THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 1EECORPNovember 5, 1976 An Official Publication Volume X, Number 5CONTENTS139 THE UNIVERSITY BUDGET, 1976-77149 FINAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE QUALITYOF LIFE IN REGENSTEIN156 TOWN AND GOWN158 SUMMARY OF THE 360TH CONVOCATION158 TO THE ENTERING STUDENTS164 UNIVERSITY REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS IN THECAMPUS AREA167 REPORT OF THE STUDENT OMBUDSMAN FOR THESPRING QUARTER, 1976THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOFOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER©Copyright 1976 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDTHE UNIVERSITY BUDGET, 1976-77To: The Faculty, The University of ChicagoFrom: D. Gale Johnson, ProvostSeptember 20, 1976This is the eighth in a series of annual memorandaon the University's budget.1 Though a new authoris involved, the purpose remains the same, to inform faculty and others regarding the budget ofthe University and to point out particular aspectsof concern as well as to note particular achievements.The most striking and encouraging aspect of the1976-77 budget is that it brings to completion theelimination of the gap between revenues and expenditures in the University's budget. The1973_74 budget was based on a shortfall of unrestricted revenues, relative to unrestricted expenditures, of $5.9 million. It was clear that so largean underwriting, although necessary at that time,was untenable on a continuing basis. The difficultdecision was made that starting in 1974-75 theunderwriting was to be reduced by $2 million eachyear, and that the shortfall in 1976-77 was to bezero. The program to achieve so substantial animprovement in the long-run financial position ofthe University involved continued efforts to increase income, restraints on expenditures, andthe use, in closely controlled amounts, of expendable funds to be raised in Phase II of the Campaign for Chicago. The objective, of course, wasto eliminate the underwriting with the minimumnegative consequences to the strength and vitalityof the University.1. For prior memoranda see: The University of ChicagoRecord for December 1, 1969; August 31, 1970; October 11,1971; October 31, 1972; November 1, 1973; December 20, 1974;and September 21, 1975. Although I am not a totally unbiased observer,I do believe that the University has passedthrough a very difficult period of adjustment without loss of quality or morale. True, we have lostsome faculty members who we would have likedto keep, but not in larger numbers than was truefor the previous decade. At least partially offsetting the faculty losses have been a number of outstanding new appointments. In many ways themost critical impact upon the University of thefinancial stringencies of the past five years hasbeen the relative and absolute reduction in thenumber of assistant professors and instructors. Atthe beginning of this period ( June 1970), therewere 434 assistant professors and instructors onthe faculty; by June 1976 the number had beenreduced to 343. The total number of faculty declined from 1,116 to 1,045. As a percentage of thetotal faculty the assistant professors and instructors declined from 39 to 33.2The 1975-76 BudgetWhile the primary emphasis in this memorandumis the discussion of the 1976-77 budget, it may beof interest to compare the 1975-76 budget with thepreliminary indications of actual income and expenditures. The 1975-76 unrestricted fundsbudget was planned on the basis of an underwriting of $2,032,000. The actual underwriting wasless than $900,000, a substantial and pleasantchange from the expected. The significant im-2. A careful and detailed analysis of each faculty appointmentform resulted in revisions of the total faculty count and in thenumber of assistant professors and instructors for June 30, 1976.The results of this revision did not become available until afterthe original version of this memorandum was distributed. Thetotal faculty count was reduced from 1,076 to 1,045 and thenumber of assistant professors and instructors from 370 to 343.139provement was due to achieving an expenditurelevel slightly less than the budgeted level and anincrease in income of approximately $975,000.The major increase in income came from indirectcost allowances in the amount of $12,764,000compared to the amount projected in the budgetof $11 million. Quadrangles enrollment exceededthe level assumed in the budget of 7,950 by morethan 100 students, and actual tuition income was$164,000 above the budgeted amount. Other income, including interest earned on theUniversity's short-term excess of cash incomeover cash expenses, exceeded the budget level by$270,000.Endowment income was slightly higher than anticipated. These increases in income were partially offset by a shortfall in unrestricted gifts of$1,250,000. But the fortunate net effect of theserather modest departures from the budget was areduction of the required underwriting of morethan half.Assumptions in the 1976-77 BudgetThe overriding objective in the development ofthe 1976-77 budget was the elimination of theshortfall between income and expenditures in unrestricted funds. The budget was planned to complete the three-year process of reducing the underwriting of nearly $6 million in 1973-74 to zeroin 1976-77. If income and expenditure expectations are fulfilled, we will reach that objective.In order to achieve a balanced budget for1976-77, the Dean's Budget Committee made thefollowing recommendations:1 . An increase in budgeted unrestricted expenditures for the academic areas of 5.5 percent, forsupport services of 6 percent, and for utilities of15 percent.2. While progress had been made in reducingcosts of gas and electricity, further generaleconomies are required to offset anticipatedhigher utility costs not only for 1976-77, but forfuture years.3. Tuition increases of at least $70 per quarterabove the 1975-76 level.4. An Autumn Quarter Quadrangles enrollment of 8,200 representing an increase of 150 fromthe Autumn Quarter 1975 enrollment.5. Continuation of the policy of limitation onoverall size of the faculty.As any reader of these memoranda for the pastfew years will recognize, the Dean's BudgetCommittee report emphasized a continuation ofefforts required for the past several years to bring the unrestricted income and expenditures intobalance.The recommendations of the Deans' BudgetCommittee were based upon certain assumptionsthat seemed reasonable at the time the report wasprepared in late November 1975. The budget asactually adopted in June 1976 of necessity deviated somewhat from the recommendations ofthe Committee. The Committee had assumed,based upon the total return formula for calculatingendowment income then in effect, that total endowment income would decline from $16,775,000in 1975-76 to $14,800,000 in 1976-77. The Committee had projected an unrestricted gift figure of$6,951,000 compared to the budget level for1975-76 of $5,250,000. While this level seemedreasonable on the assumption that 1975-76 giftexpectations would be fulfilled, it was clear by thetime the budget was actually adopted that the giftprojection was unrealistic. The Committee recognized that the gift figure might be unrealistic, andin its report suggested two alternatives for achieving a balanced budget. The alternatives were reducing the level of unrestricted expenditures, orincreasing tuition by more than $70 per quarter. Athird alternative of increasing enrollment to morethan 8,200 was considered and rejected as beingunlikely of realization.During 1975-76 the Board of Trustees of theUniversity considered modifications of the totalreturn formula for determining endowment income. The total return formula which was then ineffect based total endowment income upon a return of 5.5 percent of the average value of theendowment for the twelve quarters ending on December 31 of the prior calendar year. There weretwo difficulties with that formula. One was that5.5 percent cash payout was greater than could beexpected to be achieved from prudent investments over the long run and permit the growth ofthe existing endowment fund to offset anticipatedinflation. When adopted the total return formulawas based on the assumption of a total return of8.5 to 9.0 percent making it possible to pay 5.5percent to support the budget and leaving the remainder to increase the value of the endowment.The other difficulty was that a three-year periodhad not provided the stability in payout that hadbeen anticipated. According to the formula, endowment income which had been almost $19 million in 1974-75 declined to $16,775,000 in 1975-76and was expected to decline further to $14.8 million in 1976-77 and to $13.4 million the followingyear. Consideration was given to various alternatives that included a more realistic rate of return140and greater stability of endowment income. Themodified formula, which became effective July 1 ,1976, was for a return of 5 percent on the averagevalue of the endowment for the previous tencalendar years with the highest and lowest twoyears being excluded from the average. Thechange in the formula had the effect of increasingtotal endowment income available for expenditurefor 1976-77 by $1.8 million. However, even withthe change in the formula, total endowment income for 1976-77 will be less than the endowmentincome in the 1975-76 budget. Over the long runthe new formula will result in a somewhat lowerendowment payout than the previous formulaand, under reasonable assumptions, this couldoccur within the next three or four years.The increased endowment income under thenew formula was not used to increase expenditures for 1976-77. The expenditure total was leftunchanged, and the amount of unrestricted giftsapplied to the budget was reduced by the amountof the increase in the endowment income. Thesemodifications in the sources of income had an effect upon the relationship between restricted andunrestricted budget expenditures since approximately 40 percent of the increased endowment income went to restricted funds. Thus restrictedendowment income was larger than was anticipated earlier, and unrestricted income from bothendowment and gifts was less than originallyplanned for.During the past several years budget decisionshave quite systematically included all sources ofincome and all types of expenditures from thatincome and not solely the unrestricted funds. Inother words, the allocations of unrestricted income have reflected the availability of restrictedincome from endowment, gifts, and researchgrants and contracts. Mr. Wilson noted in his discussion of the 1975-76 budget that, since the1970-71 budget, measures to enhance incomehave included, among others, "a greatly increased emphasis on the use of restricted funds tosupport the academic budget." Due to the increase in restricted endowment income, as well asa number of gifts restricted to specific academicareas but with restrictions appropriate to the objectives of the areas, it was possible to hold theincrease in unrestricted funds for the academicareas to a very modest 2.0 percent for 1976-77.The very modest increase in unrestricted fundsfor the academic areas will require that the increase in restricted endowment income resultingfrom the new total return formula be used to support the academic budget. This must be done in all areas of the University if the objectives of thebudget are to be met.The 1976-77 BudgetGeneral. The University's 1976-77 operatingbudget as adopted by the Board of Trustees isshown in detail in Table IV. The total expenditurebudget of $233,884,000 is $17,614,300 in excess ofthe adjusted budget for last year.3 This is an increase of 8.1 percent. It is a smaller increase thanin the prior budget (9.6 percent) because the recent and anticipated rate of inflation is substantially lower than was experienced and anticipatedin the spring of 1975.The increase in divided among the four sub-budgets as follows:General Funds(Unrestricted)Restricted FundsAcademic AuxiliaryEnterprisesAuxiliary EnterprisesTotal $ 2,687,000 ( 4.6%)3,404,000 ( 5.2%)7,812,000 (11.1%)3,684,000 (16.4%)$17,587,000 ( 8.1%)Before turning to a discussion of the GeneralFunds (Unrestricted) and Restricted Funds, I willcomment briefly upon the Auxiliary Enterprises.The Academic Auxiliary Enterprises include theUniversity Hospitals and Clinics, the FranklinMcLean Memorial Research Institute, theLaboratory Schools, the Sonia Shankman Orthogenic School, and the Industrial RelationsCenter. All are budgeted to break even with reference to income and expenses, and have doneso now for the past six years, including 1975-76.The expenditures for the Hospitals and Clinicsshould not be compared directly with patient-related income, since other sources of income areavailable, including modest amounts from endowment income and gifts. Improvements inmanagement and the institution of cost controlshave resulted in very good control of expendituresin the Hospitals and Clinics, but this importantcomponent of the University remains a potentialfinancial problem, largely due to the difficulties ofobtaining adequate payment for services renderedfrom some public agencies and the continuously3. The 1975-76 expenditure total was reported as$209,728,700 in The University of Chicago Record for September 21, 1975, page 122. Subsequent adjustment, primarily forthe Hospitals and Clinics, increased the budgeted expendituresfor 1975-76 to $216,269,700.141increasing amount of accounts receivable. Amajor problem of long standing is that the chargespermitted by third-party payers for hospital services have been and remain grossly inadequate toprovide for maintenance and replacement offacilities. Thus, as our facilities age, there existslittle in the way of reserves to improve and modernize them or to replace them.One of the pleasant developments of recentyears has been the substantial reduction in thesubsidies for the other Auxiliary Enterprises(Table IV). As recently as 1972-73 the actual subsidy exceeded $1 million. For 1975-76 the totalsubsidy was budgeted for $650,000, and preliminary results indicate that the actual Auxiliary Enterprises subsidy was $450,000. That is also theamount budgeted for 1976-77. While all those responsible for the operation of Auxiliary Enterprises deserve praise for their management andefforts during 1975-76, particular note may bemade of the University Press and ResidenceHalls and Commons. The Press continues to dowell at a time when most university presses are infinancial difficulties, and some have had suchlarge losses that it was necessary to halt their operations. The total expenditures for Auxiliary Enterprises include debt service payments (principaland interest) of about $1,196,000. The large percentage increase in expenditures by the AuxiliaryEnterprises does not reflect any added claim uponthe University's unrestricted funds. It may benoted that housing and food services together account for approximately two-fifths of the total expenditures by Auxiliary Enterprises, the Press forapproximately the same fraction, and the Bookstore for about one-sixth. A major component inthe Auxiliary Enterprises deficit is the subsidizedUniversity bus service, including the minibus system for which no charge is made to those who usethe system.General Funds (Unrestricted). Budgeted expenditures for all activities supported by unrestrictedfunds are about 4.6 percent greater than budgetedfor last year. For academic activities (instructionand research, the Library, student activities andaid, and general administration) the increase was2.0 percent. Plant operations, other than utilities,are budgeted for an increase of 9.2 percent andutilities for an increase of 17.9 percent. The increase in utilities represents an increase of 15 percent for gas and electricity to cover anticipatedprice increases and additional space in new buildings. The increase in unrestricted funds for plantoperations reflects the absence of restricted funds as well as the requirements of additional space.Table IV indicates that there is a decline in theamount budgeted for student aid from unrestricted funds between 1975-76 and 1976-77. I ampleased to note that there is, in fact, no decline butan actual increase. The decline indicated in TableIV is due to a reclassification of costs associatedwith student loan programs. These costs werepreviously charged to student aid, but have nowbeen shifted to other institutional support services. Of even greater significance, after thebudget was approved, and the data in Table IVreflect the approved budget, $250,000 was transferred from the President's Contingency to unrestricted student aid. The decline in restrictedfunds for student aid reflects primarily a projection of a continuing decline in student financialsupport from federal sources.The increase of unrestricted income from student fees results from an increase in tuition perstudent of approximately 6 percent and an increase of 250 in the Quadrangles enrollment. The1975-76 budget assumed 7,950 students (actual enrollment was 8,050) and the 1976-77 budget isbased on an enrollment of 8,200 students. Tuitionincome represents approximately 50 percent of allunrestricted income. Endowment income will decrease by $350,000; the reason for this decreasewas discussed earlier. The budget for unrestrictedgifts for 1976-77 is $870,000 above the actual unrestricted gifts for 1975-76. It should be noted that itis hoped and expected that unrestricted gifts during 1976-77 will exceed $4,944,000. The figure included in the budget indicates the amount thatwould be applied to the budget. Any excess ofgifts over the budgeted amount is to be held inescrow in order to build a reserve fund for somefuture year when income expectations may not berealized. The increase in the indirect cost allowance is the result of two approximately offsettingforces — a small decline in government grants andcontracts, and an increase in the indirect cost ratefrom 67 percent to 72 percent of salaries andwages.Restricted Funds. Except for restricted endowment income, the main sources of restricted fundsfor support of academic programs are subject toconsiderable uncertainty. The funds come fromthousands of different governmental grants andcontracts, foundation grants, corporate grants andgifts, and private gifts. Our best estimate indicatesthat restricted funds available for 1976-77 will beapproximately 5 percent greater than last year.This estimate assumes a decline, relative to the142budget level for 1975-76, in direct cost recoveryfrom governmental (largely federal) grants andcontracts of $1.6 million, an increase of more than$4.5 million in restricted gifts and grants from private sources, and a $500,000 increase in endowment income discussed earlier. Direct cost recovery from government grants and contracts in1976-77 is anticipated to be approximately thesame as the actual result for 1975-76.The importance of restricted funds to theUniversity's programs cannot be underestimated.The expenditures supported by these funds exceed the unrestricted funds available to the University. They provide approximately a third oftotal student aid and support a large part of ourtotal research effort. Our dependence upon thesefunds clearly has its costs, actual and potential. Itis usually difficult to adjust expenditures promptlyto the vagaries of funding sources and thus ourcommitments, both legal and moral, on occasionresult in drains upon our unrestricted funds. Butlike it or not, we are now greatly dependent uponthese sources of income, and we are going to be sofor the indefinite future unless we choose to be avery different University than we now are.DiscussionAs I have emphasized in this memorandum, andas Mr. Wilson noted in similar presentations, thefirst part of the decade of the 1970s has presentedthe University with exceedingly difficult problems. However one measures it, the growth ofrestricted and unrestricted expenditures in support of the academic programs of the Universityhas failed to keep pace with the rate of inflation.In prior memoranda on the budget there hasbeen some uncertainty about the proper index touse to adjust or deflate expenditures in currentdollars for the eroding effects of inflation. Tosome degree this uncertainty has now been reduced by the recent publication of a measurecalled the Higher Education Price Index. Thisindex is intended to measure changes in the pricesof goods and services, including salaries andwages, paid by higher educational institutions.Unfortunately this new index is available onlyafter a substantial time lag, and the value of theindex for 1975-76 is not yet available. However, acomparison of the Higher Education Price Indexand the Consumer Price index (the Cost of LivingIndex) indicates that the two indexes moved quitesimilarly from 1970-71 through 1974-75. The following tabulation of the indexes supports thisconclusion: HigherEducation ConsumerPrice PriceYear Index Index1970-71 100.0 100.01971-72 105.5 103.51972-73 111.0 107.91973-74 118.7 117.81974-75 129.0 130.61975-76 139.7Due to the similarity in the changes in the twoprice indexes and the more current availability ofthe Consumer Price Index, the Consumer PriceIndex has been used to deflate University expenditures to adjust for the effects of inflation. Theerror involved, if any, does not exceed 2 percent.The expenditure categories that most closelyresemble the components of the Higher Education Price Index are the sum of restricted and unrestricted expenditures (A and B in Table IV) lessstudent aid. In 1970-71 these expenditures totaled$91.6 million and in 1976-77 are budgeted at$121.6 million. The increase is 32.8 percent or anannual compound rate of increase of 4.8 percent.The increase in prices paid by the University between 1970-71 and 1976-77 is projected at 46.7percent or an annual compound rate of 6.6 percent. Thus, the real value of expenditures willhave declined by approximately 9.5 percent forthe period, or at an annual rate of 1.5 percent.Tuition. During the past several years the University has undertaken a number of experiments in itstuition policy. One of the first moves, made in1969-70, was to establish a lower tuition rate forthe College than for the Divisions and the Professional Schools. In 1972-73 further differentiationof tuition occurred by the establishment of ahigher rate for the Graduate School of Businessthan for the Divisions. Since 1974-75 there havebeen further differentiations of tuition in the various areas of the University. Tuition levels for thenormal three-quarter academic year were established as follows for 1976-77 (the 1975-76 tuitionlevels are in parentheses):College $3,420 ($3,210)Graduate Divisions $3,630 ($3,420)Pritzker School ofMedicine $3,630 ($3,420)Law School $4,050 ($3,690)143Graduate School ofBusinessSchools of Divinity,Library Science, andSocial ServiceAdministration $4,050 ($3,750)$3,570 ($3,360)As a part of the review of the fiscal situation ofthe University, it was decided several years agothat the gradual erosion in enrollment had to bestopped and then reversed. As a part of the effortto reverse what was an alarming trend — the decline in Quadrangles enrollment from almost8,600 in the Autumn of 1968 to 7,500 in the Autumn of 1973 — a Faculty Committee on StudentEnrollment was appointed. This Committee issued its report in the Spring of 1974 and recommended a series of steps to increase enrollment.The targets established by the Committee were7,600 students in the Autumn of 1974, 7,800 students in the Autumn of 1975, and 8,000 students inthe Autumn of 1976. The targets for the first twoyears were reached and exceeded by approximately 2000 students in each of the years. Therefore, the budget for 1976-77 was based on an enrollment objective of 8,200 students on the Quadrangles, 200 in excess of the target set by theFaculty Committee on Student Enrollment.Many factors have been responsible for our increased enrollment at a time when other majorprivate universities have had constant or decliningenrollments. The Committee made a number ofuseful suggestions for improving our recruitmentprocedures, and evidence indicates that in allareas of the University serious efforts were madeto follow the recommendations of the Committee.In any case, the results have been gratifying and important to the economic well-being of the University.One possible factor in the success of our effortsin increasing enrollment — by almost 10 percent inthree years if our 1976-77 enrollment objective isreached — has been the tuition policy. This policyhas involved deliberately permitting our tuition tolag behind tuition levels in the private universitieswith which we compete for students, particularlyin the College and in the graduate divisions. Aconsiderable number of private universities nowhave undergraduate tuition levels that are approximately $600 higher than ours and graduate artsand sciences tuition levels $400 in excess of ours.Some are even higher. It is, of course, not possible to determine with certainty that our tuitionpolicy has been a significant factor in our enrollment experience. All that can be said is that thetuition policy and relatively favorable enrollmentexperience have occurred simultaneously. Yet Ipersonally find it hard to believe that some part ofthe favorable enrollment experience cannot be attributed to this tuition policy.While our tuition at the undergraduate andgraduate divisions has lagged behind the tuition atother private universities, it may be useful tocompare changes in our tuition rates during thepast several years with the changes in the Consumer Price Index which reflects, to some degree,how the ''price" of our services has changedcompared to all goods and services in theeconomy.Table I presents the actual tuition rates for1970-71 through 1976-77 for the College, thegraduate divisions, the Graduate School of Business, and the Law School, and tuition ratesdeflated by the change in the Consumer PriceTABLE I: TUITION IN CURRENT DOLLARS AND DEFLATED BY THE CONSUMERPRICE INDEX, 1970-71 THROUGH 1976-77GRADUATECOLLEGE DIVISIONS BUSINESS LAWCurrent Deflated Current Deflated Current Deflated Current Deflated1970-71 2,325 2,325 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,475 2,4751971-72 2,475 2,391 2,625 2,536 2,625 2,536 2,625 2,5361972-73 2,625 2,433 2,775 2,572 2,925 2,711 2,775 2,5721973-74 2,850 2,419 3,000 2,547 3,150 2,674 3,000 2,5471974-75 3,000 2,297 3,210 2,458 3,750 2,871 3,300 2,5271975-76 3,210 2,298 3,420 2,448 3,750 2,684 3,690 2,6411976-77 3,420 2,333 3,630 2,476 4,050 2,763 4,050 2,763144Index since 1970-71. The process of deflation indicates in an approximate manner what tuitionrates are when expressed in dollars of the samepurchasing power as in 1970-71. Thus, the 1974-75College tuition of $3,000 in then current dollarsamounted to $2,297 in 1970-71 dollars. In 1970-71College tuition was $2,325. The implication ofthese calculations is that between 1970-71 and1974-75 tuition rates in the College increased atalmost exactly the same rate as the ConsumerPrice Index or, as it is commonly described, thecost of living index.Even though we obviously do not know whatwill happen to prices during 1976-77, it has beenassumed that the increase in the Consumer PriceIndex will be 6 percent for 1976-77 compared to1975-76.For the College and the graduate divisions, tuition rates, when measured in constant dollars,have varied within a narrow range since 1970-71.There was an increase of approximately $100 in1972-73 and 1973-74, but by 1974-75 tuition hadreturned to the 1970-71 level and has remainedthere since. There have been increases in tuitionrates in the Graduate School of Business and theLaw School with the 1976-77 tuition levels beingapproximately $288 higher in 1970-71 dollars. Thisis an increase of somewhat less than 12 percentcompared to an increase in the apparent rate of 64percent.Faculty Compensation4. There is a continuingconcern, expressed in written communicationsfrom faculty^ members and in personal discussions, about the perceived erosion of the purchasing power of the salaries of faculty members. Iftotal compensation is deflated by the ConsumerPrice Index, we find that at the University forprofessors and associate professors the peakcompensation in constant dollars was reached in1970-71 or 1971-72. (See Table II.) Since thenthere has been a rather significant reduction insalaries as measured in constant dollars. For assistant professors the peak year was 1971-72.The unpleasant conclusion is that facultymembers have generally suffered rathersignificant losses in the purchasing power of theirincome during the past several years. Inflation hasimposed a substantial tax upon our earnings, andit seems likely that we will, as a group, achieve4. Faculty compensation is the sum of faculty salaries andfringe benefits. Due to the significant differences among universities in the percentage of the costs of retirement programs paidby faculty members, as well as other differences in fringebenefits, a comparison of compensation rather than salaries isused here. increased real earnings only as the inflation ratedrops to 5 percent or below. The experience ofrecent years indicates that universities and colleges find themselves in a situation in which it hasnot been possible to obtain the resources thatwould permit increasing salaries sufficiently tokeep pace with inflation rates of 7 percent ormore, let alone to increase salaries at more thanthis rate in order to achieve an increase in realearnings.How does the change in average faculty compensation, by rank, at the University compare towhat has occurred at other major universities inTABLE II: AVERAGE FACULTYCOMPENSATION BY RANK, 1970-71THROUGH 1975-76CurrentDollars Constant1970-71DollarsProfessor1970-711971-721972-731973-741974-751975-76 $26.627.528.830.731.933.8 $26.626.626.726.124.424.2Associate Professor1970-711971-721972-731973-741974-751975-76 $18.519.219.720.821.923.4 $18.518.618.217.616.816.8Assistant Professor1970-711971-721972-731973-741974-751975-76 $14.415.215.616.617.318.3 $14.414.714.414.113.213.1Instructor1970-711971-721972-731973-741974-751975-76 $11.711.512.113.314.215.6 $11.711.111.211.310.911.2145recent years? Table III presents the averagecompensation of faculty members at The University of Chicago as a percentage of the averagecompensation at eight other universities. Thecomparisons are by rank and start with 1970-71,the first year in which reasonably comparable dataare available from a published source. Six of theuniversities are private and two are public.The relative compensation levels have changedvery little over the six-year period. Our positionrelative to the two public universities has declinedsomewhat. Compared to the private universities the trend has been mixed, though all the changesare small. In 1975-76 only one of the eight universities had a higher level of compensation for associate professors than we had and the differencewas only $100. For assistant professors the compensation at Chicago exceeds that of seven of theuniversities. For professors two of the universities had higher average compensation in 1975-76than Chicago. Thus, it would appear that duringthis period of financial stringency our faculty salary compensation has approximately kept pacewith the compensation provided by other majorTABLE III: UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO FACULTY COMPENSATION AS PERCENTAGE OFFACULTY COMPENSATION AT SEVERAL OTHER UNIVERSITIES BY RANK, 1970-71THROUGH 1975-761970-71 1971-72 1972-73Assoc. Asst. Assoc. Asst. Assoc. Asst.Prof. Prof. Prof. Inst. Prof. Prof. Prof. Inst. Prof. Prof. Prof. Inst.Harvard 97.8 99.5 97.3 95.1 97.5 100.5 101.3 102.1 97.5 106.8 —Yale 93.3 106.3 109.1 108.3 95.2 105.5 109.4 102.7 97.0 108.8 114.7 105.2Princeton 104.3 111.4 109.9 121.9 106.6 112.9 114.3 116.2 107.1 110.0 111.4 118.6Pennsylvania 107.2 106.3 108.3 — 104.6 101.6 102.7 99.1 103.6 100.5 102.0 100.8Rochester 104.3 102.2 102.1 114.7 103.8 101.6 104.1 102.7 106.3 102.1 103.3 105.2Stanford 106.4 103.4 102.1 118.2 104.2 102.7 103.4 110.6 105.1 100.0 99.4 —Michigan 111.8 105.7 100.0 106.4 110.4 104.3 99.3 100.0 109.9 101.0 97.5 97.6Wisconsin 125.5* 118.6* 110.8* 108.3* 122.8* 117.8* 110.1* 99.1* 119.0 110.7 103.3 99.2Ave. Fac. Comp.at U. of Chicago 26.6 1-8.5 14.4 11.7 27.5 19.2 15.2 11.5 28.8 19.7 15.6 12.1TABLE III (Continued)1973-74 1974-75 1975-76Assoc. Asst. Assoc. Asst. Assoc. Asst.Prof. Prof. Prof. Inst. Prof. Prof. Prof. Inst. Prof. Prof. Prof. Inst.Harvard 98.7 106.1 106.4 98.2 103.8 108.1 94.7 104.9 106.4 Yale 99.4 111.2 120.3 113.7 99.7 114.6 123.6 120.3 99.1 114.1 123.6 120.0Princeton 108.9 110.0 115.3 127.9 105.3 108.4 114.6 129.1 105.6 109.3 113.7 132.2Pennsylvania 103.0 99.0 98.8 103.1 100.9 97.8 98.9 106.8 103.0 101.7 101.1 121.9Rochester 109.2 103.0 105.1 109.9 110.8 105.8 105.5 113.6 110.4 105.9 104.0 123.8Stanford 105.9 102.5 100.6 — 103.9 103.3 103.6 — 103.4 99.6 102.8 —Michigan 110.4 100.0 97.1 97.1 107.0 99.5 96.1 102.9 107.0 101.7 96.8 106.1Wisconsin 121.8 111.8 104.4 103.1 118.6 110.6 101.8 104.4 118.2 111.4 100.0 108.3Ave. Fac. Comp.at U. of Chicago 30.7 20.8 16.6 13.3 31.9 21.9 17.3 14.2 33.8 23.4 18.3 15.6?Averages for entire University of Wisconsin System, whereas other Wisconsin figures are for Madison campus only.SOURCE: AAUP Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession. The data exclude salaries of members of medical faculties.146o O © O O O O o O c>o O 8 o o o o o o s?o o © o o •O o ov-1 o co Cs| »o co o >o 3OO o rj Tt r- o 00«o ON co On © ON ON on00 Tf CN <N <N ^1" rt Q> o O © © o o cso o © o o o ^o o o © >n o •on- ^f V~i u-> ON 00 «o^1- © v> 00 <NOn no o r- ^J-CO — ' <N oo o o o oo o o o<o ©^ ©^ ©^oo~ o" ©~ o"on © © ©^ no "^ <nTt ©~ ri ~ <"o © © © © © © <io © o o o o <^>©^ ©^ ©^ ©^ ©^ ©^ oO «0 co NO On NO 0\© ^ oo r- r- «o <v>^ o on <n <n rf -^o O o o o o o © o oo © o o © o o o © cSo o o •O o o •o o o o© © o »o co r- ON o CN K»o o «/-> cn r-~ ON O ON o>NO CO no O o © co O <Nr» tJ- (N i—i i— i CN 't »o on<N ^H •O © o o © o© © © © ©°« °~ °„ °~ °~r-^ >o «/-T »o ©r- © ^h -h — . © © © © <2>© © © © <^© © © © Oco r- «/-> ^Or- CN ^- -*¦ oo© CN ON CO «o^- CN^O cn ,—H s © © © © © © <2>© © © © © © cs>°„ ^ °« R °~ °- ^©" r-~ ^t ©" ri ^ \f© co no r- no <n «or^ vo on <n ^ ^ \j-^~ oo~ (N r^"r*"> «^QH<2Oa*Oh<QtDH5zUJPuX a"u 0 < *-•u x: casC CO 03 0aaD^ <u c a. V5V) 2 S-H *a cd-o (y5 W5 c Cc TD <U c cd Os C C-) 'T3 ^^I* cd >c 5T3cd c 3"3 c0 "2"rrlt>3Ui p3 13 .3u,a> oaa3X, cd« C CM 0 §^3 - „ 3 a «J & O O « i 3 ^ ^Q O m c^ ^ (35 « J£) 3 ?3 <D —0) +-» ^>a « 3O £ a ¦c 32 cS w•2 S <»c - c^ S °rj cd • -— B £ "Co 5T C 3a> 0 g -OOh DC Ph £y <u 3©K S OOS g rt og -^ C cd^ o 2 «Q OQ S £ 0 P aO .ti Cu. J- 33<D ^ 0> -^*i > o aO D S E^© ©© ©©, ©^o" o>/-> ©© t^ © © ©© © ©©^ ©^ «oTf «0 NOm ^t ^<n tj- r-00"NO © © © © ©© © © © ©© © ©^ ©^ ©^o ©" 100"— * \D NO © «0 CN^^ no On^ r^ on <V) © © © © © © <£>©©©©©©§©, ©^ ©^ ©^ ©^ ©^ §© ^^ m 00 -^t m oC© ON 00 00 «o r- on^-< ^O On © Tt m ^oNO ?p© ©8 8©" oNO ^ s © © ©© © ©©^ ©^ ©^00" »-h rn•O Tf <Nr- © <n 8 © © © © © Q>© © © © © Q>©^ ©^ ©^ ©^ ©^ <^rn d ^' ^ >n ^oTf CO (N ^t ^t OOq m t ^ o ^rf ^ co" cTNO r\ © © © © © © <^>© © © © © © q5©^ t-^ ©^ ©^ ©^ ©^ Ro' d "* h rl -h' ^O h ^ 00 N N Or*« co^ on © no *—> 00CO? ^O ^ OO" CnT -^QPL]H<sHCOt£COWDZLL)>(^ 2 "<U s^ b 00 73n 0 3n> G <De >> 2</5 u. H(U OR a0 c0 a>at/3 20 c 0,4>20T33tL| &1) 02733CO 003 ^ 3g ^ sw T33cd &4)B T33cd2 " 3a 0 fa .22 cu 2. cn ft l.sO cd•- <t> ^ <u^ t5 e .0> Io -5O O 3 - 3 iSin5 c _cd 3 C T3 3O O2 a<« ^cj co W cu O 0 ^ 2 O M5* X .2 gg fl"< ooQ qq DC £ § 8 SU ^ go .$ 8^ in 3<D J> 0> ^C '3 «s -SO P ^ ^147universities with which we compete for bothfaculty and students.Concluding CommentsThe balancing of income and expenditures for the1976-77 budget represents a substantial achievement. In fact, it is difficult to overestimate theimportance of that achievement for the future ofthe University. Hopefully, and I think realistically, we can now look forward to 1977-78 and theyears beyond when additions to income can beused t® strengthen the programs of the Universityrather than be required for reducing the requiredunderwriting of the budget.But added income must be forthcoming beforeconsideration can be given to any relaxation of thetight controls that have been imposed upon expenditures during the past several years. Nor, soit now appears, can the efforts to reduce the sizeof the faculty be relaxed in the near future. At thepresent time it is not likely that the University'sincome will grow at more than a modest rate overthe next few years.In fact, there are some danger signals on thehorizon. One of these dangers is the serious attack in Congress on the current approaches to thedetermination of indirect cost recovery on federalgrants and contracts. There is great pressure toreduce the proportion of total grant and contractfunds allocated to indirect costs. When this pressure is combined with the reluctance of severalagencies to compensate universities for faculty time devoted to research and related training activities, the implications to the University areserious indeed.There are a number of important steps that wecan take to help ensure continuing vitality andstrength. These include further increasing enrollment, increasing our efforts to obtain private support where our efforts seem to be achieving positive results, and doing what each of us can tounderstand ourselves and to then explain to therelevant decision-makers the essential necessityfor governmental research grants and contracts topay the full costs of research except for the accepted level of cost sharing for grants. Clearly, ifthose of us in the universities are unable or unwilling to justify payment of the full costs associatedwith sponsored research, no one else is going todo so.The University of Chicago has now completedthe difficult task of bringing income and expenditures into balance. This does not mean that ourfinancial future has been assured. There remainsmuch to do. But if the spirit of cooperation andunderstanding among faculty, staff, and studentsthat has been displayed during the past few yearsis maintained, one need not be seriously concerned about the future of our University.D. Gale Johnson is Provost and the EliakimHastings Moore Distinguished Service Professorin the Department of Economics and in the College.148FINAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THEQUALITY OF LIFE IN REGENSTEINTo: President John T. WilsonFrom: The Committee on the Quality of Life inRegensteinJune 18, 1976This is the final report which we, the Committeeon the Quality of Life in Regenstein, have felt itincumbent on us to make to you this year. Thisreport is concerned with library matters in the ordinary sense of the term. Throughout our work asa Committee, we have tried both to represent theviewpoint(s) of users of Regenstein and to reflecthonestly on the same viewpoint(s), indicatingwhat we found defensible and what we found inneed of change. We decided upon the present report because this is a moment when the operationof Regenstein is being evaluated, and we believethat we have something to contribute to theevaluation. What we are undertaking to give voiceto here are some interests and concerns of thefaculty and students who regularly use Regenstein — interests and concerns, that is, going beyond the smoking, food, and beverage problemswhich we dealt with earlier.Regenstein Library has been open for nearly sixyears, and for five of these the University's deficitbudget has been the impetus for economies inevery quarter, including Regenstein. If anything,the University's resolve to bring itself entirelyinto the black next year will require thateconomizing continue. Our Committee chose tospeak out — and, in some particulars, to thinkaloud — about Regenstein as a users' library because its history is both emergent and extensiveenough at this point to undergo an assessment thatcould make a difference for the future. We understand that decisions must constantly be made asto what services, policies, and disbursements areessential to Regenstein as the University Libraryin these days of skyrocketing costs and limitedmeans. Our ideas in this report are presented notas authoritative last words on a number of subjects which are too complex and large for suchperemptory treatment; rather, they are presentedas expressions of opinion and constructive intentions on the part of Regenstein' s day-to-dayusers. We hope that expressions of the perspectives of Regenstein users will continue to be integrated into the process of decision making in and for Regenstein, long after this Committee hasceased to function.This report has two main divisions. In the firstpart we describe and discuss a study which wemade this quarter in order to gain some timely andgeneral sense of what users of Regenstein experience as they use materials in various subjectareas. In the second we elaborate on a set of concerns and suggestions which arise from the twointerlocking aspects of our specific view of Regenstein as faculty and student users, that is, (1)the value of accessible materials and (2) the imperative of intelligent and far-sighted preservation.I. Using Regenstein: A Survey StudyDuring spring quarter 1976, our Committee designed a survey of the relative accessibility ofmaterials in active use in the more sizableacademic units that draw upon the Regenstein collections. We were concerned broadly with the operation of Circulation, excluding Reserve but including the operation of related services likesearch, trace, and interlibrary loan (the last ofwhich is handled through the ReferenceDepartment).1 Sample bibliographies of non-Reserve materials were compiled on the followingnumerical basis: 15-item lists for academic unitsenrolling between 50 and 200 students in winterquarter 1976, 30-item lists for academic units enrolling more than 200 students. (The assumptionbehind this distribution was that these would beindicative subject areas in which to gauge factorsthat bear on availability: needing to recall books;risks of misshelving or of mislaid materials; possibilities of loss or mutilation.) The 15-item subject areas were Anthropology, Art History, Behavioral Sciences, General Studies in theHumanities, Geography, Library Science, Linguistics, Music, Near Eastern Languages andLiteratures, Philosophy, Romance Languages1 . We did not undertake to test the process of recall, in partbecause of time limitations but far more because of our unwillingness to interfere with ongoing use of Library materials inthe spring quarter. This is the major — but perhaps, from theusers' perspective we sought for, the most fortunate — limitationon our study.149and Literatures, and Sociology. The 30-item subject areas were Biological Sciences, Business,Divinity, Economics, Education, English, History, Political Science, and Social Service Administration. The bibliographies aimed at"spread" of different kinds insofar as this couldbe achieved with lists having a representativecharacter for the subject areas. We sought spreadbetween book and periodical publications, between recent (in the last five years) and less recentdates of issue, and between U.S. -English andforeign languages and places of publication.2William H. Grimes, a graduate student inComparative Literature, carried out the surveystudy as our Committee's research assistant. Hisprocedure was to look up each of a net total of 406items3 in the main card catalogue (or, if a publication from the last three years was involved, in theso-called "W-file"). About half of the items werelooked up under their authors, half under theirtitles. Six items lacked the first listing looked up(whether author or title), but had the alternativelisting. These six items were all pre- 1930 publications listed in the main card catalogue. (The W-filelists entries under their titles only.)If a bibliography item was listed in the Regenstein catalogue, the usual process was followed toattempt to locate it for charging. If an item wasnot found in (or near) its proper place in thestacks, the Library mechanisms for retrieval wereused. These include, in order:(a) Calling Masterfile to determine whether anitem is charged out and can be recalled (N.B. Recall was not employed in our study — see note 1).(b) In the case of an item for which there is norecord of a charge, requesting that a search beundertaken (usual duration of a search: 24 hours).(c) In the case of an item which has beensearched but still not located, initiating a trace (atrace period is 15 months, at the end of which timethe bibliographer in the appropriate subject-areamakes a decision for or against replacing an item).Our Committee had heard various complaintsand widely ranging estimates as to the number ofitems needed for serious academic work which, itwas alleged, simply could not be gotten hold of inRegenstein. Most complaints imply that the Library catalogue lists the desired item, but that it is2. It should be borne in mind that nonrepresentative userneeds might well produce a very different set of findings. Onefaculty member of our Committee has found that the unavailability rate for late 19th- and early 20th-century books in his field isvery much higher than our survey indicates — in the neighborhood of 1 in 4. Nearly all of these unavailable books are "lost,"in Library terminology (on which, see below).3. Bibliographies for Economics and Music were acquiredtoo late to include in our study. unavailable because it has been mislaid, or hasdisappeared, or because some faculty member hasnot cooperated with recall. We are not in a position to pronounce on the operation of recall on thebasis of our study. However, for winter quarter1976 we can calculate the proportion of patronrecalls, first and subsequent, to charges on thebasis of figures supplied by Patricia Wilcoxen ofRegenstein Circulation to our Committee. Totalcharges for the period were 141, 591; total patronrecalls 4,691 — on the average, one recall for every30 charges, or, figured as a percentage relation,3.3 percent. These figures would not seem to indicate that recall is a significant factor in the unavailability of materials. In our study, however,charged-out and recallable items amounted to 17percent of the total. As for the matter of searchingitems, our findings are that the process is efficientand successful in the majority of cases. (See thetable on page 151 for particulars.) What we consider the most interesting discovery to emergefrom our study is that the largest number of reallyunavailable items on our sample bibliographieswere items not listed in the main catalogue (orW-file) — and thus, presumably, items not inRegenstein' s holdings at all. If one is going tocomplain about not being able to obtain an item inRegenstein, it is certainly necessary to distinguishthe limitations of the collection from the imputedshortcomings and failures of staff and/or otherusers.The table on page 151 sets out at a glance theprincipal findings of the Committee's study. Before commenting in practical terms on our study,a couple of definitions are in order. An "extended search" is not a regular category of Library procedure, but is, rather, a discretionaryprolonging of the usual 24-hour search period. Anextended search may be specified if the Library isexperiencing a temporary backup of books to bereshelved (as happens at the end of borrowingperiods). In no case is an extended search everextended beyond a week; a more usual extensionwould be 72 hours. The decision to make an extended search for an item is customarily signaledto a user on the report form by the wording "Notfound, still looking" or (less commonly) "Missing." An item reported "Lost" is one which wasnot located or recovered during the 15-monthtrace period, and which the bibliographer decidedagainst replacing at the end of the trace period.Here, then, are our observations on the resultsof our study:1. Obviously the record on 24-hour searches(48 percent of the total items searched) reflectsvery creditably on the operation and staff of Re-150Total BibliographyItems Total Items Out; CanBe Recalled Percentage of Total BibliographyItems406 24 17%Not in Cata Found on ExSubject and Numberof Bibliography Items logue (including W-File) Number ofItems Searched Found in24 Hours tended Searchor Trace Lost orNot FoundAnthropology 15Art History 15Behavioral Sciences 15 001 441 240 101 100Biological Sciences 30Business 30 22 33 02 21 10Divinity 30Education 26 02 62 31 20 11English 35Gen. Studs. Hum. 15 11 30 20 00 10Geography 15History 30Library Science 15Linguistics 15Near Eastern Langs.& Lits. 15Philosophy 15Political Science 30 1017412 3500101 2100100 0400001 1000000Romance Langs. &Lits. 15 6 6 2 3 1Soc. Service Adm. 30 3 2 1 1 0Sociology 15 1 0 0 0 0Total 406 35 44 21 16 7Percentages of TotalBibliography Items 9% 11% 5% 4% 1.2%Percentages of TotalItems Searched 48% 36% 16 %genstein. We ourselves, however, were unprepared for the sizable percentage of unavailableitems which were "Not in Catalogue." Althoughour research assistant was instructed not to pursue such items by means of the interlibrary loanservice, he reports that he was consistently informed of the service and referred to it in all applicable cases. It seems to us that Regenstein 'susers should be alerted to the apparent facts of lifethat interlibrary borrowing is a present-day,routine necessity and that even as comprehensivea collection as the University of Chicago's cannot be expected to be self-sufficing for work incertain subject areas.2. Nonetheless, our Committee remains some what disturbed over the frequency of the finding"Not in Catalogue." In this connection, we havetwo specific suggestions to urge:(a) That cataloguing be stepped up in order toreduce the size of the W-file as much as possible.Our understanding is that the W-file currentlycontains about 13,000 items, of which roughly halfare to be accounted for by a lag in assigning callnumbers at the Library of Congress, and half by abackup in our own Library's processing of newacquisitions that do have their call numbers assigned. The W-file is especially to be regretted asa mode of classification because, as noted above,items can be located in it by title only. (Our research assistant remarked that titles are a particu-151larly uncertain means of access where foreign-language publications are in question, andforeign-language publications make up the largestsubclass of the "Not in Catalogue" items in ourstudy— 25 out of a total of 35. 4) But there isanother reason for keeping the W-file as small as itcan be made. It imposes the inconveniences ofwhat is in effect a double cataloguing system onusers of the most timely and, hence, often themost sought after publications in a field. To reduce to 6,500 W-listings would be to gain a decided improvement for Regenstein users.(b) That faculty-student advisory groups be organized, or some other useful mechanism for consultation be developed, to aid the Library bibliographers in making the most informed and practicaldecisions about acquisitions — especially in thearea of foreign-language publications.3. Our Committee considers that the search andtrace operations at Regenstein currently are beingperformed well. However, we became aware of adeficiency in the trace process which we wouldlike to see corrected. At present one request for atrace sets in motion the 15-month trace process. Ifduring this period any other user calls Masterfilefor information about the item, the informationgiven is simply that the item is "on trace." Wedefinitely believe that the Library should keep arecord of how many inquiries there are for an itemin the process of being traced, and of the dates ofthe inquiries. This is information with an absolutely vital bearing on the eventual decision aboutreplacement. If no one else has asked after theitem in 15 months, the bibliographer should knowthis. And if many users ask for the item, it wouldseem that the question of replacement shouldcome up before 15 months have passed. (Even ifan early decision to replace should result in twocopies of a particular item, the demand wouldseem to justify the duplication.)II. Regenstein and Its UsersA. The Value of Accessible MaterialsTo its faculty and student users, the single mostvaluable thing about Regenstein is the fact that itis not only a circulating but also an open-shelf library, with the bulk of its holdings arranged so asto afford direct personal access to materials.Browsing in Regenstein is, in equal measure, a joyand an intellectual stimulus. But, more importantly, the particular physical arrangement of Re-4. A list of Not-in-Catalogue items has been retained with theworking papers of the Committee. genstein enables a user to do certain standardkinds of scholarly work — for example, checking arun of back years of a periodical or the multipleentries under some index heading in a work ofseveral volumes — which can only be done withdelay and difficulty, if at all, in libraries that donot permit individual access to their stacks andreference holdings. Our Committee is intenselycommitted to the maintaining and safeguarding ofthe comprehensive accessibility that Regensteinoffers the users of its collections. However, werealize that accessibility of materials is not an objective to be held in isolation, but, rather, one tobe balanced with the imperative of preserving theLibrary's materials for users of the future. Nonetheless, while holding to a balanced perspectiveoverall, we have separated considerations of accessibility from considerations related to preservation in organizing this report. In the succeedingnumbered paragraphs we offer a variety ofthoughts on the matter of accessibility.Al. It is obvious that there are degrees of accessibility of materials in Regenstein, with reference collections in the reading areas representing(theoretically) greatest accessibility, and lesseraccessibility ranging downward through SpecialCollections, and Reserve, to the materials in thestacks. We believe that serious reconsiderationshould be given to (a) the kind and (b) the amountof material designated as either circulating orreading-room material, in particular. There aretwo further explicit recommendations which wehave on this point:Al.l. In several reading areas, the referencecollections are much too circumscribed, rendering them inadequate for ordinary use by personsworking in a field. An example is the English Literature reference collection on Level 3, which offers in the way of complete works of standardauthors only those of Chaucer, Shakespeare,Spenser, and Milton. We urge that more effort bemade to determine what the essential referenceworks are for the different subject areas.A1.2. Attention needs to be given to the factthat bound periodicals have a special character.At present, a very few bound periodicals areclassified as reference, and most as circulatingitems. We think that bound periodicals shouldperhaps not circulate at all; at the very least, theyshould be treated as something intermediate between reference and regularly circulating items.As a step in the right direction, we would like tosee bound periodicals limited to a two-week withdrawal (with the possibility of renewal, subject tousual recall and hold). As evidence of the special152character of bound periodicals we cite, first, thefact that a reader usually needs such a volumeonly for a relatively small number of pages out ofthe whole, and second, the recurrent situation inwhich a bound periodical is needed for a wholerun of successive years in order to follow throughsome subject — a situation which makes a boundperiodical volume a less independent entity than amonograph. Third, replacement costs for parts orwholes of bound periodicals are inordinately high.We believe that a more restrictive treatment ofthem will, therefore, insure their greater accessibility as a class in both the short and the longterm.A2. We feel strongly that the regular location ofRegenstein materials ought to be the shelves ofRegenstein, and not protracted stays abroad inthe offices or studies of faculty. To increase thelikelihood that a book will be accessible in Regenstein, we urge:A2.1. That faculty privileges be changed fromindefinite to one-year term privileges with thepossibility of renewal (subject to usual restrictions). Faculty renewals, emphatically, shouldnot be automatic but should depend on rechargingthe items desired. We suggest that the one-yearfaculty charge period be made coincident as far asis practicable with a June 15 due date, in order tolink the yearly time of reckoning with the beginning of the summer (and related departures offaculty from campus).5A3. We also feel strongly that the retrieval ofcirculating materials should proceed with moredispatch and greater assurance of prompt resultsthan it now does. These are the stepping-upmeasures which we advocate:A3.1. Telephoning a faculty member's office,or the secretary who takes messages for that faculty member, to notify that an item is being recalled forthwith. The campus call should be madeat the time that a notice is sent out through Faculty Exchange.A3. 2. Charging faculty members the same finesfor overdue materials and on the basis of the sametime limits enforced on student borrowers.Harper Library has, in fact, been fining faculty for5. While accessibility is the major motive behind our proposalthat faculty be put on one-year term borrowing privileges, itshould be evident that there are other mutual advantages forfaculty and for the Library in such an arrangement. Specifically,a yearly accounting would reassure both parties as to whether abook could be found at need. This would help to obviate longstanding mistaken assumptions about whether a charge was stillon the record or a return made. A good deal more clarity andcertainty about faculty borrowing records would benefiteveryone involved. overdue materials for several years now.A4. Another aspect of accessibility for users is,quite simply, the layout and physical conditions ofthe stacks in Regenstein. Here we would like tosee a couple of modest but distinct improvements:A4.1. Better graphics are a necessity in thestacks. The outermost stack sections should beprovided with call number labelings that arelarger, clearer, and more easily readable in thehalf-light that often prevails in large areas.A4.2. Users need places to pause with a book inthe stacks. What would be most preferable wouldbe provision for standing and leafing through avolume, or reading something short, or taking afew quick notes, without having to trek to a writing desk some number of yards away. The Regenstein stacks, with their present unbroken arrays, are too absolute in their arrangement for theconvenience of users. We imagine that the metalshelf system could be fitted with (foldaway?)lectern-like appendages located — as Committeemembers have suggested — on occasional shelvesalong an aisle or, if necessary, at the ends of aislesunder the call number postings.B. The Imperative of PreservationAs we said above, the desirability of havingRegenstein' s holdings be maximally accessible toits users must be balanced with the necessity ofpreserving those holdings. Our Committee'sthinking about preservation has been directed atproblems we have observed or experienced asusers; we cannot claim to have developed an encompassing policy proposal. Nonetheless, weare pleased to be able to record that our concernshave converged with those of the Library staffabout preservation in a couple of recent instances.In the first place, we understand that our desire to have categories of circulating, limited-ly circulating, and noncirculating materialsscrutinized and rationalized in an up-to-date fashion is part of a more general sentiment. In thesecond place, in a matter of great urgency, ourCommittee welcomes the newly circulated reportof the Library staffs Task Force on the problemof unbound periodicals. We are grateful to VaclavLaska, the chairman of the Task Force, for sharing with our Committee the reasoning and recommendations that have been advanced in favorof a centralized, monitored reading area for unbound periodicals.6 We are entirely in agreement6. In the interests of accuracy, let us say that our Committeeviews the Laska Task Force proposals as a contribution chieflyto preservation of unbound periodicals in Regenstein from muti-153with the Laska Report and wish to declare oursupport for its position in this area of ongoing policy deliberations.In our Committee's view, there are two mattersof preserving Library materials that are as desperate and dramatic as the matter of unboundperiodicals. The first of these is the worrisomenumber of rare and out-of-print books that arecurrently shelved in the stacks; the second is theabuse to items that has been resulting from do-it-yourself xeroxing.Bl. Several Committee members know personally of subject areas in the stacks where there arebooks which, individually or as sets, are of considerable market value. Others contain valuablemaps, engravings, etc. It does not seem at all sensible to us to leave such items available on openshelves. Our Committee wishes to urge that ageneral solicitation be carried out soon so that themany persons knowledgeable about the treasuresin the stacks can provide helpful proposals as toitems to restrict and/or reclassify.B2. Preservation has its paradoxical aspects— none more paradoxical than the matter ofxeroxing. Clearly, the positioning of coin-operated photo-duplicating machines throughoutRegenstein was intended in part to allow users toobtain their own copies of material which otherwise would undergo the rigors of circulation orwhich (if it did not circulate) might fall prey to arazor or a rip-off. Just as clearly, however, lettingusers do their own photoduplication is a cause ofdepredation to Library materials. The worst victims by far are plump and portly bound periodicals, followed by aging late nineteenth- and earlytwentieth-century books printed on paper with ahigh acid content. One Committee member saw axeroxer "prepare" a bound periodical for xeroxing by breaking its spine against his raised knee.But forcing such a volume face down on thexeroxing glass can have exactly the same effect.Our Committee debated some stringent recommendations about xeroxing in Regenstein butcould not reach definite agreement. What we wantto urge at this time is that close continued attention be paid to the matter at large, and that:B2.1. Xerox machines should be procured forRegenstein that do not require opening a volumelation and loss. This view is not, however, a complete reflectionof the reasoning in that report, which stresses the increasedcontrol over the whereabouts of recent periodicals and thegreater availability of this desirable reading material than is nowthe case. In fact, the Laska report exemplifies very well theways in which considerations of accessibility and preservationnecessarily blend in thinking seriously about the welfare of thecollection and the users of Regenstein. 180°. The best model would be one with the glassxeroxing plate set very close to the front or sideedge of the machine, so that the book could beopened only 90° and a copy made of the whole ofone page at a time. Second best would be thecurved-glass type of model, which requires anopening of about 120° or 130°.B2.2. Public-education graphics should be prepared for xerox machines and mounted on or verynear them. What is very much needed is sensiblepractical advice to the user on how to avoid orminimize damage to an item. At present the assumption seems to be that a user needs only to beinstructed in how to operate a machine and notlose money through some mistake. We believethat an explicit initiative should be taken againstignorance, ineptitude, and carelessness in thehandling of materials to be xeroxed. Probablymore active preservation will be needed to eliminate most of the damage resulting from do-it-yourself xeroxing, but the steps we have mentioned should not be left untried.B2.3. Given the present limited buying powerof a dollar bill, some provision for obtainingchange in Regenstein for at least a $5 bill is anecessity.This is the sum of our reflections to date onRegenstein from a users' perspective. We are gladfor the breadth of the charge that brought ourCommittee into existence for a lifespan of slightlyover a year, because it now gives us latitude forsubmitting a final report of this nature. We lookforward to the enhancing of "the quality of life inRegenstein" as, in part at least, a result of ourCommittee's efforts.AcknowledgmentsThe Committee particularly thanks Biff Grimes, amost careful and conscientious research assistant,for labors without which this report would havebeen much less informed. We are also obliged tothe following members of the Library staff fortheir cooperation and counsel: Cosby Brinkley,Patricia Clatanoff, Howard Dillon, VaclavLaska, and, last and most, Patricia Wilcoxen.Emile KarafiolBrian GerrishJanel M. Mueller (Chairman)William A. Ringler, Jr.Clifford TabinArnold W. RavinSusan TempletonAnthony Turkevich154COMMENTSThe Committee on the Quality of Life in Regenstein emerged in the spring of 1975 as a spontaneous reaction to the wide-spread physical abuse theLibrary was being subjected to by its clientele. Inits three reports the Committee attempted to identify the reasons for this abuse and to recommendpolicies and procedures to alleviate the problem.It is pleasing to report that the majority of theCommittee's recommendations have been followed and that the basic problems have largelybeen resolved.In its first report the Committee identified fourbasic causes for the abuse of library facilities:1. The "social center vacuum" or the multipleroles being served by the Library because of inadequate facilities on campus for socializing.2. Underutilization of Harper Library (the College Library).3. Poor maintenance.4. Library policies and staff.In its second report the Committee made detailed recommendations for increasing the use ofHarper Library and indicated that moving the reserve function from Regenstein was inappropriate. It commented on the significant changes inpublic services since the first report and removedthis area from the list of concerns. It stronglysupported recommendations of the Library stafffor the control of smoking and consumption offood and beverages. Finally, it made a strong recommendation for an enlarged canteen facility inthe Library. The final report departed from thephysical aspects of the Library to matters of availability of materials and the quality of access tothem.Changes in public service policies were readilyeffected in the fall quarter of 1975 throughchanges in personnel. During the winter quarterof 1976 a program for containment of smoking andconfinement of food to the canteen area was explored. The program called for publication of thepolicy and its rationale, announcement of the datefor implementation, and the use of monitors forenlisting the cooperation of users. This programwas initiated during the spring quarter and workedextremely well. Compliance was quickly andreadily gained with minimal complaining. By the end of the spring quarter, it was clear that readerswould comply with new policies on smoking andeating in reading areas.A program for the improvement of maintenancewas deferred until the question of removal or retention of the student canteen was resolved.When the decision was made to retain the canteenand to enlarge it, an extensive program of renovation of the building was set in motion. A ten-yearplan for maintenance and architecturalmodification had previously been prepared and,during the summer of 1976, an enlarged canteenwas completed and modification to floor coveringsin areas of heavy traffic was undertaken. Aschedule for refurbishing of furnishings was alsoinaugurated.The question of how to increase utilization ofthe Harper Library was being addressed by acommittee of College faculty, and some changesin physical facilities, primarily lighting, were undertaken.Issues relating to the quality of access wereplaced on the agenda of the Board of the Libraryfor action.The significance of the Committee on the Quality of Life in Regenstein was not that it addressedquestions relating to the environment of the Library nor that its recommendations largely resolved the issues which brought it into being. As aspecial committee appointed by the President, itcommanded attention and evoked a responsewhich existing avenues for communication andpolicy formation had difficulty in achieving. It accelerated the process of problem definition, ofreaching a consensus, and of eliciting a response.There is a danger that the Committee will beremembered only as the group which resolved thecanteen issue. This would be a mistake. Its realcontribution was in mobilizing public opinion toaccept policies of restraint and self discipline inthe use of a shared resource. The quality of accessto information materials is a precious commoditywhich can only endure in a climate which respectsthe rights of others and accepts constraints for thecommon good.Stanley McElderryDirector, University Libraries155THE 360th CONVOCATION ADDRESS:TOWN AND GOWNBy EDWARD W. ROSENHEIMAugust 27, 1976We are today strongly united by sentiments ofpleasure and pride on the occasion of Commencement. Yet in one obvious, amiable way weare a house divided — by an ancient, symbolic institution. For some of our number have, withvarying degrees of reluctance, appeared inacademic garb — bought, borrowed, or perhapseven rented. The remainder of the congregation,though many of them are entitled thus to attirethemselves, have turned out in what, with respect, might be called civilian clothes.This sartorial division is symbolic, one mightsay, of the traditional distinction between Townand Gown. The phrase points to a relationship asold as formal education itself: that between theacademic institution and the larger community,the civic (or civilian) context which surrounds it.This relationship has had almost infinite variations, for it has been marked at different timesby reciprocal respect, suspicion, support, hostility — but rarely by complete reciprocal indifference.In our University, the circumstances of Townand Gown have undergone colorful mutations andhave taken many forms. We know how crucial—and controversial — has been the effect of ourschool upon its immediate neighborhood; how thehealth of that neighborhood determines the healthof the University; how the University draws uponthe city as a whole; how the stature of Chicago isenhanced by the University of Chicago.But I'm concerned with a broader, rather moreremarkable aspect of the relations between a University like this one and the nonacademic worldwhich surrounds it. For the University of Chicagois sustained by the "Town," although in this instance "Town" subsumes a huge geographic areaand the massive spectrum of private and publicsources on which we depend for our existence.What is remarkable is that this support is extended to the University with few conditions ; weare sustained in activities which we pursue withgreat freedom and often with little accountability beyond our own walls. The Town does not ofteninsist that the Gown show that its inquiries arepure or patriotic or profitable or practical. Quitewonderfully, those who befriend this Universitydo so essentially on our own terms, trusting us topuzzle and plan at their expense but on our initiative. It's equally remarkable that society in general seems to accept the degree of autonomy thatobtains in a private university like ours — and thefreedom which, in turn, obtains within our walls.We have come to expect, and we rejoice in, thisfreedom. But it is a freedom which is not, normust it ever be, unqualified. The motto of ourUniversity, as most of you know, is "CrescatScientia Vita Excolatur," which I loosely, and ofcourse unnecessarily, translate as "Let LearningIncrease that Life may be Enriched." Not only,that is, do we celebrate the growth of learning, butwe ask that this growth enrich Life — and I take itthat the Life to be enriched is more than one'sown. Thus, I think, the motto reflects the inescapable mission of a great university — the amalgam of activity which embraces the pursuit ofknowledge and the communication of knowledge,the act of discovery by oneself, the act of discovery to others.This does not mean that knowledge must beconverted into the terms of the market place oreven that seekers of knowledge must invoke suchlofty if murky aphorisms as those that say knowledge is power or that the truth will make us free.It does mean that knowledge and its pursuit are ofthemselves enriching; it does mean that the searchand whatever discoveries it yields are to be sharedby men and women of good will. It means, too,that inquiry and communication are so closely related as to undermine some of the tireddichotomies so esteemed by writers of thePress — teaching or scholarship, creativity or research, even, I suppose, publish or perish.Chaucer described his Clerk of Oxford in lineswhich, though constantly quoted for about sixcenturies, refuse to become threadbare: "Gladlywould he learn and gladly teach." He was nothymning versatility — praising the good hitter who156was also, happily, a good fielder, the eager student who happened also to be an eager teacher.He saw the scholar who teaches gladly what hehas gladly learned; whose learning is indeed gladdened by an awareness that it can, in some measure, be shared; who sees in teaching not a"knack" or even an "art," still less a chance toperform or pontificate, but who sees it as a product of inquiry and reflection. For the essence ofteaching is the communication of what one hasdiscovered — or hopes to discover — or even, attimes, despairs of discovering.It follows that the pursuit of knowledge should,in some way, be shared. But in academic life, thissharing takes highly variable forms when one begins to think of the how and the why and the towhom — and when one recognizes that learning isalso, at different stages and for long periods, avery lonely business. Communication with one'sstudents is usually the most obvious and commonform of sharing. But for the serious investigator,there are problems and discoveries or perhapsmere suggestions that should be communicated,perhaps exclusively, to one's peers — and thesepeers may indeed exist in tight, tiny groups overthe face of the earth, for whom the scholarly publication is the principal form of intellectualnourishment. And there are also the matters thatseem most designed for transmission to anunidentified posterity for whom alone they canassume real significance. So that if highlyspecialized investigations are conveyed to select,remote audiences, such communications are not,as a rule, the work of mad scientists or pedants orboondogglers or loony bug-hunters. They aremore likely to be the communications of men andwomen whose gladness lies in learning from, andteaching to, their peers.Having said this, I now want to say that it isimmoral for academics blandly to assume, orboast, that their activities are by definition arcaneand inaccessible to all but a specialist elite. I thinkit is a basic responsibility of a great university tocommunicate regularly, widely, and intelligiblythe progress and products of its inquiries. I do notmean that the university should popularize or vulgarize or abdicate its essential mission. I meanthat it should seek to share, that it should bedeeply conscious of the community that surrounds it, and that it should regard that community, whatever its boundaries and its character, asan educable one.From our own institution, I cite a few examplesof what I mean. One of them is the UniversityPress; some of its publications are unapologeti- cally specialized and refined, but it does not scruple to produce books which enlighten and delightthe so-called Common Reader. Again, the extension enterprises of this University have been regarded as integral to its mission since the days ofHarper — and they are, by definition, the union ofTown with Gown. Yet again, the University haspioneered in the uses of what are now called themedia — in my early, innocent days referred to asjournalism and broadcasting — and for decadesmembers of our faculty have been willing to express themselves, expertly or at times inexpertly,in the press and on the air. But perhaps most importantly, although the University honors expertise above all else, it retains its commitment to theliberal education of undergraduates. It conceivesthis education as dominated neither by the imageof the expert nor of the inoffensive well-roundedman or woman, but by the notion of a tough-minded yet humane citizen, specialist or not, whohas a capacity for informed, sensitive, responsibleencounters with the problems and pleasures ofour time. This is the sort of person who, without afraction of the medical specialist's knowledge, hasa pretty decent notion of the workings of ourbodies, the causes and consequences of sicknessand health. It's the sort of person who, withoutthe least pretense to the training of the historian,still can consider our perplexing times in a perspective essentially historical. Or it's the sort ofman or woman who, without a prayer of becominga musician or musicologist, still responds to, say,the late quartets of Beethoven with understandingand joy.These are ways in which some of us, who infrequently and at times uncomfortably wear theGown, are aware of our responsibility to theTown. We are perhaps not sufficiently aware ofwhat the Town can tell us; the campuses of thiscountry, including our own, ought to learn morefrom ward politicians and professional musiciansand newscasters and highway engineers andRotarians.But in the final analysis, the union of the University and world which surrounds it cannot beformulated in terms of communication or reciprocal "understanding." Fellowship and unityoccur through the confrontation of common problems, the enjoyment of common satisfactions.The successful encounter with both problems andpleasures depends on the cultivation of habitswhich are, I suppose, the products of educationbut are, even more importantly, the hallmarks ofeducability. They transcend distinctions betweenTown and Gown, special and general, teacher and157learner. They are the habits of concern andcuriosity, of a rigorous mind, of a generous spirit.These are the habits we honor today. They arethe qualities we honor in you who are receivingthe degrees of this University. We congratulateyou and salute you and wish you Godspeed.Edward W. Rosenheim, Jr., is Professor in the Department of English and in the College and Editorof Modern Philology.SUMMARY OF THE 360THCONVOCATIONThe 360th Convocation was held on Friday, August 27, 1976, in Rockefeller Memorial Chapel.John T. Wilson, President of the University, presided.A total of 550 degrees were awarded: 60Bachelor of Arts, 1 Bachelor of Science, 39 Master of Arts in the Division of the Humanities, 57Master of Arts in the Division of the Social Sci-BY CHARLES E. OXNARDSeptember 19, 1976Once again I have the responsibility, and thepleasure, of welcoming students and parents tothe College and to the University of Chicago. AsI prepared my thoughts for today, I naturally castmy eye back upon the welcomes of previousyears. But the only major insight that I gained wasthat they have gradually increased in length, from10 pages, through 12 pages, and last year 14. Youwill, of course, be aware that this is only an arithmetic progression. I shall spare you the exponential increase that seems to characterize the modern world.In making my welcome, I want to try to outlinefor you some of the major directions in which Ithink this College may be going at the presenttime. In order for me to do this, you need to understand the background to my attempt.First, you must know that, at the University ofChicago, the spelling out of such directions doesnot belong with an administrative officer, not with ences, 3 Master of Arts in the Divinity School, 17Master of Arts in the Graduate Library School, 2Master of Arts in the School of Social ServiceAdministration, 17 Master of Arts in Teaching, 16Master of Science in Teaching, 12 Master of Science in the Division of the Biological Sciencesand The Pritzker School of Medicine, 14 Masterof Science in the Division of the Physical Sciences, 199 Master of Business Administration, 1Doctor of Ministry, 3 Doctor of Law, 3 Master ofLaw, 1 Doctor of Medicine, and 105 Doctor ofPhilosophy.Two honorary degrees were conferred duringthe 360th Convocation. Recipient of a Doctor ofHumane Letters degree was Don Patinkin, Professor of Economics at the Hebrew University ofJerusalem. A Doctor of Science degree wasawarded to Roger Wolcott Sperry, Hixon Professor of Psychobiology at the California Institute ofTechnology.Edward W. Rosenheim, Professor in the Department of English Language and Literature andin the College, delivered the principal Convocation Address, entitled "Town and Gown."a dean, culled, as we all are, from among thefaculty for a period of service. I might also add,just to get us off on the correct footing, you and I,that neither does such a responsibility rest withstudents. It can and does belong with the facultythemselves.When faculty are truly responsible in this manner for the directions that a college takes, it isinevitable that the directions develop as grassroots phenomena; they are not easily seen in theirearly stages; they may not appear to form a coherent whole until after the fact; they may notindeed, in the eyes of the cynic, ever come toform a coherent whole. Some would say thatacademic directions are best modeled by what arecalled Markov Processes: the mathematics of thedrunkard's walk.Yet even within such a system a dean may becalled upon to "explain" a college; it is to behoped that he can see at least fragments of what ishappening and that he can bind them into someTO THE ENTERING STUDENTS158pattern not too far from reality. I have been especially forced to do this because these last yearshave seen the development of a new sport. In myown country it is called "University Bashing"; inthese United States it is called "The Case AgainstCollege." It stems from the idea that we are notgetting our money's worth from college education. It has produced an unprecedented depression in American higher education that holdsmany people: reluctant students, financiallypinched parents, disillusioned employers, and,perhaps most of all, battered college teachers inits grip. It depends upon notions such that students go to college to "find" themselves; thatparents send students to college to lose them; thatemployers use college degrees as a cheap way toscreen applicants; that the diploma itself nowsignifies very little; that colleges have to markettheir services like toothpaste to fill empty classrooms; that society uses college to hide unemployment. It speaks to the idea that, once students enter the college of their choice, they face arip-off in terms of what colleges have to offer thatwill be saleable in the world of the immediate tomorrow. All of this is the case against college:admittedly a slightly acid description.It is this case that has lead me to try to explain our College to a wider public. In preparingfor this I have naturally talked with our own Public Affairs people: in the University, Vice-President for Public Affairs, Don Bruckner;specifically in the College, Michael Krauss andmore recently Bob Yovovich (both recent Collegegraduates); in our New York office, AdelinaDiamond. Through them I have had longer discussions with individuals such as Abe Rosenthalof The New York Times and Norman Podhoretzof Commentary. And I have talked with frontlinereporters such as Mimi Shields of Newsweek,Edward Fiske of The New York Times, AndyShaw of our own Sun-Times here in Chicago,Michael Binyon of the Times Higher EducationalSupplement (The London Times, of course).Everyone of these individuals is interested in themajor directions that might be taken by our College over the next decade and their relevance, ifany, to the directions of American higher education in general. And I assume that all of you haveinterests in exactly these questions. Let me then,in spite of the Chicago mores that I have explained to you (in order to protect myself from thewrath of my colleagues), attempt to guess some ofthe answers.Within American Higher Education, evenamong the very best institutions, the immediate past has been characterized by a headlong rushtoward a number of objectives; and, I must tellyou, the College of the University of Chicago hasbeen placed last in the race. The surge has beenaway from liberal or general education and towardvocational and pre-professional training; it hasbeen away from distinguishing standards of excellence and toward undistinguished uniformity; ithas been away from faculty teaching and towardthe ubiquitous graduate teaching assistant.However, within the last two years, and forreasons that are not wholly obvious, many ofthose institutions with which we like to compareourselves, have turned around and are now starting to race the other way. As a result we are nowfirst in the field, and we have a long lead. Thesethree old and tried directions are, in my opinion,going to be three of the new directions in which atleast our part of American higher education isgoing to be moving in the next decade.The first of these ideas, concern for liberal education, is once again growing. It is true that formany kinds of educational institutions trends toward vocationalism will still continue (and formany community, city, and state schools theseare excellent directions). But among our counterparts within the system there is once again a majorconcern for liberal or general education. It wasloudly voiced at the last meeting of the so-calledIvy League Deans in June. It is to be seen in thenumbers of inquiries we have received from otherinstitutions desiring to know how Chicago is goingabout the business of liberal education. A grouplike the Educational Testing Service (friends ofyou all) is actually trying to set up mechanisms formeasuring the effectiveness of liberal education(and good luck to them!). Even abroad, a recentLondon Times profile of Oxford's new Vice-Chancellor A. Rosemary Murray, a visitor to ourcampus last year, expressed her strong concernfor liberal education within Oxford University inparticular and English universities in general. Tostudents and parents of the types that we seem toattract, liberal education seems to loom more important than perhaps at any time in the last decade.Thus, although in the last decade most collegeshave gone in for the idea that students should develop their own programs almost in toto, we havenot. We have held to the idea that we are professionals in the business of higher education andthat we know, better than your average student atany rate, some of the elements that comprise agood entre to education. This is the reason whywe have maintained the initial courses labeled159"the common core" in each area of human endeavor; this is the reason why these courses arerequired of all students who cannot place out ofthem. We expect that, based upon such requirements, students will have the wherewithal to helpmake intelligent choices for themselves.In part we lead the way toward liberal education because we have retained major elements ofthe liberal education that we inherited from anolder and perhaps wiser generation. But in majorpart it is also because we are continually in theprocess of moulding that education so that it doesnot lag behind changes in our burgeoning knowledge in almost every field, and behind changes,therefore, in our University's definition of thesefields of knowledge at the present time.Thus, on to the general excellence of our current offerings (much improved in any case thisyear because staffing changes have allowed us toreduce class sizes) are being grafted a series ofnew "cores" that are allowing University facultynew ways in which they may participate. Thus,new core variants are available in all areas: in theHumanities, "European Literature and Culture";in the Social Sciences, "Urban Structure: PublicPolicy and Analysis"; and in the Physical Sciences two new offerings, "The Earth Sciences:An Introduction to our Environment of Earth, Airand Water" and "Introduction to Astrophysics," while other partial reorganizationshave resulted in a sequence "Quantum Theory ofMatter, Principles of Relativity, and Energy."The Biological Sciences already have the totallyrenewed structure stemming from the efforts of aprevious Master (Arnold Ravin) which allowscontinually for renewal and change. A number offurther core possibilities are under discussion inboth the Humanities and Social Sciences Collegiate Divisions; I would hope that we could expect that at least some of these will mature. And itis possible, if a new Master can be found soon forthe New Collegiate Division, that that area, too,may be interested in experimenting with its ownbrand of common core offering.It is also exciting to be able to report that inter-divisional attempts at new common cores havebeen initiated. The Physical and Biological Sciences are in the middle of a first try at a conjointtwo-year core. And beginning discussions between the Social Sciences and Humanities Collegiate Divisions may yet result in a conjoint sequence in that area.Our liberal education is not the frozen remnantof yesteryear. It is a viable, flexible, and vocalorganism that is receiving especial attention from both faculty and students at the present time.The second idea that seems to be returning isthe assessment of excellence. Although I wouldnever suggest that simple measures such asgrades, test scores, deans' lists, honors and so onare true measures of excellence, yet they certainlycan reflect, in a not overly distorted way, changesin excellence. You all know of the enormousgrade inflation that has occurred in recentyears — everyone, faculty, students, parents, employers, graduate schools, and the general publicare now much irritated and scathing of it. At longlast this problem is being tackled by faculties,witness the reappearance of the failing grade incolleges that only passed, of quality grades in colleges that had lost them, of higher standards fordeans' lists and other honors.You will be most surprised to know what is ourposition. In fact, even our own faculty will beamazed when they discover the actual extent ofour resistance to grade inflation. Professor Zonishas supplied me with some figures that speak tothis.In most colleges grade inflation started in thelate sixties and continued in an upward directionto the present time. We have not escaped; youstudents will be cheered to know that we givemore ^s than ever before. But in our College,although we had a spurt in 1966-68 when our GPAincreased by almost a full point, we have had asubsequent long plateau until 1972. And sincethen our grades have shown a revaluation to theextent that, in the last year, grade point averageswere back down, by more than half a point, almost to where they were before inflation started.This is no mere statistical quirk because it is evident for several years and over many subjects;and it occurs during years when the quality of ourstudents, your quality, has been risingsignificantly. And if our current students'successes in entering further education mean anything, then our standards are recognized andprized by other educational institutions.I would not wish you to think that I am solelyconcerned with measures of excellence in asuperficial way. But we must be aiming for excellence; and I think that our record in thesesuperficial measures is pointing the way. We ourselves have not known the extent to which wehave been bucking the trend toward gradeinflation. Now that the trend is turning around, wefind ourselves leading the pack.The third direction that I mentioned is the demand that College faculties shall teach. Yet it islittle known in the outside world that the College160here already provides this. It is some years nowsince Edward Levi and John Wilson, our last twopresidents, took the steps to make sure thatgraduate students were not responsible for creating and running courses, for teaching before theclass, and for all of the other critical duties of afaculty teacher. This policy continues to be followed.But it is well worth reporting to you that furtherimprovements continue to accrue through thispolicy. First, there is gradually increasing recognition, throughout the University, that undergraduate teaching is the responsibility of all thefaculty. This does not mean, of course, that all thefaculty do, or even should, teach in the College.But it does mean that the faculty as a whole haveresponsibility for it. Acceptance of this view hasbeen total in the Basic Biological Sciences forsome years, and more recently so in the PhysicalSciences. There are still some portions of theHumanities and Social Sciences where all the faculty do not actually accept this responsibility; butthose flexibilities are now in process of being developed that will eventually help them to do so.And although we all recognize that it is mostbeneficial to you that faculty should enter undergraduate teaching, it should not be thought thatthis is a one-way gift. There are major benefitsthat flow in the opposite direction. First, teachingin the College is tremendously enjoyable; our College students are extremely bright. Second, itmakes many a faculty member remember thatoutside one small corner of academia exists awider vista. Third, it may well result in facultyreturning to their own subjects with renewedvigor and new insights. Fourth, it allows,selfishly, but nonetheless importantly, for successful proselytizing. I can speak personally to allof these benefits; my evidence is objective andcan be seen from my own most recent publications and students.Although these three directions are most important ways in which I think we are traveling, thereare also other directions, directions in whichChicago, almost alone among educational institutions, is going.The first of these relates to undergraduate research. A number of institutions are now structured so that students can carry out independentwork in their own subjects; in the sciences this isoften called "undergraduate research." Very fewinstitutions indeed have the faculty resources toallow genuine undergraduate research with faculty who are internationally known scholars andwith a staftfstudent ratio that allows real one-on- one contact. Possibly no other institution is carrying out this idea in a way that makes it speaktoward educational liberalization as well asspecialist learning.It is obvious that undergraduate research has,as one aim, that of allowing students to discoverwhether or not they like research and can do it.This automatically increases their chances of entering graduate or professional school and maypoint them toward academic, professional, or research careers.But there are also a number of other ways inwhich the one-to-one contact of undergraduateresearch is especially important. First, although abroad academic background clearly involvesknowing something of the complex structure of asubject, this background cannot be complete unless the student also understands the unclear, uncertain, foggy view that one sees by standing atthe growing edge. This can be obtained, I suppose, by taking courses in problems and methods;but it can undoubtedly best be gotten by havingworked with an investigator. We cannot considerourselves broadly educated unless we realize this4 ' uncertainty principle . ' 'Second, it is clear, perhaps at this time morethan any other, that there is a strong need to addto our educational enterprise training in the ability for problem solving, in the "business of discovery." It is the problem-solving approach thatis especially, and rightly, in demand by society.Again, this approach is applicable not only tothose who will enter academic life, but also, andperhaps especially, to those who will enter othercareers and who will become involved with majordecision-making within our society at any leveland in any field. This exposure to problem solvingis easily and best obtained in our particularacademic community through exposure and contact in the one-to-one relationship of undergraduate research.Third, there has never been a stronger demandthat colleges should increase the ethical and moralcontent of their educational offerings. While amajor lecture course in ethics required of all students or perhaps some seminar involving theethical case work approach might help, there is nodoubt in my mind that the very best way to engender high ethical, moral, and professional standards is through example. The student, carryingout undergraduate research with a facultymember, sees, analyzes, understands, copies, andperhaps even improves upon, those ethical andmoral judgments that such professors bring totheir own studies. An apprenticeship in under-161graduate research can be considered demandedby general education today. As President Masonsaid many years ago: "Education by participation in research. It is not too much to hope for."Let me try to explain the second of our newdirections in the following manner. Several yearsago the College started a program for a smallnumber of students that was addressed to one ofthe traditional problems of liberal education— preparation of individuals for effective and responsible citizenship. The idea was to examinehow policy questions are settled in a democraticsociety through effective and disciplined publicdiscussion: questions such as those related to lawand the legal system, politics and government, theinstitutions of the marketplace and production.Because it was the intention that this should be asstrong a course as possible, and because collegesdo not usually have faculty who can present sucha course, raising matters, as it does, beyond thenormal competences of college faculty, it seemedthat the way to do it was to utilize resources ingraduate divisions and professional schools aswell as interested college teachers. Thus, thecourse Politics, Economics, Rhetoric and Lawevolved through the collaboration of humanists,social scientists, and lawyers; and we were aidedin this by the award of a Kenan Professorship inthe College to which Philip Kurland, our well-known constitutional lawyer, was appointed. Asthe course has developed, it has indeed becomethe excellent program that we hoped it would, andit has avoided the trap of being a pre-professionallaw course in a college. It has shown that thematerials, problems, and concepts of the law andpolitical institutions are matters that, nowadays atleast, should not be confined to professionalschools. They have a place in the education of thecitizenry; and the more especially if that citizenry,whatever its eventual professional expertise laterin life, is going to be involved in influential orleadership positions within our society.The development of this program was followedtemporally, but not in any specially associatedway, with the development of a program in Religion and the Humanities. In this case, the aim ofthe program is the understanding of religion asone of man's primary responses to and expressionof his humanity, of his human condition. It attempts to lead the student to an appreciation ofreligious creativity as a force in human history,and to the problems of religion as it negotiatesbetween its traditions and the world in which itfinds itself. This course has also been remarkablysuccessful and it, too, draws for its faculty upon appropriate scholars in various humanities subjects and in the University's extremely strong andwell-known Divinity School. Its impressive startis especially due to the appointment to a namedchair within the College (the William Benton Professor of Religion and Human Sciences in the College) of a top scholar, Jonathan Z. Smith, who hasboth Divinity School and Humanities connections. In this case there is no intention whatsoeverthat this course would be a narrow pre-professional course relating to preparation for Divinity School.Two swallows do not a summer make. It mightwell have been that these two programs weremerely two independent courses invented bysmall groups of faculty who happened to see forthemselves a wider relevance to specific professional problems. However, during these last twoyears yet other groups of faculty have come tolook at professional problems with a College eye,as it were. In this third case, a series of faculty inthe Biological Sciences and in the Medical School(including a number of practicing physicians) havemet with colleagues in the College, the Social Sciences, the Humanities, the Divinity School,and so on. The stimulating factor here is thegradual development of knowledge about theoverwhelming personal, public, and governmentalinterest in human health and the quality of life asinfluenced by a wide variety of social, ethical, andphilosophical factors, as well as by advancingbiology and medicine. Again, as in the other twoareas, experts do not currently exist who canmount such courses. Teaching can only be obtained through the conjunction of scholars fromeach of the different areas, conjunctions that areresulting in most productive efforts. We are thusin the midst of evolving a new program in whichundergraduate scholars will be stimulated to studyat the interface between all these subjects: theliberal arts of biology and medicine.These courses are being taught by biologicalscientists such as Arnold Ravin, physicians suchas Godfrey Getz (pathology and biochemistry),and Richard Landau (internal medicine and endocrinology) as well as by individuals such asRalph Nicholas (anthropology) and James Gus-tafson (Divinity School). So you see the coursereally does draw together a set of apparentlywidely disparate colleagues. And in addition tothese people, it owes its existence to the stimulusprovided by Arnold Ravin, our new Addie ClarkHarding Professor in Biology and its ConceptualFoundations in the College and to the efforts ofthe Master of the Biological Sciences Collegiate162Division, Dr. Godfrey Getz.It becomes apparent then that, without realizing it, the College of the University of Chicago,together with the Graduate Divisions and theProfessional Schools, is creating a new role inundergraduate education. This is a role that seesgraduate and professional materials, problems,and concepts as fit parts of an undergraduateeducation.A third direction in our College involves a collaboration with one of our professional schools,The Pritzker School of Medicine. This idea is tiedin heavily with the last. We are hoping to changethe college-medical school interface by restructuring a curriculum that will be common to both theundergraduate and the student in his initial yearsof graduate or medical school. By offering thebasic scientific components of a medical education with a college setting and with a faculty experienced in a unified commitment to undergraduate, graduate, and professional education,both the breadth of basic scientific content and itsrelatedness to medicine can be achieved. By offering appropriate elements of the program alreadydescribed as the liberal arts of biology andmedicine, we can hope to broaden the basis forthe consideration of problems resulting from thewider impact of biology and medicine upon people, society, and the world. By supporting undergraduate research in this general area, we can hopeto foster ideals of problem finding and problemsolving. And finally by providing this educationalfoundation not only for students planning to embark eventually upon the clinical medical experience, but also for those destined for other nonclinical but nevertheless health-related studies,we can hope to enlarge conceptual breadth andavoid premature specialization and narrowness ofoutlook.This development is attempting to affect professional education through the college setting.At the present time it is little more than a twinklein the eyes of our faculty. But that twinkle hasbeen much brightened by the award, from theCommonwealth Fund, conjointly to the College and The Pritzker School of Medicine, of a grant ofalmost $2 million over two years (and withreasonable expectation of further funding for atotal of five years).I have no certainty at all that developments likethese will come along to affect other professionalschool curricula. But it seems clear to me thatthey could; such would be a major contribution tothe educational world.I have spelled out some of these directions sothat you can have some idea of the deeper thinking that goes on behind the College facade. And Ihave talked of these ideas as though they werenew. In truth, however, I must draw your attention to the fact that ever since the University ofChicago was first founded, ideas like these havebeen its common currency. I therefore now present to you, both students and parents, your firstreading assignment, that is, the volume edited byW. M. Murphy and D. J. R. Bruckner and published this year by The University of ChicagoPress. It is entitled The Idea of the University ofChicago and in it, mirrored in excerpts from thewritings of our past presidents, are all the ideasexpressed here. So these ideas are not actuallynew.But what perhaps is truly new at the presenttime is the fact that now many faculty have directinterest and energy in taking these ideas and making them happen.These then are some of the directions in whichmany of you, students, will be going for the nextfew years. These then, are some of the directionswhich many of you, parents, will enjoy vicariously; and I will try to keep you in touch. Butconsideration of these future directions also reminds us of the present crossroads. With my welcome to you all comes a symbolic parting. Nowparents go one way, students another.Dr. Charles E. Oxnard is Dean of the Collegeand Professor in the Department of Anatomy,in the Committee on Evolutionary Biology, and inthe College.163UNIVERSITY REAL ESTATE HOLDINGSIN THE CAMPUS AREAAS OF JUNE 30, 1976*The following is a list of apartment buildings,single family residences, stores, vacant lots, andother non-institutional type properties in the University neighborhood for which the University ofChicago has ownership or management responsibilities. This list does not include (a) propertieswhich are identified, by exterior sign or otherwise, as being used for institutional purposes bythe University or by related institutions, nor (b)two residences given to the University where thedonors retained possession during their lifetimes.For purposes of this listing, the "Universityneighborhood" is defined as the area between47th Street and 61st Street, Cottage Grove Avenue and Lake Michigan.On the city's south side, the University ownsnothing north of 47th Street. Its only holdingswest of Cottage Grove Avenue are one 10.99 percent interest and 7.32 percent interest in two landtrusts that hold title to two commercial propertiesin the 6300 block of South Halsted Street. TheUniversity owns no property in South Shore. Itdoes own property at 1 1030 South Langley wherethe University Press Business Office andWarehouse are located. It owns two parcels between 61st Street and 62nd Street, as indicated inArea XIII below, but no other property immediately south of 61st Street in the Woodlawnarea.The University has acquired title from the Cityof Chicago to land between 60th and 61st Streets,Stony Island and Drexel Avenues. This actionwas in accordance with the 60th-Cottage GroveRedevelopment Plan passed by the City Councilin 1966 and which was the subject of extensivepublic hearings. This land will be used foracademic and related institutional purposes tocomplete development of the South Campus. TheUniversity also acquired title recently to 5020South Cornell. This property is to be used foreducational purposes.A "student building" is an apartment propertyassigned for student use. A "student house" is aresidence where students live as a group. A "faculty use building" is an apartment property; fac-?This listing has been revised from former listings so as to include only those properties which are not visibly being used forinstitutional purposes. ulty and staff are given preference when apartments are vacant, but the general public may alsobe housed. A "faculty house" is a single-familyresidence; faculty and staff are given preference ifit is vacant.AREA I (47th Street to 51st Street, Drexel Avenueto Lake Park Boulevard)Ellis Avenue:4827 Vacant Lot4933 Vacant LotGreenwood Avenue:4835 Vacant LotHyde Park Boulevard:1310-16 (1311-17 Madison Park) Married StudentHousing1318-24 (1319-25 Madison Park) Married StudentHousing1334-40 (1335-41 Madison Park) Married StudentHousing1400-12 Married Student Parking LotEast 50th Street:1243 Faculty Use HousingAREA II (51st Street to 55th Street, Cottage GroveAvenue to Woodlawn Avenue)Drexel Avenue:5436 Vacant Lot5442 Mixed University & Non-University HousingGreenwood Avenue:5233-37 (1100-1110 East 53rd Street)Married Student Housing5400-10 Single Student Housing5427-29 Faculty Use Housing5470 Faculty Use Housing5482 Married Student Housing5486-88 Married Student Parking LotEllis Avenue:5468 Single Student House164Ingle side Avenue:5440 Single Student HouseUniversity Avenue:5408 Faculty House5410-12 Faculty Use HousingEast 55th Street:1160-74 Affiliated Institution and CommercialAREA III (51st Street to 55th Street, East of Woodlawn Avenue)Blackstone Avenue:5107 (1429-43 Hyde Park Boulevard)Piccadilly, Married Student Housing and Commercial5409-11 Faculty Use HousingDorchester Avenue:5316 Gaylord, Married Student HousingHarper Avenue:5345 Harper Crest, Married Student Housing5426 Harper Surf, Single Student HousingHyde Park Boulevard:1215 Married Student Housing1361-65 Married Student Housing Playground1369 Fairfax, Married Student Housing (includes5110 Dorchester Avenue)1401 Married Student Housing, Residents and Interns1405-21 Married Student Parking Lot1425 (5100-14 Blackstone) Married Student Parking LotKenwood Avenue:5100-06 Married Student Parking Lot5110 Married Student Housing5114-16 Married Student Parking Lot5117 Married Student Housing Play Lot5125 Chicago Arms, Married Student Housing5220 Grosvenor, Married Student Housing (withParking Lot)Kimbark Avenue:5301-23 (1301-09 East 53rd Street) Commercial;Mixed University & Non-University Housing5428-32 Married Student HousingRidgewood Court:5410-18 Married Student HousingSouth Shore Drive: 5454 Shoreland, Student Housing, Mixed University & Non-University, and CommercialWoodlawn Avenue:5439-45 Faculty Use Housing5447-57 Faculty Use HousingEast 54th Street1514-16 Married Student Parking LotAREA IV (55th Street to 56th Street, UniversityAvenue to Lake Park Boulevard)Blackstone Avenue:5514 Mixed University & Non-University Housing5519 Laughlin Hall, Single Student Housing5533-35 Faculty Use HousingKenwood Avenue:5532 Mixed University and Non-UniversityHousingUniversity Avenue:5537 Faculty House5545 Faculty HouseWoodlawn Avenue:5548 Faculty HouseAREA V (56th Street to 57th Street, CottageGrove Avenue to the alley east of DrexelAvenue)Cottage Grove Avenue:5601 Commercial5625-29 Vacant Lot5631-39 Mixed University & Non-UniversityHousing5643-49 Storage, Physical Education DepartmentDrexel Avenue:5604-06 Plant Department Storage Lot5609 Vacant Lot5613 Vacant Lot5617-21 Faculty Use Housing5614-20 Plant Department Storage Lot5622 Vacant Lot5623 Faculty House5631 Faculty House5632 Vacant Lot5637 Vacant Lot5642-44 Faculty Use Housing5645 Faculty House5648 Vacant Lot5655 Faculty House1655659-61 (908-10 East 57th Street) Married StudentHousingMaryland Avenue:5601-05 (835-39 East 56th Street) Married StudentHousing5604 Single Student House5606 Single Student House5608 Faculty House5610 Vacant Lot5625 Vacant Lot5631-33 Faculty Use Housing5638 Faculty House5640 Faculty Use Housing5644-46 Faculty Use Housing5645-49 Married Student Housing5650-52 Plant Department Storage LotAREA VI (56th Street to 57th Street, UniversityAvenue to Lake Park Boulevard)Woodlawn Avenue:5625 HouseDorchester Avenue:5623-25 Faculty Use HousingEast 57th Street:1400-12 Single Student HousingAREA VII (57th Street to 58th Street, CottageGrove Avenue to Drexel Avenue)Drexel Avenue:5700-02 (845-47 East 57th Street) Married StudentHousing5706-08 Faculty Use Housing5710-12 Faculty Use Housing5716-18 Faculty Use Housing5724-26 Faculty Use Housing5728-30 Faculty Use Housing5736-38 Faculty-Staff Parking Lot5742-48 Faculty Use HousingMaryland Avenue:5700 Faculty Use Housing5701 Faculty House5705 Faculty House5708-10 Faculty Use Housing5712 Faculty Use Housing5716 Faculty Use Housing5717 Faculty House5720-26 Faculty Use Housing5725 Faculty House5730 Faculty Use Housing166 5732 Faculty Use Housing5734 Faculty Use Housing5741 Faculty House5746 Faculty Use Housing5750 Faculty Use Housing5756-58 (816-24 East 58th Street) Married StudentHousingEast 58th Street:804-12 Married Student Housing (includes5753-59 Cottage Grove Avenue)AREA VIII (57th Street to 58th Street, UniversityAvenue to ICRR)Blackstone Avenue:5706-10 Faculty Use Housing5748 Blackstone Hall, Single Student HousingKenwood Avenue:5700 (1329-37 East 57th Street) Commercial5721 Parking LotEast 57th Street:1155 (Land owned by University; building privately owned)1323 Commercial1413-15 Faculty Use HousingAREA IX (58th Street to 59th Street, DorchesterAvenue to ICRR)Dorchester Avenue:5801 Cloisters, Mixed University & Non-University5821-33 (land owned by University; building privately owned)AREA X (55th Street to 59th Street East of theICRR)Everett Avenue:5555 Faculty House (Condominium Unit)Hyde Park Boulevard:5540 Broadview, Single Student HousingEast 56th Street1642 Windermere, Mixed University & Non-University and CommercialAREA XI (60th Street to 61st Street, CottageGrove Avenue to Ingleside Avenue)Cottage Grove Avenue:6001-17 Commercial6021-23 Plant Department Storage 6042 Administrative/SupportDrexel Avenue:6000-10 Parking Lot6001-09 Parking Lot6022-24 Married Student Housing, Nurses' Residence6051-57 Married Student HousingIngleside Avenue:6020-22 Faculty Use Housing6026-28 Vacant Lot (rear only)6034-36 Vacant Lot6044-52 Married Student Housing6054-56 Married Student HousingAREA XII (60th Street to 61st Street, UniversityAvenue to Stony Island Avenue)Blackstone Avenue:6018 Maintenance Building6037-6129 Power Plant6050 Vacant LotKimbark Avenue:6018-22 Administrative/Support6021-37 Faculty Use HousingFinancing a very expensive education is surelythe major concern common to the greatestnumber of students at the University of Chicago.As recorded in past reports, the Office of the Student Ombudsman investigates many problemsand grievances in such areas as student accounts,student loans, and student financial aid, as well ascost-related questions in student housing andother services. This report deals with our effortsin the critical area of student employment.The overwhelming majority of students herefind it necessary at some point in their academiccareers to work at part-time, summer, or evenfull-time jobs in order to meet expenses. The College Office of Financial Aid currently expectsevery student receiving financial assistance fromthe University to contribute from $1,100 to $1,400in summer and term time earnings toward their Woodlawn Avenue:6005-11 (1201-13 East 60th Street) Faculty UseHousingEast 60th Street:1445-49 Commercial1545 Plaisance, Mixed University & Non-University Housing and CommercialEast 61st Street:1300-18 Vacant LotStony Island Avenue, Harper Avenue, and East61st Street:Approximately 7.8 acres of land between theICRR tracks and Stony Island Avenue leased forJackson Park Terrace Housing Development(TWO)AREA XIII (South of 61st Street)University Avenue:6105-21 Vacant LotEast 61st Street:1001-21 Commercialexpenses each academic year. And few graduatestudents can afford not to work, at least during thesummer; many hold part-time jobs through therest of the year. A considerable number of students find work in the Loop, in the Hyde Parkneighborhood, in their hometowns, and elsewhere, but many turn to the University itselfwhich, in addition to approximately 7,000 non-academic personnel, employs more than 1,600students.While most student jobs at the University probably work out as well as those of regular, non-academic employees, the grievances we havehandled this year clearly indicate the existence ofa number of special problems peculiar to studentemployment. Most supervisory personnel know,for instance, that students must arrange theirhours on the job around inflexible class schedulesREPORT OF THE STUDENT OMBUDSMAN FOR THESPRING QUARTER, 1976167and will usually go to some trouble to accommodate these schedules when a shuffle becomesnecessary. But where supervisory decisions involve something more than resolving a scheduleconflict, student inflexibility can become a problem.In one case that eventually reached this Office,budget cuts in a campus operation mandated reorganization and a cutback in the student workforce. The cutback was accomplished largely byattrition — a couple of students were even added tothe payroll — but a student whose available hoursdid not correspond to openings in the revisedwork schedule was fired. My investigationshowed, among other things, that the decision,made over the interim between quarters, had beenbased on his class schedule for the previous quarter. Although he had not been consulted about thenew schedule, his supposed inflexibility was theonly reason beyond the budget cut given the student when he was told of his dismissal. Not untillater did the supervisor offer any additional explanation. I maintained that every factor in thedecision should have been made clear to the employee from the start, for had he been consultedabout his schedule, he could have been accommodated. The supervisor's superior consequentlydetermined that the dismissal had been mishandled and the student was offered reinstatement.A related case involved a graduate studentworking as an assistant analyst in another University operation. When her office was reorganizedfollowing the completion of a project, her supervisor told her that, effective later in the week, shewould begin work in the Loop on a project requiring considerably longer hours. Although the reorganization had apparently been in the works forseveral weeks, she had not been informed; norwas she consulted about the increased hours orabout the new job location, neither of which wasacceptable to her on such short notice. Althoughshe resolved the matter to her satisfaction, sheregistered with this Office a vigorous objection tothe lack of consideration shown her and to anapparent disregard for her academic responsibilities.The general problem deserves serious attention. I suggest that all University operations, departments, and offices which employ students inpart-time positions should be periodically reminded that students are students first, and employees, for the most part, only of necessity.Supervisory personnel must never be allowed toforget or disregard the raison d'etre of the University of Chicago. The academic pursuit is, after all, the reason for every student employee's presence on campus. On the other hand, it goes without saying that the University must demand competent job performance from every employee.And student employees might reasonably be expected to submit to occasional inconvenience inreturn for the special regard their employers giveto the exigencies of student life.Such ''special regard," however, is not a matter of recognized University policy. There in factexists nothing which resembles a comprehensiveset of policies governing student employment.The various areas of the University which employstudents have over the years developed "ways ofdoing things," but in few cases have policiesor procedures for hiring, firing, and resolvinggrievances become a matter of written record towhich employees — or the Student Ombudsman — might refer. In most cases, apparently, thecurrent ways of doing things work pretty well. Buton the not infrequent occasions when this Officereceives inquiries about University policies, wefind that vague responses based on our own impressions seldom satisfy earnestly concerned students. We try, of course, to obtain useful information, but too often the offhand account of a beleaguered administrator cannot be consideredhelpful. I think it would be worthwhile if aUniversity-wide set of policies on student employment were formulated and set forth in a statement to all members of the University community. A number of policy questions deservethoughtful treatment.Where, for example, should a student employeetake a job-related grievance? First of all, ofcourse, he should discuss the matter with hissupervisor. If that discussion proves fruitless,however, most students find themselves with virtually no place to turn. As with almost any individual problem arising out of a student's association with the University, this Office will try tohelp. In the past, the University Personnel Officehas even referred students to us. Perhaps withthis recourse available, the University needs noother channel. But I think we would benefit fromthe little effort required to establish the roughequivalent of the grievance procedure availableto regular, non-academic employees. TheUniversity's employee handbook refers to "aprocess of formal review by successively higherlevels of management" (You and The Universityof Chicago, p. 8). In practice, the "formality" ofthe process varies. But I think even the sometimes ad hoc review arranged in the case of anon-union employee would represent a real im-168provement. The Student Ombudsman probablyshould be formally involved in any grievance procedure developed specifically for student employees, but I think such a review should not depend entirely on the initiative and resources ofthis Office.Guidelines for hiring and firing are among otherimportant policy questions which need to be considered. Presently, the ways of doing things whichhave developed at the job referral service run inrecent years by the Office of Career Counselingand Placement are the closest thing to a set ofUniversity -wide student hiring policies. We havefielded a number of informal, "grumbling" complaints about the inadequacies of the operation. Amore comprehensive service could certainly behoped for, but our investigations show that givenits present charge and current obvious limitations,the referral service works fairly well. The officedoes offer a central listing for student job openings and sends flyers all over campus and toneighborhood and metropolitan area employers,soliciting listing of part-time and summer jobopenings. Appointments with the student-employment counselor are made on a first-come,first-served basis, and the office makes every effort to treat students fairly and courteously.Unfortunately, the operation handles onlyplacement. Since it exercises virtually no authority over campus employers, it can exert meagerinfluence in settling student grievances or in hiringor firing disputes. The office does not make student employment policy nor can it enforce thelittle policy currently extant. Perhaps the singlegreatest handicap to the operation is the somewhat surprising fact that University employersare under no obligation to cooperate with theoffice, or even to list the part-time openings whichcould go to students. (All full-time, non-academicopenings, on the other hand, must be listed withthe University Personnel Office, which publicizesopenings campus-wide.)The University Personnel Office does not fillthe void. This office handles the merely administrative details of placing each employee on theUniversity payroll and keeps records on everyemployee, but its policies do not generally applyto students. It is not geared to handle studentgrievances or the special demands of studentplacement. It simply refers students seeking part-time or summer jobs to Career Counseling andPlacement.The haphazard campus job picture which results from such informal procedures and lack ofcentral authority over student employment prac tices quite naturally gives a job-hunting edge toenterprising, well-connected, or merely luckystudents. While I see nothing wrong with that, thepresent situation can also leave a student on hisown, with no one but the Ombudsman to turn to,when he thinks he has been mistreated. Again,our Office is not entirely unequipped to deal withsuch problems, but clear and widely publicizedguidelines for student employment would greatlyaid our efforts.In one case in which a woman student allegedthat she had been denied a position solely on thebasis of her sex, I found no office of the University particularly eager to claim direct jurisdictionand very little "official" policy to fall back on.Thanks to concerned supervisory personnel in thedepartment doing the hiring in this case, it wassatisfactorily resolved. The fragile dictates ofreason and fairness, however, comprise a meagerarsenal when facing more recalcitrant employers.I nearly despaired, for example, when two students sought the assistance of the Ombudsman'sOffice following their summary dismissal by atenured professor. Both had worked part-time andsummers as lab technicians for a couple of years,and both had been promised employment throughthe coming summer. Assured that their performances had been satisfactory, they pressed inearnest to know the reason for their termination.In apparent seriousness, the professor cheerfully,but authoritatively, cited "personal whim" andpronounced the matter closed.Both students were soon offered similar positions by another professor, but would anotherstudent employee have the same good fortune? Inmost areas of the University, a student who loseshis job for less capricious reasons, but stillthrough no fault of his own (i.e. funding runs out,a professor leaves, an office reorganizes, a student organization disbands) receives little, if any,special consideration in securing other employment. Indeed, given the present absence of acentral authority or policy-making body forstudent employment, the difficulty involved ingranting — or even formally requesting — such consideration is great enough to discourage its adoption as policy without first urging the creation ordelegation of some new authority to direct its implementation.Certainly, there exist significant argumentsagainst adopting rigid policies to govern studentemployment. Likewise, a central authority overall student employment — a Student PersonnelOffice, if you will — might be inadvisable or unworkable. But, surely, certain reasonable "ways169of doing things" can be formalized and made amatter of record. And some kind of formal grievance procedure for student employees can beadopted: perhaps a permanent "grievance panel"with faculty, staff, and student members to"rule" on cases which the Student Ombudsmanfails to resolve to the mutual satisfaction of student employee and University employer. In anycase, the significant problems here discussed warrant further consideration.The following student employment policies ofthe University library system may provide a useful starting point, and perhaps a basis forUniversity-wide policies. All part-time jobs in thelibraries are reserved for University of Chicagostudents. As is the case with all students holdingclassified University jobs, they are paid at thesame rate as full-time employees in similar positions. Hiring priority, all other things being equal,is on a first-come, first-served basis, with currentand former employees at the top of the waiting listfor job openings. Although jobs are guaranteedfunding only on a quarterly basis, anyone "displaced" in a layoff when funding runs out automatically gets first priority for new openings.Hiring for all of the libraries is centrally handled,so that the student at the top of the list is eligiblefor the first opening anywhere in the system. Although students currently have no formal grievance procedure available to them, the library's Personnel Office is open to any employee with acomplaint. Since during the past year no complaints involving student employment havereached this Office from probably the largest employer of students on campus, I think theLibrary's policies must be working pretty well.If the University could implement these or similar policies to govern other student employment, Ithink fewer complaints would arise elsewhere.The most likely place to delegate the requisite additional authority would seem to be to the Officeof Career Counseling and Placement, headed byAssistant Dean of Students Anita Sandke. Once aset of policies has been formalized, her officecould assume the additional responsibility withoutsignificant changes in or additions to its operation.At best, it should be necessary only to recognizethat the office has some power to enforce whatever guidelines are adopted as University policy,and require, insofar as possible, that all part-timeand summer job openings which can be filled bystudents (except those in the library system) belisted with the office. I can foresee no major problems resulting from this formulation of clearpolicies and their careful, but forceful administration. A vital student service, on the other hand,stands to benefit greatly.Bruce Carroll170THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDVICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRSRoom 200, Administration Building-, o z"0 I om S c 33D O TI2 > — CO 3POSTAGAID0,ILLINTNO.31 o(Q»3N0>-* O m** 7Z OCO 3