In an abrupt turn, Dean of Admissions Lee Stetson has announced that he has resigned from his post, effective immediately. "He released a brief statement yesterday that offered little explanation for the decision:" "Stetson's office said he was traveling and could not be reached for comment." "University spokeswoman Lori Doyle said she had no further information about the reasons behind his decision." "University President Amy Gutmann would also not speak about the details behind Stetson's resignation" "Stetson's sudden change of heart is an unexpected turn for a man who has received high praise for his success" "As recently as Tuesday morning, he had given no indication in a DP interview that he would resign sooner than he had previously announced." Cover-up? Scandal?

Maybe he was pushed. There's been a lot of that going on at Penn over the last decade. No reason required.

Whatever the reason, this can't be good: * Grave medical prognosis for Stetson * Silent coup/hatchet job, hurtling one of the most public-facing University offices into an abrupt leadership shift with absolutely zero transition plan * Fending off imminent scandal It feels odd to say this, but I really hope that in a year we'll hear something along the lines of how Stetson successfully fought back cancer, or some other life-threatening condition. If he's in good health, the remaining possible explanations are very unpleasant, and don't bode well for the body politic of the University.

Will the real story come out.... that's up to you, DP, can't wait to read it.

This whole sordid affair reminds me of when UPPD Chief Rambo resigned to "pursue other employment opportunities." He ends up as head of security at Susquehanna U. A big step up to a world class school! Anyone can see there is a problem when all officials are silent knowing there will be rampant speculation. There is obviously major money and reputation for Stetson to protect. We should be glad Penn suits were not hired by Nixon or Sen. Craig.

Does anyone even know the true story behind how the admissions office really works? 29 years is a long standing reign as dean of admissions. Change is not always a bad thing, even after 29 years. Maybe he wanted to make a change sooner rather than later. Partial observer is incorrect. There was an immediate transition plan in place. Not sure why you stated there is "zero transition plan". It is published in the DP. Mr. Kaplan was previously Dean of Lehigh and before that was the Director of the Penn Admissions Office for many years. Kaplan is the appropriate individual for a smooth transition.

No one should be allowed to remain in the same position for 29 years; change is good and healthy for an individual and the organization. Furthermore, giving more than a year's notice is excessive and results in a lame duck period that is simply too long. Too many administrators at Penn are entrenched in their jobs and should have left a long time ago. 10 years should be the maximum any one person can remain in any one job. Penn needs new ideas and fresh perspectives, not the same stale ways of doing things by people who don't know when to move on.

[QUOTE id="0ae55bb0-ab5b-4cf5-89c0-fc4d3db2a064"]No one should be allowed to remain in the same position for 29 years; change is good and healthy for an individual and the organization. Furthermore, giving more than a year's notice is excessive and results in a lame duck period that is simply too long. Too many administrators at Penn are entrenched in their jobs and should have left a long time ago. 10 years should be the maximum any one person can remain in any one job. Penn needs new ideas and fresh perspectives, not the same stale ways of doing things by people who don't know when to move on.[/QUOTE] ......True, it's always good to have news ideas and fresh perspectives.........but the "stale ways" of Stetson have helped Penn's world wide recognition come around ten-fold since he's been there. You can't ignore that and it contradicts your theory somewhat. What a terrific job he has done. I hope he is well and that he has decided that this is time for him and his family and it just the right time for everybody. As an Alumni you should be very thankful for all that he is done....we all should.

[QUOTE id="28a0bf79-5391-48b5-b4d9-2fa72b898d06"]I think wazzup's theory make the most sense; ie, that it has to do with a pending change in Stetson's dogged commitment to binding Early Decision.[/QUOTE] These speculative reasons for Stetson's sudden departure fail to explain the University Administration's lack of the typical praise and thanks given to a long standing and at least apparently very successful official. If Stetson was leaving Penn b/c of disagreements over ED or even for health reasons there would have been a much more positive and probably ceremonious announcement regarding his resignation. He clearly is leaving under a cloud!

thanks - good ideas hence forth

[QUOTE id="d33b6430-d8c5-4d20-b927-36b482fc0666"]Nobody has mentioned (including you, DP writers) the fact that Stetson has been quoted in the last year as being extremely opposed to jettisoning early decision, when schools like Princeton, Harvard, and UVA have eliminated it. More seem to be on the way. Maybe Gutmann has caved (which isn't such a bad thing), and they wanted to make an announcement soon so it can be in effect for the Class of 2013. Come on, go investigate!! Tell Adam Black I said hello.[/QUOTE] GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. HARVARD, P-TON, ETC. ONLY ELIMINATED EARLY FOR A THREE YEAR TRIAL PERIOD. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO BACK AND READ ALL THE ARTICLES ABOUT THEIR ANNOUNCEMENTS. IT'S ONLY FOR 3 YEARS TRIAL BASIS. DEAN STETSON WAS A FAN OF EARLY DECISION BECAUSE IT WORKED FOR PENN IN MANY WAYS.

[QUOTE id="623dcfab-4302-438f-b9ba-d54e1b1353fe"]It seems to me that Gutmann's leadership of Penn has been lacking. She is never visible or accessible. Poor judgment and bad decisions (remember the Halloween photo?) have defined her tenure. It's time for the Trustees to ask questions and hold her accountable for her performance and the quality of her administration.[/QUOTE] GIVE AMY GUTMANN A BREAK. SHE DIDN'T GO TO PENN OR LIVE IN PHILLY LIKE JUDITH RODIN DID. PUT YOURSELF IN PRES GUTMANNS SHOES. SHE HAS TO LEARN THE INS AND OUTS OF EVERY DEPARTMENT OF PENN AND THE PENN HEALTH SYSTEM. THAT WOULD TAKE ANYONE A COUPLE OF YEARS TO JUST ABSORB BEFORE THEY CAN TAKE ANY ACTIONS. I THINK SHE IS DOING THE BEST JOB SHE CAN GIVEN THE FACT SHE CAME TO PENN AND HAD TO LEARN EVERYTHING FROM THE GROUND UP. THE TRUSTEES DO HOLD HER ACCOUNTABLE. IF SHE ISNT' VISIBLE ITS PROBABLY BECAUSE SHE IS SO BUSY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT ALL OF PENN AND ALL OF THE HEALTH SYSTEM. WHY DON'T YOU PUT YOURSELF IN HER SHOES? LETS SEE HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE YOU TO LEARN ALL THAT INFORMATION AND FEEL COMFORTABLE TAKING ACTION ON ANYTHING CONSIDERED A MAJOR DECISION.

[QUOTE id="d33b6430-d8c5-4d20-b927-36b482fc0666"]Nobody has mentioned (including you, DP writers) the fact that Stetson has been quoted in the last year as being extremely opposed to jettisoning early decision, when schools like Princeton, Harvard, and UVA have eliminated it. More seem to be on the way. Maybe Gutmann has caved (which isn't such a bad thing), and they wanted to make an announcement soon so it can be in effect for the Class of 2013. Come on, go investigate!! Tell Adam Black I said hello.[/QUOTE] that more schools are sticking ED, but I don't have any facts to support that. Do you have anything to support your theory that "more are on the way?"

[QUOTE id="d33b6430-d8c5-4d20-b927-36b482fc0666"]Nobody has mentioned (including you, DP writers) the fact that Stetson has been quoted in the last year as being extremely opposed to jettisoning early decision, when schools like Princeton, Harvard, and UVA have eliminated it. More seem to be on the way. Maybe Gutmann has caved (which isn't such a bad thing), and they wanted to make an announcement soon so it can be in effect for the Class of 2013. Come on, go investigate!! Tell Adam Black I said hello.[/QUOTE] In Ryan's defense, I think that the fact that two ivy leagues got rid of it for three years, and Yale is early action, that Penn's board of trustees is seriously considering it. why wouldn't they be? perhaps they simply had a difference of opinion with stetson, and Gutmann may have agreed with them. Penn's trustees could be going for a more diverse pool of applicants, and eliminating ED could potentially help that situation.

It seems to me that Gutmann's leadership of Penn has been lacking. She is never visible or accessible. Poor judgment and bad decisions (remember the Halloween photo?) have defined her tenure. It's time for the Trustees to ask questions and hold her accountable for her performance and the quality of her administration.

Nobody has mentioned (including you, DP writers) the fact that Stetson has been quoted in the last year as being extremely opposed to jettisoning early decision, when schools like Princeton, Harvard, and UVA have eliminated it. More seem to be on the way. Maybe Gutmann has caved (which isn't such a bad thing), and they wanted to make an announcement soon so it can be in effect for the Class of 2013. Come on, go investigate!! Tell Adam Black I said hello.

I recently walked past Stetson on Walnut. He seemed worn down, but had some step in him. Maybe a health issue. Really not sure how Penn could benefit from getting rid of early decision. we are not HYP. I cannot prove this , but my sense is that without ED, our yield numbers would suffer, thereby affect our high ranking in USNEWS. HYP can probably hold their own in terms of yield, but can Penn and UVA do the same? It would be very interesting to see how UVA fairs without ED. We also have seen the crest of the applicant pool with last year and the number of high school seniors will start to downtrend. even more pressure to maintain applicant numbers, let alone yield. Based on the class of 2011, the current yield with ED is 67%, a nice number, which undoubtedly helps our rankings since it puts us up there with Stanford and Caltech. But if you subtract the ED acceptances who are required to accept, then my rough calculations say that the yield of the non-ED accptances goes down to 50%. Without ED, the final yield will be somewhere in between, but will certainly be lower than 67%. If prestige counted alot, then ED would help Penn. On the other hand, how much will Guttman follow her former boss Tighman in Princeton. Guttman is certainly her own person, but for the same reasons PU changed, making Penn more accessible to students who need to survey the field for financial aid in a non-ED setting (yes, you can debate this :)) may make Penn more diverse. Does it come down to the issue of prestige vs. egalitarianism?

hopefully he is well - that would be my wish...many top administrators and staff have left in the last year....VP of Business...VP of Finance...Director of Major Gifts....Associate Dean of Wharton - head of Dev left suddenly last week as well....AVP of Development....AVP of Alumni Relations seems to me that the administration is cleaning house - not necessarily for the good .......many of these were the best ever Who is really managing the house? And if it is being managed...why are many of these slots open for months on end?

[QUOTE id="917c10b4-3aca-4469-ba1f-a7a76b64e4fc"]I recently walked past Stetson on Walnut. He seemed worn down, but had some step in him. Maybe a health issue. Really not sure how Penn could benefit from getting rid of early decision. we are not HYP. I cannot prove this , but my sense is that without ED, our yield numbers would suffer, thereby affect our high ranking in USNEWS. HYP can probably hold their own in terms of yield, but can Penn and UVA do the same? It would be very interesting to see how UVA fairs without ED. We also have seen the crest of the applicant pool with last year and the number of high school seniors will start to downtrend. even more pressure to maintain applicant numbers, let alone yield. Based on the class of 2011, the current yield with ED is 67%, a nice number, which undoubtedly helps our rankings since it puts us up there with Stanford and Caltech. But if you subtract the ED acceptances who are required to accept, then my rough calculations say that the yield of the non-ED accptances goes down to 50%. Without ED, the final yield will be somewhere in between, but will certainly be lower than 67%. If prestige counted alot, then ED would help Penn. On the other hand, how much will Guttman follow her former boss Tighman in Princeton. Guttman is certainly her own person, but for the same reasons PU changed, making Penn more accessible to students who need to survey the field for financial aid in a non-ED setting (yes, you can debate this :)) may make Penn more diverse. Does it come down to the issue of prestige vs. egalitarianism?[/QUOTE] Yield is no longer a factor in the calculation of the US News rankings. It's been a couple years since it has.

Yield certainly IS a factor - at least indirectly - as it decrees the admit rate. A school with a 70% yield needs to admit 3,000 people to fill 2,100 seats; if the anticipated yield rate drops to 50%, the school will have to admit 4,200 people to fill the same number of seats. Yield is THE key selectivity factor - particularly RD yield (filtering out the ED admits, who are legally bound to enroll.)

[QUOTE id="1bd6cda7-fdfa-442f-9ffb-64325f146dec"]"Yield" certainly IS a factor - at least indirectly - as it decrees the admit rate. A school with a 70% yield needs to admit 3,000 people to fill 2,100 seats; if the anticipated yield rate drops to 50%, the school will have to admit 4,200 people to fill the same number of seats. Yield is THE key selectivity factor - particularly RD yield (filtering out the ED admits, who are legally bound to enroll.)[/QUOTE] It certainly has an effect on the acceptance rate, but that in itself accounts for a miniscule 1.5% of the rankings criteria.

Who cares about US Rankings - we're in the top 5, get over it. HYP's goin nowhere. ED isn't all about yield and rankings. Did you ever think for a minute that Penn might (just might) be trying to offer its applicants the best possible option to attend a great school? That may involve eliminating ED. At least one reason is that eliminating the many of the 50% must already accept through ED gives lots of kids who may be rejected from Yale, Harvard, or even SCSU or Oklahoma, etc. a chance to attend Penn. Moral of the story: there's more to life than rankings, and maybe Penn really does want to get rid of ED, and maybe Lee Stetson is on his way out early because he disagrees. I certainly hope this was the reason and not a health issue. Yahooooo!

I think wazzup's theory make the most sense; ie, that it has to do with a pending change in Stetson's dogged commitment to binding Early Decision.