President’s opening remarks:
This isn’t just a periodic review. No other university of our size has a
Ph.D. in English and History [only]. He had brought up the question of
the Ph.D. at a retreat. We shouldn’t accept any more students than we can
support with scholarships and teaching. The MHL and English are the most
expensive programs, and we lose one million a year, but that’s not enough.
The amount of student support is inadequate. While wrestling with
this problem the last thing we need is to take in new students and dilute
support for current students.
His reform efforts of the 90's and this century: what they have to do with the
Drew Ph.D./doctoral programs: 1) Grad students shouldn’t be thrown in
programs no one else wants to teach, 2) We need to develop grad students as
pedagogues, and we’re not doing that now.
In regards to the undergrads, some of the grad students do better than regular
instructors, but last year over 10 parents complained of their students being
taught almost entirely by adjuncts and student instructors - why are the least
experienced students being matched with the least experienced instructors?
This is a worry for him on both the grad and undergrad levels; it’s not
happening at other universities. Also, the retention of 1-2 year students
is not good at the undergrad level.
He’s pleased with the quality of the grad students here. There was a low
NRC rating in one of the programs, but this was probably due to poor publicity.
Let’s talk about how we can strengthen graduate education here at Drew.
He will follow the recommendation of the review, no matter what. He’s
hopeful we can still have a doctoral program here at Drew. He will never
have private conversations with the reviewers about the review, even if they’re
people he knows.
Everyone who is in the program who is in good standing and making reasonable
progress will receive the same level of support and that may increase.
Provost’s remarks
What has happened? We’ve just suspended admissions in
order to have time to think about it.
The program is not suspended, but admissions are.
President:
If he were a student in the program, he would have a concern for his job
prospects. The answer is not as negative as one suspects.
It will not be a long process. He is happy to write letters for
each individual graduate student at Drew about the review, or speak with
potential employers by phone.
Positives of the Drew program: in a [regular program], 3 out of 20 end up with
tenure positions. Drew has done better than that.
We can do a lot to mitigate concerns.
Questions (as decided upon on 10/3 meeting):
(Note: Many questions were addressed in whole or in part in the President’s
opening remarks, and therefore were not answered in full at this time.)
1. Cheryl - When, how, and by whom was this decision made?
President: He takes main responsibility for deciding there would be a review.
He wants to say as a community that we’re taking a breath. He
brought admissions down from last year in the Ph.D. The decision was made
in cabinet by the three of them [President, Provost, Dean
Lawler (?)]. It wasn’t a good decision on his part [as to how it was
communicated - ?]
2. Dennis - 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? (“Is it just us that’s
being targeted?”)
President: Dean Pain and GDR leaving are not part of this. GDR move made in such a way that it allows the GDR students to
receive better funding from the Theo school. It frees up more fund
for other grad school programs. Caspersen will grow in years to come.
He sees Caspersen as taking on a number of additional roles.
“Are there other reviews?”
President: Yes - all of the graduate programs [grad,
MHL, English]. He’s not sure that the University is living up to our
position statement.
3.
President: He spoke with Barbara Caspersen and she was supportive of review and
suspension. Dean Lawler notified all alumni via a letter, as well as Drew
community.
Provost: We gave considerable thought to notification and tried to notify
students quickly.
President: He preferred that a national publication wouldn’t have published
this information and misstated it.
Dean: Not the intention for this to be made public. It was to be kept
in-house.
Provost: The story is what it represents.
President: He avoided talking to reporters, so the Provost did. Keep
silent and avoid the press.
Provost: We need to keep repeating the message that is true to the situation.
Be honest and stick to the truth of what the matter is.
President: Now is the time to do listening and exchanging. Make degrees
more valuable, not less. Raising the quality of the
Drew degree.
Dean: We need to conduct dialogue; as per the President’s words: “model civic
discourse.”
4. Sarah - Could you tell us what the review process will entail?
Specifically, who will be involved and how long will it take?
Dean: There are 2 stages: 1) Self-study by the areas, 2) Team of evaluators to
work with the areas.
Policy and Planning (P&P) is working out the guidelines for the review and
developing questions for self-study and evaluation. The Provost reviews
these. The review will involve the students; student input is needed to
answer self-study questions. The evaluators will meet with the students.
The process for the review will be available for review. The guidelines
for the review will be established by Monday. The evaluators will be
chosen by recommendation. After the review, [the report/recommendations]
will go to the Provost committee, which hasn’t been appointed yet. The
Provost will forward to the President materials
developed, reports, and recommendations. She doesn’t know yet if the
Provost committee will have student representation.
Kumar: I’m requesting that the Provost committee have student representation.
Provost: The review process works through existing structures. The use of
an external review panel is normal; the role of the Provost is new.
Dean: The students need to be involved from the beginning.
5. Aaron - (See previous question)
6. Kevin - How is the rubric for the review being created? “What
role will the administration play?
Dean: The areas are part of the discussion on the rubric. The area reps
formulate guidelines and these are agreed upon by the conveners. The
rubric is based on input received from the areas. The areas answer
questions in a way appropriate to the areas. [They] look at strengths and
weaknesses. The information the areas need will be provided to them by
the appropriate administrative offices. P&P is creating questions.
President: [Need to] develop data. Need to know about each individual in
the program. This may require interviews.
Provost: Some questions will come from administration.
(Questions 7 and 8 not asked)
9. Dawn - What sorts of funding initiatives are presently being pursued
for the restructured program? In what ways do you see this review
affecting graduate funding?
President: This will be part of what we talk about over the next few months.
He has ideas, but no donors yet. He sees Ph.Ds taking positions
inside and outside the academy. Have alumni hire grad students outside
the academy (interns). Get grad students teaching at other institutions.
Dawn: Can this be formalized?
If we have so much money, how many students should we take in to give
reasonable funding? What is reasonable funding?
Provost: They’re thinking about having a grant’s officer to facilitate.
(Question 10 skipped)
11. Mark - 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: [This is] done through areas on the review process. Areas give
reports to P&P. Communication will follow the chain of communications
through areas, staff meetings, etc. There will be a time line available,
but it is up to the areas to complete their self-study. She can’t say how
long they’re halting admissions. Also need to look at how this will
affect the undergrad school.
President: If communication was poorly done, it was not without thinking of
people’s thoughts and feelings. There was a wish not to discount people
and the seriousness of their careers, [etc.].
Open Forum:
Carlos: How will members be chosen and is there funding [for review]?
Provost: She is hesitant to answer specifics. They will provide the
support that is necessary for the review. There is no evaluation team at
all yet.
Kathryn: Why Ph.D. isolated and not the M.A.?
President: M.A. is not as long a program, like the Ph.D.
Kathryn: There is a discrepancy with higher CLA admissions and smaller Ph.D.
class.
President: There is a discrepancy, but it is financial. Within limits,
they are not spending grad money on undergrad programs.
Aaron: What about macro-social implications of review, especially in light of
the President’s previous writings [on higher education]? There is a need
to get into the business world, but is there a need for more public
intellectuals? How does this play into the review?
President: This has nothing to do with the review specifically. He wants
to address these large umbrella ideas as university as a whole. We can
incorporate these types of questions into the review.
Dennis: How will this suspension affect [it] when admissions reopened?
President: They’ve already thought about this, and it will cost money, and they
will have a budget to address this. It will “Behoove us to publicize it
very aggressively” [at the end of the process].
Dean: People are already waiting to hear about the new programs.
President: He’s worried about this and this is a further reason why the process
should be timely.
Provost: Need to be mindful about the time.
President: The question is what works at Drew. Ph.D. difficult at Drew
because of number of programs, but not size of programs we have. He’s
delighted with the quality of the students; he’s not worried about student or
faculty quality. Interested in a variety of students.
Has experienced nothing negative in regards to the
students or faculty. Is concerned with how long it takes to get
out of the program. What is the school good at doing - we don’t offer Ph.d.s
in other programs, how do we fit into the overall educational [“economy” or
“ecology”] in the country.
Cheryl: How will this affect non-tenure track students?
President: Internships, making connections to help people further their goals.
Dean: One of the suggested areas is to have people working in other positions.
Kumar: Can we expedite this process?
President: It’s hopeful, but it will take time.
Closing remarks:
President: We can email him and he’ll answer in 3-4 days, or have the Provost
or Dean answer.
Provost: Thank you for giving us this opportunity to have a conversation.
Remains committed to you and your success. Read the letter for what
it was and don’t try to read between the lines.
We’ll have a potluck at her home sometime in the near future, before the
semester break.