From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:52:29 EST Maybe the "problem" Penn faces as a result of "its urban setting" is thinking that its urban setting is a problem. Many of us think that the urban area in which Penn is a net asset and not a net liability.
My impression (from 25 years at Penn) is that Penn agrees that its urban location is a net asset. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't have associated problems that have to be addreessed. By analogy, if I got a house in the suburbs, among the problem that I'd face would be the suburban setting: long commute, lack of shopping within walking distance, death by boredom, paranoid feeling of being surrounded bystepford wives and husbands, etc. Since I got a house in the city, instead, I'm faced with the problem of the urban setting: people dumping their trash in front of my house, car alarms going off every half hour all night long, etc. Just because the university recognizes the major problems associated with an urban setting doesn't mean that it doesn't recognize the benefits, too. And to an administrator coming from Princeton, adjusting to Penn's urban setting is probably one of the biggest problems. If I were to move to the suburbs, adjusting to the suburban setting would be my major problem. I know how to handle a house, but I don't know how to care for a lawn. In both cases, it doesn't mean that the location is "bad", it just means that it involves certain problems that need to be addressed. --- Chip ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
