The development and implementation of undergraduate second language programs at the University of Pennsylvania are analyzed in terms of several models of language planning. First, the stated foreign language proficiency goals of the four undergraduate colleges (arts and sciences, nursing, economics, and engineering and applied science), the Penn Language Center, the Office of International Programs, and the various foreign language departments are outlined. Strategies used for implementing those goals are then enumerated, including proficiency testing, the less commonly taught languages and content-based instruction used at the Penn Language Center, other study abroad programs sponsored by the Office of International Programs and campus-wide resources and projects to promote language use. Outcomes in the various programs are examined, and it is concluded that, despite the apparent dedication and achieved outcomes of these efforts, there is evidence of some hesitancy to commit fully to language instruction, including reluctance to require language skills before matriculation and limited articulation or interaction between language centers and related programs. In the context of a language planning framework such as that of J. Fishman (1979) problems or areas for improvement are identified in the phases of issue clarification, codification of purposes and procedures, elaboration of priorities and deadlines, implementation, evaluation, and iteration/cultivation. Contains 34 references.) (MSE)