Moreover, there is good reason to suggest that this part of the reward system be administered centrally or that, at least, the deans be held strictly accountable for the implementation of the policy. The second component of the failed strategy that I would change is the weak presence of the faculty in the admissions process. Admissions has become a vastly technical, professionalized, perhaps commercialized undertaking during the period of our failed attempts to improve undergraduate education. If faculty think that it is infra dig to become involved with the admissions process, let me suggest that it is no great honor to be confronted by growing evidence that one's students are not here for the reasons we hope had inspired them to come. Not even the youngest professor attended a school that was like the Penn of today, even if that school was Penn.
Teaching occurs in a cultural context.
What students are like, what shaped them intellectually, morally, influences how they learn and must influence how we teach. When these societal forces change rapidly, it is intensely difficult for the faculty to respond in ways that preserve the integrity and quality of their teaching. It becomes more important, now, at such a time of rapid change, that the students who choose Penn have the most accurate image of what they will encounter in the classroom. The new design will not work unless there is a congruence of values and expectations between the faculty and its students. Whether a student comes to Penn for certification or an education depends on how well those values and expectations are communicated during the admissions process.