Minutes of the GSA Special Meeting with the President, Provost, and Dean
Present (those who signed in): Kevin Huvane, Aaron Pedinotti, Brandon Fralix, Stephanie Dalianis, Ken Garriques, Mark Newall, Dawn Digrius, Cheryl Osterreicher, Frank Wyman, Dennis Coyle, Kathryn Inskeep, Ryan Bettaieb, Scott Ross Wilkins, Jennifer Schmidt, Sarah Gardam, Jeff Blanchard, Christine Benner, Christine Armacost, Elaina Given, Lynne Darden, Malebogo Kgalemang, Keith O’Shaughnessy, Vladamir (illegible), Rose Ellen Dunn, Michelle Iden, Chris Lapinski, Carlos Sintado, Madera Edwards, Jeremy Varon, Jeevan Gurung, Laura Drahushak, Kumar Bhattacharya, and Jackie Rhoades.
Guests: President Weisbuch, Provost Gunter-Smith, and Dean Lawler.
The Meeting was called to order at
Kumar read the prepared combined English and MHL Position Statement:
As M.A. and Ph.D. students in the English and MHL Areas, we are proud of the programs, school and university of which we have chosen to be a part. We recognize these programs as strong, engaging ones uniquely suited to each of our interests. We are aware that in the course of programs’ existence, periodic reviews are necessary to help maintain strength and to achieve growth. The installation of a new University administration is an opportune moment to initiate such evaluations. We, therefore, support and welcome the opportunity this review presents to enhance our programs’ position within the intellectual center of Drew.
Although we are surprised by the sudden announcement of a suspension of Ph.D. admissions, we hope to work with the administration to use this opportunity to improve Drew’s graduate programs. We are unsure about the form the review will take and the avenues in which our concerns and ideas may be expressed. However, we hope that the administration will continue Drew’s long-standing tradition of consultation and collaboration with students, faculty, and staff. We, therefore, request that students of both programs be allowed representation in future discussions regarding the graduate program review.
(This statement and a list of 12 questions were handed out before the meeting began. After opening statements from the guests, the students read most of the questions in the order written, although a few were omitted for the sake of time or already having been answered, and a few were added from the floor.)
Pres. - This is not merely a periodic review. This is "a moment to take a breath" to reevaluate. There is no other university our size that has a Ph.D. program in English and history. "That is both a remarkable achievement and presents certain challenges." He believes that Ph.D. programs in humanities should be limited to the number of students it has the financial resources to support. English and MHL lose this university a million dollars per year. They are the most expensive programs here. Additionally, the students are not funded in their studies. He said we don’t want to take on the obligation of further students we can’t help financially. Grad students should be funded fully so that they can complete their program "in a timely manner." Last year, ten undergrad students’ parents complained that they pay so much in order to have their students taught by adjuncts and grad students. They feel that the least prepared students are taught by the least prepared teachers. He was initially shocked to find that a school the size of Drew even has Ph.D. programs. He is not guaranteeing that there will be Ph.D. programs at Drew, only that the review process will be transparent and he will follow the recommendations that result from the review. He will list the concerns, but "NEVER have a private conversation about it." He is hoping that he can find a way to increase support for the current students while there are no new students.
Prov. - She affirmed the reasons for review to occur and "emphasize (d) that all we have done is suspend admissions.... The program has not been suspended.... I am approaching this with a great deal of integrity and honesty."
Pres. - "Of course, I thought about how I would feel as a student in this program." He is surprised that this issue came up. He understands the students’ concern about their future "now that the national press has gotten a hold of this." He pledged to help Ph.D.s get a job - to write letters and make calls to talk up Drew’s Ph.D. program to potential employers. Drew’s Ph.D.s have a higher than average employment rate in tenure-track positions.
Question #1 - Cheryl Osterreicher
When, how, and by whom was this decision made?
Pres. - He took the main responsibility for the review and the decision to suspend admissions. This was not long in premeditation. Last year applications were high but admissions were reduced because of money. It was decided it would be better to suspend admissions for next year.
Question #2 - Dennis Coyle
Why is the administration stopping the program to review it? Are other campus programs being reviewed at this time? Are they being suspended while that occurs?
Pres. - The GDR’s move to the
Question #3 -
What is Drew’s official statement about the suspension? (
Pres. - Barbara Caspersen was notified and discussed it with some people, but this is not a matter for trustee action at this point.
Dean - Alumni were notified.
Prov. - Students were notified as quickly as possible so they would be informed.
Dean - Faculty was notified within 2 days, then students right after, and then a letter went out to alumni.
Pres. - It is unfortunate that the national media was notified. It was not newsworthy.
Dean - This happened 6 hours after she promised the GSA (9/14 mtg.) that there was no need for this. It did not come from the administration.
Pres. - He understands that students have strong feelings about this.
Kumar asked about their reaction to the fact that this was leaked.
Pres. - "If people are worried about job prospects, this doesn’t make it easier.... But often with the press, the best tactic is silence and let them move on to the next thing."
Prov. - "One of the great things about the
Pres. - "When you’re a leader, it’s not about being liked. It’s about doing the right thing." He likened his position to that of a parent and said that there "will be listening and exchanging" and reiterated that the goal is a better program that all will benefit from.
Question #4 - Sarah Gardam
Could you tell us what the review process will entail? Specifically, who will be involved and how long will it take?
Dean - There will be two stages. First, there will be a self-study by areas. Second, there will be a team to come to study the areas. P&P will go through the provost. "It will be a transparent process." Students’ input is "very much needed." Meetings will be scheduled with students. "The guidelines should be established by Monday."
Kumar requested that students be involved in the provost’s committee - even if they must sign confidentiality agreements.
Prov. - She emphasized that this will work through existing and normal structures. What is new for Drew is the existence of a provost.
(Skipped to) Question #6 - Kevin Huvane
How is the rubric for the review being created? Will the areas develop their own rubrics?
Dean - The input is at the start of the process. Each area will be answering the same questions. All areas will help develop this rubric at the start. They will assess their own strengths and weaknesses. Data on alumni, financial aid, etc., will be provided as needed. Other sources are being consulted about how reviews are done.
Prov. - Questions will come through P&P and also through the administration.
(Skipped to) Question #9 - Dawn Digrius
What sorts of funding initiatives are presently being pursued for the restructured program? In what ways do you see this review affecting graduate funding?
Pres. - "These are super-important questions, but we’re not ready to address them yet." He has some ideas, but nothing is "in concrete" yet. He would like to see trustees and alumni hire our grads for jobs beyond the academy. Perhaps we should get Drew grad students teaching jobs at other area colleges. What is "reasonable support"?
Dawn then asked about getting a Grants Officer to help facilitate funding.
Prov. - "That’s a work-in-progress."
Question from floor - Carlos Sintado
How will the members of the provost’s committee be chosen? What is the budget?
Prov. - Things are still to be decided. The broad process has been outlined, but specifics are not yet available.
Dean - The evaluation team has not yet been selected at all. Everything will be done in discussion with P&P.
(Skipped to) Question #11 - Mark Newall
Given the recent controversies generated by the sudden nature of this disclosure, do you have any ideas concerning how such communicative difficulties – as well as the situations that lead to them – can be avoided in the future?
Dean - Recommendations will come from areas to P&P, then grad school faculty. New programs will go to trustees. The process will be transparent.
Prov. - "There will be a timeline."
Dean - "We have asked that the self-study be finished by Jan. ‘08." The areas do not want to be rushed.
Dean - "That has not been decided yet. There is already recruiting going on."
Pres. - We don’t want this to be rushed. We want it to be done right. We also recognize it’s an uncomfortable situation and do want to get it done. Please "note that this is a very open conversation.... I feel very badly that people felt shocked.... If it was poorly done, it wasn’t without trying to think about people’s feelings and thoughts."
Question from floor - Kathryn Inskeep
Why has the Ph.D. program been suspended and not the M.A.?
Pres. - Because the M.A. is a shorter commitment.
Kathryn then asked why the CLA is growing while the CSGS is cutting back.
Pres. - "The answer is financial.... We’re not spending graduate money on undergraduate education. The undergraduate program helps support the graduate."
Question from floor - Aaron Pedinotti
Aaron asked about the sense of marginalization people in academia feel (the "ivory tower"). Is this restructuring to help academics be involved more in the public world?
Pres. - That’s not what this review is about. That could become a part o this process if viewed as such an opportunity.
Question from floor - Dennis Coyle
Dennis asked about "inertia" if/ when Ph.D. programs are reopened.
Pres. - He has given this a lot of thought. Perhaps the negative media publicity we got will actually provide an opportunity. Any outcomes of the review process should be "aggressively publicized."
Question from floor -
Will students’ interest in the M.A. diminish without the possibility of translation?
Pres. - "I hope not, but that’s why we need to do this in a timely fashion."
Question from floor - Brandon Fralix
What are the strengths of Drew compared to large research institutuions?
Pres. - "That why the question is ‘What works at Drew?’" Even at large research institutions, Ph.D. programs are small. The difference is that Drew has fewer programs. He is impressed by the quality and variety of our students and faculty.
Question from floor - Cheryl Ostreicher
What about people who are in the program for reasons other than teaching?
Pres. - "That speaks to the idea of internships and making connections. We need to think creatively about choices."
Kumar asked how we can expedite the review process.
Pres. - People need time to reorganize their lives to accommodate this, but then the actual review process is relatively short and relatively inexpensive.
Prov. - Timeliness is necessary, but so is thoroughness "so that we really benefit from the process."
Pres. - He offered to be in touch with students by email if they want to keep in touch with him throughout this process.
Prov. - She thanked everyone for the opportunity to come and speak. She emphasized that there is "nothing to read between the lines" in the letter that was sent out. They are committed to continuing to support the students.
Question from floor -
Prov. - She can’t do that right now, but will hold a potluck in the near future.
Meeting adjourned at