The Key — Penn Forward and the Measures of Success
Announced in September of 2025, Penn Forward is Penn President Larry Jameson’s strategic plan for the university’s future.
It arrives at a moment when higher education is being tested on every front. As Jameson noted, federal funding is less predictable, artificial intelligence is reshaping learning and research, and public distrust of higher education is near all-time highs.
Jameson framed Penn Forward as an opportunity for collaboration across the Penn community and for the renewal of Penn’s core values, anchored in a commitment to excellence. These are goals we at Franklin’s Forum share. However, Penn Forward will only be as meaningful as the metrics used to assess it and the accountability mechanisms behind it.
The launch of a new strategic vision under a new president is familiar territory at Penn. Former President Judith Rodin (CW ’66) introduced the Agenda for Excellence in 1995, a year after her inauguration, outlining nine ambitious goals for the university over five years. In the five-year report following implementation, the university did more than restate its nine broad goals. It broke them into sub-goals and paired them with evidence, including data on increased admissions selectivity and higher admitted student SAT scores, allowing stakeholders to evaluate impact, not intentions.
The benchmarks for Penn Forward should similarly focus on assessable impact. Success should not be measured in ambition or buzz words. Instead, it should be measured with rigor. That means clear proposals, clear timelines, and clear outcomes all tied to Penn’s stated values.
President Jameson promised preliminary results from Penn Forward in early 2026. As that deadline approaches, the Penn community should start asking the most important question: what would success actually look like?
Six committees, six areas of focus
Penn Forward is organized around six committees of faculty, staff, and students charged with envisioning Penn’s future across key areas: Undergraduate Education and Innovation; Graduate and Professional Training; Research Strategy and Financing; Global Opportunity and New Markets; Access, Affordability, and Value; and Operational Transformation.
Undergraduate Education and Innovation: Chaired by Russell J. Composto, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, School of Engineering and Applied Science, Professor of Material Science
Strengthen undergraduate education by expanding interdisciplinary, experiential, and research opportunities across schools so all students can take advantage of what Penn has to offer.
Graduate and Professional Training: Chaired by Kelly L. Jordan-Sciutto, Vice Provost for Graduate Education; Professor of Oral Medicine at Perelman School of Medicine and School of Dental Medicine
Improve graduate and professional training by reducing unnecessary requirements and helping students spend more time learning and preparing for their next steps.
Research Strategy and Financing: Co-chaired by David F. Meaney, Vice Provost for Research; Solomon R. Pollack Professor of Bioengineering School of Engineering and Applied Science and E. Michael Ostap, Professor of Physiology; Senior Vice Dean and Chief Scientific Officer at Perelman School of Medicine
Rethink how Penn funds and organizes research so it remains strong as federal support becomes less reliable, while preserving excellence and strengthening real-world impact.
Global Opportunity and New Markets: Co-chaired by Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Vice Provost for Global Initiatives; Levy University Professor, Perelman School of Medicine and Wharton School, and Megan S. Ryerson, UPS Professor of Transportation, Stuart Weitzman School of Design and School of Engineering and Applied Science
Find practical ways for Penn to remain globally engaged and reach more people around the world, including students, alumni, and learners beyond the traditional campus.
Access, Affordability, and Value: Co-chaired by Sara (Sally) Bachman, Dean of the School of Social Policy & Practice, and Patrick T. Harker, Rowan Professor of Operations, Information and Decisions at the Wharton School, Former Dean of the Wharton School
Make Penn easier to access, afford, and participate in while clearly communicating the value proposition of a Penn education to the community and the general public.
Operational Transformation: Chaired by Tom Murphy, Senior Vice President & Chief Transformation Officer
Improve institutional readiness and reduce administrative inefficiencies so the university can operate more effectively under growing financial and operational pressure.
Each of these six committees spent the last semester gathering input from across the university and beyond, even asking for ideas from the general public. These are worthy goals, but goals without accountability mechanisms are aspirational, not strategic. As their work moves from brainstorming to public planning, the Penn community should expect clear proposals, defined timelines, and concrete standards by which progress can be judged.
What success requires
Penn Forward’s ambition is noble, and it may be easy to praise in the abstract. However, to truly measure success, the initiative must produce real change, and that change must be visible to the Penn community. For Penn Forward to succeed, it must deliver three things: transparency, timelines, and measurement of impact.
First: transparency. The Penn community should see not only where initiatives are progressing, but also where they fall short and why. This kind of reporting is essential to rebuilding trust at a time when higher education faces growing skepticism about its value and capacity for self-correction.
Second: clear timelines. Penn Forward cannot remain a set of committees and conversations. Alumni, students, faculty, and the broader public must know when to expect proposals, pilots, and results, and the standards by which Penn will judge success in order to hold the university accountable to its commitments.
Without a public schedule, the initiative risks becoming perpetual planning, a process that can’t be evaluated because it never reaches a finish line. Regular updates on a predictable cadence, whether once a semester or once a year, would allow stakeholders to track progress and hold leadership accountable.
Third: metrics. Penn must define what progress looks like in ways that can be tracked. As we have discussed at Franklin’s Forum, including in our coverage of Penn Hillel’s survey of Jewish students, that requires a clear baseline, specific outcomes to measure, and a shared understanding of what improvement looks like. Rodin’s five-year report is a helpful example. It didn’t just repeat the university’s values; it showed evidence of change.
Penn Forward outlines many ambitious goals, but it must go further by explaining why these changes matter and how success will be measured. Clear measurement is what enables lasting improvement in pursuit of excellence, not just change for its own sake.
Thank you for reading the Franklin’s Forum newsletter! We love connecting with our readers — send us your thoughts and questions, Penn news, and ideas for future issues. If you enjoyed this edition, please spread the word by forwarding it to friends and classmates.