In December, the results of the Academic Program Prioritization Report (PPR), a five-year evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the academic programs at Guilford College, are scheduled to be released. The study, approved by faculty in 2005, will rank academic programs and assess the allocation of college resources.
“(The PPR) is about deciding, in the fullness of time, about the array of departments, majors, minors, and other programs that the college and our students need,” said Kent Chabotar, president and professor of political science.
“Just because Guilford College has had a certain array in the past doesn’t make it permanent and immutable.”
During the Oct. 6 Community Senate meeting, Adrienne Israel, vice president for academic affairs and academic dean, and Erin Dell, assistant academic dean, met with students to field questions about the PPR. Tentative results of the report were released to faculty in September and will be released to the greater Guilford community in December after a final review period.
Israel’s participation in the meeting was intended to bolster student understanding of the content of the report and the desired outcomes. The version of the report released to faculty will remain confidential pending revisions and updates by departments. After an initial overview presented by Israel, conversation was guided by questions from students.
“It’s a very difficult conversation to have, because as of right now there’s a discrepancy between the information available to the community and the information available to the faculty,” said senior and senate Vice President Patchouli Oerther.
“I thought that it was very informative. (Israel) informed the students very accurately and I was happy with the way that she directly answered questions.”
The Q&A was the latest step in a process that began with the board of trustees and college administrators recognizing a need for assessing the effectiveness and economic viability of the current array of academic programs.
“The original impulse was to focus on what were then shrinking resources by investing in those programs that were closest to the institutional mission and also seemed to be most attractive to large numbers of students,” said Professor and Chair of Theatre Studies Jack Zerbe.
According to a memo outlining the rationale for the creation of the PPR distributed to faculty in April 2005, “the college needs a means to determine which programs to add, which ones to enhance, which ones to maintain at their current level of support, which ones to peg for diminished support, and which ones to either consolidate or eliminate.”
The original 2005 rationale for the report states that the goal of the ranking is to place programs in one of three categories based on criteria approved by the faculty. Top-tier programs are those that have demonstrated the greatest potential for growth and improvement with additional resources.
Lowest in the rankings are programs that “are weak in multiple areas and would require significantly more resources, and should therefore be considered for consolidation or laying down.”
As the study progressed and the economic situation of the college evolved, so did the dialogue and language about the PPR.
“There was a little bit of tweaking that we did in terms of consequences,” said Israel. “I think there was even more emphasis on laying down programs than there is now because we are out of the woods in terms of enrollment.”
When the tentative rankings were released to faculty Sept. 17, it was stated that they were not final and that all of the departments would be given 30 days to revise and improve their reports before being officially presented to the committee. Though the rankings were intended to remain confidential pending review and revision by the departments, anxieties among some faculty about how departments had been placed in the bottom tier as well as the potential outcomes of such placement led to some faculty publicly voicing concerns.
“(Programs) get ranked low on the rubrics of their evaluation based solely on that a department is a small department, and this shows that the school’s goals are market driven,” said Assistant Professor of Religious Studies Eric Mortensen. “This will not help Guilford’s academic reputation.”
According to Israel, economics plays a large role in determining the placement of the smaller programs in the rankings.
“Its true that if you don’t have many students in your classes you’re more likely to be lower ranked,” said Israel. “That’s just because of the fact that higher education is not just a money-making business, it’s a non-profit. We are tuition dependent. If we don’t have students, we don’t have a college.”
“We cannot live on our endowment like Harvard or Yale. So if the students aren’t there, its hard to argue that this program should be high-priority to get more resources.”
The rankings consider many factors beyond economic viability. In many cases, programs that are essential to the college mission can overcome the disadvantage of having fewer majors.
“I do think that it shows in the case of (programs) ranked on the low end … it might not be attracting a huge number of people,” said Adele Wayman, Hege professor of art and art department chair. “But it’s very high in terms of how it meets the mission of the college and it’s very important to liberal arts in general, and we should keep it (while) recognizing that it costs money.”
At stake for many of the low-ranked programs is the allocation of resources.
According to Israel the resources available to programs are additional tenure-track faculty, larger budgets for capital and operating expenses, office space, and classroom space.
A 2010 report by Robert Dickeson, the author of the book on which the study is based, outlines potential consequences for the bottom-tier programs. It suggests that in addition to freezing positions and budget resources, the college should evaluate the efficacy of the program and make recommendations for improvement, and in some cases consider consolidation or elimination of the program.