The reinstatement of professional theater at Annenberg Center.

The formation of an ad hoc committee to have access to pending decisions.

The formation of the Student Committee on University Priorities (SCOUP) that could veto and rescind all decisions that affect all students.

Putting non-voting student representatives on the board of trustees and stipulating that the trustees could only meet on days when classes are held.

The right of upcoming graduates to have the final say in choosing the commencement speaker.

THE ORIGINAL DEMANDS were a bold assertion by the students at Pennsylvania that they have the right to take an active part in the university's operations. The students wanted the administration to understand the feelings of those who were paying hard-earned tuition money before making such important decisions.

From that list of six, a list of 31 demands developed; and the original six remained almost intact in the final agreement.

Probably the most important demand-- providing student representation on the board of trustees--will never come to pass. The president and provost agreed to endorse a compromise resolution calling for the board to add one student and one faculty representative, both with voting rights, to its membership--but the proposal must be approved by a vote of the full board before going into effect.

Pennsylvania sources said the approval of the proposal, which would be considered at the board's June meeting, is questionable to unlikely. Aside from this proposal, however, the students did make definite, substantial gains in other areas.

One of the more dramatic concessions was the administration's agreement not to raise tuition for 1978-79 above $4,825--the level the university's budget committee recommended on February 22. As a result of an increasingly bleak financial picture, there had been talk of another tuition hike besides the $375 hike already announced. But administrators have now agreed not to push for a further increase.

ALL SPORTS EXCEPT HOCKEY were reinstated, and the administration promised to help hockey players transfer to other schools. The trustees agreed to make a $250,000 drive to fund the Annenberg program, their top priority. John Eckman, head of trustee development and operations, told the Annenberg Center's director to proceed to plan his schedule for the upcoming season. The general consensus was that the money could be raised.

The student access committee was agreed upon, and SCOUP, minus the veto-power, was also created. Administrators agreed to the commencement speaker proposal and also ratified a long list of minority demands that included the formation of a minority-advising committee and an ad hoc committee on financial aid and admissions.

The power of the students had left its mark on the university. Administrators, though initially hesitant, proved cooperative and receptive to student ideas as the talks proceeded. Meyerson, after returning to the school from Barbados, told students, "This gives me a tremendous sense of exhilaration even though many of you may be furious with me. You have to give it [the sit-in] your priority. It's more than a one-night stand. We're in it together."

It was a demonstration that enthralled the entire Pennsylvania community and much of the surrounding Philadelphia area. The sit-in attracted so much attention that Stellar, after the agreement had been signed, released the following statement:

Because of the large commitment of time and energy by so many students in the demonstrations and meetings over the past few days, I am requesting the faculty to either move mid-term examinations to the first week after spring vacation, or to allow students the option to makeup examinations at that time and to treat in the same way any other academic requirements due in the upcoming week. Final decisions in this matter, however, must rest with individual faculty members.

The faculty, almost unanimously, supported the idea and postponed or cancelled mid-terms. The administrative-faculty action in this case lent university-wide support to the actions and purposes of the sit-in.

Yet amidst the euphoric state of celebration after the exhausting ordeal, two major points remained: First of all, the effectiveness of an organized student expression of opinion was re-established. The notion of passivity that so many had attributed to students of the '70s was drastically broken. It would be overly dramatic to say the Pennsylvania sit-in marked a resurgence of the activism of the '60s, but the idea that students can still act on their own behalf when they feel the need to do so was proven true.

What disturbs one more, though, is the plaguing question of why a mass disturbance of such proportions was needed to arouse administrative sensitivity to student opinion. The administration was very receptive to student ideas and totally cooperative, but that was with 800 or 1,000 enraged undergraduates milling in their offices and hanging over their heads.

The demonstration was almost without violent incident; but still, it was a sit-in which marked a total disruption of the normal pattern of life at Pennsylvania. If that is the only way to make the administration listen, then Penn students have not really gained much.

However, it is more likely that the provisions set up by the agreement will increase the effect students can have on the administrative decision-making process; and if these committees and organizations prove effective, then the demonstration was well worth the effort.