THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 9 RECORDFebruary 18, 1971 An Official Publication Volume V, Number 3CONTENTS47 INTERIM REPORT OF THE COLLEGECURRICULUM COMMITTEE52 GENERAL STATUS REPORT ON THECOMPUTATION CENTER58 COMPUTER POLICY COMMITTEE59 REPORT ON UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO REALESTATE HOLDINGS IN THE CAMPUS AREA60 FOUR NEW MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES61 COMMITTEE ON WOMEN61 IN MEMORIAM61 KARL F. MORRISON NAMED CHAIRMANOF THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY61 LESTER E. ASHEIM APPOINTEDPROFESSOR IN THE GRADUATE LIBRARY SCHOOL62 RECENT PUBLICATIONS BY MEMBERSOF THE FACULTY62 ALUMNI CABINET ISSCHEDULED TO MEET62 DR. LUIS A. CIBILS NAMEDMARY CAMPAU RYERSON PROFESSOR62 RADIO AND TELEVISION PROGRAMMINGTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOFOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER©1971 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDINTERIM REPORT OF THECOLLEGE CURRICULUM COMMITTEEFebruary 3, 1971TO: Dean of the CollegeFROM: College Curriculum CommitteeI. General Remarks on the Progressof Curricular ReviewThe Committee is impressed — and, to be honest,somewhat surprised — at the scope and intensityof the activity revealed by the documents wehave so far received. Since it is doubtful that wehave received all the relevant documents or thatall the energies going into curricular review andinnovation are embalmed in reports or memoranda it is likely that we may in fact be underestimating it. Yet what is most obvious about theemerging picture is that review is still largely inprocess and that it is in many respects as yetincomplete. But we are much encouraged by theresults so far, if only because they represent arecovery of responsibility, based on knowledgeand choice, by the faculty working through itsvarious organs.In view of the incomplete and tentative character of much of the deliberation so far, thisreport will largely consist of efforts to identifyproblems as yet — so far as we can tell — neglected, to formulate trends with appropriateobservations, to suggest what seem to us properlines within which further development may takeplace, and to initiate investigations where itseems that such initiative properly lies with anall-College Committee. At any time, it seems tous, the functions of the College CurriculumCommittee strongly resemble those of a constitutional monarch — "the right to be informed,the right to advise, the right to warn" — but thislimited role is particularly important when ourefforts have been directed primarily to stimulating a deliberation rather than inventing andimplementing a policy. Nonetheless, we shallmake such recommendations for action to theCollege Council as seem to us to be required asdeliberation progresses and proposals take on atess tentative form. II. ProgramsIn its Report of June, 1970 — which was essentially an effort to initiate an organized deliberationabout the entire curriculum — this Committeepointed to three curricular elements which required thought separately and in their relationsto each other. Of these three — the individualprograms, divisional requirements (the "secondquartet"), and the "common year" — the first, sofar as we are able to judge, has been least discussed, with some important exceptions, whilethe other two seem generally to be receiving morelively attention. Or perhaps it would be better tosay that individual programs are receiving adifferent kind of attention.With one major exception suggestions we haveso far received with respect to individual programs have been either in the form of possiblenew programs (as in the proposals from the NewCollegiate Division for a program developed inconjunction with members of the Law faculty,or the program in "Letters" in the HumanitiesCollegiate Division), strengthening of existingprograms (e.g., Geophysics), or the coordinationof existing undergraduate programs with graduate programs (as in the proposals for the B.A./M.D. program or the B.A./M.A. programs ineconomics and anthropology). In this connection we await with interest the promised "PartII" of the report of the Curriculum Committeeof the Social Sciences Collegiate Division, whichpromises to deal with individual programs in thesocial sciences, among other things. Most of thenovel proposals are as yet simply projects and assuch they call for little comment except insofaras they seem to raise questions of policy by theirvery nature. The proposals for overlapping B.A.and higher degree programs obviously raise suchquestions, and these are discussed below.Our report of last June urged an examinationof individual programs with respect to theirintellectual integrity, provision for recognizablestages — in particular for some sense of culmination — and the adequacy with which the meansto accomplish their objectives were in fact available to students. We have not forgotten these47questions, and we should not like to think thatthe faculty of individual programs — whether de-partmentally or otherwise organized — has. Ourreport further pointed out the obvious fact thatthere is no natural necessity in the present pattern of concentrations, suggesting that theremight be arrangements which made more sensethan that produced by the formula "one department, one undergraduate major." We would hopethat as deliberation continues something mightemerge which would do more than simply add tothe list of available programs, of which the naiveobserver might think there are already morethan enough!It is therefore the more interesting to observethat one of the Collegiate Divisions — BiologicalSciences — has examined something like the fullrange of these problems and taken some actionwith respect to them. The effect of their actionas it bears on the construction of programs is toeliminate "concentration programs in departments ... as formal entities." They propose instead to develop a group of faculty functioningas area counselors who will work out individuallywith students an assemblage of courses providing"concentrated study in the area of Biology ofhis/her choice." Perhaps the real importance andgeneral interest of this move lies in its effectiveraising of the question of what it means to haveor to offer a program. The assumption that tohave or to offer a program means to have afaculty organization whose members teach a listof prescribed courses in a subject matter area iseffectively undercut by the proposal. Rather thestudent in biology will be encouraged to explore"significant areas of inquiry in modern biology. . . not represented as Departments," sharingwith a member of the faculty the burden ofmaking sense of his enterprise by an intelligentselection of courses. It seems to be thought thatthis possibility arises from the "great fluidity andinter-disciplinary nature of modern biologicalinquiry" but could not something similar be saidin other regions of inquiry? We recommend tomembers of the faculties of the other CollegiateDivisions some consideration of the details ofthis action, which has at least the significantadvantage, potentially, of requiring the more orless continuous engagement of a number of thefaculty in the advising of students. (See Appendix A.)Further we note with interest that the Biological Sciences Collegiate Division has taken to itsheart the problem of a "culminating experience"and has undertaken to experiment with some possibilities "on an elective basis." We welcome this move, though we could have wished that it wereless cautious. We trust that the initiative, thoughnot the caution, will be emulated elsewhere.B.A. /M.D. and B.A./M.A. ProgramsThe attractions of programs which in one wayor another span the undergraduate/ graduategulf are obvious. It is also obvious that theyencounter administrative difficulties and mayembody curricular dangers. The proposals beforeus in as yet unarticulated form are actually quitedifferent in the way in which the conjunctionof graduate/ undergraduate program is to beachieved. The B.A./M.D. proposal is in effectan effort to eliminate redundancy, while theB.A./M.A. proposals might be described as"super-honors-B.A." programs and thereforeproceed by addition rather than by overlapping.Consequently they raise quite different administrative questions. Neither should, assuming thatessentially real redundancies are eliminated andthat real additions are made to an existing program, represent any serious threat to the meaning of a B.A. program. The danger implicit insuch proposals in general, however, is clearlythat there should in effect cease to be any integral meaning attached to the B.A. degree, andof course the danger is greatest where there isleast clarity in the minds of faculty and studentsas to what is intended to be signified by a bachelor's degree, and particularly by a bachelor ofarts degree. One useful rule of thumb to beapplied to such proposals is to ask a questionabout a hypothetical student who enters such aprogram and for one reason or another does notcomplete it but does remain in residence in theCollege for approximately twelve quarters. Canwe then give him a B.A. with a clear conscience,or are we likely to find ourselves in the positionof giving him a "failed M.A."? It is also ofcourse most important for these purposes thatboth the faculties involved are entirely clearabout the arrangements and accept them unequivocally. It is in the light of these substantiveand procedural criteria that this Committee willexamine the detailed proposals emerging fromthe current discussions in biology and the socialsciences.III. "Second Quartet" and Related ProblemsOne of the most serious problems which seemsto be emerging as review of the curriculum progresses has to do with the so-called "secondquartet," particularly that part of it which issupposedly devoted to "extra-divisional" or48"inter-divisional" sequences. Perhaps it would beas well, at this point, to remind the CollegiateDivisions that this requirement was defined bythe report of the College Curriculum Committeeof 1966— a document which is still the basis ofthe present College Curriculum — as follows:[T]he equivalent of a second year (i.e. overand above the "common year") [is to be] reserved by each Collegiate Division for anadditional four year-long course sequences, ortheir equivalent, outside the student's Departmental field of specialization, at least two ofwhich should be extra-divisional or inter-divisional. This recommendation reflects theCommittee's understanding that the commonyear does not mean a restriction of the GeneralEducation portion of the four-year programunder development to one year only. TheCommittee also suggests that part of this requirement could be met by an inter-divisionalseminar in the student's final year.If this language now seems somewhat antiquatedit is at least partly because "the four-year program under development" has developed considerably since 1966. The present problems arecompounded of a number of factors. First, thevagueness of the legislation as to how such "sequences" are to be selected has generally beeninterpreted by unilateral action on the part ofCollegiate Divisions, who prescribe for theirstudents alternatives in other Collegiate Divisionsabout which their knowledge is sometimes limited. Second, there has been a noticeable declinein the number of courses offered designedly as"sequences". Third, there is considerable confusion in the minds of faculty and advisors asto the purposes to be served by such a requirement with a consequent vagueness of criteria ofchoice. The result is a situation in which a ratherlimited number of standardized alternatives —such as "Western Civilization" — have been overloaded and a considerable variety of ad hocarrangements perforce have been found acceptable in individual cases. The lack of grip whichthe present formula has on the existing situationis perhaps exemplified by the situation of theHumanities Collegiate Division, which seems tobe currently in violation of statute by requiringonly one "extra-divisional" or "inter-divisional"'sequence and is currently considering whether itwishes to accept any longer the Western Civilization course which has served for many of itsstudents as discharging that requirement. Notsurprisingly this situation in the Humanitiesmeets with some raised eyebrows in other quar ters, where there has been, in intention at last,a more faithful adherence to the letter of therequirement.The problems raised for other Collegiate Divisions by the reorganization of the "History ofWestern Civilization" course are therefore, inour judgment, merely symptomatic of a muchlarger problem: the problem of the meaning andimplementation of the second quartet requirement. These two dimensions of the problem areinseparable, since any attempt to clarify, redefine, or modify the present formula would beuseless unless predicated upon the availabilityof courses to implement any revised requirement.Moreover it is clear that the College as a wholehas a special interest in this dimension of itsstudents' programs since, minimally, any defensible solution depends upon some modicum ofcommunication among the Collegiate Divisions.The Committee therefore proposes(a) to undertake an investigation, with theaid of the Senior Advisors in the CollegiateDivisions and the Office of the Dean ofStudents, of the meaning which is in fact nowgiven to this requirement in students' programs;(b) to elicit from the Curriculum Committees of the Collegiate Divisions a statementof what each Division thinks a significantrequirement would be for its students outsidethe Division and of what among its offeringswould be appropriate for students in otherDivisions;(c) to arrive at a clarification and reformulation of this requirement for discussionamong the Collegiate Divisions and eventualaction by the College Council before the endof this academic year.The Committee would assume that in the meantime any further unilateral actions interpretingthis requirement by the several Collegiate Divisions would be held to the minimum requiredby changes of offerings.IV. The "Common Year"We turn finally to the "common year" courses,normal college battleground and traditional preoccupation of College Curriculum Committees.Here again we are not sure that we are fullyinformed, but if we are there has been muchactivity, though so far its visible fruits are confined to the Biological Sciences and the SocialSciences. The Biological Sciences sequence hasbeen completely reorganized within the last two49years and the Social Sciences Collegiate Divisionis actively considering a proposal which wouldplace somewhere between twenty and forty percent of next year's freshmen in new course arrangements. (See Appendix B.) The details differbut it is possible to recognize a response tocommon problems which may in some degreeconfront all the common-year courses in anyDivision. Both rearrangements clearly aim at awider involvement of the responsible facultiesand attempt to achieve it by formats which makepossible short-term commitments of teachingand considerable latitude in the choice of materials and subject-matters. Both also, however,aim at achieving a set of common objectiveswithin the diversity thus resulting by definingobjectives in terms of kinds of problems orthemes which can be found in diverse materials,and, more particularly in the case of the social sciences proposal, by attempting to set upsomething approximating a dialogue among adiversity of faculty on a common base ofexperience.All of this might be summed up — if necessary— as a trend toward a reformulation of coursesresulting in an ordered diversity. The possiblemalfunctions of such procedures are obviousin general, though some might not be so easyto predict. (In the Biological Sciences, for instance, it is already apparent that it might beargued that the system does a better job forstudents not planning to major in biologicalsciences but an inferior job of preparation forthose who go on.) The advantages are alsoobvious — particularly the effort to involve moreof the senior faculty in the teaching of thesecourses. Yet such an effort, desirable and plausible as it may seem in general, is not without itsattendant dangers. The mere fact that a courseor sequence is indubitably taught by eminentmembers of the University faculty does not byitself make it an appropriate course or sequencefor the purposes of the common year. More thanperfunctory commitment by the faculty is essential, and serious responsibilities must be seriouslyundertaken — few members of the faculty may,for instance, be really qualified and willing toundertake the task of advising students in constructing concentrations in biology in the arrangements described earlier, but without suchcompetence and commitment there will in effectbe no biology curriculum beyond the basic core.With these reservations we command the studyof these possibilities — with respect to both thecommon year and the constructions of individualprograms — to the other Collegiate Divisions. In the Physical Sciences serious discussionshave been initiated looking toward a reformationof the present offerings. It would be prematureto anticipate the results of these, but their possible consequences are far-reaching. Amongother hypotheses being examined are the consequences of abandoning the present presumptionsthat every such course must include laboratorywork and that in general such courses must bethought of as covering or traversing a standardized subject matter. The Committee, which isaware that dissatisfaction with the present courses— justified or not — is persistently widespread andhas conveyed that awareness to the Division,looks forward with interest to the results of thecurrent deliberations.The Committee is somewhat at a loss to interpret the absence of any indication of rethinkingof common year courses from the HumanitiesCollegiate Division. It would be difficult to believe that it reflects a total satisfaction with thepresent arrangements.Charles W. Wegener, ChairmanKenneth W. DamPhillip C. HoffmannDonald N. LevineLennard WhartonJoseph M. WilliamsAppendix AExcerpt from Memorandum from Arnold Ravinto Roger Hildebrand, 29 January 1971.This year our Curriculum Committee has reviewed the options available for students wishingto concentrate in a particular field or to focusupon a significant problem area in modern biology. After careful deliberation it has submittedthe following recommendation, which was approved by the Governing Committee on January28, 1971:that the current concentration programs indepartments be eliminated as formal entities.Instead, it is proposed that a Committee ofFaculty Area Counselors be appointed according to area of special competence. Studentswill be given the opportunity to design specialindividual programs with the advice of amember or members of this committee. Thus,for example, students wishing to place specialemphasis on Biochemistry or Genetics or Behavioral Biology or Evolutionary Biology willbe able, with the advice of the appropriateFaculty Area Counselor, to assemble a seriesof courses that will provide concentrated study50. the area of Biology of his/her choice. Thendividual program would be constructed frommong the ten electives available to the Biology major who will have completed the non-science, physics, chemistry, mathematics andbiology core requirements of the curriculumfor an A.B. degree in the Biological Sciences.The principal thrust of this recommendation•s to make it possible for a student to pursue aogram 0f COurses that accomplishes a validobjective in concentrating upon a particular fieldor a specific problem area of Biology, fields orproblem areas that are not necessarily represented by existing departments. Examples ofsuch fields of study are Behavioral Biology orEvolutionary Ecology, which are especially significant areas of inquiry in modern biology butare not represented as Departments in the formaladministrative structure of the University. Guiding the students in developing special programswill be Faculty Counselors to whom studentswill be assigned after a student expresses interestin a particular field or problem area. One of thevalues of this system should be the greater proportion of Faculty directly involved in guidingthe academic and intellectual interests of ourstudents. Faculty Counselors would be a supplement to, and not a substitute for, the presentsystem of professional advisors, which is workingreasonably well within its particular limitations.Most important of all, this new style of designing concentration programs would recognize thegreat fluidity and inter-disciplinary nature ofmodern biological inquiry. Departments hardenbut fields of thought do not, or at least shouldnot. When a department or committee wishesto prescribe a highly specified program for aparticular group of students (as may be done inthe case of Biochemistry), it may do so if itwishes. However, this division's student bodywould be made aware early of the fact that thereare many options for developing intellectuallyvalid programs of study and will be encouragedto do so by the availability of the corps ofFaculty Counselors whom we intend to deployfor this purpose. It should be understood thatthe individualized part of the program would beconstructed from among the ten electives available to Biology majors, but that every Biologymajor will be expected to complete our currentrequirements in Humanities, Social Sciences,Physical Sciences, and the Biology "core" (asdefined above).An important practical outcome of this curricular change is that, effective with the next class of entering students, we shall be awardingin this Division a single degree diploma: Bachelor of Arts in Biological Sciences.Appendix BExcerpt from Memorandum from ArcadiusKahan to Roger Hildebrand, 20 January 1971.The SSCD Curriculum Committee (JosephSchwab, chairman) reviewed our common coreofferings and has recommended developing twokinds of courses to be added to the existingsequences. New two-quarter sequences, to bedeveloped by individuals or small groups, mightattract to common-core teaching larger numbersof the divisional faculty. These sequences shouldbe constructed on one or more of the followingprinciples :a) alternative attacks on large problems, e.g.,war, learning, personality;b) such attacks as can be made using principles of research of a department or closelyrelated group of departments, e.g. cost-benefit analysis;c) the ways a subject undergoes transformation as it is defined in different social sciences,e.g. education, prejudice, group formation anddisintegration;d) proposed practical solutions to one ormore unresolved problems of our society;e) the study of actual operation of one ormore institutions by firsthand observation, e.g. John Q. Wilson, Edward Banfield studies;f) study of selected monuments of socialscience inquiry.Inviting faculty to develop a larger number ofthese sequences will increase the possibility ofstaffing sections, giving the faculty the opportunity to select all the readings and allowingshort-term commitments of teachings.A third-quarter course is recommended for150-250 of the students from the behavioralscience two-quarter sequences described above,and drawing on senior and distinguished faculty.A lecture course employing each lecturer forabout two weeks might be organized with askeleton staff to plan and coordinate the different lecturers, select five major texts on whichthe lectures would be based, read papers andexams and conduct discussions with the studentsand lecturers. A Bettleheim, Morgenthau, Friedman, or Shils might be attracted to participateand, with the lecture format, economize on thenumber of staff per student.51GENERAL STATUS REPORT ONTHE COMPUTATION CENTERFred H. Harris, Director of the ComputationCenter, has recently issued a General StatusReport which presents the current status of theCenter as of November 1970. A number ofsignificant changes have occurred within theCenter, and the report emphasizes both accomplishments and remaining difficulties.Major sections discuss the Center's organization, user/Center relationships, the current statusof services, instructional use of deficit funds,fiscal policies and financial status, and majorproblems and weaknesses.Copies are available on request from Mrs.Ruth Kostelny, Research Institutes, C-B8, extension 3-8403.EXTRACTS FROM THE GENERALSTATUS REPORT ON THECOMPUTATION CENTERCurrent Status of ServicesFor the majority of readers this section, alongwith the section on Major Problems and Weaknesses, will contain the most significant information about the existing situation at the Computation Center. The more important aspects ofexisting services and changes thereto have beenextracted from the quantity of events whichhave taken place since summer 1969.Hardware ConfigurationAt the beginning of the last academic year anIBM 7094/IBM 7040 system and an IBM 360Model 50 were the primary hardware systems.Decisions already had been made to alter thatconfiguration extensively by releasing both the7040 and the Model 50, replacing them in effectwith an IBM 360 Model 65. A very closelyrelated decision was to use ASP (Attached Support Processor) in the local support mode(LASP) as the primary input /output and scheduling software for use with OS 360 MVT on theModel 65. In addition to supporting the Model65, LASP was to be modified to handle the input/output and scheduling services for the 7094.A number of delays occurred during the falland early winter for which the Center staff andthe vendor were jointly responsible. Staged removal and installation of the various devices finally began in January and was completed inmid-February 1970. The Model 65 was installedwith the equipment originally specified with oneexception: a 2314 disk file scheduled for installation in addition to the one previously existingfor the Model 50 was postponed as an economymove in the light of potential financial crisis.After the installation of the Model 65, the TIC(Tape Inter system Connector) for direct communication (as a logical tape transport) betweenthe 7094 and the Model 65 was canceled fortechnical reasons.Subsequent improvements to the Model 65configuration include increased disk capacitywith the installation of the second 2314 in July1970, improved communication interfaces withthe replacement of the 2701 and the 2702 witha 2703, the installation of a 2501 card reader inthe data preparation area for direct submissionof jobs by users, and the various job entry terminal facilities described later. In addition, theCenter is now leasing a hardware measurementdevice to assist in its measurement and performance evaluations.Currently scheduled improvements includeinstallation of an additional 9-track tape drive aswell as a 103-E data set cabinet which will simplify handling the Center's low speed data sets.Improvements which are now under seriousconsideration include additional (fast) corememory for the Model 65, additional diskcapacity, and the equipment necessary to permitstand-alone operation of the IBM 7094.Operating SystemsThe software systems, particularly the operating system, are equally as important as the hardware configuration in determining how effectiveequipment utilization will be. A number ofprojects have been undertaken to improve theavailable software. These are presented in Exhibit 15, and an indication of their current statusis given. With vendor-provided operating systems as a starting point, along with the previouslymentioned decision to use LASP, the OperatingSystems Group has worked diligently in cooperation with the Operations Group and the Apph"cations Group to determine where the mostimmediate improvements might be made. Many52have been made; nevertheless, weaknesses stillexist.Terminal ServicesSignificant progress has been made in operating systems support for high speed terminalservices. An IBM 360 Model 20 at NORC,a Model 20 at the Biomedical ComputationFacility (which includes tape capability), a2780 at the Graduate School of Business, and1130's at the Education complex and the Institute for Juvenile Research are currently ableto communicate on-line with the 360/65. Inaddition, capability for submitting 7094 jobs(including support for binary decks) has beenadded at the request of the Biomedical staff.While this use is still not up to the levels anticipated or desirable, the availability of thisservice is making significant changes in thethroughput and work habits of least one of thegroups involved, namely, the staff at NORC. Asfurther improvements are made in the supportsoftware and the scheduling characteristics ofthe central system, these remote services willbecome increasingly attractive and beneficial.Much less progress has been made in the areaof low speed interactive terminal capabilities. Amultiple-user version of CALCTRAN (a terminal language with desk calculator and limitedinteractive capabilities) is now in use. CRBE(Conversational Remote Batch Entry) is in thefinal stages of checkout and is being used byseveral of the Center's programming staff intheir daily work.Notably absent is interactive time-sharingaccess to the central facility.Graphic ServicesThe Center provides graphic services with aStromberg DatagraphiX 4020 cathode ray tubecomputer output recorder, which is located atthe central site, and a CalComp 563 drumplotter, which is available through the cooperation of the Laboratory for Astrophysics andSpace Research.The SD 4020 is equipped for both 35mmmicrofilm and paper (a sensitized vellum commonly referred to as "hard copy") output. Itreplaced an IBM 740 CRT previously available;unfortunately, a number of delays associatedwith its delivery and installation seriously impacted the anticipated utilization of the SD 4020.Poor maintenance by the manufacturer resultedin very irregular service; lack of training andprogramming support by the Computation Centerfurther lessened the SD 4020's usefulness. How ever, these factors have improved substantiallyduring the spring of 1970 with no noticeableeffect on usage. As a result, the University hassupported a relatively large share of the cost ofmaking SD 4020 services available.The Center is currently reviewing SD 4020services and support, and is investigating thecancellation of the contract with StrombergDatagraphiX. If the SD 4020 is returned, accessto equivalent facilities will be provided throughother computer centers with similar StrombergDatagraphiX equipment.The CalComp 563 is an ink-on-paper digitalincremental plotter which is controlled on-lineby the SDS 930 computer operated by LASR.The basic software for creating CalComp plotsis available in the 7094 subroutine library; it isbeing acquired for the Model 65 and should beready for use in January 1971.Output from the CalComp subroutines isstored on magnetic tape for subsequent plottingon the SDS 930. The Center's operations staffperiodically carries tapes to be plotted to LASRand returns with all completed plots. However,the staff at LASR can only process requests forplotting as the other SDS 930 workload permits,and therefore turn-around time may vary widely.OperationsMachine operation has historically been astrong point in Computation Center services,and this strength continues. Nevertheless, operational problems do exist, and a number ofchanges are taking place to improve operationaleffectiveness. Additional staff and modifiedprocedures have been established, for example,to allow shift supervisors time to functionproperly as supervisors.The responsibility and authority of "the Operations Group over the day-to-day access to andoperations of central site equipment is beingemphasized. For example, the relationship between the Operations Group and the OperatingSystems Group has been formalized somewhatand changes to the system now must be coordinated with and approved by the OperationsManager. Along these same lines, more attention-has been given to meeting availability schedulesas posted, and significant improvements havebeen made.Effective reporting of workload and systemsperformance is also being stressed.Significant changes to operations policy haveoccurred recently in two areas, tape policy andaccess privileges. These changes were made toserve users in general more effectively and they53have been successful. Requirements of an exceptional nature have been, and will continueto be, treated on the merits of individual cases.Production ServicesProduction services, the Center's terminologyfor the scheduling of jobs and the quality controlaspects of satisfactory processing of productionlevel tasks, has been an integral part of serviceprovided by the Administrative OperationsGroup and the Hospital Data Processing Operations Group from their inception. However,such service has been available at the centralsite only by informal, somewhat uncontrolledarrangements with individual staff members(usually programmers involved in implementation phases). As a result, a number of deficiencies existed and these services were ripe forimprovment.The need for production services is generallyrecognized when considering administrative applications, but repetitive uses from research andeducation areas often can be better processed inan equivalent manner. Further, as more of thesystems being developed for the Model 65shifted into production phases, requests for production services at the central site increased.Staff is available now to provide job schedulingand quality control, and general procedures arebeing developed as individual needs are determined and experience is obtained.Programming and Systems AnalysisUntil mid- 1969, emphasis in the developmentof information systems had been placed largelyon the IBM 7094 and the IBM 1401 systems.Consequently, the programming staff available forthe design and implementation of informationand data processing systems was very competentwith the languages and facilities for the 7094and 1401's, but its knowledge of the 360languages and facilities was relatively weak. Explicit effort is being directed to improving boththe background and training of the programmingstaff in the realm of 360 software systems. Thisactivity centers on higher level languages, data-based systems, and the attributes of terminaloriented systems.Finally, to focus on the management of systems design and programming activities for amoment, explicit project controls and reviewprocedures have been developed. Better reportingis available as well. Clients for such services arereceiving a better, more timely product as aresult of this increased emphasis on meetingcommitments. Advice and TrainingWith the increasing number of users and theicorresponding variety of application supp0rtsoftware requirements, along with the increasedsophistication (i.e., complexity) of such software, the advice and training services of theComputation Center are more important nowthan ever before. Programming and debuggingadvice from a member of the Center's staff isavailable (at the advisor's desk in the userroom) during the day shift, Monday throughFriday. Clearly, each advisor cannot be expertin all available systems and applications packages; however, the staff associated with theadvice function is increasingly more competentand backup is available when required.The Center has always offered brief, non-credit courses on the computing languages andsystems available at the Center to the Universitycommunity. The recent offerings, however, area significant improvement over previous levels.Furthermore, it seems clear that both the rangeof information treated and the frequency ofcourses should increase. All courses for this fallwere fully subscribed.Program Library SupportAs the Center's focus has shifted from the7094 to the 360, there has been a correspondingchange in the program library support. Withlarge amounts of both permanently-resident andremovable direct access storage, 360 libraryprograms can be maintained in a fashion whichpermits simple and rapid access by the individualuser. The system for use of the 7094 programlibrary in which a program librarian made adaily computer run to obtain copies of manylibrary programs for users has not been perpetuated. As a result, the program librarian hasnow assumed the function of editor of theNewsletter in addition to diminishing duties inconnection with the 7094 library. The supportis particularly strong in the areas of mathematical subroutines, statistical packages, and applications in the Social Sciences; major elements ofthe program library are maintained by theApplications Group.To assist both the Operating Systems andthe Applications Group in determining wheretheir efforts could be most profitably devoted,the (software) systems measurement facilities(SMF) in Release 18.6 of OS 360 are beingused to measure utilization of the various software components. It is clear that better decisionson software support can be made with such data.54Information ServicesIn addition to activity directed toward theNewsletter and new memoranda, a general information brochure is now in preparation. It isbeing written to introduce the Center's facilitiesand services to those in the University community who are unfamiliar with them. Also, itwill be quite helpful in responding to the majority of queries about the Center from outsidethe University.Accounting Information and ControlsWith the exception of increased clerical efficiency, no major improvements have been madeduring the past year in the type and quality ofaccounting information available to users. However, increasing priority and correspondingmanpower is being devoted to the specificationand development of more effective accountingand account information. In parallel with consideration of password schemes, an on-line,realtime accounting package is being developed.Additional comments about these areas aremade in the next section.Major Problems and WeaknessesIf progress is to continue, it is necessary thatthe accomplishments discussed in precedingsections become secondary with respect todifficulties which remain. It is the shortcomings,failings, and changing requirements that warrantthe attention of the Computer Policy Committeeand the senior staff of the Computation Center.To that end this section has been prepared.ServicesThe difficulties presented in the followingparagraphs relate specifically to hardware andrelated software problems. Among the morepressing difficulties, which are being broughtincreasingly to the attention of the Universityadministration, is the deterioration in turnaround.A number of factors (such as processor speed,operating systems efficiency, number of jobsbeing submitted, and operator efficiency) determine turnaround. Rather than discussing eachand its inter-relationships with others, one willbe pinpointed, namely, the particular schedulingalgorithm in use.The 7094/7044 CHAOS system had a veryeffective scheduling algorithm that treated submitted jobs on the basis of time requirements aswell as specified priorities, and preference wouldeasily be given to small jobs during significantperiods of the day. This scheduling capability is not present in the ASP system. Only jobs withhigher specified priority, and therefore highercosts, will supersede the time of submittal. Sincerequired resources versus available resources doaffect when a given job can be executed on theModel 65, the latter statement is somewhat ofan over-simplification. However, the currentASP scheduling algorithm is essentially a first-come, first-served situation independent of estimated time. It is clear to the staff of the Centerthat improvements are needed.In addition to the ASP overhead required tosupport the 7094, another major factor affectingthroughput is the inefficiencies of ASP as currently installed. ASP executing from low speedcore much of the time, is responsible in part forthe relatively small amount of potentially billable processor time now available. This problemhas received considerable attention in recentweeks, and systems measurement equipment isbeing employed to gather data for final analysis.While the previous points have been primarilydirected at the Model 65, throughput on the7094 is less than desired. More specifically, theamount of time during the day when the 7094is available has been significantly hampered bythe decision to link it with the 360/65. In addition to periods for its own preventive and unscheduled maintenance, the 7094 is also unavailable during any period in which the Model 65is out of service. Solutions which have beensuggested include operating the 7094 as a standalone system (with input /output support on atape-in/ tape-out basis via the Model 65 orperhaps via a 1401); reinstallation of a 7040and corresponding return to CHAOS; and acombination of continuing to support the 7094as is now done when the Model 65 is available,but adding facilities to handle tape-in/ tape-outduring periods when the Model 65 is out ofservice.The Operating Systems Group is evaluatingASP performance versus that which might beexpected under HASP, a different support package for scheduling and control of input/ outputand remote devices. This investigation's outcome has potentially far-reaching effects in thetreatment of problems previously mentioned,particularly support of the 7094. Every effort isbeing made to see that adequate analysis isperformed and that hasty decisions are avoided.For example, the addition of fast memory foruse by ASP is also being considered as analternative, and the situation grows obviouslymore complex as other factors are taken intoconsideration.55The need for access to facilities which are notavailable at the Computation Center has receivedconsiderable attention by both the ComputerPolicy Study Committee and the ComputerPolicy Committee. To avoid reproducing otherwise available information, a statement was recently issued on this subject.The other major need specifically referencedby the Computer Policy Study Committee is thatfor time-sharing capabilities. As pointed outearlier in this report, some attention has beenpaid to remote devices, including low speedremote capability, but these do not satisfy theneed for interactive services expressed by anincreasing number of users.Admittedly these services are very important,and in some instances mandatory. However, thelittle information available on the current useof external time-sharing services seems to indicate that the monies being used to support suchusage are insignificant compared to the cost ofproviding comparable services internally.Solutions to other problems may affect andmodify the potential for offering interactiveterminal services and the Center's staff is keepingthis in mind. For example, if the addition offast core is the best solution to operating systeminefficiencies as they currently exist, it might befeasible to offer such terminal languages as APLon a scheduled basis.Before leaving the discussion of needed improvements in services, an indication of theCenter's judgment on priorities which can significantly affect users should be presented:1. Improvements in batch servicesa. Changes in scheduling algorithm to improve turnaround for the small job requiringlimited resources in addition to timeb. Improved general efficiencies throughequipment and/ or software changes2. Rate adjustments (see next subsection)3. Access to large-scale systems4. Access to interactive terminal servicesThese need serious review and study, and finaldetermination of priorities by the ComputerPolicy Committee will be requested at a latertime.Cost EffectivenessA number of pressures on the University, theCenter, and the individual users are interactingto make cost effectiveness a matter of increasingconcern to all. A number of users of the 360/65, from research, administrative, and educationalareas alike, are concerned at the high cost ofcomputation at the University of ChicagoHowever, this cannot be treated independentlyof current policy for recovery and distributionfor this obviously affects the cost experiencedby the individual user.A number of factors contribute to the unitcost of computation at any facility, whether itbe a university, a national laboratory, or a commercial organization. Such factors must beevaluated in each case if one is to understandwhy rates vary from installation to installation.These must include amount of direct support,whether equipment is purchased or leased, andhow it is amortized; what services, such as programming advice and newsletters, are offeredand included as overhead in the cost basis; andthe economic basis on which costs are determined (uniform proration or marginal costing,for example).Several possibilities for reductions in currentrates are under consideration, but must await abetter appreciation for income and expenses.1. Imbalances may exist in the distribution ofexpenses versus material/ service codes for suchitems as memory, processor time, input /output,etc., and these are being evaluated. If so, userswho have been adversely affected can obtainsubsequent relief. However, in treating imbalances, an underlying assumption is that for eachimbalance there is a countering imbalance andtherefore a downward adjustment would have tobe offset by a corresponding increase elsewhere.2. It may be feasible to lower rates for lowpriority utilization. If this can be done withoutadversely affecting the current budgeted deficit,it will achieve several ends. The obvious one isreducing the cost for those users who can makeuse of low priority turnaround. At the same time,more attractive low priority rates will provideincentive for larger runs to be made on thirdshift and weekends, and the shifting workloadshould improve the service for smaller jobswhich continue to be run at regular rates.3. Finally, a general reduction in all rates (inaddition to possible changes such as the above)may be feasible if projected income is adequate.While the interest of the Long-range PlanningCommittee in its statement about access to large-scale systems is primarily addressed to equipment resources, the effects of such access cannotbe easily separated from the resulting improvements in cost performance which will obtain.The study to be made will take that potential56into consideration in evaluating the Center'spossible role as a "broker" of external services.SpaceThe addition of space for use by the Computation Center which was considered during thelast fiscal year was postponed due to the financialcrisis which occurred in the winter quarter. Sincethen the problem has become more complex:1. The basement of 5727 University, which wasconsidered for use by the Computation Center,has been determined to be unsatisfactory. Itwould be totally utilized with no expansion roomwhatsoever, new space requirements exceed thatavailable, and the renovation costs are generallyconsidered uneconomic in light of the cost ofother space.2. The need of last year was generally focusedon overcrowded office conditions at the centralsite. Space requirements now exist for an enlarged machine room, an enlarged user room,and an enlarged data preparation area.3. Temporary changes have been made to theinput/ output area used for job submission andretrieval to facilitate a more restricted accesspolicy, but the Center generally feels that significant improvements in operations, efficiency,and reliability with regard to this service canobtain from space rearrangement.The space problem cannot be treated lightly.Once needs are documented, alternatives foundand evaluated, and availability of considerablefunds established, the Center will present itsrecommendations for approval. It is hoped thatthis will take place during the winter quarter.Staff MoraleThe same concerns and uncertainties aboutthe future of the Computation Center whichhave affected the University and the user community have also affected the staff of the Center.These uncertainties have not disappeared altogether and the continuing pressures for improvedservice, reduced cost, and so forth, do not lessenthe anxiety. The changing vanguard of the Center, and the changes in management policies andpractices, have helped in some instances andhurt in others.Regularly scheduled administrative staff meetings, which include all personnel from secondlevel supervision up, have been established.Improved communication between supervisorypersonnel is the primary intent. In addition, thesemeetings are used to consider matters which affect more than single groups. When appropriate, supervisory personnel are expected to disseminate information obtained in these sessions totheir individual staffs. Then, feedback from theirstaffs is made available at later staff meetings.An effort to present personnel policies andpractices in a manner suitable for easy dissemination and review is underway. At this time,with the assistance of Mr. Edward Coleman ofthe Personnel Office, the Center is formulatingdetailed requirements and plans for accomplishing them.Accounting Information and ControlsThe Computation Center, in particular theBusiness Office, has been aware for some timethat the available accounting information andaccount controls are archaic. Systems in use arefar behind the state of the art. With the increasing economic pressures on the University andrecipients of grants and contracts, users ofCenter services are concerned more than everbefore about timely accounting information andeffective controls, particularly upper limits on thefunds which can be used by a given authorizeduser. Furthermore, because the existing systemis designed to accumulate totals monthly, it isimpractical to give information on a more timelybasis than perhaps semi-monthly. This does notsatisfy the growing need to determine an account's balance at random times.Systems and procedures are now being specified to permit on-line, real-time accounting withdetail sufficient to ( 1 ) permit a selection of possible subtotals for limiting controls, (2) supplycurrent balances with very minimal requesttimes, and (3) permit effective additions, deletions, and other corrections to a given account'sbalance and specified controls. With emphasis onthe control of access to the computing systems,a password scheme is being designed which willobtain valid authorizations and appropriate limiting information from an on-line file.Although consideration of various aspects ofthis problem is well along, the design is notcomplete and no implementation schedule hasbeen established. Nevertheless, the managementof the Center considers this to be a significantinternal activity and is proceeding with availableresources.PlanningIn its recommendations, the Computer PolicyStudy Committee quite explicitly pointed to thevarious shortcomings of the Center and the University with regard to both short- and long-range57planning for computer services. A number ofpositive steps have been and are being taken tocorrect these deficiencies. A major step, ofcourse, has been the establishment of subcommittees to treat budget and facilities (which areshort-range planning) and long-range planning.These committees are functioning with the staffof the Computation Center. Examples ofprogress being made are the statement on theprovision of access to large-scale systems previously mentioned and a proposed budget cyclefor the Center which will be presented to theBudget Subcommittee in the near future. Asanother, there has been significant interactionbetween the staff of the Center and the FacilitiesSubcommittee concerning appropriate analysisfor justification of additional core memory.Nevertheless, there is still significant room forimprovement, and it is the intent of the Centerthat additional staff be allocated to planningfunctions.COMPUTER POLICY COMMITTEEA. Adrian Albert (Dean of the Division of thePhysical Sciences and the Eliakim HastingsMoore Distinguished Service Professor in theDepartment of Mathematics and in the College), ChairmanRobert L. Ashenhurst (Professor and Chairman in the Committee on Information Sciences, Professor and Director in the Institute forComputer Research, and Professor in theGraduate School of Business and in theCollege)Harold E. Bell (Comptroller)Christopher Bingham (Assistant Professor ofStatistics and in the College)R. Darrell Bock (Professor of Education andPsychology and in the Committee on HumanDevelopment)William B. Cannon* (Vice-President for Programs and Projects and Associate Professor inthe School of Social Service Administration)Sidney Davidson (Dean and the Arthur YoungProfessor in the Graduate School of Business)Jim Douglas, Jr. (Professor of Mathematicsand in the College)Lawrence Fisher (Professor and Associate Director in the Center for Research in SecurityPrices, Graduate School of Business) Herman H. Fussler (Director of the Universityof Chicago Library and Professor in theGraduate Library School)Norman Gelfand (Associate Professor of Physics, in the James Franck Institute, and in theCollege) (alternate)Jay Goldberg (Associate Professor of Physiology and in the Committee on MathematicalBiology)Robert L. Graves (Professor in the GraduateSchool of Business, in the Committee on Information Sciences, and in the Institute forComputer Research)Fred H. Harris* (Director of the ComputationCenter)Juergen A. Hinze (Assistant Professor of Chemistry and in the College)C. Hadlai Hull (Assistant Director of the Computation Center)Dr. Leon O. Jacobson* (Dean of the Divisionof the Biological Sciences and of The PritzkerSchool of Medicine and the Joseph RegensteinProfessor in the Biological and MedicalSciences and in the College)D. Gale Johnson (Professor of Economics)Leigh A. Littleton (Assistant to the Directorof the Computation Center)Dimitri Mihalas (Professor of Astronomy andAstrophysics)Dr. Robert D. Moseley, Jr. (Professor andChairman of the Department of Radiologyand Director of the Biomedical ComputationFacilities and the Radiation Protection Service)Thomas W. Murphy (Assistant Director of theComputation Center)Norman Nie (Assistant Professor of PoliticalScience and Senior Study Director in the National Opinion Research Center)John A. Simpson (the Edward L. Ryerson Distinguished Service Professor in the Department of Physics, in the James Franck Institute,and in the College)Don R. Swanson* (Dean and Professor in theGraduate School of Library Science)*ex officio58REPORT ON UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOREAL ESTATE HOLDINGS IN THE CAMPUS AREAThe following is a report on property TheUniversity of Chicago owns near the main campus. Play areas and parking lots are not separately enumerated. Where a mixed use exists,the property is designated in its primary use.The University owns nothing north of 47thStreet, west of Cottage Grove Avenue, or, withone excerption, south of 62nd Street. This exception concerns a piece of ground, but not thebuilding, on 63rd Street just off WoodlawnAvenue, which came to this institution as a giftapproximately forty-five years ago. The University owns nothing in South Shore.From 47th Street to 51st Street (East HydePark Boulevard), the University owns two vacant lots and three student buildings.From 51st Street to 55th Street, the Universityowns two vacant lots, two student houses, sixteenstudent buildings, eight faculty-use buildings, onefaculty house, and one commercial building.East of University Avenue between 55thStreet and 57th Street, the University owns fivefaculty houses, two faculty-use buildings, andthree student buildings.East of Woodlawn Avenue between 57thStreet and 58th Street, the University ownsRobie House, two commercial buildings, twofaculty-use buildings, and one student building.East of Blackstone Avenue between 58thStreet and 59th Street, the University owns onestudent building.Between 61st Street and 62nd Street, the University owns one vacant lot, one commercialbuilding, and part of the Power Plant.In an irregular area that falls between 56thand 58th Streets east of Cottage Grove Avenue,the University owns eleven vacant lots, sixteenfaculty-use buildings, five student buildings,eleven faculty houses, two student houses, onecommercial building, and one storage building.The area is bounded by 56th Street, CottageGrove Avenue, and 58th Street, and on the eastby the alley west of Drexel from 58th to 57th,and by the alley east of Drexel from 57th to56th.South Campus, bounded by 60th Street, 61stStreet, Cottage Grove Avenue, and Stony IslandAvenue, is currently the subject of an urban renewal plan under which substantially all ofthe land not presently owned by the Universitywill be purchased by the University from thecity. The University has owned about forty-threeper cent of the land in South Campus for someyears. At the present time the University ownsabout sixty per cent of the land in South Campus;it is devoted almost exclusively to such academicbuildings as the Law School, the School ofSocial Service Administration, Burton- JudsonCourts, Midway Studios, the Center for Continuing Education, the Industrial Relations Center, the National Opinion Research Center, theOrthogenic School, and so forth. A number ofstudents live in University-owned buildings, including married student housing apartments andthe Plaisance Hotel. None of the University'sholdings in South Campus is scheduled fordemolition under the urban renewal program.* * *A student building is an apartment propertyassigned for student use.A faculty-use building is an apartment property where faculty and staff are given a preference when apartments are vacant, but where thegeneral public may also be housed.A faculty house is a single-family residencewhere faculty and staff are given preference if itis vacant.A student house is a residence where studentslive as a group.* * *A list of all University property holdings inHyde Park, Kenwood, and Woodlawn is available for inspection.("¦Gilbert L. Lee, Jr.Vice-President forBusiness and Finance59FOUR NEW MEMBERS OF THEBOARD OF TRUSTEESThe election of four new members to the Boardof Trustees at The University of Chicago hasbeen announced by Gaylord Donnelley, Chair-man of the Board.Three of the new members have been electedas Honorary Trustees and are former Presidentsof the University.The four new Trustees are:Marshall Field (publisher of the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Daily News), aTrusteeGeorge W. Beadle (President Emeritus and theWilliam E. Wrather Distinguished ServiceProfessor in the Department of Biology andin the College at The University of Chicago),an Honorary TrusteeRobert M. Hutchins (Chairman of the Boardof Directors of the Fund for the Republic,Inc., and the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, and former President ofthe University), an Honorary TrusteeLawrence A. Kimpton (Assistant to the Chairman and a Director of the Standard Oil Company [Indiana] and former President of theUniversity), an Honorary Trustee* * *Marshall Field has been publisher of theChicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Daily Newssince October, 1969. He was 28 years old whenhe became a publisher and is still the youngestpublisher of a major newspaper in the UnitedStates.During his first year as publisher, both newspapers won Pulitzer Prizes.Field is a trustee of the American NewspaperPublishers Association Foundation, a member ofthe Board of Directors of Junior Achievementin Chicago, the Field Foundation of Illinois, andthe Lyric Opera, and a governing member ofthe Orchestral Association. He also serves astrustee of the Art Institute of Chicago and theField Museum of Natural History.Field's family has long been associated withThe University of Chicago. His father, MarshallField IV, was a University Trustee, his grandfather, Marshall Field III, was an HonoraryTrustee, and his great-great-grandfather, Mar shall Field I, was one of the early benefactorsof the University.George W. Beadle received the Nobel Prizein 1958 for his research on the relation of genesto specific biochemical reactions. He served asPresident of The University of Chicago from1961 until his retirement in November, 1968.During his tenure the University conducted asuccessful $160 million development campaign.Since 1968 he has been a member of the University's faculty and has also served as Directorof the Institute for Biomedical Research of theAmerican Medical Association.A native of Nebraska, Beadle is the co-author(with his wife, Muriel) of The Language ofLife, which was nominated for a National BookAward in 1966 and won the Edison Award asan outstanding Science Book for Youth in 1967.He also is the co-author (with Alfred H. Sturte-vant) of An Introduction to Genetics (1939).Robert M. Hutchins served as President ofThe University of Chicago from 1929 to 1951.He was thirty years old when he was first namedto the position. Prior to joining the University,he served as Dean of the Law School at YaleUniversity.After his 22-year tenure at The University ofChicago, Hutchins became Associate Director ofthe Ford Foundation. In 1954 he became President of the Center for the Study of DemocraticInstitutions.Hutchins is the author of twelve books. He hasreceived numerous honorary degrees from various institutions of higher learning, including anhonorary Doctor of Laws degree from TheUniversity of Chicago in October, 1951.Lawrence A. Kimpton served as President ofThe University of Chicago from 1951 to 1960.During his tenure the University raised $100million in endowment funds.He first began his association with the University in 1943 when he was named Chief Administrative Officer of the Manhattan District'sMetallurgical Laboratory at the University. In1944 he was named Dean of Students and Professor of Philosophy and Education at theUniversity. In 1946 he was named Vice-President and Dean of Faculties.Kimpton has been a Director of the StandardOil Company (Indiana) since 1958 and an executive of the firm since 1960. A native of KansasCity, he received his B.A. and M.A. degreesfrom Stanford University and his Ph.D. fromCornell University.60COMMITTEE ON WOMENSix faculty members and three students at TheUniversity of Chicago have been appointed toa new faculty-student Committee on Women.The institution of the committee was the major recommendation of the Neugarten Report onUniversity Women. Included among its functionswas the responsibility for finding ways of implementing the other recommendations of theNeugarten Report.The faculty members of the committee are:Erica Reiner (Professor in the Department ofNear Eastern Languages and Civilizations, inthe Department of Linguistics, and in theOriental Institute), ChairmanJohn E. Jeuck (the Robert Law Professor andDirector of Business Research in the GraduateSchool of Business)Janel Mueller (Mrs. Ian) (Associate Professorin the Department of English and of CollegeHumanities)Ann Scott (Mrs. Gordon) (Assistant Professorof Music and of College Humanities)Janice B. Spofford (Mrs. R. L.) (AssociateProfessor in the Department of Biology andof Biology in the College)Dr. Ira G. Wool (Professor in the Departmentsof Physiology and Biochemistry)The student members of the Committee are:Susan Hoch (Mrs.) (graduate student in ThePritzker School of Medicine)Anne Petersen (Mrs. Douglas) (graduatestudent in the Department of Education andresident head of Blackstone Hall)Gloria Phares (graduate student in the Department of Linguistics and resident head ofSnell Hall)IN MEMORIAMLothar Meyer, Professor in the Department ofChemistry, in the College, and in the JamesFranck Institute at The University of Chicago,died at 8 p.m. Monday, February 1.A distinguished chemist, Meyer made significant contributions to low temperature research;to research on liquid helium and other rare,condensed gases; and to research on the structurea»d properties of molecular crystals. He served on the faculties of the University ofGottingen and the University of Leiden beforejoining the faculty of The University of Chicagoas a Research Associate in 1946. He becameAssociate Professor in 1949 and Professor in1953. Meyer served as Gauss Professor at theUniversity of Gottingen in 1961 and 1962. Hewas a Fellow of the American Physical Societyand a member of The Faraday Society, London.KARL F. MORRISON NAMEDCHAIRMAN OF THEDEPARTMENT OF HISTORYKarl F. Morrison, Professor of History, has beennamed Chairman of the Department of Historyat The University of Chicago.The appointment was announced by John T.Wilson, Provost of the University.Morrison, an authority on medieval history,joined the faculty as an Associate Professor ofHistory in July, 1965 and was appointed a fullProfessor in 1968.He succeeds John Hope Franklin, the JohnMatthews Manly Distinguished Service Professorin the Department of History, who served aschairman for three years. Franklin will continueas a faculty member of the University.Commenting on the appointment, RobertMcC. Adams, Dean of the Division of the Social Sciences, said:The University is extremely fortunate that ascholar of Professor Morrison's stature hasagreed to assume this critical position ofleadership. We warmly welcome this exceptionally strong appointment.LESTER E. ASHEIM APPOINTEDPROFESSOR IN THEGRADUATE LIBRARY SCHOOLLester E. Asheim, currently Director of theOffice for Library Education, American LibraryAssociation, Chicago, has been appointed aProfessor in the Graduate Library School. Theappointment is effective June 1, 1971.Asheim received a Ph.D. degree from theGraduate Library School, and was a member ofits faculty from 1948 to 1961, serving as Deanfrom 1950 to 1961. He resigned in 1961 to serveas Director of the International Relations Officeof the American Library Association and became Director of the Office for Library Education in 1966.61RECENT PUBLICATIONS BYMEMBERS OF THE FACULTYCenter for Policy Study, Vietnam: Which Wayto Peace (University of Chicago, 1970)Donald A. Erickson (Associate Professor ofEducation), The Crisis in Illinois NonpublicSchools (State of Illinois: Elementary andSecondary Nonpublic Schools Study Commission, 1971)William E. Henry (Professor of Psychologyand in the Committee on Human Development), John H. Sims (Assistant Professor ofPsychiatry and in the College), and S. LeeSpray (former faculty member), The FifthProfession: Becoming a Psychotherapist (Jos-sey-Bass, Inc.)Philip B. Kurland (Professor of Law), Politics, the Constitution, and the Warren Court(University of Chicago Press, 1970)Robert H. Nee (Associate Professor in theSchool of Social Service Administration) (co-editor), Theories of Social Casework (University of Chicago Press, 1971)Gibson Winter (Professor of Ethics and Society in the Divinity School), Being Free: Reflections on America's Cultural Revolution(Macmillan, 1970)ALUMNI CABINET ISSCHEDULED TO MEETThe Alumni Cabinet, the governing body of theAlumni Association, will meet February 25, 26, and 27 at the Center for Continuing EducationIt is estimated that eighty or ninety of the 15omembers will attend. Activities scheduled includeattending classes in the College, lunching withstudents, a business meeting, and workshops inalumni affairs. Resident masters Walter Walker(Vice President for Planning and AssociateProfessor in the School of Social Service Administration), Wayne C. Booth (George M.Pullman Professor in the Department of Englishand the College), and Kenneth Northcott (Professor and Chairman of the Department ofGermanic Languages and Literatures and Professor in the College) will discuss "What'sHappening on Campus" on Saturday, February27 at the Center for Continuing Education.Alumni will be shown the film "A Very SpecialPlace" and hear a talk by Provost John T. Wilson on "The State of the University."DR. LUIS A. CIBILS NAMEDMARY CAMPAU RYERSON PROFESSORDr. Luis A. Cibils has been appointed the MaryCampau Ryerson Professor in the Department ofObstetrics and Gynecology of The University ofChicago's Division of the Biological Sciencesand The Pritzker School of Medicine.The appointment, effective December 1, 1970,was announced by Edward H. Levi, President ofthe University, who said:Dr. Cibils' appointment is both a small indication of the high esteem in which he isheld by his colleagues and a recognition ofhis many contributions to scholarship and tothe University.RADIO-TV PROGRAMMINGFebruary 15-21— PERSPECTIVES, WLS-TV, Channel 7, 6:30 a.m. Informal discussions of contemporary interest, with University of Chicago faculty and others. RanletLincoln, Dean of the University Extension Division, is moderator.February 19— UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO ROUND TABLE, WTTW-TV, Channel 11, 7:30p.m. "Cable TV." Paul Wigoda, Alderman of the 49th Ward and Chairman ofthe Finance Subcommittee on Miscellaneous Matters, and Norman Mark, radioand television columnist for the Chicago Daily News, with Kenneth Northcott,Professor and Chairman, Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures andProfessor in the College, as moderator.62February 20— FROM THE MIDWAY, WNIB Radio, 97.1 FM, 11:00 a.m. "Utopian Speculation," B. F. Skinner, Professor of Psychology, Harvard University; and "TheBetterment of Society," Kenneth Boulding, Professor of Economics, Universityof Colorado.CONVERSATIONS AT CHICAGO, WNIB, 97.1 FM, 8:00 p.m. "Renewing ourEnvironment," Gladwin Hill, environmental correspondent, New York Times;Stephen Berry, Professor of Chemistry, University of Chicago; and GeorgeTolley, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago.February 21— FROM THE MIDWAY, WBBM, 96.3 FM, 7:00 a.m.; WAIT, 820 AM, 10:00a.m.; and WFMF, 100.3 FM, 7:00 a.m. "Science, Society, and Survival," GeraldFeinberg, Professor of Physics, Columbia University; and "A ThermodynamicAnalysis of Society," Stephen Berry, Professor of Chemistry, University of Chicago.CONVERSATIONS AT CHICAGO, WAIT, 820 AM, 9:00 a.m.; WWEL, 93.9FM, 6:00 a.m.; and WBBM, 96.3 FM, 8:30 p.m. "Violence in America," HansMattick, Co-Director of the Center for Studies in Criminal Justice, University ofChicago; John Spiegel, Director of the Lemberg Center for the Study of Violence,Brandeis University; and Franklin Zimring, Associate Professor of Law, University of Chicago.February 22-28— PERSPECTIVES, WLS-TV, Channel 7, 6:30 a.m. (See February 15-21.)February 27— FROM THE MIDWAY, WNIB, 97.1 FM, 11:00 a.m. "Science, Society, and Survival," and "A Thermodynamic Analysis of Society" (see February 21).CONVERSATIONS AT CHICAGO, WNIB, 97.1 FM, 8:00 p.m. "Violence inAmerica" (see February 21).February 28 — WMAQ-TV, 12:30 p.m., "A Very Special Place," a film about the University ofChicago.FROM THE MIDWAY, WBBM, 96.3 FM, 7:00 a.m.; WAIT, 820 AM, 10:00a.m.; WFMF, 100.3 FM, 7:00 a.m. "Scientific Method in the Romantic Period,"L. Pearce Williams, Professor of History, Cornell University.CONVERSATIONS AT CHICAGO, WAIT, 820 AM, 9:00 a.m.; WWEL, 93.9FM, 6:00 a.m.; and WBBM, 96.3 FM, 8:30 p.m. "Morality and the Law," NorvalMorris, Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Studies in CriminalJustice, University of Chicago; Joseph Sittler, Professor of Theology in theDivinity School, University of Chicago; and Nat Lehrman, Assistant ManagingEditor, Playboy, with Kenneth Northcott, Professor and Chairman, Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures, and Professor in the College, asmoderator.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDOFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRSRoom 300, Administration Building63HXmam*-<Hooo>oomoO0osr8orgoooasu>n Zm ± c o35 n ¦fl£ > TJ cn O3>zPp p > "VOcn o5si a -i>O a3<N*O22 mcn 3