No. 04, September 21 issue

1937 users shared this document! click

UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA Tuesday,
September 21, 1999
Volume 46 Number 4
www.upenn.edu/almanac Black Literature Center: Dr. Awkward Dr. Michael Awkward, professor of English, has been named di- rector of the Center for the Study of Black Literature and Culture. He
succeeds the founding director, Dr. Houston F. Baker, who is now
professor of English at Duke University. Michael has a clear and thoughtful vision for building on the Centers tradition of scholarly excellence in black cultural studies,
said SAS Dean Samuel Preston in announcing the appointment. We
are excited about his plans and look forward to seeing him bring
them to fruition. Dr. Awkward, who graduated cum laude from Brandeis Univer- sity in 1980, came to Penn for his M.A. (1982) and his Ph.D., awarded
in 1986. He then joined the faculty of the University of Michigan as
an assistant professor, was promoted to tenure in 1990, and by 1995
he was full professor of English and Afro-American and African Stud-
ies there. He also headed Michigans Center for Afro-American and
African Studies for three years, 1993-96, and served on Michigans
Faculty Senate as well as on numerous committees there. He became widely known for his writing on contemporary black literature and criticism, with special emphasis on gender issues, publishing numerous articles and several major books
during his Michigan years. Among these are Negotiating Difference: Inspiriting Influences:
Tradition, Revision, and Afro-American Womens Novels (Columbia 1989, also issued in Japa-
nese by Sairyusha in 1993) and Negotiating Difference: Race, Gender and the Politics of
Positionality (Chicago 1995). He also edited New Essays on Their Eyes Were Watching God,
published in 1990 as part of Cambridge University Presss series on The American Novel. In
progress are Shores of Knowing: Writing a Black Male Life and, with Nicole Brittingham, Ah
Save de Text for You: Reading Afro-American Literary Traditions, 1975-1995. Michael Awkward Penn Health Senior VP Administration: Dr. Ferniany Dr. William N. Kelley, Dean of Medicine and CEO of the Penn Health System, has appointed to the newly created position of Senior
Vice President for Administrative Services Dr. I. William Ferniany,
who has been senior vice president for professional services. In his new post Dr. Ferniany oversees marketing, medical af- fairs, information Services,telecommunications, human resources,
facilities, venture and industry relations, and support services,
which includes liaison to Penn Tower, Dr. Kelley noted. He is also responsible for the subspecialty networks, affiliates, and clinical service groups, as well for the PennMed satellites at
Radnor and Limerick. He remains acting director of the Clinical
Practices (CPUP) of the University of Pennsylvania until a new
executive director is named. Those of you who have worked with Will in his various UPHS roles over the years are well aware of his creative resourcefulness
and his wide-ranging experience, said Dr. Kelley. He has been,
in short, a person who gets the job done. We are confident that he
will be a valuable contributor in helping us solve the challenges
now facing us. Dr. Ferniany came to Penn in 1992 from the University of Alabama, where he took his three degreesa B.S. in manpower and industrial relations in 1973, M.S. in hospital and health
administration in 1975, and Ph.D. in administration and health services in 1984, when he was
vice president for planning and development at Healthcare Services of America. He was later
CEO of HASs Hill Crest Hospital before returning to his alma mater in 1998. University Council Agenda Wednesday, September 22, 1999, 4-6 p.m. McClelland Hall, The Quadrangle Observers must register their interest by calling the
Office of the Secretary in advance, (215) 898-5274.
PENNCard is required to enter the Quad. I. Approval of April 28, 1999, minutes (1 minute).
II. Status Reports of President, Provost, and Chairs of Steering, GAPSA, UA, PPSA and A-3 As-
sembly (25 minutes). III.Appointment of Moderator (2 minutes).
IV. Selection and ranking of focus issues for Coun- cil for the academic year (20 minutes).The fol-
lowing issues were suggested at the April 28,
1999, Council meeting: A. Follow up on womens safety issues
B. Safety for community across campus
C. Minority recruitment and retention, especially consistency with financial aid D. Compare statistics for people of color and varied ethnicity in 1997-98 to 1998-99 E. Pluralism report on financial aid
F. Graduate/professional student service relationship to undergraduates living on
campus V. Committee charges for the academic year 1999- 2000 (25 minutes). VI. Remaining 1998-1999 year-end committee reports (3-5 minutes each, 10 minutes discussion each): A. Admissions and Financial Aid
B. Bookstore
C. Facilities VII. Adjournment by 6 p.m. La Casa Latina: With its opening ceremony today, Penns new Center for Hispanic Excellence sets out
to celebrate and support Hispanic culture...and
the academic success of Latino students. All faculty,
staff and students are welcome at the ribbon-cutting,
4 p.m. at Westminster House (above) adjacent to the
colonnade of Iron Gate Theater, 3700 Chestnut Street. Lasker Prize: Next Week At the request of a Penn faculty member who is to receive the Albert
and Mary Lasker Foundations 1999
Basic Medical Research Award, Alma-
nac will honor the Foundations re-
lease date of September 26. The story
will appear here September 28.Eds. IN THIS ISSUE 2 Faculty Retirement Options (Lowery);
Memorial Dates: Drs. Ginsberg, Hildebrand;
Careers in Academe; Speaking Out 3 Speaking Out: Disputed Malpractice Case 4 SASs Proposed Pilot Curriculum:
Give Three Cheers and Go Ahead (Hackney) 6 Faculty Retirement Options; Update 7 CrimeStats; Bulletins 8 Y2K: Much Done, Much to Do (Kearney) William Ferniany Almanac Photo M.F .M. Almanac September 21, 1999 2 Faculty Retirement Options: Early or Phased Dear Colleagues, I am writing to remind faculty that the University of Pennsylvania has an early retirement program for faculty and a phased retirement program with a new feature
this year. I am also writing to provide you with information on financial planning
services available to employees. The Faculty Income Allowance Program A brochure on the Faculty Income Allowance Program (FIAP) is reprinted for your review on page 6 of this issue. This program is available to tenured members
of the standing faculty and senior members of the Clinician Educator faculty (as-
sociate and full professor) who are at least age 62 but not yet age 69 and who have
served at least 15 years in full-time service at the University at the time of their
retirement. In addition, tenured faculty members and senior clinician-educators
who will not have completed fifteen years of full-time service at the University
until after reaching age 69 may retire under the terms of the program at the time
they complete fifteen years of service. The program provides an income allowance to the faculty member equal to 165% of the average academic base salary for full professors in his or her school
during the year immediately preceding retirement. The allowance is paid in 24
equal monthly installments beginning the first month after retirement. The pro-
gram also provides continued group term life insurance and dental insurance over the
two-year period following retirement; medical insurance through the University pro-
grams with the same cost-sharing arrangement as for active faculty members until the
retired faculty member reaches Medicare eligibility age; and continued dependent
tuition benefits for eligible dependent children. University contributions to tax-de-
ferred annuity will not continue after payments from the retirement income allowance
program begin. Phased Retirement Since 1991, the University has had a Reduction in Duties policy that allows faculty to request a phased-in retirement. The language from the Handbook is
also on page 6 of this issue. Reductions in anticipation of a move to emeritus
status may be granted for a period not to exceed 6 years. Such reductions may be
for 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, or 50% of full duties. Such reductions are accompa-
nied by a proportional reduction in salary and in those benefits that are salary-
based. Beginning in academic year 1999-2000, faculty who formally enroll in a
phased retirement option and who are at least 59 1/2 years of age will be able to
begin to withdraw funds from their tax-deferred annuity. The amount to be with-
drawn will be decided by the faculty member and the tax-deferred plan carrier.
Participation in the phased retirement program does not preclude participation in
the FIAP program for those who are eligible for that program. Individual Financial Planning for Retirement Individual financial planning for retirement is available through Vanguard (Mr. Robert Geiger, 610-669-4040); TIAA-CREF ( Mr. Lewis Burley, 215-587-8526); and
American Express (Mr. Barney Carter, 1-800-220-2190). All three providers offer the
first session at no cost. Thereafter the pricing of the services, payable by the faculty
member, will depend on the complexity of his or her finances. Prices can be discussed
during the complimentary session. More information can be obtained by accessing
the Human Resources website at www.hr.upenn.edu and clicking the Links icon. Barbara J. Lowery, Associate Provost Speaking Out welcomes reader contributions. Short, timely letters on University issues can be accepted by Thursday at noon for the following Tuesdays issue, subject to right-of-reply guidelines. Advance notice of intention to submit is appreciated.Ed. Speaking Out Careers in Academe: September 22, 28-29 To register for the 11th annual career conference sponsored by
Career Services and the Deputy Provost (below), call (215)
898-7530 or e-mail heiberg@pobox.upenn.edu. Going on the Academic Job Market September 22, McNeil Building, Room 285-86 4-4:30 p.m. Issues in Higher Education; J. Douglas Toma, IRHE and University of Missouri-Kansas City; 4:30-5:15 p.m. Interviewing for Academic Jobs: What to Expect; Amita Sehgal, neuroscience, Howard Hughes Medical Institute; Su-
san Meyer, philosophy; 5:15-6:30 p.m. The Academic Job Search: Hiring from the Search Committees Perspective; Dan Tompkins, Greek, Hebrew & Roman
Classics, Temple; Cindy Giddle, English, CCP; Lisa Traynor, math-
ematics, Bryn Mawr; Paul Sniegowski, biology. The Doctoral Students Tool Kit:
A Program for Second-Year-Plus Students September 28, Logan Hall, Room 17 4-5 p.m. Assembling a Dissertation Committee and Finishing in a Timely Manner; Yvonne Paterson, microbiology; Barbie Zelizer,
communication; 5-5:45 p.m. The Importance of Teaching; Walter Licht, history and associate dean, SAS; Carl Sequist, graduate student Teaching
Resource Network; 5:45-6:30 p.m. Writing a Strong Funding Application; Ted Abel, biology. Job Hunting Issues September 29, McNeil Building, Room 285-86 4-5 p.m. Non-Tenure Track Positions and Surviving One-Year Positions; Tom Whitman, music and dance, Swarthmore; Michael
Powell, history, Bryn Mawr; 5-6:30 p.m. Dual Career Couples and Academic Jobs; Lori Flanagan-Cato, psychology; Matthew Stone, computer science,
Rutgers; Joseph Farrell, Classical studies, associate dean/graduate
studies, SAS; Janet Tighe, history and sociology of science. Shocking But True! I am an alumna and an employee of the University, and I would like to share a little
story with the Penn community. Perhaps for
some of you this may not sound so shocking.
However, I have astonished many people by
telling them this story. It happened on the evening of May 17 right on the Penn campus. It was a big day for
my family since my favorite niece had gradu-
ated from SAS that day and we were all
happily looking forward to celebrating over
a big family dinner in Center City. As soon as we arrived at the restaurant one of the guests, who had flown all the way
from California for the occasion, sadly an-
nounced that he seemed to have lost his gift for the graduate. He remembered having put
it in his suit pocket. The gift was $500.00 in
cash enclosed in a greeting card with only the
first name of my niece written on it. However, we did not let that ruin our evening. I was sure that I was going to find
the gift in my messy, paper-cluttered car. But
when I looked, it wasnt there. About a month later my niece stopped by to see me and she told me that her lost gift was
foundall $500.00 of it was handed to her
by a student of Fine Arts at Penn. The honest
finder had found the envelope on the street
near 34th and Chestnut, and had gone to the
trouble to search for my nieces full name
and whereaboutsand miraculously, she had
been successful. To show her appreciation, my niece tried to give her a gift from the money in the
envelope, but she graciously refused to ac-
cept anything. Today I would like to address this very dignified person and thank her for what she
did. I only wish I could be politically incor-
rect and reveal her name here in bold letters
and tell her how heartening it is to know that
there are still good people like her in this
world who may inspire others. But I must
control myself and be politically correct!
Please allow me to salute her here for her
kindness. Shiva Vakili, Asian & Middle Eastern Studies and Van Pelt Library Staff Speaking Out continues on page 3. Memorial Services: September 27, October 1 All faculty, students and staff are invited to the memo- rial services for two distinguished members of the faculty
whose deaths occurred this summer (see Almanac Septem-
ber 7 for details of their careers.) Dr. Ralph Ginsberg: For the noted sociologist who chaired GSEs educational leadership division at the time
of his death, the service will be Monday, September 27, at
4 p.m. in the Zellerbach Theatre of the Annenberg Center. Dr. David Hildebrand: The eminent statistics profes- sor who chaired the Faculty Senate in 1992-93 will be re-
membered Friday, October 1, at 2 p.m. in 17 Logan Hall. Almanac September 21, 1999 3 A Disputed Malpractice Case I am writing this letter to explain to the University faculty, students, trustees, alumni
and any other interested parties why it be-
came necessary for an emeritus tenured Medi-
cal School faculty member with 25 years of
service to sue the University of Pennsylvania
(and win!). This is a story of callous disre-
gard for the rights, welfare and professional
reputation of an employee. It bespeaks a
thought process that one would think foreign
to any institution claiming to value free
thought, knowledge and truth. HUP, several other physicians and I were sued in 1993 for medical malpractice in the
care of a patient during 1991. I retired in 1995
and moved to South Carolina. Trial was sched-
uled for October 1998. A pretrial meeting
was scheduled to discuss defense strategy
with the trial attorney. Several days before
the meeting, he called to tell me that HUP
had, in effect, decided that I was guilty, and
they were preparing to offer settlement in the
amount of up to $1,000,000. Their fallback
position was that I certainly could not win at
trial before a Philadelphia jury a euphe-
mism that I leave for them to define. This
decision was made without ever discussing
the case with me, the primary defendant, or
seeking my opinion. I told him that I rejected
this decision because in my professional opin-
ion no malpractice had occurred, and the
facts in the case refuted the allegations of the
plaintiffs experts. I demanded that the pretrial
meeting be held, not only with him but with
someone from HUP present. Such a meeting
was held (9/18/98), but from the outset it was
apparent to me that nothing I could say would
change their minds. Over my objection and
despite the many critical facts I brought to their
attention, of which they were by their own
admission completely unaware, they said they
were going to proceed with settlement. I had no
say in the matter. I was both amazed and disgusted by the medical and intellectual thought process
which produced this decision. As instructed,
on 9/21/98 I submitted my expenses for my
trip to Philadelphia (9/17/98 - 9/19/98) and I
then proceeded to attempt to protect my in-
terests. Agreeing to the settlement certainly
would have made my life much easier, and I
would not have had to eventually spend a
total of 19 days away from home and my
other very remunerative work for these legal
proceedings. For me, it was simply a matter
of conscience and principle to defend my
professional reputation and the truth. No
matter whether any award was $1.00 or
$100,000,000, I was not personally liable for
even a penny. However, I was also aware that
my former colleagues at HUP and the other
physicians of Pennsylvania would eventu-
ally have to pay the proposed amount of up to
$1,000,000. The settlement would have required the cooperation of the PA CAT FUND, a state
mandated coinsurance fund financed by a
surcharge on the basic malpractice insurance
premium paid by the physician. Under provi-
sions in force at that time, the first $200,000
of a $1,000,000 payment would be paid by Penn (the primary insurer) and the next
$800,000 by the CAT FUND. Given the
intellectual and procedural intransigence of
the Med School, I realized that my only hope
to defend my professional reputation at trial
rested with the CAT FUND. Therefore, I
petitioned the CAT FUND to reject the plan
by refusing to ante up the large sum required.
There followed many lengthy letters and
long-distance phone calls. Unlike the Med
School, which professed no need to hear my
opinions, the CAT FUND attorneys ques-
tioned, listened, decided that my arguments
had merit and refused to participate in any
settlement. If the University was able to get
agreement on a settlement not to exceed
$200,000, then they could proceed, and I had
no say or rights at all. No settlement was reached. I returned to Philadelphia on 10/23/98 for the first day of
a 16-day trial, returning home 11/7/98 while
the jury was still deliberating. On 11/9/98 the
jury issued its verdict, awarding nothing to
the plaintiff. That same day I submitted my
second bill for expenses and requested prompt
payment for the first bill I had submitted 7
weeks before. By now I had spent 19 days away
from home for the two trips and had expended
almost $10,000 in personal funds for transpor-
tation, meals, hotel, etc. related to this trial. Still not having received any payment by 12/17/98 (3 months after the first bill and 1 1/2
months after the second), I wrote to Bill Kelley
requesting immediate payment. From the very
beginning, he had been involved in the deci-
sion process and had received copies of all
correspondence. On 1/4/99 I did receive a
check for about 70% of what was owed me,
leaving a balance due of $2729.38. That
same day I sent lengthy explanatory letters
with attached full documentation of what had
transpired to Roy Vagelos and Judith Rodin
with the request that they look into this issue
and help to bring it to resolution. Neither
responded. Ten days later, I did receive a
letter from HUP stating that they would be
sending me a check for $1839.37 within
several weeks, but still leaving an unpaid
balance of $890.01. This latter sum was for
the cost of over 40 meals plus snacks and
refreshments which was disallowed. They
did pay for 16 meals, mostly dinners, for the
19 days away from home. No check was forthcoming over the next 6 weeks. On 2/26/99 I again wrote to Judith
Rodin demanding immediate payment or I
would seek other recourse. Again, no re-
sponse. I filed a lawsuit on 3/18/99 in Phila-
delphia Municipal Court. On 5/4/99 I did
receive the check for $1839.37 promised 4
months before. Miraculously, this check
was issued 10 days after the subpoenas for
the trial were served. The trial was held on 5/12/99. Prior to the closing, the lawyer hired by Penn for its
defense was asked a rhetorical question by
Judge Krase as to what seemed to make the
hierarchy at Penn so angry with me and what
motivated them to behave as they did, given
that I had saved almost $1,000,000 by insist-
ing on a successful trial. He also said that he
found Penns actions from the beginning to
be unbelievable and disgraceful. He added that he and his children were alumni of Penn. The judge issued his decision 2 weeks later. He awarded me the entire $890.01 still
owed, interest, court costs and my expenses
for returning for this trial. Penn now owes me
$2552.51. Of course, they also had to pay for
the services of the attorney whom they hired
for the trial. I dont know what that bill came
to, but I understand that Philadelphia lawyers
dont come cheap, even if they lose at trial to
a layman representing himself. This crazy story is not yet over. On 6/19/ 99 I was informed by Penn that they were
appealing Judge Krases decision. No basis
for the appeal was given. A legion of experi-
enced trial lawyers, both here and in Phila-
delphia, are dumbfounded by this action!
The bill for the University is growingmore
legal fees and more expenses. The trial is
scheduled for 9/29/99. I have no doubt that I
will prevail again. It is legitimate to question the relevance of the issues in this saga to faculty, students,
other employees and alumni. So far, the sums
involved are small, but the principles loom
large. What has transpired with this faculty
member can be translated to treatment of any
employee. Furthermore, as Judge Krase sug-
gested, one must wonder what psychic pro-
file is involved in such decision-making. I
will defer that analysis to my better qualified
former colleagues in the Psychiatry Depart-
ment. Finally, one must question whether squan-
dering funds derived from tuition fees, alumni
donations, and endowment principal or income
to perpetuate their own private agendas at the
expense of the institution represents the appro-
priate fiduciary role of top University officials. HUP, as almost all academic medical centers, has serious financial problems as a
result of revolutionary changes in healthcare
financing. There are huge operating losses,
job cuts have been announced, and salary
increases may have to be cut or eliminated.
Many individuals and families will be seri-
ously adversely impacted. Given this setting,
does HUPs role in this affair represent pru-
dent fiscal policy, let alone, just simply de-
cent behavior? If a response to this statement is to be forthcoming, one should look to see who will
provide it. Will it be Bill Kelley? Will it be
Judith Rodin? Or, will some subordinate, not
responsible for the decisions, be saddled with
the task of explaining this novella? Karl Engelman, M.D. Emeritus Associate Professor of Medicine Speaking Out continued Response to Dr. Engelman The Office of the General Counsel notes that it strongly disagrees with Dr. Engelmans
account of the management of the medical
malpractice action in which he was involved
and the dispute regarding reimbursement of his
expenses. Inasmuch as both matters are still in
litigation, however, the University is not in a
position to comment other than to note that Dr.
Engelman was fully reimbursed for those ex-
penses which qualified for reimbursement in
accordance with the applicable reimbursement
policies. Peter Erichsen, Vice President and General Counsel, University and HUP Almanac September 21, 1999 4 DISCUSSION On The Colleges Proposed Curriculum Give Three Cheers and Go Ahead by Sheldon Hackney In April the School of Arts and Sciences Committee on Undergraduate Education (CUE) presented to the SAS Faculty
a proposal to exempt some 200 members of the Class of 2004 from the current General Education Requirements, and give
them instead a pilot curriculum outlined by the Committee (see summary at right). The following comments on that proposed
curriculum were written originally for the Talk About Teaching series presented monthly on Almanac<i>s back cover by The
College in cooperation with the Lindback Society. Too long for the one-page format of Talk About Teaching, the discussion
was moved to this space and is open to comment by other members of the University, either directly to Dr. Frank Warner,
chair of CUE, at fwarner@math.upenn.edu, or for publication to Almanac. Dr. Hackney is the former president of the
University who returned to the faculty last year after chairing the National Endowment for the Humanities.Ed. Having participated in the vigorous year- long deliberations of the Committee on Under-
graduate Education, I was a little disappointed
that the Faculty Meeting of the School of Arts
and Sciences did not simply give three cheers
and vote to move ahead with the pilot curriculum
that CUE had proposed. Instead, the Faculty
authorized continued and more detailed plan-
ning, but it wants to consider the proposal again
in December in the light of additional planning
and what it hopes will be a substantial discussion
throughout the fall term. This outcome is certainly reasonable. Cur- ricular changes are always difficult because the
faculty is full of very smart and caring people,
each of whom has his own ideas about under-
graduate education, and each of whom sees the
task from a particular disciplinary vantage point.
It would therefore be astounding if any large
new idea about the course of study were not
controversial. Furthermore, it soon occurred to
me that the faculty in general had not had the
benefit of the lengthy discussions in which I took
part as a member of CUE. With hopes of further-
ing the important discussion of the pilot curricu-
lum, I will sketch here some thoughts that have
brought me to the point of being very enthusias-
tic about the proposed pilot curriculum. Even though much of the controversy has centered on the general education component, it
is important to see the pilot curriculum as a full
set of degree requirements, not just a new scheme
of four courses for the general education compo-
nent. The pilot curriculum includes the major,
newly mandating a research or equivalent com-
ponent; the fundamental skills requirements with
an oral communications component added to the
writing requirement; proficiency in a foreign
language, as in the present curriculum; the new
general education requirement; and electives.
One of the real attractions of the pilot curriculum
is that it provides a much more generous allot-
ment of electives, allowing students greater range
and creativity in structuring an educational ex-
perience to suit their aspirations and interests. The modern world is such that we can not possibly reach agreement about what an edu-
cated person should know in the 21st century. It
is a poor faculty member who cannot make a
compelling case that her discipline is a must for
any educated person. We have only 32 courses
with which to work. Some current programs
demand 36, but they are even more crowded than
the 32-course degree programs. Within this 32-
course curriculum, we must accommodate the
major, a foreign language, the fundamental skills
(quantitative analysis, writing, and speaking),
the general education component, and electives.
I believe that we could easily fill a 64-course curriculum with courses for which a convincing
argument could be made that each one is a
must for a well-educated citizen of the 21st
century. Because this approach is so clearly
impossible, we have to think in new ways about
the undergraduate educational experience. In particular, we have to think of general education in new ways, bearing in mind that it is
only a part of each students course of study. It
must not be expected to do all of the work of the
curriculum. We also need to bear in mind that
our students come to us already well exposed to
various branches of knowledge and ways of
thinking. In a real sense, our entrance require-
ments are part of our course of study. There are several useful attitudes to have in thinking about general education: a. General education should excite students about learning, and it should give them a sense of
the vastness of the terrain of accumulated human
knowledge. Finding joy and some fulfillment in
the exploration of that terrain is one of the goals of
the general education experience. b. The general education component should help students situate themselves in the world of
today. c. The general education component should make students conversant with the major ideas
that are at play in the contemporary world, includ-
ing something of the evolution of those ideas.
Subject matter from the sciences, social sciences,
humanities and arts should be included. d. There is no unique solution to this task. In fact, if the courses are well taught, there will be
many good solutions. e. It is important to focus upon subjects, or possibly modes of inquiry, and not upon disci-
plines. This is not the place to show off disciplin-
ary prowess, nor to try to give students training in
the methodology of any particular discipline. The
challenges and potential pitfalls involved in the
creation of new knowledge will be explored in
depth in the major. The real world is not divided
into disciplines, nor should be the general educa-
tion requirement. We must confront the claim that the science content of the proposed four courses will do no
more than teach about science, rather than
having students learn by doing science. This
one issue occupied a major part of the CUEs
discussions last spring. I accept the assertion that students learn some- thing entirely different, and perhaps more valu-
able, when they do science, as opposed to
studying about it. The same is true of my own
discipline, history. There is a sense in which one
cant be a critical consumer of historical narra-
tives, analyses and other texts intended to con-
vey some understanding of the past unless one
has participated in the process of creating new historical knowledge from primary source mate-
rial. I suppose this is true in every discipline, and
it is apparently felt acutely by scientists. The problem is that science is so important in the contemporary world that we all need to be
conversant with an impossibly wide range of
scientific exploration. Our ways of understand-
ing the natural world, our notions of the meaning
or lack of meaning of human life, our source of
metaphor through which we express and shape our
conceptions of reality and are in turn shaped by
them, our economic enterprises, our policies about
the physical environment, and other fundamen-
tally important aspects of living in the 21st century
derive heavily from the sciences. The dilemma is
that there is simply too much. Molecular biology is pervasive throughout the life sciences, so one cannot hope to under-
stand much of what is transpiring in those areas
of knowledge without some sense of molecular
biology. Mapping the human genome is an ex-
citing collective project that holds out the prom-
ise of fundamental advances in medicine through
gene therapy. We are at the same time excited by
a steady flow of new observations and cosmo-
logical theories having to do with the origin of
the universe. New terms from the sciences have
crept into our everyday vocabulary: big bang,
black holes, supernova, etc. At the other end of
the scale, particle physics is pursuing knowl-
edge about the smallest units of matter, and we
are fascinated by quarks and neutrinos. Is it
practical to find a clean source of energy through
controlling nuclear fusion? The origins of life,
and the notion of human evolution, are still
causing controversy in the political arena, even
as new pieces to the puzzle are being found and
evaluated. The relationship between religious
faith and scientific knowledge is again a lively
conversation in the public arena. Plate tectonics
provides an essential way of understanding the
geography of the earth. How can we hope to
understand the current discussions of global
warming, climate shifts, the threat to tropical
forests and to species of plants and animals, not
to mention the threat to ecological systems on
which we depend for life? Is acid rain a threat?
What are the possible cures, and what are the
consequences of those cures? Do fluorocarbons
threaten the atmosphere? How many people can
this good earth support in steady state? Any one of those areas of knowledge, and many others to which I have not alluded, would
justify a lifelong career of investigation, yet one
could easily argue that ordinary non-specialists
also need some sense of the state of knowledge
in each of them in order to function productively
as responsible citizens. Of course, the four col-
lege years are not the only time when one can Almanac September 21, 1999 5 Summary of the CUE Report on a Pilot Curriculum for Undergraduates in the Arts and Sciences learn what one needs to know, and no individuals
course of study can possibly contain courses that
allow the student to do science in all of the
important areas. We have to make choices about
how to compromise. I have no reason to doubt those who believe that a student who does freshman chemistry,
for instance, including a lab, will somehow have
a better understanding of physics and biology
and biochemistry and neuroscience and psy-
chology and the claims made by scientists in
other areas. That may suggest that scientists
have a different kind of knowledge from non-
scientific scholars, that they think in a way that
is different from humanists and social scientists
but that is shared among scientists in widely
disparate fields. I am suspicious of this claim, I
confess, while being profoundly aware of the
vast areas of specific knowledge and specific
techniques for gathering data in which I am
deficient. I would not ask anyone to accept my
side of that argument. For current purposes, the
relevant thing is that many of our science-averse
students now manage to avoid the sort of do-
ing of science that would count with most
science faculty. I think it would be a gain,
therefore, for those students to take two courses
in the pilot curriculum that are specifically de-
signed to introduce students rigorously to the
important scientific ideas that are shaping our
thinking about our world. In evaluating the pilot
curriculum, we should compare the impact of
this approach with what we achieve through our
current curriculum. Whether or not science dis-
ciplines are selected for the use of free electives
will also provide a significant measure. What to do about science-adept students has been a matter of intense discussion within CUE.
I think that well-taught courses within the four-
course general education component of the pilot
curriculum would be both interesting and prof-
itable for science-adept students, but perhaps
this is an area for collegial compromise in view
of the strong feeling of some faculty that sci-
ence-adept students would be bored by the gen-
eral education courses that deal with science.
There is also the problem that foundation re-
quirements for science majors leave little room
for electives in the first two years. In the pro-
posed pilot curriculum, therefore, there is a
science track that I wish it didnt have but am
willing to support because I am convinced the
pilot curriculum as a whole provides such an
exciting step forward. Besides, there is always
the possibility that I am wrong. There are also a host of pragmatic doubts about the pilot. Will the College be able to staff
the four general education courses with an ad-
equate number of enthusiastic faculty? Can we
design an evaluation process that will tell us in
three or four years whether the pilot has been
successful? Even if it is successful, will it be
possible to scale the pilot curriculum up to
accommodate an entire class? These are serious
questions, and it is good that we are facing them
early so that we can try to solve those problems
in our planning. Finally, however, the pilot curriculum is an experiment. Its outcome is uncertain. I am among
those who think the promises of the pilot cur-
riculum are so substantial that we ought to give
it our best try. _____________ 1 The full text is on the web at www.sas.upenn.edu/faculty. 2 Students who believe that they will be science majors or who are preparing for medical careers
will complete the courses in categories 1, 2 and 4 in their first three semesters. If by the middle
of the sophomore year they are still planning a science major or medical career and have
completed a two-course sequence in the physical or life sciences, then they can be exempted
from course category 3. CUEs proposal for a pilot curriculum 1 starts with a premise that the highly motivated and highly selected students who choose Penn have already used their secondary education to
develop distinctive interests and numerous competences, and are ready to enjoy the freedom
both to develop their existing interests and to explore new areasmaking it worthwhile to
experiment with a more compact and well-focused learning experience in the freshman and
sophomore years, the Report says. Such an experience may help our students develop a
reflective attitude towards fundamental issues in human conduct, inquiry, and artistic
expression that will help them become aware of the different disciplines by which many issues
can be approached in a research university, and yet will leave them the freedom that they need
to pursue their diverse and demanding intellectual interests. Another premise is that students who choose The College are distinguished by an eagerness and creativity that find expression in diverse program options such as interdisci-
plinary majors, multiple majors, dual degree programs, and other ambitious and demanding
courses of study. The Committee adds that it is vital that our curriculum continue to foster
these forms of student creativity while providing a shared basis for the development of the
critical practices of inquiry and reflection. Noting that what it proposes is intended to be suggestive, but not definitive, of the direction in which our curriculum innovations might move, CUE recommends: 1. Beginning in the fall of the year 2000, approximately 200 freshmen each year for the next five years be exempted from current general education requirements
(www.college.upenn.edu) in the College of Arts and Sciences. 2. Students so exempted will satisfy a new set of requirements that will be designed by the Committee on Undergraduate Education working in concert with other SAS
subcommittees and individual faculty. The pilot curriculum accompanying these
resolutions is intended to be a starting point for the development of the new requirements. 3. The advantages and disadvantages of the new requirements will be carefully evaluated by the Committee on Undergraduate Education and other appropriate SAS
faculty committees. These recommendations are accompanied by a series of understandings, among them that
CUE will develop an appropriate advising system for the pilot curriculum, and will seek ways
to make the current General Requirement as effective as possible while the pilot is being
developed. CUE is also to direct an analysis of challenges to extending the pilot curriculum
to the full student body, including resources needed and impacts on faculty and existing
programs. The Committee would be required to update the Faculty at least annually and issue
a final report on the experiment no later than the academic year 2003-04. The target date for
deciding whether to extend to all College students the curriculum developed out of the pilot
is the spring semester of 2004, for implementation in the fall of 2005. The four main components suggested for the Pilot Curriculum that 200 of the Colleges 1500 incoming freshmen would take in the fall of 2000 are: I. A Pilot General Requirement: Four new semester-long courses would be taken by all 200 students during the first two years of study (with one possible exception 2 ). Approaches from many disciplines in the humanities, social sciences and natural sciences would be
introduced, and the perspectives of diverse cultures considered. Indeed, conflicts among
disciplinary and cultural perspectives will often be a central issue in many of these courses:
introducing students to the complexities of modern life in the era of globalism as well as
drawing on the approaches and accomplishments of multiple disciplines are central reasons
why these courses should be team-taught, the proposal notes. The proposal organizes these courses in four general categories, tentatively titled: 1. Freedom, Equality and Community.
2. Science, Culture and Society.
3. Earth, Space and Life.
4. Imagination, Representation and Reality. II. A Skill and Methods Requirement: This would include the Foreign Language and Quantitative Skills already required for all students in the College, plus a new Communication
Skills courseemphasizing both written and oral communication skillsto replace current
methods of satisfying the Writing Requirement. III. A Major that includes significant opportunities for individual research, scholarship and/ or creative projects. IV. Breadth, Depth, and Coherence: This component is intended to promote a variety of programmatic offerings that will encourage students to use the flexibility created by the
reduction in the General Requirement from ten courses to four to add some combination of
breadth, depth, and coherence to their courses of study. Almanac September 21, 1999 6 Q & A On Faculty Early Retirement Income Allowance Program OPPORTUNITIES All open positions at Penn are posted on the Human Resources web site at www.hr.upenn. edu. Todays Penn Partnership provides ser-
vices to Penn hiring officers for the hire of
permanent and temporary office support staff.
Todays is also managing the Penn Job Applica-
tion Center. You may contact them at (215) 222-
3400 for your employment needs. Penns Job
Application Center at 3550 Market Street, Suite
110, is open 8 a.m.-6 p.m. weekdays where
computer stations are available for you to browse
the openings and/or apply on-line. CONFERENCE 30 The Endlessly Beckoning Horizon: Afro American Literature at the End of the Twentieth
Century; keynote speaker: Michael Awkward, En-
glish; Sheraton University City; Info: (215) 898-
5141 (Center for the Study of Black Literature and
Culture). Through October 2. EXHIBITS Now Back to the City: Culture and Vernacular Architecture of KeyWest; drawings and models by
students at the University of Miami School of
Architecture; Meyerson Upper Hall Gallery
(GSFA). Through October 1. FILMS 22 Spike and Mikes

Comments