The Johns Hopkins University | Commission on Undergraduate Education

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

CHAPTER 7
Conclusion and Next Steps

The Commission has presented a large number of recommendations, thirty-four to be exact. Certain of the Commission's recommendations are likely to have more resonance in some divisions than in others. Not all the recommendations are of equal weight, complexity, or cost. In general, the Commission sees several ways in which its recommendations can be supported. Some proposals are matters of policy changes, restructuring, communication and coordination. The implementation of some might appropriately be done by administrative action; some would require consideration by relevant faculty bodies; and others still the active participation of students. A number of the Commission's recommendations could be implemented at little or no expense, while others would require the identification of significant new resources, presumably through the present University fund-raising campaign that recognizes undergraduate needs among the priorities.

While preliminary estimates have been made regarding a few proposals, e.g., numbers of additional courses that should be offered to provide sufficient small group experiences at Homewood, no systematic cost projections yet have been developed. An important part of the next phase of the follow-up to the Commission's work will be to understand more fully the financial implications of moving forward within these recommendations, as they are particularized to specific divisional contexts. This exercise is best carried out by those administrators and faculty members closest to the context, especially in light of Hopkins' decentralized financial models.

Whatever the estimates, we expect that the costs of enhancing quality are not trivial. But, the Commission thinks that more substantial costs will be incurred by not addressing the improvement of the undergraduate experience. As noted in Chapter 2, in recent years, many of our peer institutions have focused significant effort and resources to enhance their undergraduate programs. As a result, these universities have increased the quality of their programs and their attractiveness to prospective students.

It should be relatively easy to realize some immediate small successes by moving quickly to address the "low hanging fruit" among the Commission's recommendations. However, were the net results of the Commission's efforts to be only the "easy pickings," we would not have succeeded in bringing about substantial enhancement to the undergraduate experience at Hopkins.

The Commission has thus considered carefully the matter of establishing priorities for all its recommendations. The fact that the circumstances differ in each of the five schools that offer undergraduate programs makes the ordering of priorities particularly difficult. Some issues are simply not problems in each of our schools. Notwithstanding this, the Commission feels strongly that certain of its recommendations are vital to the enhancement of the undergraduate experience and that, without action on these key proposals, it will be very difficult to improve the environment in substantial ways. The Commission thus commends for special attention three of its recommendations that are most important and most challenging: the provision of small group or "capstone" experiences for upperclassmen, guaranteed university housing for Homewood students, and a significant increase in the diversity of the undergraduate student body. We urge administrative leaders to embrace these priorities and devote extra efforts to advancing these objectives, including the identification of resources. We also recommend that the deans of each of the schools, working closely with faculty, staff, and students, further refine the priorities for their division and develop appropriate implementation plans.

Having cautioned against preoccupation with "low hanging fruit," however, the Commission notes with satisfaction the fact that action is already underway in several areas to address needs identified by the Commission and/or to implement Commission recommendations. Admissions offices report progress on diversifying the applicant pool in terms of academic interest and minority candidates. A conversation has been begun with directors of career advising and alumni affairs offices about developing an internship program that would draw on alumni connections. The Homewood Academic Council is seriously examining the weight of teaching in the appointments, promotions, and tenure process. The teacher course evaluation process is being reviewed at Homewood. The Krieger School of Arts & Sciences has appointed a Vice Dean for Undergraduate Education whose charge it will be to oversee enhancements to the undergraduate experience. The Deans of each of the schools with undergraduate programs have agreed to meet periodically to discuss issues that affect the undergraduate experience across their divisions. A major planning effort is underway to consider ways to maximize the residential experience for undergraduate students, including developments in Charles Village that show promise of improving the quality of life for all its residents. Improvements to the quality of the dining ambience and the food are being implemented. And the list could go on.

The next steps of the process of particularizing the Commission's final report to each of the five undergraduate divisions will be tied effectively to the University's institutional self-study that is part of the re- accreditation process Johns Hopkins will undergo in the coming year. The Commission report is in essence the cornerstone of the focused examination on undergraduate education, and, in the next phase of work, school working groups will carry out the charge to refine priorities, formulate implementation plans, and develop outcome measures. They will also be asked to pay specific attention to linking these initiatives and other extant programs and services to the demonstration of compliance with the specific standards required by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education.

Those readers attentive to the state of higher education will recognize that not all of the Commission's proposals are distinctive, nor are many of them particularly novel. But, in the context of Johns Hopkins, and taken together, these recommendations have the potential to change significantly the culture for undergraduates and the quality of their experience. We think there are other things that also could be done. On university campuses, there is no shortage of good ideas. Had time permitted, the Commission would have liked, for example, to explore further creative ways that graduate students could better contribute to the undergraduate program and to leverage the well-developed international aspects of the University in the interest of the undergraduate experience. Before we can undertake initiatives to capitalize further on our institutional comparative advantages, however, we have more fundamental needs to address.

In the end, we recognized that a single commission cannot hope to address every legitimate concern, nor can it hope to fix every problem or take advantage of every opportunity in the short term. Accordingly, a number of the Commission's recommendations speak to the establishment of a structure that will institutionalize an ongoing commitment to enhancing the undergraduate experience. The fact that the Commission included members from the several divisions has provided a diversity of experience and perspective that has enriched the Commission's discussion. Commission members have learned from one another, and we think this kind of cross-fertilization should be continued.

The Commission does not see itself as having exclusive ownership of this agenda, nor its recommendations as being, in and of themselves, sufficient to bring about all the quality improvements we are ultimately seeking. Our recommendations are designed to challenge the administration and faculty of the five schools that confer undergraduate degrees to renew and revitalize their undergraduate programs. The recommendations seek to balance the traditions of departmental responsibility with more oversight. We do not want to transform Hopkins into another type of university but rather to ensure excellence in the undergraduate program.

If the undergraduate experience is to be enhanced, it will take the collective efforts of many individuals, most notably faculty members who propel this university forward on so many fronts. The Commission will be satisfied if its report is seen as a foundation on which to build both the commitment and the structures that will maintain ongoing efforts to offer an undergraduate program of real excellence, both inside the classroom and outside.

The Commission sees its report as the beginning of a conversation, one that the University has needed to have, and one that should continue. The very fact that Johns Hopkins has, in earnest, joined this discussion has created a certain momentum on campus, one that seems likely to propel us closer to full realization of the simple aim of Johns Hopkins' first President, Daniel Coit Gilman: "to make scholars, strong, bright, useful, and true" and to the challenge of preparing "for the service of society, a class of students who will be wise, thoughtful, progressive guides in whatever department of work or thought they may be engaged."

GO TO CUE TABLE OF CONTENTS

GO TO JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY REPORTS

GO TO JHUNIVERSE