University professors said yesterday that they anticipate an economic upswing in the U.S. now that fighting in the Persian Gulf has ended. Professors said there is historical evidence for a possible upswing, and that Americans may buy more due to increased morale. They also added that an end to escalating oil prices will improve the American economy as well as those of other nations. In evaluating the possible economic effects of the war, some professors drew historical parallels between the effects of World War II on the depressed American economy and the prospects of the Gulf war rescuing the economy from the current recession. Finance Professor Andrew Abel said the current war could pull the U.S. out of the recession, just as World War II helped pull the United States out of the Great Depression. "Once we get out of the war, there will be a new upswing that will last for a while," Abel added. Abel added that the key to any upswing will be how Kuwait chooses to rebuild. He said contracts between Kuwait and the U.S. or U.S. corporations to repair the damage of the war could bring benefits to the economy. Economics Professor Albert Ando said the contracts would help improve inefficient use of resources. "We have a recession and excess capacity," Ando said. "More demand on the excess capacity will be helpful to the U.S. economy, but I don't know how many [of the contracts] are going our way." Assistant Professor of Finance Henning Bohn said yesterday the contracts will probably be allocated to reflect the number of forces and other support each country contributed to the war effort. "It looks very much like these contracts will be shared out by manpower," he said. "America may get the lion's share, Britain gets her share." The remainder of coalition members should receive a fair portion as well, he added. Ando added that an increase in government spending tends to stimulate the general economy. But he said people should be wary of how much it may really amount to. "We do not know at this point how much is being included," Ando said. "It has been financed in a peculiar way." Bohn said economists have argued that victory in a war improves national morale, often encouraging people to increase purchases. "The end of the war could unleash . . . optimism and help, which may be an area where the end of the war could help most significantly," he said. Bohn added, however, that the "effect of sentiment" may be overrated and that it is "hard to predict." Abel was the only professor who said oil prices will have a significant impact on the national and international economies. "It is unlikely that oil prices would rise immediately after the end of the war and this is good for other nation's economies as well as ours," he said. The professors said the war will probably have little bearing on the Savings and Loan crisis or other financial problems facing the nation. "These are things we have to tackle in the U.S.," Bohn said. "They did not come with the war, and won't end with it."
Below are your search results. You can also try a Basic Search.
In the latest move in the ongoing fight over the University's charity campaign, the United Way this week has asked some of its agencies to urge University donors to vote for the United Way in a March referendum. And several faculty members said last night that the move is another in a series of "unprofessional" tactics to influence the vote. In letters sent to donor-choice organizations via fax, the United Way provided a list of past donors and their addresses to whom they are encouraged to write and explain how they will be affected by the referendum. United Way spokesperson Joe Divis said that they have only sent the agencies information that they normally receive with a pledge and that the move was designed to ultimately educate University voters. But Committee members said yesterday that the United Way's newest tactic is inappropriate. Associate Education Professor David Hogan called the fax "apalling." Hogan said that the United Way has statistically endured no ill effects from allowing a combined campaign elsewhere and that their opposition to the Combined Campaign stems from their need for control. "They don't lose anything economically, or financially by having a combined campaign -- the evidence is that they gain," Hogan said. "One must assume that this is an effort to maintain monopoly power." However, Divis said last night that the agencies of the United Way are going to be affected by this vote and therefore need their say in the issue. Faculty leaders also said last night that they were disturbed by the United Way's action. Associate Microbiology Professor Helen Davies said last night that she was upset with the United Way's efforts at the University. "I feel it muddies [the situation] because it is being done by an outside organization," Davies said. "They are not able to get people inside the University to back them up, people who know what is happening want a wider choice." Faculty Senate Executive Committee member Kenneth George also said he was "disturbed" with the United Way's actions and that this is the similar to what he has been hearing at the Faculty Senate Executive Committee. "It just seems to be a continuation of some of the unprofessional ways that the United Way is dealing with us at the University," George said. Divis said that the action was taken because although the United Way did not ask for the referendum, it has to deal with it. "This was brought upon us," Divis said. Barney Carter, the director of development at Planned Parenthood -- a United Way agency -- said that his organization received the letter from the United Way asking Planned Parenthood to write to its donors and explain how the referendum will effect their funding. "[It asks us] to write them and support the United Way," Carter said. Faculty Senate Chairperson Almarin Phillips said last night that the United Way has every right to try to marshall support, but that he feels they would be better off working with the other agencies. "My impression is that they remain an unpopular group at the University of Pennsylvania, my view is that they would be better off trying to cooperate," Phillips. The United Way and the Committee for a Combined Campaign at Penn will conclude their two-year long fight next month when University employees vote the charitable path they prefer. The United Way has historically been the sole vehicle through which faculty and staff could deduct funds from their payroll. Combined Campaign officials have argued that the number of fundraising groups should be expanded. The United Way has argued that one can donate to over 2700 groups through their method of donor's choice, which allows the donor to select who receives the funds. The Combined Campaign, however, has said that this is not a viable option since the funds are diminished twice through this path -- first, from the United Way's administrative costs and second, from the individual organizations administrative costs are both deducted before anyone benefits.
Charity begins at home, and at the University, the house is divided. For many years, the United Way, one of the nation's most respected charitable organizations, was the only organization University employees could donate to through their paychecks. But in the last few years, some employees decided they would rather have more choice. In 1988, the University changed its policy to give employees more say over how their money is spent, but all donations still had to go through the United Way. Supporters of the new plan say it will cut out the added expense of having the United Way as a middleman. But, for the United Way, it means a loss of control over a large portion of the University's $371,000 campaign. United Way officials say placing the other four smaller organizations on as even a level as the United Way, with 2,700 member charities, is unfair. Having recently lost exclusive control over the City of Philadelphia's campaign and the Philadelphia Board of Education's plan, United Way officials have fought tooth and nail to maintain its share of the University's campaign. The University, after the government, is the city's largest employer. For two years, the two sides have fought over the campaign, with employees becoming increasingly disillusioned with the United Way, and the campaign in general. At times, the dispute has become bitter and both sides have accused the other of lying. Southeastern Pennsylvania United Way President Ted Moore summed up the entire dispute, openly stating last month that "The bottom line is money." Either late this week or next week, the issue will come to a head as University employees will have a chance to vote to keep the old program or adopt a combined campaign. President Sheldon Hackney will make a final decision based on this referendum later this semester and put the issue to rest. · When employees choose to donate, their pledge cards have had one option: How much do you want to give to the United Way? The Committee for a Combined Campaign proposes that the new card will allow the donor to give directly to additional fundraising organizations: the United Way, the Black United Fund, United Negro College Fund, Bread and Roses Community Fund, or Womens Way. The United Way has argued that this is superfluous, since donors can select these organizations through its "donor choice" path. For the past 10 years the United Way has allowed donors two alternatives. The donors may request that the United Way allocate their pledge -- with the donor having the ability to target a general area -- or they may choose the "donor choice" system, under which they can select a specific recipient for the money. But Committee for a Combined Campaign representatives say the United Way system is inefficient. When the donation goes to the United Way first, overhead costs are lost. A greater percentage of employee donations actually reach the needy when they donate directly to a specific charity. United Way officials have said they keep their overhead low at about 11 percent, while the four groups that the Committee has endorsed, have an average overhead of about 23 percent. According to the fall 1990 Combined Federal Campaign contributor's brochure for the Philadelphia area, Womens Way's administrative and fundraising costs are about 10 percent, the Black United Fund's are 32 percent; Bread and Roses Community fund spends 30 percent of its total annual income; and the United Negro College Fund, Inc. spends about 24 percent. Combined Campaign Committee member Jane Combrinck-Graham said that her group does not question the United Way's administrative costs, but said the Committee feels it is wasteful to subject donations to the initial United Way cost and then also the individual organization's overhead. "There has been some miscommunication," Combrinck-Graham said. "[The Combined Campaign Committee] is not concerned about the [United Way's] overhead, we are concerned that the donation is deducted from twice." Combrinck-Graham also explained that the United Way deductionss add to a total of 20 percent after subtracting the nine-percent deduction for uncollected pledges whenever someone uses the donor option pathway. United Way spokesperson Joe Divis said his organization determines the overall loss in uncollected pledges annually and deducts it on an equal percentage basis to all chosen organizations. "At the end, there is a shortfall and everyone shares equally . . . any campaign that is conducted will have the uncollectables," Divis said. "We can't pay out what we don't receive." Womens Way Marketing Director Joan Mintz said the deduction for uncollected pledges is not fair since Womens Way's uncollected pledges are much lower than United Way's yearly nine to 10-percent deduction. "No matter what the deduction is, it is not based on our losses," Mintz said. The Committee has asked that four fundraising organizations to be included on the pledge card alongside of the United Way. However, Combrinck-Graham has said that other funnel groups can apply to be on the pledge card. The four organizations are not "member agencies" of the United Way, which means they can only receive donor choice money. The groups argue that the administrative charge they are assessed is higher than the United Way's cost of forwarding them the money. They say much of the administrative charge subsidizes distribution to member groups. Black United Fund President Linda Richardson said earlier this month she felt the United Way's "donor choice" option was an unacceptable system. The Black United Fund's position paper says the donor choice system is merely an attempt to appease donors. The paper said donors think the United Way has made concessions to other groups, but asserts that it is merely a facade. The paper argues that the control of the campaign remains in the hands of the United Way. Richardson's position paper also said that the United Way has attempted to stop other charities from entering the workplace to maintain control of employee dollars. "United Way is not only the chief competitor with non-United Way charities, but has a history of operating as a legal and political adversary of such charities," the position paper added. "[The United Way] uses it's resources to obstruct their inclusion in employee campaigns in both government and private sector arenas." United Way's Divis has argued that by offering the "donor-choice" option, the United Way is a true "combined campaign." In total, the United Way funds over 2,700 organizations througout the Delaware Valley area. He added that the four organizations the Committee has included in its proposal all received money from the donor choice option last year. Divis also said that by allowing "a select few" organizations to gain status on the pledge card alongside the United Way, the groups gain "an unfair marketing advantage." He said various organizations would want to be able to gain donations and would bind together into federations and apply to be on the pledge card. "Then you would have all the organizations knocking on your door again," Divis said. "This is why the United Way was formed over a hundred years ago." Divis also said that by adding more organizations onto the pledge card, someone would have to run the campaign that has traditionally been handled by the United Way. Combined Campaign committee member David Rudovsky said at the Jan. 23 University Council meeting that the Committee's proposal could be run in a cost-efficient manner. · This past year's campaign was the largest ever in the history of the University. The fall charity drive raised $371,000 this year, an increase from $290,000 last year. Both sides agree that the number of participants also increased greatly. However, they dispute the motivation behind the increase. Combined Campaign Committee supporters said the implementation of the partially-combined campaign in the past two years has offered a more direct path to the donor's choice, thereby bringing in more money and more contributors. Rudovsky said the new freedom of choice is directly linked to an increase in donations. United Way supporters argue that they already are a "combined" campaign that offers a large choice to donors and that the increases are unrelated to the efforts of the Committee. But a report by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy concluded that combined campaigns do generate more money. "Multiple charity campaigns increase giving," the report said. "Employees want a choice in their giving options." The 1988 campaign was different from its predecessors in that the president's office allowed the four groups to send literature to donors separate from the United Way. But the four groups still were forced to receive all donations through the United Way's donor choice path. In the fall of 1989, Hackney allowed the four organizations to appear alongside the United Way on the pledge card. The University separated the donations marked to those four groups and sent them directly to avoid the administrative costs of the United Way. "This was a big step," Combrinck-Graham said of the 1989 revisions. "[But,] this was an incremental step, not the full step that the committee is seeking." The committee has various other requests including a system for fundraising organizations to apply to be added to the pledge card. "A set of criteria would be set up," Combrinck-Graham said. "They would have to be consistent with the University's policy of diversity, pluralism, and fairness."
Twenty-five students protesting the beginning of the ground war "died" Saturday night -- twice. After congregating on College Green, Penn for Peace members discussed ways to protest the start of the allied invastion and decided to call students' attention to the loss of life it will cause. After showing their PENNcards to enter the library, the protestors spread out across the room. College sophomore Chris Travis announced to the students who were busily studying that "this is what war is about." After Travis whistled and gave a brief speech, the protestors fell to the ground. Students in the library, however, were not receptive to the event. "It angered me," College sophomore Nauman Shah said. "Especially disturbing people who are trying to study." "I was shocked, I was concentrating so much on my studying and they came," said Temple University graduate student Eunjung Ryo, who was also studying in Rosengarten. Penn for Peace members, however, said their work is important for the University community. "We have to show people what's going on," College junior Dennis Johnston said. After "dying" in the library, the protestors marched down Locust Walk to Superblock, where they chanted peace slogans and urged people to either, "Sign up [to fight] or shut-up." Students in High Rise South threw two eggs at the protestors, both of which missed the marchers. They later shot a rock with a slingshot at one protestor who was hit, but no injuries were reported. Near High Rise East the students hosted another "die-in" similar to the one in Rosengarten. College senior Laura Diamond, who witnessed the second "die-in," said she was happy to see the protestors calling attention to the ground war. "I think it's great," Diamond said. "It shows the human aspects that are attached to the issue." The protestors later went to the Quadrangle where many entered without showing identification, ignoring the security guard. The protestors marched through Upper Quad and soon met opposition from a few students and others yelling from the windows of dormitories. College sophomore John Held, while waving an American flag, yelled back at the protestors' chants, saying they did not understand the issues. "They don't know what the hell they're talking about," Held said. "They'll give their blood for an animal, but not for the massacre of the Kuwaitis." Once the students entered the Baby Quad, University Police officers told the students they had to leave the Quad, because they did not show proper identification to enter. "I have no problem with what you are doing," Officer Hugh McBreen said. "But you must show I.D." The protestors left the Quad and returned to College Green, where they wrapped the statue of Benjamin Franklin in a banner that read "Peace." The protestors walked up Locust Walk again and chanted at the Alumni Building and a fraternity party. They continued up the Walk until they reached Steinberg-Dietrich Hall where they decided to conclude the protest. Group officials said that the protest was not officially sponsored by Penn for Peace, but was rather a spontaneous rally by its members. Penn for Peace will be formally organizing a protest today at noon on College Green.
The Soviet Union's peace plan approved by Iraq and rejected by the U.S. last night received mixed reviews from University experts yesterday. The Soviet plan -- outlined in eight points -- included a bilateral cease-fire, a complete and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait, and a release of all prisoners of war. And although the U.S. rejected the plan, faculty and on-campus experts said yesterday that the proposal opened new doors, especially since Iraq dropped its demand that a withdrawal from Kuwait be linked to an Israeli pullout from the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. "They dropped the main conditions of the last half year," Foreign Policy Research Institute Director Daniel Pipes said last night. "Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon [were not mentioned]." The rejection of the plan, however, may lead to strains within the allied coalition. Some faculty said they feared a rejection would produce a split between the U.S. and other countries in the Gulf. Political Science Professor Frederick Frey said last night that the rejection may divide the delicate U.N. coalition along Cold War lines, with the Soviet Union and China on one side, and the U.S., Britain, France and Saudi Arabia on the other. He added that a rejection may make President Bush look like a war monger. Reasons as to why the Soviet-engineered proposal would be rejected varied. Frey speculated that a refusal could mean that Bush's publically announced goals in the war may not be the ones he is actually seeking. "The president is going to have to clarify his goals," Frey said last night. "If the president's goal is just to get Saddam out of Kuwait then, with some minor adjustments he will accept [the settlement]." If, however, Bush wants Saddam out of power, Frey said that he would reject the peace offer. History Professor Bruce Kuklick, an expert in diplomatic history, said the personal egos of Bush and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein may be the reason for the U.S. opposition to the plan. "[They] seemed to have shown themselves as men whose face and prestige is of immense proportions," he said. He added that if the plan had been accepted, Saddam may have looked like a hero, which he felt may be unacceptable to Bush. Assistant Political Science Professor Avery Goldstein, an expert in national security policy, said that the proposal simply did not lay the right groundwork for an agreement. "Under the right cicumstances they would be willing to get out of Kuwait," Goldstein said. "And under the right circumstances we would be willing to let them get out." Goldstein said, however, that he did not feel that this peace proposal offered the right circumstances. Before the U.S. announced its rejection, some faculty said that the proposal could have provided an opening for Bush to pursue a diplomatic conclusion to the war while still achieving the objectives laid out in the United Nations resolutions. "I'm real pleased," said FPRI Director Pipes, a nationally renown Middle East expert. "This is the first serious indication by Saddam Hussein that he has recognized that he will have to leave Kuwait." There should be "no cease-fire, but negotiations will take place if we continue to bomb," he said. "[Saddam] will have to make concessions." And History Professor Alfred Rieber, a Soviet expert, said the proposal also had left room for Saddam to save face. "My impression is that this is a good opening to negotiate," Reiber said. "In international affairs when you have someone pinned to the wall, you give them a way out."
An open forum off campus last night -- which included speeches against U.S. domestic and Middle East policies -- turned into a tense situation as about ten members from Operation Homefront, a student group supporting U.S. troops, attempted to get into the event while carrying an American flag. The forum, which about 50 people attended, was moved to the Tabernacle Church on 37th and Chestnut streets, because the original location, International House, had been threatened with an attack on an anti-war meetings earlier this week, forum hosts said. International House officials were unavailable for comment and a Philadelphia Police detective said he had no such knowledge of any threats. Homefront members sat silently throughout the session, but claimed that they were met with resentment and feelings of hostility when they entered the open forum. There was tight security to get into the session, with a member of the Uhuru Solidarity Committee -- which sponsored the event -- frisking all attendants. In addition, Homefront members were told that they could not bring their American flag into the meeting. Operation Homefront members said they listened to a pro-Iraq speech by Mohammed Latif and left after they sensed that their presence was resented. Mshindi Shabazz, local Uhuru chairperson said Homefront members "left on their own volition. They found the forum to be repulsive, the murder of the Iraqi people they found repulsive." African Solidarity Committee member and University alumna Sarah Goldfine said that while she was at the meeting, the Homefront members "were not disruptive." "When we left, we felt physically threatened," said Wharton junior and Homefront member David Gross. He added that other Homefront members asked not to be identified because they "fear retribution." Homefront members reported that throughout the evening the audience chanted, "Victory to Iraq" and the pro-Iraqi speaker had said, "We don't care how many coffins come back." Later in the evening, the keynote speaker, Omali Yeshitela called President Bush a "CIA president." He added that the administration conducts polls of Americans to determine how many Iraqis should be killed. University Police remained in their vehicle outside of the church for part of the evening, but University Police Sergeant Thomas Messner said that "there were no problems."
NASA scientist Peter Patton will become the University's Vice Provost for Information Systems and Computing, the University announced this week. Patton, described as a "world-class" computer master and scholar, will take office April 1, replacing Acting Vice Provost Ronald Arenson. Paul Kleindorfer, chairperson of the search committee that helped choose Patton, said last night he was pleased with the committee's selection. He said the committee picked Patton from a field of more than 150 candidates through a process that took over two years. The Decision Science professor added that Patton is "someone who is really going to bring to Penn a personal dimension, one of scholar and wit." Patton could not be reached for comment last night. The vice provost for computing position became vacant in November 1988, when then-Vice Provost David Stonehill accepted a position in President Bush's Executive Office as head of the Information Systems Resource Management Department. Arenson, a radiology professor in the Medical School, has served as acting vice provost since 1989. Provost Michael Aiken said last year that the administration would have liked Arenson to take the position full-time, but the professor has decided to return to his research. Aiken, who chose Patton in consultation with other top administrators, said last night Patton "is a man of immense experience in computers and wide-ranging interests -- a person everyone will like when they meet him." Patton is the founder of the Minnesota Supercomputer Institute. He has served as chief scientist and director of the National Technology Transfer Center in West Virginia, which is funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration since 1988. Patton's career has been highlighted by a 12-year stint as director of the University of Minnesota Computer Center. He has also spent many years studying ways to apply computers to studies of the ancient world. He is the author or editor of five books and over 80 articles. He holds European Community and U.S. patents on a computer method for the generation of COBOL programs for business applications. Patton received his bachelor's degree in engineering and applied physics from Harvard University in 1957. He earned his masters in mathematics from Kansas University in 1959, followed by a doctorate in aerospace engineering from Germany's University of Stuttgart. He is "very bright and very energetic," Arenson said, "the experienced kind of leader that will identify with the faculty's need for computers." Kleindorfer said he expects Patton will also draw money to the University. "Patton has shown himself to be a very innovative, entrepreneuring fellow," Kleindorfer said.
Associate Nursing Professor Lorraine Tulman labeled the Army's recent call-up of the pair as "outrageous," from a medical standpoint. Tulman's research, which studied approximately 200 women for six months after childbirth, concluded that the uterus takes at least six weeks to heal and that bleeding may continue for an additional five weeks -- indicating the mother is not physically ready to resume active schedules. Associate Nursing Professor Barbara Medoff-Cooper also said that the separation of the infant from the mother so soon after childbirth could cause problems when the two are reunited later. "The baby won't remember the mother," Medoff-Cooper said in a statement. "It will be more difficult for the two to establish the typical mother-child bonds." The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and The Organization for Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nurses and revealed a great deal about the recovery from childbirth, Tulman said. The findings state that by six weeks after birth, only 51 percent of the mothers had regained their normal energy level and only 34 percent of those who had a Caesarean birth regained their normal energy levels. In addition, 80 percent of the women in one section of the study said they did not resume their normal personal care activities until six months after childbirth. Tulman said that the study indicates that the recovery from childbirth requires at least three to six months. "[The military] probably wouldn't send a man into combat two weeks after abdominal surgery," Tulman added. Medoff-Cooper's research is funded by the American Academy of Pediatrics. She said in a statement that the mother-child relationship is vital during the first year. "The first year of a baby's life is most important because it is the time when a baby learns trust," Medoff-Cooper said. "The quality of the caregiver at this time is crucial." The research comes at a time when Congress is considering a national maternal leave policy. President Bush vetoed similar proposed legislation last year. Tulman said that her research clearly indicates that the military should adopt a policy allowing "for at least 3 months without a complicated application process."
A new Wharton undergraduate teaching award will be the most generous offered by a business school, Wharton officials announced last week. The new annual award, established by 1960 Wharton alumnus David Hauck, will divide $30,000 equally between the two faculty member selected for the honor. Both will be chosen by a selection committee, with one award winner coming from the tenured faculty and the other will be one on the tenure-track. The committee will consist of the dean, deputy dean, vice dean of the Wharton undergraduate division, chair of the Wharton Undergraduate Student Advisory Board, and two previous teaching award winners. Nominations will be sought from all Wharton students and faculty. Wharton Undergraduate Vice Dean Janice Bellace said she was "excited" about the new award -- which will continue indefinitely. "It emphasizes to the faculty, who do commit significant time to their teaching, that others find this valuable and wish to reward it," Bellace said. Criteria for selection include leadership abilities, ability to stimulate and challenge students, and knowledge of the latest research in their field. Greg Snyder, trustee of the David Hauck Foundation, said that the first award will be presented later this spring, adding that there will be a reception in either Atlanta or Philadelphia for the recipients. He added that the money is a gift and may be spent for personal use. "Dave [Hauck] feels that much of his success can be attributed to the Wharton School," Snyder said. Snyder also said that Hauck hopes that this award will help Wharton continue to attract the "high quality" of faculty. The gift is part of Wharton's $200 million dollar component of the capital campaign, a $1 billion fundraising drive by the University.
Wharton faculty members approved a "revolutionary" new MBA curriculum yesterday, which officials say may serve as a model for graduate business schools across the country. According to Wharton Graduate Division Director David Reibstein, the "curriculum concept" keeps Wharton's traditional management focus, but broadens the scope of the program to emphasize experimentation and interdisciplinary cases. Reibstein said last night that the new curriculum continues the school's trend of being at the cutting edge of business education. "[The new curriculum] is fabulous, it is the best thing that has happened in a long time," Reibstein said last night. "A large number of schools are looking at what we are doing and it may change the direction of MBA curriculum everywhere." The new curriculum has been two years in the making, since the Graduate Curriculum Committee was formed in 1989. The committee has student and faculty representatives from all Wharton departments. The new curriculum will be tested in two MBA divisions -- called cohorts -- next semester. As programs prove successful, they will be incorporated into the regular curriculum. The curriculum will continue its traditional teaching style of the "case method" -- applying learned knowledge to specific real-world examples -- but will dramatically change it by making the cases cross subject borders to areas like management, statistics, and marketing. In addition, the school's core will be augmented with experimental new courses -- possibly in geo-politics, operations management, government/legal environment, and technology. Each experimental course will incorporate various new focuses including international perspectives, ethics and environmental issues. Also, each course in the new curriculum will teach "people skills." A pre-entry program will be expanded to give MBA candidates a minimal level of understanding in computing, mathematics, economics, accounting and statistics. According to reports released by Wharton, the committee made the suggestions based on changes in the marketplace that warranted curriculum revision. The committee and various advisory boards suggested greater emphasis in the areas of global perspective, leadership, communication and interpersonal skills. Committee member and second-year MBA candidate Cris Brookmyer said she was excited that "for once [the curriculum] sets about a kind of flexibility to have continuous improvement and experimentation offline with the capability to bring success online." "I definitely think it is the most radical change at any of the top business schools since people began using the case method," said first-year MBA student Peter Lee. "It gives Wharton a huge competitive advantage since it is what recruiters are looking at." Lee added that "what we have now isn't bad. What we will have will definitely catapult and maintain us in the number one ranking for a long time."
The United Way has invited University employees who donated in the group's last fundraising campaign to a reception Wednesday at the Faculty Club. Invitations to the reception did not explain that Catherwood is personally paying for the event, although she was listed as one of three co-hosts. The reception comes just two weeks before a referendum that will decide whether the United Way maintains control of the University's employee charity campaign. Faculty who received invitations to the reception said Friday they were concerned that the United Way would be spending a great deal of money on the reception to sway the vote. But United Way spokesman Joe Divis assured employees that United Way donations will not be used to pay for the reception. "None of the money will come from United Way coffers," Divis said. Catherwood said yesterday she is paying for the event. She added that many corporations underwrite "thank you" receptions for givers. She also said that if she didn't sponsor the reception she, "wouldn't necessarily give another check." Divis said the reception is not irregular. "It is to thank people for their generosity," Divis said Friday. "We have events all of the time." But faculty members who were invited disagreed saying they have never been invited to any such event before. Nursing School Assistant Dean of Administration Kristin Davidson said this is the first time she has been invited, although she has donated in the past to the United Way. "This has never happened before," Davidson said. Faculty Senate Chair-Elect Louise Shoemaker, who has worked for the United Way in the past, also said it is the first time she has been invited. Southeastern Pennsylvania United Way President Ted Moore has not returned several phone messages this week and Director of Research Development Susanne Perry refused to comment. Faculty-Senate Chairperson Almarin Phillips said last week that he had sent a letter to Moore regarding concerns he has. Phillips said he will discuss the letter and any reply at Wednesday's University Council meeting. The referendum on the University's donation system, which all staff and faculty can vote in, will conclude a two-year long debate between the United Way and the Committee for a Combined Campaign at Penn. The United Way, an umbrella organization for 2,700 groups, has historically been the sole vehicle through which faculty and staff could pledge donations to fundraising groups. The Committee for a Combined Campaign at Penn is proposing that donations go directly to fundraising organizations without using the United Way as an intermediary. The four current fundraising organizations that the committee is proposing are already under the United Way. United Way officials have said throughout the debate that they are the most efficient organization to receive and distribute donations, claiming that its operating costs are low.
A University institute has received a $5.4 million grant that will make it a "national center" in cognitive science research and education. Officials at the University's Institute for Research in Cognitive Science said yesterday that the institute had received the grant, the only one ever awarded, from the National Science Foundation. The five-year award will be spread through the IRCS across several departments, including Computer and Information Science, Linguistics, Mathematics, Philosophy and Psychology. The IRCS is one of only a handful of programs completely dedicated to cognitive science. This branch of science "investigates the capacity of humans and other animals to construct, manipulate and communicate mental representations of the external world," according to a statement from the IRCS. Cognitive science research is especially important to artificial intelligence, machine translation, software development, robotics and graphics and animation. IRCS Co-director Aravind Joshi said yesterday that the grant will increase the Institute's already prominent reputation in the academic community. Engineering Dean Gregory Farrington said he felt the grant was a fitting award to scientists at the University. "I think it is very exciting," Farrington said. "It is the culmination of many years of the research of this group of people . . . it focuses attention on a core area of excellence at Penn." The grant will be doled out over five years and may be increased, according to Joshi. A subprogram of the National Science Foundation awarded the grant with an option to renew it for another six years. It is one of only 14 proposals approved out of 146 applications made to the NSF. The interdisciplinary nature of the IRCS allows the money to be distributed to many departments in both the Engineering School and the School of Arts and Sciences. The IRCS was formed in January 1990 as a restructuring of a Cognitive Science program that was formally established in 1978 and based on research from the early 1960s. The grant will be directly applied in a variety of ways, including support to visiting faculty and post-doctoral fellows, development of new undergraduate and graduate educational programs, funding of workshops, and promoting interaction with public institutions and academic centers.
Several faculty members said yesterday they resent tactics the United Way is using in an attempt to keep control of the University's employee charity drive, which are in violation of University policies. Faculty said this week they are unhappy that the United Way is conducting a half-hour telephone poll of employees, but were even more upset yesterday about violations of University policy the charitable group has committed. University officials said the United Way violated University policies governing access to and use of the Faculty/Staff Directory. When confronted about violations, United Way officials changed their story several times. The United Way began calling faculty at home this week conducting a survey to see how they will vote on a referendum that will determine the method the University will use to distribute charity funds. United Way Vice President of Resource Development Ned Montgomery initially said the United Way purchased the directory, which includes faculty member's home phone numbers, from The Book Store on campus. But Book Store Director Michael Knezic said that in his seven years with The Book Store, "we have not sold the directory." When told about The Book Store's policy and asked how he obtained the book, Montgomery stuttered for several seconds before replying, "one of the people at Penn gave it to us." Montgomery would not release the University person's name. The University's policy on use of the Directory is printed on the first page of the book. It reads, "The Faculty/Staff Telephone Directory is to be used by University and Hospital personnel only. It should not be used by any outside organization, business, or persons for non-University purposes including solicitation or advertising." University Business Services officials, who control the production of the directory, said the United Way violated the University's policy. "[The United Way] was granted no access to the directory," Business Services administrative assistant Susan Tietjen said. "And on the first page it says the directory is for faculty and staff use only." United Way spokesperson Joe Divis said his organization conducts research of its donors on a regular basis. Divis also said that normally the University is not probed as much as it is now. Divis initially said the United Way was not aware that it was violating University policy and later added "my point is, I guess, we didn't read the fine print." Divis also said he believed the United Way was following University procedures, and therefore did not violate the policy. Assistant to the President Nicholas Constan said the telemarketing was, "not for the purposes of the University, but for the purposes of the United Way." Officials from the United Way also said yesterday the telemarketing was conducted internally within the United Way. But according to Assistant Dean for Administration in the Nursing School Kristin Davidson, the surveyer who called her said she was calling from an external agency on behalf of the United Way. "They clearly said they were not employees of the United Way, but a market research firm doing it on behalf of the United Way," Davidson said. She added that her poll took approximately 30 minutes. Faculty Senate Chairperson Almarin Phillips said yesterday that the person who called him gave a similar report. Divis later said, "who does it is immaterial, it was on the behalf of the United Way." Phillips said he has sent a letter on behalf of the Faculty Senate to United Way President Ted Moore addressing various issues including the phone survey. The letter and any response will be discussed at Wednesday's University Council meeting, Phillips said. Moore was unavailable for comment last night and did not return phone calls placed at his office during the day. United Way representatives will not say if and when they will return the directory, but have discontinued the survey. Constan said that he is uncertain if the president's office will take any action on this matter or what such action will be. Assistant to the President Linda Hyatt said the president's office asked the United Way earlier this week to stop the survey and the United Way complied. Phillips said Wednesday night that in addition to the "resentment among faculty members," he is concerned that the United Way may be, "spending an exorbitant amount of money at Penn to influence the vote." Divis said yesterday that the United Way is spending less than one percent of its budget on telemarketing research. Hyatt stressed that the University community must remember that, "Giving is good, even though determining the way of giving can be difficult."
Responding to increasing fears of terrorism, the Wharton School announced this month that no student will be required to travel overseas as part of school programs. The policy change -- spearheaded by David Reibstein, Wharton's vice dean for the graduate division -- will go into effect immediately. According to Reibstein, the policy is subject to change as situations in the Persian Gulf war change and the U.S. State Department issues new advisories. A group of Wharton graduate students were scheduled to go to Thailand later this spring, but their trip was canceled due to an advisory issued by the State Department, Reibstein said. "I could not sanction any such trip," he added. The policy change will also directly influence MBA candidates enrolled in the Lauder Institute of Management and International Studies, who were required to travel abroad for two summers. Reibstein explained that the school is working on developing an alternate program which would bring speakers to the local area. Reibstein also said that some Lauder students may choose to travel despite the ruling, but he does not want students to feel forced into traveling abroad during the crisis. "I am sure that, for a lot of students, they will still decide to go," Reibstein said. MBA students who are taking a course in Japanese business, which originally required a study tour, will also not be required to travel. Reibstein said that they will still receive credit for the course even if they opt not to travel to Japan. First-year Wharton MBA student Jose Montoya, who is enrolled in the Lauder program, said he understands the need for the policy, but feels that the program, which is dedicated to international cultures, will be incomplete. "It is fine, but the Lauder program will lose some of the cultural and language perspective, a major part of the program," Montoya said. Another Lauder program student, Second-year Wharton graduate student Theresa Gende -- who has already completed her international travel for the program -- said her experiences were invaluable. "I have been abroad . . . and I know it can be scary," Gende said. "It should be left up to the student, but that destroys the entire program."
The United Way has begun calling faculty at home to ask how they will vote on a referendum which will determine how the University will distribute charity, faculty members said yesterday. The United Way, an umbrella organization for 2700 groups, has historically been the sole vehicle through which faculty and staff could pledge donations to fundraising groups. The Committee for a Combined Campaign at Penn is proposing that donations go directly to fundraising organizations without using the United Way as an intermediary. The four current fundraising organizations the committee is promoting are already under the United Way. Faculty Senate Chairperson Almarin Phillips said last night that he and other faculty members have received phone calls from a polling organization, claiming to act on behalf of the United Way. Phillips said that "there is resentment among faculty members" over the phone-in poll. He said he is concerned that the United Way may be "expending an exorbitant amount of money at Penn to influence the vote." The faculty senate chairperson added that it troubles him that the United Way may be spending money on the phone campaign when many are concerned that it already "costs too much to donate through the United Way." Religious Studies Department Chairperson Ann Matter said last night she has a policy of not speaking with any solicitors on the phone at home, but added that she is "especially offended by [the United Way] calling me on the phone." "I know there is a political basis," Matter said. "They wanted to press their case." Combined Campaign committee member David Rudovsky, who is a senior law fellow, also received a phone call, saying that the United Way is "out to defeat a fairer campaign and one that has produced more money." Joe Divis, a United Way spokesperson, did not directly confirm yesterday that the United Way hired a polling organization to make phone calls to faculty. He said the United Way is a company whose customers are donors and that they therefore conduct customer research regularly. "All I can say right now is that an organization that raises money has to know what donors think," he said. United Way Associate Director of Resource Development Jesse Starks declined to comment on the poll last night. Both the United Way and the Combined Campaign committee agree that the fall charity campaign raised $371,000 this year -- an increase from $290,000 last year -- and that the number of participants has increased greatly. But the agreement stops there, as the two groups dispute the reasons for the surge. Combined Campaign committee supporters said the implementation of a partially-combined campaign in the past two years has offered a more direct path to the donors' choices, thereby bringing in the greater funds and more contributors. United Way supporters argue that they already are a "combined" campaign and that the increase in money is unrelated to the efforts of the Combined Campaign committee. The partially-combined campaign first appeared on campus in fall 1988, when President Sheldon Hackney allowed four other umbrella organizations to distribute literature, separate from the United Way. However, the United Way still controlled the mechanism of the pledges. The following year, Hackney allowed the four campaigns to be recognized on the pledge card in addition to the United Way, so donations would not be subject to United Way administrative costs. Both sides dispute how much these administrative costs are. The Combined Campaign committee argues that the United Way subtracts a large administrative cost through its donor choice option, while their model is more direct and benefits the recipient more. Combined Campaign committee member Rudovsky said over the past two years there has been a significant increase in the amount of money given because the combined campaign has been partially instituted. "Before, the campaign was stagnant," Rudovsky said. "Two years ago it went up 15 percent and this year even more." Rudovsky also said this increase has been demonstrated in combined campaigns throughout the U.S. "The experience of a combined campaign across the country has shown an average increase of over 90 percent of the amount given," Rudovsky said. The United Way feels that the committee's proposal gives an unfair marketing advantage to selected organizations. They also maintain that the raise in the donations is not due to other fundraising organizations being on the pledge card. United Way's Divis argued that employee campaigns have increased in other workplaces without the addition of the combined campaign. Divis showed statistics last night that showed that at places where combined campaigns were not an issue, donations increased. He showed that one business, donations rose 159 percent last year and participation was up by 90 percent. Divis said calling the new model a "combined campaign" is misleading term because United Way is already combined campaign of 2700 organizations. He added that donors can select their preferred fundraising organization on their donor cards. Jane Combrinck-Graham, a member of the Combined Campaign committee has argued that many United Way members are outsiders who are attempting to influence University policy, while her organization consists of only University faculty and staff. "The people who are trying to make a change are faculty and staff," Combrinck-Graham said. "The people who are opposing this change are outsiders, not members of this community and they have professional interest in the outcome."
Although graduates from the Nursing School can give medication, handle intravenous feedings, care for infections, and are well trained professionals, many still find it unsettling to work with AIDS patients. But Associate Nursing Professor Ellen Baer is hoping to change that. Last semester she started a course designed to train nursing seniors to care for this growing population. Each Nursing senior is required to take a senior case study. Baer's program, "Nursing 360: Nursing Practice with HIV Positive Patients," is one of three that was offered last semester. The program was funded by a $348,000 grant to be used over three years by the U.S. Public Health Service. The students work at Graduate Hospital dispensing what Baer has termed "the two T's -- talking and touching." Under this system the students are encouraged to talk with the patients about uncomfortable topics, including the disease, death and dying. The students are also encouraged to lose their fear of touching AIDS patients. AIDS is unique in that it requires nurses to heavily draw upon techniques of the past, Baer said. "In an ironic way, AIDS calls upon nurses for nursing care reminiscent of the pre-antibiotic 19th century," she said. "Palliation, comfort, support, diet, infection control and all the efforts of [Florence] Nightengale at Scutari are called forth by this disease. In this sense AIDS is the prototype disease for fulfillment of the promise of nursing." Although Nursing senior Heidi Nebelkopf does not plan to treat infectious diseases, she found the course to be rewarding and informative. "I specifically want to go into cardiac nursing, but it is pretty unrealistic to think that I will not run into an HIV-positive patient in my clinical practice," Nebelkopf said. Nebelkopf added that the course was very helpful in making her better understand her own personal feelings towards AIDS patients and the disease. "I really enjoyed it since it gave me the opportunity to explore some of the fears in dealing with HIV-positive adults, and where these fears come from," she said. Baer said programs of this type should be available to more nursing students. "With monumental incidence projections and media saturation campaigns, few nursing programs devote a proportionate amount of the undergraduate curriculum to theory or clinical practice with AIDS patients," Baer said.
As the war in the Persian Gulf nears its fourth week, talk of a possible military draft has escalated at the University and on Capitol Hill. And even though no legislation for a draft has been formally proposed, there has been considerable discussion in Washington, D.C., on the issue. Under current laws, according to Selective Service officials, graduate and undergraduate students would not be exempt from a draft. But Undergraduate and graduate students may apply to defer their service for the remainder of the current semester, according to Service spokesperson Barbi Richardson. Seniors or graduate students in their final year can apply to defer for the entire year, she added. Jesse Jackson, who serves in the Senate as Washington, D.C.'s "shadow senator," has called for a draft without college deferments to equate the racial balance in the armed forces. The Rainbow Coalition, Jackson's political base, reports that 30 percent of those involved in Desert Storm are black, 39 percent are black or hispanic, 17 percent are women and 49 percent of the women are black. Rainbow Coalition spokesperson Unnia Pettus said yesterday that Jackson feels it is unjust that only four children of congressmen and no son or daughter of a Chief Executive Officer at a "Top 500" company is serving in Operation Desert Shield. But despite the appeals of the Coalition and others, prospects for draft are not imminent, according to spokespersons for area legislative representatives. According to a spokesperson, Congressman Thomas Foglietta (D-Pa.), who represents the University area, is concerned that the military system is unfair, but has not taken a position yet on a potential draft since there is no legislation formally pending on the issue. And Defense Secretary Dick Cheney said in a December hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee -- his latest remarks on a draft -- that there were no plans to start a draft. "We have no plans at present to seek reimposition of the draft," Cheney said. "We don't believe it is necessary." But should a ground offensive occur, there has been speculation that the all-volunteer force will not be sufficient. "I certainly don't call for a draft but I do believe that we're not going to have the ability to sustain this level of forces," Senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), chairperson of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in November. If a draft were to be reinstated, however, undergraduate and graduate students -- many of whom were exempt from a Vietnam War draft -- would be forced to serve, according to Selective Service spokesperson Richardson. Richardson said that after Congress passes a law instating the draft, her organization could begin to mobilize draftees within hours of the emergency measure. The first group are those who turn twenty in the calendar year of the legislation -- presently 1971 births. The system numerically progresses to age 24 then drafts 19-year-olds followed by 18-year-olds. After exhausting these populations, 25- and 26-year-olds would be called up, explained Richardson. Richardson cautioned that it is unlikely for the Selective Service to call up men older than 20-year-olds since each age group has between one-and-a-half to two million candidates for draft. In addition, after one calendar year those that were 19 fall into the 20-year-old bracket, and they would be the next to be mobilized. Rainbow Coalition's Pettus said yesterday that the group supports the current law which does not exempt college students from being conscripted into service. "If you are going to have a war, then it should represent all of America, including college students," Pettus said.
Yesterday's record breaking heat added a double meaning to the term Sun-day, as students took advantage of a surprise preview of spring to play frisbee in the Quadrangle and study outside. But not everyone was playing. Steve Forgione, manager of the Baskin and Robbins Ice Cream shop on the 3900 block of Walnut Street, said he might have to work overtime to meet up with the demand the high temperatures have brought. "Sales are non-stop," Forgione said, "It's customer after customer." And not everyone saw the weather only as a benefit. Landscape Project Planner Robert Lundgren explained that the unusually warm weather could be detrimental to the foliage around campus. Spring bulbs begin to come up earlier when there is warm weather since they sense spring, Lundgren said. These plants are often killed if the colder climate returns. "If it is consistently warm it is okay," Lundgren said. "But the up and down is confusing for the plants." But most on campus used the warm windfall to take their shorts out of the back of the closet and take walks or play sports outside. Wharton freshman Joshua Shale strolled to Rittenhouse Square to see Center City. "This is the weather that makes life worth living and makes you feel alive again," Shale said. Some students used the warm weather to participate in their favorite sports that can not be enjoyed in the cold. College sophomore Mike Holtsberg played Ultimate Frisbee and was surprised that he could play without the fear of frostbite in February. "The weather was just right," Holsberg said, "I wasn't sweating or anything, and it wasn't too cold." First-year Fine Arts graduate student Mark Isaksen, like Shale, also went for a walk to Rittenhouse Square, but completed the day with a drive to Fairmont Park. Isaksen said it was a perfect day to see the historic houses. The 62-degree high set a new Philadelphia record. The old record high, set in 1927, was 56 degrees, according to KYW-TV staff meteorologist Tom Lamaine. But Lamaine cautioned yesterday that record breaking heat will not necessarily be the norm this month. "This is one of the lowest record highs, so it was one of the easiest to break," he said. The highest recorded temperature for February is 79 degrees and was set February 25, 1939. Although yesterday did bring a record high temperature, scientists maintain it is not necessarily indicative of global warming. High daily variations can not determine general trends, since they can be countered by an abnormally cold day later, experts said. "One has to sum up the effects over a long time, before you can say it is a trend," said Geology Professor Hermann Pfefferkorn. University Police officer Tammie Watson also expressed the downside of hot weather when she explained that more violent crimes occur on hot days. Watson is not certain if this is applicable to warm winter days, or just the summer months.
Five Nursing School students will attend a conference in Washington, D.C., this week to learn about health care's place in the political world and how they can influence public policy. The seminar, sponsored by the American Nursing Association, will contain a series of lectures beginning on Thursday morning and running through Friday afternoon. Nursing professionals from all over the country will discuss the effects of politics on the health care field. "It will help open nursing students' eyes to the importance of public policy in their future careers," SNAP President Heidi Nebelkopf explained. "It is exciting that we will be with the leaders of nursing, such as the president of the ANA." The conference will be highlighted by a reception on Capitol Hill Thursday evening. The participants are expected to discuss their experience at the seminar with fellow nursing students at the University. Nursing senior Stephanie Rodriguez, one of the students going on the trip, said it is important that the students bring back the information to the other nursing students since it will supplement their previous study in the politics of nursing. "They don't teach a lot about this at the Nursing School," Rodriguez said. "A conference such as this allows students to learn more about an interesting aspect of nursing." The students have received funding for the entire seminar from two separate funds. The Nursing School is paying the registration fees and SNAP is paying for the hotel and transportation. Associate Dean and Director of Undergraduate Nursing Mary Naylor said the conference is an exciting opportunity and valuable experience for the students. "A major factor [of the seminar] is to try and examine how nurses can influence health care accessibility, quality, and cost," Naylor said. "We think this is very important.". The five students attending are: Nursing senior Nebelkopf, Nursing senior Rodriguez, Nursing junior Sheila Rossell, Nursing sophomore Diane Schretzman, and Nursing junior Leslie Sondeen. A sixth student may attend as well, depending on her schedule.
The Nursing School has started a $500,000 program to "untie" the elderly. For many years, nursing homes have had to resort to tying elderly patients to their beds and wheelchairs. Nurses have had to use belts and vests that prevent patients from self-inflicted harm including falling, leaving the area, and removing their own intravenous feedings. Recent research suggests that the elderly suffer adverse psychological effects from being restrained and often lose muscle tone and strength, making it more difficult for them to walk. But two Nursing School professors are out to change that. Associate Nursing Professor Neville Strumpf said yesterday that she and Associate Nursing Professor Lois Evans are examining various alternatives to physical restraints using a $500,000 grant from the National Institutes of Health. Since October, the federal government has required nursing homes to ease the use of restraints, which are currently used on approximately 500,000 patients daily. The professors will use the grant to change restraint systems for 600 patients in three nursing homes in the Philadelphia area over a 34 month period. "There are many other approaches for dealing with patients who wander, are disruptive, or interfere with their own treatment," Strumpf said. She and Evans said they hope the program will provide new methods of solving this problem. "Most nursing homes want to untie the elderly, but they don't know how to go about it," Evans said. Their research has lead them to believe that a change in atmosphere and attitude in the health facility can diminish the need for restraint. The research team has compared nursing homes in the U.S. to those in Scotland, Sweden and Denmark, which restrain patients 10 times less. Strumpf said that drugs may provide a "more humane" way of preventing patients from hurting themselves. The research team, in conjunction with Senior Nursing Fellow Doris Schwartz, published a report on restraint-free care this summer in Geriatric Nursing magazine. The article indicates that some of the reasons behind the wide-spread use of physical restraints are derived from social problems.