-FOR COMMENT Planning for the '90s Five-Year Academic Plan for the University of Pennsylvania

Two years ago we began a new phase of our academic planning process: an intensive campus-wide effort to think through the University's priorities for the 1990s. The genesis of this effort grew out of a retreat of the Academic Planning and Budget Committee that focused on the role of the central administration in assisting and facilitating the academic investments made by our schools and resource centers while at the same time ensuring that the initiatives they undertake individually fit into a larger University-wide strategy. As a result of that discussion, ten working groups of faculty, students, and administrative staff were established to examine the areas of undergraduate education, financial aid, admissions, advising and retention, Ph.D. education, professional education, research, faculty development, the academic information environment and international dimensions. Their final reports were published in Almanac in December of 1989 and served as the basis for extensive discussions and review by both the Academic Planning and Budget Committee and the President's Advisory Group (consisting of the dean of each school, the Provost, the President, and the President's senior administrative colleagues). These two groups also evaluated proposals developed by individual schools, resource centers and administrative units. Their task was to draw together the key elements in all these initiatives that they deemed essential in meeting the critical challenges facing Penn. From the beginning, the Academic Planning and Budget Committee, the Deans, and the central administration have worked closely with other interested faculty and students in helping to develop the Five-Year Plan. Key issues have been reviewed with the Faculty Senate, the Council of Undergraduate Deans, the Council of Graduate Deans, and the Board of Trustees. Not all the recommendations contained in the reports of the ten working groups have been included in the plan. This does not mean, however, that they have been ignored. Many of the recommendations on Ph.D. education, for example, shall become the responsibility of the Vice Provost for Graduate Education; issues of undergraduate retention are now being examined by the four undergraduate schools; recommendations about innovative financial aid support are being explored by a special ad hoc committee. With the publication of the proposed plan, we have reached a new phase in our planning effort. During this first stage, we have identified a limited set of issues and concerns requiring priority attention and leadership, particularly from the central administration. Yet our vision of the University must be a collective one, reflecting both a common sense of purpose and the needs and goals of our individual components. The adoption of a new University Five-Year Plan provides an opportunity for each of the twelve schools to review, update, and, where appropriate, recast their own plans. It is our expectation that during the coming year each school shall begin its own review and then plan accordingly, taking into account University priorities as well as its own sense of future challenges and opportunities. The document that follows is for comment. We solicit your suggestions and encourage full review by faculty, students, and staff. Because it is our intention to publish a final report before the end of the semester, we would appreciate receiving your reactions by November 2. Please send your comments to either of us.