GSA minutes and notes:
Re: Special meeting with President Weisbuch, Provost Gunter-Smith and Dean Edye Lawler concerning the review of the Modern History and Literature and English Literature program.
Plan for meeting:
Presentation of the position statement
President comments
Provost comments
Questions (12) asked by the students
Open floor discussion
Position statement read.
President comments:
This is not only a periodic review, it is a moment to take a breath. He believes
that the strongest way for the
One of the strongest elements of
At the retreat this past summer with the University cabinet, questions were brought up concerning the PhD programs in the Caspersen School. Should we look at the PhD programs? Why?
1) Weisbuch commented on how he had written in the Chronicle of Higher Ed. that PhD in humanities should accept no more students than it is able to support financially. This type of financial support is not available at Drew and yet these are expensive programs. Therefore, the support is inadequate, and that too presents challenges.
While the University “wrestles” with the program, the last thing the administration thinks it should do is take on new students. However, current students who would like to translate into the program are fine. This means they are committed to the program, as it stands now, for at least 7-8 years. Figuring out how to allow students to graduate with financial support is one thing the administration would like to look at.
2) On the level of reform, the admin would like to look at issues of PhD and pedagogy. The president feels that graduate students should not be thrown into teaching courses that no one wants to teach. He would like to look at the development of PhD candidates as educators. He questions whether we are doing that at present time. Furthermore, this becomes an issue of the quality of education.
3) In terms of undergraduate education, although he feels that graduate students are capable of teaching Drew undergrads, parents have complained that students are being taught by adjuncts and graduate students. Although he supports graduate students getting the chance to have classroom experience, the president feels that the way the system is now, the least experienced students are being matched in the classroom with the least experienced instructors. Nevertheless, he supports a “pedagogical profile.”
Informally, before he came to Drew, Weisbuch was struck by the fact that it even had a PhD program. However, he was “delighted and surprised” by the capabilities of the graduate school itself, and the students who were in their respective programs. He was impressed. “This is a good group of people,” he commented. This is a very interesting predicament. At the same time, he is concerned about the budget and the future, part of the job of being a president of a university. He is also concerned about how long it takes students to complete a degree, especially without financial support. “Let’s look at this carefully together” he remarked.
His goal is to strengthen graduate education at Drew. He understands that people will question him on whether or not he can guarantee a PhD in Humanities in Drew’s future. What he knows is that there will be a review, the review will have student participation, but he will follow the outcome of the review.
Is he hopeful about the continuation of the PhD in humanities? He is hopeful and encouraged. However, once the review begins, his only role will be to mention the current problems. He will not interfere with the review process, on campus or off campus.
President Weisbuch will be the least important person in the review process once it begins. In the meantime, students will continue to receive support and he is hoping that the support could be increased, maybe…
Provost comments:
The president has clearly identified and discussed his reasons on why this has happened. Provost Gunter-Smith reminds us and emphasizes the fact that this is a suspension of admissions, not a closing of a school. The time required for the review is long, but she feels this is the best route. Once again, this is a review, suspension of admissions for two programs, but the programs themselves have not been suspended. They go on; students are expected to keep working.
The Provost wants the students to keep an open mind; she hopes that the students will appreciate the administration’s integrity and honesty.
President continues:
President Weisbuch thought about how he would feel if his graduate program decided to suspend admissions. He did not realize that the students would assume that the programs were being abolished. “If I were a student, I would have concerns over job prospects” as well. However, this is not as negative as one would expect. One thing he promises to do is whatever the results of the review are, he will write a letter of support for the graduate student applying for a job that discussed the PhD program at Drew in a positive light. He will help with the job search process. He remarked about how Caspersen has a better job placement than the national average. These concerns can be mitigated.
Student questions:
President: The President is mainly responsible for this decision. He could have been unfrank and allowed one person in for next year but that would not have been fair. He feels there is a need to “take a breath” and make sure the policies are the right ones. This decision was not long in premeditation, he had been thinking about limiting admission. Nevertheless, there is no specific timeline for the process.
President:
The GDR did not agree to
move to the
Dennis: What about other reviews?
President: All graduate level programs have the potential for new programs, so in essence the administration will be reviewing everything. This is not a code for no new doctorates. What else could have been done? The President commented on the position statement and how he thought it was a great statement. He then suggested that Drew was not living up to what the statement presents.
President:
Barbara Caspersen was supportive about the review. Furthermore, a
letter has informed the alumni and the
Provost: The administration gave a considerable amount of thought as to how to notify students and the overall Drew community. They decided to inform the students as quickly as possible because they did not want students to hear it elsewhere.
Dean Lawler: The faculty was notified within 48 hours after the decision was made.
President: He would have preferred this not to be misinterpreted. This is not necessarily big news. It was not his, nor anyone else’s, intention for this to be reported on (re: Inside Higher Education article). He understands how this can create strong feelings within the community; he does not blame the students for reacting negatively. He wished this was not reported on.
Provost: But the story that was written on it is pretty much what this is.
President: However, the story that they wanted to write was his connection between the ideas he presented at the Wilson Institute and using Drew as a test case for those ideas. He avoided talking to the press about this.
Kumar Bhattacharya interjects: What about voices outside of the University who talk about this?
Provost: People can voice their opinion but she hopes they use good judgment when doing so. Opinions and ideas are what this country was founded on. Honesty is what counts here.
President: Everyone wants to be liked. That is always a challenge. With the issues of running a university, the main point is to do the right thing. He mentioned how his position is like when you are a parent. You have to be a parent, not a buddy. We are just starting this process, listening and exchanging ideas and views. The goal is to make the degrees more valuable than less valuable, that is, to raise the quality of a Drew degree.
Dean Lawler: The actual article is not that damaging. We must have respectable civic discourse over these decisions. If there are dissenting voices amongst the students, we must construct the dialogue.
Dean Lawler: The review will proceed in two phases: 1) a self-studies by the areas; 2) a study done by a team of evaluators. The format will follow the guidelines laid out by the Drew University Policy and Planning Committee (P&P) and then go to the Provost for a review. P&P will work with the Provost. The areas will involve students who will be asked for input. Meetings will be scheduled for D.Litt, M.Litt, MHL, EL, and MHum. This will be a somewhat transparent process. After the review is completed, the Provost will set up a committee to discuss the final recommendations (from evaluators and areas). The Provost, through the work of her and her committee, will forward the recommendations to the President.
Kumar: Will the Provost Committee have student representation?
Dean Lawler: Not sure.
Provost: Two points to make. The review is being done through the existing structure set up by P&P. Faculty conveners and external review panel will be engaged in the process. Secondly, what is new here is that there had never been a provost at Drew.
Dean Lawler: The guidelines are based on the current structure. Student voices are present in the beginning, with the areas.
Dean Lawler: The area and administration will be working together. The area will be answering the P&P questions.
President: We have ideas for questions to ask and answer, but it is up to the area. For example, they must provide the data.
Dean Lawler: Possibly a graduate student survey?
Provost: The questions will come through P&P, which is the normal university process, and also from the administration. This will be a joint effort and process.
Skip to question 9, the other questions have been touched upon for the most part: the President has to leave soon…
President: He has ideas on funding but as of now they are just ideas; like finding trustee support, formulating relations with other universities, and seeing how much money the university (Drew) has for how many students there actually are in the respective programs.
Dawn: What about a grants officer?
Provost: She has a to-do list and that is a work in progress, but she has considered this.
Questions begin to open up at this point…
Provost: The budget is outlined broadly as of yet, but specifics are not known at this present time. She hesitates to give specifics because they are not known. However, there will be support for the review. Reviews like this are not unusual, it happens.
Dean Lawler: There is no evaluation team set up yet.
Provost: Nothing is finalized yet.
Dean Lawler: This will go through the areas, faculty and all the way to the Board of Trustees. There is no timeline per se.
President: Would like it to go fast, but there is a need for patience as well. As for communication, and the overall shock that permeated throughout the grad school, he felt bad about the shock. If it was poorly executed it was not without thinking about other peoples feelings. The wish was not to discount people.
Provost: We hope this gets completed as soon as possible.
President: The MA has a shorter commitment. The issue is financial. The CLA helps support the graduate school financially.
President: The correlation between the university and the larger world has little to do with the original conception of the review’s purpose. He is not sure in which direction this will go. To this response, Aaron asked a follow up question: can such larger concerns and aims be incorporated into the review process. The president responded that there was indeed possible, and that we should bring up these ideas when conversing with the reviewers.
President: He thinks we will.
President: Wants to work on what Drew does well. At first he thought it was a “nutty” idea to have a History and Literature program at Drew, but he was delighted at the quality. His worries are not about the quality of the students, not the faculty. There is nothing negative that can be said about the people. The issues are situational, not about quality.
What is the school good at doing? How do we fit in overall? This is what he questions.
President: It would be great to create a little town with different areas. For this, he is hopeful.
Dean Lawler: There are some suggestive areas, library studies could be one of them.
Closing remarks:
Provost: As for the review timeline, this should be thorough but timely. Do not read in between the lines regarding how this review is being approached. She hopes we got out of this meeting what is being done, why it is being done, and that the administration is committed to student success. The administration communicated to the students about the review as soon as they could. Read the message that was sent out for what it is, do not read between the lines. She thanks the students.
President:
Reminds the students
that he is on email and available at his office hours whenever a question
arises.
*= hope I articulated the question correctly.