Conor Daly: Dean Beeman's exercise in futility

Look around. What you see is a "new" Penn. Walk to 40th and Locust streets and look at the Bridge or to 38th and Walnut and look at Pottruck and you will see just two examples of how things have changed around here and how Penn has a new attitude toward its students. What these additions demonstrate is the extent to which the University has worked to improve (or arguably create) a customer service department, finally making inroads into closing the gap between what our parents pay for tuition and the value we get from it. These improvements did not happen overnight and, for the most part, have come about from our demands, or more accurately, our suggestions (read: our incessant complaining) and our needs. Although glaring areas exist where more responsiveness by the University would have great effect (ahem... Dining Services), the administration has already gone to great pains to cater to our 21st century spoiled-brat needs and that is reason for students to be pleased. This trend has given rise to the emergence of at least one high-ranking enemy, a proverbial 800-pound gorilla in the administration -- a man unafraid to stand up to other popular trends, most recently the U.S. News and World Report rankings -- outgoing College of Arts and Sciences Dean Richard Beeman. In a recent letter published in the Almanac entitled "Reversing the Tide," Beeman details why he believes Penn has become too responsive to student needs, noting the building of the cinema and fitness center as examples of Penn's fostering of a "customer service attitude" toward its students. He also believes that this trend has manifested itself through a decreasing number of classes offered on Fridays and in the early mornings and late afternoons of weekdays, a result of Penn's "excessive solicitousness to students' sleeping habits and to their afternoon practice needs." I must agree, Penn has become very consumer oriented. But why is that such a bad thing? Why is the building of movie theaters, fitness centers and the movement of classes from Fridays to earlier in the week seemingly an erosion of how we ought to think of higher education? Answers to these questions are absent in Beeman's diatribe and the fact is maybe he could not come up with valid reasons to justify his stance. The movement of classes from Fridays and early mornings and late afternoons offers a benefit to students, faculty and, indirectly, the University in general. Faculty are able to use the extra time for their research activities. Students are able to use their extra time for, yes, athletic practice, but also music practice, their own research activities and student groups, the development of these all bolstering a lively student life environment. This, in return, undoubtedly has an effect on the place of the University in the minds of applicants and potential matriculants. The building of the Bridge and Pottruck Center and other real estate projects have had much to do with Penn trying to gain an admissions edge on other urban universities that have similar amenities (think Georgetown and Harvard). Harvard has benefited from the development of Harvard Square into the retail mecca of Cambridge due in no small part to that university's development efforts in the 1970s. Georgetown's attractiveness to matriculants increases once those accepted see the bustle of Wisconsin Avenue with its J. Crews and Banana Republics. Penn's recent drive to bring similar conveniences to West Philadelphia and to increase its overall responsiveness to its "customers" will hopefully help Penn catch up to its peer urban universities, which have had such facilities for a generation, a fact which obviously escapes Beeman. I do not doubt that when Beeman grumbles about Penn's excessive responsiveness to its students and summarily prescribes a means of reversing the process -- such as asking College departments to consider offering more requirement-filling courses at 9 a.m. during the week -- that he has what he views as Penn's interests in mind. However, the fact remains that there is no valid reason why Penn should arbitrarily reverse this process and increase the number of classes held at unpopular times, to say nothing of discontinuing its further development of University City as a bustling retail spot. Furthermore, to reverse this trend now would result in a disadvantage for Penn in the admissions game and a weakening of student life, two facts which would do much to erase strides this administration has taken in the past eight years. Not to worry though -- don't expect much to change as a result of Beeman's crusade. Penn has opened a Pandora's Box in having become more responsive to its students, and he will be hard pressed to make any lasting changes in this interest because of the unlikelihood of rolling back how we have become accustomed to the "new" Penn. No matter what Beeman tries to do, Penn's customer service department can expect a lot of complaints, and we all know to whom the University will listen. Conor Daly is a senior Political Science major from Boxford, Mass.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.