University of San Francisco - USF Don Yearbook (San Francisco, CA)

Page 11 text:

DON Dedication 8 Adminisration Affiliated Departments Faculty “The Year Graduates Leadership Organizations Cultural Activities Fraternities and Sororities Athletics Undergraduates 16 36 42 62 76 126 160 182 194 204 232 294 7 Advertisements

Page 10 text:

Editor-in-chief George Devine THE 19 Executive Editor Thomas J. Mellon, Jr. Managing Editor Michael P. Sullivan Business Manager Jerome A. Distefano Graduates Section Editor R. Thomas Valverde Undergraduates Section Editor Dunning Wilson Administration Section Editor George R. Gilmour Faculty Section Editor Clement J. Dougherty, Jr. Organizations Section Editor Sam Houston Andrew Athletics Section Co-Editors David Vanoncini, Brian Coughlan ,fThe Year Section Editor Gordon Bowker Photography Editor Michael Svanevik Faculty Moderator Father John E. Fischer, S.J. 6

Page 12 text:

Meaning of Excellence How Achieve Excellence? It need hardly be said that every institution, indeed every individual. is striving to perfect himself, in some aspect, in some field of endeavor. It would not be twisting the fact to say that every person, every institution, is aiming at excellence at least as an ultimate final goal for which he is acting. We should not, then, be surprised to find that the University of San Francisco is dedicated to excellence. In fact there might be a valid question raised in the minds of readers why this annual is dedicated to such a commonplace, expected commitment as the one of this University. The answer to this question depends in large measure upon precisely what is meant by excellence. Although commonly used as the watchword and rallying cry for many purj oses, diverse as they are numerous, and although there seems to be a general agreement as to its meaning, it is in fact most limited in comprehension and broad in extension. It simply means a relative superiority, first in its class. Now, then the crucial question simply is, what is the class in which USF is committed to be first? One may presume we are selling up straw men to be knocked over as so many tenpins in the next paragraph, but the question is seriously posed. From some aspects, it would seem that our aim is to grow, to enlarge the campus, increase its buildings, augment the faculty, expand the endowment. Commonly, when reading of advances made by particular colleges, both public and private, we find a basic assumption which holds size to be the sine qua non of excellence and growth to be the pursuit of that goal. There is much to be said for this. Famous universities are usually large, and much indeed is to be said for famous institutions; we admire them from afar, somewhat in awe of their vast campi. One Jesuit educator said recently that colleges must grow or perish, and he did not intend that his institution should choose the latter course. Perhaps we should strive to imitate, in some respects at least, the secular colleges of such great fame. They are producing the men who will man our rockets, build our cities, rule our land and probably write our books. George Bernard Shaw has held that Catholic education is a contradiction in terms” and Bertrand Russell feels that an educational system . . . ought to foster the wish for truth, not the conviction that some particular creed is true . . . It is eminently possible that in the eyes of those who sit in judgement upon modern education, that no University can be judged excellent until it ceases to teach as the truth that which it feels to be true, and begins to let the student engage in his own quest. This is a position in conformity with those institutions which are now called excellent. There are the famous places, the names which bring awe to the common folk and which set the graduates of these hollowed institutions apart in a very special category. The respect with which these schools are regarded is quite definitely a mark of excellence, for one can hardly attribute it to simply unsupported myth. Perhaps now one can see the question, the problem: which path will lead to excellence; or, more pointedly, in what respect should USF aspire to be excellent? Since, in the final analysis, a University exists for its students, the question can be posed in a different and perhaps more pertinent frame of reference: what type of student should USF aspire to turn out; what should we aspire to impart to that student during his collegiate career? In what image should we attempt to mold him? We read again and again that Catholic universities are not producing a proportionate amount of distinguished scholars, while the field is dominated by the famous secular institutions. Perhaps their approach is the correct method; perhaps a drastic revision is in order for Catholic universities in general and USF in particular. There arc certainly a number on this campus who arc painfully aware of its shortcomings and seem to have the feeling that they are being cheated in a myriad number of ways out of what they consider to be a real college education. Critics there arc without, and critics there are within. It would perhaps then be well to examine the course on which USF is tending, for to be excellent in a field which is less than worthwhile, is hardly a prize worthy of the effort of winning. The University of San Francisco, as a small. Catholic institution, possesses several distinctive characteristics. It firmly believes