|
Oct. 5, 2004
Sustaining Momentum and Maximizing Strength
Remarks on Academic Affairs by Executive Vice President
for Academic Affairs Donald R. Lehman From the Sept. 20 Faculty Assembly
Our agenda for continually advancing the standard of academic excellence
at GW is given in the University’s Strategic Plan for Academic
Excellence: Sustaining Momentum and Maximizing Strength. Officially,
the plan is now more than one year old having been presented to the Board
of Trustees in June 2003 and distributed to the GW community in September
2003 by President Trachtenberg. The plan is defined through the goals
and objectives given therein and has built-in accountability through the
metrics associated with each goal. Each academic unit, including the schools,
has committed to contributing to the advancement of different goals and
objectives, and we are now working towards setting the baselines for the
metrics. Accepting ownership of the goals and objectives provides the
greatest likelihood that all of us will help move GW to the next level
of academic excellence. Each year, we shall use the metrics to assess
the progress being made in achieving the goals and objectives. We shall
provide the Board of Trustees with on going updates on our progress.
Ultimately, GW’s strategic plan is about building prestige, while
maintaining our reputation for delivering a quality educational product.
Prestige is hard to build but it is hard to lose. On the other hand, reputation
can be lost quickly if we do not continue to deliver outstanding classroom
and other educational experiences. Let me amplify what I mean by this
difference between prestige and reputation as thoroughly explained in
Brewer, Gates and Goldman’s book, In Pursuit of Prestige: Strategy
and Competition in US Higher Education.
In the context of the Brewer et al. thesis, The George Washington University
is a prestige-seeking institution. We are doing our utmost to invest in
two of the three primary measures of prestige: quality students and research.
These areas of prestige are noteworthy in that they can be objectively
measured. For students, we invest through financial aid (merit scholarships),
the recruitment of top faculty to teach, and the development of excellent
facilities (residence hall and classroom facilities). Connected to the
student investments are the research investments in faculty with records
of recognized scholarship and research, and commitments to renovating
or building laboratories and related facilities. Progress toward the goals
can be measured for the students in admissions selectivity, SAT/ACT scores,
and even though we try to dismiss them, US News rankings. Progress
in the research arena is measured in two main ways: through the standing
of the University in the list for federal research expenditures, and the
rankings of doctoral programs by the National Research Council. The third
area of investment used to build prestige is athletics, an area that GW
is not pursuing to the extent that it is the two areas I just mentioned.
Brewer et al. consider a university that is investing in one of the three
areas as investing in prestige.
Reputation is perceived to be more difficult to measure than prestige
using either investments or an assessment of outcomes. Brewer et al. consider
“every other institutional activity that is connected to an external
customer (as) a candidate for investing in reputation.” The key to
their thinking is that unlike prestige, reputation can be eroded much
more quickly. Reputation requires continual investment and development
in ways that are not always easily quantifiable.
With this background, let me review with you three areas of investment
for academic excellence at GW: research, doctoral programs and the University
Writing Program for undergraduates. The first two are directly related
to prestige-building through recognized accomplishments of our faculty
and their doctoral students in the development of new knowledge and understanding
through scholarship and research. At the same time, the basic GW experience
of the doctoral students during the arduous task of earning their doctorates,
whether that be through their collaborative experience with their dissertation
directors or the quality of their graduate courses, is more closely connected
to our reputation-building. The third area of investment, the University
Writing Program, is directly connected to reputation building, but also
is a marker of expectation for students seeking to attend a top-tier undergraduate
educational institution.
Investment in research and doctoral programs at GW through FY 04 has occurred
in the seven signature programs named in our strategic plan and in graduate
student support packages. Through FY 04, GW invested $1.25 million in
the seven signature programs to help them further reach their fullest
academic potential and gain external recognition. This support has included
additional faculty lines and additional graduate research assistant and
graduate teaching assistant packages. Judging from the annual reports
submitted by each signature program this summer, these investments are
being used strategically and can be expected to bring solid returns to
GW. In about a week, an additional $250,000 of investment beyond that
associated with support of graduate students will be allocated to these
programs for FY 05.
Outside the seven signature programs, additional funding has been committed
to making our graduate student support packages more competitive nationally.
Our first goal was to raise all stipends (or stipend-salary combinations)
to a minimum award of $15,000. This goal has been achieved and a number
of packages in specific fields, like the sciences, have been enhanced
to be competitive with our market-basket institutions. These investments
alone have totaled $2.2 million through FY 04. Simultaneously, we have
been strategically allocating limited funding for additional packages
to selected departments in the humanities and social sciences for the
purpose of committing to five years of support for an entering student
provided there is solid academic performance year to year. In FY 05, we
added more than $500,000 toward our selective excellence undertakings
in graduate student support. Departments chosen are some of those whose
doctoral programs ranked in the “Top” category of the Doctoral
Programs Review or the very top of the “Middle” category.
The work of the Doctoral Programs Review Committee is essentially complete.
The deans of four schools have already received their memo describing
the outcome of the review for the doctoral programs residing within their
school. Those schools are the School of Public Health and Health Services,
Graduate School of Education and Human Development, School of Business,
and School of Medicine and Health Sciences (connected to the Columbian
College of Arts and Science). The School of Engineering and Applied Science
dean received his memo [in mid-September]. The CCAS dean received his
memo [in late-September]. Of GW’s 48 doctoral programs, five were
placed in the “Top” category. Most doctoral programs fell somewhere
in the “Middle” classification, and several were placed in the
“Low” category. All doctoral programs were examined thoroughly
against the two sets of criteria used in the evaluation by the members
of the review committee. The strengths and weaknesses of each program
have been delineated. Our aim was to be as thorough and constructive as
possible in conveying the status of each program within the framework
of the Doctoral Programs Review. The five programs in the “Top”
category are American studies, hominid paleobiology, physics, political
science and psychology.
As emphasized above, scholarship and research are directly linked to doctoral
programs. Our growth in externally funded research was 8.18 percent across
the University for FY 04, which translates into $125.5 million in expenditures.
The split across the non-medical component of the University and the medical
component is $83.0 million (growth of 8.8 percent) and $42.5 million (growth
of 7 percent), respectively. Some areas that contributed significantly
to this growth are the Biostatistics Center, Graduate School of Political
Management, psychiatry and biochemistry. Such outstanding growth, made
possible by the dedicated efforts of our faculty members, requires us
to continually invest in the University’s research infrastructure
to facilitate their efforts. Toward this aim, we added $500,000 of new
monies in FY 05 to begin adding the staff support required to reduce the
administrative burden of the individual investigator within those schools
with the highest level of sponsored research activity.
The University Writing Program is moving towards full implementation with
two-thirds of the freshman class now enrolled in University Writing 20.
In parallel, the second step of the University Writing Program has been
launched — the Writing in the Disciplines (WID). The approximately
700 freshmen who completed UW 20 last year are now, or will be next semester,
enrolled in one of the WID designated courses. In order to make this possible,
an additional $350,000 for FY 05 has been invested in the writing program
beyond the $350,000 used to launch the program last year. This total of
$700,000 is supplemented by existing funds reallocated from the English
10 and 11 instructional budgets as these courses phase out of existence.
Along with this basic progress toward full implementation of the writing
program in the fall of 2005, Melinda Knight, formerly of the University
of Rochester, joined GW’s faculty as executive director of the University
Writing Program. Additionally, the University-wide Writing Program Advisory
Committee, composed of faculty from the undergraduate schools, has been
formed with Maurice A. East, professor of international affairs and political
science, and Jennifer Nutefall from the Gelman Library as co-chairs.
Making it all Happen
Making the Strategic Plan for Academic Excellence at GW a reality
requires selective investment and development. In other words, besides
making difficult decisions derived from sound criteria used to evaluate
our strengths, the resources for the investment and development must be
found. What are the sources?
GW is a tuition-dependent institution. We remain dependent on tuition
to fund our operations. According to the budget office, tuition revenue
accounts for approximately 75 percent of the revenue in our current FY
05 operating budget. If housing and other student revenue is included,
over 88 percent of all operating revenue is driven by enrollment. The
remaining contributions come from external funding for research and scholarship,
and annual fund raising through our advancement office, both of which
are essential for us to function as a Carnegie-classified “Doctoral/Research
Extensive University.” Nevertheless, the key to our being able to
operate at the level of a top-tier research university that delivers quality
education programs and generates new knowledge is enrollment.
We, as faculty members of The George Washington University, have a major
role to play with regard to enrollment in two ways: the retention of existing
students culminating in timely receipt of their degrees, and the recruitment
of graduate students, especially students at the master’s level.
Undergraduate retention from the freshman to the sophomore year was 92.9
percent for the class entering in the fall of 2002. Our six-year graduation
rate for the class entering in 1997 was 75.1 percent. The good news is
that we already know that the six-year graduation rate for the class of
1998 will exceed 78 percent, because the five-year rate is 77.6 percent
and we have been adding approximately a percentage point to the five-year
rate for the last four years. GW should be, at least, at the 85 percent
level — the goal mentioned by President Trachtenberg. This is certainly
achievable as we continue to provide greater academic challenge and engagement
for our increasingly capable students. It does require us to focus and
develop our offerings to the highest possible levels — content-wise
and pedagogically.
Recruitment of graduate students at the master’s level is an ever
increasing challenge owing to the competition within the Washington metropolitan
area and at the national level. Success requires us to work as a team
in what is by necessity a decentralized operation. Graduate students are
attracted to specific programs that have the reputation of high quality,
not to the University per se. Therefore, individual departments and particular
faculty members play a major role in recruiting these students to GW through
the nature of the programs being offered — their content, their currency
and their overall quality. Students expect nothing but the best when they
are paying private university rates. We must differentiate ourselves from
the public institutions through our reputation for quality and the prestige
of earning a degree from GW. Bringing the latter into play is where the
teamwork through the Office of Graduate Student Enrollment Management
comes into play with respect to marketing graduate education at GW at
the University level. Clearly, this teamwork among the schools and the
central offices, all coordinated by Associate Vice President for Research
and Graduate Studies Carol Sigelman, Director of Graduate Student Enrollment
Management Kristin Williams and Dean of the College of Professional Studies
Roger Whitaker, who coordinates our off-campus graduate program offerings,
appears to be working well as illustrated by this year’s tentative
enrollment results. After the second week of classes, we had 90 more master’s
students and 74 more doctoral students enrolled on-campus compared to
last year. Off campus, we had approximately the same number of master’s
students, but 136 more students pursuing graduate certificates compared
to last year at the same time. For this progress, I commend the faculty
and the administrators mentioned above for their continuing, collaborative
efforts toward successful graduate-student recruitment.
Who Makes it Happen?
Who makes all that I have mentioned happen? In the end, it is the GW faculty
members who make it happen. GW faculty members working collaboratively
with the administration, the University’s staff members and with
each other to lead us toward the progress and successes we seek. It shall
be a continuing challenge to achieve the goals and objectives spelled
out in the University’s Strategic Plan for Academic Excellence.
At the same time, it is a great opportunity for a terrifically rewarding
undertaking as we all pull together to make it happen. Seeing the metrics
evolve over the coming years toward the goals we seek will itself be sustenance
for continuing effort.
Send feedback to: bygeorge@gwu.edu
|
|
Related Link
Strategic
Plan Information
|
