<p>Here’s what the faculty at Penn is hoping for in the next Dean of Admissions:</p>
<p>Faculty Senate Executive Committee Actions
Wednesday, November 28, 2007</p>
<p>Faculty conversation concerning the search for a Dean of Admissions. Robin Mamlet, senior consultant with Witt/Kieffer, currently working with the University of Pennsylvania Advisory Committee on the search for the Dean of Admissions joined the Faculty Senate Executive Committee (SEC). She engaged SEC in a robust discussion concerning attributes the faculty would like in a Dean of Admissions candidate: familiarity with the McGill Report, sensitivity to LGBT concerns, admission of a more creative and imaginative student body, improvement of the economic diversity of students, willingness to listen, question existing paradigms, and engage with faculty.</p>
<p>One way you know it was deep sixed is that he was allowed to resign as opposed to being fired (clearly looks like the U asked him to go), which would tend to open the issue up if there were penalties or fines etc which would cause legal actions. If you think it through there are not that many options which would cause someone to be asked to leave this abruptly. Make a short list. I have heard a rumor, which I can’t verify, so I won’t post it, but it seems reasonable the way this was handled. It has come from several different sources. I would say it will never come out which may be due to a legal settlement with a nondisclosure clause on both sides. I am not saying there were lawyers involved, but it is possible in this day an age.</p>
<p>As for Saintofme’s response saying what the faculty wants, I know the some sort of engagement was an issue when my S went there (graduated) some time ago. Admissions was like a black box to the faculty. Apps went in, and decisions came out, but they had no clue what went on.</p>
<p>I can think of several scenarios - which of these do CCers think is most likely?
romance with a student
unethical admission practices - admitting students based on personal considerations ($$, connections that will help Stetson in the future) rather than regular considerations
* cheating/abuse of expense accounts, etc
* use of Penn data to advance his future consulting practice
???</p>
<p>I vote (in order) for:
b: unethical admissions practices
a: romance with student leading to unethical admissions practices (otherwise they are two consenting adults (college students are over 18)…why would it matter other than being weird??)</p>
<p>rod … perhaps they are adults, but one is in a position of authority and responsibility and it does not play well for the guy determining my daughter’s Penn future to be pining over her cleavage, etc. </p>
<p>My only point is that your presumably youthful naivete is showing thru. If you’re oldern 21 though, I just flat out disagree with your analyses and more so your perspective.</p>
<p>There are any # of scenarios that mighta led to his head being lopped on the chopping block. Most certainly it was though. I’m betting however it is, there are some big bucks involved in this scenario. Tis the only hope of keeping this so quiet … for the moment.</p>
<p>You missed my point; sorry…I didn’t mean a prospective hs student, but rather a current Penn undergrad or grad student (or even possibly a staff member??)…I do agree that there is definitely mucho dinero involved…I am beyond flattered about the “youthful naivete” though…I am probably older than you are (1983 Wharton MBA)…</p>
<p>No, I got it. Imo, it would not matter when the romance occurred IF she (or he … it’s penn) were a student of any status. I guess we’ll just have to respectfully disagree on that one. And oh how I wish I were youngern you. No luck on that front either. </p>
<p>That said though, I’d go with you that were it an adult student, I doubt he’d get fired for that UNLESS he refused to exit the relationship or covert discretion.</p>
<p>I overheard some folks utter “Smoking cigars with an intern could do it”. Or being accused of “making an unkind comment about someones sexuality in the admissions office” in these PC times would be sufficient don’t you think? Accusations of this sort regardless of merit would be enough to send anyone packing!</p>
<p>Ya think? Why so? Seems to me that there are lots of inquiring minds out there, and Penn is no backwoods oasis. Someones must know, don’t you suppose? Give it time.</p>
<p>But that is typical for non-profit boards. There is a growing delineation between “governance” and “operations” with the boards taking minimal interest in operations.</p>
<p>a Philly Magazine (in their “Daily Examiner”) piece about the Daily Pennsylvanian’s relentless quest (as linked in post 154) to shake the truth loose, & bully Gutmann…</p>
<p>I’m part of the fruitless tree-checking group. Every time this thread pops up, I click to see if some progress has been made…so far, no illumination.</p>
<p>Our suburban Phila high school usually gets lots of ED acceptances from Penn. Now with Stetson gone, I hear that only 4 of the 38 girls who applied ED were accepted. I don’t know about acceptances for the boys. Hmm</p>
Why so? Seems to me that there are lots of inquiring minds out there, and Penn is no backwoods oasis. Someones must know, don’t you suppose? Give it time.</p>