part-timeStudents, indicate a sharp increase in the number ofU.S. college students who must rely on their ownresources rather than on family resources or fellowships. In view of this, we recommend3. That the University make an effort to attractpart-time students. This will require that our recruiting efforts and literature be amended to indicate thatsuch students are welcome. It will also require thatappropriate provision be made for advising part-time students. The needs of these students should betaken into account in the scheduling of classes.We note that our present tuition schedule and aidpolicy makes The University of Chicago unattractiveto part-time students. We realize that the Universitymust take into account the costs of services and facilities (health services, athletic facilities, library, etc.)made available to students registering for a singlecourse, but we suggest nonetheless that this questionbe examined by the Student Aid and Budget Committees in terms of net revenue.rGraduate Area Recruitment from the College. Werecommend 8000600040002000 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 i MM iQUADRANGLESENROLLMENT (December Count) 'm .¦ -# • «* LU•• COOQ_O - • QC^\ • Q_J* •~s~r , i , i . i . i . i 1 1 Fig 1,1,1 i00 10 20 30 ¦ 40 50 60 70 80YEAR 9012001000800600400200 M M M M M M M 'FACULTY SIZE ' Av. ( Total Budget Count;Net Count About 4% Lower) / ODCD -»Total ""Neti i i . i ¦ i ¦ i ±J-L Fiq.2I i I00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80YEAR, t, . , , 901412101- T T^T;\STUDENT/ FACULTY RATIO_ (Proposed '79 ratio 8-6__ using net faculty count)1 1 I . I I I I I Fig.300 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80YEAR 904. That the graduate areas of the University giveincreased attention to enrollment of our own Collegegraduates.Divisional Admissions Machinery. Although figuresvary sharply from area to area, ranging from 25 percent to 90 percent, on the average considerably lessthan half of those admitted to graduate programs atthe University actually matriculate. An even smallerproportion of those making inquiries actually apply.The remaining applicants represent a large potentialsource of qualified students. In order to improve oursuccess in attracting students from this source, werecommend1005. That copies of all preapplications or letters ofinquiry about graduate programs be sent to the appropriate departments or program chairmenimmediately upon receipt by the University.6. That applications when virtually complete besent promptly to the appropriate departments or program chairmen.7. That departments respond promptly to bothinquiries and applications with letters that are aspersonal and individual as possible. Misdirected inquiries should be taken promptly to the appropriateacademic units or area deans of students. Graduateareas which do not already do so should begin providing potential students with information alreadyavailable on the practical and sentient concerns ofcampus residency. The area deans of students officesalready send with each catalogue a brochure on"graduate student life" at the University. But departmental faculty must take the main reponsibilityfor individual letters, phone calls, and visits to our•campus and for introducing potential students to theUniversity and its community as well as to opportunities for study in particular areas.8. That except in those areas where there is assurance of an applicant pool far exceeding the capacityfor admission, the practice should end of holding allapplications for admissions decisions, regardless ofquality, until a fixed date.9. That the number of students admitted to graduate programs not be limited by the available studentaid even in areas where full tuition and stipends arecustomary (only a few areas now apply such a limit toadmissions).In order to expedite attention to Items 5 through 8we recommend10. That the Offices of the Divisional Deans ofStudents coordinate recruitment within their areas.As part of this responsibility, they should keep week-to-week logs of inquiries, responses to inquiries,applications, responses to applications, and contactswith admitted students for each department and program area, as is already done, for example, in thePhysical Sciences. The Dean of University Studentsshould be responsible for setting up procedures tokeep such records and for keeping the academicdeans informed. Such information is essential inassessing recruiting efforts, and in planningacademic and student aid budgets. The cooperationof the departments is essential since they receivemany of the initial inquiries and are responsible formany of the responses (see Item 7).In order to succeed in their responsibilities for coordinating recruiting efforts, the Offices of the Divisional Deans of Students will need increased budgets.In order to increase the pool of graduate appli cants, we recommend11. That the Dean of University Students set upprocedures to assist faculty members in making contacts with prospective students now approachinggraduation.12. That faculty members cooperate in makingsuch contacts (Item 11) not only as representatives oftheir own academic fields, but as representatives ofthe University. There is abundant evidence that suchcontacts stimulate serious inquiry.13. That our relatively successful record in careerplacement be emphasized in recruitment literature inspecific terms, that placement efforts for non-academic positions receive special attention, and thatthis be reflected in recruitment literature for specificprograms.14. That a committee be appointed immediatelyto advise the Dean of University Students and theDivisional Deans on the Divisional Announcements,their purpose and their form, and to makeappropriate recommendations that can be reflectedin the next issue of that publication.15. That public information of the type specifically aimed at potential students be handled by theOffice of the Dean of University Students.B. Recommendations for Sustained GrowthNew Programs. We recommend16. That departments that do not now have activemaster's programs and divisions that do not havedivisional master's programs promptly explore thefeasibility of developing such programs and attracting suitable candidates by vigorous recruiting; andthat the importance of improved master's programsbe recognized as a University objective.Campus enrollment would now be far lower than itis, were it not for renewed emphasis on master's programs in some areas. We cannot afford to ignore realmaster's candidates in favor of hypothetical Ph.D.candidates. New courses have to be invented, theymust be good, and they must be advertised.In some areas it may be appropriate to provide programs for groups of students we have not customarilyaccommodated. Such programs might requireclasses which meet at unusual times and locations.Programs aimed at high school and college teachers,for example, might profitably meet on Saturdaymornings at a location like the Business School'sdowntown building.We further recommend17. That opportunities be sought to link applicant-rich and applicant-poor programs in ways thatwill attract more students while making fuller use ofexisting faculty.101Government Service and Foreign Service Students.We recommend18. That an Office of Special Student Enrollmentbe established under the Dean of University Students. The duties of this office would bea. To develop information concerning opportunities for individuals in government service totake one-year university programs under theGovernment Training Act. In order to reachprospective students, it will be necessary to findeffective contacts in the various agencies. Wehave had students from the Census Bureau andthe Weather Bureau. We now have a few students in one-year master's programs on leavefrom the Agency for International Developmentand from the Foreign Service section of the Department of State. They are studying at government expense. These students have come at theirown initiative. To aid the initiation of an effort toattract more students from governmentagencies, we have solicited from knowledgeablecolleagues, information on potential sourceswithin the government. We now have a considerable file to turn over to the Dean of UniversityStudents.b. To develop information on programssponsored by foreign governments, foundations,and other groups in the private sector whichsupport study for foreign students who could beattracted to The University of Chicago. The following examples may illustrate the opportunities:France. The Ministry of Foreign Affairsannually grants 220 fellowships for graduatestudy in the United States.Spain. A program started in 1972 controls 62Fulbright Grants to train young faculty now inUniversity positions.Kenya. The University College, in Nairobi,has a faculty development program in educationand economics.Japan. The International Studies ExchangeProgram grants 85 scholarships annually. TheNational Personnel Authority and the JapanAssociation for the Promotion of Scienceannually award some six scholarships each.c. To explore other programs of outside support for potential students.Since there will be costs for the operation of such anoffice, we recommend a review after two years to seewhether it has paid for itself by increasing the tuitionbrought in by subsidized students.It is the responsibility of the faculty to make suitable provision for these students. V. Faculty Participation in New ProgramsWe emphasize the importance of broad faculty involvement in the efforts we have proposed. In particular the opportunities for sustained growth requiredevelopment in new directions often requiringparticipation by faculty working outside their accustomed departmental degree programs. In thisconnection we refer again to the deans' recommendation that "profound changes . . . need to beconsidered with respect to the fiscal soundness of theinstitution over the long run not excluding suchmatters as faculty- student ratios in planning thefuture size of academic units. . . ." We urge that inconsidering the faculty- student ratio in any unit theentire contribution of its faculty to the teachingactivities of the University be considered — not justthe number of students in the degree programs ofthat unit. The central administration has the opportunity to provide leadership and financial incentivesfor increasing enrollment in its dealings with variousacademic units.In arguing for the value of their departments to theUniversity, the department chairmen do not andshould not hesitate to claim credit for all significantpublications of their colleagues without regard tojoint appointments. In like manner they should beexpected to know, claim credit for, and reward alltheir colleagues' important teaching and programdevelopment activities. We would deplore any automatic formulas for assessing either publications orteaching, but we would equally deplore eitherignorance or parochialism by departments concerning their teaching contributions.VI. Concluding RemarksWe have suggested steps by which the Deans of Students may expedite the work that must be done toincrease enrollment, but the responsibility, the initiative, and most of the work must come from thefaculty. There are over a thousand of us. If themajority contribute effectively to recruitment and toplanning and teaching of good and attractive programs, we can succeed. It is a matter of utmostnecessity that we do so.Robert N. ClaytonGary E. EppenRoger H. Hildebrand (Chairman)Morris JanowitzPhilip A. KuhnLeonard B. MeyerGerson M. Rosenthal, Jr.102REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO EVALUATETHE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORYMarch 1, 1974I. PrefaceThe Committee's interpretation of its charge — "toevaluate" — has been determined by circumstancesthat should be set forth explicitly. Our visit to Chicago lasted a bare two days, October 26-27, in whichall of our time was committed to a continuoussequence of pre-scheduled interviews and workingmeals, with a few free hours late at night for our owndiscussion of how the main lines of our evaluationshould run. To supplement this rather limited groupexperience we have used our individual knowledge ofthis or that aspect of the Department's status andwork, our personal contacts with members of theDepartment, and our study of a number of Departmental and University documents. Finally, as asovereign remedy against the errors due to ignorance, we have taken advantage of Professor KarlMorrison's willingness to react to our impressions;his responses — patient, factual, and detailed — havehelped us greatly.Given our resources of time, information, andqualification, we have decided against an attempt toproduce a comprehensive, perfectly balanced monographic construction, in favor of a study of problems.Our visit to Chicago, brief as it was, led all of us to theconclusion that our most useful service would be to.register our outsiders' impression of certain tensionswithin the Department, to evaluate their importance,and to consider remedies. At the same time we wish todraw attention to other problems stemming from thestructure of the Department, the organization of theUniversity, and the direction in which the Department has developed. Since these concerns tend tofocus attention on the bad rather than the good, andsince we see no point in devoting time or space to details of excellence that are well-known to the administration and the profession at large, our report willseem unfavorable. We therefore wish to makeexplicit the presupposition of our whole effort,namely that The University of Chicago's Departmentof History certainly ranks among the best in the country, and in some fields may be the very best. Thesejudgments refer to the scholarly distinction of itsmembers, the quality of their published work, theexcellence of its graduate programs, and the splendorof the University's library. The matter of under graduate teaching is more complex, but here too theDepartment in general does well, thanks in large partto the reforms put through by the present Chairmanand his predecessor. If in our report we diagnosewhat we believe are serious defects, it is done on thebasis of our appreciation of the Department'seminent qualities, which seem to us strong enough tosustain reform.II. The SituationCalm above, turmoil below; happiness verging oncomplacency among the full professors, discontentand even hostility among the assistant professors andone or two associates, open dissatisfaction among anumber of graduate students — these were the strongest impressions we received from our interviews.Since we attach great importance to these impressions as evidence of what produced them, we wish todefine the limits of their value with correspondingcare. Most of our formal interviewing was with thelower three orders — associate professors individuallyor in small groups; assistant professors and graduatestudents en bloc, respectively, in circumstances thatencouraged collective dissent. We did not interviewthe full professors as a committee, but rather in moreor less individual conversations at meals and elsewhere. Furthermore, we are aware of not only theobvious fact, that graduate students and assistantprofessors are more apt to be discontented than arethe tenured ranks, especially in the present time offew jobs, but also of the likelihood that a certainamount of present discontent may be the aftermathof the troubles of the late 1960s. Finally, we know ashistorians that tension between orders in a hierarchyis not necessarily incompatible with high performance, prolonged stability, and corporate health. If,nevertheless, we take the image of a divided Department as our point of departure, it is because webelieve that in this case it does have unwholesome implications — partly due to the long-term academicdepression, partly due to certain structural peculiarities of The University of Chicago.We begin with the happy class of full professors,enjoying a Barchester canon's combination of highincome, few regular obligations, and a freedom ofaction passing into anarchy. Except for one full professor's salary that seems rather modest, their pay-scale is probably unsurpassed in the nation.103They (and the associate professors) are required toteach only four three- hour courses a year — a significant privilege, for it endows with the charm of libertythose labors that most of them perform over the limit:teaching additional courses, reading an often excessively large number of theses, and taking on theunrecognized burden of individual reading courses.Other advantages are common to all ranks, althoughfor obvious reasons the assistant professors may notbe able to exploit them so fully. Members of the Department can choose the subjects of their courseswithout regard for any needs but their own; they canchange their fields at will; they can schedule theircourses as they please, not subject to any requireddistribution in the interests of colleagues or students.A Department member who wishes to go onleave — on outside money, on his savings, or on a freequarter earned by working in the summer — canmerely tell the Chairman of his intention, perhaps as"late as the quarter before. Perhaps there are otherliberties that escaped our notice, but the pattern isclear enough: opulence, privilege, individual sovereignty.Desirable in itself, this sort of professorial statusdepends for its validity upon certain presuppositionsand limitations. The sense of corporate entity mustbe strong enough to ensure not only the order neededfor proper instruction, but also the capacity to acttogether to create, plan, and adjust the curriculum atall levels. In fact, however, these matters are takencare of by field committees, 14 in number, whichsince 1968 have been practically autonomous in theirareas. (Before 1968 decision- making about courses,scheduling, and the like was left to the individualfaculty member.) Full Departmental meetings devoted to general discussions of Departmental policiesand problems are therefore infrequent (substantiallyless than one a month, at the very most), and the Departmental policy committees that ought to take theinitiative in preparing issues seem to be more or lessineffective (we were told several times that this wasthe case with, for example, the Priorities Committee,since the question of priorities for expansion andappointment was determined by pressures from thevarious interest- groups/field-committees.) While thefield-committee system may seem a reasonable wayto moderate the excesses of individualism, in fact itssolidity tends to paralyze the development of genuinely departmental collectivity; one guesses that itmay also prevent a perception of all-departmentalproblems.Some of these disadvantages could be overcome bya strong leadership that worked through and behindthe committees to ensure that the Departmental interest would always be perceived, defined, fully dis cussed and threshed out in meetings of the wholeDepartment. At the very least, such leadership couldassure a proper order of course-offerings, coordinateleaves, and see to a rational scheduling of courses.Several statements made to the Committee suggestthat the present Chairman may not provide as muchof this sort of direction as might be desired. His styleof leadership works for "a subtle avoidance of conflict" (the words are those of an associate professor),by forestalling a clear-cut formulation of issues, andhence the play of contradictory discussion in Department meetings. The point here is not to condemn theChairman for failing to set himself against the Department's structures and traditions, but rather toemphasize how these tend of themselves to workagainst integration and community; we will return tothis matter when we come to consider the discontentof the juniors.Perhaps the chief presupposition of the lofty statusof a Chicago professor is that he is a scholar of thehighest caliber, engaged in scholarly work of majorimportance, and committed to the exacting andlargely unscheduled work of training a substantialbody of first-rate graduate students. The structuresof privileged individualism are defensible only to theextent that this supposition holds true. We thinkthere is room for question about this matter of extent, without in the least belittling the universallyacknowledged eminence of a number of individuals.For if the Chicago Department once enjoyed greatdistinction in such central fields as United States history, Ancient history, and Modern European history,its present standing in these areas is diminished.While we do not wish to deny the contributions of theDepartmental "stars" in these fields, contributionsto scholarship at large as well as to Chicago and itsstudents, we feel at the same time that the support inthese traditional fields is inadequate, less than it oncewas, and that Chicago no longer ranks among thevery top centers for graduate instruction in theseareas. In other traditional fields — for example,Medieval-and-Byzantine, Early Modern Europe —there is a strong promise of future eminence based onpresent quality, but the promise will not be fulfilledautomatically. Meanwhile, there has begun a probably long-term decline in the number of historygraduate students, the fellowships to support them,and the opportunities for their academic employment.It is neither pessimism nor fantasy that foresees abad future in which there will not be enough graduatestudents to engage the professorate at normal capacity. While the picture is brighter in what Chicagocalls the "exotic" fields — like Far East, History ofScience, Russia, Ottoman studies, etc. — where there104may be more professors of international reputation inproportion to the whole exotic faculty, and moremoney for fellowships, these are not the areas thatattract a lot of students. The Department has tried toincrease the proportion of students in the exoticfields; of 81 new graduate students registered inAutumn of 1973, 21 are in United States history, 17 inModern Europe, 11 in Russia, and a few in each ofthe other fields. But even so the share of UnitedStates and Europe seems high in relation to professorial standing. For the rest, we note that the ratioof graduate student admissions to applications hasbeen high (it reached 75 percent in 1971-72), andthat there is a high drop out rate. Recognizing thatthe excellence of some graduate students has wonnational prizes, we nevertheless wish to raise thequestion of overall quality: is it as high as it should bein a University claiming to rank near the top? Wehave been told more than once that Chicago expectsto get students who cannot get into Harvard etc.In other universities faced with similar problemsthe senior professors have not only begun to cut backand eliminate some graduate programs, but havealso begun to rediscover the delights of undergraduate teaching and explore the possibilities of newapproaches to the definition of subject-matter. But inThe University of Chicago institutional control overthe undergraduate program lies in the College, whichis separate from the Divisions. Only about one thirdof the tenured members of the Department are alsomembers of the College faculty, and a good numberdo not teach in the College at all (even though some oftheir courses, at the 300 and 400 levels, are open toundergraduates). Most history teaching in theCollege is done by assistant professors appointedjointly by College and Division, who spend half theirteaching time in the Western Civilization course or itsparallels, the other half in graduate teaching andupper-division (200-level) courses in the College. In anumber of cases their appointments were initiated bythe College, with Departmental approval; up untilrecently — 1970 — there was a College history groupnot all of whom were members of the Department;some were retained by the College even after the Department had refused to promote them. Thispossibility still exists. One consequence of the oldsystem seems to have been that many assistant professors in history came to The University of Chicagowith joint appointments, only to be refusedpromotion and tenure because they did not meet theDepartment's standards, which of course were notoriented to undergraduate teaching. The effects ofthe past are still important today, nor has the formalamalgamation of the College history group with theDepartment really eliminated the structural split. For reasons outlined above, it is not the Departmentbut rather its several field-committees that aresupposed to have cognizance of the Department'sundergraduate efforts. But in any case, the existenceof the College would probably prevent the Department from seizing itself of the undergraduate program as a whole, in the kind of way that might lead toimportant, creative initiatives. Finally, there is thestill painful circumstance that the junior members ofthe Department are almost all subject to two governments, each of which claims not only performancebut also loyalty and emotional commitment.So far we have been concerned with the privilegesand problems of the senior faculty, within the structural framework of the Department and the University. We can now pass to the status of the juniorfaculty, the assistant professors, whose chief problemhas just been noted; it is indeed a major problem forthe Department as a whole. For the assistant professor does not see himself as part of a fundamentallyhomogeneous corps, in which he can normally expectto mount the ladder of promotion and join in actuality a group to which he potentially belongs. Of 31tenured members, only 12 have come up from below;the last such promotion in American history occurredover a quarter of a century ago; most assistant professors are in fact let go. And while a period at Chicago may once have been helpful on a young man'srecord ("A great place to be fired from" is how theyused to put it), today it is hard to find an academicjob, perhaps even harder for a dismissed assistantprofessor than for a new Ph.D. Anxiety is thus inevitable, and it is greatly increased by other circumstances. Already perhaps overstaffed in relation to itsgraduate students, the Department will probablybecome more so, and will offer few vacancies due toretirement in the usable future (one professor is toretire in 1978, one in 1980, one in 1981, then five in1982/83). In any case both the Department and theUniversity administration have in the past often preferred to fill vacancies in history by going outside forsome "super-star" in order to acquire his prestige.Finally, the status of the assistant professor is notonly insecure, it is relatively depressed. His obligatoryteaching load is somewhat heavier than that of thetenured members — a fact of more symbolic thanpractical importance — and in contrast to the opulentsalaries of the full professors, indicative of presumedexcellence, his own is instructively ordinary.With this infrastructure of insecurity and division,the mentality of class war is only to be expectedamong those who were graduate students in the yearsof academic guerrilla. If there are assistant professors at Chicago of the old stamp, who strive to earnpromotion by internalizing and meeting the stan-105dards of quality imposed from above, they did notannounce themselves to the Committee. Instead weencountered a generation-group of junior facultywho find the image of Popular Teacher more delightful than that of Great Scholar, who regard promo-tion-and-tenure as a presumptive right, and whoresent the fact that they are judged by men who, theylike to feel, are not apt to appreciate short articlesabout new problems and methods as much as thetraditional sort of cumulative monographic opus.They suspect that the senior members of the Department deliberately downgrade College teaching by refusing to promote its most popular practitioners.They also think that the Department deliberatelyavoids hiring women. They complain of the lack ofpersonal relationships between juniors and seniors,even while failing to return dinner invitations tosenior members who have been their hosts. Althoughenjoying many privileges in regard to leave and pedagogical liberty, and while serving often enough aschairmen of their respective field committees, theynevertheless feel somehow excluded from the higherlevels of decision- making.We note these sentiments without trying to evaluate their justice, but only to establish the fact andstructure of hostility. Its import in objective termsseems to us quite serious. Over against the tenuredfaculty, the component of youth is encysted in anassertively self-conscious Schicksalsgemeinschaft ofmorituri, so that their energies and openness to newideas do not work to leaven the whole. While such adivision exists to some extent in most major universities, the peculiarities of the Chicago structure intensify it to an unwholesome degree.A prime case in point will highlight the picture.There is well-founded complaint among some fulland associate professors that the Department is not acommunity of scholars. For one thing its expansioninto every conceivable area has naturally caused afragmentation of interests, with historians of this orthat exotic field finding that they have much more incommon with their noh- historian colleagues inexotica than with other members of the Department.For another the extreme individualism of the seniormembers seems to foster a lack of interest in whatcolleagues are doing or how they are thinking. Afaculty seminar used to exist; it has withered away.One associate professor complained of all this andsuggested that we recommend sherry-parties inremedy. Soon after he left there entered our presencea group of assistant professors who not onlypresented their views as a corps but also told us of the"Committee on Comparative Social History" thatthey had organized: a real interest-community, witha program of broadly based interdisciplinary study, and a Workshop/Seminar that organizes lecturesand discussions on a certain theme each quarter.Only one full professor takes part in the group;others, we were told, showed neither sympathy norinterest. And while there is evidence that the juniorsdo not encourage such interest, and while one cannotexpect established scholars to go running after everynew methodological fad, we do find the lack of concern remarkable and disturbing. The methodologicaldivision between younger men interested in quantification, demography, and comparative social historyon the one hand, and senior professors sticking totraditional historical studies on the other, while ofcourse not peculiar to Chicago, resonates all toostrongly with the hostility created by the class divisions of the Department's structure.III. Relations with StudentsIt seems to be a Chicago tradition to let graduate students sink or swim in the mechanics of the struggletoward a degree; perhaps this is a form of qualifyingtest. Diminishing numbers and a high dropout ratemight suggest some changes in the direction of paternal care. The anarchic leave policy and the lack ofany corporate structuring of courses at the Departmental level mean that graduate students sometimescannot find the professor or the course they hadplanned to take. Out of date information in the University catalogue (published only in alternate years)has the same effect, in some cases with serious consequences. Perfunctory advising has also been a subject of complaint. The Department's attitude in thesematters is perhaps exemplified in one case brought toour attention. Five out of six students in medievalhistory complained to us that the required work forthe first year — the study and interpretation of Latintexts — was unrelated to the M.A. examination thathad to be taken at the end of that year, nor were thereadequate subject-matter offerings to help in preparation. We understand that a reading-course has beenset up to help meet this problem; the point howeverwould be that the problem arose because of the application of old and no doubt intrinsically virtuousmethods to students who today require more solicitous treatment. It would not be hard to gratify themwithout sacrifice of rigor. For the rest, the complex ofrequirements and offerings varies from field tofield — in some fields the students seem quite satisfied — and our only particular observation has to dowith United States history: we feel that the requirement of only one outside field allows students in thatarea to go out with too narrow a sense of history.In the matter of undergraduate education we find106less to criticize. We were told, to be sure, with curiousfrequency, that there were not enough 200- levelcourses in history in the College—on this basis wewould infer that a kind of fault- line ran betweenWestern Civilization and the first year of graduatework. In fact, however, we count no fewer than 40such courses in the College's "Program Requirements and Courses of Instruction" for 1973-74. Perhaps here, as in other matters, a quite recent concernwith undergraduate problems has brought aboutimportant reforms. Thus the Hellie report of May 17,1973, with its criticisms of current practices, hasprovided the basis for reforms in the new requirements for a concentration in history in the College.(Here we observe only that keeping the requirementof the senior essay implies a massive commitment ofDepartmental energy and interest that will have tobe fostered by more particular provisions than eventhe improved system outlined in the new syllabus.)The healthy concern for undergraduate enrollmentsis also manifest in the full presentation of course-descriptions and in the advertisement in the Maroon.IV. The Committee's Recommendations1. The report of the Department's Committee on Aidand Admissions, January 18, 1973, seems to reflectthe Department's thinking in the matter of graduateenrollments (p. 12): ". . . to reduce enrollment. . . could only eventually result in a demoralizingsituation in the Department with regard topromotion and appointments." We disagree, and werecommend the opposite: a cutback in global figuresas well as a selective cutback in the numbers studyingin those fields where the Department lacks top-leveldistinction. The "demoralizing situation" alreadyexists, as indicated above, and its roots lie elsewhere.2. While under present conditions we cannotrecommend hiring "stars" in the fields that now lackenough of them, we do feel that if new appointments^are made, building should be concentrated in the"central" rather than the "exotic" fields. The University's traditional strength in the central fields,which still attract the most students, has beenseriously eroded by its cultivation of fields that will beless appealing in the academic market-place of theimmediate future. As for "stars" we wonder whetherChicago should consistently emulate the two or threebest universities in the East; perhaps in certain areasthe most feasible way to attain distinction would beby developing a distinctive sort of historical work.Cannot Chicago's historians compound excellencewith the pioneering spirit that has made the University great in the past? 3. The horizontal split in the Department can bemoderated by changes in attitude on the part of bothjuniors and seniors, also by reorganizing the College-Division structure to bring it into line with thesystem at other universities. Neither change seemslikely; we therefore recommend as a minimalmeasure that the College not be permitted to hirehistory teachers, and that no one be hired as an assistant professor in the Department who is not regardedas a probable prospect for promotion and tenure.4. The material difficulties of graduate studentsare already the subject of Departmental concern; werecommend chiefly a still greater organized effort tofind them jobs. We strongly feel, also, that the University itself should change its policies and permit theemployment of some highly qualified graduate students as teaching assistants.5. The Department should supersede or modifythe system of field committees by assuming corporateresponsibility for its whole conspectus of courseofferings — including planning, innovation, and thecoordination of scheduling. This corporate responsibility should extend to insistence on basic graduatecourses geared to the needs of the students, whateverthe specialized interests or current research commitments of the professors. We strongly urge the re-vitalization of the Departmental Committee onPriorities to assure a long-range program of courseofferings to provide proper training in breadth as wellas depth of graduate students. In this connection wefeel that leaves should be subject to some principle ofpedagogical responsibility.6. These and other matters should be handled byopen, well-prepared formulation of issues in committees and Departmental meetings. The lattershould become places where all Departmental problems and conflicts are brought to full discussion andresolution. Clever planning of agenda can stimulateattendance; in time absence should become disreputable.7. A faculty-student common room is much talkedabout; it should of course be established. At the sametime serious study should be given to the relocation offaculty offices so that more Department members aretogether on the same floors of the same building(s);casual encounters in such a framework are perhapsthe easiest way to stimulate exchanges of ideas.8. The faculty seminar should be revived — but notas a dinner party, and it should include only thosewho are willing to attend regularly, to discuss papersdistributed in advance. A special effort should bemade to involve juniors as well as seniors.9. The problem of fragmentation due to the proliferation of exotic fields affects chiefly those in thecentral fields, who should try to find ways to make107themselves a scholarly community. One way, forexample, might be to plan courses to be taughtcollaboratively.10. Although Professor Robert Fogel was kindenough to talk to us at length about his plan for aDepartmental degree-granting committee in Quantitative History, we do not feel ourselves qualified toevaluate this project. When the decision is made,serious attention should be given to the impact ofsuch a committee within the Department on theproblems we have discussed.11. We note the Department's now total lack ofwomen members.Ray A. Billington, Huntington LibraryPeter Gay, Yale UniversityWillie Lee Rose, Johns Hopkins UniversityHoward Kaminsky (Chairman), Florida International UniversityCOMMENTS ON THE REPORTTo: President Edward H. LeviApril 12, 1974Our Visitors have given us the benefit of a challenge:they have called us in a sharp and irresistable way torethink our purposes and the means that we havehitherto used to achieve them. We have profited fromthis challenge, and we shall continue to profit from it.It is a matter of regret, however, that, in leaving theDepartment's strengths out of their account, ourVisitors have not presented an appraisal in the usualsense of the word. My purpose will be to paint thewing of the diptych that they left blank. I hope thatwhat I say, taken together with the Visitors' statement, will help you and Mr. Wilson in thinking outmatters in this one Department that may have awider valency within the University. Certainly, manypoints here discussed have their roots in conditions ofinternational scope: for example, the decline ofstudent enrollment in private institutions at a moment of astronomical costs, and the lack of employment possibility for scholars. The present question issimpler. The question is whether the Department isliving up to the trust that has been given it.History is an honorable calling, but not necessarilyan academic one. It draws its nobility from a worthinherent in man and in human experience. Recognizing this, the University has devoted much effort overthe space of more than a decade to realizing in the Department of History the ideal that formal instruction be offered in the major areas and civilizations ofthe world. Anyone who has read The Rise of the Westwill know who gave the effort its first shape and direction. Our Department is unique, I believe, as a deliberate and conscious effort to express the totality ofhuman experience as an ideal, rather than as a pedagogical agglomerate. Now the long effort has come tomaturity. The faculty and students have beenbrought together; instruction and research is welladvanced. Three journals that address an international public are largely administered by our colleagues: Classical Philology, the Journal of ModernHistory, and the Journal of Asian Studies. The magnitude of the accomplishment has been acknowledged by tributes and awards to individual scholars(both students and faculty members) and by themagnificent grant made by the government of Japanlast year to perpetuate Japanese studies here. This isthe vision, and the achievement, that our Visitorswish us to give up.All our work has meaning only with reference tothe future. We have tried to express the integrity ofhistory as a calling in the academic mold, believingthat the compression of space and time in the twentieth century had universalized man's historicalconsciousness, and that if historical instruction in thefuture were to hold a mirror to the world as it wascurrently understood, this radical change wouldhave to find an academic home.My comments on this occasion will not touch whatI consider to be genuine shortcomings in the Department's work. I have discussed them last year, in areport of considerable length. My observations andproposals for change were supported with extensivetables, which can not be here reproduced. Since thisreport was distributed to the members of the Department, to the Graduate History Council, to our Deans,to the Provost, and to you, I feel free to pass directly tothe comments of our Visitors. Last year's report wasalso sent to the Visitors' chairman. As you will see, wehave different pictures of our shortcomings, of theircauses, and of their remedies.The Visitors appear to concede that what we havedone has a certain admirable quality; but they alsopresent a highly dramatic and menacing picture ofwhat awaits us as an ultimate consequence. I shallexamine these conclusions. Before coming to mattersof fact, I must say a word about the conception of thestatement. The Visitors themselves have sketched inthe circumstances under which they gathered theirinformation and, late at night after one day of interviews, determined the main lines of what they havenow submitted to you. Their casual and brief accessto information concerning a Department that is fairly108large and intricate in its structure left evidential impairments that persist. The Visitors felt able toeschew comprehensive knowledge of the facts infavor of impressions that showed them a way "toevaluate" (without an object), by disclosing the warts(without the face). It would be a mistake to dismisswhat th°y say as a verismo fantasy that billowed forthlate at night, after twelve consecutive hours of interviews. For their statement expresses a mentality thatis present among us and that is hostile to the idealsthat the Department has pursued. It is a complex andfascinating mentality that is both collectivistic andimpressionistic, and that can be both because it is informed by the principle that everything is pregnantwith its opposite.Collectivism makes it possible to break colleaguesand students apart into classes, and to dismiss factsto the contrary as exceptions. Impressionism puts thelocus of reality in the mind of the beholder. The tortured principle of negativity allows chastisement ofvice to be laid upon virtues. The Visitors say that theDepartment is one of the best in this country, but thatits two major fields have decayed; that the higherranks enjoy extraordinary benefits, but that this issomehow wrong, although (some ?) professors enjoy"universally acknowledged eminence," teach coursesover the general limit, read "an often excessivelylarge number of theses," and conduct "an often unrecognized burden of reading courses"; that "thethree lower orders" also enjoy exceptional benefitsbut that, luxuriating in angry grief that is self-generated, they are narcissistic, ungenerous, anddestructive of common enterprise. The principle ofnegativity also attends the Visitors' recommendations: for example, that the colleagues devote more oftheir time to undergraduate instruction and thatappointments of teaching assistants be instituted,and that the Department reduce the student bodyand, at the same time, increase the size of the facultyin "the areas that attract a lot of students."A particularly unfortunate example of promiscuous chastisement in the statement concerns ourgraduate students. The committee wonders whetherthe abilities of the students here latterly have beenlower than those in previous years. Many of mycolleagues are convinced that the quality of applicants has, in general, risen steadily since 1965, andthat this can be objectively demonstrated in termsboth of GRE scores and of academic records. Certainly, quality may vary from year to year.Through Mr. Larkin's efforts, we have vigorouslyand consistently tried, over the last four years, toencourage applications from the best undergraduates in sister institutions. This work has mainly beenlimited to colleges and universities within Volks wagen range; it has included personal visits bymembers of the faculty, as well as correspondence,and visits to this University by potential applicants.There is evidence that this work has encouraged ourcolleagues elsewhere to refer their students to us, andpromising students themselves to think of the University as an academic home.There are other facts that suggest a positive answerto the Visitors' question. They discount the award ofthe Pelzer Award of the Organization of AmericanHistorians to two students in American history (toMr. Robert Buroker in 1971 and Mr. KennethKusmer in 1973). Perhaps the award of this nationalprize to two students in as many years was a brightspot in a murky sea. Perhaps one should also dismissthe fact that two students, Mr. Anthony Grafton andMr. John Boyer (who are doctoral candidates) havehad articles accepted for publication in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society (Mr.Grafton's appeared in Volume 117; Mr. Boyer's isscheduled to appear in 1975). Mr. William Reddyhad an essay accepted for publication this year in theJournal of Social History, and one article by Mrs.Barbara Rosenwein has been published in Viator andanother by her will shortly appear in Past and Present. Nor are these isolated examples. Mr. Michael V.Hazel published an article, "The Young CharlesStewart Parnell" in Eire-Ireland (1973), and it seemslikely that some papers by history students in thejoint seminar of Mr. Bennigsen and Mr. Azrael willbe published in the Cahiers du Monde Russe etSovietique. It is an exceptional distinction that Mr.Peter Berger, a doctoral candidate in Early ModernEuropean history, has been accepted simultaneouslyas a candidate for the doctorate at the Sorbonne, inthe seminar of Fernand Braudel.On a wider front, it is true that, in this year of greatdifficulties, our students have done exceptionally wellin competition for scholarships within the Universityand outside it. Two students have received awardsfrom the International Research Exchange Board forstudy in Russia; three have won exchange scholarships of the German Federal Republic for study inGermany; one has been awarded a highly covetedgrant from the Southern Fellowship Fund, andanother a fellowship from Rotary International forstudy overseas; one has received a Danforth award;at the moment of writing, four appear likely to receiveFulbright awards, and a fifth has been designated asan alternate for a Fulbright-Hays doctoral dissertation year award.Finally, I may mention employment. As we allknow to our grief, teaching positions are difficult toobtain. It is a fact that a doctorate, including onefrom our Department, does not guarantee employ-109ment in which scholarly training can be put intopractice. It is also a fact that some of our graduateshave been, and continue to be, competitors for thebest positions in the profession. One of our mostrecent alumni has just secured a teaching post atCornell University, two others have just taken up anappointment at Dartmouth. Some graduates whoreceived their doctorates in 1964 are teaching atBerkeley and Yale; alumni of 1966, at Columbiaand Penn State; of 1968, at the University of Pennsylvania; of 1969, at Brown; of 1970, at Cornell,Rutgers, Wisconsin (Madison); of 1971, at Michigan(Ann Arbor) and Wisconsin (Madison). Otheralumni from the period 1964-1973 are teaching atMinnesota, Vanderbilt, Duke, and North Carolina.Of course, many of our graduates are teaching atinstitutions that are perhaps less distinguished, butthe very fact of their service is testimony to confidence in their abilities and training.Aside from doubting the high quality of our students, the Visitors gained the impression that thefaculty is inattentive to the students' needs andwishes. As an instance of "perfunctory advising" itrefers to the complaint of some students in medievalhistory "that the required work for the first year — thestudy and interpretation of Latin texts — was unrelated to the M.A. examination that had to be takenat the end of that year, nor were there adequatesubject-matter offerings to help in preparation." Itnotes that a special advisory course was subsequentlyframed to alleviate the need. It also might haveobserved that, since the students had scarcely beenhere three weeks when they met the Visitors, theirfamiliarity with the content of course offerings couldwell have been less than their apprehensivenessconcerning the written comprehensive examination.The Visitors refer to one course — Mr. Ross's seminarin Latin palaeography and Medieval Latin. A juststatement of the "perfunctory" nature of thingswould have mentioned, if only in disparagement, that14 other quarters of study in medieval history arescheduled for the present academic year, including athree-quarter survey of Byzantine history, a three-quarter survey of intellectual history, a two- quarterpro-seminar in social and economic history, and aone-quarter survey of Iberia in the period 1350-1600.In addition to these offerings, Mr. Woods has provided a one- quarter survey of Islam in the period1050-1700. I do not include courses given byassociate members of the Department, such as thoseof Mr. McGinn in the History of Christian Thought,though some of the students mentioned have in factbenefitted a great deal from them.To round out the picture, I should mention that theUniversity last summer sponsored one of the Medi eval Academy of America's summer seminars inpalaeography. Julian Brown, from the University ofLondon, and Peter Herde, from the University ofFrankfurt — both principal figures in palaeography — came here to lead it. While the students whomatriculated last fall were not yet on the scene, theseminar was of enormous benefit to three Historystudents and five students from other departments inthe University, and to ten students, and youngerfaculty members from other institutions.It seems to me that some of this objective strength,left out by the committee, might have been asinteresting as the subjective stricture that it included.In view of the adverse pattern of employment in theteaching profession, we have sought ways to preparestudents, who wish to follow them, for alternate employment. The special resources of this Universitysuggested a program in archival training. Becausenothing in our existing curriculum prepared studentsfor employment in immigrant, social welfare, andgovernment archives, we invited four archivists herein the spring quarter, 1973, to describe patterns oftraining that might be appropriate. As a result ofthese visits, we decided to look into the possibility ofarranging archival internships. On inquiring alongthese lines, I received indications that several institutions would like to cooperate with our Departmentin setting up archival internships. There seems tobe a very good chance of working out such anarrangement with the Massachusetts HistoricalSociety, the Chicago Historical Society, the NationalArchives, and the Wisconsin State Archives. Due tothe extraordinary enthusiasm of Dr. Martha M.Bigelow, we hoped to begin a pilot program with theMichigan History Division, in Lansing, Michigan, in1973-74. All that we have hitherto lacked has beenstudents to take advantage of this opportunity.The Visitors mention in passing another aspect ofthe deepest concern regarding student life, generally:that is, financial support. The Visitors knew, but didnot mention, that the Department has taken suchsteps as it could think of to address this problem,which certainly involves the future existence of theDepartment itself as well as the patent need of students for help. For students beyond their second year,we have compiled and placed on open file a list offunds available to them from outside the University.We have also, since 1970, raised the GottschalkFellowship Fund (almost entirely through Mr. Cate'sgallant efforts). We have instituted ten Work- Studyprograms in each of the last two years, and we areaiming at 25 for next year.We have to face up to the Visitors' comment on theabsence of a policy concerning academic leaves. Tovisitors, to students, and to other colleagues, it may110appear irresponsible for the only two members of afield to be away during the same year, or for a sizableproportion of faculty in a larger field to take leavesimultaneously. To people involved it may be a matter of foregoing the chance of a lifetime. If regulations are imposed, it would also be advisable to setsome date beyond which members of the facultycould not declare the intention to go on leave, sothat planned curricula can not be upset at the lastmoment. This naturally presents difficulties, sinceawards are announced late in the academic year. Youcan appreciate that hard and fast rules are difficult toapply in departments, when members hold jointappointments in other committees or departmentswhich may follow other procedures. In my view,chairmen may, and should, exert moral pressure toavert a chaotic pattern of faculty leaves; but anyeffective general policies will have to be set higher, atleast at the divisional level. For the moment, whilemoral pressure is the best we have, the Departmenthas for the last two years attempted to redress theeffects of outdated information in the University catalogue by issuing quarterly course descriptions.This whole matter is related to the absence of regular sabbatical leaves at the University. With such asystem, an institution, having the power of the purse,can determine an orderly schedule of leaves. Whereso much depends on the initiative and good fortune ofindividual faculty members in receiving outsidegrants, the matter of leaves naturally takes on theappearance of willfulness, and it loses an organicconnection with the University calendar.Any change in the policy concerning leaves willbear on the expectations under which non-tenuredmembers of the Department have hitherto worked.On this point, the Visitors' preference for subjectiveimpressions also provides a dramatic, but notnecessarily true, picture. To place the pattern ofleaves in proportion, I remind you that the majorityof the members of the Department are tenured. Hereis a breakdown, by rank: full professors, 22; associateprofessors, 10; assistant professors, 14; instructors,-0-. All ten associate professors have indefinitetenure, as do the full professors. I exclude from thetally of 22 full professors MM. Bennigsen, Confmo,Pingree, and Polk because they are either on part-time appointments or on indefinite leave. To suggestthe effect that restrictions of this sort might have onthe careers of junior members as well as senior members, and thus on the total work of the Department, Iinsert a table of leaves arranged by rank and year.Quite properly, the Visitors raise the question ofwhether young scholars appointed without indefinitetenure have a presumptive right to promotion to AssistantProf. AssociateProf. Full Prof.1970-71 BensonSmith (sp.) Gray, C.Gray, H.KaegiWortman (sp) BoorstinFogelWade1971-72 CalkinsRossSewell none McNeillPingree *1972-73 AustenKirshnerScott BakerStocking (sp.)Wortman (sp.) DebusHarrisLachPingree*1973-74 CampbellCoatsworthHamiltonSwerdlow HellieNajitaStocking (w.) FogelFranklinKahan(au.)Mann(sp.)Pingree** Pingree is on indefinite leave at Brown University (sp. =spring quarter; au. = autumn quarter; w. = winterquarter)tenure. The Department and the University haveconsistently taken the position that non-tenuredpositions carry the potential for tenure. The case fortenure is assumed from the beginning, but it remainsto be substantiated.Anyone can do history, just as anyone can sing. Buthigher attainments require a particular temperament, in history as in music. Like leadership, the historical temperament is manifold; it finds many kindsof expression. Thus, at an early stage, it can be mistaken for other innate gifts, and they, for it. Only timeand discipline can distinguish true from counterfeit.Among the arts, the historical temperament standsvirtually alone in requiring long maturation before itspromise can be fulfilled: that is, in requiring ascetic,and often lonely, years under discipline and judgment before it can be said whether one is a giftedamateur or an artist, whether one is capable of prizeessays or of works that will transcend their own briefday.The present course of academic advancementrecognizes the need of disciplined maturity. In termsof objective facts, a number of things have been doneto encourage a positive outcome. First, the Department instituted a five-year appointment as assistantprofessor, in 1970-71, so that initial review of anassistant professor's credentials could come in the111fourth year, rather than in the second (as it would ifthe person were appointed for an initial term of threeyears). The purpose of this change was to relievepersons who had not completed their dissertationsfrom inordinate pressures of review before somethingcould be told about the course of their maturation.The five-year appointment, furthermore, was not intended to exclude a further appointment of up to twoyears; persons holding it would therefore be able toserve as long in rank as those who held two terms ofthree years plus a final term of one year. Second, asthe Visitors say, non-tenured members have the sameaccess to leaves of absence as do tenured members.Both are able to accumulate terms of paid leave byterms in residence. Both are able to obtain grants ofleave if they obtain financial assistance from outsidethe University; and it has also become our practice —within limits existing at the moment of decision — tosupplement grants received from external sourceswhen our colleagues feel the need. These supplementations have sometimes represented a large proportion of a colleague's salary, large enough to make thedifference between his being able to accept an outsidegrant, and take a year's leave, and his having to turnit down.The normal procedure has also allowed non-tenured members to petition that one year spent onleave not be counted against the terms of theirappointment, thus, in effect, extending a three-yearappointment to four calendar years and giving anadditional year before the decision concerning tenuremust be taken.Because the Visitors gained the impression that acleft existed in the Department between tenured andnon-tenured members, I should add that non-tenured members have regularly received researchgrants from the funds of the graduate division. Thesegrants have sometimes been substantial, as when theuse of computers or extensive travel has been calledfor. On the whole, however, the grants have beensmall because the most general need has been forgrants in aid of typing or photocopying.Here is a table of grants to members of the Department from the research funds of the graduate division. To observe confidentiality, I deleted theagglomerate sums.To tenured jo non-tenuredmembers members1970-71 12 grants 5 grants1971-72 12 grants 6 grants1972-73 16 grants * 7 grants1973_74 13 grants * 6 grants* including one to an emeritus professor112 The point to be registered here, as in the matter ofacademic leaves, is a proportional one: that, in1973-74, for example, 12 grants went to a field of 32active tenured members, and six to a field of 14 non-tenured members.I am also able to point out that non- tenured members have frequently benefited from researchassistance paid for by the grants from the Divisionthat I have just inventoried, by Work-Study programs, and, exceptionally, by grants from outside theUniversity.I have excluded from the table above grants fromthe Social Sciences Divisional Research Fund to anon-tenured member in support of the seminar inComparative Social History, to which the Visitorsrefer. These grants were made in 1972-73 and1973-74.The statement errs in pitting the benefits of thenon-tenured members against those of the tenuredmembers; it also errs in its description of relativeteaching loads.In any case, I am afraid that assistant professorswhose maximum teaching load is six courses may notseem at a disadvantage in a profession where teaching loads of between 12 and 15 hours are frequent.They will not be thought disadvantaged by other departments of this University, where the minimalteaching load is six or seven courses, or where teaching responsibilities extend four quarters in the yearinstead of three.But other things need to be mentioned regardingproportions within the Department. Structure consists of theory and of practice, and the descriptions offormal obligations expected of tenured members hasslight contact with reality in many cases and none atall in some. Naturally, there are a few colleagues whopay their tithe of mint and anise and cummin andomit the weightier things of the law. But, as has beensaid, woe unto them. For most people above thetenure line, the four courses are an illusion. Theyteach according to the needs of their fields (whichmay well mean more than four formal courses); theyhave dissertations to read; they serve on committeesalmost without number; they give tutorials or readingcourses. Four tenured members are distinguished bytheir work in offering courses beyond the stated limit:MM. Hellie, Larkin, McNeill, and Weintraub. Eightcourses is not unusual for any member of this group.Before he became Dean last fall, Mr. Weintrauboffered as many as 11 courses in one year. This groupconstitutes one-sixth of the whole tenured members.Formal course offerings by the others vary, but fiveand six are common.It is hard to calculate the time devoted to readingcourses. Some are registered for, others are not (andtherefore leave no trace in the records, though theytake the time and thought of teachers and students).It is easier to calculate thesis supervision. Mr.McNeill is first reader on 16 theses, second reader on13, and third reader on 7 (in addition to editing theJournal of Modern History, teaching beyond theformal standard of four courses, supervising theplacement effort of the Department for students outside the field of American history, and so forth). Thisis exceptional, but Mr. McNeill is a man whom manycould well take for their model. Thesis responsibilities also weigh heavily on colleagues in Americanhistory. They vary widely in other areas of study.The Visitors devote some attention to the matter ofundergraduate instruction, and particularly to institutional aspects of the College. Their suggestionsinvolve the abolition of the College, in the long run,and its exclusion from administrative decisions concerning historical education in the short one. Thisproposal rests on the assumption that the College hasexerted a baneful effect on the advancement of non-tenured members, and that it institutionalizesdivisions between tenured and non-tenured members.I have not always seen eye to eye with administrative officers of the College, but I can say that thesetwo assumptions are patently illicit. As to the first:there are certainly instances in which colleagues,denied tenure in the graduate division, have receivedit in the College. These would seem to prove the opposite of what is alleged: that is, they indicate that theCollege has protected, rather than harmed, thecolleagues in question. As to the second: the Visitorsare impervious to the reality that there is a differencebetween teaching in the College (i.e., having a jointappointment in the College) and teaching undergraduates. Most of our courses are open to undergraduates, and we have just completed a renumbering to indicate that.While the College contributes only 18 percent ofour instructional budget, undergraduates accountfor nearly two- thirds of our course registrations. Thefollowing tenured members of the Department havejoint appointments in the College and therefore bothteach undergraduates and teach in the College: MM.Baker, Cochrane, Debus, Hellie, Kaegi, Kahan,Karl, F. Katz, Novick, Weintraub, and Wortman.But the folly of holding to formalistic definitions isillustrated by Mr. McNeill, who has 122 undergraduate registrations in his World Civilization course(roughly 40 each quarter), though he does not have ajoint appointment and therefore technically does notteach "in the College." Among non-tenured members, Mr. Cook also does not have a joint appointment (though he teaches undergraduates in the American Civilization survey and is the Departmental advisor to undergraduates), nor do Mr. Inden(in Indian history) or Mr. Woods (in Islamic history),though both also teach in civilization coursesaddressed primarily to undergraduates.It may also be worth mentioning that six tenuredmembers participate in the Western Civilizationcourse, with varying degrees of regularity, and sixnon-tenured members with obligatory regularity.Two other civilization courses are staffed mainly bytenured members. They are: Latin American Civilization (tenured? MM. Duncan and F. Katz; non-tenured: Mr. Coatsworth) and Russian Civilization(tenured: MM. Wortman, Hellie; non-tenured: Mr.Benson).We are living with residual effects of the separationthat once existed between the College and the graduate divisions in the past that the Visitors praise asheroic. This residue has to be overcome, and it is being overcome through opportunities that previouslydid not exist here, and that, for different reasons,may not exist at other universities. In framing newpatterns of instruction to serve changed conditions,my colleagues and I should be profoundly grieved tolose the interest and support of the College, as theVisitors recommend.The Visitors' comments therefore mislead bydrawing so sharply the lines of class division, by workas well as by benefits. There are tenured memberswhose formal responsibilities are light, and who makeno effort to increase them. They are all the samescholars of no mean achievements, and, while onewould welcome their greater participation in the lifeof the Department, it would be unthinking and ungenerous to denigrate the contributions that theyonly can make to the common enterprise. Thebenefits that tenured members enjoy are part of thatcommon enterprise, and, as such, all of those touching academic leaves, research assistance, and theextraordinary and precious freedom to teach whatand as one thinks best belong to non- tenured members as well as to their senior colleagues. Among thesecommon benefits certainly should be numbered theextraordinary library resources at this University. Itis perhaps too little recognized, in the grousing atwhich highly trained critical minds excell, that theUniversity has laid before all students and membersof the faculty a stupefying wealth of historical evidence and endowed them with time to use it.Finally, the point deserves emphasis that non-tenured members have been taken fully into the procedures by which decisions are reached in theDepartment. I believe that over the last four years aconsistent policy has been followed to widen participation of non- tenured members in every mode of113discourse and decision except in matters of promotion and reappointment at or above their own ranks.Possibly, like new initiates into mysteries, they feelsure that there must be more to it than they see. Thatwould be more subjectivism. All.members are eligibleto serve on Departmental standing committees andon search committees of the Department. Except formatters concerning renewal of contract and promotion, which are determined by members above therank of the member under review, all Departmentalbusiness is conducted in general meetings of the Department. Non-tenured members regularly serve aschairmen of about half the field committees in theDepartment, and therefore have control of thepowers that the Visitors describe as inhering in thefield committees. Formal structures aside, we canalways talk to each other face to face. Many of us areheads of families; all of us are adults, citizens, andhuman beings, and it is ridiculous to suggest thatmembers of this Department look at the extendedright hand of fellowship, before grasping it, to seewhether it is stamped tenured or non- tenured.The Visitors suggest that a cleft runs between non-tenured members who wish to convey the results oftheir research in articles, and tenured members whoinsist on the virtues of monographic expression. Ihave heard this said and meant. But is it true? Thefacts suggest not. I will exclude the tenured membersof the Department who have been promoted andmembers who were not recommended for tenure thisyear. Here is a statement of what I know concerningwork that each non- tenured member has in hand:Mr. Bylebyl is completing a monograph on Harvey,as a prolegomenon to his study of the use of Galen byRenaissance physicians. Mr. Campbell has completed a manuscript on Confrontation in CentralEurope, and is now in Prague gathering materials foranother major study on Masaryk's Czechoslovakia:The Building of a Czechoslovak Nation-State. Mr.Coatsworth' s monograph, Crecimento contra de-sarrollo: el impacto economico de los ferrocarrilesen Mexico, 1877-1910, is being published in Mexico.Mr. Cook is preparing his dissertation on TheFathers of the Town — Leadership and CommunityStructure in 18th Century New England for publication. The manuscript has been promised to the JohnsHopkins Press. Mr. Inden's study, Marriage andRank in Bengali Culture, is being published by theUniversity of California Press. Mr. Kirshner has undertaken a monographic work that will bring together materials that he has published in a number ofdistinguished articles. Mr. Sewell is preparing amanuscript on the working class movement innineteenth-century Marseille, which, he estimates,may run to about 600 pages. Mr. Swerdlow has just published a monographic study on Copernicus, andhe has also undertaken a new work. Mr. Woods hasjust completed his dissertation, The Agguyunlu:Clan, Confederation and Empire: 1300-1508, andsince it appears to be a work of capital importance,we have urged him to submit it to The University ofChicago Press as soon as he considers it ready.I have deleted mention of those colleagues who didnot receive promotion to tenure this year, partly outof delicacy, and partly also because some cases couldbe adduced to show that tenure did not necessarilyfollow the completion of a monographic manuscript.The normal hope is that a work of unusual importance will have been published before a colleague isconsidered for tenure. We wish this to be so, in orderto benefit from the opinions of specialists throughtheir published reviews. In some cases, we have modified this criterion to accommodate important manuscripts that are not books, but that have actually beenaccepted for publication. Monographic manuscriptsthat are neither published nor accepted for publication are also considered by us as elements in thetenure review process, and submitted by us toexternal readers. There is no virtue in a book, per se.Our emphasis rests on the assumption, proven oftenenough to be true, that in most cases the book as anartistic creation distinguishes the critical intellectfrom the creative one. In principle, however, theVisitors are right in saying that administratively theDepartment expects that a book- length developmentof original research will normally be part of anydossier that can be certified for promotion to tenure,and that the exposition will conform with the higheststandards of the historical profession.The Visitors are patently wrong, however, in thinking that the concept of professional excellence thatstands behind this criterion is not shared below thetenure line. If it were not, it would be incomprehensible that the junior members of the Department wouldhave deployed their energies so consistently, and withsuch conspicuous distinction, to works such as those Ihave described. You will remember that Mr. Helliereceived the Herbert Baxter Adams Prize of theAmerican Historical Association, in 1972, for a studythat he completed as a non-tenured member of thisDepartment, and that constituted part of the groundon which his promotion to the associate professorshipwas approved. Mr. Kirshner has just won theMarraro Prize of the Society for Italian HistoricalStudies for an essay in early Renaissance legal history, and we have every confidence that his subsequent work, and the work that the other assistantprofessors have in hand, will assure them the recognition that has come to 12 other colleagues — -just overone-third the entire tenured members — who have114moved up through the ranks.The way the Visitors represent the goals of "thelower orders" has unusual interest, for it suggests anunderlying principle that informs the negativity ofthe entire statement. The principle is a familiar one:namely, that action precedes values. In other words,what one accepts as worthwhile grows out of experience. Values therefore exist for the time being. Theyshift with experience. In fact, they are identical withstrategy, and strategy is a tool to provoke encountersand confrontations that force people to extract anendless sequence of new values, or ideologies, fromthe process. This conception naturally prohibitsdedication to a work such as a monograph that issustained over a long space of time; it makes room forthe tactics of a "popular teacher" (though not for thegrowing knowledge of a good or great one); it engagesthe study of comparative social history from anideological point of view; it requires the mentality ofwar for the sake of collective self-discovery throughconfrontation. And yet the dedication of non-tenuredcolleagues to monographic works, the careful classroom preparation, the actual techniques used in theworkshop for comparative social history, and thestake that non-tenured colleagues both feel andaccept in our common enterprise suggest that thesituation has been misread.That there is a sense of insecurity, and, in somecases, of estrangement, we certainly know. No doubt,the Visitors perceived an especially keen anxiety,since they came here at a moment when four colleagues were under review for promotion to tenure.Some worry is due to the general concerns of the University; some, to adverse conditions in the historicalprofession, and, indeed, in all institutional enterprises that deal with cultural expression and publicservice. We must also recognize that some unhappi-ness is bound to arise from vocational crises ofindividual scholars who, losing faith in their workand in themselves, can love neither. At their owninstitutions, some of our Visitors have known this lossof faith as an impulse among some members of thefaculty to speak against, and encourage their students to speak against, the community to which theyformally belong, and against persons having authority within that community. They hate, not the vices,but the virtues, of intellectual excellence. Dostoevskyrecognized what must be done if the outer world wereto be shaped according to this inner world of bitterness when he made one of his characters say: "Thefirst thing to do is to lower the level of education,science, and ability. A high standard of knowledgeand capability is possible only for good intellects, andthey are not wanted." Possibly, the Visitors have readthis element from their own experiences into our sit uation. This may be what the Visitors had in mindwhen, discussing the "assertively self-consciousSchicksalsgemeinschaft of mortituri," they refer tothe "academic guerrilla." And yet, if this is what theymeant, the collectivism of their mentality obscuresthe fact that vocational crises are intensely personalmatters, that are not to be understood, or healed, incollectivity.A number of the Visitors' observations are soaccusatively cast as to preclude discussion. One ofthese I can not pass over in silence: namely, that inthis Department, which is larger than some collegesand, within the University, larger than the DivinitySchool and the School of Social Service Administration, there is no woman member of the faculty. Weare aware of this fact, and we have taken affirmativeaction to change it. This action has consisted in giving wide publicity to all searches for new facultymembers, particularly by advertising them in theEmployment Information Bulletin, a publication ofthe American Historical Association. We have alsoregularly asked the Women's Committee of theAmerican Historical Association for their job listings, and occasionally we have combed DissertationAbstracts looking for relevant dissertation topics bywomen and obtaining copies of such theses as seemedappropriate. When it has been able, the GraduateHistory Council has also joined in canvassing thefield. I have every reason to think that the Visitorsmisrepresent the opinion of non-tenured memberswhen they ascribe to them the view that the Department resists the appointment of women; for non-tenured members have often enough served on committees that have followed the procedures that I havedescribed.The results of our efforts have not served the purposes intended. For example, in answer to anadvertisement in the EIB for a historian ofclassical antiquity, we received 25 responses frommen and only three from women. In response to anadvertisement in the EIB of a search in early modernEuropean history, we received 27 applications frommen and two from women, not counting applicationsin response to the same notice from scholars inTudor-Stuart history (13 from men, and three fromwomen). An advertisement this year in the field ofTudor- Stuart history has brought five applicationsfrom women and 37 from men. This year also, in response to an advertisement of a canvass in Americanhistory, 38 applications were received, three of themfrom women. And, in response to an advertisement inRussian history, 49 applications were received, nineof them from women. It is perfectly clear that theseadvertisements have put us in touch with scholarsfrom a range of institutions that is wider than we115reached before we began giving public notice in thisway. At the same time, applications solicited by advertisement neither conform to uniformly high standards nor satisfy the need for a wide and representative sample of applications from qualified women andother persons who have felt the sharp edge of prejudice. Committees whose members are devoted tosecuring representation of women in the faculty havesometimes found it necessary on grounds of quality toabandon that purpose for another, as happened in1971, when a committee of marked liberal convictions found no candidates superior in promise to aman in the doctoral program at Jiarvard.It is worth adding that the traditions of the Department are opposed to prejudicing appointments onany external grounds, including gender. Indeed,there were women in this Department before theright of women to open and fair consideration foremployment was explicitly guaranteed by law. MissPierce joined the Department in 1929; Miss Gillespie, in 1943; Miss Veith, in the then novel field ofmedical history, in 1952; Mrs. Gray, in 1960. It mayalso be pointed out that all of them were appointed,or promoted, to tenure, and that the prerequisite of amonograph as necessary to promotion to tenure (ofwhich much is made in the Visitors' statement) waswaived in more than one of these cases. This is not,perhaps, an impressive record, but it does bear on theperceived attitudes of the Department. It would beanalagous to say that there are now no women in theUnited States Senate, but there is every reason tothink that there have been, and there will again be,women in the Senate and in this Department.The Visitors admonish us to live up to the pioneering spirit of the University by framing "a distinctivesort of historical work." It is too little recognized thata distinctive kind of historiography does exist amongus, and that it is now entering an astonishingly creative moment.I refer to comprehensive history that comes fromthe same roots as the diversification of fields that theVisitors wish us to modify or abandon. The Department incorporates areas of study that at other institutions are segregated into area studies and interdisciplinary committees. This has come about because scholars in the fields of European andAmerican history have been open to new methodsand unrepresented areas of study; this is how the newareas have come into the Department, and why theystay. The results are not far to seek.It is a peculiar and immature vision that limitsinnovation to social, or quantitative, or mass history.Innovation has struck deep roots, in the form of comprehensive history, both in the large and in the smallfields. I must emphasize that "comprehensive" in the Chicago sense does not mean that facts are dispensedwith in favor of generalization. On the contrary, thedetail remains everything, but it is welded into amatrix of broad proportions.So that the point will not be missed, I must addthat the Chicago approach to historiography isexpressed in many ways. What appears in the form ofscholarly publications is often conceived and workedout in teaching. This cross-fertilization between theseminar or the lecture course and the printed work ispossible precisely because of the intellectual freedomthat we enjoy. It has permanent acknowledgement inthe prefaces of many books. Innovative courses arethe seedbed and the justification of innovativescholarship.I may mention some examples of what is beingdone. Mr. Ho has drawn upon the most diversestrands of botany, ethnology, archaeology, philology,and art to compose his fundamental account ofChinese pre- history: "The Cradle of the East: AnInquiry into the Indigenous Origins of Techniquesand Ideas of Neolithic and Early Historic China,5000-1000 B.C." Mr. Harootunian has also venturedinto anthropology for his studies of Japan's development into an industrialized society. Mr. McNeill'sRise of the West, his Venice, his projected history ofdisease in European history; Mr. Lach's vast enterprise, Asia and the Making of Europe; Mr. Krieger'swide-ranging studies of European intellectual history; Mr. Cochrane's many works, including latterlyFlorence in the Forgotten Centuries, 1527-1800; Mr.Larkin's History of the Roman Catholic Church inIreland in the Nineteenth Century, of capital importance to sociology as well as to history; Mr. Iriye'sstudies of Japanese-American diplomacy; Mr.Harris' inquiries into art, architecture, and popularculture; Mr. Fogel's work, astonishingly innovativeboth in quantitative and in comprehensive history;Mr. Franklin's development of an entirely new fieldin American history. These are examples of the innovative work that defines the new Chicago school.I have taken my examples from the rank of the fullprofessors because the Visitors particularly rebukedthem as a class for their indifference to new modesof inquiry and expression. There are other distinguished examples among the full professorsand, certainly, among colleagues at other ranks. Inan important and precious way, the effects of thiscomprehensiveness demolishes all barriers such asthose under discussion. This has been the case, forexample, in discussions now engrossing two seniorcolleagues — Mr. Bennigsen in Russian history andMr. Inalcik in Ottoman — and one junior colleague,Mr. Woods in Islamic history. What draws thesethree scholars together is the fascinating conception116that early societies in the "Western East" grew upalong patterns of trade, rather than according tomodes of land tenure. They are confident that theirview can be substantiated, with implications ofextreme importance for the early history of Russia.Without prejudice to their future discussions, I cansay that the convergence of these scholars' and theirinterplay of ideas, would not have occurred withoutThe University of Chicago and the "freedom ofaction passing into anarchy" that it offers its scholar-teachers.It is entirely possible that the distinctiveness andsplendor of this constellation of works has not beenrecognized because it has found no publicist It haspractitioners in strength. Even as I write, a letter hascome from Berkeley referring to "a 'Chicago school'of Chinese history," and the broader limits of ourwork are bound to become generally acknowledged.The Chicago style of comprehensive history is fostered by a peculiarity of the University's structure:namely, by joint appointments; for this is an important encouragement to experiments in method andconceptualization. It is a particular strength of ourDepartment that its members have joint appointments in Anthropology, Classics, New Testament and Early Christian Literature, and the Stevenson Institute. About half have joint appointments inthe College. We have associate members, whoseprimary academic homes are in Church History,English, Law, Education, FELC, and the OrientalInstitute. The true range of our intellectual filiationsappears when you look beyond these forms to theinter-departmental networks into which naturallymove our colleagues in Russian, Asian, Islamic, andLatin American history.In setting forth their impressions, the Visitorsmention a large number of matters in which improvement might be desired. I suggest to you that, in someof these, the committee errs in fact and that, inothers, we have recognized the difficulties and cometo terms with them on a scale not evident in the committee's statement. Of these two categories, I havecommented on the quality of students, sensitivity tothe needs of attentive instruction and financialsupport, patterns of faculty leaves, conditions ofappointment for non-tenured members, the participation of tenured members in undergraduateinstruction, generational differences in the conceptof historical research, instruction, and publication,fairness in faculty recruitment, and innovativeness inmodes of historical inquiry and instruction.There are some points on which the committeecomes within sight of the truth. I think that you mightwant to know what they are. Here is a summary list.It's rather a mixed bag. The committee touches on the following points:1. We have coped least well with the matter ofacademic leave. It is not simply a matter of planningwithin field committees or of administrative discretion within the Department, or even within the Division, since the result of applications for grants fromoutside the University usually becomes known wellalong in the year during which it is to be taken up.The fact remains that, since 1968, we have had astructured curriculum for graduate students, withoutsubmitting the faculty program to a correspondingstructure. As indicated, this matter is closely relatedto the absence of sabbatical leaves at the University.2. A second deficiency in the program is theabsence of opportunity for students to gain experience in developing and in teaching courses. Onexceptionally rare occasions, students who havealmost completed their dissertations have been ableto participate in undergraduate survey courses. Somestudents were able to teach in the Extension Division.It is clear as day that, if our students are to have a fullprofessional training, and thus be competitive forteaching positions, they should lead classes whilethey are with us. The University has set its facefirmly against teaching assistantships, for goodreasons, and we shall have to discover other ways togive them the needed practice, perhaps in cooperation with the School of Education.3. The Department already consists predominately of tenured colleagues and within a shorttime it may well consist almost entirely of personsappointed with indefinite tenure. The considerationhere is two-fold. First, much of the constructiveebullience in the Department has come from the introduction of new outlooks and methods by personsjust out of graduate school. Second, with this sourceof inspiration cut off, the tendency may well be for theDepartment to be composed of scholars presentlybetween the ages of 30 and 50. Extremely unfavorable retirement patterns will obtain, with seriousresults for instruction in every field, and until thepatterns take effect, instruction will be limited to theviews and objectives of the increasingly aged"Schichtsalsgemeinschaft of morituri."4. The committee obliquely approaches a secondmatter of concern with regard to the composition ofthe faculty, when it advises us to make additionalappointments in western European and Americanhistory. The effects of faculty reduction are now being felt in many fields. Losses have not been repaired,and it has not been possible to satisfy the natural wishto widen and deepen the curricula in the severalfields. This year, nine of the 14 field committees haveadvanced the pressing need for new faculty appoint-117ments, if they are to meet the charge that has hithertobeen laid upon the Department as a whole, and theexpectations that the Department has held up foritself.5. Fellowship and loan support for students. Theurgency of this matter needs no emphasis, since it isat the heart of everything we do.But there are other matters of concern that theVisitors do not mention, and that we shall have tocope with.1. In terms of course enrollment, History is a veryexpensive Department. I don't know how the registrations in other departments run. In History, veryfew courses above the survey level enroll more thaneight students, except some staple courses. Many —and not only seminars — enroll between 1 and 3. Ofcourse, this is ideal for teaching. It would be dangerous to play the numbers game (as at Minnesota, forexample) and cancel all courses that failed to reach aminimal registration. This kind of course is exactlywhere a lot of our best experimentation in thoughtgoes on. But I am afraid that consciousness of cost (asapparently expressed in Mr. Johnson's survey) mayforce us to take a look at the enormous proliferationof tiny courses. We shall also have to consider theproliferation of courses in tiny subjects and workharder to develop instruction at the middle level,between general surveys, and highly specializedseminars and colloquia. It is right to point out thatour courses, including the very small ones, are ofservice to students broadly throughout theHumanities and the Social Sciences.2. With declining applications and (perhaps) enrollments, History will get more and more expensive.The recommendations for additions to the facultyhave to be set against this picture. Even if everybodyswitches over to teaching 75 percent in the College,the trend of declining enrollments (which levelled offfor us for about three years and has now resumed) islikely to stay with us. If the Department is furtherreduced, the teaching resources will just be stretchedeven thinner than they are now.3. Inflation wipes out most of the raises that wecan add to faculty salaries, and it reduces the cashvalue of salaries to which no increments are added.The members of the Department whose wives don'twork and whose salaries are in the $12,000-16,000range are in straits, and the same can be said ofmembers whose salaries are higher. In my presentsimplicity, I can see no way to cope with this problemother than establishing an across-the-board cost-of-living increase, operating within a scheme of meritincreases. The costs of such a plan to the University would no doubt be simply enormous, and they mightvery well require an accelerated reduction of the sizeof the faculty. Still, considerable risks would be runby tabling the issue.4. The will to help in the Placement Service isstrong. We are grateful for its help, which is oftenself- sacrificial. But in the Placement Service, due tounder- staffing, there are delays in notification of jobopenings and in mailing out dossiers. We have triedto cope with the matter inside the Department, byhaving one placement officer in charge of Americanists and another in charge of the others. This works,because the colleagues in charge put their shouldersto the wheel. But it is a tenuous operation. At thismoment, above all, we urgently need a vigorous andefficient placement bureau, perhaps staffed with abattery of people who can call up every institution inthe country searching out jobs, and who can getdossiers in the mails by return of post.5. Regularity in keeping records. In my tenure aschairman, there have been three administrativeassistants in charge of the graduate records. Onemore, whom Mr. Franklin and I selected together in1970, dropped out before I came down to this office.Fortunately, they have all been excellent and attentive people. But, records must be regularly andmeticulously kept if they are to be at all useful. It ishard to find people talented enough to do this on ourscales of clerical salaries, and who will stay with thejob more than a few months. I would strongly advisethat this side of things be centralized, perhaps in theoffice of the Dean of Students.All these problems exist because the Universitywon't stop teaching. The radical solution to all theseproblems is for the University to stop teaching andturn itself into a research institute. If it does that, italso ought to move to a climate more congenialto a more indolent temper. Teaching is so much apart of the University's reason for existence, and socentral to the work that we do at every level, that itwould be hard to think of any justification for theUniversity that left teaching out. And yet, that is thelocus of the problems that we face, and will face. Toteach we have to cope with our present difficulties.We are obliged to the Visitors for adding thestrength of their advice to our sense of need on anumber of obviously important matters. We can gowith them so far as to foresee a challenging future,but, to the merry heart, a hard road is not a bad one.Karl F. MorrisonChairman, Department of History118REPORT OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEEON THE DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICSFebruary 19, 1974IntroductionThe University of Chicago has a long record of outstanding work in physics and its Department overallprobably rates currently among the first ten departments in this country, considering quality of staffmembers and their research and teaching activitiesboth graduate and undergraduate. The presence ofthe Research Institutes has greatly affected thenature and scope of the activities in physics and alsohas provided major ties to other sciences and to interdisciplinary studies. The nature of the work has alsobeen affected by the absence of an engineering schooland of any designated activity in applied physics. TheDepartment wisely has not attempted to cover allfields of physics but has concentrated on high energyphysics, space physics, astro-physics and relativity,condensed matter, electron and proton optics, andcertain aspects of atoms and molecules.TeachingThe undergraduate teaching of students majoring inother subjects seems to be uneven, being at timesreally excellent and at others less than satisfactory.This appears, not unexpectedly, to be closely relatedto the ability and enthusiasm of the instructor. Therole of physics in our understanding of nature in bothmicroscopic and macroscopic form, as well as itsimportance to most other sciences, makes itimportant that undergraduate teaching of studentsmajoring in other subjects be done with imagination.The curriculum for physics majors is a difficult oneand there is a very high attrition rate. Perhaps muchof this attrition is due to students who select physicsfor a major without adequate understanding of whatthis involves, but the present attrition rate is unhealthy and should be corrected. Undergraduatemajors expressed a desire to see more of seniorfaculty and in view of the small numbers involved thisshould be possible, preferably with individual contact. We are pleased to note the recent assignment of responsibility to a single faculty member for theoverall conduct of a series of related courses to seethat they achieve their objective and fit together well.The number of graduate students has declinedsharply and at a rate higher than the national average. This does not appear to be due to lower stipendsfor tutors and research assistants, although thescarcity of positions has undoubtedly had an adverseeffect. Numbers of graduate students are not of primary importance and the presently reduced numberis probably more appropriate to these times. The outlined curriculum for graduate students seemsreasonable but graduate students who were interviewed said that both the course content and thequality of teaching varied greatly from one instructorto another. Students who are settled into graduateresearch seem to be happy and working hard. OurCommittee recommended in its visit last spring thatmore individual attention be given to first and secondyear students and the Committee is happy to noteseveral steps in this direction. The graduate curriculum, including the candidacy examinations andthesis requirements, has been under study for a yearor more. Some changes have already been made butwe feel strongly that more are needed to make thework less rigid and more inspiring.ResearchIn space physics, astrophysics, and relativity the Department has an outstanding and productive groupin fields which are closely related and which is anexciting area on the forefront of our knowledge.While it is important to keep this group an outstanding one, it does not seem necessary to increase its sizesignificantly to do so.High energy physics research has a distinguishedhistory in the work of the Enrico Fermi Institute. Inthis field there have recently been additions to facultyon both the senior and junior level in experimentaland theoretical work. These additions have strengthened the group and demonstrated that with theNational Accelerator Laboratory nearby, excellentfaculty members can be attracted. The number of119junior faculty members is large and this may posesome problems for the future. It is important for thefuture of physics at Chicago that the University takeadvantage of the present opportunity to increase thestrength in high energy physics in both experimentand theory. This may mean a temporary increase infaculty beyond the level which can be supportednormally.In the general area of condensed matter, the Department has a long tradition of strength which evenpredates the existence of the Institutes. Over theyears there have been ups and downs in quality. Inrecent years there have been significant losses ofsenior faculty and efforts to recruit replacementshave not been very successful. Junior facultymembers have been added, some very recently, andalthough these additions have added to the strengthin this general area, the strength in toto is not as greatas it has been. There appears to be an unhappiness,in particular, among junior faculty who are concerned about the future of work in this area at TheUniversity of Chicago. We believe that it is essentialfor the future of physics at Chicago for there to behigh quality work in this general area. There areseveral reasons for this judgment. Such work isgenerally carried out on campus and with both highenergy physics research and low energy nuclearphysics research carried out off campus, distinctionin this area is of special importance. This field isperhaps the largest branch of physics. From a practical standpoint it is important in the future for theDepartment to offer training for graduate students insome areas in which prospective employment can befound outside the academic field. This area providesa bridge to chemistry, an area in which Chicago hastraditionally been strong. The work in this field isgenerally carried out in the Franck Institute and thisposes some problems which are discussed later in therelation between the Department and the Institutes.The work in electron and proton optics is impressive and may have many applications to othersciences. This work is almost unique to Chicago andgrew up in the Fermi Institute. While quite differentin purpose from the other work there, this seems to bea very satisfactory home for it. In one sense this workapproaches applied physics, fundamental as much ofthe work is. To have such work at Chicago is a realasset.For many years work in nuclear physics waspursued either in the Department or later in theFermi Institute. At present, research for graduatestudents in nuclear physics is carried out at theArgonne Laboratory and courses and thesis directionare provided by two senior staff members of thatLaboratory who hold part-time appointments. The present arrangement seems to be generally satisfactory and mutually advantageous to the Department and to the Argonne Laboratory.Physical Separation of Parts of the DepartmentThe area of atoms and molecules in which Chicagohas done distinguished work for many years is nowrepresented by relatively few faculty members andsome of these are more closely associated with chemistry. Association with chemistry in this area seemsto us to be a fine thing. We have worried that thework in this area is just about the only work in physicswhich is still carried on either in Eckhart or RyersonLaboratories. This leaves a small fraction of the staffto form the nucleus of the "Department." One of ourmajor conclusions is that this arrangement is untenable. It does not satisfactorily solve the problems ofattention to student laboratory course administration, and survival of a sense of Departmentalintegrity with which it is supposed to deal, and yet inour opinion places a heavy burden of isolation on ahandful of faculty who carry the load.We understand that space has become available sothat this group could (with some difficulty) be movedinto the Franck Institute. We are aware of some ofthe many ties to the present laboratories but webelieve it is important to bring the faculty in physicstogether in the Research Institutes. We recommendthat this move be made whether or not a new laboratory can be made available. It would, of course, be anadvantage if the undergraduate laboratories, library,and classrooms could also be centered in theInstitutes and we recommend that strenuous effortsbe made to provide sufficient space for this purpose.We do not believe, however, that inability to providesuch space at the present time should be a reason forpostponing the move recommended above.A New Physics BuildingSome years ago a plan was prepared for a new physicsbuilding which, however, so grew in size as a result ofthe many functions assigned it that it became tooexpensive to undertake. Nevertheless, the Committeewas struck by the large number of factors central tothe welfare of the Department which are vastly morelikely to be dealt with successfully were a newbuilding to be built. Fortunately, however, what nowappears to be needed is a substantially less ambitiousproject.What we propose is that the University study theconstruction of a building directly across from the120Fermi and Franck Institutes, bridged with passageways at all levels above the street level, to house theteaching laboratories, classrooms, appropriate studyand common room space for undergraduate andgraduate students, a faculty lounge, and the Departmental offices. We would envisage all faculty officesand research laboratories as being in the Institutes.Questions such as whether the library and the shopswhich support the teaching laboratories would be inthe Institutes or the new building would need study.Why do we believe such a building to be important? We believe the key needs of the Department areto foster a sense of strong unity, common purposeand mutual support within the Department, and tostrengthen the quality of teaching both at the undergraduate and graduate levels. The new buildingwould1. Promote easy interaction of the faculty (whoseoffices are in the Institutes) with the teaching andlaboratory support function.2. Provide space which is in top-flight physicalcondition and which is well-suited to the sort ofexperiments conducted in a modern teachinglaboratory.3. Enable both undergraduate and graduatestudents prior to research to feel strongly identifiedwith their field of study by being physically close tothe research work, and by having a genuine home inthe Department.4. Promote contact between faculty who are affiliated with the different Institutes.We believe these are strong reasons for pushingahead vigorously on generating a new building plan.With such a building the Department will be stronglyaided in generating that atmosphere which is thesingle most important thing in the next steps of improving quality.Relationship of the Department to the InstitutesOur recommendation for a gathering together of thework in physics in the Institutes is in major partprompted by a strong feeling that a greater unity ofthe staff and of the work is very much needed. Thepresent fragmentation is not wholly one of locationbut is in major part due to the complex relationshipsthat have grown up between the Department and theInstitutes. Many of the members of the PhysicsDepartment like to view physics as a whole ratherthan in terms of their research specialities. Theystress the significance of excellent teaching for theundergraduates and of a sound, sensible program forthe graduate students. Fortunately for the future ofthe Department, these sentiments are strong amongthe best younger members. We commented earlier on some of the excellent recent progress instrengthening the quality of undergraduate andgraduate education which has resulted.The Research Institutes (Fermi and Franck) haveplayed a key role in the intellectual vitality of physicalsciences at The University of Chicago. They haveprovided centers for contact which bridges Departmental lines. They have been important sources ofinitiatives for new programs or for upgrading oldones. They have provided a cross-weave to theintellectual fabric of the University which helps overcome weaknesses within individual departments.Nevertheless, many members of the Physics Department have recognized that on occasion the Institutesand the Department can be and have been at crosspurposes. On occasion these faculty members havebeen dismayed at what struck them as narrowparochialism linked to loyalities to the Institutes exhibited by some of their colleagues whom they respectas scientists.Recognizing the importance of the recent efforts tostrengthen the educational program, the Committeehas been led to ask whether there are ways of helpingto eliminate parochial views of problems withoutweakening the strong positive features which the Institutes have historically played at The University ofChicago. Can one find means to lessen the confrontations which automatically result from the overlay oftwo separate and independent administrative structures, that of the Department and that of the Institutes?It appears that the difficulties arise in questions ofpromotion and hiring. At present, appointments orpromotions are initiated within an Institute andcarried through the stage of formal approval therebefore they are brought to the Department. At thatstage the Department then undertakes considerationand must carry through a formal vote before the action goes forward to the Dean.Such a scheme as this strikes us as made to orderfor argument and confrontation since one body hasacted officially before the other has a chance to enterits comments or suggestions, and a portion of the Department has officially given its seal of approvalbefore the rest has perhaps been consulted.It is difficult for a group of outsiders to make arealistic proposal to solve such internal problems.Nevertheless, we believe this area to be so in need ofimprovement that a concrete proposal is justified toserve as a possible illustration and to stimulate discussion, provided it is clearly recognized by all partiesthat our proposal is made to stimulate thought ratherthan as a definite plan of action.It appears to us that one might well initiate proposals for promotion or hiring within an Appoint-121ments and Promotions Committee of the Physics Department rather than within the Institutes. To judgewho should be promoted or who should be hired, theDepartment would need to utilize those members ofthe Department who possess expertise in the area ofinterest. In the process there would result automatically an informal consultation within both Institutes. It could be understood that the Departmentwould even appoint a sub-committee made up ofmembers of the Institute principally involved to theprimary input. The subcommittee could include theDirector of that Institute or someone designated byhim. After discussion within the Departmental Committee, the matter would then go to the Departmentas a whole for a formal Departmental meeting andDepartmental action. The subsequent action of theInstitute would be a decision as to whether or not it iswilling to appoint someone selected by a Departmentas a member of that Institute. Since a procedure suchas the one we have outlined would give the Institute avery large input to the Department decision, onewould expect that people proposed for hiring wouldbe of interest to the Institute.There are other questions which might be worthconsidering. For example, is it necessary for both theDepartment members and the Institute members tohave separate formal votes both on hiring new facultyand on promoting faculty? Might it be satisfactory toMarch 22, 1974The occasion that brings us together here this afternoon is the most important event that occurs in theannual round of life in this University, for everythingthat is done on this campus finds its fulfillment in themoment when each student generation is at lastbrought to the point at which its various courses ofstudy have been completed. And the ceremony whichthis occasion requires is regularly held in this room confine the official action of the Institute to questionsof new hirings, not to promotions? As outsiders, weare loath to try to recommend in detail, but believeconsideration of the general question of possiblemodifications in procedures which the above discussion illustrates could well lead to a lessening of unproductive tensions without impairing effectiveness.Concluding CommentOur principal purpose in most of the suggestions thatwe have made is to achieve a greater unity in the workin physics and to provide a broader base for planningfor the future. In the past, Fermi, Franck, Allison,and others individually provided the strong bond thatpulled the work together. In recent years, probablyfor many reasons, there has been more fragmentation. We sense among many of the members of theDepartment, especially the younger members, astrong desire for greater unity. We believe that thetime has come to take steps which would help toachieve some greater unity.Luis W. Alvarez, University of California, BerkeleyRobert F. Bacher, (Chairman), California Instituteof TechnologyMarvin L. Goldberger, Princeton UniversityCharles P. Slichter, University of Illinoisbecause it is the largest space afforded by any of ourbuildings and because, being a University property,the use of it entails no obligation to assume any rentalcost. But many of you will doubtless remark theanomaly which is made by the placement in a Gothicchurch, however inauthentic its architecture, of themajor celebration occurring in the life of a greatmodern secular university. The small incongruity inthe arrangement is obvious and cannot be missed.THE 348th CONVOCATION ADDRESS:THE CLOUD OF UNKNOWINGBY NATHAN A. SCOTT JR.122For the vaults and arches of this chapel, as they reachtoward a transcendent reality beyond our humanuniverse, are a kind of diagram of prayer. The heavy,massive stones of which the building is made are, ofcourse, deeply rooted in this Midway earth, but thedesign of the entire structure makes a huge iconwhich says in effect that there is an otherness beyondthe earth which solicits acknowledgment and withwhich the nature of our humanity requires us toreckon.Yet the whole vision of the world symbolized bythis Chapel is, as it would seem, contravened byeverything to which a modern university enterprise iscommitted. For what is generally taken for granted inour time as the essential presupposition of all systematic inquiry is that we dwell in one world ratherthan at a point of intersection between two worlds.The established grammar of modern intelligence isbased on the assumption that ours is a world withoutthresholds, that we do not live on any borderlandbetween Nature and Supernature, that the universedoes not have a second story. For people whose senseof reality is determined by cybernetics and spacetravel and the physics of fundamental particles, notmuch room can any longer be made for the supposition that there is some "realm of the divine over andabove or behind the processes of nature and historywhich perforates this world or breaks [into it] bysupranatural intervention."1 We say, "The world issimply what it is' '— or, as it was put in the propositionthat G. E. Moore made a kind of motto of his ownphilosophy, we will say, "Everything is what it is andnot another thing." And thus, as we assemble overand again in this majestic chapel for the central eventin the university's life, we cannot fail to remark whatis ironical in the occasion.Yet I wonder if the kind of large symbol which ismade by this Gothic chapel is as antithetical to whatwe are about on this campus as we may at first suppose. For is it not the case that all the various researches sponsored by the University, in so far as theyare truly vital, lead not into any sort of blind alley butinto further researches? "One answer breeds a multitude of new questions. . . ."2No sooner is a givenproblem solved than the very solution then puts us inview of a still larger problem. What at a certain stagein the course of an inquiry may appear to be a centerwill at a later stage be discovered to be "but a point onthe periphery of another center."3 And so it isthroughout the entire stretch of the intellectual life:the more resolutely we press our search for1. John A. T. Robinson, Exploration into God (Stanford:Stanford University Press, 1967), p. 80.2., 3. Abraham Heschel, Between God and Man (NewYork: Harper and Bros., 1959), p. 46. fundamental understanding of human existence themore clearly we perceive the great limitation andinadequacy of what we know, and the more deferentwe find it necessary to be toward our own deepestuncertainties.From one standpoint, of course, a certain pathosmay be felt to be a part of our being fated to "live onthe fringe of reality and hardly [quite ever to] knowhow to reach the core."4 Yet, however nettling thismay at times be, it is deeply a part of the special kindof excitement and challenge that belong to man'shighest dignity; and the burden of living with mysteryis perhaps most especially a burden to be borne byliberally educated people like yourselves who arecommitted to the active practice of one or another ofthe great intellectual disciplines.So, in casting about for what might be the finalword of this University to those of its members onwhom it is today conferring degrees, it occurred to methat perhaps you might be reminded — in the phraseforming the title of an anonymous mystical text of thefourteenth century — that yours is to be the responsibility, for the rest of your lives, of constantly reachinginto "the cloud of unknowing." And of this, I think,the vaulting Gothic architecture of the building inwhich we are here met makes a nice symbol.Many of you will doubtless recall T. S. Eliot'sremark of many years ago about Henry James, that"he had a mind so fine that no idea could violate it."Which was not, of course, for Eliot to have accusedJames of any abdication from thinking: it was ratherfor him to have congratulated James for havingachieved such mastery over his ideas as never to havebeen at the mercy of any particular idea. The lateRichard Hofstadter, in his brilliant book of 1963,Anti-intellectualism in American Life, suggests that,though the intellectual "may live for ideas," it is hisgreat duty to shun any excess of piety toward somegreat master- idea. He says: "If there is anythingmore dangerous to the life of the mind than having noindependent commitment to ideas, it is having anexcess of commitment to some special and constricting idea."5 And the larger lessons that are nowemerging from the whole episode of the Watergateaffair will surely prepare us to be responsive to Hof-stadter's contention that, indeed, it is precisely someexcess of commitment to a single idea that generatesthose ugly fundamentalist passions that periodicallyerupt in this country in the form of one or anotherkind of nativist obscurantism.But the finest fruit of serious learning is, I believe,4. Ibid., p. 44.5. Richard Hofstadter, Anti-intellectualism in AmericanLife (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963), p. 29.123the ability to keep free of the tyranny of ideas. Andthis is an ability we are guaranteed once we havecome deeply to realise that (to use Emerson's phrase)Man Thinking is man reaching into "the cloud of unknowing," as the tower of this Chapel wants to reachupward to eternity. So, in all the years that are tocome, in your practice of your professions and in youracquittal of the tasks of American citizenship, if youare careful not to accord finality to the various ideasand principles with which you order your work andyour lives and if you keep a vivid awareness of theCloud of Unknowing into which the whole adventureof the mind reaches, then you will have kept faithwith much to which this University has sought yourdevotion. For a part of its great hope for you is thatyou will always be prepared to give your assent to theBook of Job, when it bids us "Beware lest we say, wehave found wisdom" (32:13).Nathan A. Scott, Jr. is the Shailer Mathews Professorof Theology and Literature.SUMMARY OF THE348th CONVOCATIONThe 348th Convocation was held on Friday, March22, 1974, in Rockefeller Memorial Chapel. EdwardH. Levi, President of the University, presided.A total of 356 degrees were awarded: 41 Bachelorof Arts, 1 Bachelor of Science, 100 Master of Arts, 16Master of Science, 1 Master of Arts in Teaching, 3Master of Science in Teaching, 111 Master of Business Administration, 1 Doctor of Law, 1 Doctor ofMinistry, and 81 Doctor of Philosophy.Nathan A. Scott, Jr., the Shailer Mathews Professor in the Divinity School and Professor in theDepartment of English, delivered the ConvocationAddress entitled "The Cloud of Unknowing."NEW DEPARTMENTS NAMEDThe Department of Biophysics and TheoreticalBiology and the Department of Pharmacological andPhysiological Sciences. On June 4, 1973, the Trusteesauthorized within the Division of the BiologicalSciences the consolidation of the Departments of Biophysics and Theoretical Biology and part of theDepartment of Physiology into a single academicdepartment and the consolidation of the Departmentof Pharmacology and the remainder of the Department of Physiology into a single academic department. Subsequently, on October 1, 1973, authorization was given to name the new departments theDepartment of Biophysics and Theoretical Biologyand the Department of Pharmacological and Physiological Sciences, respectively.The Department of Behavioral Sciences. On June 4,1973, the Trustees authorized the establishment on atemporary basis a new Department of BehavioralSciences within the Division of the Social Sciencesand on November 19, 1973, approved permanentstatus for the Department, which, as of this date,includes the following degree- recommending Program Committees: Human Development, Methodology in Behavioral Research, Cognition andCommunication, Biopsychology, and Social andOrganizational Psychology.EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ANDAFFIRMATIVE ACTIONTo: Deans, Department Chairmen, Heads of Non-Academic UnitsFrom: President Edward H LeviApril 23, 1974I should like to remind you, once again, of the longstanding commitment of the University to a program of positive action to insure that quality is thegoverning factor in the selection of faculty, students,and staff.It is time for us to begin the preparation of ourannual progress report to the Department of Health,Education and Welfare. For the past two years wehave preceded the preparation of the narrative partof the report with personal interviews with each ofyou. This year we will be asking you to do a self-appraisal; in effect we will be asking you to writethat part of the report which pertains to your area.You will be receiving further details on this fromWilliam B. Cannon.I know that we can count on your cooperation inmaintaining the high standards we have set for ourselves in the matter of recruitment and retention offaculty and staff.124POST-GRADUATION PLANS OFBACHELOR'S DEGREE RECIPIENTS-CLASS OF 1973To: Charles D. O'ConnellVice-President and Dean of StudentsApril 24, 1974For the past seven years we have been watching thecareer plans of our Bachelor's degree candidates.We have noted that not only do their plans reflectevents which have occurred on the national scene,but that consistently they reflect the specialcharacter of the student body of The University ofChicago.Acceleration. Although not related to our basic purpose of discussing the post-graduation plans of ourBachelor's degree recipients, it is worth noting thefollowing:In the academic year 1972-73, The University ofChicago graduated 426 students at the Bachelordegree level. Forty-five students, or better than 10percent graduated in less than four years, nine inthree years or less.Eighteen additional students in the Class of 1973combined their senior year of college with the firstyear in graduate professional study, and will thusshorten their combined undergraduate-graduatecourse of study by one year. Of these 18, 15 were inthe MBA program, and three in Library Science.Finally, six other students in the Class of 1973were enrolled in joint Bachelors and Masters programs; two received both their Bachelor's andMaster's degree at the end of four years.The proportion of the 426 students, therefore,who accelerated their normal four-year programsthrough one or another of these avenues was '69, or16 percent.Graduate Study. Again for the Class of 1973, thepercentage of students planning to embark upongraduate study immediately is high, and higher thanthat reported by other similar institutions. Althoughlast year (Class of 1972) we noted a dramatic decrease in graduate study plans for both our menand our women, possibly caused by the rather sudden decrease in available money as well as the mediastories about the Ph.D. surplus, the Class of 1973returned to the pattern that has been observedthrough the years of our study.Seventy percent of the men who reported theirplans indicated their intention to pursue graduatestudy immediately. Of these, 52 percent plannedstudy in the arts and sciences, and 48 percent expected to enter professional schools. This againseems to reverse a trend toward professional education that first became apparent with the Class of1970 and continued through the Class of 1972.Within the areas of professional education, thegreatest numbers chose medicine, law, and business,in that order.The percentage of women in the Class of 1973who planned to enter graduate study immediately is59 percent, the highest we have known in the sevenyears of our study, and it may be that the message iscoming through to women that they are indeed welcome in higher education. Certainly this has beendemonstrated to us by the increased and seriousrecruiting efforts by graduate schools aimed specifically at women undergraduates.Traditionally, women graduating from our College have chosen to study in the arts and sciences ingreater numbers than in professional schools. Thisis true with the Class of 1973 in which 59 percent ofthose going to graduate school selected arts andsciences, and 41 percent professional study. Theorder of preference for professional study is law,medicine, library science, and social service.Although we have thus far spoken only of thosegoing directly into graduate study, we cannot ignorethe fact that, in addition, some 3 percent of the menand 5 percent of the women indicated their intentionto continue their education after "a year off." Whenthese are added to the groups going immediately tograduate school, our percentages rise from 70 percent of our men to 73 percent, and from 59 percentof our women to 64 percent.Schools Chosen. Seniors in the Class of 1973 chose125some 30 institutions for graduate study. Only 15 ofthese institutions, however, attracted 78 percent ofthe population that reported specific choices ofschool. Those choosing The University of Chicagoaccounted for 45 percent. Following, in order ofpreference, were Harvard, University of Illinois,Columbia, Berkeley, Yale, Stanford, Cornell, California Institute of Technology, Michigan, Princeton,Washington University, Minnesota, George Washington University, and Loyola (Chicago).Jobs. Twenty percent of the men and 33 percent ofthe women indicated that they planned to enter thelabor market immediately upon graduation. Ofthose men who knew their plans, the largest numberchose positions in business and industry, followed byeducation, government, and social or communityagencies. Among the women entering the jobmarket directly, the choices were education, followed by business and industry, social andcommunity agencies, and hospitals. Twenty- ninepercent of the men in this category and 24 percent ofthe women indicated more than one job possibilityand apparently were students still in the process ofweighing various alternatives open to them. It perhaps should be noted here that the problem faced byour liberal arts graduates who want to enter thelabor market directly is not that there is no activedemand for them, but that the available choiceswere often so varied that a specific choice wasdifficult to make. Other Alternatives. Some of our graduates recognized that there are still other alternatives tograduate study and jobs. A few students in the Classof 1973, as in recent classes, indicated Vista/PeaceCorps, military or alternative service, and travel.Together, however, this group accounted for only alittle more than one percent of the population.Undecided. Some five percent of the Class gave noindication of any specific plans. The reasons for thismay be so many that one risks trying to give thefigure meaning. Like our group giving multiplecategories, they may not have been able to narrowtheir choices; or they may have been waiting to hearfrom the graduate school of their choice or from anemployer, but feared committing it to paper.Summary. Two- thirds of the Class of 1973 chose topursue graduate study directly upon graduation.About a quarter of the class chose to enter the labormarket directly. Their work ranged from computerprogramming, research in medicine, social work,community programs, zoo keeper, technical directorfor a theatre in Paris, and teaching in privateschools both in this country and abroad.Anita SandkeAssistant Dean of StudentsDirector, Career Counseling and Placement126A STUDY OF EMPLOYMENT OF1972-73 DOCTORATESTo: Charles D. O'ConnellVice-President and Dean of StudentsApril 25, 1974No substantial number of University of Chicagodoctoral graduates were unemployed in 1973 despitethe pessimistic views and reports from the mediaand the professional associations concerning thePh.D. oversupply. The unemployment rate forUniversity of Chicago Ph.D.s overall was 3.8 percent, and 4.6 percent when one considers the Divisions exclusive of the Professional Schools. Thisrate is undoubtedly among the lowest in the UnitedStates for any university.We discovered that the patterns of occupations inwhich our Ph.D.s engage have similar rankings as inother years with only a few percentage point differences. A three-year comparison by occupation isgiven below.Teaching and/or research, as would be expected,are the natural occupations for our Ph.D.s.The majority of our graduates continue to findtheir employment in the nation's major universities,institutions belonging to either the Association ofGraduate Schools or the Council of GraduateSchools. The small shifts in the last three yearsamong the various types of institutions seem pri marily to reflect the shifting economic conditions ofthe various components of American higher education.If a study of employment of doctorates in any yearcan be said to have a theme, the theme for the1972-73 Divisional Ph.D.s is the temporary natureof some of the positions in the college teachingand/or research category. Some of the departmentalreports carried the refrain "This is a one yearappointment. Will be seeking a position again in1974." Some departments, particularly those in theHumanities, but also in Physics and in History(Social Sciences), give the sense of a situation thatmay be more acute for 1974-75. Many of the1972-73 graduates will again be in the market,along with the 1973-74 graduates, and one cannotpredict at this time that there is likely to be an upswing in available jobs in higher education in 1974.However, more and more Ph.D. students are lookinginto careers other than teaching or research and,indeed, some are even expressing a preference forthem.Consistently in the course of these reports, wehave noted that a few Ph.D.s in the BiologicalSciences and an occasional student in the PhysicalSciences, following the awarding of their Ph.D.s,continued training as medical students, interns, orresidents. The 1972-73 Biological Science group,however, shows a sharp increase in those attendingmedical schools or those training as interns andCollege & University Teaching 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73and/or Research 65% 63% 60%College and University Admin. 1% 2% Bel 2%School Teaching & Admin. Bel 1% Bel 1% 1%Business and Industry 2% 1% 5%Government 3% 5% 4%Non-Profit Organizations 5% 8% 6%Type of Employing InstitutionThe University of Chicago 1970-71 1971-72 1972-735% 5% 7%AGS* 36% 27% 25%CGS** 26% 32% 32%CAGS*** 4% 4% 2%College with National Reputation 3% 2% 3%State College 4% 7% 10%Other U.S. Colleges 18% 13% 18%Community or Junior College 1% 3% 1%Foreign University 4% 6% 2%* AGS: Association of Graduate Schools** CGS: Council of Graduate Schools*** CAGS: Canadian Association of Graduate Schools127¦ae ? ? ?°1 <^ CO 00 ^ ? ^5" ^a1- &- ?^ tH 00 r^ -^- 00 ONH tH © ?H ^ ^ tt* in o 3, O co 3*« tH w s^ ^^ ^^ s^ s_^ ^s3 On ^ v©t^ 00w £3 00v© 00 VO fN <^ VO (N<N ^rH (N i-H1— ( tt/*-V ? ??t^ 1— 1 tH H< v© tH tH rH0000 a> O 0\ o v© tH i— ( O O O 0CO1 c3 s43 m ^H Tf o <N 1—1 tH O O O 0GC 3T3 ?tH ^g t^ ^.2CO 43 00 i—( CNen oo> v© O v© o ? o lO O tH O 0©TT rr ^i-h i-h .r**»N-^ S»«^ >»?.5 ''l/iGPQ v©1-^ o ON o <N <N ^ O O O 0V© ^ ? ? # g ? ? ^ ^COCO* vo vO CO O oo ^ vO CO VOi— 1 i/) iH cssss 3 S i-i1 tH 00 COt^ CO 1— (3 m i— ii— i vO vO O vO °0 CN<N ^H ^h tHi—( rrH >w^ /— s /^. 1— I^ »> ^ g g ^^ g ^ ^ "5*oS 00 w co G ^ S b ^ 3 CO PQCOoo CO 2S1— 1 3 5 COtH vO IT) t>- 00 CO <N 10 O vO i-H00^ ? ". m & ™. ? ^CD§> ^ co CO ? co"o00>>43 00 lO1-1 l> S rj 3co O tH i—l 00 i—ltH O vO thtH i-H1—1 3O CO 1— (5 Pu,00 1 ^s s COi-H ^ in^ 0i—i 1— 1 COi-HBg s« ?CO00 ^ v© o On o O CO O ^ i-H ^H 00 tH^-v ^— s^ ^,«-v ¦^^ (N ^-v <N*o 1—1CN co m PQ CO s00 s_^oS ^- 00CO O 00 o O O <N tHi-H O O 1— (fcHC/J o1 -a CO O 5S ojo .2sS .a 3©43'S** w g50 *3 43 V5 C/3£ &ecCaCI T3*-<> d > dS3OJO ^8 q G.2gv»gg*<D oj ll.2^5?+3 .SCU OJO q0 « oi<y 33 d> *V38 g> 2? < c3OX)G43oCDH*oo43 .2 T3_(S H <D•S a S o &c S^ c *-< «< ^ st S S3 G.2bl) 0^ 43 T3OJO >>G O0) G 1ea i 43 O 43 © £ 2^ o o <S3H o ^ 3S o o 75 ^5 ^ 0 00 J a, u< p* fc p o fe H u 00 PQ O Z uo S5 fc z z U)128residents (from 10 percent in 1971-72 to 37 percentin 1972-73) with a corresponding decline inpost-doctoral fellowships (from 44 percent in1971-72 to 21 percent in 1972-73). Further in thisyear, we see the beginning of a possible trend towardprofessional study in Business and Law amongHumanities and Social Science Ph.D.s. This phenomenon is undoubtedly a direct reflection of thedepressed teaching market.To determine how the Chicago Ph.D.s faredcomparatively in the national labor market, werequested data from three Ivy League Institutionswho are members of the AGS and are known to collect similar information on their Ph.D.s. Unfortunately, categories are not identical among theinstitutions,* and particularly because InstitutionB's categories were not always clear, comparisonsare somewhat difficult to make. These data areshown in Table III.Assuming, however, that the definitions of the* Some rearrangement of Chicago data was necessary inorder to accommodate to the larger categories of the otherinstitutions. Thus, college and university administrationand school teaching and administration were added to the"non-profit" category and the self-employed were added tothe "business and industry" category.TABLE 1A: EMPLOYMENT BY DEPARTMENTS: DIVISION OFTHE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCESBase DataPh.D.s AwardedForeign (Temp. Visa)Ph.D.s in Job Market S 5' §; 5* o ffi | § g! & 3 1O* P53 32 10 533114940 1110 0 0 10 02 942311394 Total42438Post DoctoralUniversity of ChicagoOther U.S. InstitutionsForeign InstitutionsTotalOccupationCollege & University Teachingand/or ResearchCollege & UniversityAdministrationSchool Teaching and/orAdministrationBusiness and IndustryGovernmentNon-ProfitNot WorkingFurther Education*Not SeekingNot employedUnknown 1 (1)12 3 1 (7)08112 111 4 1 12000.1 1 21 15 2 14 2 14001 1* Medical School, internship, or residence129categories are approximately accurate, some tentative conclusions may be drawn. All four institutionsplaced better than 50 percent of their Ph.D.s inhigher education with Chicago having the highestpercentage at 60.1. The post-doctoral placements,admittedly of a temporary nature, are fewer atChicago than at Institutions A and C, and thenumber is probably similar to Institution B. (Seefootnote 3 on Table III.)The unemployment rate of 3.8 percent at Chicagocompares favorably with the lowest rate of 3.7 atInstitution C. It is probably even more favorable when one considers that Chicago's Ph.D. populationis one- third larger than Cs.Certainly one can conclude that Chicago's Ph.D.sfare as well or in some instances even better thanthose from the Ivy League. This is not to say thateither the three institutions or Chicago is pleasedwith the results. At all these institutions there areindications of concern that any Ph.D.s are unemployed, that not all Ph.D.s are achieving the level oftheir aspirations, and that so many are in temporarypositions. All are searching for new approaches toplacement.TABLE 1B: EMPLOYMENT BY DEPARTMENTS: DIVISION OF THE HUMANITIESBase DataPh.D.s AwardedForeign (Temp. Visa)Ph.D.s in Job Market a. ^SrwiS^so^gpoI U * I I " & & £ £ g r<¦< "* £ ! m * * a £<Sf^*n n411 29 7513932585000 05000001010411 29 2513931575 Ho83776Post DoctoralUniversity of ChicagoOther U.S. InstitutionsForeign InstitutionsTotalOccupationCollege and UniversityTeaching and/or ResearchCollege and UniversityAdministrationSchool Teaching and/orAdministrationBusiness & IndustryGovernmentNon-ProfitNot WorkingFurther EducationNot SeekingNot EmployedUnknown 4 1 23* 2412531355 59001 2 301 2 31*** 11 14** ^ j \ j**** 81 1* Includes one teaching part time** Two had specific geographic requirements*** Law School**** Specific geographic location130The unemployment of University of Chicago Artsand Science Ph.D.s, no matter how few there maybe, is cause for concern by members of the facultyand by the various Deans of Students. New andexpanded placement efforts are under way in thedepartments and in the office of Career Counselingand Placement. Coordinated efforts between departments and the office of Career Counseling andPlacement have never been greater, and willcontinue to increase.Raw Data for the individual Divisions is con tained in the accompanying Tables IA - ID. Table Iis the summary of the Divisions and the ProfessionalSchools. Table II contains the breakdown by type ofInstitution at which 1972-73 University of ChicagoPh.D.s were employed. Table III is a comparison ofThe University of Chicago with reports from threeother AGS institutions.Anita SandkeAssistant Dean of StudentsDirector, Career Counseling and PlacementTABLE 1C: EMPLOYMENT BY DEPARTMENTS: DIVISION OFTHE PHYSICAL SCIENCESBase DataPh.D.s AwardedForeign (Temp. Visas)Ph.D.s in Job Market >§O3303 ntro324123 2. n>a> o» ndn'P-123r9 « 3C/5 P_o*»404 Sp3*CD3po'1147 cr391029 Ho931875Post-DoctoralUniversity of ChicagoOther U.S. InstitutionsForeign InstitutionsTotalOccupationCollege and UniversityTeaching and/or ResearchCollege and UniversityAdministrationSchool Teaching and/orAdministrationBusiness and IndustryGovernmentNon-ProfitNot WorkingFurther EducationNot SeekingNot EmployedUnknown (1) (3) (4)(12) (2) (14) (28)(1) (2) (3)14 2 19 351 3 3 2 6 2 1701 11* • 3 1 2 3 101** 1 2 2 61 1!**# 1j**** i 1 31 1* Working in family business-unable to find position in A&A** Seeking position for next year*** Medical School**** Geographical limitation131TABLE 1D: EMPLOYMENT BY DEPARTMENTS: DIVISION OFTHE SOCIAL SCIENCESBase DataPh.D.s AwardedForeignPh.D.s in Job Market •top »~* ?* p K a* g^ ©o a S- P << 5 8 ° (T^ 2. 5* ^ * ~ o* H crot " * * l J E « f "*< * o o cwia17 23 39 10 35 19 24 16 2 182 10 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 315 13 38 9 34 19 23 16 2 15 Total20319184Post-DoctoralUniversity of ChicagoOther U.S. InstitutionsForeignTotalOccupationCollege and UniversityTeaching and/or ResearchCollege and UniversityAdministrationSchool Teaching and/or AdministrationBusiness and IndustryGovernmentNon ProfitSelf EmployedNot WorkingFurther EducationNot SeekingNot EmployedUnknown (2) (2)(D (2) (3)(2) (1) (3)1 2 4 1 813 8 24 8 22 9 21 6 1 11 1233 1 2 64 1 53 2 1 1 - 72 12 2 1 82 6 13 1 132 22***2**** 51* 1** 1 2 1 61 1* Geographical limitation** Geographical limitation*** Two Law School 1 School of Business**** Internship or Residency***** It was thought wiser to keep History intact as a department in the Social Sciences and, thus, three Humanitiesgraduates are included: 2 in C&UT and/or R and in Postdoc. fellow in foreign inst.132H ?n now n o n > a n 2P ?733. ~ troc3^.^05wMM2 olleg<Teasear a*bCollegeversity sityofinstitutinstitutlInstituewith]utationCollegeU.S.C[unityoegenUniv< o o "'I*p a *-»•B'8-ChicagoonsonstionsNationalollegerJunior^rsityand 13"O c/>?wp>-*¦ CObo o o o t— *. o o 4^ -u CO 00 COCn 1—^ H- »¦ H- *¦ -o cv£> o o Cn 45» o 00 os Cn o> Ba->—>> |_k <J ^^4 o o 1— »• O o )-*¦ o CO bO cnCOCOo 1-§03H-* i-* pbo co bO ?-*¦ h* 4> co 00co CO Cn 4^ CO CO Co ¦^4 -u 00Hto to bO *o Cn i— »• co o1—^ co to Cn H- »• 00 ¦u Cn Ov --4 -o p)—*¦ co)—L w 3 h-L H-* S: S CO CO 008 SL SL bO o £ SL o g^ to H- »¦ ©^ 'W to^ g gW?_* cVO to o o o o >-*¦ Co CO o 4x 3'ong-U to 4> ? 1o H- ». >-*. bO Cn o O o> -U H- »¦ o> CO- *a-o 8-1Is) o o o O o o - H* o 4> pV [cfODCOCOo> o o o H- »• o l-± >— »• bO H-*. v£> >-u to 00 On I-*00 o> CO -<! •^1 00 o> o> o> v£>£» f8 to l-± i— *¦ 1— *¦ co to co bO Q 4>OS £^ g 00 o g g boi6 Cn £1 m3h¦d>O r--< m2 =m .-O r-¦n r-co O¦m mSsoj 30 m=J CO SC ^ Hz mo>i ooE> 2OO°>?Zc/> O3)CD-< 3}m0)m>3D92nom133TABLE III: EMPLOYMENT OF PH.D.s: 1972-73 COMPARISONOF FOUR AGS INSTITUTIONSColleges and UniversitiesOwn InstitutionAGS InstitutionsCGS InstitutionsColleges with NationalReputationOther CollegesCanadian InstitutionsForeign InstitutionsTotal Colleges and UniversitiesTeaching and Research Chicago A B CN=446 N=136(l) N=468 N=2974.3 3.7 2.414.8 11.0 15.819.3 14.7 18.21.8 2.2 6.717.3 6.6 12.11.3 2.21.3 10.3 (1) 1.360.1 50.7 57.7(2) 56.6Post-DoctoralOwn InstitutionElsewhereTotal Post-Doctoral 1.6 4.4 4.79.9 11.8 (1) 19.211.5 16.2 9.0(2) 23.9Other EmploymentBusiness and IndustryNon-Profit OrganizationsGovernment 5.4 7.4 12.4(3) 3.49.0 1.5 8.8(3) 7.14.3 8.8 2.1(3) 3.7Not Seeking PositionFurther EducationUnemployedUnknownArmed Services 0.4 1.5 0.34.7 1.33.8) 5.1) 3.7[4.7 [l3.9 9.8 (4)0.9) 8.8) 00.2100.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%(1) Includes foreign students(2) Breakdown by type of institution not given(3) These percentages are probably not completely accurate; 70 Ph.D.s were in a research category which then were brokendown as profit 29 and non-profit 41. Twent-nine were added to business and industry and 41 to non-profit. Thesecategories are hazy, however, because some of the non-profit undoubtedly would fall in government, and possibly some inthe post-doctoral category.(4) Those known to be unemployed, as well as those whose whereabouts are unknown are combined in this figure.134THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDOFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRSRoom 200, Administration BuildingHXw3ooffio>oogiE"?5 38 S$ 5©> m *s ©(% €* re f»(p* ^ s*e**1 & 3^ T®m mtit s«s f%. ct |x r* f^ i2 €B c* r-{£) 39 cogm *« ON^1o z¦0 1 — omj c 33J O •b5S-oJ |pp5§ O(3325 s 1-* o m¦* r^ OCO 3