draft report from ad hoc committee for academic planning

8/14/2019 Draft Report From Ad Hoc Committee for Academic Planning

1/44

~ (. College of Arts and -SciencesOffice of the Dean

Cornell Universjty 147 Goldwin Smith Hall. . . . : = = = = . : - = ~ - - - ~... _ - - - - - - - -L

[uIy 24, 20u>

Dear Colleagues,

",ou will find attached to this letter the draft report I requested from the Ad Hoc Committee forI\cedemic Planning, chaired hy Walter Cohen. A tremendous amount of work went into thisreport. I want to take this opportunity to thank the committee for an extraordinary effort on very

~ h o r tnotice.

1want to emphasize that this is a preliminary version. Anything mentioned in the report remainsopen for discussion, and there may well be things omitted that should not be. I have askedjieparbnent chairs to organize discussions within their departments, and to report back to me andthe committee. Also I will be organizing at least one faculty meeting in September to discuss the

."report. The committee must submit the final report to the provost (and to us) by the end ofSeptember.

I also want to emphasize the continuing importance of our academic-planning discussion. I t is toosoon to say how serious our ultimate budget cuts will be, but it is certain that we face further cutsand that they eouId well be lar er than the more than 6% cut we had to absorb this year (2009-10)- e a s t 0 0 every 20 o f our fae ty poSItions. t is essential that our plan for achieving

I arm y sea eIDlC p annmg. e committee's report is an importanttontribution to that process. The deans will consider its recommendations along with responsesbd suggestions from department chairs and faculty in detennining what changes wiU best meet'&>llege needs going forward.

l


2/44

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Ho w wil l this report affect budget cutting this year?We certainly must deal with further budget cuts this year. Most of that cuttingwill likely be u n r e l a t e ~or only indirectly related to this report since the report isfocused, at my request, on the long-term structure of the college, several yearsout. Much of the report is most relevant to the healing process that will comeonce we finish a couple of years of budget balancing.

The long-term impact of the report depends upon which of its ideas the deansdecide to work on; the ultimate budget plan will come from the deans. Suchdecisions will be made in consultation with departments and the faculty, whowill also play central roles in implementing any ideas.

2. What should my colleagues an d I focus on?

The decision to place highest priority on the large departments in each of thefour m a i n intellectual areas of the College has a significant impact on the overalldirection of the report an d of potential allocation choices in the coming years,Departments should consider the merits of this position. There are manyplausible alternatives including, for example (in no particular order): 1) favoringthe departments with the most distinguished records l regardless of size or area,or favoring areas of traditional strength, on the grounds that it's easier tomaintain ilistinction than to achieve it; 2) giving special weight to departmentswith unusually heavy teaching burdens, on the grounds that they are alreadyunder pressure; 3) emphasiz ing interdisciplinarity, on the grounds that this is thewave of the future; 4) emphasizing disciplines (even more than the committeereport), on the grounds that this is the unique role of colleges of arts and scienceswithin higher education; 5) sparing small departments, on the grounds that evensmall changes have a much larger proportional impact; 6) cutting uniformly,across the board, on the grounds that we should protect the status quo. And soon. We are seeking the best result under difficult circumstances.


3/44

3. My department is no t listed among the small-but-excellent departments incategory two. Does tha t mean my department falls into category three? Also, i f

this scheme is adopted, wil l category-two and category-three department sreceive bigger cuts than category-one departments?

The list of category-two departments is illustrative, not comprehensive.Furthermore, the classification of departments into categories two and threewould require further discussion an d analysis under the proposed scheme. Thereport stresses the importance of strength in the category-one departments. Whatthat implies about the budget for such a department will depend in detail uponthe current state of the department. On average, category-one departmentswould likely ge t smaller-than-average cuts, but some could well have largerthan-average cuts. Again these are long-term considerations; what will happenthis year is hard to say at this lime.

4. What else should my colleagues focus on?

Instructional issues-especially an adequate balance of small and large courses,where this is not aheady the case.

5. My colleagues an d I remain deeply opposed to the idea of divisions (or of amerged ethnic studies program). What can/should we do about this?

For now, nothing. These proposals would require more resources (to do well)and far more discussion within the college than we can manage in ~ e next fe wyears. On the other hand, such ideas were proposed to address important issues.We should think about some of these issues wi\:hin the context of OUI currentstructure.

6. How are we to interpret the concerns about productivity? In particular, doesthis mean stiifer standards for tenure-a major concern among assistantprofessors? .

The committee and the deans are in unanimous agreement that tenure standardsshould remain unchanged, neither higher nor lower. Productivity more generallyis a concern given that the faculty will bear more responsibility in coming years.


4/44

7. The report focuses on professorial faculty cuts, since this represents themajority of the budget. I t also emphasizes the importance of maintainingsupport for doctoral s tudents. Does this mean that there should be deeper cutsin the faculty than in the doctoral student population? Alternatively or inaddition, would this imply deeper cuts in the staff, the lecturers,

miscellaneous expenses?

The committee does no t systematically address this issue. Hence, this is a goodtopic for departments to think through.

8. What happens next?

The formal schedule is as follows. After the departments report back inSeptember, the committee will decide how it wants to revise the report inresponse to what they have heard. Additional material concerningadministrative functions will be added (college and department staff are workingon this now), as will a discussion written by me about implementation. This finalversion must be delivered to the provost by September 30. University-leveldecisions will follow sometime afterwards, hopefully no t too much later.Meanwhile, independent of this formal process, the college will begin work onthe immediate budget challenge, focusing initially on ideas that do not dependon university decisions. This work will fully involve the departments. Some ofthese issues are mentioned elsewhere in this FAQ.


5/44

DRAFT

Report of the Ad Hoc Committee forAcademic Planning

College of Arts and Sciences

June 30,2009

1


6/44

Table of Contents

I. Overview . . 3

n. Principles, . . 7

m. Scenarios . . 10

IV. Facnlty Qnality 17

V. Teacbing Quality: Enbancing Instruction in tbe Face of BudgetCuts . . 21

VI. Conclusion . . 25

Appendix 1: Committee Membersbip . . . 26

Appendix 2: Wby Retain Biology witbin Botb tbe College of Arts andSciences and tbe College of Agricnlture an d Life Sciences? . . 27

Appendix 3: A Division of Literatnres, Cultures an d Languages . . .29

Appendix 4: Arts an d Sciences Policy on tbe Use of Under grad nateTAs . . . 38

Appendix 5: Consultants . . . 39

2


7/44


8/44

A. Ou r Vision for Cornell and the Role of the College of Arts and Scienceswithin this Vision

Cornell was founded with a special mission and special structure that set it apart t henand set it apart now-from other leading schools. On one hand, Cornell i ~ an endowO)l

Ivy League universi with I Lea ue re utation for research and liberal-e ucatioD. n the other hand, Cornell is a public land- ant univers' committed toresearch and e llcation at serve the pub iC good.

Within !his vision, the College of Arts and Sciences has three key functions.

First, Cornell has a reputation as an elite research university. The College plays a centralrole in generating this reputation. a reputation that is essential to Cornell t 5 continuedexcellence. Almost all leading research universities have a college of arts and sciences.and indeed it is the only college that is found at nearly all leading research universities.

(

(MIT and Cal Tech are the sole exceptions in not having a college of arts and sciences,

but they operate on a rather different model. Indeed, they label themselves "institutes"rather than "universities.") Moreover, the vast majority of prominent core disciplines arehoused in arts and sciences, both at ComeU and at other leadmg research universities.Among the disciplines ranked by Us . News & World Report, the ones that correlate mostclosely with overall academic ranking are those in arts and sciences. Our researchreputation remains a crucial variable in our attempts to recruit and retain faculty, and isperhaps the number one determinant of whether jo b offers are accepted. Our researchreputation also permits us to attract top post-docs. graduate students, and undergraduatesto Cornell.

Second, Cornell has a reputation for providing one of the best liberal-arts educations in

the context of a research institution, and the College is the primary home for liberal-artsstudents at Cornell..Excellence in l i b e r a l ~ a r t seducation within a research institution isperhaps the hallmark of the Ivy League universities and a few other leading privateschools. Our excellence attracts outstanding undergraduates to A&S. Fo r instance, overthe past five years, almost 50% of applications to Cornell were applications to theCollege.-Third, A&S provides high-quality teaching in core disciplines to serve both our ownliberal-art'i majors and th e broader University community. The College offers thefoundational courses in science, math, languages, and composition for mostundergraduate programs across campus. Although A&S contains rougWy 1/3 of Cornell

faculty and students, it conducts about 45% ofall

under aduate t e ac ' at Cornell(measure yenrollments. Indeed, the College provides about 1.5 times as muchteaching as its stUdents conswne from all colleges. It is as if the A&S faculty wereproviding all of the teaching for 6000 undergraduates, rather than the 4000 actuallyenrolled m tlie College.

4


9/44

B. Some General Concerns

Th e subsequent sections describe our specific recommendations. In Section II, we detail.some general principles that should govern allocation of cuts within the College. In

Section IIl, we describe how these principles might play out under various scenarios. InSection N , we offer recommendations-beyond allocation decisions-fof how A&S canmaintain an exceUent faculty with fewer resources. An d in Section V, we offerrecommendations with respect to teaching. These sections are followed by a very briefconclusion and a series o f appendixes keyed to relevant points in the main text.

Before turning to the specific recommendations, we end this overview section with ashort discussion of some general concerns that we believe should be kept in mind. Someof these ar e treated at greater length in subsequent sections.

1. Diversity. An y redirection of resources or change in College policy

should work to preserve (and continue to improve) the balance and diversity of A& Sfaculty.

2. Cross-college Collaboration. In light of the small department sizes inA& S as well as other colleges, there are ~ a tadvantages to cross-college collaboration.Biology has led the wa y in making such links. Similar opportunities exist in the sociatsciences, where the issue of department size is especially pronounced within th e Collegeand where there are many faculty in other colleges. There might also be possibilities inthe creative arts. In our view, A& S should take a more active role in promoting andcoordinating cross-eollege collaboration.

3. Increased Oversight. A theme in many of our discussions withCollege faculty was the need for increased oversight of the faculty to ensure thatresources are allocated in a way that promotes continuing excellence in research andteaching. Th e Dean's office should pa y more attention to faculty productivity, andresources should be targeted at more productive faculty. Th e Dean's office should alsopay more attention to departmental planning. in terms of both recruiting strategy andcurriculum (quality and equity). An d department chairs and full professors should paymore attention to the assistant and associate professors in their departments, to help themdevelop and prosper as productive members of Cornell.

4. Coverage. Even with our current budget, many departments in A&Scan barely cover everything that they "need" to cover. With budget cuts. we'll need toabandon the notion that each department must fully cover its discipline/area. I f the budgetreductions are especially severe. we may even be faced with the extremely painfulnecessity of abandoning the notion that the College must cover all of its traditionaldisciplines.

5


10/44

5. Research Resources an d th e Library. The Library is a major researchresource, and its acquisitions budget must be protected during this process. Monographsmust continue 10 be boughl regularly, because unlike manyjournals where back issuescan be obtained later i f needed, a missed monograph can be lost forever. In addition, it isvital that Cornell's Library remain in the Borrow Direct consortium.

6. Omissions. The Committee decided-not to make recommendationsabout various issues mentioned in the charge-among them distribution requirements,majors and minors, and, with a couple of exceptions, graduate education. We discussedthese topics bu t omitted them from this report for various reasons-time pressure, lack ofobvious financial savings, uncertainty about whether significant reorganization waswarranted on academic grounds, and, perhaps, difficulty in addressing the potentialproblems without a more precise idea of the scale of the cuts.

7. Transparency. We applaud the University administration forcommunicating and working with the faculty during the current crisis. We encourage it toprovide even more transparency as we move forward, especially about the underlying

so Dfllie crisis. erhapsthe main

conclusioD fromou r

analysis is tbat.reductionson

the scale antICipated bythe University, however 'udiciously chosen, will do rna'oramage to ven e e consequences, 1 IS unportant at e ae ty know

r merely facing brutal cuts to get through the crisis--after which we willgrow back to, or close to, 2008-09 Ievels--or are instead confronting a long-term changein the nature and quality of the College (and University). In our discussions with A&Sfaculty this spring, we found widespread disbeliefthat there would need to be long-runcuts, and confusion as to why. Hence, continued candor on these issues will clearly becritical for maintaining faculty morale.

6


11/44

n. Principles

A. Emphasis on Research and Its Integration with Teaching

Cornell is a preeminent research university. Cornell A&S faculty led the Mars Explorerproject, played an important role in the development of critical theory in literary and

cultural studies and discovered acid rain in North America and demonstrated its majoreffects on lake and forest ecosystems. Cornell founded the :first chair of musicology at anAmerican university and is the birthplace of both the Philosophical Review and thePhysical Review. While difficult economic times may demand that we change the shapeof the College, any evolution should be directed toward maintaining, or evenstrengthening, A&S's standing as a superb locus of research.

Teaching and advising are also central missions of the University. They are closelyintegrated with research: decisions relating to research programs have a direct impact onteaching, and vice versa. Graduate students must encounter an intellectually richenvironment, and under raduates should :find at Cornell an array of courses that allows

them to explore far-ran 'n mterean

. t the ISCIes

that inspirethem. n a practical level, even when reshaping the College requires that some areas, -

receive less emphasis than they have in the past. we must make certain that basic teachingneeds are met

B. Maintaining Excellence

Disciplines in the College fall into four major areas-arts and humanities, biologicalsciences, physical sciences, and social sciences. In order to be a College of Arts andSciences, rather than a specialized institute, A&S must have excellent departments in .each of these four areas. There may. however, be peaks and valleys within those areas.

These peaks and valleys may be across departments, so that certain departments areexcellent. while others, at least in the short term, are only very good. Similarly, individualdepartments may find that the strongest program is achieved no t b bern com rehensive

, - : : ) l2..utby selecting specific topics for emphasis. deed, SOIDe departments that aresignificantly smaller than their peers (for instance, Psychology and Sociology) havealready achieved prominence in sub-fields by being deep in those areas while abandoningothers. .-

the College must contract, it should take care that certain components remain excellentUniform cuts across the board are no t be recommended, as the are a recipe forweakness across e oard. Such an approach. i f the cuts were deep. coul amage A&Sprofoundly. perhaps even irreparably. Rather, the College must ensure that a core ofdepartments remains strong and that current excellence is retained wherever possible.,

7


12/44

A1J we survel' A&S, several subjects stand out as cornerstones of the liberal arts. Theseare Biology, Chemistry, Economics, English, Government, History, Math and Physics.In addition, these fields have the largest graduate enrollments both at Cornell and at othersimilar institutions, and every outstanding peer institution is excellent in most or all ofthese subjects. An y reconfiguration of the College must strive to sustain its current

(' strength in these departments. Those that are superb should remain superb; those that ar

very good should not be allowed to decline.

I . . . - -" t the same time. there are certain departments in A&S that have eamed a reputation forexcellence in scholarship and teaching, and in which doctoral students nationally havesteady opportunities for placement. Some ofthese are among the cornerstone departmentsmentioned above. Others ar e smaller disciplines, almost always represented at peerinstitutions as well. such as Astronomy. Linguistics. Music and Philosophy. Thesedepartments give the College its texture. and we should make every effort to preservetheir extraordinary scholarship.

In the remaining departments, which are very good by national standards, we should

strive,at the

very least,to

preserve the ability to teach essential undergraduate courses.In

the longer term, when A&S is able to rebuild, we expect that the measures laid ou t abovewill have sustained th e College as a leading institution that will attract scholars in allfields, including those most affected by the current financial crisis.

Different levels of cuts will be tolerable from department to department: some largerdepartments may be able to sustain larger cuts and remain strong, while others may notbe able to do so. Certain departments, such as Economics, have undergraduate Ienrollments that stretch their current teaching capacity. In such cases, priority should begiven to meeting these teaching demands.

C. Equity in teaching loads

Given the expected increase in Wldergraduate enrollment and more substantial decreasein the size of the instructional staff, each faculty member will, on average, be teachingmore students.,As a result, man de artments will be encouraged to teach lar or courses.This increased d means ac to teac ergra uateecture courses on a regular asiS. ermore, every departmennttsl'lUtrltt1llr . . . . !ll1mlmtltlr

tfifcIergraduate enrouments. 'Ilifs-is particularly relevant to departments that no w su:f'feIfrom a curious disconnect-appealing to graduate students, bu t not to undergraduates.These departments have th e power to reach undergraduates, and should design coursesthat do so.

IlbroughoU! this report "Biology" refers to the three biology departments in A&S-Ecology andEvolutionary Biology (EEB), Molecular Biology and Genetics (MBG) and Neurobiology and Behavior(NBB)-as a unit. See also Appendix 2.

8


13/44

D. Interdisciplinarity

The previous discussion has emphasized disciplines. In the same s p i r i ~~ e recommendthat all faculty hires possess disciplinary expertise. On the other hand, interdisciplinarityand interdepartmental connections are important features of Cornell's intellectual climate,and are not to be sacrificed owing to economic pressure. Indeed. interdisciplinary and

interdepartmental collaboration is more important than ever in the face of cuts. Suchcollaboration will he increasingly important, especially in small departments, to hiringdecisions, graduate admissions and curriculum.

E. Language,

Cornell is renowned as an institution that comes closer than most of its peers to being aplace where any person can find instruction in any language. Language learning is acrucial part of a liberal arts education and, in some cases, of graduate study. The Collegemust strive to preserve the unique breadth of its language programs, ensuring thatdiversity of languages taught is not compromised by cuts. Similarly, in considering cuts,

we must recognize the value of foreign language study not only to undergraduateeducation but also to research.

9


14/44

I l l . Scenarios

There are but two ways to meet the anticipated budget shortfalls-increasing resources ordecreasing expenditures. In the following, we first discuss the limited options forincreasing resources and then tum to the most significant means of decreasingexpenditures-reducing the faculty at either the University or the College level.

A. Increasing Resources

After much discussion. the committee has identified only one mechanism forsignificantly increasing resources-teaching more students. T h ~University does not havethe infrastructure e.g. residence halls, classrooms to increase under nate enrollme tsi,gnificantly during the Fa) an Spnng semesters; however, a University-wide expansionoithe Summer semester bas considerable revenue eneraM tential. One possibilitywo e an ap on a artrnouth's successful D-plan, which was originally

" developed to meet the increased enrollments generated by the transition to coeducation.

In such a plan, undergraduate students might be required to enroll for one Summersemester (out of four), while taking one FaIl or Spring semester off. ~ s plan effectivelyincreases educational capacity. and thus tuition revenue b 14%.2 Of course, thisadditional revenue will improve e u get situation only i f it is not accompanied by anexpansion of the faculty. In other words, summersemester classes would be staffed byour current faculty perhaps by re uirin all facul to teach one Summer semester everyfour;aears, with a Fall or Spring semester off, like the undergraduates, unng e

r prec iog or subsequent year.

Although tempting from a business perspective, a mandatory expansion of the academiccalendar is not without risk. The effect of a required Summer semester on Cornell's

ability to attract top students (and top faculty) is unknown. Additionally, careful planningwould be required to avoid scheduling problems, particularly for highly sequentialmajors. Fo r these reasons and others, the implementation of a successful, Universitywide, mandatory Summer semester would likely require a number of years.

B. Decreasing Expenditures through Faculty Reduction

Cost reductions will likely have to be made at all levels, including faculty, staff, andgraduate students (both graduate fellowships and teaching assistantships). in thefollowing, we consider only the effects of cost reductions at the professorial faculty level.

(Further administrative efficiencies in the College are being explored by an

:I Each undergraduate would enroll for seven semesters, rather than the current eight, during the standardFall-5pring academic year. All other things being equal, this would result in a decrease in theundergraduate population during Fall and Spring. Bu t the total number of undergraduates on campus duringthese two semesters would remain unchanged, owing to a compensatory increase in class size. All studentswould take their eighth semester during the Summer, thereby producing a total undergraduate populationsn the size ofilie current one and hence an increase of In, or 14%, in the number of undergraduates.

10


15/44

administrative functions committee composed of several department managers andCollege staff.)

1. ~ a c n l t yReductions through University Reorganization. TheCommittee believes that there are real opportunities for reorganization and consolidationat the University Level. BYJeorganizing areas of study that span colleges and eitherplacing their combined resources within a single college or creating ne w structures forcross-college cooperation. Cornell could use the resources devoted to these areas moreefficiently and to greater effect. Importantly, this reorganization could strengthen theUniversity's reputation in a number of areas while potentially enabling significant costsavings. Although recommendations along these lines are outside our charter, we mentionthese opportunities to stimulate thought and discussion.

Perhaps most strikingly, the social sciences-particularly economics and sociology-a}estudied in a large number of departments and colleges on campus. Although differentdepartments have different areas of specialization, mscbanisms that encourage

cooperation in teaching, faculty recruitment, and graduate education should be explored.The committee does no t propose such collaboration as a means of reducing A&S'sinvesbDent in the social sciences beyond what budget cuts necessitate. Rather. we hope to )capitalize upon cross-college possibilities to improvc the absolute standing of the socialsciences in both the College and the University during this time of shrinking resources.

All areas of the basic biological sciences in A&S are already organized in a successfulcross-college structure (with the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences: CALS). andwe did not identify any specific areas for consolidation. The topic is addressed further inAppcndix 2. Nevertheless, this area must also be examined for new opportunities thatmight lead to costsaving reductions.

Thc visual arts are also spread across several colleges at Cornell, and include the study ofhistory and theory, as well as practice. As part of a broader film-and-visual studiesprogram, film studies (currently in Theater. Film and Dance) might be brought togetherwith Art History and Visual Studies; film making (currently also in Theater, Film andDance) might be joined with photography and digital media (Architecture. Art andPlanning: AAP). In the longer term, a larger umbrella structure that integrated theory andpractice might be envisioned (on the model of the Lewis Center for the Arts at Princeton).Such a structure might encompass architecture (AAP). landscape architecture (CALS). art(AAP). and design (Human Ecology). Close links could theo be forged witb Theater,

Dance. Creative Writing, Music. and the History of Art.

Finally. physics is studied both in A&S (physics) and in the College of Engineering(Applied Physics). Although there are pedagogical reasons for offering a physics-relatedmajor in both colleges, there m ay b e opportunities for consolidation across the colleges.

11


16/44

Importantly, the Committee stresses that the study of the physical, biological and socialsciences are central to any college of arts and sciences. The transfer of any of these fieldsoutside of the College would weaken A&S irreparably.

Although this establishment of priorities emphasizes the relative contributions o f

departments' research reputations to the standingo f

the University,cost

reductionsshould no t compromise the teaching mission af the College or the University. A& S playsa central, indeed disproportionate, role in undergraduate education on campus (Section1A), and injudicious cost-cutting would have far-reaching consequences. Plans for facultyreduction should take into account the reality that some departments currently have anunusually large responsibility for teaching in the College (as measured, for example, byundergraduate enrollment per faculty FTE): this contribution to teaching should beconsidered in the allocation of faculty reductions across departments.

A&S must make strategic investments in its faculty to ensure that it is positioned at theintellectual forefront in the coming decades. As a consequence, it should place lesspriority on graduate fields that are experiencing nationally declining enrollments.

Finally, we unequivocally state Ou t support for the College's already-unequivocal policyt h ~r e d u c t i Q D ~the professorial faculty should not be achieved by cbanging theexpectations for tenure.

-----3. Effect of Faculty Reductions on th e College. Th e preceding proposals

are deliberately quite general. Nevertheless, they lead logically to a number o fconclusions about the relative weight o f reductions across departments. To investigate theeffects o f these priorities and to test their robustness and efficacy, we conducted a simple

experiment. Members o f the Committee were asked to prepare anonymous numericalmodels o f A&S after 10%. 15% and 20% r e d u ~ t i o n sin professorial faculty FTEs. Fo rconvenience, the calculations assumed a College o f 2 4 departments (i.e. a number o fdepartments were combined for computational simplicity) and ignored short-termconsequences (i.e. the departurelbiring of specific faculty). The averaged results of thisexercise ar e presented in Figure 1.

12


17/44


18/44

4. Mechanisms for Offsetting the Impact of Faculty Reductions. As aleading research university, Cornell must remain at the intellectual forefront -its facultycontinuously expanding current knowledge and pioneering new fields ofinquiry. Implicitin this statement-and of particular urgency given the warning at the end of the previousparagraph-is the importance of interdisciplinary scholarship and research that transcendexisting intellectual boundaries. To retain a positiou ofleadership, Cornell must evolve;

the Cornell of the future l:annot be the Cornell of the past

For the foreseeable future. such intellectual diversification cannot be driven by anexpansion of the faculty. In the face of decreasing resources and near-certain facultyreductions. Cornell an d th e College must identify strategies that promotediversification of the intellectual portfolio of Arts an d Sciences while alsomaintaining a standard of excellence in both research an d teaching.

Wjth this in mind, th e Committee concluded that there were a number of reasons toconsider the crea n of tar er organizational units in A&S articul om th e

stan pornt of the faculty. Especl y es a . g resources,larger units have aniilherent advantage over Smaller units in obtaining resources. Larger units are also moreflexible. Fo r example, since larger units hire more often than smaller units, they are in abetter position to respond to targets of opportunity. Furthermore, larger units afe morecapable of making strategic investments in emerging areas than smaller units, in partbecause they more routinely can make hires and hence are less reliant on the judgment ofCollege-level administrators.

From a College and a University level as well, a number of considerations favor thecreation of larger organizational units. Perhaps most importantly, larger units enablemore uniform quality control of faculty hiring, promotion, and retention decisions. Thestrength of the University lies in the strength of its faculty, and inadequate expert reviewof tenure decisions could harm A&S for decades. Larger units also enable more efficientteaching, in part by identifying commonalities in the curriculum across a number ofsubfields.

In spite of these structural advantages. the process of creating larger units from smallerones is a delicate undertaking. Even in a time of constant resomces. the emergence ofnew areas can be seen as a threat to well-established fields. Similarly, faculty in emergingfields may worry about a loss offield identity after consolidation. Nevertheless, theCollege must adopt an organizational structure that promotes both intellectual diversity

and a standard of excellence.

In what follows. we outline a number of opportunities to strengthen the College in theface of declining budgets. while also presenting mechanisms to allay concerns.

14


19/44

a..Creation of a Literatures, Cultures and Languages Unit.This unit could be either a disciplinary organization, liIriited to hteratures and languages,or a multidisciplinary one, drawing on a wider range of the humanities. In the formercase, an obvious move would be the creation of a division of Modem (i.e. post-Classical)Continental European Languages and Literatures. consisting of Comparative Literature(mainly. though not exclusively. concffi.ed with European languages), German,

Romance Studies, Russian, and perhaps the (admittedly multidisciplinary) graduate fieldof Medieval Studies. Such a unit would he slightly smaller than the English Department.In the case of a multidisciplinai-y unit. the division could also include fourmultidisciplinary departments-Asian Studies, Classics. Near Eastern Studies, andTheatre. Film and Dance-thereby making it much larger than the English Department.

. In addition to the general reasoDs..ptesenfed earlier. the strongest argument.f.oUheamalgamatjon gfeepartmeats that specialize, partly. or mainly, in literature is intellectual.First, there is the logic of disciplinary coherence: the College strives to have onedepartment for each discipline. Second, i t is in Cornell 's interest to evolve to address thegrowing importance of world literature. Especially in modem literature (where Cornell,like every other school, has its largest investment), but also in earlier eras. a significantshift away from a regional or even continental view of literary study is now visible. Thisshift shows no sign of abating. and it would be intellectually beneficial to bring facultytogether to foster this shift within A&S. Cornell has llilusual geographical and linguisticrange (especially in Asia but also in the Middle East and Africa) compared to most otherleading schools. and is thus well positioned to take advantage of this direction in literaryand cultural studies.

Since the creation of such a unit is very controversial, the advantages and disadvantagesof this proposal are discussed at length in Appendix 3.:

-.-:::===

b. Creation of Solely Joint-Appointment InterdisciplinaryDepartments. To obtain the benefits of larger operational units while also reducingconcerns that a department that is interdisciplinary, or that already draws partly on jointlyappointed faculty. would lose its identity through consolidation, the College shouldconsider the creation of sQIelyjo;nt-appointment depm:tments. The Committee envisionsa structure in which each faculty member is aDpojnteQ.-te bofh a home dj'icip/inarvdepartment (e.g. Sociology or History). which would oversee promotion, and theinterdisciplinary d e p a r t m e n t ~ .Science and Technology Studies----S&TS). Some"candidates for this model, in di erent ways, are Asian Studies, Comparative Literatureand Near Eastern Studies, as well as S&TS. For example, this structure would improveconnections between S&TS and the social sciences. In the case of ComparativeLiterature, where the majority of the faculty already have their primary appointments inother departments. such a structure would regularize conunitment of time toundergraduate instruction and administration in the department while drawing on thealready-existing strongly comparative character of the College's literature faculty. Ineffect, this strategy would enable the reduction of faculty lines without sacrificing qualityor reputation. Joint appointees would dedicate a portion-perhaps half---Qf their teaching

15


20/44

responsibility to the disciplinary department. which could thus staff its curriculum in partwith its new joint appointees and sustain a corresponding reduction in the number of itsnon-joint appointees.

c. Creation of an Ethnic Studies Unit. T ~ u l dcombine-Latino Studies Asian American S ' e ' , , 'cana

es Center and AmeriCan Indian Program. These units are all fairly small and, in~ o nwith virtually all other departments anll programs. likely to become smaller still,Since these programs have a great deal in common intellectually. consclidation may helppreserve them in the face of decreasing resources.

16

'.


21/44


22/44

a. General Topics To Cover at the Meeting and in the Letter.Research, teaching (in the context of the long-range, 4-5 year teaching plan for thedepartment; see Section VJ, service (department, College, University; discipline-related,including editorships, membership on editorial boards, officerships in national andinternational societies, reviewing, grants panels, society boards, meeting organizer) and"Other" accomplishments (e.g. awards, outreach). For a junior faculty member in

particular, the primary emphasis will be on research and teaching.

b. Special Recognition. One pwpose of these reviews is torecognize junior faculty who are "rising stars" and reward them with greater-thanaverage salary raises, increased space (where appropriate) and/or early consideration forpromotion to Associate Professor.

B. Suggestions fo r Reviews of Associate Professors

1. Reviews by the Department Chair. Chairs are responsible formonitoring the progress of all associate professors toward promotion. In at least some

depamnents, this involves either an annual or a biennial review with each associateprofessor prior to the consideration for promotion to full professor. (When the chair ishim/herself an associate professor. this meeting should be held by the senior associatedean, who will call upon one or more senior members of the department as appropriate.)This is meant to help th e associate professor present the strongest possible case forpromotion in a timely manner. General topics to cover at the meeting include research,teaching, and service as discussed above for assistant professors.

a. Special Recognition. As with junior faculty reviews, onepwposc of these reviews is to recognize faculty who deserve greater-than-average salaryraises, increased space (where appropriate) and/or early consideration for promotion, inthis case to full professor.

b. Long-term Associate Professors. Associate professors who arestalled in rank. may be asked to do more teaching andlor service in support of thedepartment's overall obligations. Remedies should not be prescriptive and punishing. Inmost cases, interventions should be designed to enable individuals to resume a productivescholarly life and teach a range of courses. I f a faculty member neither engages in furtherresearch nor provides additional teaching (e.g. by offering more lecture courses) and/orservice, th e case should be reviewed by the chair in consultation with the dean.

C. Suggestions fo r Reviews of Full Professors

1. Reviews by th e Department Chair. It could prove extremely usefulfor the department chair to have a meeting every 3-5 years with each full professor todiscuss and review the professor's accomplishments, long range goals and plans inresearch, teaching and service, as discussed above for assistant and associate professors.

18


23/44


24/44

associate chair for that period of time. Longer-term associate chairs also receive trainingthat can fully prepare them to be chairs jf and when they assume thepost.

G. Faculty Searcb Committees

Search committee members should be cboseD to be as competent and well informed as

possible in the area of th


25/44

V. Teaching QuaUty: Euhancing Instruction in th e Face of Budget Cuts

In this section, we suggest how the College can enhance teaching in the face of budgetcuts. As we Doted earlier, decreased faculty size along with increased student numberswill mean more teaching by faculty-at a minimum, the teaching of larger classes. TheCQmmittee accordingly recommended that aU A&S faculty regularly teach undergraduate

lecture courses s!U\S-te-share this grQViOng responsibility e q u i t a b l ~ .Faculty cuts may alsolimit the number or range of courses that can he offered in a given year. To minimize thedamage to smdents' education (and to faculty scholarship), we offer several proposals.

A. Departmental Teaching Plans

Each department should establish a rolling,long-range (4-5 year) teaching plan. to berevisited and adjusted every year. I t should have a balance between introductory andadvanced courses, including large lecture courses. upper-level courses in sub-disciplinaryareas that could enroll both upper-level undergraduates and beginning graduate students,and seminar courses on specialized topics that change each time offered and could appeal

to both upper-level undergraduates and graduate students. This long-range rolling" planshould allow a department to plan staffing well in advance.

B. Class Sizes

Although everyone recognizes the need for larger classes in general, i t is crucial forundergraduates to experience some smaller classes durins.their time at Cornell.Freshman writing seminars and language classes serve part of this goal, bu t upper-levelundergraduates also greatly benefit from the experience of small classes in their majors.Hence, we recommend that departments aim for a bifurcation of their classes into largeand small sizes. In ..other words, rather than having 40-50 students in each class, the ..

College should aim to enroll 75 or more students in some classes. an d 15-25 in others.~ -C. Teaching Assistants, Graduate and UndergraduateA13 we noted above, there will undoubtedly be pressure to cut graduate TAships. We urge!be College to resist this pressure as much as possible. Support for graduate students isdsential to both the teaching and the research m1sslons of the College. The number ofgraduate TAships provided by A&S has already decreased. Any further cut couldseverely impede both of the College's missions. First, it could seriously undermineteaching, thereby limiting both the ability of undergraduates to obtain individualizedassistance with course material and the number of students who ca n be accommodated,

especially in laboratory courses. Graduate TAs play critical roles in our instructionalmission. while gaining teaching experience essential to their ability to obtain futurefaculty positions. Second, it has the potential to decimate graduate programs. This is aproblem in all disciplines, bu t particularly in the physical and biological sciences, wheregraduate students playa critical role in the productivity of the labs, including in theability to produce research results that justify future extramural funding. TAsrnpssupplement the externally-financed graduate research assistantships on which such

21


26/44

students are typically supported in their later years and thus are crucial to the fundingpackages offered to prospective and incoming students. (The considerations in item "b"are equally an argument for the University to protect graduate fellowships from cuts,again as much as possible.)

Even i f graduate TAships are protected from further cuts, the projected lack of growth in

(or cuts to) mculty and instructional staff will increase teaching demands on faculty and- .;..... . ~ . it harder for them to attend adequately to individual students.The Committee therefore advises departments to cansmer we use o t u n d e r g r a a u a ~ e'lAswhere .their use would he appropriate. Undergraduate T As can provide significant helpby assisting graduate TAs in labs and autotutorial sessions, by holding office bours inwhich they explain materials to individual students in the course who have specificquestions, and, under carefully prescribed conditions, by grading objective tests. (Seemore on tests and grading below.) Departments should have the option of usingundergraduate TAs in these ways. or not (and of using them to grade permissible work, ornot). at their discretion. Undergraduate TAs already successfully support courses in otherComell colleges (e.g. CALS), as well as at other institutions, and their assistance in A&S

courses would be in accord with existing University guidelines. Undergraduate TAsshould be selected on the basis of previous performance. According to current A&Sguidelines, an undergraduate TA of a lab course must have earned a grade of A in thecourse, be a major in the subject with at least an A- average and have taken courseworkmore advanced than the course in which slhe is assisting, or have an overall average of3.3. (Departments could add further restrictions if they wished.) In addition to providinginstructional support, undergraduate TAs themselves benefit from the experience ofexplaining the course's concepts to their peers. Although we believe that TAing providesa valuable learning experience for these top undergraduates (and, indeed. they are givencourse credit in some Colleges-e.g. CALS), we endorse the current A&S policy thatundergraduate TAs should be paid but should not receive course credit for their work.

Grading of course raises special concerns. First, competence and judgment:undergraduate TAs should be allowed to grade only items that are purely objective (e.g.multiple choice or true/false questions). Second, confidentiality (since undergraduateTAs would be assisting in grading their peers): any exam papers graded byundergraduates should be identified only by student i l l number rather than name. Inaddition, College policy prohibits undergraduates from computing grades.

As far as we have been able to detennine in a search of A&S legislation, everything weare proposing is alreedy permitted by College policy. (See Appendix 4.) I f any ofthesesuggestions should tum out to contravene policies that we have overlooked, however, werecommend that the A&S faculty consider changing those policies.

D. Language and Distribution Requirements

We recommend that the College faculty allow students to meet the foreign languagerequirement and the distribution requirements away from Cornell. The current policymandates that students obtain at least 3 credits of foreign language instruction at Cornell.

22


27/44

The Conunittee recommends abolishing the requirement that the course be taken atCornell, rather than at another college or university. Th e relevant Cornell departmentwould have to approve the external COUIse, preferably before it is taken. Similarly,tIansfer students can already satisfy distribution requirements with credits obtained atanother institution, provided the course work is done during the academic year. Wereconunend that this option be extended to all students. Additionally, the possibility of

transfer students meeting-tbe distribution requirementwith

summer session credit fromtheir previous schools should be explored.

E. Th e 34-Course Graduation Requirement

We recommend changing this requirement from "120 credits and 34 courses" to. simply,120 credits. 11le Committee has been unable to find anyone whQ sy'p...ports, or Can evenplausibly explain, the current rcq:uirement pf34 courses. Hence, we recommend itsabolItion. n the e111Illnation of any course requirement is thought to be too extreme, areduction from 34 to 32 courses would be an acceptable compromise.

F. Incentives fo r Teaching Large Lecture Courses

1. Large lecture courses vary tremendously in quality and are widelyviewed as onerous teaching assignments. We could sustain their excellence and offerhigWy visible leadership (to universities nationwide) by minimizing disincentives andproviding incentives to attract top teachers to staff these courses. Large lecture coursesca n be jewels in our crown rather than borin exercises fo r sfacWty, bu t orily conditi ons are such that ourbes t sch.Q!ms compete to teach them

2. Disincentives for teaching a large introductory lecture course flow fromhigh enrollments. One hundred fifty students require more time than 25. Given the broadscope o f th e material, a professor must also teach "out-of-expertise" at least part of thetime. In addition, the teacher receives large volumes of student emails an d office visits,especially before exams; the students in the class often need certain types o f patience andattention. Although the large lecture course is sometimes provided with staff support tofree the instructor of administrative burdens that teachers of other courses normally have,the demands of such teaching, semester after semester, can exact costs from a professor'sacademic and personal l ife, This needs to be compensated. in order to attract and retaintop instructors in these classes. The introductory large lecture course is the first exposureof many students to a particular discipline. I t requires a particularly talented. professor tospark (rather than kill) interest in that field and to Jay the groundwork for more advancedstudies in the discipline.

3, Excellence in large lecture courses can be motivated with endowedteaching professorships, their recipients chosen by administrators, faculty, and studentsfor 3-5 year terms. Endowed teaching professorships could be named fo r a single majordonor or one-by-one for individuals. In addition to offering prestige, these professorshipsmight include a study leave a t t he conclusion of the professorship, funds to support astudent (undergraduate or graduate) or postdoctoral associate in disciplines where this is

23


28/44

relevant, administrative support in service to the professor's scholarly program orsummer salary.

24


29/44

VI. Conclusion

We wish to thank the many people who met with us or otherwise assisted us in thepreparation of this report. See Appendix 5.

25


30/44

Appendix 1Committee Membership

Aodrew Bass, Neurobiology and BehaviorWalter Cohen, Comparative Literature l chairKathleen Gemmell, Dean's office

Melissa Hines, Chemistry-andChemical

BiologyMichael Jones-Correa, GovernmentTed O'Donoghue, EconomicsRitchie Patterson, PhysicsAnnette Richards, MusicJoho Smillie, MathNick Sturgeon, PhilosophyMariana Wolfner, Molecular Biology and Genetics

26


31/44

Appendix ZWhy Retain Biology within Both the College of Arts and Sciences and th e College of

Agriculture and Life Sciences?

Biology is a discipline with great breadth and hence is especially vulnerable tofragmentation. Cornell's administrative structure accentuates this danger: biology is

located in several colleges-or divisioll-A&S, Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS),Veterinary Medicine, Human Ecology, Engineering, and Computing and InformationScience. In 1999, then-President Hunter Rawlings mandated that Cornell retain a singlecross-college undergraduate Biology major as one way of keeping biology unified. TheBiology teaching program, administered by the Office of Undergraduate Biology, is verystrong and remains the teaching focus of the several separate biology departments. Thethree biology departments with both A&S and CALS faculty focus their research andupper-level teaching on different disciplines within biology-Ecology and EvolutionaryBiology (EEB), Molecular Biology and Genetics (MEG), and Neurobiology. andBehavior (NBB). All three departments play major teaching roles in the (single) Biologymajor. ( lbe sole A& S faculty member in Plant Biology also contributes.) For example,

the required (or new Clcore") Biology courses all are taught by faculty in the threeA&S/CALS departments. In addition to forming part of the Biology major, these coursesserve premedical students and majors in several other colleges. Faculty in the jointA&S/CALS biology departments continne to work together along with others to keepBiology teaching up to date in light of the rapid expansion of knowledge in the discipline.For example. two sequential cross-college task forces were appointed by A&S DeanLepage and CALS Dean Henry to oversee this reorganization. Th e first, headed by RonHarris-Warrick (CALSINBB), proposed a ne w curriculum. Th e second, headed by RonHoy (A&SINBB). currently oversees the implementation of this new curriculum.

Realizing that the forces likely to fragment biology here are especially strong and that

such fragmentation would seriously hamper both tbe research and teaching of thisdiscipline, we need to continue to build in linkages like a single Biology major anddepartments that are rooted in both colleges (by containing both A&S and CALS faculty).To place anyone of those departments (EEB, MB G and NEB) entirely within either A&Sor CALS would undermine the University's goal offonning bridges across colleges. Themove ofEEB. MBG and NEB entirely into CALS would also pose a special problem foreducating undergraduates from A&S. A basic, foundational approach to biologyflourishes best in an environment unconstrained by a strong applied mission. Thisenvironment would be lost i f all, or even part, of basic biology were housed entirelywithin CALS, whose mission includes a strong commitment to nurturing translationalapplications of biology rather than biological discovery for the sake of knowledge alone.

A biology connection to A&S provides Biology courses and research with immediatelinkages to the physical and social sciences as well as the humanities, all within A&S.Moreover. A&S plays an especially prominent role in the premedical undergraduatecurriculum: Physics. Math, and Chemistry. together with Biology, all have representationwithin A&S and aU contribute to meeting premed requirements. Biology is an essentialcomponent. of a Liberal Arts education and for this reason must be represented in A&S.

27


32/44

Yet it would be an equally bad mistake to house allor, again, even palt, of basic biologyentirely in A&S. There are growing linkages between basic and applied research,linkages that increasingly hlur the distinction between them for both A&S and CALSfaculty. These linkages, which range from the ecological to the biomedical realms ofinquiry, are a particular strength of Cornell and wouldbe in jeopardy i f all of basicbiology moved to A&S. I t would also be a loss to both A&S and CALS if undergraduates

were to have access to the-Siology major through only one college. Both faculty andstudents benefit greatly from their ability to approach biological sciences either from anarts and sciences perspective or from an agriculture and life sciences perspective. Indeed,a mingling of students coming from both directions provides the intellectual environmentthat is unique to Cornell and one of the institution's greatest strengths.

In sum, the collaboration of A&S and CALS faculty side-by-side within singledepartments continues to be a fruitful endeavor and a successful organization that isexemplary of cross-college collaborative efforts and of the growing integration of basicand applied biology. It is a successful model for other disciplines. To move Cornell'scross-college biology departmenu entirely into either college on purely administrativegrounds would endanger a weB-functioning organization possessing national and .international renown. Such a move could exact a great cost, potentially destroying asystem that is widely admired for its research and its excellence in undergraduate andgraduate teaching. The need to keep biology squarely in both colleges is in keeping withthe essential role that is played by basic biology in a Liberal Arts education (A&S), andthe value of synergy between basic and applied biology (CALS).

28


33/44


34/44

At least the following principles seem to be at work, bowever, in the departmentalaffiliations of literature.

A. An emphasis on post-Classieal Europe and its American settler colonies. Onlyliteratures focused on these periods and regions are eligible to have their owndepartments.

' -B. In this first group, the use of language as the basis for departmentaldifferentiation. This model contrasts with the organization of literatures from othercontinents, as well as with other text-based disciplines (histo!}', philosopby), which covermucb or all of the world. The same breadth (as in histo!}' or philosophy) alsocharacterizes the social sciences.

c. Elsewhere. where investment is much lower (above all in Asian Studies),recourse to geography, cultural affinity, and, more loosely, disciplinary similarity as thebasis for multidisciplinary departments. Cultural influence and regional division, ratherthan linguistic linkage (the latter seen, for instance, in Romance Studies), would seem toaccount for the co-presence in a given department of Greek and Latin; Sumerian,Egyptian, Persian, Hebrew, and Turkish; or Sanskrit, Tamil, Chinese, Japanese, Korean,and Indonesian. Disciplinary contiguity seems to be at work in the grouping of literature,linguistics, religion, philosophy, history. archaeology, and art history (or, to take a verydifferent case, theater. film, and dance).

II. Arguments for a Division of Literatures, Cultures and Languages

The intellectual arguments for such a division appear in the body of this report. There are.in addition. several administrative rationales for some form of consolidation. thoughthese at times come up against barriers that require modification of the intellectualconsiderations.

A. On average. smaller departments experience a higher degree of internal tensionthan larger units. This is so because a single difficult colleague or a single personalityconflict between two faculty members can be enough to derail the entire operation.Happily, that currently seems not to be the case. It is of course unclear. however, whetherthis situation can be maintained, given the persistence o f the underlying structuralproblero.

B. It is harder for College-level administrators to make marginal allocationdecisions for small units than for large ones.

C. There are, however, too many literary critics to place in a single department,possibly even in two departments. English already has the largest number of professorialfaculty in the College and perhaps the University. Even i f the idea were to bring togetherthe remaining literary critics alone, and espeeially if a plan included the muitidisciplinaI}'departments. a single large department would be at best unwieldy. This is one reason forthinking iIi tenns of a division rather than a department

30


35/44

D. Another reason fo r opting for a division is the sorry national record resultingfrom the consolidation of multiple literature departments into a single large departmentalentity. Briefly. such units have had great trouble in avoiding internal warfare, even at finescbools sucb as ue San Diego and ue Santa Cruz. No top university in the bumanitieshas gone this route. One-8tanford-has opted for a divisional structure, however (o nwhicb, more below).

'-E. Stil l a third basis for preferr ing a division to a department is the likelihood of a

loss of traditional departmental identity and autonomy, with a consequent loss of external-standing, upon the elimination o f departmental status. It is no t clear whether th epreservation of the graduate field system would be sufficient to protect Cornell from thisproblem, even in graduate admissions and p i a c e m e n ~and especially in facultyrecruitment and retention. .

F. Bu t even in a divisional structure, English would be likely to exercisedisproportionate weight. This is an important ground fo r excluding it, unless theremaining units were amalgamated into departments of comparable size, a solution,

however, clearly at odds with the goal of maintaining departmental identity.

Ill . Arguments against a Division of Literatures, Cultures and languages

The vast majority o f faculty who have commented on the idea of a division have stronglyopposed i t This in itself is significant, since such opposition reduces the likelihood that adivision. i f implemented, would succeed. I t is not in itself a decisive consideration,however. Two-thirds of the faculty in the former biology division opposed its dissolutionCa dissolution that created a smaller number oflarger departments). The quality of basicbiology at Cornell has improved since then, though opinions preswnably would differabout whether there's a causal relationship. In any case. numerous specific objections

have been made to a division.

A. Faculty in multidisciplinary departments who are not literary critics would bemarginalized or shunted effto other departments, in either scenario undermining facultycollegiality and long-established working relationships. Further, multidisciplinarydepartments are not part even o f the Stanford model.

B. Similarly, the cross-disciplinary activities within such departments would behamstrung, precisely at a t ime when we claim to be favoring interdisciplinary work.

c. The national trend is to disaggregate, not aggregate, multidisciplinary, areabased humanities departments.

D. Even with th e inclusion o f the multidisciplinary departments, the divisioncould not be said meaningfully to encompass languages, literatures, and cultures, sincemuch scholarship on culture is conducted outside these departments (Anthropology,History of Art, Music, etc.),

31


36/44

E. The exclusion of English from even a purely literary division focusing onEuropean languages has no obvious intellectual logic.

F. Collaboration between intra-divisional and extra-divisional departments wouldbe impeded.

G. Creation of a division would foster internal competition for lines and doctoralstudents.

H . By channeling access to the deans through the director, a division would putthe included departments at a relative disadvantage compared. to other departments.

I. The director of the division could undemocratically favor some areas at theexpense of other.;, even emphasizing areas that had little support from the faculty-withthe result that collaboration might actually decrease.

J. The purpose of amalgamation, or at least the ultimate effect, would almostcertainly be steeper cuts in divisional departments than elsewhere. especially given theplanning committee's emphasis on core departments.

K. A division produces no immediate savings but almost certainly immediateexpenses. Even in the long run. the likelihood of increased bureaucratic expenses isextremely \Ullikely to produce offsetting academic efficiencies. And i f increasedbureaucracy proves necessary, it is not clear that this is the bes t place for it (as opposedto, for instance. a director of language instruction).

L. Establisrunent of a division would sap the morale of the affected facultygenerally, and in particular make it difficult to find effective chairs for the weakenedindividual departments.

M. A division would make it harder to recruit and retain distinguished faculty.

N. The humanit ies as a whole would be downgraded.

o. Th e intellectual collaboration across departments envisioned in the divisionalproposal already occurs to a considerable extent-through the graduate field system. areastudies programs, fonnal interdepartmental programs, and conferences. among others. Aneasy example. out of ignorance previously cited as a lac\Ula. is the Mediterranean StudiesColloquium that brings together Classics and Near Eastern Studies. Obviously. not allpossible connections h ~ v eheen established. bu t the outstanding informalinterdepartmental culture of the humanities plus the evidence of formal collaborationsuggest that other initiatives can be approached as they have been in the past.

P. The informal meetings of humanities chairs this past year provide a satisfactorybasis for pursuing the goals imagined for a division. including those mentioned above.

32


37/44

Fo r instance, we could convert these into regular events, with the participation of anassociate dean, for the pwpose of fostering systematic collaboration.

Q. To the extent that we need still more collaboration across departments in, forinstance, hiring, or require large-scale strategic planning, the deans ought to be able tohandle the task.

R Alternatively, the College-level administrative problems posed by many smalldepartments could be remedied by appointing an associate dean of humanities (alongwith associate deans of the social and natural sciences).

S. The Stanford experience has been a failure. It has certainly not inspiredimitation elsewhere.

[ i j h e Stanford Model ISince part of this debate turns on wl1at has occurred at Stanford, it m ay b e useful to

provide some detail about and internal judgmentsof

the situation there.

A. According to Roland Greene (the outgoing director of th e Division ofLiteratures, Cultures and Languages, Professor of English and Comparative Literatme,and current Chair of German), the issue of a division initially arose (almost. decadeago?) when the fnreign literature and language departments had gotten too small andweak to make effective cases for themselves. It is not entirely clear how this situationcame about-deliherate administrative starvation, (un)benign administrative neglect, poordepartmental leadership, relative decline due to growth in other areas but not in these,etc.? In any case, the initial administrative proposal was for a single department, and thisprovoked overwhelming opposition. The next effort involved resurrection of a previously

existing "shell" divisionand

theestablishment of

amultidepartmental

hiring committee,which identified at least one candidate for a senior position in each of the departments.Eacb of these candidates was then rejected by the relevant department. Th e third tr yproduced the Division in something close to its current form. Ibis proposal wasoverwhelmingly approved by the relevant faculty members. It is not clear whether sohigh a level of support emerged in part out of fear that any alternative was likely to beworse. Classics opted out on the grounds that it is an interdisciplinary department. Itsnon-participation has produced some regret, at least from outside the Division. AsianLanguages was initially included. The faculty in the department seem to have beendivided on the matter, in any case, it later withdrew. This too has occasioned regret, frominside the Division. The Division currently consists of the Departments of ComparntiveLiterature, French and Italian, German Studies, Iberian and Latin American Cultures, andSlavic Languages and Litera1ure&--


38/44

B. Of the five departments in the Division, all but German have been successful inmaking senior hires, often multiple senior hires. According to Greene, these four otherdepartments are all stronger than when they entered the Division. German's most recenteffort foundered on spousal considerations. I t has the first priority for a senior hire in theDivision, though of course the timing of that hire has now beeo pushed back by thefinancial crisis. Again according to Greene, i f the faculty in the Division were given a

choiceof

going back to the pre-Division days or retaining the Division.90010

would votefor retention (as would.Greene). Inquiries to the four department chairs besides Greeneproduced three responses, from Russell Berman. a Gennanist currently Chair ofComparative L i t e m t u r e ~from Joan Ramon Resina, formerly of the Cornell RomanceStudies Department and currently Chair of the Department of Iberian and Latin AmericanCultures; and from Gregory Freidin, Chair of Slavic Languages and Literatures andformer acting director of the Division (when Greene was on leave). All wrote in favor ofthe Division as currently constituted.

c . The Research Unit oi tbe Division, which expends $200,000 per year, isdesigned to promote collaborative work that leads to a product. That product cannot besimply a speaker or a. conference, though such activities can be part of the collaboration.The collaboration must involve at least one member o f the Division; the other member ormembers can be from outside the Division. In practice, this has led to a number of editedvolumes that have supplemented the sole-authored books of assistant professors whenthey came up for tenure. In addition. a recent project has led to the establishment of aliterature-and-philosophy major that exists as a track in a number o f departments-not justthose in the Division plus Philosophy, but also Classics and others. The web site givessome indication of additional activities along these lines.

D. An interdepartmental committee establishes the priorities for hiring within theDivision. In principle, current chairs are excluded from the committee. In practice, thisisn ' t always the case.

E. An interdepartmental committee composed of the current DOS's overseesgraduate admissions. In principle, this committee reviews departmental admissionsrecommendations. In practice, it always ratifies them. More important, only halftbeDivision's graduate fellowships are allocated to the departments in advance. Th e othersare competed for on an annual basis. Again according to Greene, this raises the quality ofthe graduate student population, since in any given year a particular field may have anunusually strong (or weak) applicant pool, and adjustments can be made on the fly.

F. Each department has a support staff of only one because much of theadministrative work is carried out at the Division level. The Division administration alsohandles a lot of the administrative work for some departments not in the Division. Allfour Stanford informants agree that the result bas been improved administration.

G. In short, the Division is something of a luxury model. On a faculty FTE basis,it is an expensive, rather than a cost-saving, approach. Greene thinks this is one reasonwhy it hasn't been emulated.

34


39/44

H. Bennan argues that the limitations of the Division model stem partly fromintegration (increased bureaucracy, weaker chairs who don't adequately championdepartmental needs) and partly from the failure to take integration far enough(departmental insularity). Berman praises the Division for fostering "the gradualdevelopment of a non-balkanized intellectual culture among faculty and especially amonggraduate students; hence some greater professionalization. The Division has been an

appropriate form for the emerging redefinition of scholarshipin

interdisciplinary terms."

I. Resina says of the Division, as currently constituted: "I would say that it isexcellent. The departments retain a significant amount of autonomy, their ow n profile,little intervention in their internal matters and activities, and draw the benefit of anefficient centralization of common services. Governance is fairly representative anddemocratic . . . but this may also have to do with the fact that Roland [Greene] strikes avery professional note as Head of the Division who keeps open th e channels ofconununication and, to my knowledge, represents the Division's interests and positionsfaithfully and loyally. The position, however, could produce more authoritarianleadership, given the accumulation of decision power . . . . it is something to take into

consideration when formalizing such a rolein

a coal,irion of departments that serveacademically related but culturally very different areas." Resina also reports that theDivision has allowed him intellectual contacts that might not have been otherwiseavailable. In this context, however, he notes that the move of the Cornell RomanceStudies Department to Morrill Hall a decade ago weakened that department's links withthe other Western European literature departments, that physical contiguity is importantto the success of the Division, and that the absence of such contiguity at Cornell [unlessand until a new humanities building is completed] argues against a divisional model. Heis also more generally skeptical about whether such a model would work at Cornell,given the weak legacy of joint ventures among the literature departments, and worriesthat such a move could undennine attention to the historical and cultural specificity of

individual areas.

J. Freidin sees various advantages of a division over small foreign languagedepartments-the "ability to hire highly competent, professional central staff and removethe burden of training secretaries and administrators from the shoulder of the faculty; . . .get more power in the university over the always limited resources. A unit roughly thesize of English or History commands attention and is taken seriously. Although thenational and/or area-studies model is not ye t dead (Russia, Latin America, Middle East,etc.), there are new emerging supranational cultural networks and boundaries. A[division] would be better suited to deal with the new intellectual and theoreticalchallenges. Develop a more consistent profile and make oneselfmore visible to students

and faculty as a source of knowledge production. . . .

A better mentoring environment foryounger faculty and more of a critical mass for graduate students."

K. As part of the CUll'ent review of the Division; the original proposal of a singledepartment again emerged (from the deans). Unsurprisingly, this is proving widely,though not universally, unpopular. Freidin and Resina are strongly opposed, for example;Berman is Supportive. I t seems likely that the Division, and hence departments, will be

35


40/44

retained, but that a matrix structure will be introduced (favored by Greene and Berman,nn evaluation form Freidin or Resina). Faculty in the Division would have a second, nondepartmental affiliation to wbich they would be responsible for courses and the like.Affiliations are likely to be in . research group-philosopby and literature, poetics, transAmerican studies, the novel, and so on. New majors. minors, and perhaps graduatedegrees could also be developed. The idea is to make of the Division not a holding

company for rump versionsof

national literature departments, but a structure thatsupports current projects and directions in literary study.

Table 1Humanities Departments at Leading Institutions

School BerkeleY Brown C h i c a ~ oColumbia Cornell Duke Harvard Penn Princeton Stanford Yale Tota

DentAfrican X X (X l X X 4-5AmericanAsian X X X X X X X X X X X I IStudiesClassics X X X X X X X X X X X 11Como Lit X X X 100 X X X X X X 9-10E n ~ i s h X X X X X X X X X X X 11Gennan X X X X X X X X X X X 11Historv X X X X X X X X X X X 11History of X X X X X X X X X X X 11Ar t

Music X X X X X X X X X X X 11NearEastcm X X X X X X X X X X 10Pbiloso h X X X X X X X X X X X 11ReJicioD X X X X (X l X X X X 810Romance X X X X X X X X X X X 11

StudiesSlavic X X X X X X X X X X X 11TheaterlFilm X X 0 0 X X X X I (X 6-8Totals 20 19 14 14+ 13-1' 13 16-17 13 I ' 14 17

Notesl. The table excludes any program with only one or two core faculty and lots of joint

appoinbnents, adjuncts, visitors, etc., even i f it grants the B A and PhD.2. Brackets indicate uncertainty about whether or not to include a program. for a

variety of reasons. This uncertainty is reflected in the frequent recourse tomnnerical ranges rather than exact counts.

3. The department titles generally, but not always, follow Cornell usage.4. The total number o f humanities departments for each school may include several

not listed abovo-either because the school divides a single Cornell departmentinto several departments (mainly Asian Studies and Romance Studies) or becauseit has one or more less common departrnents--American Civilization, Celtic,Ethnic Studies, Rhetoric, Scandinavian.

5. The table excludes Linguistics, sometimes treated as a humanities department.All o f these schools have Linguistics departments.

36


41/44


42/44

Appendix 4Arts an d Sciences Policy on tbe Use of Undergraduate TA ,

1979 College faculty legislation prohibits using undergraduates as full teachingassistants. In particular it prohibits undergraduates from leading discussion sessions orlabs, from being solely responsible for any aspect of "teaching" in a course, and from any

evaluative grading. Undetgraduates may serve as a) lab assistants, i.e. as helpers andexplainers of actual lab procedures and material; b) tutors (with office hours) forindividual students with particular problems or questionsi c) hired graders for objectiveexams or as examiners in pass/fail exams that students take in auto-tutorial courses beforethey proceed to the next unit. In this last case, students may repeat any exam they failwith a full TA or the instructor. Undergraduate assistants may not compute an actualexam or course grade for an individual student

38


43/44

Appendix 5Consultants

The following people and groups assisted or consulted with the Committee. People arelisted by name no more than once, though they may have attended multiple meetings.Apologies for any erroneous inclusions or exclusions.

I. Group Meetings

A&S facultyA&S chairsA&S humanities chairs, some twiceCollege of Engineering DeansThe Life Sciences Task Force (with a report from the CALS Strategic Advisory

Committee)The Social Sciences Task ForceCollege faculty recently hired above the entry level (for the most part), 3 meetings

Christopher AndersonElizabeth AnkerKaren Bennett

Kimberly BowesJeremy BraddockTheodore BrennanEric CheyfitzPaul ChirikLaurent DubreuilScott EmrJoe Fetcho

Yuval GrossmanMichelle KoschLee KrausFredrik LogevallPatrizia McBrideSuzanne MettlerJustin MooreEric RebillardKenneth RobertsKerry ShawNicolas Van de WalleHaiping Yan

II. Individual or Very Small Group Meetings with Current and FormerAdministrators of College Departments, of the College and of the University

Glenn AltschulerJonathan Culler

39


44/44

Brett de BaryKaushikBasuCharles BrittainDavid DevriesDavid EasleyRonald Ehrenberg

Grant FarredDavid HarrisStephen HilgartnerPeter Hohendahl ..Ronald HoyIsabel HunKi m Hyde (Baine & Co., outside consultant to Comen)Stephen KresovichDominick LacapraPeter LepageTimothy MurrayDerk PereboomAlison PowerPaul SawyerHarry ShawSaul TeukolskyAmy VillarejoIra Wasserman

ID. General Assistance

A& S Dean's office staff

IV. Electronic communications

,.

Numerous (including a report from each College department chair)

draft report from ad hoc committee for academic planning

Documents