With respect to these four issues, the subcommittee must be sensitive to the differences among the schools and among departments within schools in its evaluation and recommendations. We do not expect to arrive at a uniform set of recommendations.

University Data Needed:

We need the following information from each of the five schools:

This data is crucial if we are to evaluate just what problems Hopkins actually faces. An initial crude set of data on the number of small classes given with the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences reveals a high percentage of small classes (with the exception of a couple of departments, notably, Biology and Psychology). See attachment 1.

Comparative Date with Other Institutions:

We need data about strategies for undergraduate education that peer institutions are pursuing.

New strategies for undergraduate education, both pedagogical and technical, that we will be considering for Hopkins have been introduced at other institutions. We need to know what these strategies are, and even more importantly how successful they are in enhancing the undergraduate's learning experience.

Potential Collaborators:

It might prove useful to draw on the resources of the following CUE subcommittees:

Student Life Subcommittee: One possibility for small group learning would be to introduce residential seminars or colloquia.

Undergraduate Teaching: Recommendations concerning small group learning would have implications for what role the Center for Educational Resources might play at Hopkins.

Tentative Work Plan:

It is too soon to specify a timetable for the work to be done, but the logic of the problem is clear enough.

Collect data on current practice at Hopkins and assess what the problems actually are at each of the schools.

Collect data from other institutions in order to maximize the range of possible strategies that Hopkins might introduce in its undergraduate education.

Report on our hypotheses as to the problems each school faces and make tentative suggestions for addressing those problems.

2. Advising and Career Support

Chair: Ms. Sandra Angell, Associate Dean for Academic and Student Support, School of Nursing

Purpose:

This sub-group would evaluate the mechanisms, both formal and informal, existing within the University for student academic advising and career development. Academic advising and career development are separate but intertwined phenomena worthy of evaluation to maximize faculty, staff and alumni resources that could contribute to informed decision-making about "end-game" issues among undergraduate students.

Need to address the problem:

Homewood undergraduate students, especially those whose goals for post-graduate work or study are uncertain, express the desire for academic advisors who take a holistic approach to advising, i.e. who can discuss potential careers outside their own area of specialization. Students report the lack of a formal structure for academic advising and few opportunities to participate in mentored relationships in some large academic departments. All schools represented on this committee (AS &E, Nursing, Peabody) recognize a need for evaluation of academic advisor preparation and support.

Career counseling services are more developed in some schools (A&S) than others (Nursing and Peabody; SPSBEE not represented). Schools lacking formal career counseling centers cite insufficient financial resources for these services. All schools represented expressed the need for better communication about existing resources.

Students requested more involvement of alumni in providing opportunities for internships, mentoring and job networking. There appear to be opportunities for better cross-fertilization for career potential among the schools -- i.e. international studies majors at A&S with SAIS, nursing majors with public health, musicians with computer science, etc.

Issues & Questions to be addressed:

What is academic advising? Does it need to be redefined to better meet the needs of undergraduates? How are academic advisor assigned, how are they prepared for this role and how are they evaluated? Is there any reward for being a good advisor? What is the student's responsibility in the academic advising process and how is that communicated?

What are the formal services in place for academic advising (some schools have offices for advising; most do not)? How do these offices work with the academic advisors?

Career counseling offices and services should be evaluated to determine what is currently available and how services are communicated to students. A broader sampling of students should be asked what services would be helpful to them in making career decisions. The distinction between career counseling and job placement must be made and a decision made about the scope of any future services to provide the latter.

Are there opportunities for schools to share services? How do we better tap the rich resources of our alumni?

University Data Needed to Address these Issues:

An evaluation of current resources and practices for both academic advising and career development among the undergraduate divisions is necessary. Data about percentages of students who continue directly to graduate school would be helpful along with information about what other graduates do (very difficult to collect). An evaluation of alumni activities in the area of career development is needed. There is a subcommittee of the Alumni Council on this topic. Some schools have divisional alumni offices as well. In all cases, examples of successful programs and best practices should be shared.

Potential Collaborators:

Academic deans responsible for academic advising in all schools; student focus groups in all schools; collaboration with recent alumni (? mailing), Campus Ministries, Offices of Academic Advising and Career Counseling where they exist or interviews with persons responsible for those functions in other schools.

Comparisons/Outside Resources:

Search for successful examples of academic advising and career development in other institutions or among our faculty, staff and students who have experienced successful practices in other institutions.

Tentative Work Plan:

Gain approval for this subgroup issue as part of the larger self-study. Determine what data needs to be collected, how, when and by whom.

Resource Considerations:

Any mailing to alumni would be expensive. Could we access HopkinsNet to gain information from alumni? Student membership in this committee will decrease with graduation. New student members need to be added.

3. Diversified Undergraduate Community

Chair: Dr. Robert Lawrence, Edyth Schoenrich Professor of Preventive Medicine and Associate Dean for Professional Education Programs, Bloomberg School of Public Health

Part A: Racial and Ethnic Diversity

Purpose:

To explore in what ways Johns Hopkins current diversity profile, structural diversity (student, faculty and staff), curriculum and student life enhances or hinders the quality of the collegiate experience for Johns Hopkins undergraduates.

Need to Address the Problem:

In an article entitled "The Benefits of Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Higher Education," authors Jeffrey Milem and Kenji HaKuta in their opening paragraph state: "Many colleges and universities share a common belief, born of experience, that diversity in their student bodies, faculties, and staff is important for them to fulfill their primary mission providing a quality education." The article continues by stating ...Affirmation of the value of diversity is also evident in the following statement endorsed by the presidents of 62 research universities (including eight Ivy League institutions and more than 30 public research universities):

We speak first and foremost as educators. We believe that our students benefit significantly from education that takes place within a diverse setting. In the course of their university education, our students encounter and learn from others who have backgrounds and characteristics very different from their own. As we seek to prepare students for life in the 21st century, the educational value of such encounters will become more important, not less, than in the past.

A very substantial portion of our curriculum is enhanced by the discourse made possible by the heterogeneous backgrounds of our students. Equally, a significant part of education in our institutions takes place outside the classroom, in extracurricular activities where students learn how to work together, as well as to compete, how to exercise leadership, as well as to build consensus. If our institutional capacity to bring together a genuinely diverse group of students is removed -- or severely reduced -- then the quality and texture of the education we provide will be significantly diminished (Association of American Universities, "On the Importance of Diversity in University Admissions," The New York Times, 24 April 1997, p. A27).

Project Scope:

The committee will determine the level of diversity in the faculty, staff and students, the diversity in the curriculum, ethnic minority students' perception of their Hopkins experience, and how diversity is incorporated in the non-classroom experiences of undergraduates.

The following questions will be addressed:

University Data Needed to Address the Issue:

Enrollment data by gender / race

Faculty and staff data by race and gender

Number of diversity-related courses offered each semester / year

Diversity-related programs

Potential Collaborations:

Diversity Leadership Council

African American Studies Program Committee

University Committee on the Status of Women

Office of Multicultural Student Affairs

Tentative Work Plan:

The Committee will review pertinent data, seek the advice of experts, assess the campus climate for ethnic minority students (survey -- focus groups), and consult with campus officials to determine the current status and needs.

Part B: International Dimensions of Undergraduate Education

Purpose:

The purpose of this group is to carry out the mandate of the Board of Trustees that charged CUE with expanding international opportunities for Hopkins undergraduates in the areas of curriculum, advising, and study abroad.

Record of Arts and Sciences:

The Krieger School has the largest contingent of undergraduates who are engaged in international study both in the US and abroad.

RE: Curriculum:

International Studies is the largest major at the Krieger School, surpassing even biology. It includes requirements in political science, economics, history and foreign language. In addition, non-International Studies majors take a wide variety of courses with international content across many disciplines including anthropology, sociology, literature and philosophy. Distinctive to the Krieger School are ties to the Schools of Public Health and the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies where undergraduates take courses with some formally enrolling in academic programs.

Advising:

The Krieger School has an Office of Study Abroad run by Ruth Aranow where advice on international study is provided. There is also a website.

Study Abroad:

189 students studied abroad last year. This includes 78 in Hopkins Programs in France, Cuba, Ecuador, Italy and Germany. This is an increase from last year's total of 136 and represents about 25% of the junior class. Engineering had 13 students traveling abroad this year (an increase from 6 the previous year).

Information to be Gathered:

The Committee agreed that the following information would be useful to learn: statistics from all schools re curriculum and study abroad; how schools deal with sending students to unstable areas; where students are going (both countries and schools); international courses re the environment; how study abroad programs are evaluated; how international courses can be encouraged across the curriculum, and what other universities do in these areas.

Outcomes:

To see whether the schools are making progress in international education we will look at the number of professors hired who teach in international areas compared to earlier periods, the amount of resources devoted to advising for study abroad; and the change in percentage of students enrolling in Hopkins Study Abroad programs.

4. Student Life: Integrating the Intellectual and Social Lives of Undergraduate Students

Chair: Dr. S. William Leslie, Department of History of Science and Technology, Krieger School of Arts and Sciences

Purpose:

The purpose of this sub-group is to examine ways the intellectual and social lives of undergraduate can be better integrated and make recommendations of activities, facilities and models that might best accomplish this for each undergraduate division.

Need to address the problem:

Homewood undergraduates report a feeling of disconnection between their academic and social lives, a feeling of fragmentation about their residential lives, and more generally a lack of sense of collective endeavor. They tie these feelings to several specific, concrete issues: a lack of contact with faculty mentors and teachers outside of purely academic settings; a structure of residential life that puts upperclassmen off campus and therefore detaches them from the social and intellectual life of the campus; the lack of a fully satisfactory gathering place (or places) for working and socializing; the lack of any events or rituals that are widely shared among undergraduates and that might serve as a touchstone of collective experience and identity. SPSBE recognizes problems of fragmentation that are based on issues that are unique to them, such as 6 campus locations and adults who balance full-time work with family and school. They report some success, however, with creating program cohorts to form many learning communities. Many of Peabody's concerns revolve around the need to be more connected to Homewood services; a more closely aligned social connection would be desired as well. SON reports systemic space limitations, circumscribing students' access and sociability; it also report security, transportation, and parking issues.

Issues and questions to be addressed:

For Homewood students, can broader and more robust contacts between faculty and undergraduate students be forged, especially in extra-academic settings? Can residential life be (re)structured in ways that bring upperclassmen back into the community, better integrate the four classes, and generally help to forge a sense of community and collective endeavor among at least some subgroups of undergraduates, or indeed across the entire student body? Can some or all of these desiderata be achieved or enhanced in other ways? Can appropriate venues for student gatherings be created? What can be done to create a feeling of collective endeavor across the student body as a whole? Can SPSBE's successful model be generalized across the schools? Can more systemic connections between Peabody and Homewood be developed (i.e. enhanced shuttle service)? How can SON's space and transportations issues be resolved (again, perhaps in part by expanded/enhanced shuttle service)?

University data needed to address these issues:

A broader and deeper understanding of students' feelings about these issues -- their sense of what works and what doesn't, where problems lie and how they might be addressed -- is entirely necessary. We believe that holding focus groups of undergraduates, selected to represent different living situations and divisions, would bring some clarity to these matters. Any data that has been collected by the various divisions may be of use; e.g. the CSEQ survey, which has recently been administered at Homewood.

Potential collaborators:

The issues considered by this subcommittee run up against the work being done by a variety of other entities within the university. The most obvious and important of these is Residential Life (if Dean Susan Boswell serves on this subcommittee, she could presumably serve as liaison, keeping both sides informed of the other's brief). Any examination of residential life and of appropriate venues for student gathering would also impinge on the work of the Bookstore Committee, and/or the successor committee that will plan the remainder of the development that includes the bookstore; the consultants who are working on a master dining plan; perhaps also the Charles Village Improvement Association, if any concrete proposals include developing or acquiring property on the east side of Charles.

Comparisons/outside resources:

For Homewood, examining in greater detail the structures of student life at universities like ours (private institutions with the great majority of undergraduates living either in university housing or renting through the local private housing market) would be edifying. Peer institutions might include Stanford, Penn, Chicago, Princeton, and Yale. For the other divisions, appropriate other divisions will vary.

Tentative work plan:

Collect data/conduct focus groups; collect data from peer institutions; generate proposals.

Outcome Assessment:

Qualitative: We must monitor student satisfaction over an extended period. A survey, like the CSEQ, administered university-wide (with customizations for each divisions' needs) must be developed.

Quantitative: Monitoring student usage and demand for any new facilities (e.g. restructured or newly constructed dorms, or a Student Union) would indicate their success or failure. Count and seek to increase the number of events involving informal student/faculty contact. Monitor usage on new or enhanced shuttle routes.

© 2003 The Johns Hopkins University. Baltimore, Maryland. All rights reserved.
Last updated 17May03 by dgips@jhu.edu