|
Chapter
I | PDF Chapter
II
| PDF Chapter
III
| PDF Chapter
IV
| PDF Chapter
V
| PDF Chapter
VI
| PDF Appendix
A
| PDF Appendix
B
| PDF Accreditation Planning Handbook Adobe® Acrobat® Reader is required to view PDF files
|
Chapter III Community of Scholars Two core initiatives in Santa Clara's Strategic Plan set the direction for and characterize the educational practices of the University: "Building a Community of Scholars" and "Providing an Integrated Education." In complementary ways, these embody Santa Clara's vision and mission, capture its traditions and fundamental values, and guide its movement into the future. Since these two initiatives are so closely interrelated, a few words on the differences between them may be helpful to the reader. "Building a Community of Scholars" focuses on the kind of intellectual community that Santa Clara is attempting to build. "Providing an Integrated Education" focuses on the educational experience of students and Santa Clara’s attempt to shape this experience holistically. A premise of the Strategic Plan and our implementation efforts is that success in one initiative is essential for success in the other: it is through a vital community of scholars that integrated learning can best occur, and it is through an integrated approach to education that an intellectual community can best be fostered. Given this reciprocal relationship, the two initiatives and the chapters that describe them in this self-study report invariably overlap. Some goals listed under one initiative could easily (perhaps preferably) be transferred to the other. We request the reader’s understanding and patience as we attempt to tease out the systemic character of these two initiatives, while still following the structure of the Strategic Plan and the goals it lists for each. This chapter will discuss "Building a Community of Scholars;" the next will discuss "Providing an Integrated Education." The Community of Scholars initiative seeks to foster a vital intellectual community whose members collaborate as partners in learning and scholarship. Santa Clara takes community as constitutive of what a university is, not as a secondary by-product or ancillary element. The University realizes it is not immune to what Ernest Boyer and others have lamented as a fragmentation of campus life and curriculum.1 With faculty, staff, and students pulled in many directions within and beyond the University, Santa Clara affirms its commitment to community as a core value and will marshal energy and resources to build it. At the heart of this initiative is the creation of an intellectual community, the leadership for which must be provided by Santa Clara's faculty. To assume this role, faculty must be teaching scholars in the fullest sense: committed to top flight scholarship and creative work; deeply involved in the fabric of student learning; and, as a whole, representative of diverse perspectives and experiences. To the extent Santa Clara sustains faculty, staff, students, and alumni committed to these values, it will become a community of scholars worthy of increasing national recognition. The Strategic Plan spells out several strategic challenges related to building a community of scholars:
This chapter is divided into three major sections, one for each of these strategic challenges, in which the significance of each challenge and the goals identified for it are discussed; historical background and context since the last accreditation visit are provided; evidence of performance is presented; and progress toward the goals is evaluated. Fostering Intellectual Collaboration The intellectual collaboration that is the organizing principle of the community of scholars develops in multiple ways. We foster an intellectual community by creating cross-disciplinary opportunities for study and collaboration. As faculty and students cross the boundaries of disciplines and schools, they develop the thoughtful relationships that are at the heart of the community of scholars. Collaboration among faculty as well as between faculty and students on research or creative work strengthens those relationships. What goes on in the classroom is complemented by the co-curriculum, helping students to engage with both the University community and the community beyond the walls of the University in a more integrated manner. Santa Clara has taken significant steps toward developing the structures and attitudes necessary to support collaboration within the scholarly community. In addition to pedagogic practice, co-curricular integration, and scholarly collaboration, the more intangible notion of community is buttressed by the significant transformation of the University governance structure in the 1990s. The following sections parallel goals listed in the Strategic Plan under the challenge of fostering intellectual collaboration in support of a community of scholars. Stimulate and Support Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry Changes in the undergraduate curriculum since the mid-1980s have increased opportunities for students and faculty to engage each other across disciplinary and departmental boundaries. The process leading up to the new Undergraduate Core Curriculum advanced such activity in at least three ways. First, requirements were defined in terms of outcomes fulfilled by courses from different disciplines, and stewardship of these requirements shifted from a relatively informal system in which single departments oversaw parts of the curriculum to more formal cross-disciplinary committees of faculty from across the University. Second, the residential learning community introduced with the new Core drew on the energy and collaboration of Western Culture faculty from four different departments—Art, English, History, and Philosophy—to provide linked courses for freshman students. And third, the new Core included a strong recommendation for capstone courses as a means for students to make connections across different disciplines at the conclusion of their undergraduate career. In addition, the University has adopted several faculty-initiated cross-disciplinary minor programs, and interdepartmental majors in Liberal Studies and Combined Sciences continue to command student interest. As evidenced in the college and school self-study reports (Exhibit I.4.6), departments throughout the University have revisited requirements for their majors, attempting to integrate them more effectively with school-specific requirements or Core requirements in order to help students place their major field of study in a broader context. The schools and college have reported on changes introduced at the degree level that either are interdisciplinary in nature (such as Engineering’s one-unit "Introduction to Engineering," which provides an overview of the field and professional ethics) or require students to engage in disciplinary perspectives beyond the major (such as the Arts and Sciences requirements that its majors take a course in the fine arts and in ethnic or women’s studies). Cross-disciplinary inquiry and initiatives are most readily attained through the leadership of a faculty motivated, both institutionally and by their own intellectual orientation, to collaborate across programs and disciplines. This comes alive in the classroom, for example, in team teaching projects in which faculty from different disciplines teach single thematic or topic courses, as is the case with several Women and Gender Studies courses. Changes in the Business School’s curriculum have led to an innovative "writing across the curriculum" project in which Business and English faculty link assignments, readings, and research papers for a single cohort of students enrolled in two classes. Outside the classroom, cross-disciplinary interest and energy are also evident. For example, the University has a relatively informal but vibrant web of reading and study groups that address such interests as political theory, critical theory, racism, and technology. More formal structures, including the Eastside Project, Ethnic Studies, Women and Gender Studies, and the Core subcommittees, have brought faculty together for workshops on pedagogy and curriculum development. Interdisciplinary minors sponsor programs, lectures, and colloquia that bring together faculty and students from different majors. The University’s emerging centers of distinction, with multidisciplinary steering committees and advisory boards that include participation beyond the University, play a central role in fostering scholarly community across campus. Evidence of Performance The outcome intended for this goal is an increase in cross-disciplinary inquiry that promotes the experience of intellectual community. The Task Force on Community of Scholars and Integrated Education identified the following performance indicators for this goal. Undergraduate Courses and Programs with Cross-Disciplinary Characteristics Central to the undergraduate experience is the University’s Core Curriculum, those courses representing the content and methodologies all students must experience. The "Learning Outcomes" chapter of this report has documented the overall interdisciplinary character of the Core and the extent to which students are able to make connections between disciplines. The chapter on "Integrated Education" will explain how residential learning communities, such as the Freshman Residential Community (FRC), help students make connections across disciplines through linked classes and faculty collaboration. Various academic departments in the University reinforce this connection between disciplines in the structure of their curriculum—for example, History requires majors to complete two courses outside of history in their chosen emphasis. The Business School has interwoven its major requirements with Core courses and School requirements through distinctive emphases and themes, again focusing its students on connections beyond the specific major. Although team teaching can be a powerful means to expose students to interdisciplinary learning, it occurs very little on campus. In the 1998–99 academic year, only 1.3 percent of regular academic courses were team taught. The University has a greater percentage of cross-listed courses—14.7 percent in the 1998–99 academic year—in which a single faculty member adopts a multidisciplinary approach to a topic and students from different majors engage in dialogue with one another over a common set of readings.2 In the 1998 Senior Survey, 79.8 percent of seniors reported they had completed an interdisciplinary course. The 1998 Alumni Survey data covered in Appendix B suggest that students encountered ample opportunities to make connections between disciplines: nearly 70 percent of alumni reported that their major department helped make connections between major courses and the larger academic goals of the University, and over 90 percent suggested that they experienced integration across subjects. Undergraduates with Interdisciplinary Minors, Double Majors, or Interdepartmental Majors Following a year of analysis by the Academic Affairs Committee, in 1984 the University approved minor programs in all departments in the College of Arts and Sciences (with one exception, Psychology), and a general minor in both Business and Engineering. Since that time, faculty have conceived and developed a variety of interdisciplinary minors, including Asian Studies, Catholic Studies, Community Studies, Ethnic Studies, The Study of Women and Gender, International Studies, Environmental Studies, Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Musical Theatre, Retail Studies, Urban Education, International Business Studies and—most recently—Information Technology and Society. Faculty interest in these programs is high, and they constitute opportunities for cross-departmental collaboration and conversation. Most programs are administered by a faculty director with an advisory or program council. Their curricula generally consist of seven to nine courses, most of which are taken from a constellation of disciplines. Faculty teaching in these programs, especially the capstone seminars, are encouraged to make their courses as multidisciplinary as possible. That many students elect departmental minors suggests interest in linking curricular areas, but the number of students completing interdisciplinary minors bears more directly on our question. Even with the significant growth in these interdisciplinary minors, however, the number of students completing minors overall has not increased significantly in the past five years.
Environmental Studies, the first interdisciplinary minor, is a good example of how these programs provide opportunities for students and faculty to make connections across disciplines. Since its inception in 1992, the program has generated strong student interest and faculty participation. Its program council involves faculty from across the University; it has sponsored visiting scholars; and, in academic year 1999–00, the program will have its first formal joint tenure-track faculty appointments with political science and anthropology.3 The program's vitality is additionally demonstrated by the number of programs it has launched, from the "Environmental Resource Assessment" (an undergraduate campus environmental policy and research program) to a Summer Session program in Trinidad and Tobago. Although it was expected that significant numbers of students would pursue double majors when that option was approved in 1984, relatively few have done so.
The University’s two interdisciplinary majors, Combined Sciences and Liberal Studies, have also maintained relatively constant size in the past five years.
Faculty with Cross-Disciplinary Appointments Until recently, Santa Clara had few tenure-track faculty members whose formal appointments crossed disciplinary boundaries. The Ethnic Studies Program is the longest-standing program with such appointments. Its four core faculty (as distinct from other faculty who offer courses or serve on the program’s advisory board) have dual appointments in the program and in a department. The Food and Agribusiness Program in the School of Business has, from its inception, drawn on faculty from departments in the School to staff the program as well as making its own appointments. Recent faculty appointments across disciplines have been crafted to support new initiatives in Counseling Psychology and Education and in Arts and Sciences. For example, to support changes in the Liberal Studies program, Arts and Sciences has made two joint appointments between that program and the Psychology Department. And, as noted above, two Arts and Sciences departments crafted joint appointments with the interdisciplinary Environmental Studies minor program in response to the dean’s inclusion of fostering interdisciplinary inquiry in the criteria for new positions. Although this pattern is expected to continue, currently less than 1.6 percent of Santa Clara’s tenure-track faculty have a formal interdepartmental appointment. Since they are an exception to normal appointments, they require careful and well-defined agreements regarding faculty evaluation, teaching load, advising, rank and tenure expectations, service, and budget allocations. The Ethnic Studies Program protocols have served that program for more than 10 years, and the College of Arts and Sciences has developed formal letters of understanding between chairs and program directors for the more recent hires. Faculty with traditional department appointments can and do participate in interdepartmental scholarship and teaching. Examples include Law School faculty teaching in the Business School; Business School faculty teaching in the Environmental Studies Program of the College of Arts and Sciences or participating on the Advisory Board for Women and Gender Studies; faculty from Business and from Arts and Sciences offering courses in international business; faculty from different departments teaching in the Business School undergraduate core; faculty from Business and Engineering teaching ethics courses; and Engineering faculty teaching in the Environmental Studies Program. These various types of cross-disciplinary teaching responsibilities all help foster a sense of community that extends beyond departmental boundaries. Faculty Involvement in Cross-Disciplinary Opportunities Santa Clara’s relatively modest size and strong sense of community make it likely that faculty will be stimulated by the proximity of colleagues in fields different from their own. Some of the more productive scholars undertake research with colleagues in other departments; others are drawn by conversations with faculty trained in other disciplines to new perspectives on scholarship. Several books currently in press by Santa Clara scholars have grown from such multidisciplinary efforts. The sources for this kind of activity are many. Multidisciplinary courses and seminars have, for instance, stimulated new faculty insights and creativity. The minor programs discussed above are a locus for faculty interaction around multidisciplinary inquiry; and the Eastside Project deliberately brings together faculty from different disciplines to discuss pedagogy. Similarly, the centers of distinction promote such collaboration. For example, the Center for Science, Technology, and Society holds exceptionally well-attended (at times exceeding 50 participants) seminars and colloquia planned and led by faculty representing a broad range of disciplines. The numerous faculty reading groups (such as Critical Theory and Political Theory) assemble faculty from a broad range of disciplines. Both informal (Ethics at Noon) and formal (Markkula Scholars) programs sponsored by the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics over the past half decade have brought together faculty from virtually every department. Most faculty report having important ties with faculty outside their departments. In the 1998 Faculty Survey, 42.1 percent of all faculty replied that their scholarship involved collaboration with faculty from other departments on campus. In addition, 80.4 percent found the statement, "I regularly participate in University-sponsored events, such as institutes, conferences, forums, and cultural activities," either very descriptive or somewhat descriptive. Echoing a finding from the 1989 Faculty Survey, Santa Clara faculty in 1998 commended the quality of their colleagues, with 35.5 percent calling them excellent, 51.8 percent good, 10.8 percent fair, and 1.9 percent poor. Such respect for one’s colleagues is a necessary condition for cross-disciplinary collaboration and the creation of an intellectual community. This respect for one another as scholars is widespread and contributes to the smooth functioning of our scholarly community. Conclusions Cross-disciplinarity is manifest at Santa Clara in a variety of forms—through the Core, through major and minor programs, through select courses, and through faculty appointments and involvement in various campus activities. A significant majority of undergraduate students report experiencing cross-disciplinary study as part of their Santa Clara education. Three opportunities stand out as ways to develop this aspect of the community of scholars:
Connect Co-Curricular Programs with Curricular Programs Part of creating an intellectual community is extending the life of the mind to activities outside the classroom. Taking the administrative and creative steps to connect the curriculum and co-curriculum more effectively has been a major focus of energy since the last accreditation visit in 1987. That report documented concerns about the potential of a "fragmentation of student services" to undermine the University’s "holistic treatment of students." Santa Clara addressed this concern in various ways, many of which involved attempts at collaboration between Student Affairs and Academic Affairs. Working from calls for action like the "Student Learning Imperative,"4 Student Affairs staff framed their work more explicitly in terms of contributions to motivating and supporting student involvement in educationally purposeful activities, both in and outside the classroom. Discussions around the reorganization under the Provost, and the subsequent administrative changes as this model was adopted, evinced a stronger commitment to aligning the curricular and co-curricular experiences of students.5 Evidence of Performance Progress in realizing this goal can be measured on the indicators listed below. It is difficult to measure the degree to which curricular and co-curricular activities are linked to course requirements because of the largely informal and volunteer character of such links. At the same time, anecdotal evidence and survey data indicate that students do make connections between course work and activities outside the classroom. Courses that Require a Co-Curricular Component Evidence that can be gathered at present includes:
Faculty Reporting Collaboration with Staff in Co-Curricular Activities The 1998 Faculty Survey indicated that an overwhelming majority of all faculty believe that it is somewhat or very important to "enhance the experience of students outside the classroom." Among almost all groups of faculty, responses topped 90 percent. It is, therefore, not surprising that 62.9 percent of the faculty find the statement, "I attempt to link my classes to activities sponsored by other parts of the university," either "somewhat" or "very descriptive." Programs in which faculty and staff collaborate have yielded strong connections between the classroom and life outside the classroom. Examples include the residential learning community courses in Unity House and Casa Italiana; the full-credit course team-taught by faculty and Center for Student Leadership staff for the Student Reflector program; the spring 1999 experimental sociology course taught in a freshman residence hall in which the resident director collaborated with the instructor on assignments and outside-of-class activities; the collaboration of Orradre Library staff and Ethnic Studies faculty in using students to develop elements of the University’s diversity Web site; and the 1998 Ethnic Studies film course designed by the staff and faculty on the Multicultural Coordinating Council. That nearly one-half of the faculty responding to the 1998 Faculty Survey agreed with the statement, "I often collaborate with staff in offering co-curricular activities for students," suggests the University has fostered a collegial atmosphere for faculty and staff to collaborate on this important initiative. Conclusions Improving connections between the co-curriculum and the curriculum is an important objective for the reorganization under the Provost, and is a key element in two major initiatives to which the Provost has committed resources: the Center for Multicultural Learning and residential learning communities. These initiatives, along with the recent realignment of vice provost responsibilities, should advance the progress we have already made in this direction by supporting even greater faculty-staff collaboration. It will be important to learn from student, faculty, and staff experiences with these changes and make adjustments as necessary. To this end, the University should invest in faculty and staff development workshops to promote more integration of co-curricular activities into courses; and the University should use the survey data cited above (noting especially areas revealing statistically significant differences by division, gender, or ethnicity) to target those development efforts more effectively. Enable Undergraduates to Do Scholarly Work with Faculty Engaging students in scholarly or creative work with faculty is an important vehicle not only for enhancing student learning but also for creating a stronger community of scholars. During the 1997–98 academic year, the University Research Committee conducted a survey of departments regarding undergraduate research. Citing many examples, the committee’s report (Exhibit III.1.7) concluded that undergraduate students in all fields and disciplines are regularly involved in a wide variety of scholarly activities, although faculty vary a great deal in their definition of what is meant by research.6 The examples cited by the Research Committee illustrate, but by no means exhaust, the variety of undergraduate research projects underway at Santa Clara. Undergraduate research at Santa Clara, however defined, is largely a local phenomenon supported by departments in a variety of ways, as opposed to the more centralized and university-funded model found at some institutions. Further, the local undergraduate research tends to reflect distinctive Santa Clara features, as is illustrated by the justice orientation of many of these projects. Evidence of Performance Evidence of PerformanceBeyond the existence of programs and initiatives like those cited by the Research Committee, evidence of success in promoting faculty-student collaboration is provided by three indicators. Percentage of Faculty Reporting Collaboration with Students in Scholarship The 1998 Faculty Survey found that 21.9 percent of respondents viewed the statement, "My scholarship involves collaboration with students," as very descriptive and 34.2 percent as somewhat descriptive. Although there are differences by academic program (Engineering faculty reported greater involvement than other divisions, but they probably included graduate students in considering their response) and to an extent by gender and ethnicity, the evidence suggests a high degree of faculty support for this goal. Percentage of Students Reporting Collaboration with Faculty in Scholarship The 1998 Senior Survey reveals a similar pattern of response to a different question related to this area: 22 percent of respondents reported they were frequently provided the opportunity to work on a research project by professors, and 36.2 percent reported they were occasionally provided this opportunity. In the 1998 Alumni Survey, 41.9 percent of respondents strongly agreed and 33.2 percent somewhat agreed with the statement, "My department or program provided me the opportunity to work closely with a faculty member." To the statement, "My department or program provided opportunities to do research in my field and/or create new pieces of work," 27.6 percent of alumni strongly agreed, and 42.2 percent somewhat agreed. Again, there are differences by school or college, with Engineering alumni reporting higher levels of agreement and Business lower levels than Arts and Sciences alumni. Overall Student Satisfaction with the Community of Scholars Although working closely with faculty on undergraduate research appears to be an important ingredient of the community of scholars for students, Santa Clara should not lose sight of the fact that it is but one of several ways in which students interact with faculty. In this regard, the detailed analysis of 1998 Senior Survey data completed by Institutional Research (Exhibit II.2.10) is instructive. A factor analysis indicates that several of the activities with faculty thought to foster interdisciplinarity, collaborative work, and intellectual challenge may, indeed, have outcomes intended in the Strategic Plan, such as the experience of an integrated education, satisfaction with instruction and overall academic experience, low dissatisfaction with community, and satisfaction with advising and academic assistance.7 These relationships suggest that faculty should actively devise ways to improve the self-confidence of students and to involve them in the kinds of experiences that lead to their satisfaction with membership in a community of scholars. Undergraduate research is one of several ways by which faculty can do this. Conclusions The University Research Committee concluded its report with the statement that the survey results will and ought to be an inspiration for many of us and a source of satisfaction to all. Their conclusion points to an essential element in Santa Clara’s community of scholars: faculty-student interaction is a key ingredient in student success and satisfaction. The University should act on the committee’s recommendation to study activity that occurs under the rubric of "undergraduate research"—both to determine better what students understand by research and creative activity with faculty, and to continue to promote and document this vital part of Santa Clara’s community of scholars. Opportunities to work closely with faculty are what impel students to integrate their learning and to develop personal values consistent with the community of scholars. Involve Graduate Students in University Cultural Life Chapter II and the school self-studies provide an overview of the University’s graduate programs and the distinctive features that make the experience of Santa Clara’s community of scholars different for graduate students. In ways similar to the articulation of learning outcomes, the primary focus for graduate students’ participation in the intellectual life of the University is at the school level. The Business School, for example, begins each quarter with the "Leavey Lecture," which provides all MBA students the opportunity to gather together at least once a quarter. The Law School sponsors 19 student organizations, all of which offer programs throughout the year. Students are involved in Law School publications, including the Santa Clara Law Review, the Computer and High Tech Law Review, and the Grapevine. The East San Jose Community Law Center’s programs and placements are of growing interest to law students and to individuals in the larger community interested in law, justice, and the local community. Although University-wide events are open to all members of the community, and graduate students may attend, practices as simple as the hours of service in administrative and service offices on campus contribute to the ongoing perception that the University’s primary focus is on undergraduates. The Crane marketing survey and the school-specific data described in their reports suggest a high level of satisfaction by graduate students with their overall experience (on average, 80 percent of the graduate students indicated they would choose Santa Clara again). One cannot discern from satisfaction data, however, the extent to which graduate students perceive they are engaged in the intellectual and cultural life of the University community beyond their specific school. Given the importance of this as a goal, the University should investigate this question and, in particular, determine if certain sets of graduate students are not connected. One such group might be the full-time international graduate students, whose interests and needs may differ from those of other students enrolled in the largely part-time Engineering and Business programs. Involve Alumni in University Cultural Life E. Goal: Offer opportunities for alumni and others to participate in the intellectual and cultural life of the campusSanta Clara’s Alumni Association maintains a number of organizations and sponsors events of various size and purpose throughout the year for alumni of the University. Alumni are informed of campus developments and encouraged to attend campus events such as theater presentations, art shows, and lectures through Santa Clara Magazine and through the association’s Web site. Several undergraduate academic departments and programs make efforts to involve their alumni in departmental activities, largely through the publication of regular newsletters and invitations to alumni dinners and special lectures. (For example, the History Department’s annual alumni dinner draws between 50 and 100 participants.) Other academic departments and Career Services bring alumni back to meet with undergraduates around advising and exploring career and graduate school opportunities. In at least one instance—the linked Accounting/English courses that won the 1999 Brutocao Teaching Innovation Award—alumni entered the electronic component of the course to critique student writing and provide feedback as on-line mentors. The professional schools similarly engage their alumni to provide advice to and make connections with students. The School of Engineering, for example, has for eight years sponsored an Alumni Board that supports the school through the Distinguished Engineering Award, senior thesis consultation, and financial support for students to attend conferences. The Leavey School of Business and Administration Advisory Board is active in the life of the school, including involvement in the "Silicon Valley Classroom," in which alumni and others from local companies share their expertise in undergraduate classes. The MBA program maintains its own alumni group, promoting involvement through publications and its Web site in activities such as the dean-sponsored breakfast briefings and the annual economic forecast. The University Relations Office and Alumni Association sponsor a number of programs that bring alumni to campus to connect with the academic (Back to the Classroom activities), religious (weekend retreats and on-campus First Friday events), and social justice (Santa Clara Day of Service) dimensions of their alma mater. Santa Clara has 52 alumni chapters, mostly on the West Coast. Alumni chapter events take the resources of the University to graduates, hosting presentations by staff from the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics and the Center for Science, Technology, and Society as well as individual faculty. Chapter V discusses alumni participation in fundraising activities, an important indicator of the University’s ability to continue to engage them with the Santa Clara community. Conclusions Encourage Collaboration in Governance Although not appearing as a goal in the Strategic Plan, shared governance is an important aspect of promoting the intellectual collaboration on which a community of scholars is based. Santa Clara’s recent history of wrestling with this issue provides useful lessons about collaboration and community building. As documented in Appendix A, progress has been made on the 1987 accreditation visiting team recommendations, including academic and fiscal planning, communication between the administration and faculty, rank and tenure procedures, and the relationship between academic and student affairs. The process of addressing these and related issues has been a positive medium for building collaboration and consensus. Yet there have also been points at which communication and consensus on campus have broken down, leading to tensions in the early 1990s when faculty and staff did not feel adequately consulted in key decisions related to proposed administrative restructuring in the Business School and the graduate program in Counseling Psychology and Education. Both these successes and these failures provide the background for understanding Santa Clara’s current governance system, the formation of which began in 1993 with a Faculty Senate Council task force. Drawing on a year of campus and off-campus consultation, research on American Association for University Professors (AAUP) policies and best practices at other universities, and dialogue with Santa Clara administrators, a Faculty Senate Council task force in 1994 proposed a new "shared governance system" (Exhibit III.1.13). This document served as the basis for further discussion by a team of three representatives each from the Faculty Senate and the administration. This team agreed on a governance system with the following key features:
In 1995, the President and the Board of Trustees approved this model of governance (Exhibit III.1.13), and the new system was implemented in the following year. An evaluation of the new system in 1996–97 led to further refinements. In March 1999, the Women Faculty Group also organized an open faculty forum to encourage faculty feedback on the system. While there are still issues of concern to each constituency on campus, administrators have found the structure an effective mechanism for engaging the campus community in policy issues, and faculty have been sufficiently pleased with the new system to nominate Santa Clara's President and Board of Trustees for the first governance award given by the AAUP (Exhibit III.1.13). While the larger governance system was being overhauled, the Faculty Senate Council also strengthened its role, most notably by securing secretarial assistance, bringing administrators and policy committee chairpersons in for regular reports to the council, publishing council minutes electronically, and routinely reporting on the agendas of policy committees in the campus newspaper. At the same time, the staff of the University reorganized its governance system, creating a Staff Assembly Council to participate in University governance along similar lines. Constituted by representatives from across all areas of the campus, this body has spoken to the needs of staff (such as a more meaningful and open performance appraisal process) and their resources to advance University initiatives (by providing a forum, for example, on campus construction and parking). The Associated Students of Santa Clara University (ASSCU), under the guidance of the Center for Student Leadership, has redirected its resources and energies to provide a more effective student voice in this new governance model. The student government has increasingly voiced concerns and suggestions on University projects, engaged the University President in quarterly conversations, and added its input to University efforts around diversity and multiculturalism, Core Curriculum revision, and campus construction projects. Both graduate students and undergraduate students have representation on several University policy committees. Evidence of Performance The following performance indicators can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the governance model’s contribution to building a community of scholars. Recognition of Effectiveness of Governance System The American Association of University Professors awarded the first Ralph S. Brown Award for Outstanding Service to Shared Governance to President Paul Locatelli, S.J., and the Board of Trustees in June 1999. The nomination on which this award was based recognized the extent of the changes at Santa Clara, the quality of the collaborative model implemented here, and the institution's continuing commitment to make the quality of governance central to its sense of itself as a moral and intellectual community. Anecdotal reports on the new governance system suggest it has improved faculty and staff morale and sense of ownership by assuring them that the formal policy-making procedures of the University involve them and by contributing to the communication and trust all collaborative systems require. These are not trivial considerations in evaluating Santa Clara’s ability to build a community of scholars. Analysis of the 1998 Staff and Faculty Surveys to validate or qualify impressions like these will be complex, but preliminary results suggest they are on target. For example, 73.2 percent of faculty (a slight increase over the 1989 Faculty Survey’s 68.6 percent) and 71.3 percent of staff report the sense of community at Santa Clara is good or excellent, suggesting that the University is maintaining what the Strategic Plan identifies as a "distinctive strength of Santa Clara." More specifically related to governance, 52 percent of faculty and 42.8 percent of staff report their "input in key decisions" is good or excellent—which, taken with the high level of familiarity and support for the Strategic Plan, suggests significant numbers of these campus constituencies feel engaged in the development of the University. Participation in governance, of course, takes time, so it is not surprising to find faculty reporting that committee work is increasingly a hindrance to scholarship and remains a hindrance to teaching. (See below for discussion of obstacles to teaching and scholarship.) Collaborative and Scholarly Policy Development Under the new governance system the University community engaged and resolved a number of major, and difficult, policy issues, including a new faculty salary benchmarking plan, new staff manual, administrative reorganizations within the new Provost area, reorganization of the academic division of Counseling Psychology and Education, the formulation of a long-term Strategic Plan, undergraduate tuition reappraisal, the place of collegiality in rank and tenure criteria, formal evaluations of deans, adoption of a Campus Master Plan, a policy on non-tenure-track hiring, the improvement of sabbatical leave opportunities, and parking fees. Each of these was discussed by the appropriate assembly, and the administrative bodies charged with planning and implementation promoted two-way conversation throughout. The discussions and analyses have been characterized by the openness, attention to evidence, engagement with research, and frank interchange of ideas characteristic of a scholarly community. Conclusions There is a continuing need to educate faculty about the governance structure and socialize all participants (faculty, staff, administration, and students) to use the system effectively, especially in terms of regular communication. A number of policy issues currently on the table—notably formal guidelines for faculty involvement in the sensitive areas of selection, retention, and evaluation of administrators—will also require continued faith in the importance of collaborative processes. The Faculty Senate Council must continue to strengthen its ability to be an effective venue for informed dialogue about campus issues and an active participant in initiating and debating policy improvements. The revision of the Faculty Handbook currently underway should provide a good opportunity for such collaboration. Similarly, staff and student forums must continue to strengthen their own infrastructure in order to make the most of, and even expand, their formal involvement in the larger governance process. The University should continue to monitor the contributions of this shared governance system to the community of scholars. All constituencies are responsible for ensuring that interactions reflect the norms of a scholarly community—openness to challenging questions, attention to evidence, and careful research. On a more practical level, the University needs to ensure that the time committed to making a shared governance system work supports—not impedes—the institution’s commitment to student learning. At the same time, it is hoped that as this system continues to prove its effectiveness, faculty and staff involvement will become more widespread, rewarding, and even routine, so that the time burdens associated with it will be more fairly apportioned across the community. Supporting Faculty as Teaching Scholars This section discusses the University’s commitment to the key resource for the community of scholars, Santa Clara’s faculty. Since the 1987 accreditation self-study, the faculty and administration have worked to explore and clarify what Boyer called the "priorities of the professoriate" on several fronts—faculty evaluation, rank and tenure criteria and procedures, faculty development, and support for scholarship. The analysis that follows captures those efforts by showing how the concept of the "teaching scholar" has defined Santa Clara’s efforts to advance and support faculty’s central role in the community of scholars. Maintain a Full-Time Faculty Sufficient in Size and Composition The phrase "teaching scholar" was introduced by Santa Clara’s leadership in 1984 to sharpen discussions of the pivotal role of faculty in the life of the University. It has since provided a framework for developing criteria for annual evaluation and for rank and tenure, faculty recruitment and development strategies, the intellectual atmosphere and expectations that should characterize our students’ learning experience, and the distinct features for which we expect national recognition. In this section we explore ways the "teaching scholar" ideal shapes the way we have analyzed and formed policy related to two issues raised in the 1987 accreditation visiting team report: the use of non-tenure-track faculty for undergraduate instruction, and the balance between teaching and research in faculty evaluations and self-understanding. The 1987 visiting team report voiced a concern about the large number of part-time faculty employed by the University. Santa Clara has addressed this concern on several fronts. The University administration has set thresholds or benchmarks for the use of part-time and full-time instructors in the Core Curriculum and at the lower-division level. Unlike the previous University Curriculum revisions, the 1995 Core Curriculum revisions were made with an understanding that reliance on part-time faculty was a serious constraint: the University, therefore, funded eight new tenure-track positions to launch the expanded range of requirements. The deans have slowly reduced reliance on quarterly appointments—the most temporary teaching staff—by budget consolidations into new tenure-track positions and a variety of academic year non-tenure-track appointments. Although these latter steps were consistent with the recommendations of the 1987 visiting team, they are not without their own set of problems. Faculty have raised concerns on several fronts, from perceived erosion of commitment to tenure-track appointments to the scholarship expectations and support for non-tenure-track faculty. The Academic Affairs Committee studied the lecturer policy formally in the 1996–97 academic year, received input from several constituencies—including the Women Faculty Group, who sponsored a forum and issued a brief that included analysis and recommendations (Exhibit III.2.7)—and completed an evaluation of the term lecturer strategy the College of Arts and Sciences had adopted. In the following year, a joint task force of the Academic Affairs and Faculty Affairs committees met to analyze this situation and develop University policy on the use of non-tenure-track faculty (Exhibit III.2.8). Its final report contained a reaffirmation of the University’s commitment to tenure-track faculty to advance the University’s mission and, recognizing the difficulties of crafting policy across the varying teaching conditions represented in the University, recommended that the University proceed with greater clarity and accountability in making non-tenure-track hires. A common thread and guiding principle throughout these discussions and strategies was the importance of the teaching scholar ideal for promoting the kind of student learning and academic community to which Santa Clara aspires. Reporting on concerns and uncertainties it picked up in conversations with faculty on the relationship of teaching and scholarship, the 1987 visiting team report characterized the environment for faculty as "schizophrenic," suggesting that the University needed to do more to clarify the relative weight of teaching and research in relation to University mission. Similar findings were reported in the 1989 Faculty Survey, which showed that faculty found their personal convictions on the balance between the two divergent from the direction in which they perceived the University to be heading. Approximately 25 percent of the faculty considered teaching and research equally important; another 25 percent considered research more important; and around 50 percent considered teaching more important. However, a majority of faculty at that time thought Santa Clara was inappropriately placing more emphasis on research than teaching. Although it reported consensus on the obstacles to more effective scholarship and teaching (teaching loads too high, class sizes too large, and unrelenting demands for time), the report pointed out marked differences in the relative importance of, or balance between, teaching and scholarship among faculty from the various schools, and among faculty within various age and rank cohorts. These disparities led the report writers to wonder about the efficacy of the administration’s communication of its vision of the teaching scholar model. Evidence of this is found, for example, in the fact that 75 percent of faculty at that time believed that the criteria to evaluate teaching and scholarship were not clear and explicit, and that many faculty members perceived conflicting and confusing sets of demands. The University has taken several initiatives to clarify the "teaching scholar" notion. Departmental faculty evaluations, which were previously presented in a laborious summative annual format, have been replaced by a more developmental model, particularly for tenured faculty, conducted in three- or five-year cycles. Faculty teaching loads have been increasingly equalized with the clarification of the purpose of the one-course release for scholarship and creative work. Rank and tenure guidelines at University and school levels have been revised to include a richer and more nuanced account of effectiveness in teaching, scholarship, and service, and to make criteria and procedures clearer and more consistent. These adjustments have gone hand-in-hand with expanded opportunities for faculty development. The University adopted a flexible sabbatical program, devised by the faculty, which is more conducive to a sustained, multi-year research agenda. The junior faculty fellowship program has been expanded and tied to the recently implemented third-year review, which again reinforces the development of a sustainable program rather than episodic bursts of annual activity. Internal grants continue to seed and promote faculty research and curricular innovation. Many of the issues discussed above are treated in greater detail in Santa Clara’s response to the recommendations of the 1987 accreditation visiting team (Appendix A). Evidence of Performance Evidence of PerformanceTwo types of performance indicators have been used to measure the effectiveness of the University’s efforts to achieve the goal of maintaining a full-time faculty sufficient in size and composition to maintain the integrity of the curriculum and achieve excellence in teaching and scholarship: data on the composition of the faculty and their instructional contributions, and faculty perceptions of what it means to be a teaching scholar at Santa Clara. Percentage of Full-Time and Tenure-Track Faculty Santa Clara’s full-time faculty has grown significantly since the last accreditation self-study: from 294 full-time faculty in the 1986–87 academic year to 399 full-time faculty in the 1998–99 academic year. That represents a 35.7 percent growth in full-time faculty resources in a period when undergraduate enrollment increased by 17.8 percent. The chart below provides an overview of how this growth has affected the overall composition of the faculty.
Further analysis of the data reveals the following:
The University has allocated significant resources to increase the size of its faculty since 1987, resulting in a reduction in part-time faculty and a significant increase in the number of tenure-track positions. However, the rate of growth for tenure-track faculty does not match the overall rate of growth for faculty. Factors affecting these changes—growth in undergraduate enrollment, reduction in teaching load, expansion in curriculum and course sections, management of class size, faculty releases for administration and other purposes, and strategies to reduce reliance on part-time faculty—reflect the challenges Santa Clara faces in balancing multiple and sometimes competing priorities.8 A full analysis of changes in the size and composition of the faculty is a complex undertaking, which has not been completed. Percentage of Undergraduate and Lower-Division Courses Taught by Full-Time Faculty On March 12, 1996, the Vice President for Academic Affairs issued a memo (Exhibit III.2.1) expressing concern that the University’s vision and mission were compromised on the undergraduate level by a curriculum in which only 65 percent of all undergraduate classes and 59 percent of lower-division classes were taught by full-time faculty. For the central focus of the University to remain student learning, he argued, Santa Clara would have to take steps to reduce the number of courses offered by part-time faculty. He concluded with a mandate to the deans and their faculty: Take steps to ensure that the number of courses taught by full-time faculty in a department not dip below 70 percent and that no more than 20 percent of lower-division courses be taught by part-time faculty. Where does the University stand on these targets after two years?
Albeit modest, progress has been made. Indeed, since the somewhat anomalous dip in full-time instruction in academic year 1995–96—due in part to an unusual spike in faculty turnover—the 1998–99 academic year improved by 10 percent. Progress on the lower-division target of 80 percent instruction by full-time faculty has moved along a similar trajectory, although the University has not yet met its goal.
The benchmarks set by the Vice President for Academic Affairs in March 1996 have focused University discussions of resources and the quality of undergraduate instruction. They have been added, for example, to the criteria for approving new full-time positions (both lecturer and tenure-track) in Arts and Sciences, and they are used to set full-time faculty instruction targets for departments offering Core courses. Given their importance to the quality of student learning, these benchmarks should continue to be used in the University’s analysis of its resource deployment in the future. Faculty Perceptions of the Role, Status, and Conditions of Quarterly-Part Time Faculty As noted above, the role of non-tenure-track faculty at Santa Clara has generated considerable controversy in the past few years, much of it prompted by a 1996 proposal from the College of Arts and Sciences, approved by the Academic Affairs Committee and the Vice President for Academic Affairs, to consolidate nearly 100 quarterly part-time contracts into 12 full-time term lecturer positions. The controversy had less to do with the need to reduce reliance on part-time instruction than with the fixed-term lecturer strategy adopted by Arts and Sciences. It was criticized, first, as a short-term fix to a long-term problem, and second as a return to a lecturer model the Faculty Senate had rejected in the 1970s and again in the 1980s as compromising the quality of instruction, ignoring unique instructional needs of different disciplines, and having a disproportionate impact on women faculty. While some faculty and administrators argued that the fixed terms and the provision for variable teaching loads were appropriate for positions whose primary purpose was instruction, others argued that these features compromised the teaching scholar ideal because term lecturers were not expected to engage in scholarship. Some argued that these positions were exploitative, providing no job security, while others saw them as a pragmatic way to provide individuals hitherto on quarter-by-quarter contracts at least an annual appointment that included full-time benefits and higher per-course salaries. Some faculty voiced concern that endorsing the term lecturer strategy signaled an erosion in Santa Clara’s commitment to a predominantly tenure-track faculty, reflecting national trends that have been critiqued by various professional organizations and the AAUP. Others saw it as less than ideal, but a fair and fiscally responsible way, to meet the demands for improved undergraduate instruction. The following 1998 Faculty Survey results on the role and status of part-time faculty do not shed light on faculty perceptions of the term lecturer strategy to reduce reliance on part-time faculty. They do, however, provide insight into the extent to which faculty consensus on these issues remains elusive:
Although further analysis is necessary to determine how faculty may understand "over-reliance," it is clear that achieving consensus on this issue will be a challenge.
The 1998 Faculty Survey framed two questions on part-time instruction explicitly in terms of the teaching scholar model. Responses were inconsistent. While only 29.2 percent of the faculty agreed that "SCU’s use of quarterly part-time faculty enhances the teaching scholar model," 52.4 percent disagreed with the statement that "SCU’s use of quarterly part-time faculty threatens its commitment to a community of scholars." This disparity suggests the need for further analysis, including clarification of how faculty understood these questions, which may help explain the inconsistency of responses. Some respondents may have taken the use of quarterly part-time faculty as the necessary consequence of supporting the teaching scholar model through reduced teaching loads for full-time faculty to engage in scholarship and creative work. Faculty Perceptions of the Relationship of Teaching and Scholarship Boyer and others have argued that a richer understanding of faculty as teaching scholars is essential to higher education reform.9 Santa Clara has given the teaching scholar ideal prominence in its Strategic Plan. Almost nine of 10 faculty surveyed in 1998 defined themselves as teaching scholars, and this characterization increasingly shapes the articulation of rank and tenure guidelines. The teaching scholar model is also at the heart of the message Santa Clara presents to prospective students. A term so central to the identity of Santa Clara warrants study of the evolution of faculty understanding of its meaning. The table below compares faculty perceptions about the relationship between teaching and scholarship as reported in the 1989 and 1998 Faculty Surveys.10
Using the threefold snapshot of changes in faculty perceptions is instructive:
Faculty Perceptions of Evaluation and Rewards for Teaching and Scholarship Changes in faculty evaluation and reward structures are discussed in Chapter V. The 1998 Faculty Survey found that the majority of Santa Clara faculty believe the University’s reward system is generally effective. For example, 95.4 percent of faculty agreed with the statement that faculty are rewarded for being good teachers, and 92.2 percent agreed with the statement that faculty are rewarded for being good scholars. Perhaps reflecting the faculty’s sense of the complexity of balancing these two commitments, a smaller percentage, 72.4 percent, agreed that "the greatest rewards go to faculty who excel at both teaching and scholarship," with statistically significant differences by division. Faculty agreement on the clarity of criteria for judging the quality of faculty teaching and scholarship was substantially lower: only 52.5 percent found the criteria for teaching clear and
explicit, and 57.7 percent found the criteria for scholarship clear and explicit. At first blush, these data are disturbing. Greater clarity about evaluation criteria in relation to mission was an important area of concern in both the 1987 accreditation visiting team report and the 1989 Faculty Survey report, and significant work was devoted to faculty evaluation and rank and tenure criteria and procedures in the past 10 years. But when the 1989 and 1998 Faculty Surveys are compared, we find evidence that substantial progress in communicating and implementing standards for the teaching scholar model has been made. Faculty Perceptions of Obstacles to Teaching and Scholarship The 1998 Faculty Survey asked respondents to rate each of 12 items as a "major obstacle," "somewhat of an obstacle," or "not an obstacle" to their teaching and to their scholarship. Six of these items appeared on the 1989 Faculty Survey, allowing for longitudinal comparisons.11 Only three items were identified by more than half the respondents in 1998 as being either a "major obstacle" or "somewhat of an obstacle" to their teaching: "other" (9.2 percent and 42.3 percent); "committee work" (15.4 percent and 42.9 percent); and "number of students in my classes" (9.2 percent and 42.3 percent). Six items were mentioned by more than half the respondents in 1998 as being either a "major obstacle" or "somewhat of an obstacle" to their scholarship: "other" (54.2 percent and 33.3 percent); "committee work" (23.8 percent and 48.5 percent); "number of classes to teach" (32.6 percent and 38.5 percent); "library" (16.0 percent and 45.1 percent); "number of students in my classes" (15.0 percent and 41.2 percent); and "department funding" (14.9 percent and 37.9 percent). The "other" category did not break down into clear patterns for either teaching or scholarship. A comparison between the 1989 and 1998 surveys reveals several striking features:
Improvements in rating between 1989 and 1998 may be due in part to additional resources to support teaching, learning, and scholarship. Examples include maintaining average class size at 28 students, standardizing the six-course teaching load for tenure-track faculty, and diverting student wages towards more student assistants. Focusing on specific areas reported as problems encountered in teaching by specific divisions (such as class size in mathematics and natural sciences) might yield significant improvements to student learning and faculty productivity. Another perspective on these obstacles is suggested by the 1989 Faculty Survey report’s assertion that studying the obstacles reported by faculty reveals the "feeling that faculty have too many things to do and not enough time to do them all well." Faculty reports of obstacles are something of a barometer of what they hold important but are unable to accomplish. To be sure, constructive steps should be taken to help faculty better link their time allocation to priorities. (In their mentoring of junior faculty, for example, senior faculty might encourage them to focus their energies on building a scholarly agenda and broad teaching portfolio instead of extra department service.) At the same time, the faculty perception that they are committed to more than they can do well warrants further study. The analysis of the growth of full-time faculty revealed that the percentage of full-time faculty who are tenure-track has declined. Does this translate into subtle but increased demands on those faculty for outside-the-classroom meetings with students, advising, service, and administration? Conclusions ConclusionsThis section of the report reveals progress toward realizing the goal of maintaining a full-time faculty sufficient in size and composition to assure the integrity of the curriculum and achieve excellence in teaching and scholarship. It also reveals areas of concern that require further analysis and action. The following areas are highlighted with the latter in mind.
Provide Faculty Development Programs that Support Teaching Scholars Effective faculty development programs respond to changing needs throughout the life-cycle of a faculty member. Most new faculty must prepare for tenure and, therefore, need time to develop courses and a scholarly program. Since the last accreditation visit, a policy of granting junior faculty one quarter of leave time following a successful third-year review was instituted. Because family responsibilities often take extraordinary amounts of time during those years when one must prepare for tenure, a policy of stopping the tenure clock for women for the first year after giving birth was instituted in the late 1980s. Since the last accreditation visit, the policy of granting one term of paid leave was extended to adoptive mothers and then to fathers as well. There is some anecdotal evidence that elder care may increasingly become an issue for faculty and staff. The changing patterns of scholarship over time also affect faculty development needs. In some fields, mature scholars produce different types of scholarship—books rather than articles, or synthetic works rather than primary research. Similarly, significant faculty participation in integrated education initiatives like the Eastside Project can lead to changes in classroom pedagogy and course development. Each of these has to be taken into consideration when supporting faculty development and evaluation. In many respects the question of faculty development is tied to the analysis presented above—clarity of reward structures, helping faculty overcome obstacles to excellent teaching and research, the varying needs of faculty by discipline and rank. An effective faculty development effort should assist faculty to negotiate these and related challenges they face in realizing the ideal of the teaching scholar. University Resources Dedicated to Faculty Development Historical BackgroundSeveral changes related to faculty development since the 1987 accreditation visit are worth noting. The 1986 reorganization of the Teaching and Learning Center into The Learning Center occurred after a year-long study of how best to serve student learning. An important component of that shift was the recognition that centralized University-wide faculty development programs related to teaching (and, to an extent, scholarship) were not as effective as localized efforts. The University, therefore, transferred responsibility for faculty development to the deans, with the expectation that other entities on campus, such as the emerging centers of distinction, would be effective supplemental resources. The change appears to have been successful, although some faculty lament the loss of a specific program that was instrumental in helping women faculty develop good research habits. A significant focus of the deans’ in furthering faculty development has been the ongoing revision of faculty evaluation processes and criteria. Tied to the development of clear rank and tenure criteria, these have included innovations like the three-year review for probationary faculty and the multi-year evaluation cycle for senior faculty. As noted previously, complementary policies have been developed to provide for junior faculty leaves, more flexible sabbatical leaves, family leaves for faculty with new families, and a provision to stop the tenure clock for female faculty with new children. The deans have also developed school- or college-level grants to support faculty development. For example, the School of Business has allocated $150,000 for faculty teaching and research grants in each of the past two years, and additional research funding of over $100,000 per year has been made available to faculty through the School centers (particularly the Retail Management Institute) for the past seven years. In the past eight years the Arts and Sciences dean has allocated $20,000 to 25,000 per year to faculty projects under the rubric of an "Intellectual Community" fund. Each year an additional $150,000 is made available for new faculty start-up costs from the College’s Science Equipment Fund. The School of Engineering also dedicates funds for faculty start up (including summer support money and equipment) and this past year piloted a "mini-grants" program that disbursed $70,000 in support of faculty research projects. These dean-level grants, have done a good job of supplementing the semiannual University internal grants program run through the Provost’s Office. This program awards more than $100,000 a year in grants for research and teaching projects.
The University has also provided resources for faculty development through established programs and specific initiatives. For example, Ethnic Studies and Women and Gender Studies have in the past sponsored summer curriculum development workshops for faculty and dedicated funds to support faculty research that involves undergraduates. The Eastside Project has sponsored similar summer workshops as well as sessions during the year as part of its "Academic In-Reach" initiative to engage faculty more fully in the program’s community-based pedagogy. The emerging centers of distinction support faculty development through research funds and faculty colloquia. Residential learning communities have been another locus for faculty development. During the 1998–99 academic year, the Provost supported faculty and staff research on this topic through funding for conference travel and ongoing "conversation" sessions around research and programs from other universities, and the Freshman Residential Community sponsored a workshop on writing across the curriculum. The third world immersion experience the University has sponsored for the past 10 years represents a distinctive and unique faculty development effort. Participating faculty and administrators report that the first-hand contact with people and cultures in places like Haiti, Guatemala, Mexico, and El Salvador has challenged their own cultural assumptions and affected their courses, and in some cases, their scholarly work. The University has also used major external grants to support faculty development. Two initiatives funded by the Irvine Foundation, "Excellence Through Diversity" and "Leaders for a Just World," included open research grants and resources for curriculum and pedagogical development. The report on the latter grant (Exhibit IV.1.4) shows that its emphasis on institutionalization led to the development of 12 new courses by faculty throughout the University. The new Irvine grant, "Partnerships for Diversity," includes similar provisions for faculty development. The Sponsored Projects Office informs faculty across the University of external grant opportunities and assists faculty in preparing funding applications and administering grants that have been awarded (Exhibit III.2.9). Evidence of Performance Programs to Support Faculty Development in New Technologies Among the objectives faculty development can serve is providing faculty the opportunity to update their use of technology in teaching and scholarship. Santa Clara has taken several steps in this direction, which are discussed in Chapter V: the formation of a Technology Steering Committee to guide policy, resource allocation, and grants for technology innovation; the provision of new resources; and the creation of several new support and training positions, including two instructional technology resource specialists. Faculty Perception of Support for Faculty Development In the 1998 survey, faculty were asked to respond to the statement, "Santa Clara supports faculty development at different stages of the faculty life cycle." Only 5.8 percent strongly agreed with this statement, while 57.3 percent "somewhat" agreed—a rather modest endorsement. There were statistically significant differences in the responses by ethnicity and division which should be considered in future work in this area. Conclusions Faculty development at Santa Clara consists largely of a healthy network of resources to support faculty interests in a variety of ways. Some are more formal and part of University-wide structures, as in the case of the internal grants or various faculty leave programs that have recently been developed; others reside with the deans, key agents in faculty development, especially in light of the reorganization of the Teaching and Learning Center which dropped its faculty development component. In addition, through the centers of distinction, various programs, special initiatives, and major external grants, the University makes resources available to support a wide range of faculty development efforts. The improved governance structure in the past five years has permitted faculty and administrators to work collaboratively to improve faculty development, family leave policies, and sabbatical leave policies. Increase Endowed Professorships to Support Strategic Initiatives In recent years, working closely with donors, the University has tried to define endowed professorships as broadly as possible without restricting them to a single department and to connect them to the University’s strategic direction. While almost half of the 19 endowed professorships established since 1987 are earmarked for a particular college or school, only one is restricted to a department. Several, including the John Courtney Murray, S.J., Professor and the Presidential Professor of Ethics and the Common Good, are directly connected to cross-disciplinary themes identified in the Strategic Plan. The terms of almost all of the endowed professorships established since 1987 have explicitly emphasized a commitment to integrating teaching and scholarship, to furthering Santa Clara’s mission as a Jesuit and Catholic university, and to incorporating "the dimensions of ethics and social justice in the chair holder’s teaching and scholarship." In its next capital campaign, the University intends to emphasize endowed professorships that directly advance one or more goals identified in the Strategic Plan. As noted in Chapter V, endowed professorships are an important part of the University faculty reward structure. Recent appointments to endowed chairs have typically been for specified periods of time rather than for life, allowing the University to ensure that appointments are consistent with academic priorities. The deans’ role in the promotion and use of endowed chairs is an important one. In addition to participation in the cultivation of potential donors, their stewardship is essential to making this resource a meaningful part of program and faculty development in the schools and college. Endowed chairs have been linked, for example, to important school or college initiatives in undergraduate education (the Fletcher Jones Chair in Chemistry), to ethics in the professions (Charles Dirksen Chair in Business), and to supporting women in the sciences and engineering (the Clare Boothe Luce chairs for junior faculty). They have enabled the deans to work with departments to recruit nationally recognized scholars to senior level appointments (the Walter E. Schmidt Chair in Communication). Beyond stewardship of this important financial resource, the deans have worked with the endowed professors to provide leadership in their respective schools and the college. The Arts and Sciences dean, for example, draws on them as an informal senior leadership group, and in the 1999–00 academic year will support specific projects in which each chair will contribute to the common good of the college. In all these ways, the chairs represent visible evidence of the University’s teaching scholar ideal and are an important resource in building a community of scholars (Exhibit III.2.10).
Enriching Quality and Diversity in the Community of Scholars Santa Clara seeks to increase the quality and diversity of its community of scholars on a number of fronts. Recruit and Retain Outstanding Faculty and Staff Santa Clara’s faculty and staff have grown rapidly since 1986, when there were 294 full-time faculty and 463 full-time staff, to 1998–99, when there were 399 full-time faculty and 682 staff. Chapter V documents recruitment strategies and policies in place to attract the highest quality faculty and staff—as well as the challenges the University faces, including compensation packages that are competitive in the San Francisco Bay Area, especially in Silicon Valley. A particular problem that hampers Santa Clara’s ability to recruit quality faculty from a national pool is the high cost of Bay Area housing. This has been a problem since the 1980s, when the University developed a twofold solution: a shared appreciation mortgage plan for faculty and select administrators and a rental subsidy program for junior faculty in Arts and Sciences. In the past two years, the problem has become acute, such that the programs—helpful as they may have been—are increasingly not perceived by candidates as a viable means for securing housing in the Santa Clara area. Chapter V provides information on University programs related to staff recruitment and development, and the school and college reports document their efforts to improve the quality of faculty and staff in their respective units. Here we focus on evidence that Santa Clara is securing outstanding faculty to advance the University’s vision, mission, and values. Evidence of Performance Education Level of Faculty In 1986–87, 87.7 percent of the full-time faculty (both tenure-track and non-tenure-track) held the terminal degree in their fields, in most cases the Ph.D. In 1998–99, this had risen to 92.2 percent of the faculty. This is a significant increase, particularly in light of the increasing proportion of full-time faculty members who are not on the tenure-track (16.5 percent in 1986 compared to 21 percent in 1998). Departments are maintaining high standards in recruitment of faculty, both tenure-track and non-tenure-track. This may reflect national trends in hiring as well; as more institutions of higher education turn to non-tenure-track faculty, highly trained professionals are available for positions at all levels. Part-time faculty are less likely to have completed the terminal degree; many part-time faculty are ABD’s from neighboring Research I universities (RU1 in the Carnegie classification system). In 1986–87, 46.7 percent of part-time faculty held the terminal degree in their fields; in 1998–99, that number has risen to 50.4 percent. The percentage of full-time faculty with Ph.D. degrees from RU1 institutions has grown from 55.1 percent in 1986 to 63.4 percent in 1998. (The remaining faculty with Ph.D. degrees break out as follows: 7.5 percent have Ph.D.s from RU2 universities, 5.7 percent from DU1 universities, 1.7 percent from DU2, 1.7 percent from CU1, 0.75 percent from schools of theology.) Another significant category is 4 percent with Ph.D.s from foreign institutions. Complete data, with breakdowns by departments and schools, are available in Exhibit III.3.1.12 Quality of Faculty Involvement in Teaching and Scholarship The school and college self-studies document the variety of venues in which Santa Clara’s faculty are active professionally. For example, national journals in a variety of fields, including mathematics, English, and history, have been, are currently, or will be based at the University. A significant number of faculty are members of editorial boards. Several are national or regional officers in their professional associations. Many are active reviewers of university press manuscripts, journal articles, and proposals for national grant competitions. Similarly the school and college self-studies document the range of faculty scholarship and publications that include nationally-recognized awards for outstanding research and creative productions. Establishing norms for judging the quality of faculty scholarly work is a complex procedure that unfolds largely through the University’s rank and tenure process. Those criteria and procedures are documented in Chapter V. But the question of establishing external norms for evaluating faculty professional activity does arise, and one possible avenue to pursue is the HERI survey data gathered in 1995. As indicated in the following charts, Santa Clara faculty report publishing more scholarly articles than colleagues at other private universities and four-year institutions overall, and more books or monographs than colleagues at four-year institutions.
Additional ways to evaluate the quality of our faculty as teaching scholars lie in the formal recognition of the programs they create and sustain. For example, the Sociology Department is the winner of the American Sociological Association's 1998 Distinguished Contributions to Teaching Award; the award committee noted that "the Program could well serve as a national model of purposive, effective curriculum design." And as noted in Chapter IV, the University’s Eastside Project has received similar recognition for its contributions to experiential learning. Perceptions of Alignment Chapter V reports on steps the University has taken to inculcate in faculty and staff an appreciation of and commitment to Santa Clara’s distinctive vision of educating students for competence, conscience, and compassion, and documents the high level of support for that vision as laid out in the University’s Strategic Plan. The reader is also referred to the June 1999 report, "The Integration of Justice into the Life of the University" (Exhibit III.1.17), which examines academic programs, student learning opportunities, administrative structures and practices, and faculty scholarship—along with findings from several surveys—to reveal significant levels of commitment in word and deed to the University’s distinctive mission on the part of faculty and staff. Student Perceptions of Quality of Faculty The earlier discussion of undergraduate research included documentation on the importance of students’ interaction with faculty for their success in and satisfaction with their educational experience at Santa Clara. A data source for that discussion was the 1998 Senior Survey, which shows that Santa Clara students have a higher regard for faculty at Santa Clara than do their counterparts at other private and four-year institutions.
The extent to which student satisfaction ratings like these—and even standard student teaching evaluations—provide a measure of the quality of Santa Clara faculty is debatable, as discussions of this topic in Chapter II and the School of Business self-study illustrate. With that qualification in mind, however, we do recommend that the University continue to monitor this as an indicator of our ability to recruit and retain faculty able to engage our students. Conclusions On several indicators, the quality of Santa Clara’s community of scholars is improving; and there is evidence that faculty and staff are committed to the University’s distinctive vision. This means that Santa Clara is able to attract high quality faculty who can excel here as teaching scholars, creating a learning environment that earns high marks from our students. The University should continue to examine student satisfaction with the learning environment. It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that the University’s ability to sustain a faculty of this caliber is threatened by the high cost of living in the San Francisco Bay Area, especially in Silicon Valley. The development of a housing program for faculty and staff should, therefore, be a high priority. Increase the Quality of Incoming Students Santa Clara’s approach to recruiting quality students for a vibrant community of scholars has been cast in terms of the work of the Enrollment Task Force. In its 1995 final report (Exhibit I.3.3), the task force formulated undergraduate enrollment goals, and made a series of recommendations about strategies to reach those goals. Framed as a means to maintain and improve "a high level of quality teaching/learning and scholarly activity that attracts the students, faculty, and staff who are crucial to the University’s continued ability to fulfill its educational mission," the report represented a significant step toward a more comprehensive and strategic approach to undergraduate enrollment. Highlights and progress on key areas from that report are presented here. Undergraduate Enrollment Goals The table below captures the undergraduate enrollment and entering freshmen goals articulated in the 1995 report and provides data on progress toward these goals from fall 1994 to fall 1998. Admissions data for the years 1994–98 reveal a mixed record on meeting the goals set out in the report. On academic quality, for example, the 1998 Undergraduate Admissions Office report notes that "[t]he class of 1998 was the strongest applicant pool and admitted student population in SCU history;" and on two key quality indicators—GPA and SAT composite—the enrolled students are close to the goals we set. But on targeted ethnic populations we have not made progress—most notably African-American and Hispanic/Latino students—although the University’s overall figure for students of color remains consistently strong. As noted below, data on items like leadership and community service is hard to track; hence the apparent drop in reported volunteer service needs to be studied in relationship to data like that gathered in the Admitted Student Questionnaire (ASQ). The Enrollment Task Force Report was clear about the complexity of meeting these goals, citing changing demographics, increased competition for students, growing public skepticism about the value of higher education, and changes in financial aid. In this context it is important to note that the University’s "bottom line" on enrollment remains healthy, as indicated by the fact that Santa Clara has exceeded its overall enrollment goal by more than 3 percent, moving from 4,013 students in 1994 to 4,332 students in 1998. An important element in this picture was raised in the report, although not formally captured in our goals: we have experienced an increase in the applicant pool from 4,269 in 1995 to 5,584 in fall 1998. Continued growth in the applicant pool is essential to making progress on the goals. For example, the significant increase
in student enrollment has brought only a slight decline in freshman student selectivity (from 66 percent of applicants in 1994 to 68 percent in 1998) and yield (from 29 percent in 1994 to 27 percent in 1998). Still, the report’s invocation of Alice’s advice to the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland ("Now, here you see, it takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that.") has proved prescient. As indicated below, the University remains committed to these ambitious goals and continues to refine strategies to meet them. Marketing Strategies The Enrollment Task Force Report included several recommendations related to marketing. In 1996 the University adopted a tuition strategy designed to enable Santa Clara to compete more effectively with the select group of institutions with whom we have "cross-admits" (see discussion in Chapter V). Acting on the report’s call for Santa Clara to "refine its understanding of what prospective students value most about SCU," the University undertook a comprehensive assessment of its marketing strategy with the services of Crane, a marketing firm (Exhibit II.2.8). A major thrust of that work was to define what "Santa Clara does best" and represent it more effectively in our various promotional efforts, including on-campus tours, publications, and Preview Days. This year’s freshman class represents the first class to be recruited with the new program designed by Crane, "For Good Reason" (Exhibit I.1.3). Although we are still exploring ways to use the ASQ and other surveys to measure the effectiveness of the new approach developed in cooperation with Crane, there is a general consensus it captures the primary strengths—academic excellence and Jesuit distinctiveness—the report recommended Santa Clara emphasize. Undergraduate Admissions has found this material to be extremely helpful as it has experimented with ways to increase its yield among "students admitted with distinction," and piloted recruitment programs utilizing the "Student Reflector" program. Similar success is reported with other admissions strategies (for example, yield activities like a bilingual open-house for non-English speaking parents of Hispanic youth) to increase the number of students from historically underrepresented populations. Financial Aid Strategies The Enrollment Task Force Report highlighted the importance of financial aid in realizing its goals, stressing the need to be more effective with institutional resources at a time when external resources are declining. It drafted a number of recommendations, most of which were taken up in the 1996 "Tuition and Financial Aid Principles and Guidelines" (Exhibit V.4.10). An important decision in this context resulted in augmenting our traditional need-based aid programs with various "merit" approaches to help enhance the overall quality of our student body. The preliminary positive results with experiments like the "Dean’s Scholar" program (whereby top admits are approached by the dean of the school to which they have been accepted with modest merit scholarship offers) mentioned in the report have continued; the Honors Program has established a minimum merit award for each student invited into the program; and awards targeting top graduates from Jesuit high schools have been established. Crucial to these merit awards will be the endowed gifts discussed in Chapter V, the recent gift from the Bannan Foundation for this purpose being an excellent and promising example. The merit strategy does represent a significant deployment of resources. From the 1994–95 academic year to the 1999–00 academic year, the total amount of merit money has increased from $33,000 to $566,108 (excluding Honors). While the average merit award per student has grown from $3,000 in 1994 to $4,389 (excluding Honors), the more significant change is in the number of students receiving such aid: 132 students (excluding Honors) in 1999 compared to 11 students in 1994–95. Analyzing the effect of the increase in merit scholarships on our success in achieving our enrollment goals is a complex process. The merit approach is only one of several elements in efforts to increase yields among top applicants (those "admitted with distinction") and among students from Jesuit high schools. It is not clear that there is one decisive factor in the decision not to enroll at Santa Clara. We do note that the yield among both these sets of students has fluctuated over the same period of time that we have developed the merit strategy.
One explanation for why the merit increases have not resulted in corresponding increases in yield among these groups is that our competitors are employing the same strategy, which again illustrates the point made above about running faster simply to stay in place. This is an area the University needs to continue to study. Enrollment Management Administration and Approach After two years of experience with the enrollment management administrative model recommended in the Enrollment Task Force Report, the University took the occasion of key personnel changes to re-examine and subsequently change that administrative structure. The University continues to pursue the mandate of a coordinated effort to recruit, retain, and graduate students by fostering collaboration among deans, Admissions, New Student Programs, Financial Aid, and faculty. The creation of a new Vice Provost for Undergraduate Learning position should support and advance these efforts. Student Data: Admitted Student Questionnaire The Enrollment Task Force Report suggested the Admitted Student Questionnaire (ASQ) as one means for determining the effectiveness of Santa Clara’s efforts to enhance its academic reputation. The 1998 Admissions Office report included a detailed analysis of the ASQ data by Institutional Research that included comparisons to other universities with whom Santa Clara competes for top students (Exhibit III.3.5). The 1998 ASQ shows the importance of the intellectual character and prestige of the University for students who eventually select Santa Clara; and the comparative data enable us to benchmark how students perceive us on that score in comparison to the institutions with whom we share "cross-admits." In assessing the quality of our incoming students we need also to utilize other portions of the ASQ and the CIRP Freshman Survey instruments, determining how best to utilize students’ self-reports around items related to leadership, volunteer work, and diversity. A good example of this is provided in the report on the integration of justice into the University (Exhibit III.1.17), which documents that incoming Santa Clara students have slightly higher levels of commitment to these "justice-related" areas than their counterparts at other private and four-year institutions. In addition to the use of such data to assess learning outcomes, we should be able to evaluate and improve our strategies to sharpen our profile for incoming students, and recruit those students who match it. Conclusions Santa Clara took an important step in adopting an enrollment management framework in 1995 and committing to definite goals to advance the University’s mission. The 15 recommendations made at that time have been implemented, and leadership in Admissions and Financial Aid in particular have responded with concrete strategies to reach the ambitious undergraduate enrollment goals. While progress to date is mixed, the University is operating from a strong base as evidenced in a growing applicant pool and increased enrollments. The Provost’s Council should continue to study enrollment patterns, attending both to the overall enrollment target and to the specific goals. We should also continue the recent systematic use of ASQ data and other measures to monitor the effectiveness of our recruitment strategy and to promote greater investment across the entire campus in the enrollment of high quality students. Increase Diversity Among Faculty, Staff, and Students An emphasis on the importance of diversity for the community of scholars has been evident as we developed this initiative. The 1987 visiting team report cited this as an area of concern and recommended that "in view of the changing demography of the Nation as well as the State, efforts to increase faculty diversity should continue." Since that time, the University has set a goal to have the undergraduate enrollment diversity match that of college-bound high school graduates in California and has made some progress on that front. Increases in faculty diversity, while significant in some areas since the 1987 report, have not proceeded apace in other areas. Staff diversity has increased at a greater rate. The University recognizes the value of increased diversity to the educational mission of the institution, and continues to pursue recruitment strategies to that end. Chapter IV includes a discussion of how the University used a $1 million grant from the James Irvine Foundation in 1990 to provide resources to improve and develop institution-wide strategies for multicultural education. Highlights include the establishment of the Multicultural Center as a chartered student organization; consolidation of separate ethnic population offices in one Student Resources Center; improved campus-wide compliance to ADA and increased services for students with disabilities; and the creation of the Unity multicultural residential learning community by a joint team of faculty, students, and staff. Co-curricular programs have been regularly sponsored by these organizations and often are developed in collaboration with faculty from Ethnic Studies and other academic departments. The Irvine Grant also provided resources to initiate a "Target of Opportunity" (TOP) faculty hiring strategy that proved successful in recruiting faculty to Santa Clara. However, none of the faculty recruited through that program remained at Santa Clara through tenure. The University has received another grant from the Irvine Foundation for $830,000 to move those strategies forward with major focuses on faculty and curriculum development and the integration of curricular and co-curricular learning objectives and programs. Other recent developments along these lines include the formation of the Multicultural Coordinating Council (established in spring 1998), with the charge to coordinate and initiate more effective campus-wide multicultural education programs, and the appointment of a Vice Provost for Diversity and Multicultural Education. Evidence of Performance Diversity and Gender of Faculty The previous section discussed Santa Clara’s progress on the enrollment goals it has set related to student diversity. This section focuses on the diversity of Santa Clara’s faculty and staff. As at most institutions, white males are the largest category of faculty members at Santa Clara. This is particularly true among tenure-track faculty. The University has made some progress in attracting women faculty, but their numbers continue to lag significantly behind those of men, as indicated below.
In 1986–87, 18.3 percent of all tenure-track faculty were women. By 1996–97, women accounted for 30.6 percent of all tenure-track faculty, a percentage which held in 1998–99 as well. There are differences by school, with Arts and Sciences showing an increase from 22 percent in 1986–87 to 34.7 percent in 1998–99; Business showing an increase from 7.7 percent to 14 percent; Engineering increasing from 7.1 percent to 25 percent; and Law increasing from 22.2 percent to 27 percent. Among part-time faculty, women account for 40.2 percent of faculty hired on quarterly contracts. The percentages of males who teach part-time is higher in all schools except for Arts and Sciences (55.4 percent are female in Arts and Sciences, an increase from 48.5 percent in 1996–97) and Counseling Psychology and Education (63.6 percent female, an increase from 58.3 percent in 1996–97).
The Women Faculty Group has been an important factor in the University’s effort to increase the proportion of women on Santa Clara’s faculty. An ad hoc group that meets monthly to promote collegiality, it sponsors forums on a variety of topics of interest to the wider University community, including governance, faculty recruitment and hiring policies, family/work issues, and flexible teaching schedules. In spring 1999 the Women Faculty Group formally protested before the Faculty Senate the recent provost-level reorganization that included no women administrators among the academic deans and vice provosts. In subsequent meetings with the Provost, the group explored both short-term and long-term strategies to remedy what all parties agreed was a problem. Other concerns expressed by women faculty include the gender composition of the University’s governance system, in which women faculty are not proportionately represented on all the University policy committees. Although the number of faculty of color has increased since 1987, their proportion in the overall full-time faculty has increased only a little. In 1986–87, African Americans accounted for 1.6 percent of the tenure-track faculty, Hispanics for 3.6 percent, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders for 6.9 percent, and whites for 87.7 percent of the faculty. Comparable figures for 1998–99 are: African Americans at 2.6 percent, Hispanics at 4.5 percent, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders at 9.3 percent, and whites at 83.7 percent.
Among the divisions, the Engineering School has increased the proportion of persons of color on its full time faculty for this time period the most; Arts and Sciences has had the smallest increase. Diversity and Gender of Staff Santa Clara’s staff has grown considerably since 1987, from 463 to 682 in the 1997–98 academic year, a 47 percent increase in size. The gender composition of staff over that time period was stable, with women comprising 59.1 percent of the staff and men comprising 40.9 percent of the staff in the 1997–98 academic year (versus 60.7 percent and 39.3 percent respectively in the 1987–88 academic year). The ethnic composition of staff, however, has changed as indicated below.
It is important to note that the growth in overall staff during this period includes a 77 percent increase in staff of color (from 117 to 208) compared to a 29 percent increase in staff who are white. Faculty and Staff Perception of Institutional Commitment to Diversity The campus climate for diversity is an important factor in the recruitment of students, faculty, and staff. An important indicator of that climate is the degree to which members of this community, and particularly persons of color, believe the University to be a place that supports minority students, faculty, and staff. The Faculty Survey and Staff Survey of 1998 indicate that most faculty and staff believe the University is committed to helping minority students, faculty, and staff succeed. In response to the statement on the 1998 Faculty Survey, "This institution is genuinely committed to helping minority students succeed," 9.2 percent of faculty found it not descriptive, 43.2 percent found it somewhat descriptive, and 47.6 percent found it very descriptive. While 5.4 percent of faculty not of color replied that the statement was not descriptive, 42.8 percent replied that it was somewhat descriptive, and 51.8 percent replied that it was very descriptive. Although the only statistically significant difference in responses was by division, it should be noted that 19 percent of faculty of color replied that it was not descriptive. In response to the same statement on the Staff Survey, just over 60 percent of the staff found the statement somewhat or very descriptive, with just under 40 percent disagreeing. Further analysis suggests that a source of the difference between faculty and staff perceptions on this point can be attributed to the responses of Student Affairs staff. If they are excluded from the pool, the staff perception appears much closer to faculty, with about 90 percent finding the statement either descriptive or very descriptive. Here, again, the greatest differences appear between staff who consider themselves persons of color and those who do not. Because Student Affairs staff are responsible for a wide range of programs and services that may affect the success of students of color, this warrants further study. The responses of faculty to the statement, "This institution is genuinely committed to helping minority faculty succeed," are somewhat more problematic. Overall, 38 percent of faculty found the statement very descriptive, 48.3 percent found it somewhat descriptive, and 13.6 percent found it not descriptive. Those with the greatest concerns were untenured, female, and persons of color. The Staff Survey showed greater disagreement in response to the statement, "This institution is genuinely committed to helping minority staff succeed." Overall, 51.6 percent of staff found this statement very descriptive, 25.2 percent found it somewhat descriptive, and 23.2 percent found it not descriptive. Women were more likely to disagree, and staff of color much more likely to disagree with the statement. Among the 50 staff of color responding to the survey, only 56.3 percent found the statement descriptive, with 43.7 percent responding they did not find the statement descriptive. Conclusions In the past 10 years, the University has made important progress in increasing the proportion of women faculty, but this has not been the case for faculty of color. Failure to advance on this front compromises a key element in the University’s goal to increase the diversity of its community of scholars. Survey data from fall 1998 indicate that the Santa Clara community is committed to supporting students of color, and to varying degrees, faculty and staff of color. It is noteworthy that a greater proportion of persons of color than members of the University at large believe the University is not committed to students of color. It is recommended that the University continue its efforts to recruit faculty, staff, and students of color, exploring strategies through the new Irvine grant, "Building Partnerships for Diversity." Strengthen Efforts to Recruit and Retain Jesuits As a Jesuit university, Santa Clara has always been concerned about retaining Jesuits among its faculty and staff. The current by-laws require that the President of the University be a member of the Society of Jesus, the Jesuit religious order. The Trustees have repeatedly insisted that the University devote resources and energy to recruiting qualified Jesuits for faculty and staff positions as one among a number of strategies for strengthening and vitalizing the Jesuit educational tradition at Santa Clara. This has become an increasingly challenging goal to realize, given that the total number of Jesuits in the United States has decreased from 4,936 in 1988 to 3,519 in 1998. More specifically, the total number of Jesuits working in the 28 Jesuit universities or colleges in the United States has decreased from 1,284 in 1988 to 974 in 1998. In the past 10 years, the University has hired 18 Jesuits, eight into tenure-track faculty positions, four as adjunct faculty, and six into staff positions. Over that same period, an average of approximately seven Jesuits per year were available for University work nationally. Santa Clara is among the most successful Jesuit universities in the country in recruiting and hiring Jesuits. Santa Clara has been fortunate to secure Jesuits in such key staff positions as Director of Campus Ministry, Assistant Dean of Students and Director of Resident Ministry. The rector of the Jesuit community takes an active role in recruiting Jesuits to the University. He reviews with the deans each year a list of Jesuits in graduate studies and the date of their availability for university work. With this information and assisted by a Jesuit liaison for each school, deans are able to do more long-range planning with regard to anticipated vacancies in academic departments. Jesuit candidates are brought to campus at the expense of the Jesuit community for an informal visit with the dean, department colleagues, the President, Provost, and key members of the Jesuit community. If this initial experience proves satisfactory to the University, the Jesuit community, and the individual, the Jesuit becomes a candidate for a position. A number of strategies are used in hiring the individual. Key to the faculty hiring process is the involvement of the dean and the full support of the department. In some cases, the Jesuit simply becomes part of the pool of candidates in a national search; at other times he may be hired as a "target of opportunity" or as a visiting adjunct or on a multi-year appointment with the understanding that a favorable third-year review will allow him to move to tenure-track status. In some cases, the University agrees to fund the Jesuit's salary for a specified period during which the dean and department work to move the salary into the school's budget. The deans and departments have been flexible and receptive to hiring younger Jesuits still in their formation period for adjunct positions, with the expectation that this initial contact will eventuate in the Jesuit's returning to Santa Clara upon the completion of his formal training. The Bannan Institute's Fellows Program allows for Jesuits to contribute significantly to the University, but on a non-permanent basis. Bannan fellows can secure one-year appointments with the stipulation that they teach one class a quarter and offer a public lecture to the University community or a seminar for interested faculty. Other Bannan fellows come for one week, during which they give public presentations, meet with interested faculty and student groups, present in individual classes, preside at public liturgies, and engage in similar activities with high visibility and impact. Over the past 10 years, four Jesuits whose faculty positions were initially supported by the Bannan Institute have accepted tenure-track positions; two other Jesuits similarly supported have accepted full-time staff positions. Conclusions Realizing the Jesuit mission and character of Santa Clara is a shared enterprise, requiring the attention and energy of faculty, staff, and students. It is by definition a collegial endeavor in which lay members of the community play an important role. Still, a critical mass of Jesuit faculty and staff is necessary to provide leadership and expertise, and by their presence to symbolize Santa Clara’s commitment to its tradition and heritage. Recruitment and retention of Jesuits, therefore, remains a priority for the University, and steps should be taken to ensure the continued collegial cooperation of deans, department chairs, and faculty. RECOMMENDATIONS Santa Clara’s community of scholars is built in a variety of ways: through the intellectual collaboration evident in faculty and student engagement in cross-disciplinary inquiry and research; through developing a diverse and high quality faculty and staff committed to advance Santa Clara’s vision to educate men and women for competence, conscience, and compassion; and through recruiting and retaining a diverse and talented pool of students. The evidence presented in this chapter suggests that these and related efforts provide a solid foundation on which to continue developing the University’s Community of Scholars initiative. Three interrelated recommendations to guide that work are made below. Recommendation 1: Promote increased use of practices and structures that bring members of the University community together across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. This recommendation makes more explicit Strategic Plan goal 1.A.1, "Stimulate and support the cross-disciplinary inquiry that is already a distinctive feature of this community of scholars," by calling for greater use of practices and structures that are currently available. We found evidence that making connections across disciplines is highly valued by Santa Clara faculty and students, and that a majority of students reported they experienced interdisciplinary courses and integration across disciplines. And yet we also found that those structures that could most effectively promote interdisciplinary integration—including interdisciplinary minors, joint faculty appointments, and team teaching—are underutilized. We recommend that faculty and the administration explore ways to enhance those structures, beginning with a re-examination of the role of academic minors, particularly the interdisciplinary minors, in the undergraduate experience. Recommendation 2: Determine the optimum size and composition of both the faculty and the student body within the context of a central focus on student learning and support of the teaching scholar model. Determining the optimum size and composition of both the faculty and the student body remains a critically important strategic and educational issue for Santa Clara. Goal 1.B.1 of the Strategic Plan commits the University to "Maintain a full-time faculty that, with a judicious use of adjunct faculty, is sufficient in size and composition to maintain the integrity of the curriculum and realize a commitment to excellence in both teaching and scholarship." The University has made some progress toward this broadly conceived goal in the past several years, but many issues remain. In making the self-study recommendation above, we are calling attention to two issues that are not explicitly mentioned in the Strategic Plan goal. First, the size and composition of the student body is as important a question as the size and composition of the faculty. Both questions must be addressed and related to each other. Further planning is required to establish general targets for the relationships of tenure-track faculty to full-time faculty to FTE faculty to full-time and FTE students at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. While a formulaic approach to establishing these relationships is probably neither feasible nor desirable, clearer goals better monitored would be helpful. Second, when considering the optimum size and composition of the faculty and student body, the University should frame the issue in terms of what is most conducive to student learning and to fostering the teaching scholar ideal. A related issue that also deserves some exploration is the optimum size and composition of the staff, with particular attention to those staff positions most directly engaged in co-curricular and academic support programs. Questions for Further Study Some of the questions that require further study and discussion, and on which we would appreciate advice from the WASC visiting team, include:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SCU : Home
Page | Phonebook | Campus Map
| Site Index | Search Self-Study Report : Introduction | ch.1 | ch.2 | ch.3 | ch.4 | ch.5 | ch.6 | App. A | App. B | Notes | Exhibits |
|
Please direct comments to wasc@scu.edu : Copyright © 1999 Santa Clara University |
|
Santa
Clara University, 500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA 95053 : (408)
554-4000
|
