The Key — The Problem with Too Many Competing Plans
This week marks the end of the academic year. This year has produced no shortage of strategic visions across Penn, most notably through the university-wide plan Penn Forward, which we’ve discussed.
But when every framework presents itself as important, none may ultimately direct sustained institutional focus.
The problem is especially visible in the School of Arts and Sciences (SAS), where Dean Mark Trodden launched his own strategic plan in February. Trodden unveiled SAS Horizons, a strategic vision centered around “teaching, learning, engaging, and exploring.” Horizons highlights three guiding principles for the school’s future and outlines four pathways for action focused on research, teaching, and public engagement.
Some of Horizons’ initiatives are concrete and important for Penn’s future, including the Dean’s Horizons Fund as a more flexible pathway for research funding, the renovation of David Rittenhouse Laboratories, and the ongoing revamp of the undergraduate curriculum.
But Horizons does not provide a truly cohesive plan or clear direction for the broader SAS community. The volume of aspirational and abstract language in Horizons obscures the meaning of its core goals, how those goals should shape the Penn community, and how success should be measured. For example, one of the plan’s guiding principles is “curiosity,” which Horizons defines as cultivating “openness to speculative endeavors” and encouraging scholars to ask “informed, imaginative, and challenging questions.” While the sentiment is admirable, the practical implications of that priority for faculty, staff, and students are far less clear, especially without concrete goals or benchmarks attached.
That lack of clarity risks turning Horizons into more of a distraction than a direction, particularly as it competes with other university-wide frameworks.
Faculty are now grappling with SAS Horizons alongside Penn Forward, In Principle and Practice, and various task forces, commissions, and school-level initiatives. Penn Forward is built around “Build, Discover, and Extend,” while SAS Horizons emphasizes “Curiosity, Discovery, and Connection.” The growing number of frameworks can make it difficult to distinguish between long-term institutional priorities, short-term branding, aspirational goals, and actionable directives.
The Horizons website says the vision is “aligned” with “In Principle and Practice,” the broader Penn framework introduced before Penn Forward. But in an interview with The DP, Trodden described Horizons as “a standalone plan.”
Strategic plans can be helpful in moving a university forward, especially in difficult times. Trust in higher education is low, the public is increasingly skeptical about its value proposition, and AI is threatening both traditional higher education and the world it prepares graduates for. Penn has also seen strategic planning succeed before. Former President Judith Rodin’s (CW ’66) 1995 Agenda for Excellence helped elevate Penn’s reputation and transform it into a university with international acclaim. Agenda for Excellence included a straightforward strategy alongside six specific goals with defined metrics for measuring success, including increasing admissions selectivity and research funding. It acted as a north star and clear guidance for Penn’s community.
This is important because when institutions introduce too many strategic directions at once, focus can become diluted rather than strengthened. Faculty, staff, and university leaders may struggle to determine which initiatives deserve the most attention and prioritization.
Universities function best when broad missions are easy to understand and translate into action. Last month, Yale revised its university-wide mission statement, shortening it to “Yale’s core mission is to create, disseminate, and preserve knowledge through research and teaching.” This short, straightforward statement provides a direction that can easily cascade to individual schools and programs across Yale.
Instead of creating one clear, unifying vision, Penn and SAS are producing an increasingly dense ecosystem of frameworks, initiatives, and values statements, and it is becoming harder to tell which one actually governs institutional priorities.
The Almanac
Curated highlights from this week’s Penn news
Penn receives $20 million gift to expand middle-income financial aid
This week, Penn announced Greg (W’96) and Alexandra Mondre’s $20 million donation to establish the Mondre Family Student Service Initiative, creating a new avenue to provide financial aid resources to middle-income Penn students.
The donation is expected to support at least 1,000 families each year and help ensure that recipient students can “participate in everything the University has to offer.”
The gift bolsters Penn’s already expanding financial aid programs. Last year, the university provided $330 million in undergraduate aid to 46% of undergraduates and $338 million in graduate aid. Through Penn’s Quaker Commitment, all undergraduates from families earning under $200,000 annually with typical assets attend tuition-free.
So what? High attendance costs have become a major point of criticism for higher education. Last year, 63% of university presidents at the Yale Higher Education Summit agreed that costs are too high, while more than half of Americans believe higher education is unaffordable. Gifts like the Mondres’ both expand access and can also strengthen Penn’s reputation through strong public communications, which higher education has struggled with.
Princeton sets new exam proctor requirement due to cheating increase
On Monday, Princeton’s full faculty voted to require proctors for all in-person exams.
Since Princeton adopted its Honor Code in 1893, proctors have been explicitly banned from in-person exams. Instead, students sign a pledge of honesty and are expected to report any Honor Code violations. Beginning July 1, proctors will quietly observe all in-person exams, reporting suspected cheating without interfering.
Students are also often reluctant to report peers for suspected cheating due to social consequences. In 2025, 29.9% of seniors in 2025 admitted to cheating during their time at Princeton in a Daily Princetonian poll. While 44.6% knew of Honor Code violations, only 0.4% filed a violation report.
So what? Princeton is not the only school grappling with AI-based cheating. Across the country, professors are shifting to in-person assessments. Princeton’s decision shows how quickly AI can erode long-standing academic norms. If Penn wants to preserve the value of its grades and the critical thinking education it provides, it will also need to rethink how it assesses student performance.
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.