COLUMN: A Matter of Time

From Mike Nadel's "Give 'em Hell," Fall '95 From Mike Nadel's "Give 'em Hell," Fall '95Reporter John Gunther once asked Eleanor Roosevelt, "Just how does the President think?" Here at the University, however, our leaders in the administration never decide. They just think. And think. And think. Meanwhile problems go unsolved for years. The Revlon Center was supposed to open in the fall of 1992. Three years after its scheduled grand opening, the plan to build the center was scratched. Now it looks like the four buildings which are to be renovated to form Perlman Quad may be ready by 1999, and how many decades it will take to build a real student center is anyone's guess. The Commission on Strengthening the Community debated for a full year to make a decision regarding randomized freshman housing. Nearly two years later, the Commission's recommendation has not been accepted, nor has it been rejected. It's just under consideration. It took almost three years for a committee to recommend to the provost what to do about ROTC and the fact that the military does not admit homosexuals. The recommendation was made last year, and since then it has lingered on the provost's desk. At last report, he was waiting for the Department of Defense to return his calls. Two and a half years after "Water Buffalo," there is still no judicial charter, and there is no indication as to when there might be one. More than a year has passed since President Rodin learned that she had to decide whether to allow Wade Cablevision to carry UTV13 so it could be received off campus. But no decision has been made. Instead, she has recently asked a committee to review the issue. Committees are an easy way for administrators hear to avoid taking action. Don't worry, though; students are consulted before these committees are formed. The chairperson of the Nominations Committee of the Nominations and Elections Committee sits on the University Council Committee on Committees. Seriously. Committees don't decide. They think. They make recommendations. Frequently they recommend the formation of other committees. And nothing happens. Maybe these are just side issues which should not be given priority. Student centers, disciplinary systems and television journalism are, after all, not the primary reason we are here. Education is, though, and the delays in this area are inexcusable. Make no mistake –– there is not a crisis in undergraduate education at the University. The education we receive is top-notch, and our graduates are among the best of the best. But there are problems, and for the amount that a Penn education costs, problems ought to be solved immediately. No lengthy studies. No committees. Decisions. Action. Solutions. When I was a freshman, many of my classmates complained about professors and TAs who could not speak English fluently. Three years later, another class of freshmen is complaining. The administration is still trying to figure out how to deal with the problem. The urgency seems lost on them. Every semester that goes by, hundreds of students watch entire courses evaporate into waste because they can't understand the words being spoken to them. It is very simple, and to nearly every undergraduate it must be obvious, but apparently academic officers of the highest rank need it spelled out for them: It is unacceptable that any TA or Professor in any subject speak English poorly. It is not something to ponder. It is something to act on. Now! It is incomprehensible that any time can be devoted to figuring out what a Penn education will look like in the next century before we can be assured that those who can't speak our language will not be teaching next semester. Three years ago, very few of my classmates were satisfied with the advising they received. My own "advisor" was an associate dean -- in charge of running one of the high rises. Today nothing has changed. Many professors do not advise undergraduates. Some freshmen and sophomores receive poor guidance; more receive none at all. Dozens of meetings and forums have been held to tackle this issue. Dozens of ideas have been circulated. But nothing has been done. Why? What can possibly justify allowing class after class to go through this flawed system without making any attempt to change it? Last March, a proposal was made to change undergraduate transcripts. A seemingly minor issue, every senior knows that transcripts are essential for getting a job or getting into graduate school. Currently the transcript provides admissions offices and potential employers with very little information with which to paint a picture of our academic lives. It was suggested that the transcript be modified to include information about a course's content, a professor, the size of a class, and how a grade was calculated. The administration said, "Sound's good. Let's study it." Now the Registrar's office is examining the idea. A preliminary report is expected in January. In the meantime, the Class of 1996 is at a competitive disadvantage. Freshmen, sophomores and juniors should not hold their breath waiting for a new transcript. The Registrar's office already has information that would appear on the proposed transcript. It might take some new computer software or equipment to make the new system a reality, but this could have been done over the summer. It could be going on right now. Instead, we're told, they are "thinking." How many hours each week do they spend doing that? Probably not as many as seniors spend job-hunting and filling out applications. And we're not getting paid. Many members of the faculty care deeply about these and other issues of undergraduate education. On Friday they came together for one more fascinating but probably futile forum on how the University might do a better job. The undergraduate deans were there too, but as one of them pointed out, they lack both the money and the power to affect real change. That responsibility rests with those least interested in using it –– the central administration. Administrators are in no rush to make these changes because they are not going anywhere. They will be here for years, so what doesn't get done can wait until tomorrow. Each entering class is just one more unit with which to experiment. The University, in all likelihood, will break into the top 10 next year. Thanks to the hiring of a new president and the success of the basketball team, our rise in the rankings was accomplished without substantially improving undergraduate education, so administrators ask, "What's the hurry?" Students do not have the luxury of spending eternity in West Philadelphia, and so we know what the hurry is. We're only hear for four years. Every moment counts. So far, we've been letting them get away with it. When our teachers can't speak English, we complain to our friends, but we just grin and bear it. When our calculus class is destroyed by cryptic computer software that has been loathed by everyone for three years, we whine, but we let them have their way. When we can't find good academic advising, we wing it. Now, for many of us, it is too late. But younger students, those who have only recently arrived here, can still positively affect their education. Make noise. Make waves. Make them stop thinking. Make them decide. The minutes are ticking away.