Johns Hopkins University
Commission on Undergraduate Education
Final Report | May 15, 2003

---

CHAPTER 6
Recommendations

A number of these recommendations are equally relevant for all five divisions that offer undergraduate degrees, while others may be applicable to only one or two divisions. The precise application of these recommendations will have to take into account each school's mission, culture, and resources. Some corrective actions are already in progress, and the Commission is pleased to note these efforts.

Recommendations Regarding the Academic Experience

Recommendation 1

Assign specific responsibility for assuring the quality of undergraduate education to a senior level administrator in each school's dean's office and regularly bring together those individuals to facilitate discussion of undergraduate concerns across the University.

At present much of the vision of how the undergraduate experience should be organized is de-centralized. At Homewood, for example, departments are free to set requirements that are not directly related to the major. The faculty determines, without administrative consultation, whether a course will fulfill a particular distribution requirement. More central oversight can also ensure that problems with class size are identified and addressed. These problems are localized within the curriculum but severe in some cases when they occur. (We are doubtful that efforts to target an increase in the number of students to a particular course of study will sufficiently address this problem.) The senior level administrator designated with the responsibility for ensuring the quality of the undergraduate program would oversee and coordinate the review of undergraduate programs called for below; work closely, collectively and individually, with the Directors of Undergraduate Studies called for in the next recommendation to continue the conversation and sustain the effort to enhance undergraduate education; and work closely with student affairs staff to better integrate student life with the academic experience. Some of the early foci of the senior administrator, working closely with faculty and with the directors of undergraduate study called for in the next recommendation, will be to create a "program review template" to guide the work of departments as they implement recommendation #3; to strengthen the quality, participation level, and effective use of the course evaluation system; and to review current grading practices and/or policies.

Recommendation 2

Appoint a faculty Director of Undergraduate Studies in each department or degree program that offers an undergraduate major.

Responsibility for the academic quality of the undergraduate major rests with departmental faculty who have multiple responsibilities; there needs to be an individual for whom the development and health of the program is a major priority. This person should be more than a coordinator; he/she should be charged with the formal responsibility for leading the development of a coherent major, ensuring adequate course offerings, monitoring class size, organizing the departmental advising system, and perhaps arranging programs for majors that offer intellectual stimulation, guidance regarding advanced study, or practical information about career opportunities. Such programs would also help to develop a sense of community among departmental majors. Where workload dictates, faculty service as a Director of Undergraduate Studies should be recognized by appropriate adjustments in course load and should be considered a significant form of departmental and school service. The creative engagement of graduate students should also be considered as an ancillary source of help in departmental efforts to strengthen services and programs for departmental majors. Directors across the departments should be brought together regularly to discuss common issues, including strengthening the course evaluation system, and to consider the interfaces among the various departmental programs so that the academic needs of undergraduate students are being met across the entire curriculum.

Recommendation 3

Conduct broad reviews of the quality of undergraduate degree programs on a regular cycle, in addition to, or as part of, existing reviews of academic departments.

To enhance the quality of the undergraduate experience, each program offering an undergraduate degree should undergo a broad review on a regular cycle (but no less frequently than every eight to ten years). An initial review might take the form of a departmental self-study, but, over time, all or most departments should also undergo reviews that include outside experts. Programs would be asked to address explicitly a series of questions derived from national professional standards and Hopkins faculty pedagogical expertise. These reviews are not intended to replace current departmental review processes, such as those conducted by the Homewood Academic Council, because those are essentially "program audits" and do not focus on the quality of the undergraduate programs.

These reviews, whether they are incorporated into existing review processes or are conducted separately, would examine such matters as the philosophy underlying the major requirements; teaching expectations; the range of introductory, small group, and senior capstone experiences; the use of instructional technology; international opportunities for students; diversity in the curriculum; course evaluation systems; grading practices and/or policies; and data on the modal experience of students. It is assumed that the appropriate senior level administrator for undergraduate education in each division (see recommendation #1), working with the Directors of Undergraduate Studies, would create a "program review template," oversee the administration of a review process, and work with departments on appropriate follow-up.

As a part of the regular departmental review there would also be yearly routine examination of certain aspects of the undergraduate program, for example, course evaluation review. Each year, every department and program should evaluate feedback provided by undergraduates in the class. Departments should use a school set criterion (e.g., Merlin), and if they desire, an additional form for personalized questions for their course. However, any supplemental questions should not be used in lieu of uniform criteria. Moreover, data collected should be submitted to the Dean's office in addition to the department. If "poor" (again some basic standards will need to be determined) marks are persistent for more than two or three years in a course, an independent external review of the course should be undertaken by a committee comprised of representatives from the school.

Recommendation 4

Assure that juniors and seniors have access, within their majors, to small classes and to appropriate small group experiences, including "capstone" courses.

In some departments, advanced majors have access to too few courses in which enrollment is small enough to facilitate high-quality interactions between the faculty and students. This is a problem for two reasons. First, we believe that a Hopkins education as we envision it must give students a good chance for real interaction with research faculty. And second, it is important that students develop close relationships with faculty so that faculty evaluations of students and letters of recommendation can be of a high quality. As a rough guideline, we propose that every student be able to take at least two courses in his/her major in which enrollment is not more than 20. Within the broad parameters of this guideline, it may be wise to leave individual departments with substantial latitude as to what sort of a "capstone" experience they provide for their undergraduates, so long as the capstone has a personal touch. To be true to our mission and our obligation to our undergraduates, these courses should be taught by distinguished faculty. To assure sufficient small group experiences, some departments are likely to need additional faculty resources.

Recommendation 5

Expand the opportunities available to first-year students for intellectually engaging academic experiences in a small group format.

On many campuses, priority attention has been given to the quality of the first year experience as a means of setting the tone for the entire undergraduate program. Some of these successful experiments are reviewed in the text accompanying the Student Life recommendations, but they generally have in common the fact that students are challenged to be active learners. Unfortunately, the curriculum of many first year Hopkins students reflects the need to make early progress on pre-medical or engineering requirements, and there is precious little opportunity to experience seminar style learning. While we believe that small group experiences are especially critical for juniors and seniors, and thus should receive priority for resource allocation, serious and creative attention should be given to developing ways to make it possible for first-year students to have a more personal academic experience. We believe that such opportunities reinforce healthy attitudes about academic exploration and that, were a critical mass of freshmen to have such experiences, it would improve the campus intellectual climate. The proposed departmental undergraduate program reviews should encompass attention to this issue with respect to departmental majors, but many freshmen are unsure of their choice of majors, and they, too, should have access to small group experiences, some of which may serve the purpose of exposing freshmen to diverse disciplinary perspectives.

Recommendation 6

Provide various faculty incentives for good teaching, and ensure deliberate and appropriate recognition of teaching excellence in faculty evaluation for promotion and tenure.

Faculty investment of time and energy in good teaching should be recognized and rewarded in various ways, the most important of which, of course, is recognition in the appointment and promotion process, and where there is none, in the merit raise determination. The Academic Councils of the schools bear responsibility for considering the role of teaching in appointments and promotion, and their efforts to effectuate such recognition are to be encouraged. Various other ways must be found to attach greater value to and to show greater respect for the work of faculty who are devoted to teaching, including those non-tenure track faculty, instructors, and adjuncts who carry part of the teaching mission in some programs. While there now exist some of the customary teaching awards common on many campuses, the divisions should be certain that appropriate recognition is accorded those who attain teaching excellence through rewards as well as awards. In some critical programs there is clearly a problem with classes, particularly large lecture classes that are not being taught well; this affects the academic experiences of hundreds of students. To refresh the curriculum, released time or summer grants could be given to develop new courses or to enhance existing courses, through technological or other innovations. The quality of these key courses with high demand should be a priority and the subject of special efforts to secure superior teaching.

Additionally, the schools should consider more active recognition of "teaching as scholarship" as called for by Ernest Boyer of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in his 1990 book Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Surely, the writing of the definitive textbook in a field or the development of widely used electronic teaching modules constitutes important research, influences the education of students, contributes to the development of the academic disciplines, and adds to the stature of Hopkins faculty.

The idea of recognizing teaching excellence is a hardy perennial; indeed, the Committee on the 21st Century endorsed a similar recommendation almost ten years ago. It is time to take steps to embrace this value as a central part of the Hopkins academic culture and to ensure that it is honored. The Commission believes that there are alumni and others who might be attracted to fund these opportunities to recognize teaching excellence.

Recommendation 7

Increase support for faculty and graduate students in teaching effectiveness -- including pedagogical consultation, assistance with enhancing teaching and learning through instructional technologies, and strengthening the course evaluation system -- and improve the campus physical infrastructure to enable such.

For new faculty, teaching assistants, and some tenured faculty, knowledge about, and experience with, effective instructional methods and strategies may not be readily available. All Hopkins faculty who teach undergraduates should have access to offices of instructional support that offer pedagogical consultation and a range of tools for understanding how instructional technologies can enhance a variety of learning environments. Currently, such support is available through the Center for Educational Resources in the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences and in a similar entity in the School of Professional Studies in Business and Education. Special efforts to enhance the teaching skills of graduate students should also be made. Beyond a very basic introduction and review of university policies, any additional guidance and mentoring of graduate students is left to the discretion of the department. Conducting some programs on a division-wide basis would offer economies of scale. And, no doubt, attention to teaching methods would benefit undergraduates through enhanced instruction, but also graduate students themselves as they develop their skills for the professoriate.

Furthermore, during the February and March 2003 public comment period, a number of community members noted that the campus infrastructure for teaching, i.e., campus classroom facilities, needed attention. Not only was Hodson Hall held out as exemplary because of its technical assets, but also because of its HVAC systems, lighting, furniture, and other basic amenities. Each campus that holds classes for undergraduates should provide a plan for assuring that its classroom facilities meet a contemporary minimum set of requirements designed to optimize the teaching-learning experience for both faculty and students.

Recommendation 8

Support actively efforts to ensure that all members of the University community are educated about what constitutes academic integrity and understand their obligations to act with honor in each and every academic matter.

Surveys provided sobering commentary on the view of many students at Homewood who feel their undergraduate experiences are compromised by dishonest acts of their classmates. The caricature is that of a cutthroat culture where anything goes in order to get the grade and where academic competitiveness supports, if not encourages, an environment where cheating is all too common and where there are alleged instances of students deliberately undermining the success of other students. In conversations, graduate teaching assistants stated their active concern about this problem and their discouragement that some faculty fail to deal decisively with academic misbehavior. Some TA's expressed concern that students may not be well enough informed on the basic principles of citation and may need instruction in what constitutes unacceptable practice.

Similar discussions about academic integrity are taking place on campuses across the nation. Like many peer institutions, some Hopkins divisions have developed programs to confront the issue, and these should be pursued vigorously. All Hopkins schools should have plans involving education about academic ethics, clearly stated penalties for violations, and support for those TA's and faculty members who report situations of alleged misconduct.

None of the other aspirations that the Commission has for the undergraduate experience matter if the basic elements of an academic community are not in place, and surely academic integrity is chief among them.

Recommendation 9

Encourage efforts to broaden the mix of academic interests in the student body in order both to enrich the intellectual discourse and to match student enrollments more closely to academic resources.

One of the joys of being at a University is knowing students and faculty who, together, have wide-ranging interests. Such diversity of academic interests and talents makes for a stimulating environment, fosters lively conversation, and causes members of the community to expand the scope of their own horizons. Across the University, we need to bring together elements of our academic diversity, as with facilitating more contact among Nursing, Homewood, SPSBE, and Peabody students. But, also, within each School's student body, it is important to ensure diversity of academic or disciplinary interests. A student body has a significant impact on itself, so that this diversity is a critical element in the quality of the undergraduate experience. Recruitment efforts at Homewood already show some positive results in leavening the academic mix with larger numbers of students who want to major in one of the humanities disciplines.

Recommendation 10

Ensure that the undergraduate experience has a significant international dimension by offering students attractive opportunities for foreign study and internships, coursework with an international character, and campus activities and programs that take advantage of the University's rich international resources.

Johns Hopkins is a thoroughly international institution, and yet too few of our undergraduates experience this element of a diverse education. Adequate support should be provided for students who wish to study abroad, in terms of advising and information resources, but there should also be active development of Hopkins programs for international study, perhaps taking advantage of Hopkins international facilities and the significant international research activities of many Hopkins faculty. For example, a formal summer internship program could be developed through which pre-medical students are teamed with those faculty in the School of Public Health who conduct numerous summer research projects abroad. Programs should take advantage of unique Hopkins resources. Similarly, the creation of a position in the Alumni office to organize networking and internships should also afford international opportunities for students, especially in light of the large number of our alumni who live abroad and who are eager to remain engaged with their alma mater (see recommendation #16).

Recommendation 11

Thoroughly study the current weekly course schedule and class scheduling practices to determine whether adjustments might be made to enhance the quality of the undergraduate experience.

As noted earlier, perhaps no proposed recommendation of the Commission generated more discussion than that to change the weekly course schedule for Homewood to a more standard format of Monday-Wednesday-Friday/Tuesday-Thursday instead of the current schedule which, loosely, operates on a MTW/ThF format. The recommendation was proposed in the Commission's interim report because the Commission thought there would be significant benefits to spreading out three- meeting courses over five days and two-meeting courses over three days. A key benefit of such a change would be the facilitation of cross-divisional registration and inter- divisional collaboration in program development. Currently, the ability of Homewood students to take classes at the Bloomberg School of Public Health and at the Peabody Institute and of Peabody students to take courses at Homewood (where their presence would enrich student experience) is seriously constrained by the incompatibility of class schedules. In addition, this change was seen as having the potential to enhance students' ability to prepare for class, complete readings and assignments, and evenly distribute their academic course loads, thus providing time to absorb learning. Moreover, the revision offered the possibility of improved classroom utilization since the current scheduling convention results in less than effective classroom deployment.

The Commission saw the unique Hopkins schedule as contributing also to high stress levels, a sense of being harried, and difficulties in time management for students. A pattern of concentrating classes over only three days of the week may well be contributing to the feeling of isolation for many students. Normal social interactions become quite lopsided when students shift from high levels of campus engagement while taking back-to-back-to-back classes without a break to more solitary pursuits, frequently in the isolation of their off-campus apartments. But resident advisors also noted another concern: a frequent pattern of students who live in residence halls concentrating their classes in three days and regularly leaving Baltimore on weekends, thus exacerbating the difficulty of developing a sense of community. Furthermore, it is quite possible that the student perceptions of faculty not being accessible are related to the fact that many students have relatively few interactions, for instance, from Wednesday afternoon to Monday morning.

During the various community conversations held to solicit reaction to the interim report, we heard endorsement of almost all these observations about the effects of the current course scheduling practices. Some faculty even cited this recommendation as the most important in the Commission's report in terms of its impact on the quality of undergraduate education. But, the Commission also received from Arts and Sciences constituents many e-mails, letters, and comments at community meetings that argued in support of the current course schedule because it supports the scholarly activity and research productivity of the faculty. It was evident that many see the Hopkins system as being part of the institutional culture and a definite advantage in recruiting faculty for whom the considerable flexibility is a welcome advantage in conducting research trips including utilizing instrumentation at other institutions, attending professional meetings, or simply having blocks of concentrated time for research and scholarship. Some faculty also argued that the current system has pedagogical advantages in allowing for sustained attention to topics over consecutive days and in encouraging self-paced, individual learning.

Concern was expressed that a M-W-F format would result in more graduate student teaching or cancelled classes on Friday when faculty might need to be traveling. The current system was seen as allowing scholars and researchers to meet their teaching obligations while fulfilling their need to be especially visible professionally and active in their disciplines, given that the small size of many Hopkins departments means extra pressure on each individual faculty member to contribute to the academic stature of the department.

And, while we had positive comments from students about proposed changes, we heard also a number of cautions. A common observation was that the current system makes possible entire days free of classes and facilitates their ability to take advantage of research opportunities in East Baltimore or in Washington, DC. There were also students who, candidly, expressed concern that Friday classes would compromise the four-day weekends that they had come to enjoy and make Hopkins an even more intense environment.

It remains the vast majority of the Commission's strong conviction that a change in the course scheduling practices would enhance the quality of the undergraduate experience, and that, in the absence of such change, it will be very difficult to make the Hopkins culture more supportive of undergraduate students. However, the Commission has taken the input received on this issue seriously and thinks that the issue warrants further serious study toward the end of determining whether important and legitimate needs in undergraduate education might be met by adjustments in the course schedule without undue compromise to faculty scholarship, research and other professional activity, or to student research opportunities. The Commission invites additional reflection and imaginative thinking about how best to accomplish these ends. It challenges the leadership of the schools to ensure that this matter receives the attention that it warrants as one of those long-accepted practices at Hopkins that is not conducive to high quality undergraduate education and probably influences culture more than we know.

Recommendation 12

Give final examinations only during the final examination period.

There is one aspect of the academic calendar that the Commission thinks should be addressed immediately. Regardless of the particular configuration of the class week, the Commission thinks it is vitally important that, within the semester calendar, the reading and scheduled examination periods be respected. Students report that not infrequently individual faculty infringe on the published reading period by scheduling their examinations on an ad hoc basis. We learned of many incidences of scheduling final examinations also during the final week of class, thus compromising the length of the semester. In the interest of fairness, and out of respect for students, this practice should be curtailed, and only in the most extreme circumstances, and with a dean's approval, should examinations be given at other than the formally scheduled time. The Registrar's Office should establish and publish an examination schedule in sufficient time for students and faculty to make their end-of-the-semester plans accordingly.

Recommendations Regarding Advising and Career Support Services

Recommendation 13

Strengthen faculty engagement in advising by making expectations clear, by providing mentoring and orientation, and by more explicitly including effective service as an advisor as one of the considerations for salary and promotion decisions. This objective might be implemented in several ways: by including a discussion of advising responsibilities in hiring discussions with prospective new faculty; by creating an academic advising orientation for new faculty and a "reorientation and update" program for experienced faculty; by providing to new faculty senior faculty mentors known to be strong advisors; and by developing a mechanism to evaluate faculty mentoring and including that information among considerations for salary increases and promotions.

Recommendation 14

Improve communication and leverage activities among the career support services offices, departmental advising coordinators, academic and pre-professional advising staff, alumni offices' staff, and other related service providers.

Advising should be seen as a seamless system. The current situation reflects too high a degree of decentralization so that the whole is not only not greater than, but also perhaps not equal to, the sum of its parts. Service providers in one area should be familiar with complementary resources in other areas and should be able to facilitate access to those resources with a minimum of hassle. For example, it might be helpful to have faculty advisors educate career support services professionals about academic careers and to have career advisors update faculty about the non-academic labor market, contemporary strategies for exploring employment opportunities, and non- academic careers related to the major. In particular, attention should be paid to making sure that faculty, career professionals, and students are well informed about services and programs by increasing the use of the Internet, the involvement of student leaders, and the use of student publications. Students should also be educated about their responsibilities as an advisee. The new departmental Directors of Undergraduate Studies (see recommendation #2) might best provide the interface between and among those who advise students about careers.

Cooperation and collaboration (for example, with jointly sponsored career and graduate fairs) can also be improved among career support services offices in the several schools.

Recommendation 15

Explore the centralization of some advising/career support resources, such as study abroad, internships, and fellowships.

Advising now takes place in several locations across the University, and information resources are thus similarly dispersed. For example, to find information about international opportunities such as summer programs, semesters abroad, and internships, students often have to visit several offices. Fellowship information may be obtained in departments, depending on the field, or in the central Homewood academic advising center. While it makes sense to take advantage of expertise wherever it is found, some effort should be made to provide "one stop shopping," as appropriate, in either a single physical or virtual location.

Recommendation 16

Create a position within the Johns Hopkins Alumni Office that, in concert with the various school career support service offices, would develop networking and internship opportunities for undergraduates.

Hopkins alumni represent a wonderful resource for current students, and current students represent splendid ambassadors for the University. At present, interaction is primarily ad hoc. One of the benefits of a Hopkins education should be access to the impressive network of Hopkins alumni around the globe. More concerted efforts need to be made to link students with alumni and to capitalize on the rich experience and perspective that they offer. Many institutions enlist alumni in providing career advice and in developing internships. Within each school's career support services office, a staff member should be designated to act as liaison to the Johns Hopkins Alumni Office in order to develop networking opportunities with alumni for undergraduates.

Recommendation 17

Assure undergraduate access to professional career planning and development services, including employment support for the growing number of undergraduates who choose not to go directly to graduate/professional school and desire employment after earning their baccalaureate degrees.

The increasing trend among Homewood undergraduates to delay application to graduate school for two to three years after graduation and concomitant desire to explore career/employment alternatives with advice from career support services staff should be recognized with an appropriate level of support.

Professionals skilled in career development should be available in sufficient numbers to counsel students. They should be creative and innovative in their approach to providing career planning and placement services to students throughout their entire undergraduate program, from freshman year to senior year. Large numbers of Hopkins undergraduates come with definite ideas of their career goals; not all such students maintain their interests or find it feasible to pursue their original aspirations. Career development is a several decades long process, and, during their four years at Hopkins, undergraduates should be helped to acquire the skill sets that will help them grow professionally throughout their careers.

Recommendation 18

Assure adequate physical and technical facilities (including a state-of-the-art website and electronic student portfolios) for career support services offices in each school.

Technology offers creative possibilities to enhance career support services, but at present, these possibilities are not sufficiently developed. Some schools have begun to explore the creation of electronic student portfolios, and such efforts should be encouraged. Similarly, career support services offices need adequate facilities if they are to host recruiters.

Recommendation 19

Assure that each school tracks its graduates' post- baccalaureate activities, whether advanced study or employment.

Information about the plans of our graduates is important, but, across the University, we have surprisingly little systematic data about what undergraduates do with their Hopkins education. A central, University-wide repository for tracking data about employment and graduate school attendance should be developed and maintained. The development of a new student information system offers the potential for planning for systematic collection and analysis of these data.

Recommendation 20

Include an evaluation of academic advising and career support in all undergraduate satisfaction surveys.

Because adequate academic and career advising should be an integral part of the Hopkins undergraduate experience, data on student satisfaction with these services should be regularly collected and monitored.

Recommendations Regarding Diversity

Recommendation 21

In the area of student recruitment, significantly increase the diversity of its undergraduate student body so that, within five years, Johns Hopkins is in the top decile of its peer group in the enrollment of under-represented ethnic minority students. Toward that end:

Prepare a detailed plan for enrolling African-American, Latina/o, and Native-American students, complete with action steps, funding requirements, and an aggressive timetable.

Endorse the proposal of the Homewood Admissions' Office to establish "The Baltimore Scholars Program" to provide full scholarships (tuition and fees) to graduates of Baltimore City Public Schools who are admitted to an undergraduate program, beginning with the entering class of 2004.

Develop linkages with other Hopkins ethnic minority outreach programs, including successful diversity initiatives by the Center for Talented Youth, and consider forging partnerships with community colleges.

We recognize that unequal educational opportunities at the primary and secondary education levels affect the "pipeline" of ethnic minority students who are appropriately prepared to study at Johns Hopkins and other elite universities. More can and must be done.

Recommendation 22

Take steps to increase significantly the retention and graduation rates of all undergraduates so that, within five years, these rates at Johns Hopkins compare favorably with those of peer institutions. To accomplish this:

Prepare a detailed plan to improve both retention and graduation rates of all students, complete with action steps, funding requirements, and an aggressive timetable.

Improve the retention and graduation rates of subgroups of students who are lagging behind their peers. A systematic study should be undertaken to identify the factors that cause students not to persist and to provide a basis for designing appropriate programmatic support and interventions to achieve this goal.

Recommendation 23

Increase significantly the number of under-represented ethnic minority faculty over the next five years by preparing a detailed plan complete with action steps and an aggressive timetable.

In order to offer an excellent undergraduate -- and graduate -- experience at Hopkins, we need a diverse faculty, and equal attention should be paid to the hiring of junior and senior faculty who are outstanding scholars as well as members of an ethnic minority. Without greater representation of ethnic minorities, we hinder our own efforts to provide the highest quality education possible. It is important also to protect under-represented junior faculty from serving on so many departmental, divisional, and University committees that they are distracted from teaching and research obligations.

Recommendation 24

Assess, within the schools, whether the content of the curriculum taken as a whole provides undergraduates with sufficient opportunities for exposure to diverse disciplines, fields, languages, cultures, and ideas, and where needed, expand the offerings to do so.

A curriculum should not be static. A quality education should address the realities of a changing world and provide a rich variety of coursework that stimulates ideas and expands intellectual horizons, that prepares students to understand perspectives different from their own, and that gives them both the tools to examine their own biases and the knowledge to navigate the world around them. If we are serious about preparing Hopkins students to fill positions of leadership in a world where definitions of majority and minority are not fixed, they must be challenged during their undergraduate years to learn beyond their comfort zone and to broaden their appreciation for the full breadth and depth of human endeavor. This recommendation could well be implemented as part of the periodic undergraduate program review of each major (see recommendation #3) and coordinated by the senior administrator in each school responsible for undergraduate education (see recommendation #1). Individual faculty, of course, retain responsibility for the intellectual content of their courses and departments for the design of majors that encompass critical disciplinary findings and methods. But, it is worth periodic reflection to assess whether the sum total of our academic efforts offers our graduates the very best preparation.

Recommendation 25

Assure an array of offerings that reflect the diversity of our campus, city, and nation, including developing a special speaker's series to bring the University community together for at least two major events each year that would focus on issues of diversity.

A systematic, university-wide study of current offerings should be made to assess the extent to which this objective is fulfilled by existing programs. To the extent that additional, conscious efforts are needed to focus the collective attention of the community on diversity issues, senior officers should provide leadership for these programs.

Recommendation 26

Increase efforts to recruit under-represented ethnic minority staff, especially in those areas that provide student services, and prepare a detailed plan for hiring under-represented administrative staff, complete with action steps and an aggressive timetable.

In order to employ the most talented staff, we must ensure that recruitment efforts yield persons from all ethnic groups. We need the talents and expertise of ethnic minorities. Additionally we need the diversity of perspective that maximizes creative thought and effective problem solving. However, it is not enough simply to hire under-represented staff; they must be mentored and fully empowered to contribute to the excellence of the institution. Programs for mentoring and staff development should be expanded to emphasize the professional development of current under-represented ethnic minority staff for advancement and leadership so that, at the very top, the diversity of the University's staff reflects the full range of human resources.

Recommendations Regarding Student Life

Recommendation 27

Create a coherent, comprehensive residential program, supported by appropriate housing and dining services, that provides Hopkins undergraduates who live in University housing with a variety of living/learning options that support and enhance their academic experience while strengthening the sense of campus community.

More can be done to ensure that the residential life at Hopkins contributes in significant ways to the educational, personal, and social development of undergraduate students, and to the collective life that they enjoy. This means moving beyond concern with physical facilities (though they, too, factor importantly in the quality of the experience) to consideration of the quality of the interactions that take place within them. Many of our peers, such as Yale, Princeton, and the University of Chicago, have some version of a residential college, usually with a live-in faculty member, a house or residence master, along with a residence head (generally a graduate student). At Duke, for instance, first-year students can apply to one of 11 FOCUS (First-year Opportunity for Comprehensive, Unified Study) residential learning communities. Some universities, such as Penn and Cornell, have recently made very significant investments in the construction or renovation of residence halls and in major program initiatives to enrich residential life, including the engagement of faculty as associates of residence halls. Washington University has enjoyed success and found that small investments can pay big dividends. They began with just six residential houses, staffed by senior faculty, who seemed more eager to participate than junior faculty. Residential colleges, however, do not necessarily require live-in faculty or graduate students. We may well want to consider models where faculty members have responsibility for programming and sometimes for advising, but live elsewhere.

Many of our peers also offer the option of designated theme houses which seem limited only by scholarly imagination, and range from academic interests (Eco-House, Women's Studies) to languages (Chinese Language House), ethnic groups (African-Caribbean House), to community service and outreach, to future entrepreneurs and fitness buffs, to co- ops of one sort or another, including an intriguing Trip Hammer House where all students must help cook, clean, and repair and maintain the property. We think Hopkins should consider experimenting with offering as one housing option theme housing on a small scale, perhaps using a system where groups can identify a common broad interest, apply and then be evaluated regularly, as Wesleyan does each semester with its extensive program housing, to ensure that the academic and community objectives are being met.

To judge the demand for various kinds of housing, we included the options of residential colleges and thematic housing on a questionnaire distributed during the spring to Homewood students. The responses showed active interest in considering living in a residential college but less interest in thematic housing. Feedback after the CUE interim report also showed concern that somehow themed housing would exacerbate the divisions that students now feel. Certainly, in developing future housing options, Hopkins should allow room for different kinds of experiments in residential housing while putting a premium on strengthening the sense of community and the broad educational and social benefits that come from exposure to the rich diversity of one's classmates. A balance should be sought between residence halls that cater to intellectually defined themes, language and ethnic interests, and social and community service. Mindful of the unequal distribution of ethnic groups, care should be taken to avoid clustering which might lend itself to a diminished experience for all.

Recommendation 28

Begin immediately to develop new residences at Homewood which would, over a period of no more than 10 years, guarantee four years of housing to all Arts & Sciences and Engineering undergraduates who wish to remain in University housing. Explore the feasibility of accommodating Nursing, School of Professional Studies in Business and Education, and Peabody students in Homewood residential options.

The shortage of housing has a profound impact on student life and institutional affection. Housing arrangements involve matters of convenience, personal security, student engagement, and the development of a sense of community. The absence of university-sponsored housing for third and fourth-year students sends a signal that they are not a priority.

The actual design of the housing facilities is important in fostering a sense of community, and it may be that the character of the housing is as important as its perceived quality. The consensus seemed to be that having at least the option of four-year housing would go a long way toward keeping juniors and seniors connected to campus. We learned that students (or at least their parents) seem willing to pay a 20% premium for the benefits of university housing, such as furnished rooms, high-speed Internet access, security, and proximity. We also learned that such housing could be self-supporting and so pay for itself while benefiting the campus.

Fully half of the students who commented on housing in our CSEQ survey supported four-year housing, many passionately, believing that it would contribute significantly to the development of a sense of campus community. According to another survey, with few exceptions, almost all of our 30 peer institutions guarantee housing for juniors and seniors, even institutions that are much larger or are in extremely expensive housing markets.

To gauge just how many Hopkins students would consider university housing for their junior and senior years, and what sort of housing they would be looking for, a questionnaire was distributed in the 2003 spring semester. The results support student interest in university housing, with 90% percent indicating the likelihood of choosing university facilities. We want also to explore the possibility of accommodating Nursing, School of Professional Studies in Business and Education, and Peabody students in Homewood residential options, something that we think would be mutually beneficial and would promote a greater sense of University-wide community. In addition, the increased opportunities for interaction among music, nursing, engineering and liberal arts students in their residences would enhance the educational experience for all.

Recommendation 29

Explore the possibility of a "freshman campus" on the west side of Charles Street.

Students tell us, and student affairs administrators confirm, that the first-year students most satisfied with their residential experience are those who live in the Alumni Memorial Residences, Hopkins' most traditionally configured residence halls. Students consider the old AMR's to be effective at building community, whatever their other drawbacks. A common eating environment, non-suite style living, and common bathroom facilities seem to actually encourage a sense of belonging. While this experience may be quickly outgrown as interest in privacy and comfort become more important, the fact is that first-year students find that communal living fosters strong bonds with classmates and effective exposure to diverse individuals, something that the Marines learned long ago. The Commission believes that all first-year students should be able to enjoy the same educational benefits of residential life and that an investment in making this possible would pay big dividends in student satisfaction and alumni loyalty as well.

The feasibility of housing all freshmen in the vicinity of the AMR's should therefore be explored. Such a plan, bold as it is, would create a sense of esprit and facilitate programming that integrates the academic and social experiences of students, including engaging faculty in creative ways. By providing alternative housing for the freshmen now housed in McCoy and Wolman, more space would be made available to sophomores and juniors. A reformed residential system would thus provide a progression from a traditional residence hall experience for first-year students, to a semi-structured residential setting for sophomores where infrastructure and staff would be provided, to more independent living in university-owned and operated residential facilities such as Homewood and the new Charles Village development under consideration. See also recommendation #34.

Recommendation 30

Develop campus facilities to support the need for informal, social interaction as well as for group study.

There is a real demand on all our campuses for places to simply relax, chat, and take a break between classes. This need affects faculty as well as students and certainly the degree of interaction between them at Homewood, Peabody, and Nursing. SPSBE students are acutely aware of the need for spaces to engage with their classmates and even fulfill the more mundane need to grab a bite before their evening classes. The new Recreation Center has been universally hailed as a vital addition to the Homewood campus, and the Mattin Center similarly has provided welcome support for selected student groups and a superb home for the arts. But, these facilities do not fulfill the more general need on campus to create a larger campus community. While on many other campuses, student unions (also called campus centers) have provided a social hub, it is not clear presently whether a new student union would address the root of the problem and improve the campus culture at Hopkins. What is clear is that students do need space to come together, that such space is badly lacking at Hopkins, and that the current Homewood "union" (Levering Hall) does not meet expressed needs.

In the short term, creative use of space seems to be the key. Transforming barren spaces into active and welcoming ones takes more imagination than money, and a start in this direction is being made in Levering, with the addition of electronic games, small concerts, more comfortable furniture, and better food. Late hours seem essential, since student clocks are set rather later than faculty and staff clocks. We should also seek to take advantage of the talents of Peabody students who could contribute, for example, to the offerings of a coffee house or jazz club. The need for group space is not solely for social programs. Just as there can be more programming in the residence halls, there could be informal conversations with faculty and staff in informal spaces. Students also need facilities where they can work collaboratively on class projects and participate in study groups. Our physical facilities can help to mitigate the effects of competition among student by supporting such collaborative learning efforts.

Recommendation 31

Provide interdivisional programming and intramural sports opportunities (including field space) that create a greater sense of community for Homewood, Peabody, Nursing, and SPSBE students.

While students applaud the role they have been given in planning campus events, they would like to see programming designed with a broader audience in mind, and more administrative responsibility for university-wide programming. Campus events, like the curriculum, seem often to Balkanize rather than galvanize the Hopkins community. Peabody and Nursing students feel especially disenfranchised in this respect. They would like to meet their counterparts at Homewood, and would like to see events that make a real effort to be inclusive. Peabody has 'rush' tickets available to Homewood students, but this is not widely known. Cross-campus programming built around Peabody events, including a series of informal performances by Peabody students at other Hopkins campuses, is also worth considering. We should consider the institution (or re-institution) of various activities, such as fall formals, all night gigs at the Museum of Visionary Arts, and celebrations of the last day of classes.

There is a strong sense that Hopkins needs more traditions, even if, like most traditions, they need to be invented. This is the 'celebrative community' the Carnegie Foundation report discusses, events that provide students with a sense of history and belonging. In their survey responses, many students deeply resented what they considered the loss of the few traditions Hopkins has, such as Spring Fair and commencement on the main quad. Fortunately, Spring Fair was returned to the quads this year, and plans have been developed to conduct commencement at Homewood Field with certain nice touches.

More frequent shuttles that run later hours are also needed. We have not always taken advantage of our best assets. With a first-class athletic facility, we should develop a first-class intramural sports program, which offers a welcome break from studies and also fosters camaraderie, by floor or building or theme house. As new buildings increasingly crowd Homewood, fields for intramural and recreational sports are badly needed. Peabody and Nursing students should be included in these programs since their campuses lack green space. Again, we are perhaps limited more by imagination than funding.

Recommendation 32

Increase participation and leadership of academic administrators in student life, making their presence known on their campuses.

Academic administrators should engage regularly with students in both formal and informal situations.

Deans of each school should meet formally with their student councils every month.

The President and Provost of the University should meet each semester with Student Council leadership.

Recommendation 33

Improve food quality and service at Homewood so that it can effectively function as an essential element in community building.

Student complaints about the food at Homewood were dismal. Again and again students compared Hopkins dining very unfavorably to what they find at other schools. Students not only feel poorly fed, but angry about what they regard as excessive prices. SPSBE students have special needs in the evening and on weekends, when dining operations appear to operate on the assumption that eating is an activity reserved for Monday-Friday. The responsible administrators are aware of what peer institutions are doing, and they are experimenting with a number of ideas, such as Megabytes, Jay Store, and other 'grab and go' options. Reinstating the meal equivalency in Levering has quieted some of the storm, but we must provide what students really want at a price they can afford. Other top schools have successful board plans and contractors offering quality and value that satisfies students and administrators.

Better food is essential, but dining should be about conversation and camaraderie, not just eating. We need to create a number of evenings at which dinner is used to foster a sense of community. And, we should take advantage of opportunities to involve faculty in making meals a time for stimulating exchange and interaction.

Recommendation 34

Support partnerships to enhance the Charles Village neighborhood and to develop additional amenities that could improve the quality of life for Charles Village residents as well as Hopkins faculty, students and staff.

During the public comment period in February and March, CUE received a number of questions and supportive comments about current efforts to enhance the Charles Village community -- for both the citizens of Baltimore and faculty, students and staff of Johns Hopkins. Constituents suggested that expanding housing and parking options, and strengthening pedestrian-friendly retail operations in the neighborhood to the immediate east of the Homewood campus, where many Hopkins students live, would not only help to develop the sense of community that seems to be lacking at Hopkins, but also would help to sustain it over the long term. A thriving, energetic "college town" that meets the needs of the citizens who live in Charles Village as well as those of the Hopkins community would be attractive not only to current undergraduates, but also to prospective students, graduate students, faculty/staff, and alumni. In addition, students from other Johns Hopkins campuses, such as Peabody and East Baltimore, would find it an increasingly attractive place to live.

Supporting current and future initiatives to enhance Charles Village would facilitate a number of other CUE recommendations: providing guaranteed student housing, expanding theme housing options, improving food quality and services, and creating a greater sense of community among the five undergraduate divisions. Furthermore, a stronger sense of neighborhood may enable expanded opportunities for community service, just as the process of partnering with Charles Village leaders and others can strengthen civic engagement for undergraduates.

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