iii in

 
  

 

 

  

It appears that last Week’s announce—
ment of nominees for Who’s Who in
American colleges and universities has
caused quite a stir. A general campus
discussion which seems to be forming
over this question, is just what we like
to see.

It would be a misfortune if a subject
which has so much underlying impor-
tance were soon to be forgotten. Al-
though it may at first seem to concern
only those who were named this year,
actually, everyone is somehow affected.

While being spectators to the Who’s
Who fuss, we think there are a few
points connected with it that should be
cleared up.

According to our information, the
four faculty and two student members
of the Who’s Who committee believed
that the recognition at their disposal
should be awarded to men and women
whose activity in school affairs had
resulted in a broadening and reinforc~
ing of student life. (We use these terms
advisedly).

Scholarship, athletics, and popularity
have their existing rewards, but that is
not to deny that these qualities could
possibly, or even desirably, be excluded
from consideration. The essential idea
was to single out contributions to stu-
dent institutions irrespective of the
origin and means of service.

Butwhat about the method used
tc name these outstanding men and
women? The committee followed this
procedure: 75 seniors—«they were the
only ones eligiblemwere screened by
their activities as listed by the dean,
of students’ records and by the personal
knowledge of the six-man committee.
The preliminary candidates were sent
postal cards asking them to submit full,
up-to-date lists of their activities. These
records supplemented by the seemingly
prejudiced opinions of the committee
members, were the basis for final selec-
tion. Each member of the committee
listed his 24 choices and the number of
votes received by each candidate was
tabulated. The last few selections re—

 

 
    

quired .a bit of arbitration but other-
wise there was no pressuring and no
campaigning, according to our in.—
formant.

Whether or not we agree with the
objectives. of the committee or approve
of their machinery, we must admit that
they adhered to their announced plans.
These plans are a matter of record to
be found in the minutes and debate of
the ITSA board of control which sane»~
tioned every action and motive of the
committee. From here on we cease to
defend the committee or the reputation
of our staff members who were noniiw
nated.

What is this Who’s Who in American
colleges and universities, anyway? On
a national scale it’s nothing. Though
it claims coverage in 600 institutions;
many important colleges ignore the pub—
lication; the remanider use as many
diverse methods of selecting their reps
resentatives as there are schools. Plain
and simply, the book is a commercial
enterprise—not the signal honor that
many seem to think it is.

We’ve refrained from comment on the
objectives and criteria of the committee
but their naivete seems incredible. What
constitutes useful contributions to stu-
dent life and worthwhile influence in
student affairs? We might be inclined
to favor political activity but it is com-
mon knowledge that the student body is
typically uninterested about student
government. Some other faction may
consider scholarship, honoraries, and
professionals as the greatest contribu—
taries to student welfare. A good case
could be built for the man in athletics
whose many hours of physical activity
are an inspiration to his more seden-
tary brethren.

Again, to what extent could the com»
mittee members possibly maintain the
detached, impartial attitude demanded
by their own procedure? If they had
said that selections would be based on
their own observations of popularity
and on their purely personal yardsticko,
they would have come close to the

" i we“ list:

 

 

   

truth. We are not accusing them of
gross bias, but rather sympathizing
with them. When one has finished look—
ing over 75 comprehensive lists of ac~
tivities he is more confused than when
he started and quite disposed to rely
on personal knowledge.

Another thing we can’t hold with
is a commonly stated principle: the
more students on the screening board,
the more justice to students. It seems
to us that the two students, with all
their good intentions, had more per-
tiality in one finger than all four facul-
ty members. Try and he disinterested
when fraternity brothers or colleagues
on athletics and publications are con-
cerned.

Though we believe in averaging out
the selection with more students pal!-
ticipating, how can an arbitrary num-
ber like 24 nominations allocated by the
Who’s Who publishers represent a fair
sample more than could ten “best
dressed men”? In addition, are the in—
evitable bruised feelings, possible low~
ering of morale worth the raised egos
of such a few?

This doesn’t exhaust our ammunition
by any means but space limitations must
put an end to the number of criticisms
we can fire. Anyhow we’ve said enough
to prove our point. When something
has no worthwhile purpose it is usually
the custom to eliminate it. Otherwise
it likely becomes malignant.

Who Who’s should have been dropped
in 1948; it becomes increasingly objec-
tionable with each year. In the fall of
the year, Who’s Who time, whenever
the question of participation comes up
before ITSA, there always seem to be
just enough proponents around to sad-

 

The home of Tom Murray was in~
odocrtently omitted from the Who’s Who
list published in last week’s Technology
News. We regret the error and offer to
Mr. Murray our most sincere apology.

 

ilfl

as selects

 

 

dle the student body with an unpopular,
impossible measure.

Now that the affair has been exposed
to widespread criticism, ITSA should
reconsider its attitude on Who's Who.
Its action cannot be binding on a suc-
ceeding board of control but perhaps
some statement or resolution would go
a long way towards setting a precedent
of non—recognition to Who’s Who.

Joe Buss.

 

 

Published every Friday durluo the school your by the
students of Illinois Institute at technology. 33% 5. Federal.
cm can” liln l

c , s. Entered on second class a or
October ll‘l W40, oi the our? office or Chicano. illlnoh.
no or the oi 00 March . 18 i.
he resented low national advertising by the National
A vortlslno Sonics. Inst. 1 odlson vo.. Ne York ,

. . V. Mvevliilno roles tarnished u on request. Sula.
marlpllonv—lhmeutlca Shw pm term. orolpn: $14M poi-

term.
it it it

uditowlndtlhlot. . . t . . . . . . . . . . . . .hE’D Mlfillthhlfi
dominoes Marauder. . . . . . . . . . . . . .fitit’i‘ thhhi
dissociate Editor. . . . . . . . . . . . . commie M5?

News hellish JOE RAGE
News Sloth Bert Cohn. assistant editor. Alan Plait,
Ed Stack. Walter Wincek, Bill Wechter. Vince Parts
Sports Editor, ED JENNINGS
Sports Staff: Marks Levy. assistant editor. Sid
Dop elf. Ted Spath. Bill Feliss, Don Anderson.
Ham Bubloy
Feature Editor, ”AVE MILMEH
Feature Staff: Cilia Kroh, Jim Gawariowshi, Paul
Mandolsioin. Hal Bergen. Herb Schmidt. John
Smiles. Wayne quooi‘ie, H. Holmes
«lopy Editors, HUBER? KEVWZ and Elma GREEN
Copy Sioii: Dolores Jackson, Walter Schaci‘fer
Newsletter Editor, ANDY AREENT‘K
Newsletter Staff: John Tynor. associate editor. Wes-
ley Ooms, Haul: Slnord, Jerry Cozel
Promotion Editor, incur fitlltilllto
Promotion Stuff: Nathan Mann
Business Staff: Don Lynch, assistant business men-
eager. Bob Neil. Gilbert Eisner. Bill Kockelmon
Makeup iSi-ofi: Wolly Kaiser, Front Ditto, Whitney
Nichols. lSharlos Harder
Art Staff: Irvin Reboschlni, staff hood. James fimolo,
“Carol Glennie, Shirley Schultz, Orlando Marielle
Photography: Jcc Locos. Frank Garth:
Typis‘rs: Jeanette Saule. Joann Schwartz,
Kern
Office Managers: Vince Mai-soloist, Chas. Sim-buck
Spcciol Assistants: Frank Jenik, Don Lundherg. Reed
Vorloy

Kara

 

inunnmmeaunana . mnmmnunaaumeswn

ditdd‘llil. dill fliiddldil “"
dillddill’ illll'hd
Round Trip For
dddldl’llldd liddil’l’ldii

“favezu”a"s".2“canflourflo"Wunuuofinwnmfmmuwnflomuuuaumm"nhdadfiu'lswownflu‘Ycfluunmnmuncnn’wumuwumfcud

 

fo“u”o“w“n“mt“m”s“s“n“o”n'm“n“u"n“m“’u”e”n‘b”nfld"amunfmnmmms‘l’m' n"d“o"aWs"u”n“s‘h“i-“mwm”n

desert deacon
Xvi-W ,,

     

 

  

Car‘s
NEW YORK ........... it 50 \v /
ms ANGELES ........ 125 l, (w
MIAMI ................ 70 m... _ “w
\‘ \‘:\ g‘
DENVER .............. co ,3 f t,
For Reservations Phone: «~33 "'41:
PHIL JOHNSON . 3'
SAginaw 1-1529 ‘ .
NOTE: THE RATES SHOWN .~ WWW
ARE COMPLETE RATES. , .
,, v” sssow
‘ caverns
tars

 

Final Thesis Deadline: Jen. l3
Preliminary Deadline: Dec. 30

Call now and ovoid rushl

Eildltlhddiiih ”iiiESEd

 

thiiiid’i
INCLUDING

EQUATEONS
DRAWlNGS
CHARTS

 

Campus Representative:
J. .3. Heup’i‘il m- Ext. 309
or phone
WHiiehcll 4-758

 

 

 

 

    

E 0
distally
It's one of Arrow’s campus favorites, the wide-spread
”Sussex” in fine Gordon Oxford fabric.

Arrowls smartly styled and long

 
 
 
 
  

wearing Oxfords are also available
in button-clown and regular collars.
White and solid colors. See your

' Arr-ow dealer!

El «SE—""Hflflh’flflflfl fl flflflfllfifl a El an
efi-fiuflnflfififld flafl'flaflafi'h x . .. {I :3 Id .i m 1 :al flflfiflflfiflafl all: E l a fiafiai-fiafiufifiumunéflflghflu iflh‘Q‘F-‘fluflafl‘fl‘ . I‘ Eagigdnflsgeflflaflflufiaflag

 

,

“Es @ UNDERWEAR 0 tiANDKERCHllEW *9 Shfldl‘SSl‘ilRT
:"nuumsmmas‘bWal’onemufimfia“ems“emfufismsquemo‘Wfi%%wfa”c%Wna

fiaflefifa‘hlswans“???a“:”saaasneneae“e%aeaeaaanasfiaaeasaaaefigaeaaafifs“sangefiiaan‘éa“use‘eaa“a“aaaaeaeaafinflnaeae‘iaaaE255%“aflsasasaoae‘sae‘eaegaussa’f

damn

"smash

is

 

gmfefleasaaam ”agngemmeWmaaaemamghflaflemafinfiaEnflaaBEEaamanaeangaeaaaengamfissseamaaamfiefigageaafiaaagagnaafleaaaagsuaasunanfleauga “Jada”

 

 

    

hiid Wildlti Wdllliltd tiddid dildlll

With these buttowelown and spread-collar Oxfords
go the value and quality that have made Arrow
"America’s favorite college shirts.”

We have Arrow Oxfords on hand now, why not
drop in for a fresh supply? They come in whites
or solid colors. $3.95.

’ aurumni‘fiursrsflsss dddfilw tithiilfdldfilfl’ Sl‘l’tiiS ”thermometers

tortoises

I”),

a‘afiaflfflflfsv§§mWaafifififi“§§fiW

  

a”5'3griefa“a”J£J&W&?§aflefifii‘ifsaossgfa”f§oaaW§f¥aa