LETTERS: The question of restructuring

To the Editor: Many University staff members are hard-working professionals, especially A-3 (weekly paid) employees who keep the University running by doing the actual work while managers attend endless meetings. It is often these employees who are forced to take on the bulk of "additional responsibilities," but without additional compensation. In addition, benefits are being cut back and the anticipated increases in health-care premiums will hit the lower-paid A-3 employees hardest. The University Council's Personnel Benefits Committe voted down a proposal to tie employee health-insurance premiums to salary (Almanac, 3/11/97) -- a proposal which would have given relief to A-3 employees while increasing costs for more well-paid faculty and staff who could presumably afford it. These two effects of restructuring, increasing duties and the elimination or increased cost of benefits, without additional compensatory salary, amount to pay-cuts which hurt the hardest-working, least-paid employees most. The administration has talked much of the need to bring benefits packages in line with those offered by the business community, but has said nothing about doing the same for salaries. The University should not balance its budget on the backs of its employees. Mark A. Santillo Graduate Engineering Admissions Officer CGS '97 Defining 'Third World' To the Editor: Regarding Delia Vallejo's column "Influence a child's life today," (DP, 3/6/97), I was greatly offended by her reference to Third World countries. I am from a so-called "Third World" country and we do not have "graffiti and drugs everywhere," and "children on the streets that come from large, single-parent homes." I feel these are largely American phenomena that, if at all existing in "Third World" countries, have been imported with the influence of American culture. Think about Singapore's response to Michael Fay and friends' graffiti and vandalism spree of 1994. Singapore is part of what Vallejo casually refered to as "Third World" countries. I have never seen the amount of trash and graffiti on the streets in any part of the world I have travelled as in the U.S. Single-parent homes are most prevalent in what Vallejo would call "First World" countries, only no one ever really calls them that. I feel there is some amount of superiority in your choice of reference that is completely unfounded. I realize this is secondary to the main point of the column but implicit in the reference is the assumption that the quality of life should be better in the U.S., and I think Vallejo may have realized that it is not necessarily the case, as I have found in the four years I have been at Penn. This is not a personal attack against Vallejo, I would just like accurate representation and less generalization. On a different note, I have generally found Vallejo's column to be interesting. Christine Lim College and Wharton '97 Small depts., no coverage To the Editor: The DP's article on rankings of our graduate schools ("'US News' Doles Out High Honors," DP, 3/4/97) was informative, and much of it was predictable. The dean of a school that ranked high said the ranking is significant, and the dean of a school that ranked low said it isn't. The reporter could have made it much more informative with just a little initiative. For instance, some of the best departments in the University are never included in such rankings because they are small, and represent small fields. My department, History and Sociology of Science, is an example. As everyone knows, there are very different ways to evaluate: what a department has accomplished, its reputation among peers, and what it offers that others don't. It is fair to say that well-informed people would rank Penn's HSSC Department, by any of these criteria, between first and third in the world. We are only one example of small departments that lead their fields. I might add we have not reached the top by stinting on our undergraduate program. A little legwork would let Penn students be better informed about some of the University's leading programs, not just what US News & World Report considers important. Nathan Sivin HSSC Professor Gymnastics at the top To the Editor: I would like to complain about the lack of credit given to Penn's women's gymnastics team in the DP on Friday, 2/28/97 and Monday, 3/3/97. I was a member of the team last year, and decided to take off this year to concentrate on my school work. But I still keep in close tough with the team. When I looked at the picture in the DP on 2/28/97, I wondered why a different picture wasn't put in -- say, a picture of one of the team members. People that knew I was associated with the team asked me what that picture was, and I just had to tell them it wasn't Penn gymnasts. I thought if a picture was put in, it would be of Penn's team, not some other team? Penn gymnastics is having one of their best years this year. Why not emphasize on that and give them more of a boost in morale? Instead of focusing on comparing injuries and sicknesses of the teams, focus on the team's performances thus far. And instead of saying Penn can "take advantage of Yale's injury-filled season" why not say that Penn can win this meet on their own, and in the process, improve their standings in the ECAC league with this win. As for the article in Monday's DP (3/3/97), I don't understand why it was on the inside sports page, instead of on the back page. True, I may be biased, but I even spoke to an avid fan of the basketball team, and she said if Penn won the Ivy League title, it should have been on the back page, instead of two separate basketball articles? I feel that if a sports team here at Penn does a good job, as Penn gymnastics did, it should be noted so all of the Penn community can notice it and more support can be given to the team and the students can take pride in their school. Instead of counting the losses so often and dwelling an the bad aspects, why not look at and emphasize the good? Susie Marin Nursing '99