THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 9 RECORDNovember 1, 1974 An Official Publication Volume VIII, Number 7CONTENTS195 REPORT OF THE FACULTY COMMITTEE TO STUDYSUMMER ACADEMIC PROGRAMS207 PRINCIPLES AND GAMES: CONDUCT IN THE CONDUCT OFFOREIGN POLICY210 SUMMARY OF THE 350TH CONVOCATION211 TO THE ENTERING STUDENTS214 MEMORIAL TRIBUTE: LLOYD A. FALLERS218 POST-GRADUATION PLANS OF BACHELOR'S DEGREERECIPIENTS— CLASS OF 1974220 CENTER FOR POLICY STUDY FACULTY FELLOWS221 TRUSTEE ELECTION222 SOME LIMITED COMPARISONS OF THE COSTS OFUNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION, 1971-72222 COMMITTEE ON THE UNIVERSITY AND THE COMMUNITYPUBLIC SCHOOLSTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOFOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER© Copyright 1974 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDREPORT OF THE FACULTY COMMITTEE TO STUDYSUMMER ACADEMIC PROGRAMSSeptember 19741.0 Scope of the StudyThis Committee, appointed by the Provost, hasundertaken a study of summer quarter academicprograms. The scope of the study has beendefined in terms of the following questions:1. Should those units of the University whichat present are relatively inactive during the summer expand their summer quarter academic programs and, if so, why? What goals and objectivescan best guide us in formulating policy with respect to such expansion?2. What central administrative functions connected with the summer quarter are necessary ordesirable? What calendar should be adopted forthe summer quarter?3. What options are available and what specificactions should be taken by the faculties, and bythe administration, in order to implement theidentified goals and objectives?4. What information is needed each year by thefaculties and administration as a basis forjudgingsummer quarter effectiveness and efficiency, andfor assessing year to year trends?5. What is the present state of the summerquarter? Which units of the University operate ona four quarter basis and which do not? What aresome of the reasons offered in support of fourquarter operation and in support of three quarteroperation?Our study was motivated primarily by the disparity between the level of activity in the summerquarter and that of each other quarter. Whilesome units of the University operate all four quarters, others offer nothing during the summer, andmost of the rest operate at a greatly reduced level. The total number of course registrations duringthe summer quarter is approximately one fourthof the number in the autumn quarter. Over 40percent of the summer registrations are concentrated in four professional schools (Business,Education, Medicine, Library); the number ofsummer registrations in the rest of the Universityis around 15 percent of that in the autumn quarter.Clearly the resources of the University are underutilized during the summer. We shall shortlytry to make explicit just how the issues of summerquarter expansion are related to issues of studentenrollment throughout the year; we consider thereport of the Advisory Committee on Student Enrollment, published in The University of ChicagoRecord, May 28, 1974, to be of particular importance as background to our discussion.1.1 Argument for Expansion of Summer QuarterProgramsThe fact of under-utilization is not in itself arationale for offering more summer programs.Under certain conditions it is possible that the endresult of expanding would be to spend more timeand money to accomplish in four quarters whatotherwise could have been accomplished in three.In particular, if the net inflow of new studentseach year were to remain the same, then any increase in the total number of course registrationsduring the summer would be offset by a decreasein the other three quarters. That is, under thisassumption, students would simply be shifted outof other quarters and into the summer. In thiscase the average yearly number of graduates produced would not change, and, since this number isa reasonable base over which to allocate the fixed195costs of the University, we observe that the University might remain under-utilized even thoughall units were operating fully on a four quarterbasis.A similar point can be made from the perspective of tuition income. Again if we assume thatexpansion of summer offerings did not result inany net increase in the number of new studentsentering the University each year, then yearly tuition income could not increase. In fact, if addedinstructional costs were incurred at the sametime, there would be a net economic loss in thevariable costs, quite apart from the issue of leaving unchanged the base over which the fixed costsmight be allocated. Thus, it is imperative, from aneconomic viewpoint, to take as the ultimate goalof summer quarter expansion an increase in thetotal yearly inflow of new students to the University. We should not underestimate either thedifficulty or the importance of achieving this goal.Any unit within the University which is closedduring the summer, and which has a substantialsurplus of qualified applicants, can, theoreticallyat least, expand its total yearly input and output ofstudents by 33 percent without increasing eitherclass size or the load on physical resources (thatis, without increasing the total number of studentsenrolled at any one time) by offering a full summerquarter schedule. This argument assumes that it ispossible to recruit enough students who are willing to attend during the summer. Unfortunately,not many units of the University are in the position of having such an abundance of qualified applicants. Thus, the problem of expanding summerquarter programs becomes intertwined with themore general problem of trying to increase student enrollment. To put the idea more positively,we shall argue, as a central issue of this Report,that the summer quarter potentially offers aunique opportunity for increasing overall enrollment. Thus we ask: How can summer quarteracademic programs be so designed as to attractnew students to the University?The nature of this question prompts us to directour attention to the potential advantages from thestudent' s viewpoint of a full year-round academicschedule; such advantages might then usefully betaken into account in designing and promoting attractive programs. We can identify the followingcategories of advantages that would accrue from afully adequate range of course offerings in all fourquarters:1. The option to accelerate: Students who prefer to finish in three years, for example, ratherthan four, would be able to do so by attending on a year-round basis. The opportunity to enter thepermanent job market earlier may, for some students, more than make up for loss of temporarysummer employment. This option is of potentialimportance to both graduates and undergraduates. Four-, five-, and six-quarter master'sprograms may especially be benefited by moresummer course offerings. So also may combinedbachelor/master's programs.2. The option to reduce course load: Some students might welcome the opportunity to adjusttheir course load in any one quarter to their individual preferences and abilities. For example,those unable to maintain the normal pace in ahighly competitive and selective environmentmight be able to cope with a less than normalcourse load. They could then attend all four quarters and so avoid lengthening their total elapsedtime in school. The implications here for broadening the selective factor in admissions withoutsacrifice of quality in the educational programmight be substantial.3. The opportunity to take courses of interestindependently of degree requirements: A greatvariety of special programs, such as area studiesinstitutes, interdisciplinary problem focussedprograms, and special subject oriented institutesmay be responsive to the non-degree-related educational objectives of many categories of students, as well as to the educational goals of theUniversity.4. The opportunity to earn a degree by attending only during the summer: We recognize thatthis option may be for the most part impracticalowing to scheduling difficulties, but urgenevertheless that it not be overlooked should itprove feasible in at least some areas.5. The opportunity for a student to be out ofresidence during some quarter other than thesummer: It is not unreasonable to speculate thatthe temporary job market might be better if somany students were not competing for such jobsduring the same few months of the year.6. The opportunity to attract distinguishedscholars and scientists who are more likely to beavailable during the summer than during otherquarters: People are more mobile during thesummer; thus, we may be able to create, throughvisiting professorships and other types of appointments, stimulating intellectual relationshipswith people, and perhaps with other institutions,not possible at other times of the year.7. The opportunity to improve the quality oflife on campus and in the community during thesummer: There are intangible, but very impor-196tant, cultural and intellectual advantages topopulating the campus more heavily during thesummer; improved security may be an additionalimportant byproduct.All but the last two of the foregoing categories,it may be noted, are expressed in terms of optionsand opportunities for students. We believe that itis of very great importance to introduce moreflexibility into the educational process, and thatexpansion of summer quarter academic programsoffers a means of so doing.Present tuition policies, incidentally, favor acceleration (since less is charged per course whenthe course load is greater), but mitigate against areduced course load.Each of the first five categories above appliesnot only to The University of Chicago degree students, but to degree students in other institutionsand to non-degree students of all types. Theselatter two (non-University of Chicago) groups weshall refer to throughout this report as "visitingstudents."1.2 Quality and Character of Summer ProgramsHaving placed emphasis on the question of expansion of summer programs, we think it of someimportance to affirm that the purposes andcharacter of the summer quarter must be in harmony with the purposes and character of TheUniversity of Chicago. This is more than a matterof rhetoric, for there follow specific implicationswith respect to faculty, programs, and students.An important aspect of the character of the University, for example, is the responsibility of thefaculties for all academic matters, and for maintaining standards of excellence in connectiontherewith. This responsibility derives from theStatutes of the University; there is no hint thereinthat the obligation is suspended during the monthsof July and August. The faculties cannot delegateto anyone else the responsibility for the shaping ofacademic programs; in particular, they cannot delegate such responsibility to a "director of thesummer session." This latter point deservesnotice to insure that our later discussion of thesummer session office, and the post of its director,is not misunderstood.It is clearly the exclusive responsibility of thefaculties to insure that academic programs offered during the summer quarter, and instructorsfor those programs, meet standards of excellencein no way peculiar to the summer quarter butwhich instead are standards suitable for The University of Chicago during all seasons. This Com mittee would find it difficult to justify any suggestions that quality standards should differ according to the time of year.1.3 The Need for Promotion and RecruitingTimely and aggressive advertising of summerquarter programs is absolutely crucial. Present efforts, while noble enough, take place patheticallylate in the year. The proper time to publish acomplete list of available courses is January, notMay. Clearly this activity calls for a large degreeof centralization and coordination among manyunits of the University.The opinion is often expressed that relativelyfew students can afford or are interested or willingto enroll during the summer. While this may betrue in certain areas, or for certain categories ofstudents, one should not overlook the fact thathundreds of thousands of students in the world doenroll in summer programs. It is fair to assumethat they have their reasons, and it is not implausible to suppose that these reasons influence theirchoice of a university — perhaps during the rest ofthe year as well as in the summer. We suggest thatsummer quarter promotional efforts be placed inthe context of the broader year-round promotional and recruiting activities of the University.It is difficult to assess the prospects for successof promotional efforts, yet we should take note ofsuch fragments of evidence as do exist. Perhapswe can draw some encouragement from the factthat we get as many students as we do on campusduring the summer, considering that promotionalefforts begin so late and that indeed there is verylittle to promote.Information was made available to this Committee on the summer sessions at Dartmouth,Stanford, Yale, and Harvard. For the most partspecial circumstances prevail for each institution,and comparisons seem not particularly useful.However a few points may be worth noting.Stanford, with about 6,000 undergraduatesnormally, enrolls about 1,000 during the summer.Our summer enrollment of college students isaround 200 out of a total of 2,000. The fact thatthey [Stanford] do substantially better thus givesus some reason to hope that we can improve.Overall enrollments for the summer sessions atHarvard and Stanford have been declining overthe last three or four years, as they have atChicago. Both institutions seem to have an upward trend of enrollments in the summer fromtheir own undergraduates (albeit this is of doubtful statistical significance for The University of197Chicago because of the small numbers involved),but an even greater decline in visitor or non-degree categories. A Stanford report indicatesthat other institutions, especially the stateschools, are experiencing some growth in thesummer enrollment of their own undergraduatesand that summer sessions are increasingly regarded as "becoming more like" other quarters orsemesters. The implication is clear that if we donothing to create and promote an attractive summer quarter for the College, we may lose groundto other institutions that are attempting vigorously to exploit this trend. As the Red Queensaid, "it takes all the running you can do just tokeep in the same place."Dartmouth has initiated a year-round planwhereby college students must choose at least onesummer quarter in residence during their four-year stay. It is of some interest that approximately 13 percent of the students chose a four-year pattern of enrollment that involved acceleration by attending for more than one summer session. This percentage must probably be regardedas a lower limit in any estimate of the proportionof college students interested in acceleration sinceat the time the patterns were selected the summercourse offerings were still quite limited; the possibility of accelerating was limited to only certainsubject areas.The following intriguing quotation from theYale Daily News of March 25, 1974, may beworth a moment's reflection:Yale's is the only summer term of its kind inthe country. Unlike Harvard's and othersummer schools, nearly all the courses will betaught by Yale faculty — not outside lecturers.The statement is attributed to Jonathan Fan ton,executive director of summer plans for YaleCollege.1 We infer that the special strengths thatcan be offered by The University of Chicago inthe form of credit courses and quality programsduring the summer may place it in a field wherecompetitors at least would not be numerous.1.4 Recommended Action for the FacultiesWe again emphasize that there is a close relationship between summer quarter activities and theUniversity's overall enrollment problems. Com-1. Fanton was apparently also referring, in this remark, to the unique emphasis on experimental interdisciplinary programs that Yale plans to initiate in thesummer of 1975. mitment and involvement on the part of the faculties are essential to the revitalization of the summer quarter.We must assume that it is unrealistic to expector to recommend any major increase in the instructional budget sufficient to fully staff summerquarter course offerings at a level comparable toother quarters, at least until such time as it becomes clear that tuition income will correspondingly increase as a result of summer programs.Each unit of the University should explorethoroughly all possible means of strengtheningsummer course offerings without incurring extrainstructional costs. In principle this can be done,at least to some degree and within some areas ofthe University, by asking regular (3Q) faculty toteach in the summer quarter and take some otherquarter out of residence, with deficits therebygenerated in course offerings during the otherthree quarters made up where deemed necessaryand where feasible by an increase in teachingloads.Thus, we are suggesting some sacrifice as wellas commitment on the part of the faculties. Yetthe particular kind of sacrifice we propose may bethe least painful among the many possible stepsthat might eventually be necessary to solve thefinancial problems of the University. We are inpart responding here to some of the ominous implications in the report of the Advisory Committee on Student Enrollment, the Autumn 1973budget review by the Deans' Budget Committee,President Levi's Special Message on the 1974-75Budget, and his 1974 report on the State of theUniversity. All of these reports emphasize theeconomic problems of enrollment and imply theurgent necessity of moving toward overall increased student/faculty ratios. The summer quarter offers an opportunity to the faculties to takespecific and constructive action.We recommend:1. That the faculty of each academic unitwithin the University carefully analyze the prospect for successful summer quarter expansion,and, if it appears promising, plan a substantialprogram of summer course offerings within theframework of the following broad criteria:(a) Students at all levels should have greaterflexibility in the scheduling of their academicprograms; in particular, they should have the option to accelerate and the option to reduce theiraverage course load without lengthening theiroverall stay at the University.(b) It is especially important during the summerthat the maximum number of courses be open to198visiting students in all categories. This impliesthat during the summer there should be a relatively greater concentration of courses whichhave minimal prerequisites.(c) There should be a general bias during thesummer toward courses with predictably high enrollments.(d) Attention should be given to authentic educational objectives that might be served by a variety of special programs not necessarily related tothe pursuit of a degree.(e) Standards of excellence appropriate to thecharacter of the University should be maintained;these are not a function of the time of year,month, or season.2. That a substantial portion of summer programs be staffed by regular faculty on 3Q appointments, with appropriate rotation of otherquarters out of residence. This should not be donein such a way as to significantly diminish student'soptions and opportunities during the other threequarters. Where feasible and reasonable, teachingloads may have to be increased to avoid substantial course offering deficits in these other quarters.3. That distinguished visiting faculty be considered as an important potential contribution to astimulating intellectual environment for the summer quarter.4. That the prerequisites for each course offered at any time during the year be carefully reviewed. If they are unnecessarily restrictive, thenflexibility of scheduling, hospitality to visitingstudents, options to either accelerate or take areduced load, and opportunities to attract transferstudents are all diminished. Three-quarter sequences deserve special scrutiny because of therelatively more difficult scheduling problemswhich they present.5. That nearly all planning for the summerquarter take place during the preceding autumnquarter. This is a major change from present practice. It is very important that all materials beavailable by January 1 in order to publish summerannouncements and adequately publicize andpromote courses and programs.In planning regular courses for the summerquarter, we have suggested that priority be givento areas with predictably higher enrollment. Inthat way we can offer maximum flexibility to students for a given level of investment in summerprograms. In the College, for example, there aresomething like 65 possible areas of subject concentration, but 80 percent of all undergraduatestudents are in just the following thirteen areas:New Collegiate Division Biological SciencesEnglish Languages and LiteratureGeneral Studies in the HumanitiesHistoryChemistryMathematicsPhysicsAnthropologyEconomicsPolitical SciencePsychologyBusinessThese then are the areas which appear to be particularly promising, and which therefore deservepriority of attention in planning summer courseofferings for the College. It is undoubtedlycharacteristic of all academic units and areas thata very limited number of courses account for adisproportionately large fraction of all registrations; this fact should be exploited in planningsummer programs throughout the University, sothat the problem is approached with some senseof priority, as we have illustrated for the College.Finally, we invite particular attention to recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, and 16 of the Report ofthe Advisory Committee on Student Enrollment,cited earlier. These five recommendations have adirect bearing on issues related to the summerquarter. The first two recommend the admissionof students at the beginning of quarters other thanthe autumn; the added flexibility provided bystrong summer course offerings may be of particular importance for students entering in the springquarter, since otherwise they would be faced withan immediate interruption. The third concernspart-time students and thus is directly related tothe option to take reduced course loads which wehave discussed. The fourth recommends increased effort to enroll our own Collegegraduates; we note that it might be particularlyconvenient for them to attend during the summerimmediately following a June graduation, particularly those in joint bachelor/master's programs.Recommendation 16 concerns increased emphasis on master's programs within the graduatedivisions; clearly the availability of summercourses has special significance for four- andfive-quarter programs. It may be worth notinghere that three of the four professional schoolsmost active during the summer are sustainedlargely by master's programs.1991.5 Recommended Action for the UniversityAdministrationThe key organizational problem for the summerquarter is the attainment of a reasonable balancebetween the autonomy of the various academicunits and the need for some degree of centralizedcoordination and overall coherence. Even withgreat willingness to cooperate on the part of individual faculty members, coordination is unlikelyto occur spontaneously; some kind of centralizedeffort and appropriate organizational structure isclearly needed.The principal functions requiring centralizedcoordination include especially promotion and recruiting. A sustained, systematic, timely, andhighly professional effort should be made to publicize the University's summer programs. Whileindividual promotional efforts by departments fortheir own specific programs are not precluded, webelieve that there should be a large-scale coordinated promotion of the University by a centraloffice. An adequate budget for such promotionaland recruiting activities is essential.It is not realistic to hope that an entirely adequate summer quarter can be staffed without incurring extra instructional costs. Many scheduling difficulties will arise, particularly in the casesof two- and three-quarter course sequences. Inattempting to staff the summer quarter, deficitswill necessarily arise in the course offerings forthe other three quarters. It will not be possible inall cases to remedy such deficits simply by increasing the teaching load, since faculty membersare not always substitutable for one another in theassignment of courses. We believe that it will continue to be necessary to allocate a portion of totalsummer instructional expenditures directly tospecific programs and courses. Such allocationcan provide a reasonable mechanism for attempting to influence the relationship between extra instructional expenditures and resulting tuition income. An important centralized function moregenerally is to evaluate and maintain an overviewof summer quarter academic activities, particularly with respect to the assessment of priorities.(We comment more specifically on evaluationcriteria in Section 1.7). A reasonably firm commitment to an instructional budget should bemade by November 15 each year; very often it isnecessary to make commitments to visiting faculty by at least that date, particularly if the bestpeople are sought. The budget must be even moredefinitive by January 1, when the summerAnnouncements should be published and full-scale promotional efforts launched. Specifically we recommend:1. That the deans of the schools and divisions,and the masters of the collegiate divisions, assume major responsibility for stimulating and developing adequate summer programs, and forcoordinating the planning of such programs withthe appropriate unit or units of central administration. It may be helpful for the deans and mastersto appoint faculty representatives in various unitsor departments to assist them in this function.2. That an adequate budget be allocated for thepromotion of summer programs and the recruitingof students.3. That a suitable central administrative unitserve to coordinate, stimulate, promote, evaluate,and assess priorities for summer academic programs; appropriate interaction with the variousacademic units is implied.4. That a reasonable level of extra instructionalfunds for summer courses and programs continueto be allocated, in order to stimulate and supportimportant programs that could not be offeredwithout extra instructional funds; reasonably firmcommitments should be made by November 15.5. That financial aid policies be suitably alteredin those areas of the University where it is necessary so that students are given the option to distribute a fixed total amount of aid in any way theychoose over a four-quarter period, thus facilitating a reduced coarse load in certain quarters ifthey wish, or taking quarters off other than thesummer. This option should be appropriately publicized to students.6. That all University promotional efforts thatmight appropriately take note of summer activities be coordinated centrally in this regard.For example, the Divisional Announcements, theCollege Announcements, and all professionalschool announcements should at least provide alist of courses usually available during the summer quarter.A summer session office, with a director, offersone approach to implementing the various centralized functions which we have outlined here.We have chosen in this Report to emphasize thenature of the functions, however, rather than thespecific administrative arrangements, such as asummer session office, that might be employed intheir implementation. Thus, our recommendations are not intended as explicit with respect tothe question of a summer session office as an administrative unit of the University.2001.6 Calendar for the Summer QuarterWe suggest maximum flexibility for the calendarschedule. Each "special" program offered shouldbe free to set its own schedule; summer programsin the past have run anywhere from one to tenweeks. The broader and more cohesive the rangeof programs offered on campus, however, themore desirable will be some degree of coordination of schedules. We think that a single "standard" duration, such as ten weeks, is too rigideven for regular courses. Instead we propose twoconcentrated summer sessions offive weeks each,with no break in between, to be accommodated inand superimposed upon a regular ten-week summer quarter. Full credit courses in a five-weeksession would meet for five full hours per week.This is equivalent in terms of class time to three50-minute "hours" per week in a ten-week session. This plan offers a number of advantages:1 . It provides more flexibility in scheduling forstudents who need to earn money during at leastpart of the summer.2. It would be more hospitable to some students from other colleges and universities whosefall semesters begin just as or somewhat beforeour regular summer session ends.3. Sequences of two or three one-quartercourses compressed into one quarter could be accommodated by taking up both five-week sessionswithout extending the normal schedule, and without the interruption of a break between summersessions.4. Some faculty may find it attractive to concentrate their teaching duties in just one of thetwo five- week sessions.5. The proposed double session could becomea pattern applicable to other quarters.The idea of two five-week sessions within thesummer quarter is not without historical precedent, incidentally; such was the arrangement 70years ago.Finally, since our usual August 30 or so endingdate of the summer quarter tends to crowd the fallsemester beginning date for many potential visiting students, the possible advantages and consequences of moving the entire summer quarterahead (earlier) by either a half week or one fullweek perhaps deserve some study and consideration.Key dates in the planning schedule are:October 1: Preliminary planning begins. Courseofferings and programs are outlined; potentialfaculty, both within and the outside the University, are identified; quarters out of residence arenegotiated. November 15: Preliminary commitment ofbudget for extra summer instructional costs. Contact and obtain acceptances from visiting facultyduring the ensuing four- week period.January 1: Firm deadline for delivery of allprogram descriptions, course offerings, designations of instructors, and schedules to the summersession office or other appropriate central unit.January 1-31: Publication of summer quarterAnnouncements and preparation and initial bulkmailing of brochures, etc.1.7 Economic Evaluation Criteria and New Aids toAnalysis of Registration DataIn view of historically low enrollments during thesummer, it seems desirable and even necessaryfor the University administrative officers to havesome special means for monitoring and evaluatingthe success of a summer session. We suggest thatin effect they need better visibility of the summersession and in particular of certain crucial costand enrollment data. Thus, we outline here whatin principle might be considered as part of a"management information system."The measures of success are complex, but certainly one important component is relativelystraightforward. There is a direct and immediateeconomic benefit, in terms of tuition income, toregistering students into summer programs whowould not be attending the University duringother quarters. (The economic benefits are neitherclear nor immediate if we simply succeed inswitching students out of some other quarter andinto the summer quarter.) Most summer studentswho are not in University of Chicago degree programs fall into this category; at the time of registration such students are assigned academic statuscode "9". Thus, a listing, organized first by department, and showing each course offered, thename of the instructor, and the number of students enrolled in each academic status category,would be of use in evaluating each course andeach department in terms of its ability to attractextra tuition income. To this end, we have designed the following two new reports, and SusanCarlson of the Computation Center staff has written the necessary programs:1. Quarterly Course Enrollment Report(sequence by department): a listing by departmentof each course offered, showing "departmentno.," "course no./section no.," "course title,""instructor," "enrollment breakdown" (1-9),(that is, enrollment by student's academic status).2. The same format, but in alphabetical se-201quence by instructor: This permits one to reinterpret the above report to take into accountcross listings of the same course in different departments. That is, by bringing into contiguity allcourses taught by one instructor, one can immediately note, by comparing course titles, whichcourses taught by that instructor are duplicated inthe listing.2Enrollment of students in academic statuscategory "9" is not to be taken as the only measure of success for the summer quarter; it does,however, admit the simple and direct interpretation and is readily accessible from the Registrar'srecords. Other enrollment categories in the summer are by no means to be disregarded, nor arecertain breakdowns within category 9 itself. Effort should be made during each summer sessionto collect from each student (or from a suitablesample), data pertinent to the question of why heor or she is attending. The nature of such data issuggested by our earlier discussion (Section 1.1)of possible advantages of a year-round university,as well as by our checklist, in Appendix E[available from the Office of the Secretary of theFaculties], of potential student categories. Thepurpose of this information is to furnish feedbackto the recruiting and promotional efforts in orderto help guide these efforts in optimal directions.Such feedback is a vital component of a management information system; without it, recruitingand promotional activities carry a substantial riskof missing important targets.1.8 The Present State of the Summer QuarterSince 1971, the pattern of organization and operation of the summer quarter has, with some relatively minor variations from year to year, been asfollows:The Director and Office of the Summer Session2. The present "course master file," which is used asan input to the above Quarterly Course Enrollment Report, carries only a designation of "staff 'as the instructor for a large number of research (or reading) and clinical courses, as well as for a number of regular courses.This Committee recommends that all departmentchairmen be asked to furnish the Registrar with a listing(around the middle of each quarter) of each course beingoffered, together with the name of the instructor — inthose cases where it is feasible to associate the name ofone instructor with a specific course and section — evenif it is a reading or research course. The "coursemaster-file" (on tape) can then be amended readily toreflect the name of the instructor, which will replace theprevious designation of "staff." The "staff designation understandably is convenient and even unavoidablein many instances, but its use at present seems to beexcessive. are the Dean and Office of University Extensionrespectively.The Director of the Summer Session has beenprovided with a Summer Session budget (in therange of $75,000 to $100,000) to cover the costs of(a) extra service payments for instruction; (b)promotion and advertising; (c) incidental costs ofregistration, lab assistants, graders, etc.Student status category 9, "extension non-degree," has been used as the status for all persons registering for credit courses in the summerexcept for regular University of Chicago degreecandidates and a small number of miscellaneousspecial cases.Determination of which courses are to be offered and who is to teach them is made by thevarious academic units individually. Facultymembers teach under either, but not both, of thefollowing provisions: (a) in residence — teachingduring the summer as a part of the regular threequarters of appointment, in which case no salarypayment is made for summer teaching per se; (b)extra service — teaching during the summer in addition to three regular quarters of appointment, inwhich case extra service payment is made.The Director of the Summer Session considersthe proposed courses in order to eliminate overlaps of similar areas, maximize marketability,etc., and coordinates the proposals of all theunits, determining how many courses can be included within the available Summer Sessionbudget, from which payments are made. All of thecourses so proposed and approved are availableto University of Chicago degree students for credit, as well as to non-degree students.As soon as the information about courses to beoffered is in hand, the Office of the Summer Session publishes a booklet listing the courses andcontaining registration information for non-degreestudents. Meanwhile, the Office has conductedadvertising and promotional efforts designed tostimulate inquiries, and when such inquiries arereceived the booklet is sent in response. Registration takes place during the first week of the summer quarter.Prospective instructors are advised thatcourses may be canceled if enrollment is less thansix. In practice, a few such courses are cancelledeach year.Enrollment figures of non-degree extensionstudents (category 9) in recent summer quarters:202TABLE 1: SUMMER SESSION "LEVEL OF ACTIVITY" COMPARED TO AUTUMNSubject NUMBER OF COURSE REGISTRATIONSResearchandTutorial* "A" =Summer1973as % ofAutumn1973CourseRegistrationONS-HBB3CO CNl>ONS-HBB3co COONs-BB3CO 73fiaa 'CO 3 CO.ONfia33<GROUP IMost "Active" (in1973) Departmentsand Schools(A ^ 68% andSummer 1973 ^ 40)Subtotal 1 120 Biophy140 Med160 Pathol165 Peds190 Surg415 Educ730 Libr Sci800 Bus Dp 481263442898391951,4152,788 401554250785711901,1732,299 581434157836701341,2812,467 58R37R121R26R4R 3617760611036701981,7973,102 32R42R98R18R7R 161%81%68%93%81%100%68%71%80%GROUP IIModerately "Active"(in 1973)Departments(A =28% to 51% andSummer 1973 ^ 40)Subtotal 2 110 Anat118 Biol232 French240 German320 Chem340 Geo Sci365 Phys470 Pol Sci485 Sociol 4550149106185422721522621,263 786410090187472521262401,184 596714494303482071481591,229 28R64R9R4R169R42R190R61R109R676R 1521422842486611296665045783,364 29R58R4R4R235R95R191R97R79R742R 39%47%51%38%46%37%31%29%28%37%REST OFUNIVERSITY(A ^ 23% orSummer 1973 < 40) 2,502 2,836 2,087 18,890 11%TOTALREGISTRATIONS 6,553 6,319 5,783 25,356 23%UNDER/GRADUATES(included in above) 351 392 508 8,440 6%"REGULAR"GRADUATES 5,102 4,770 4,539 16,221 28%NON-DEGREE—CAT. 9(included in above) 1,048 1,065 656 225*The numbers tagged R are also included in the column immediately to their left.1971 1972 1973 19743Students 474 531 362 337Courseregistrations 955 1,100 608 588Table 1, which indicates course registrationsfor certain selected "subject" areas that are essentially departments or professional schools,provides a rough indication of which areas of theUniversity are most active during the summer.Not all correlations between subject area and department are exact, since cross listings have resulted in some registrations being counted in onedepartment for a course actually taught by afaculty member of another department; but because the overall proportion of registrations involved in the cross listings is small (less than 10percent), the Table does represent approximatelevels of departmental activity.The "level of activity" (A) is the ratio (as apercentage) of the summer of 1973 registrations tothose of the following autumn. The only subjects(departments) explicitly listed are those for whichthe level of activity was over 23 percent, andwhich had more than 40 registrations during thesummer of 1 973 . The seven departments or schoolsin Group I operate very active summer sessionsin which "A" is greater than 67 percent in eachcase, and 80 percent for the group as a whole.This group comprises most clinical departmentsin the School of Medicine (where summer attendance is required for students finishing their second and third years), the School and Departmentof Education, the Library School, and the Business School's downtown program. Group II consists of nine departments for which "A" falls inthe range of 28 percent to 51 percent per department and 37 percent for the group as a whole. Therest of the University taken as a single entity operated at a level of 11 percent for the periodstudied. Within group II, about 55 percent of thesummer registrations are in research or tutorialcourses, whereas the corresponding figure for theautumn quarter is 23 percent. French and Germanare exceptions to this pattern.A check of the Time Tables, incidentally,showed that the number of non-tutorial coursesoffered in the summer of 1973 was about 25 percent of that for the autumn of 1973.Several other interesting circumstances are indicated in Table 1. Summer registrations in gen-3. As of fourth week. eral seem to have been declining during the pastfew years (although no general inferences can bedrawn from this trend), and undergraduate registrations in particular have been especially lowduring the summer months ("A" = 6 percent forthe group); as mentioned earlier, however, theirtrend over the past few years at least hints atbeing upward. The large drop in non-degree("category 9") students from the summer of 1972to the summer of 1973 (see the bottom row ofTable 1) is attributable almost entirely to the lossof just two special programs which had outsidefinancial sponsorship.Since some units of the University shut downcompletely during the summer, and others run ator near the level of a regular quarter, it might be ofinterest to contrast some of the reasons given ineach case.The Law School closes during the summer;Dean Phil Neal offers the following comment:This is in reply to your memorandum of March26th about summer programs. I am afraid thatthe answer, so far as the Law School is concerned, is all too simple. Although we formerlyhad a regular summer quarter with a limitedrange of offerings, we abandoned it because ofdeclining student interest in accelerating theirlaw school work. We have not had a summerquarter since 1966. We have tested student interest from time to time since then but havebeen forced to conclude that the probable enrollment would not justify the added cost. Inany event, a summer quarter would not enableus to increase enrollment in the Law School,which is already at a maximum. Thus, a summer quarter cannot yield additional tuition revenue but rather is a net drain on resources.Nor are we in a good position to attract students from other law schools for a summer session. We were never successful in doing that,and conditions for doing so are probably moreadverse now than when we had a summer session.The School of Medicine operates all four quarters; Dr. Clifford Gurney, Deputy Dean of theClinical Sciences, comments as follows:I am responding to your March 26, 1974,memorandum. A vast number of courses areoffered in the clinical departments of the medical school every summer. In essence, the samebasic courses required in the late stages ofmedical education must be offered every quarter, and in addition, a vast series of electivecourses, seminars, and clinical electives must204be available for the medical students. ... Allof the courses to which 1 refer are formal medical school courses, and there would seldom bean exception to the rule that medical schoolenrollment and advance standing is a requisitefor registration. Since it is traditional for virtually all American medical schools to operatetheir terminal educational program twelvemonths a year, and since medical education isso very expensive, it is highly unlikely thatmore than a very occasional medical studentfrom some other institution would find it desirable or possible for him to enroll here for thesummer quarter. I believe my remarks can bestbe summarized by stating that the clinicalfaculty of the medical school is currentlyoperating four quarters a year with at mostminimal reduction of activity in the summerquarter, and I do not believe it is reasonable toanticipate any way by which this segment ofthe University can increase summer enrollment by further increasing its activity.The chairman of this Committee, who is acquainted with the policies and practices of theGraduate Library School, offers the followingreasons why the Library School operates a normal quarter during the summer:Most of our students are in an M.A. programwhich requires either five or six quarters ofwork. Students at present have the option ofcompleting their course work in any five (orsix) consecutive quarters, or, alternatively, ofspending two full academic years, interruptedby the summer off. Approximately two-thirdsopt for the accelerated program of consecutivequarters, probably because it gets them intothe job market 3-6 months earlier. We areafraid we would lose a substantial number ofstudents if we closed for the summer quarterand thus eliminated the option of accelerating.The probable decline in student enrollmentseems likely to be disproportionate to any instructional costs saved by closing for one quarter. Furthermore, some students who alreadyhold jobs in school or college libraries can attend a library school only in the summer. Atpresent, however, it is not possible for them tocomplete all required courses by attending onlysummers (though fifteen years ago it was).Perhaps our program needs strengthening inthis respect.Apparently the Law School cannot afford toopen during the summer and the Library Schoolcannot afford to close. 1.9 Historical Note: Genesis of the Summer Quarter, and its Sixty- Year DeclineClearly the founding fathers intended that therebe a summer session:An unresting practitioner of summer instruction, Harper planned an academic year nearlyas long as the calendar year. The Universitywould be open four quarters, beginning, respectively, on the first day of October,January, April, and July; an interval of a weekwould separate one quarter from the next. Thevacations of individual faculty members wereto be so arranged that a working force shouldalways be on hand.Richard J. Storr, Harper's University: TheBeginning. University of Chicago Press, 1966,p. 61.And in the beginning it was indeed so. The following graph shows, for a 70-year period, summerenrollment as a percentage of the average enrollment in the three following quarters:SOnoliolOo%to10£o4o30lo100*yW * *? y\ 11 sh i^h**t MVytA/K205The summer enrollment in 1973 was 36 percentof that in the following autumn quarter, whereas,as shown in Table 1, the corresponding ratio ofcourse registrations was only 25 percent. Thisreflects the tendency of students to take a lightercourse load during the summer. The fact thatfewer courses are available during the summerinvites suspicion as a causative factor for suchtendency.We offer no interpretation for the 60-year decline of summer session enrollments, except thesurmise that it is probably not unrelated to a concomitant rise in the aggregate summer enrollments at all other colleges and universities; theremay have been very little competition in the year1909. The point is by no means obvious, however.An alternative, or perhaps parallel, explanationmay be that The University of Chicago was simply unable to maintain summer enrollment in theface of a developing tradition of non-attendanceduring summers. If indeed very few studentschoose to enroll in the summer, then there is ofcourse a certain logic to not incurring instructional expenses. It is clear though that this sets offa downward spiral, for certainly students are evenless likely to enroll if their choices of courses aremore limited.We regret that we are unable to offer more historical insight and, in particular, a better understanding of the cause-effect relationships that underlie the traditional three-quarter attendance pattern that somehow has evolved over the years.Yet we believe that the specific actions we haverecommended make sense almost independentlyof which explanatory theory of the summer session has the more substantial claim to validity.There is some evidence that traditions are changing and a reasonable expectation that institutionswhich take the initiative, and are resourceful, canaccelerate that change.1.10 Purpose of the AppendicesWe offer in Appendices A, B, C, D [which areavailable from the Office of the Secretary of theFaculties] some discussion of possible futuresummer academic programs in each of the four divisions. These programs are not intended as recommendations, but only as a stimulus and an aidto further planning. Some attention is given ineach Appendix to the purposes and character ofthe programs and to the types of students forwhom the programs are intended. A compendiumof such potential summer student categories isoutlined in Appendix E [also available from theOffice of the Secretary of the Faculties].In many cases the examples cited do not include and may well fall short of actual summerprograms that have been offered in the past. Wehave made no effort to include even all majorareas within the divisions; only a few are illustrated and our choice of examples has been governed by the particular areas of interest andknowledge represented among members of thiscommittee.AcknowledgmentWe express first of all our very deep appreciationto our two "resource persons," Deans RanletLincoln and Charles O'Connell, who indeed wereresourceful and most helpful throughout.We are grateful also to the 30 or more deans anddepartment chairmen who provided thoughtfuland useful written responses to our inquiriesabout summer programs, and to many others whoeither wrote to us, met with us, or worked withus, including particularly Maxine Sullivan, SusanCarlson, Carl Holm, Casey Murray, John Mon-nier, and Professors Albert Crewe, NormanNachtrieb, Felix Browder, William Meyer,Charles Wegener, Max Bell, Ken Rehage, Zal-man Usiskin, William Page, Philip Jackson, andGale Johnson.David M. BevingtonWolfgang EpsteinPhilip J. FosterJohn C. GlidewellLeonard K. OlsenAlex Or denDon R. Swanson (Chairman)Izaak Wirszup206THE 350TH CONVOCATION ADDRESS:PRINCIPLES AND GAMES:CONDUCT IN THE CONDUCT OFFOREIGN POLICYBY SUSANNE HOEBER RUDOLPHAugust 30, 1974It has not been customary to treat convocationspeeches as serials. But what I have to say todaywas partly evoked by the remarks my predecessorin rhetoric delivered on this spot last spring. Infact, Wayne Booth delivered those remarks threetimes; a feat that by itself lends his words a certainweightiness and durability. I left RockefellerChapel that day, glad to be rid of my mortar boardand sniffing the breeze of an uncommonly sunnyand golden day; feeling appropriately elevated bythe pomp and the architecture; and stimulated bythe speaker's reflections on open minds, opensieves, and open sewers.He said it was all very well to have an openmind, but some issues weren't all that amenableto tolerance. Should one, for example, examinethe virtues of genocide in 1930s-Germany with anopen mind? My own discipline, political science,which likes to borrow rhetoric from the OvalOffice, partly in the vain hope of being more attentively heard by those in power, would ask ifone should game-plan the alternative outcomes ofgenocide; prepare alternative scenarios; avoid theappearance of too early and too "rigid" a position. Wayne Booth was pretty sure one shouldn't.He did not precisely come out on the side of self-evident moral maxims, but his drift was certainlyin that direction.There is a certain routine mental obstreperous-ness that gives Chicago intellectuals their uniquestamp. In the grips of such obstreperousness, Ileft Rockefeller Chapel rehearsing objections andimagining circumstances in which moral maximswouldn't do.The elevating effects of convocation soonpassed off. I hung up my academic robes, packedsome large suitcases, entered a small Peugeot with a great many other living things both humanand fur-bearing that are more or less my kin, andleft for Vermont. I read books in the summer andcommunicate with a typewriter when I can, andthis summer I had a particular goal. Two yearsback, Senator Fulbright was, as usual, feelingcross with Mr. Nixon and unable to persuade theexecutive branch to give him adequate information on matters of foreign policy. He and somelike-minded colleagues conceived of an independent Commission that would explore how thegovernment made its foreign policy, preferably byasking some stiff questions of the executivebranch, and armed with subpoena powers. ThisCommission has since come into being, thoughpretty well shorn of its original rather confrontational intentions. Its members are sound men, notlikely to invade the executive office with crowbarsto lever open confidential files and hand them overto Jack Anderson; the subcontractors, amongwhom I count myself, are only slightly morenaughty. The Commission goes by the euphonious name, Commission on the Organization of theGovernment for the Conduct of Foreign Policy.It is plowing what you might consider well-cultivated ground; 200 official or semi-officialbodies in the last 37 years have considered problems akin to those this Commission is considering. It is a tribute to the optimism of man, to theidea of the cumulative nature of knowledge, andto the providence that looks after the employmentopportunities of academics and para-academics,that another commission should have beenthought capable of making further contributions.I went off to Baker Library at DartmouthCollege — a haven for woodsy intellectualsstranded without their Regensteins — and assembled the public writings of the sixties and earlyseventies: LBJ's The Vantage Point; Chester207Bowles' Promises to Keep; George Ball's TheDiscipline of Power; and many others. Then I settled down to read them, glad that books by publicmen use a straightforward prose most unlike thatto which I am accustomed.The style of presidents quickly moved to theforeground of my interest. Of late, foreign policyhas been much conducted out of the Oval Office,at least until Henry Kissinger moved to FoggyBottom. I read how presidents assembled bright,brittle, or thoughtful men in the vicinity of theexecutive office to conduct foreign relations; howsome (Kennedy) preferred independent wits andothers (Johnson), compliant and serviceable instruments; how some (Kennedy) gave their ambassadors and bureaus discretion and others(Johnson) would intervene with feudal per-sonalism in every decision, monitoring actionsstep by step, by telephone and telegraph, rightdown to the very departure schedules of thewheat shipments used to persuade reluctantAsians to take a more cheerful view of Americanpolicy. But after the gossipy foreground was filledin, I found myself back with the spring convocation, with the question of the open mind, and withthe temptation to offer another installment in theRockefeller Chapel serial on toleration.Presidents and their secretaries of state — wherethey have had secretaries of state worthmentioning — have exhibited two tendencies, onetoward what we might loosely call "principle"and one toward what I will call open-mindedness,or tolerance, or game planning. If that dichotomyappears to load the question — who would wish tobe an unprincipled president? — that is more dueto the poverty of our language than to my intention. Also, there are differences among words liketolerance and game planning which may make itinappropriate to associate them. The idea of gameplanning conveys clever young men with hardnoses leaning over a drawing board in the situation room, devoid of preconceptions and professionally committed to thinking unthinkables. Tolerance, by contrast, conveys the position of a person who knows where she stands, but out of arespect for the variety of mankind attempts tograsp the logic of their differing norms. Tolerancerepresents a much more committed, normativeposition; it is a word that accumulated its meaningin the nineteenth century, among men to whomthe thought of having no preconceptions seemedmacabre.But let me proceed. Early in my readings I encountered Chester Bowles' book, Promises toKeep. The title itself conveys a good bit: that committments are to be fulfilled. Chester Bowles,like that other traitor to their common class, AdlaiStevenson, was considered a rather inconvenientfigure by the bright young men around Kennedy.Not only were he and his wife Steb, with theirplain ways, not part of Jackie's glitteringCamelot, his unabashed belief in principle wasthought impractical and heavy footed. Bowles reciprocated the critical view; he believed the Kennedy administration faltered because "a consistent framework of moral principle was missing."Bowles, who participated as Undersecretary ofState and in other roles in the critical foreign policy decisions of the Kennedy era, writes of hischief:"The traditional criteria of 'liberalism' or 'conservatism' seemed less important . . . than theability of intelligent, sensitive and rational men,whatever their politics, to weigh alternatives andmake the right choices. Instinctively, he distrusted any view which smacked of firmly heldphilosophical belief. This in large measure waswhy he was attracted to analytically brilliant mensuch as Robert S. McNamara and McGeorgeBundy. . . ."This adherence to 'pragmatism' on whichKennedy and many of his associates set suchstore, often accounted for what seemed to me aneedlessly long process of deliberation on clearmoral issues, to which I though his responseshould have been quick and unequivocal. . . ."... when CIA chief Allen Dulles proposed tothe President of the United States that our government finance and sponsor an invasion of Cubaby one thousand Cuban expatriates in clear violation of previous treaty commitments, there wasno need, in my opinion, for a series of endlessWhite House meetings to examine the proposalfrom a hundred different angles. The answer toMr. Dulles' should have been promptly andfinally negative. The proposal to send Americanground troops to Vietnam, to invade the Dominican Republic . . . belong, as I see it, in the samecategory."These are evidently the words of a man of principle. I happen to agree with Bowles in matters offoreign policy more than I do with almost anyother public figure of the sixties; if principles ledhim to this conclusion, then I should abandon myobstreperousness and go along with Bowles,Booth, and principle.But my inquiry is not so easily concluded. I amenough of a social scientist to know that one instance will not make a generalization. I determined to survey the available universe of recentpresidents, which is mercifully small, to see208whether principle was indeed so attractive asBowles promised.Let me begin the report of my survey withDean Acheson and John Foster Dulles. Not onlywere both men of principle, but they believed theworld could be encompassed within a single cosmology: there was one normative universe inforeign policy, seamless, single, without ambiguities; the world of the forces of freedom andthe world of the forces of evil and oppression.Hitler's most burdensome legacy to the secondhalf of the twentieth century was to make crediblethe belief that absolute evil in foreign affairs wasan ever present possibility. This possibility governed the perceptions through which history wasperceived for 25 years after Hitler's death. Itseemed plausible that Stalin might be like Hitler,that his aims were limitless, and that any countrywhich did not repair to the camp of freedom waspart of his grand design, inspired by his motives.Evidence which suggested that Stalin was morecautious than Hitler, and entertained more limitedambitions, had a poor box office. The recent publication of the executive hearings of the SenateCommittee on Foreign Relations reminds us thatour foreign policy makers believed that any country that did not embrace our alliances was motivated and steered by Russia. There was a singlestructure of interests, Russian interest, not multiple, nationally based structures.Through this rigid interpretive screen, Ache-son and Dulles perceived the empirical world.When war broke out in Korea, Acheson assuredthe senators that the Kremlin was "the centralmotivating power" — though the evidence wasthin indeed. The Chinese communists from 1948to 1962, he told them, were "really tools of Russian imperalism in China"; he warned them thatof Ho Chi Minh we could not expect anything except "to go along with Moscow." Acheson' s systematic reading of Asian revolutions and nationalism was the misreading of a man of principlesocialized by the trauma of European fascism.Dulles also had what Bowles would havecalled "a consistent framework of moral principle." Like Bowles, he would not have had togame plan the Bay of Pigs invasion, the commitment of ground troops in Vietnam, and the invasion of the Dominican Republic. He would havedone the same thing Kennedy and Johnson did,without benefit of alternative scenarios. He wasconfident the earth itself was the prize in theWagnerian struggle; the unhappy countries whodid not share his moral vision, who fancied theysaw more alternatives, suffered from false con sciousness. Until they recuperated, they were tobe sorted with the forces of evil.It is to some extent against the background ofJohn Foster Dulles' latter day evangelicalism thatone can begin to see the virtue of men withoutpresuppositions, of game planners, of those whowould consider any alternative. The moralframework of the cold-war era, of which Dulles isperhaps the tallest representative, had a kind ofmonopoly over the sentiments of the late fiftiesand early sixties. It was embedded in the fabric ofrhetoric, perception, and understanding.Counter-propositions based on alternativeframeworks had the aspect of immorality at worstand irresponsibility or irrelevance at best. Theperspective was so pervasive that the game planners themselves, the cool analysts without presuppositions whom Kennedy brought in, whenthey had canvassed all possibilities and all alternatives, had an astonishing propensity to opt as JohnFoster Dulles would have opted, although therhetoric was that of a twentieth-century managerial class, not the nineteenth-century pulpit.But almost despite themselves, the style of theKennedy men began to convert the moral cultureof the time. If they did not like Bowles' moralismin particular, to an extent they also discreditedthe notion of high moralism in general, at a timewhen the cold-war mentality had a monopoly onmorality. LB J never could learn the new neutralstyle, he remained an unreconstructed moralist tothe end; yet for others, principled stands becamerelatively unfashionable. Pragmatism became akind of weapon against the moral monism of thecold- war era. Before the new counter moralism ofthe late sixties came along, from the throats of theconstituents who damned the war in Vietnam,pragmatism was the main effective weaponagainst the old moralism.Let us consider, then, what sorts of presidentsand their assistants have brought about the mostcreative developments in foreign policy in the lastten years; and who was responsible for the leastcreative. And then let us consider the role ofprinciple, tolerance, and game planning in theoutcomes. To start with the least creative first,the involvement in Vietnam. Dulles, a man ofprinciple, and Kennedy, who favored game planners, got us involved; Johnson, a man of principlewho supplied himself with men who looked likegame planners but who, with an admirable passion for survival, produced moralistic resultscongenial to Johnson, committed the groundtroops. Richard Nixon, who has not been muchaccused of principle lately, served by a secretary209of state whose Dullesian propensities were countered by nineteenth-century central Europeanbalance of power pragmatism, got us out— although I may be violating the principles ofcausality when I attribute agency to him. Necessity counted much in that outcome.A somewhat similarly depressing conclusionemerges from a survey of the responsibility fordetente and the opening to China. Dulles withprinciples, Kennedy with pragmatism, Johnsonwith both could not disentangle us from the coldwar, could not conceive of the communist worldin terms other than those of monolithic structures. And yet objective realities were changingdramatically. China and Russia, we must remember, visibly came apart by 1962, during theSino-Indian war. But it took another ten years, adecade or more if one counts the split from themid-fifties when it began, for Washington to recognize the division. It was not perceived earlier;it was viewed through the smoked glasses of oldmoral truths. It was Nixon and Kissinger, who,without grounding themselves in the principles ofthe fifties and sixties, without, indeed, groundingthemselves on much principle at all, moved to thedetente with Russia and rapprochement withChina. The most creative initiatives in foreignpolicy in the last 25 years were not the fruit ofprinciple.That is not my conclusion. Principles may produce good outcomes depending on whether theyare themselves good or bad. Open-mindedness orgame planning may produce new alternatives andserve as the engines of changing old principles.Or they may, as they did in part of the Kennedyera, serve as modish simulation of open optionthinking for men who have not the daring to discard old principles.I conclude, then, that there are virtues andvices in principled stands. Perhaps it is a biteasier for a humanist than a political scientist toembrace principle. Students of politics are supposed to be custodians of the problem of powerand of how the state uses its resources to wieldpower. Wayne Booth's comparison of the openmind to the open sewer, which allows anymalodorous thing to float by without exclusion,speaks to the importance of principle in matters oftaste and value; it takes an admirable standagainst the merely new and modish. But I haveasked you to contemplate the vision of a powerfulstate committing limitless resources for some 25years on principles it regarded as unambiguous, inthe name of what was then seen as a monolithicnormative world structure. I have asked you to contemplate that that world seems retrospectively quite different, consisting of contradictory,complex, and multiple realms — in which Russianinterest, nationalism, and the quest for a just society were competing normative urges. These nosingle set of American principles could possiblehave handled. This paradox should make strongsouls boggle at easily prescribing a principledstand for statesmen.The vice of toleration is undiscriminating,normless lassitude. The vice of principle is theeffect it exercises on perception, to screen outnew realities. Its further vice is bigotry clothed asvirtue, which seeks out malevolent forces to beextirpated, in witchhunts tailored to Salem orWashington. In the realm of public power, principles can and should be guides to action, but unless they are held with a certain tenuousness,open to the wry scepticism of game planners andcool pragmatists, they may not always serve aswell.Susanne Hoeber Rudolph is Professor in the Department of Political Science, Professor andMaster of the Social Sciences Collegiate Division, and Associate Dean of the College and theDivision of the Social Sciences.SUMMARY OF THE 350THCONVOCATIONThe 350th Convocation was held on Friday, August 30, 1974, in Rockefeller Memorial Chapel.John T. Wilson, Provost, presided.A total of 548 degrees were awarded: 32Bachelor of Arts, 1 Bachelor of Science, 138Master of Arts, 5 Master of Fine Arts, 22 Masterof Science, 39 Master of Arts in Teaching, 15Master of Science in Teaching, 174 Master ofBusiness Administration, 2 Doctor of Law, 2Doctor of Ministry, and 118 Doctor ofPhilosophy.Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, Professor in theDepartment of Political Sciences, Professor andMaster of the Social Sciences Collegiate Division, and Associate Dean of the College and Division of the Social Sciences, delivered the Convocation Address entitled "Principles andGames: Conduct in the Conduct of Foreign Policy."210TO THE ENTERING STUDENTSRemarks by CHARLES E. OXNARDSeptember 1974One year ago today I had the pleasure of welcoming to the College last year's parents and students.Since that day everything I have done for the College I have done for the first time. It has not beenuntil this moment that I have had an opportunityto build upon experience. You will soon be able todetermine for yourselves whether or not I havelearned from my experience. But you yourselvesare not in my position. Everything that you seeand touch for the next year will be totally new aswe pass through the academic cycle. I would liketo spend a little time telling you about the comingexperience. And I wish to couple the telling with alittle academic honesty.The application of simple honesty means that Icannot tell you you have come to the perfect faculty of the perfect college. Almost perfect,perhaps. I suppose the application of honesty alsomeans that I cannot inform you that you are themost brilliant class we have ever had. Lookaround among yourselves and tell me if I am mistaken. Perfection, if we seek it truly, lies nearestto the third group assembled here: those who arewilling to pay the high costs of a college educationfor their offspring — there, there lies perfection.But the matter of academic honestry is a littledifferent. I am especially reminded of it by aninvitation that I received late last year from PhiBeta Kappa. I chose to talk to that group about apiece of my own research (it's always easier toprepare something that one has done oneself), andI chose to tell that research story, not as it eventually appeared in the pages of that reputableBritish publication Nature, but rather as it actually happened. I took as my text Professor PeterMedawar's question, "Is the scientific paper afraud?" Of course Medawar was not talking of thekind of fraud described fictionally by Snow in hisbook The Affair, or semi-fictionally by Koestlerin The Case of the Midwife Toad or even, in allof its sad reality, the problem that has emergedrecently from a research institute in the East.Medawar was pointing to the sometimes irra tional reality that underlies the rational fantasythat may be the public presentation of science.In my own article in Nature, I told of the logicalthought processes by which I was led to investigate a deficiency of vitamin B12 in rhesus monkeys. I told of the deficits that were produced in thegut, in growth, in blood, in reproduction, andmost of all in the nerves and the brain. I pointedout how this finding gave us the possibility ofusing an animal model to study pathologies thatethics forbid us to investigate in man — vitaminB12 deficiency whenever it is found in man is amedical emergency that must be treated as soonas it is discovered. Yet the deficiency involves theproduction and maintenance of the insulatingsheaths of the nerve fibers; any model which canhelp make clear that process is of interest in understanding the brain.In my talk to Phi Beta Kappa, I pointed outhow the above story, though true, must be embellished. I discussed how the original finding hadbeen made through the accident of giving thewrong drug to the wrong animal in the wrong experiment. I described the continuing chapter ofaccidents that were all necessary before my channeled brain would respond to the new information. I told how the deficiency had been staring usall in the face for 20 years without recognition. Ipointed out how we had been carrying out numerous studies on these monkeys without realizingthat their brains were little more than a spongynetwork. Not only was this the case in our ownmonkey colony but it was, in all probability,widespread throughout monkey collections allover the world.You can see that there was considerable difference between the public presentation and the private description.In the same way I would like to review, gently,a few elements of the public description of theCollege at The University of Chicago as you havereceived it in the last few months, and the privateknowledge of that College as you may come to seeit over the next few months.You did not gain entrance to this College by211winning a place on a television quiz. You did notfind a free scholarship fastened to a big red balloon. (I must say, however, that my heart was inmy mouth when I heard that one of our employeeswas buying several thousand balloons.) But youdid go through an admissions procedure that toldyou this is "a very special place."You were shown a film of that title. I saw thefilm myself recently for the first time, and I thinkit is a wonderful public presentation of many aspects of our College which are truly so.Inevitably, however, the picture you received isthe picture as it relates to undergraduates as awhole, not to any particular individual. How willyour own experience differ from that presentation, for differ it certainly will?You have been told how classes at Chicago aregenerally small so that there is a true interactionbetween faculty and undergraduates, certainly un-trammeled by a cadre of intervening teaching assistants. (I can assure you it was pure accidentthat my own biology course had an enrollment lastyear of 97. At least it was done without a teachingassistant.)You have been told that although this interaction necessarily starts at an introductory levelwith broad exposure to a wide range of disciplinesit also rapidly passes toward discussion of problems in depth, even toward individual undergraduate scholarly search and research. Thus,secondhand education through textbooks israpidly leavened, eventually replaced by firsthandcontact with scholarly materials and the scholarswho produce them. (Again, if I can quote my ownexperience, my course ranged from a broad understanding of the vertebrate body to the structure of the head in whales. One student, last inqueue at the Library for the original sources, enterprisingly used a text missed by all others— Herman Melville's Moby Dick. There's a lot ofgood biology there.) An exciting prospect indeed.What is the reality?First of all, like my scientific example, it is indeed true. But like my scientific example it is notthe whole story.The picture presented to you is of a class drawnby the thought and eloquence of a Wayne Booth,a previous Dean of the College; it is that of ayoung and excited student hanging on the everyword of an internationally known Saul Bellow; itis that of the extreme stimulation of a student sitting at the feet of Milton Friedman, perhaps ourbest-known economist. The truth is that this willonly happen to some of you, one or two of you.Wayne Booth's irony, however magnetic, cannot attract an entire college year; Saul Bellow'swords, powerful as they are, are not strongenough to hang an entire undergraduate class;Milton Friedman's feet are not big enough to encompass all freshmen.The reality obviously is that you will searcharound; you will discover faculty and disciplinesthat you never even knew existed; you will bestimulated in directions that are currently totallyunknown to you; many of you, indeed, will findeducational fulfillment from those faculty members who never win popularity contests for theirteaching, but whose interaction with you will starta spark between you; a significant number of youwill become involved in "the Maroons" — toquote today's Chicago Tribune, "football for thethinking man" — especially will parents be unableto understand some of the interests and directionsthat your sons and daughters will find for themselves in these next years.This example leads on to another matter thatmay not be so evident from the public presentation. Not everything that you will do here will besomething that, in the first instance, you will wantto do. Our common core courses sample manydifferent academic areas. Many of us believe thatwe cannot call ourselves educated at the presenttime if we do not have exposure to a wide range ofthe ideas, concepts, and principles of knowledge.Every public man and woman, whatever theirpersonal field, should be able to participate intelligently in thinking about science and its impactupon the major problems of the present day.Every scientist should have some understandingof the beauty by which the humanities enrich individual lives. Every humanist, however deeplyinvolved in a personal aesthetic world, must alsoplay a part in our society. Thus it is that in thisCollege we have the broadly based commoncore — not that this alone can achieve these objectives, nor that these are the only objectives — butit is a start. For some of you this will be the firsttime for a number of years that you have beenasked, nay ordered, to do work that does not immediately offer itself to your senses. We demandit of you.Finally, the complex nature of this College maynot be entirely evident to you from the publicpresentation. For one would expect that the College would be the responsibility of the Collegefaculty, of the Masters of the Collegiate Divisions, of the Dean of the College, to our President and to our students. The marvelous new College Center in Harper Memorial Library is anoutward sign of this public view.212But the additional private reality is that undergraduate education is the responsibility of thewhole University. Our President teaches at theundergraduate level. Deans of our graduate divisions teach undergraduates. Graduate faculty,professional school faculty, all contribute to theundergraduate endeavor. (Conversely, our College Deans and Masters all teach in appropriategraduate divisions and professional schools andthat gives them a certain perspective.)All faculty have responsibilities to the undergraduate College of the University. Thus it is thatthe Dean of the College does not represent theCollege to the University as a partisan advocate.The College is so irretrievably intercalated withinthe University that, conversely, its Dean oftenfeels an honorary member of the graduate divisions and professional schools.Such a structure, such a faculty responsibilitythat arises from it, is far more subtle and far morepervasive than that obtained from the public viewof the organizational chart. At its worst such astructure could lead to the undergraduate fallingbetween the cracks in the University. At its bestit results in a College so much a part of the University that it is inseparable from it.You will excuse me if, in talking to you, I havetaken the opportunity to talk through you to thefaculty. For unless we continually make thesepoints, the enormous advantages of such a subtlestructure might not be realized, might even belost. To the extent that individual faculty see andhear and respond to this message, to that extentonly can undergraduate education be successful in the best way. I hope the message is receivedand understood.As last year, I have not spoken at all of thethings that you will be well prepared to do whenyou leave here. I have not boasted about producing this or that kind of expert. I have said nothingabout preparing you to be doctors, although ourstudents are the most successful in the nation atentering medical schools. I have not said anythingtoday about preparation for graduate school,though many of our students do go on to advanced studies and prove to be very wellequipped. I am not concerned that you becomeprofessional scholars, although I know that manyof you will. Indeed, as our last dean once saidupon a similar occasion, we prefer that at least afew of you go out and make a lot of money andremember the College. But I haven't even talkedabout preparing you for that.For you, students, the next few years are not aperiod of life to be endured in preparing for anything. They are a period to be enjoyed for its ownsignificance. This enjoyment will continue whenyour days here are long behind you. And for you,parents, I hope, through my letters, to keep youin touch with that enjoyment for the next fewyears.With this welcome comes also a symbolic parting. Now parents go one way, students another.Charles E. Oxnard is Dean of the College andProfessor in the Departments of Anatomy andAnthropology , in the Committee on EvolutionaryBiology, and in the College.213MEMORIAL TRIBUTELLOYD A. FALLERS, 1925-1974Lloyd A. Fallers was born in Nebraska City,Nebraska, on 29 August 1925. He died in Chicagoon 4 July 1974 after a decade of illness borne withgreat fortitude and undeviating devotion to histasks as teacher and scholar. At the time of hisdeath he was Albert Michelson DistinguishedService Professor of Anthropology and Sociologyand Chairman of the Committee for the Comparative Study of New Nations at this University.He came to The University of Chicago with theintention of studying medicine; to be a physicianhad been his ambition since childhood. While hewas an undergraduate here, he became interestedin the study of society, and after long, characteristically sober, deliberation he decided that thiswas the subject to which he wished to devote hislife. He did exactly this, and with great effect.In the summer of 1949, when he was about tocomplete his work for the degree of M.A. in theDepartment of Anthropology, he met Dr. AudreyRichards, then Reader in Social Anthropology atthe London School of Economics and a distinguished Africanist. She came to lecture at TheUniversity of Chicago and met Lloyd Fallers at aweekend party, arranged by Robert Redfield, forstudents of the Department working on the FoxIndians. Dr. Richards was seeking promisingyoung American anthropologists who might beawarded research fellowships in Africa by theColonial Social Science Research Council. Dr.Richards had read nothing written by Lloyd Fallers, but her attention was drawn to him by thehigh praise of Robert Redfield and by the leadership and sense of responsibility he showed duringthe weekend. In the autumn of 1949, Dr.Richards was appointed to the directorship of theEast African Institute of Social Research, whichwas to be established at Kampala, with the support of the Colonial Office. Lloyd Fallers had already been appointed to a Colonial Social ScienceResearch Council fellowship on Dr. Richards'recommendation and he was one of the first persons whom she invited to join her at the still to beestablished institute. Dr. Richards' first interestin him and her subsequent contribution to his development were of the greatest importance to himover the ensuing quarter century. In the autumn of 1949 he went as a Fulbrightfellow to the London School of Economics,where he worked for a year with Dr. Richardsand other members of the department of anthropology there, before departing for East Africa. From 1950 to 1952, as a fellow of the Institute, he studied the Basoga on the northern shoreof Lake Victoria. His first work there set the pattern for the remainder of his life: dispassionatelymeticulous and sympathetic observation of thehuman beings who were both his subject-matterand his fellowmen, immersion into the documentsand artifacts of their history, imaginative analysisof the way in which their society worked — howthe parts and the whole were linked — and how itcame to be that way, and an unceasing effort tosee that society as one variant of the wide rangeof human societies. He had a patient and compassionate understanding of human beings, individually and in every sort of group. He appreciatedtheir virtues, condemned their follies and vices,but never departed either from charity in judgment and in action or from his own exigent standards.In 1952 he returned to The University ofChicago as an instructor in the Department ofAnthropology; he received the degree of Ph.D.here in 1953 and then went to Princeton where hetaught for one year. In 1954 he went back toKampala as a fellow of the Institute.His two periods in East Africa made knownother features of the pattern from which he neverdiverged thereafter: fidelity to colleagues and theinstitution in which he worked, a civil understanding of the problems of the larger society in whichhe was working, a fluent aptitude as an administrator in which every colleague, secretary, andeven the most humble porter was treated withtactful and solicitous consideration, and an extraordinary capacity for sustained work in everytask of the scholar's life. One product of his workin East Africa was his Bantu Bureaucracy(Cambridge: W. Heffer, 1956; reprinted by TheUniversity of Chicago Press, 1964), in which hecombined the Anglo-American tradition of painstaking field-work in small communities with thelarge comparative perspective derived from hisstudy of the writings of Max Weber. He madestudies of Soga land tenure (1956) and of Soga214marriage (1957). He played a large part in thecomparative study of the township or district andvillage levels in Uganda and Tanganyika; he contributed to Dr. Richards' major work on East African Chiefs (1960); he directed in an inspiringway a very original enquiry into leadership, withthe financial support of the Carnegie Corporation.In all these studies, he was a forerunner of a new,more sociological way of conceiving his subjectwhile preserving the strength of the anthropological tradition as it had developed in Great Britainand the United States. Among its other fruits wasa vigorous movement to bridge the gap betweensociology and anthropology, which brought greatbenefits to the social sciences at The Universityof Chicago and elsewhere. In all these investigations, too, he revealed great virtues in the guidance and stimulation of his colleagues and drew tohimself their unceasing esteem as well as affection. He was called "Tom" by all who knew him,a name of myserious origin, the use of which expressed the respectful and simple affection whichwas associated with his growing reputation.When Dr. Richards in 1955 decided to return toCambridge, where in 1956 she took up a fellowship at Newnham College and later becameSmuts Reader in Anthropology, the difficult question of finding a successor who could carry on herpioneering work was resolved by the appointmentof Lloyd Faller^. This was a crucial period in thehistory of Uganda; the crisis about the Kabakahad been resolved, and Uganda was being prepared for self-government under the governorshipof the wise and generous Sir Andrew Cohen. Aquestion was raised in the Colonial Officewhether it was appropriate to appoint to such animportant position one who was still so young,and an American as well; the question was resolved very simply. Mrs. E. M. Chilver, herself ascholar of considerable accomplishments andthen the Secretary of the Colonial Social ScienceResearch Council, which supported the Institute,said there could be no question when the candidate was a man of such "shining decency." Hewas director of the East African Institute of Social and Economic Research from the end of 1955to 1957; he carried on and extended the workbegun by Dr. Richards in a way which enhancedhis reputation in Great Britain and the UnitedStates; he became one of the most highly regarded anthropologists in the English-speakingworld. The Institute became the gathering placeof a remarkable circle of social scientists frommany places and important investigations wereconducted there. He carried out his delicate ad ministrative tasks with decisiveness and tact andat the same time he pressed forward with his ownresearch. He brought to culmination the workwhich Dr. Richards had set in train on East African chiefs. He also directed the study of the traditional Kingdom of Buganda which was becomingmodern in the sense in which Max Weber understood it. He collected many case-histories oftraders, politicians, editors, businessmen, clergymen, and teachers, and edited the volumeentitled The King's Men: Leadership and Statusin Buganda on the Eve of Independence (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1964), which contained the results of the research; he contributed three chapters to the volume to which Dr. Richards alsocontributed. He also did the field work and archival research which he later presented in a book ofgreat originality, Law Without Precedent(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,1969). He helped everyone else with his research and with nearly everything else as well.He repaired the motor cars of his staff; he did thework of carpenter and electrician when the needarose; he even, on one occasion, showed that hecould cut up a suckling pig which a visiting chiefbrought as a gift. If there were tasks which weretoo strenuous or too difficult for his subordinates,he quietly did them himself. He was a beloveddirector of the Institute and everyone who camein contact with it benefitted from his ideas, hisexertions, and his quiet and assuring presence.The breadth of his intellectual sympathy andthe power of his mind, as well as the compassionof his spirit, even in this early phase of his career,are to be seen in the collection of his papers published in 1973 by The University of Chicago Pressunder the title of Inequality : Social StratificationReconsidered.From the directorship of the East African Institute he went to the University of California atBerkeley, where he taught from 1957 to 1960 andwhere he came into close association with Professors Reinhard Bendix and Clifford Geertz. Theyear of 1958-59 he spent at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in PaloAlto; in this year, Professors Geertz, FredEggan, and Morris Janowitz, then still of the University of Michigan, were also at the Center. Oldties were strengthened and new ones formed, andimportant directions were laid out for future intellectual developments. This was a momentousyear for the growth of the social sciences atThe University of Chicago, and more particularlyfor the next stages of Lloyd Fallers' work. In1960, he returned as associate professor to The215University of Chicago, to which he had remainedclose during all the years of his absence. The restof his career was spent at The University ofChicago. It was a period of great intellectual fruit-fulness. The Department of Anthropology at TheUniversity of Chicago had long been one of theleading centers in its field. The coming of LloydFallers improved it even further. He played a crucial role in stabilizing the Department and helpingto create in it a corporate spirit which reinforcedthe powerful intellectual impetus resident in itsdistinguished members. Like Professor Eggan,whom he so much resembled and whose spiritualsuccessor he was, he had a particular capacity tomake creative persons remember that they mustbe responsible and to recall why they were members of the Department. The reputation which theDepartment of Anthropology of The Universityof Chicago enjoyed in the 1960s as one of the bestin the history of the profession of anthropologyowed a very great deal to Lloyd Faller's extraordinary qualities. He also played a central part inthe work of the newly founded Committee for theComparative Study of New Nations, contributingto it by a series of profound and learned papers, aswell as by his clarifying and benevolent presenceat every meeting of the seminar, which ran for twoterms every year. His thoughtful and responsiblejudgment strengthened the Committee and his intellectual power and interests kept it at a highlevel and broadened its range. His reputation forreliability persuaded the philanthropic foundations to support the Committee financially, andhis wide connections and ascendant reputation attracted to it distinguished as well as young, stillunknown, scholars from all over the world. Hebecame the chairman of the Committee in 1969,but long before that he had been its inspiring central figure. In addition to this, he was active in theAfrican Studies Committee of the University andmade it into one of the important places for thestudy of Africa. He also played a great part in theCenter for Middle Eastern Studies, in connectionwith a new phase of his intellectual interests.By the early 1960s, he had decided to undertakeresearch in Turkey; he learned the Turkish language and studied Turkish and Islamic history. In1964, he went to Turkey for the first of severalextended periods in field work in Turkey. He designed, in collaboration with Professor Nur Yal-man, then of The University of Chicago and nowat Harvard, a farranging plan of research.In 1968, he returned to Turkey, settling in Ed-remit for nearly a year. There, with the activecollaboration of Mrs. Fallers, he began to collect, with his characteristic thoroughness and comprehensiveness, material on the role of Edremit asa provincial center which brought into closer integration the villagers of the surrounding countryside and the institutions of Turkish nationalsociety. The investigation made great progress;numerous, very detailed interviews were conducted with persons in all sectors of the society ofEdremit. He put to masterful use his knowledgeof the history of Turkey and its literature, paidspecial attention to the vicissitudes of Islam inTurkey, and showed how a synthesis of religioustradition and "national-secular reform" wasemerging. The work which he did in this investigation opened a new perspective in anthropological studies by combining the tradition of intensive, firsthand study of a relatively small community with the analysis of its function in the operation of the larger national society.Through this study, he advanced the study ofsociety in general and enabled The University ofChicago to become an important center of Turkish studies and to attract to its staff a number ofthe most eminent Turkish scholars in the world.In 1971, he returned to Edremit to complete hisfield work there, preparatory to the writing of thelarge book which he had already sketched out.While there he suffered an accident which necessitated his return to Chicago. Medical examinations showed that the disease which had alreadyon two occasions required major surgery andwhich was thought to have been stayed, had re-emerged in a very serious way.Through much of the 1960s he had also beentaken up with his responsibilities as associateeditor of the International Encyclopedia of theSocial Sciences. In consequence of the high esteem which he enjoyed among anthropologistswherever that discipline was practiced, he wasable to an exceptional degree to gain the collaboration of its best scholars. The uniformly highquality of the anthropological contributions to theEncyclopedia attests to his own good judgmentin the invitation of contributors and to the highstandards to which he adhered. He also wrote forthe Encyclopedia a long and very significant article on "Societal Analysis," in which he laid outthe main lines of comparative macro-sociologywhich his own work in Turkey, in particular, hadadvanced so substantially.With all these worldwide intellectual interests,he was also a citizen of rare civility. The University of Chicago and the United States wereequally the objects of his concern and devotion.He served on many University committees. In216them and more pervasively, he was a sheet anchorin the moral life of the University, the Division ofthe Social Sciences, and his own Department. Hepacified conflicts and guided discussions so thatwherever it was humanly possible, acrimony wasavoided and consensus achieved.His teaching was as important to him as theactivities which brought him so much esteem fromcolleagues throughout the learned world. He always remembered his teachers from his days as astudent in the College and as a graduate student,and he maintained that tradition. With ProfessorMorris Janowitz, who was, with ProfessorGeertz, among his closest friends in the University, he conducted for many years a course on"Modern Society," which was attended equallyby anthropologists and sociologists and whichwas a source of great intellectual stimulus for successive generations of students. He took theteaching of undergraduates and first- year graduatestudents as much to heart as he took everythingelse. With all his numerous activities, he alwaysfound time to prepare his lectures and seminarswith the same steady attention to detail and tolarge outlines, and students at every level knewthat they could turn to him for understanding andguidance and for the strengthening of their attachment to high intellectual standards. Although inhis last years he walked with great difficulty, henever missed a class unless he was confined to thehospital, and in the last weeks of his life he conducted his seminars at home, read students' papers, and worked with them on their dissertations.His failing physical strength left no mark on hismoral and intellectual powers.He was not sentimental with students; he neverflattered them; he never compromised his standards or his convictions to gain their approbation.He was to his students, as he was to his colleagues, the embodiment of the ideals of learningand civility. That is why he was loved by themany who knew him intimately as students and as colleagues, and why his position in the minds ofthose who met him only briefly, or who knew himonly through his work, was so high.In all that he undertook he was sustained andsupported by his wife Margaret, who as MargaretChave was the daughter of a professor in the Divinity School of The University of Chicago andherself a graduate of the Department of Anthropology. She studied with him in Chicago andLondon and worked with him in Uganda and Turkey and published a monograph on The EasternLacustridn Bantu. Throughout his long illness,she showed the same steadfastness of characterwhich he himself showed. She shared with him hisbroad intellectual interests and his warmth ofhospitality and made his domestic life a model ofquiet affection, serenity, and order.The last few years of his life were afflicted bysurgery and painful and prolonged treatments andincreasing frailty. But this did not affect what wasessential in him. He brought to fruition his Turkish and African studies and his deep concernwith the United States in a remarkable work onThe Social Anthropology of the Modern Nation-State, which he presented first as the LewisHenry Morgan Lectures in 1971. In this book,which was his last testament — the page proofswere returned to the printer shortly before hisdeath — he examined the nature of the civil tieswhich bind the citizen to his society as a whole,while leaving alive and flourishing all the otherties which enrich life and enhance its interest. Hehimself conformed with the highest standard ofthe citizen. But he was more than a citizen andmore than a loyal and loving member of his familyand an affectionate friend. He was devoted to hismunicipality, his country, his profession, and hisUniversity, but he was, above all, loyal to twotranscendent ideals — he was unswervingly loyalto the truth and he was a faithful Christian.Edward Shils217POST-GRADUATION PLANS OFBACHELOR'S DEGREERECIPIENTS— CLASS OF 1974To: Charles D. O'ConnellVice-President and Dean of StudentsOctober 1, 1974Overview: Class of 1974. For the eighth consecutive year, the Office of Career Counseling andPlacement has analyzed the post-convocationplans of our B.A. recipients. Four hundred andforty-seven students were graduated in the Classof 1974; 256 were men and 191 were women, withwomen therefore accounting for 43 percent of theclass.Acceleration. Sixty-five students, or close to 15percent, graduated in less than four years. Thisexcludes transfer students although there is evidence that one or two transfer students also accelerated in terms of quarters of college registration.Twenty-nine students in the Class of 1974 combined 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 29, 27 werein the MBA program, one in Law, and one inSocial Service Administration.Six students in the Class of 1974 were awardedtheir Bachelor's and Master's degrees simultaneously. Two were in Economics, two inMathematics, one in Romance Languages andLiteratures, and one in Chemistry.Thus, 100 students, or more than 22 percent ofthe Class of 1974, either finished their undergraduate work in less than four years orcompleted a year of graduate study as well as theirundergraduate work in the usual undergraduatefour- year term.Graduate Study. For the first time, we note thatthe proportion of women and men planning to assume graduate study immediately following convocation is identical. For both men and forwomen, it was 64 percent of the class. This represents a decrease for men by some 6 percentfrom the Class of 1973. The 64 percent forwomen, however, represents an increase of 5 percent over the 59 percent in the Class of 1973 and isthe highest of any recorded in the eight years we have studied our undergraduate classes. I, therefore, feel it is safe to repeat that women indeed arebeginning to realize that they are welcome inhigher education. In the Office of Career Counseling and Placement we know this to be true fromobserving the serious recruiting efforts beingmade by graduate schools across the country,both arts and sciences and professional schools.The numbers of students who choose arts andsciences as opposed to professional study hasseesawed in recent years, and it is difficult to predict a definite trend. There is no doubt that theprevailing pessimism over the under-employmentof Ph.D.s has influenced our students' choices. Ibelieve this accounts for the higher percentagesfor both men and women choosing professionalschools over the arts and sciences. For the Classof 1974, 37 percent of the men and 38 percent ofthe women chose arts and sciences. Professionalstudy was chosen by 54 percent of the men and 50percent of the women. Nine percent of the malesand eleven percent of the females who indicatedimmediate plans for graduate study did not show aspecific field of study.In the order of choice of professional study,both our men and women choose medicine, law,and business in the greatest numbers. Other professional fields represented are art, education, engineering, journalism, library science, music, social work, theology, and theatre.Because of the seesawing of our statistics between arts and sciences and professional study,we decided to look more closely at the plans of thestudents in the respective Collegiate Divisions.We hoped this would shed greater light in understanding the determination of plans.Biological Sciences. Of the seniors in the Biological Sciences Collegiate Division, 74 percentplanned on immediate graduate study. Of thisgroup, 67 percent planned to enter a medicalschool. Of the remaining 33 percent, just under 13percent chose other professional study in business, engineering, and education; 10 percentchose arts and sciences, and 10 percent did notindicate a field of study. More women (79 percent)chose graduate study than men (69 percent).Of those indicating a definite choice of graduateor professional school, 33 percent indicated thatthey planned to stay at The University ofChicago. A wide variety of institutions were mentioned, but no other institution was listed morethan once.Humanities. In the Humanities Collegiate Division, 57 percent planned immediate graduate218study. Of this group, 58 percent planned to attendprofessional schools, and 42 percent indicatedstudy in the arts and sciences. There was no difference in any of the above percentages betweenmale and female. The largest numbers chose education and law, followed by theology, art, and library science. Business, social work, journalism,and medicine each claimed one student.Twenty-four percent definitely planned to stayat The University of Chicago. While many otherinstitutions were named, none was chosen bymore than one student.New Collegiate Division. Two-thirds, or 67 percent, of the seniors in the New Collegiate Division planned to attend graduate school immediately, half of these in the arts and sciencesand not quite a third in law or medicine. The remainder did not specify their field. Twenty percent of those going on indicated that they intendedto stay at The University of Chicago.Physical Sciences. Seventy-three percent of thegraduating students in the Physical Sciences Collegiate Division planned immediate graduatestudy. Of these, 75 percent intended to continuetheir study in the sciences. Twenty-five percentchose professional training in the fields of business, education, and medicine. More womenproportionately (83 percent) chose graduate studythan men (71 percent).Twenty- seven percent planned to stay at TheUniversity of Chicago for graduate study. Cornelland Yale were to receive two students each.Other institutions were mentioned only once.Social Sciences. Fifty-five percent of the seniorsin the Social Sciences Collegiate Division indicated plans to go directly to graduate school. Only37 percent, however, planned to continue theirwork in the arts and sciences. Sixty- three percentplanned to enter professional study, and almosthalf of these planned to attend law schools.Twenty-one percent chose to stay at The University of Chicago.Professional Option. As might be expected, allthe seniors in this program expected to continuetheir graduate study in their chosen fields at TheUniversity of Chicago. Jobs. Thirty-four percent of the men and 30 percent of the women indicated they planned to enterthe labor market immediately upon graduation. Ofthose who knew their plans, the largest numberchose positions in business and industry, followedby government, education, publishing, and themedia. But the unusual occupational plans ofsome should be noted: studio apprenticeships,professional music, free-lance photography, andprofessional dance.Other Alternatives. A few of our graduates continue to seek other alternatives to graduate studyand jobs. Just under five percent of the students inthe Class of 1974 indicated volunteer work, military service, travel, "a year off," and "rest andrelaxation." One woman won a fellowship thatwill permit her to travel abroad at her own paceand fancy.Undecided. Just under nine percent of the Classof 1974 gave no indication of any specific post-graduation plans. The reasons for this are so varied that one runs a risk in trying to give the figuremeaning. Two explanations come to mind, however. The available choices open to our liberalarts graduates are sufficiently varied that aspecific choice is sometimes difficult to make; andsome of these students may simply have beenwaiting to hear from the graduate school of theirchoice or from an employer, but hesitated tocommit their plans to paper.Summary. Roughly two-thirds of the Class of1974 planned to pursue graduate study immediately after graduation. This, of course, hasbeen a long-standing characteristic of our seniors.For the first time, however, the proportion ofwomen in the class going into graduate or professional study equalled that of the men and, indeed,in the natural sciences, fields traditionally pursuedoverwhelmingly by men, the proportion of womengoing on to immediate graduate study exceededthat of the men.Anita SandkeAssistant Dean of StudentsDirector, Career Counseling and Placement219CENTER FOR POLICY STUDY FACULTYFELLOWSRobert Z. Aliber, Associate Professor in theGraduate School of Business.George W. Beadle, President Emeritus and theWilliam E. Wrather Distinguished Service Professor in the Department of Biology and in theCollege; Honorary Trustee of The University ofChicago.Saul Bellow, Professor and Chairman in theCommittee on Social Thought and Professor inthe Department of English.Brian J. L. Berry, the Irving B. Harris Professor and Chairman of the Department of Geography, the Irving B. Harris Professor in the College, and Director of the Center for UrbanStudies.R. Stephen Berry, Professor in the Departmentof Chemistry, in the James Franck Institute, andin the College.Leonard Binder, Professor in the Departmentof Political Science.Walter J. Blum, Professor in the Law School.Jerald C. Brauer, the Naomi Shenstone Donnelley Professor in the Divinity School.John A. Brinkman, Professor and Director ofthe Oriental Institute and Professor in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations and in the College.D. J . R. Bruckner, Vice-President for PublicAffairs and Director of the Center for PolicyStudy.Gerhard Casper, Professor in the Law Schooland in the Department of Political Science.S. Chandrasekhar, the Morton D. Hull Distinguished Service Professor in the Departments ofAstronomy and Astrophysics, Physics, the Enrico Fermi Institute, and the Committee on theConceptual Foundations of Science.James S. Coleman, University Professor in theDepartment of Sociology.James W . Cronin, University Professor in theDepartment of Physics and in the Enrico FermiInstitute.Kenneth W . Dam, Professor in the LawSchool.Allison Dunham, the Arnold I. Shure Professorof Urban Law in the Law School.Dr. Jarl E. Dyrud, Professor and Director ofClinical Services in the Department ofPsychiatry.Edgar Epps, the Marshall Field Professor ofUrban Education in the Department of Education. John Hope Franklin, the John Matthews ManlyDistinguished Service Professor in the Department of History.Dr. Daniel X. Freedman, Chairman and theLouis Block Professor in the Department ofPsychiatry.Milton Friedman, the Paul Snowden RussellDistinguished Service Professor in the Department of Economics.Jacob W. Getzels, the R. Wendell HarrisonDistinguished Service Professor in the Departments of Education and Psychology.Julian R. Goldsmith, the Charles E. MerriamDistinguished Service Professor in the Department of Geophysical Sciences.Harry Harootunian, the Max Palevsky Professor of History and Civilizations in the College andProfessor in the Department of History.Chauncy D. Harris, the Samuel N. HarperDistinguished Service Professor in the Department of Geography, Director of the Center forInternational Studies, and Assistant to the President.Neil Harris, Professor in the Department ofHistory.Philip M. Hauser, Professor in the Departmentof Sociology and Director of the Population Research Center.Roger H. Hilde brand, Professor in the Department of Physics and in the Enrico Fermi Institute.Philip W. Jackson, Chairman of the Department of Education and Dean of the GraduateSchool of Education, the David Lee ShillinglawDistinguished Service Professor in the Departments of Education and Behavioral Sciences andin the Graduate School of Education; Director ofPre-Collegiate Education, Laboratory Schools.Morris Janowitz, Distinguished Service Professor in the Department of Sociology and in theCollege, and Director of the Center for Social Organization Studies.D. Gale Johnson, the Eliakim Hastings MooreDistinguished Service Professor and Chairman inthe Department of Economics, the Eliakim Hastings Moore Distinguished Service Professor inthe College, and Special Assistant to the President.Harry G. Johnson, Professor in the Department of Economics and Editor of the Journal ofPolitical Economy.Morton A. Kaplan, Professor in the Department of Political Science and Chairman of theCommittee on International Relations.Philip B. Kurland, Professor in the Law School220and the William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor in theCollege.Ralph Lerner, Professor in the Division of Social Sciences in the College.Edward H. Levi, President and Trustee of TheUniversity of Chicago and Professor in the LawSchool.Julian H. Levi, Professor of Urban Studies inthe Division of Social Sciences and Executive Director of the South East Chicago Commission.James H. Lorie, Professor and Director of theSeminar on the Analysis of Security Prices in theGraduate School of Business.Martin E. Marty, Professor and AssociateDean of the Divinity School.William H. McNeill, the Robert A. MillikenDistinguished Service Professor in the Department of History.Saunders Mac Lane, the Max Mason Distinguished Service Professor in the Department ofMathematics, in the Committees on ConceptualFoundations of Science and Analysis of Ideas andStudy of Methods, and in the College.Bernice L. Neugarten, Professor in the Department of Behavioral Sciences and in the College.Stuart A. Rice, the Louis Block Professor andChairman of the Department of Chemistry, theLouis Block Professor in the James Franck Institute, in the Department of Biophysics andTheoretical Biology, and in the College.Harold A. Richman, Professor and Dean in theSchool of Social Service Administration.Margaret K. Rosenheim, Professor in theSchool of Social Service Administration.Dr. Janet Rowley, Associate Professor in theDepartment of Medicine, the Franklin McLeanMemorial Research Institute, and the Committeeon Genetics.Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, Professor in theDepartment of Political Science; Professor andMaster in Social Sciences Collegiate Division andAssociate Dean of the College and Division of theSocial Sciences.Robert G. Sachs, Director of Argonne National Laboratory, Professor in the Department ofPhysics and in the Enrico Fermi Institute.Edward Shils, Distinguished Service Professorin the Committee on Social Thought and in theDepartment of Sociology.John A. Simpson, Director of the Enrico FermiInstitute and the Edward L. Ryerson Distinguished Service Professor in the Department ofPhysics, the Enrico Fermi Institute, and in theCollege. Dr. David B. Skinner, Chairman and the DallasB. Phemister Professor in the Department ofSurgery.Dr. Donald F. Steiner, Chairman and the A. N.Pritzker Professor in the Department ofBiochemistry; Professor in the Department ofMedicine and in the College.George J. Stigler, the Charles R. WalgreenDistinguished Service Professor of American Institutions in the Department of Economics andthe Graduate School of Business and Editor of theJournal of Political Economy.Bernard S. Strauss, Professor and Chairman ofthe Department of Microbiology and Committeeon Genetics and Professor in the College.Sol Tax, Professor in the Department of Anthropology and in the College; Director of theSmithsonian Institution Center for the Study ofMan.Anthony Turkevich, the James Franck Distinguished Service Professor in the Department ofChemistry, in the Enrico Fermi Institute, and inthe College.Paul Wheatley, Professor in the Department ofGeography, the Committee on Social Thought,and in the College.John T. Wilson, Provost of The University ofChicago and Professor in the Departments ofEducation and Psychology.Robert R. Wilson, Professor in the Departmentof Physics, in the Enrico Fermi Institute, and inthe College; Director of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.Albert Wohlstetter, University Professor in theDepartment of Political Science.Aristide R. Zolberg, Professor in the Department of Political Science and in the College.Elinor Langer (non-faculty fellow).TRUSTEE ELECTIONThree new members have been elected to TheUniversity of Chicago Board of Trustees. Theyare:Weston R. Christopher son, President, JewelCompanies, Inc.William B. Johnson, Chairman, Illinois CentralIndustries, Inc.Arthur C. Nielsen, Jr., President, A. C.Nielsen Company.221SOME LIMITED COMPARISONS OF THECOSTS OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION, 1971-72September 30, 1974The Sloan Study Consortium has issued a report,Paying for College: Financing Education at NinePrivate Institutions.1 The institutions participating in the study were Amherst, Brown, Dartmouth, Harvard, MIT, Mount Holyoke, Princeton, Wellesley, and Wesleyan.The amount of data presented in the report islimited, but three or four items permit approximate comparisons with the College of The University of Chicago. There is an undocumented estimate of the total educational and general costsper full-time undergraduate student. The estimate, which excludes room and board charges,financial aid costs, and costs associated withsponsored research and graduate education, averaged $4,725 for the nine institutions for 1971-72. Aroughly comparable figure for our own undergraduate program for the same year would be$4,800. Because of the lack of documentation forthe estimate for the nine institutions, it is not possible to determine how comparable the two estimates are, but it appears that the two effortsmeasured very nearly the same set of costs.An estimate is given for the relationship of tuition income to the total educational and generalcosts. For the nine institutions, tuition incomewas 59 percent of total cost in 1971-72; for The1 . Distributed by The University Press of New England, Hanover, New Hampshire, 1974. University of Chicago, tuition income was 54 percent of total costs.Scholarship funds from the nine universities'own resources (regular budget and endowmentincome) averaged 23.9 percent of tuitionincome — ranging from 13.7 to 31 .7 percent. Scholarship aid from The University of Chicago College sources equaled 29.4 percent.Federal scholarship funds for the nine institutions equaled 5.5 percent of their own scholarshipaid; for the University's College it was 9.5 percent.D. Gale JohnsonOffice of Economic AnalysisCOMMITTEE ON THE UNIVERSITY ANDTHE COMMUNITY PUBLIC SCHOOLSPresident Levi has appointed the following faculty members to a Committee which is to giveguidance to the University on what is the mostappropriate, helpful, and feasible relationship between the University and the public schools inthis area.James S. ColemanRobert Dreeben (Chairman)Allison DunhamDonald A. FischmanReuben A. KesselMartin E. MartyJ. Alan ThomasWilliam J. Wilson222THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDOFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRSRoom 200, Administration Building3XS1oaooo8Ig.02.I^4_ o zT X om £ c 33D P "TJ= CD TJ ¦_ OPOSTAGAID0,ILLINTNO.31 O-^(Q(03N-«. O rn •*•*> T" O0) 3