University Honors Program
Self-Study
September 15, 2003
Prepared by:
Alice B. Fulton, Director
Robert F. Kirby, Assistant Director
Table of Contents
Special Questions to Be Addressed in the Review ........................................................................................iii
Procedures for Review of Non-Departmental Units ....................................................................................... v
Mission and Objectives.................................................................................................................................. 1
Complementary Roles of the University Honors Program, the Colleges and Departments ........................... 1
Current Requirements for the University Honors Program and Modifications to Improve the
Focus of the Program on Actively Involved Students..................................................................................... 2
Possible Benefits and Costs of Moving toward a More Elite Model for Membership in the
Honors Program ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Program Changes Since the Last Review ..................................................................................................... 4
Requirements to Graduate with Honors in the Major ..................................................................................... 7
Reasons Students Elect or Do Not Elect to Graduate with Honors in the Major............................................ 8
Student Use of Honors Advising and Programming....................................................................................... 8
Communication Lines between the University Honors Program, the Colleges, and Departments............... 10
Communication Between the University Honors Program and Graduates .................................................. 11
Composition and Role of the Honors Faculty Advisory Committee.............................................................. 12
Opportunities Created by the Move to the New Blank Honors Center ......................................................... 12
Comparisons with Other Big Ten Honors Programs and Colleges .............................................................. 14
Table of Appendices.................................................................................................................................... 17
1. CLAS Departments with Their Number of Majors, Number, and Proportion of University
Honors Program Students (Spring 2003)........................................................................................ 19
2. CLAS Department Graduates, Graduates with Honors, and Proportion of Graduates
with Honors (2002/2003) ................................................................................................................ 21
3. Honors Program Financial Review ................................................................................................. 23
4. Student Feedback .......................................................................................................................... 25
5. 1995 External and Internal Committee Review Reports ................................................................. 27
6. Departmental Honors Requirements .............................................................................................. 55
7. Advisors Table................................................................................................................................ 59
8. Student Participation in Honors Co-Curricular Programs................................................................ 61
9. Student Open Comments and Program Response......................................................................... 63
10. Staffing Needs in the Blank Honors Center .................................................................................... 65
11. Comparisons between the University of Iowa Honors Program and Other Honors Programs
in the Big Ten ................................................................................................................................ 69
12. Honors Program Prospective Student Handouts ............................................................................ 91
University Honors Program Self-Study
i
University Honors Program
Special Questions to Be Addressed in the Review
[The Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (CLAS), the Associate Provost for
Undergraduate Programs, and the Director of the Honors Center conferred on the scope of
the review, including which of the issues in the College’s Procedures for Review of Nondepartmental Units the review should focus on and what additional questions specific to the
unit the review should address.]
Focus of the Review:
Making the Honors Program more proactive in the accomplishment of its mission and
more attractive to the University’s most serious undergraduates.
Special Questions:
1.
In answering the questions on mission and objectives in the CLAS Procedures for
Review of Non-departmental Units, provide information on the numbers of students
engaged in the program, by year, college, and department. How many students in
the University Honors Program are not in collegiate honors programs? Please
supply a table that shows the requirements for graduating with honors in the various
colleges and departments of the University. Explain the role that colleges and
departments have in setting the requirements for graduation with honors, and
explain what distinguishes the Honors Program from collegiate or departmental
honors offerings. How can we prevent the confusion that currently exists between
the Honors Program and the collegiate and departmental honors requirements?
2.
In answering the questions on mission and objectives, analyze the current
requirements for the Honors Program. While the College and University support
automatic membership in the program for qualified entering students, the lack of
requirements for participating in order to maintain that membership raises the question
of what it means to “be” in the Honors Program at Iowa. Are there ways to modify the
automatic admission policy that would increase the focus of the program on actively
involved students?
•
Provide data on student attrition and persistence in the Program for students
admitted to it automatically as first-year students, and on rates of completion of the
honors degree. What has the Program learned about reasons why eligible
students do not participate in the Honors Program or do not elect to complete the
requirements for an honors degree? Please survey active Honors students (as
defined by listserv subscription) in different departments about their reasons for
electing or not electing to graduate with honors. Please survey departmental and
collegiate honors advisors about why students elect or do not elect to graduate
with honors. What changes should be made in student mentoring as a result of
this information?
University Honors Program Self-Study
iii
•
Analyze information available from the Registrar or Alumni Association on the
outcomes of the Program for students who graduate with honors. What are their
post-baccalaureate choices (rate of entrance to graduate or professional
programs, job placement, other measures)? How does the Honors Program
office stay in touch with students who graduate with honors?
•
In what ways might the Honors Program benefit by moving toward a more elite
model? What would be the downside?
•
What are the pros and cons of the CLAS instituting a collegiate honors offering
with additional or more stringent criteria? Would the establishment of a CLAS
Honors offering add options for students or would it compete with existing
departmental offerings?
3.
In answering the questions on quality, provide information on how peer institutions
organize and run their honors programs. What practices in use by our peers could
be adopted here? How does the proportion of students involved in Honors at Iowa
compare to those at peer institutions?
4.
In answering the question in the review procedures on important changes since
the last review, describe changes that have increased the value of the Honors
Program to participants and to the institution. What is the Program’s vision for the
next three to five years?
5.
Describe and assess the forms of communication that currently exist between the
Honors Program and departmental or collegiate honors advisors.
6.
What is the current composition of the Honors Advisory Board and its current charge
and function? Compare these to the composition, charge, and function of boards at
peer institutions, so far as information is available. How can the Board best
contribute to the health and vitality of the UI Honors Program?
7.
What opportunities will be created by the move to the new Blank Honors Center and
the closer working relationship with the Belin & Blank International Center for Gifted
Education and Talent Development? What staffing levels will be appropriate when
the Honors Center moves into the new building?
iv
University Honors Program Self-Study
PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF NON-DEPARTMENTAL UNITS
(Revised October 1999)
PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW
The review permits a systematic appraisal of the unit’s performance and direction. The
review evaluates the unit in any of the following areas that are relevant: its educational
programs and instructional efforts; its contribution to faculty research or creative work; its
support services; its facilities or special resources; and its relationships with other units in
the College and within the University. [See the appended University document, “Criteria for
Institutional Enhancements and Reductions.”]
SCOPE OF THE REVIEW
At the time the review is initiated, the Dean consults the Director of the unit on the scope of
the review, including which issues the review should focus on and what questions specific
to the unit should be addressed. The unit’s advisory committee (or members of the
affiliated faculty and staff who will serve on the self-study committee) may be included in
this consultation, at the request of the Director. This stage in the review process is
intended to ensure that the review reflects the current situation of the unit and anticipates
changes in the relatively near term, creates an opportunity for self-examination and
initiative, and promotes productive conversation on the review issues with the review
committee and ultimately with the College.
The scope of the review must include at least the questions below on mission, quality,
and progress made since the previous review. The scope will also include questions
which, in the view of the College and the unit, are particularly relevant to the future of the
unit.
1.
Mission and Objectives. How does the unit define its mission? What actions has the
unit taken since formulating its last strategic plan to achieve its planning objectives?
How does the unit serve the needs of students in the College and the University?
How does the unit contribute to the research, scholarship, or creative work of faculty
associated with it?
2.
Results of Previous Review. How have the recommendations of the previous review
been implemented? What other important events or changes have occurred since the
last review?
3.
Quality. What are the strengths of the unit? How does the unit compare with similar
units at other universities?
4.
Teaching and Advising. In units that offer courses or degree programs, is the
curriculum current and appropriate? How does the unit evaluate its curriculum and
degree programs? How are the unit’s advising responsibilities met? How does the
unit involve students in its research, scholarly, and/or creative mission? If the unit
uses graduate teaching assistants in offering courses, how are they trained and
supervised?
University Honors Program Self-Study
v
In units that award a bachelor’s degree: How is the unit using the results of its
assessment of student achievement in the major to improve its instructional
programs? How does the unit participate in the University Honors Program and
should anything be done to increase this participation or improve its quality?
5.
Physical Plant. Are there problems with the space assigned to the unit? Are there
pressing equipment needs that should be resolved?
6.
Special Review Questions. At the start of the review, the College and the unit consult
on a set of questions tailored to the specific situation of the unit.
SELF–STUDY
The point of departure for the review is a self-study prepared in consultation with, and
approved by, the unit’s affiliated faculty and staff and/or the unit’s advisory committee. The
self-study narrative is 15 pages or fewer, and addresses the principal issues within the
scope of the review in sequence. To this, the unit adds appendices containing tabular data
and other supporting information, including, at a minimum, the appendices listed below.
Checklist of Appendices to the Self-Study:
a list of participating or affiliated faculty and professional staff members, and an
abbreviated, current curriculum vitae for each (no more than 2 pages will be
included in the self-study for any faculty or staff member);
a two-page summary of the unit’s strategic plan;
(where applicable) the unit’s hiring plan;
data reflecting the national standing of the unit or comparison with similar units at
other institutions;
(where applicable) the off-print of the University’s General Catalog describing the
unit’s academic programs, or other information distributed to students;
(where applicable) data on student enrollments, students in the major, minor,
and/or certificate program, and degrees or certificates awarded since the
previous review (table provided by the College and reviewed by the unit);
(where applicable) data assessing the achievements of undergraduate and
graduate students completing the unit’s programs each year since the previous
review;
the current budget from all sources, including state funds, UI Foundation
accounts, and external funds (preliminary table provided by the College and
reviewed/augmented by the unit);
(where applicable) a summary record of external research support since the
previous review;
other materials appropriate for the description of the unit’s mission.
vi
University Honors Program Self-Study
WORK OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE
Appointment of Internal and External Committee Members. The Dean appoints the
internal members of the review committee in consultation with the College’s Executive
Committee and Associate Deans. In some cases, the Dean may also appoint one or more
external reviewers. The Dean appoints external members of the committee after soliciting
nominations from the unit and other appropriate sources and consulting the Executive
Committee and the Associate Deans.
Review Visit. The unit under review and the Office of the Dean cooperate in preparing the
schedule of the reviewers’ interviews. The review begins with an orientation meeting with
the Dean and Associate Deans. The members of the review committee then interview
faculty, staff, and students in the unit as well as any faculty or administrators outside the
unit who are suggested by the unit, the College, or the reviewers themselves. The
reviewers may meet with affiliated faculty and staff individually or in groups.
If an external reviewer is appointed, the internal and external reviewers conduct these
interviews jointly during the external review visit. The review visit concludes with an exit
interview with the Dean, the Dean of the Graduate College (if the unit has a graduate
program), and the Vice Provost or other representative of the Provost’s office. Consistent
with the practices governing site visits of professional accrediting teams, the College asks
that external reviewers not receive or accept social invitations, including invitations to
meals, from individual faculty members or subgroups in the unit being reviewed, in order to
ensure that the review process is fair and neutral and that it is perceived as fair and neutral.
Review Report. The review committee submits a report to the Dean summarizing its
conclusions and recommendations. The Dean transmits the review report to the unit.
Any evaluative comments about identified or identifiable persons (including the unit’s
director) must be separately reported to the Dean, who will notify the persons commented
on and provide them access to the comments. The Dean shall maintain the confidentiality
of these comments as needed.
REVIEW OF THE DIRECTOR
University policy requires that long-term administrators undergo periodic evaluation. For
directors serving extended terms, these evaluations are conducted as part of the unit’s
review, when possible. The internal review committee may be asked to submit a
confidential report to the Dean on the performance of the unit’s director, separate from the
review report on the unit itself.
This confidential assessment focuses on issues related to the achievement of the
unit’s mission and the well-being of faculty, staff, and students affected by the unit. The
committee’s information-gathering procedures should provide for all faculty and staff
associated with the unit to participate in the evaluating the director. The Dean will share
the evaluation with the director, maintaining confidentiality as necessary, and will transmit
the substance of the report to the unit’s faculty and staff. The review of the director, like
other materials evaluating individuals, does not become part of the review file that is
available to members of the University community or general public.
University Honors Program Self-Study
vii
UNIT’S RESPONSE TO THE REVIEW REPORT
The Dean, in transmitting the review committee report, will solicit a written response,
including the correction of any factual errors, from the unit.
COLLEGIATE RESPONSE TO THE REVIEW MATERIALS
The Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences or the Dean’s designate (and the
Dean of the Graduate College, where appropriate) will then discuss the self-study, the
review report, and the response of the unit with the Educational Policy Committee (if the
unit is primarily an academic program) and/or with the Executive Committee (if the unit has
significant budget implications) before transmitting the written response to the review. The
review process officially concludes with the transmission to the unit of the Collegiate
response.
ACCESS TO REVIEW DOCUMENTS
When the Deans’ response to the review has been transmitted to the unit, all the review
materials are treated as public documents, except those (like the assessment of the DEO
or other individuals) that are prepared with an explicit expectation of confidentiality.
The unit’s director shares the College’s response with affiliated faculty and staff and/or
with the unit’s advisory committee. The unit makes the review materials available to its
affiliated faculty, staff, and students. The College will make the review documents available
to others upon request.
TIMETABLE
The review process will normally be completed in slightly more than a year from the time
the unit begins the self-study.
•
The Dean will notify each unit of the schedule of its review.
•
The Dean will arrange that some self-studies begin in August and some in January; the
self-study is due at the end of the semester in which it is started.
•
The internal and external members of the review committee will be scheduled to
conduct their interviews in the semester following the preparation of the self-study.
•
If the review committee submits its report at the end of the spring semester or during the
summer session, the unit may convey its response early in the fall semester.
viii
University Honors Program Self-Study
The mission of the University of Iowa Honors Program is to
ensure that all highly capable undergraduate students at the
University of Iowa have the opportunity to develop fully, both academically and personally.
To accomplish this, the Program:
Mission and Objectives
•
•
•
offers challenging courses and works with departments to develop honors courses in
the disciplines
provides informal honors and scholarship advising and assists the Academic
Advising Center and the departments in providing honors advising
presents an array of co-curricular activities, from honors housing to arts, volunteer,
and foreign policy events
Students who use the resources of the Honors Program fully can integrate their academic
preparation with personal growth as they develop into aware, thoughtful and responsible
citizens.
The University Honors Program serves
undergraduates in all colleges with undergraduates.
It does so by offering courses, co-curricular
programming, and a learning community, among
other services. Four colleges (Business, Education, Engineering, and Nursing, but not
Liberal Arts and Sciences) have collegiate honors programs that set and oversee the
requirements to graduate with honors. In CLAS, this function is performed by the
departments, usually without a formal structure as an honors program.
Complementary Roles of the
University Honors Program, the
Colleges, and Departments
In all the undergraduate colleges, being a member of the University Honors Program is
a minimum requirement for graduation with honors. Beyond this minimum, each of the
colleges apart from Liberal Arts and Sciences and each department within the College
independently sets the requirements for graduation. In almost all cases, graduation with
honors entails a substantial capstone project, either a thesis requiring a year or more of
research or a performance or production of comparable difficulty. In many cases, it
additionally entails course work to prepare for or to complement the capstone project.
Some colleges and departments also require a higher GPA than the University Honors
Program. This higher GPA usually reflects the grading practices within that subject, the
population of students, or the availability of resources in that area. The University Honors
Program works with departments and colleges to ensure that the requirements for
graduation with honors are appropriate and to assist in devising requirements that meet the
situation of that department or college.
The University Honors Program plays a role complementary to that of departments and
colleges in the education of honors students. The course offerings of the Honors Program
are predominantly directed toward the first two to three years of student study. They offer
challenging course work at a level that includes the General Education Program so that
bright students can explore a wide range of topics. The Honors Program also offers
research opportunities that allow Honors students to explore research before committing to
departmental honors. In addition, the flexible offerings of the Honors Program allow some
University Honors Program Self-Study
1
honors students to complement their departmental honors with research in other areas. For
example, recently a global studies student undertook a research practicum in anatomy to
learn more about cancer research. An additional difference between the University Honors
Program and collegiate and departmental honors offerings is that membership in the
University Honors Program is, in most cases, offered automatically and entails no
obligations. Membership in collegiate and departmental honors programs in most cases
takes initiative on the part of students to participate.
The University Honors Program offers a variety of co-curricular programs as well. These
are open to all Honors students and are an important venue for students from different
colleges to meet and interact. These will be discussed later.
At present, entering students are
automatically admitted to the Honors
Program if they have an ACT score of 29 or
higher and are in the top 10% of their class.
They may also be automatically admitted
with a combination of ACT scores and
class rank comparable to this. Entering transfer students with 24 or more hours of credit
and a GPA of 3.2 or higher in previous college work are also automatically admitted.
Students already enrolled at the University who attain a 3.2 University of Iowa GPA are
also automatically admitted to the Honors Program when they reach that GPA.
Current Requirements for the University
Honors Program and Modifications to
Improve the Focus of the Program on
Actively Involved Students
These admission requirements lead to a student membership of approximately five
thousand students in the University Honors Program, with two-thirds of these students
enrolled in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. The majority of students who are in the
Honors Program are upper-class students who earned admission after they became
students at the University. The number of honors
2500
students by academic year can be seen in the
graph on the right. While these numbers
2000
represent a very large population of senior
1500
students, it is important to remember that
Honors
students who continue their studies beyond the
Students
1000
fourth year are still listed as A4 students.
500
Additional information on the breakdown of
0
honors students by academic department and
A1
A2
A3
A4
rates of graduation with honors in the major can
be found in Appendices 1 and 2. There is a large
degree of variability in the number and percentage of honors students, and their rates of
graduation, across academic departments.
In the coming year, the University Honors Program will work with its faculty advisory
council to examine the possibility that the entrance requirements should be raised both in
light of grade inflation over the past ten years and the experience of the Program with
automatic admissions. Automatic admissions began six years ago, and our experience has
led us to believe that higher standards would confer membership on the students most
2
University Honors Program Self-Study
likely to use the opportunities of the University Honors Program. We will be working with
the Office of Admissions to determine what admission index is predictive of remaining in
the Program once here, as it seems to us preferable to admit freshmen who will have a
substantial likelihood of continuing in the Program once at the UI. Second, we plan to
discuss the possibility of using automatic admission for students on campus only during
their first two years of enrollment. This change would ensure that most honors students
have sufficient time to pursue research or graduation with honors.
A significant number of departments and colleges offer the coursework required for
graduation with honors as early as the sophomore year, and most do so by the junior year.
Therefore, by making admission automatic only through the sophomore year, for example,
we would increase the likelihood that students admitted to the program would have a
meaningful opportunity to take advantage of it. Students beyond that point who are eligible
for the Honors Program could request admission, but it would not be automatic. Third, we
will be working with the Office of Admissions to determine what entering transfer GPA is
predictive of continuing success as it appears that the present transfer GPA is too low.
Finally, we will discuss the possibility that the continuing UI GPA needed to remain in the
program should be raised to 3.33 from the present 3.2.
The cumulative effect of these changes
should be that most of the students
automatically admitted to the University
Honors Program will be likely to remain in
the Program, and, secondly, that the
students in the Program are more likely to do research and/or to graduate with honors. Our
studies of graduation rates show that few of the students between the 3.2 and 3.33 UI GPA
are currently graduating with honors, and few of them are members of the Honors listserv,
which is an indicator for other honors activities. These changes would, in toto, allow
departmental honors advisors to work more effectively with the students who are likely to
benefit from departmental honors offerings. Earlier membership in the Honors Program
would also increase the likelihood of interactions between honors students, resulting in a
greater sense of community and an enhanced academic experience.
Possible Benefits and Costs of Moving
toward a More Elite Model for
Membership in the Honors Program
Changing the model could also have negative effects, but some of these may be
avoidable. One disadvantage could be that with fewer honors students, it might become
more difficult to have a sufficient enrollment in honors sections and courses to continue to
offer the range of courses presently available to students. It would be most unfortunate if
requirements were changed in a way that actually reduced honors opportunities for
students. It is possible that research into which current honors students take honors
sections and classes might give insight into how great a difficulty this could be. A second
disadvantage is that some students who presently graduate with honors in their major
would not be able to do so under the new policy. The percentage of students who would fall
in the 3.2 to 3.33 range who also graduate with honors is small, but this experience is
meaningful to those students in most cases. The University Honors Program could work
with departments to assure them that students could enroll for and receive academic credit
for thesis work; however, they would not receive the full recognition of departmental
University Honors Program Self-Study
3
honors. Another disadvantage might be that students who entered under the previous
requirements and would be removed from the program might feel that their expectations
had been violated.
If these changes were made, it would be important to ensure that doing so did not
create an image of the University Honors Program as one that was of interest to only the
very highest academically achieving students or one of students who preened themselves
on being exceptional and in some way more valuable than other students, as an
atmosphere of elitism is more likely to drive students away from the program than to
encourage them to enter. There would be difficulties during the transition from the old to the
new standards, as it would be necessary to communicate with a large number of
departments and colleges. Presumably these difficulties would be transient if sufficient
effort were made to involve these bodies in the initial decision and to communicate the
changes to them fully.
There have been many important changes
in the University Honors Program since the
last review. The first and most significant is the Rhodes Dunlap endowment. While the
endowment was established before the last review, use of Rhodes Dunlap funds for
scholarships and student programming did not fully begin until after the review occurred.
Since that time, the endowment has provided a wealth of opportunities for students to work
with faculty, to become more involved in the university and community, and to meet the
costs of their college education. A second change to the program is the addition of a broad
range of course options for honors students, providing General Education courses for
students early in their academic career and capstone courses to complete their
undergraduate education. A third development is the establishment of an honors learning
community. Four floors of Daum residence hall house first-year honors students, providing
space for 160 academically motivated freshmen to learn from one another and to receive
special programming. The last two years have also brought a strong commitment to
recruiting and use of electronic resources. These improvements allow strong students to
gain more from their undergraduate experience at Iowa than ever before.
Program Changes Since the Last Review
Funding from the Rhodes Dunlap endowment provides scholarships, research and
travel awards, and co-curricular programming for students at the University. Approximately
thirty-two students across the undergraduate degree-granting colleges are awarded $3000
scholarships from this endowment each academic year. With the growth of the endowment,
and an increasingly high caliber of students receiving the awards, a new series of Rhodes
Dunlap scholarships was created for students early in their academic career. These firstand second-year awards, initiated during the 2001-2002 academic year, help recognize
students who are on the right track academically and have taken the initiative to get
involved broadly in the University. Students who receive Rhodes Dunlap awards
consistently involve themselves in research, contribute to the University through service on
committees and students organizations, and go on to graduate with honors and distinction.
Rhodes Dunlap funds also increase student/faculty interaction through a research grant
program initiated in 1997. This program provides small grants of up to $500 to cover
expenses associated with student research. In the last two years, we have actively
4
University Honors Program Self-Study
promoted these grants to students involved in senior research projects and to departmental
honors advisors, leading to a tremendous increase in their use (see graph below) with
nearly one hundred students receiving over $40,000 in grant support during the last
academic year. While they are not part of our University budget allocation, they are
reflected in the “other funds” category of the
Honors Program Financial Review (Appendix 3).
$50,000
$40,000
While stimulating the involvement of students
in faculty research, the Rhodes Dunlap
Re
s
e
arch
endowment also provided for broadening the
$20,000
Support
educational experience of students in the
$10,000
University through extracurricular activities. These
$0
activities include arts, volunteer, cultural/diversity,
97/98 99/00 01/02
foreign relations, and presidential scholars
programs as well as a weekly guest speaker
series that are coordinated by our student staff members. Each program provides a number
of opportunities that enrich the experience of honors students—from attending world-class
performances at Hancher Auditorium, to meeting with Pulitzer prize winners and U.S.
diplomats, to building homes with Habitat for Humanity. Our students’ great appreciation for
these opportunities is evident in a review of our survey responses (highlighted in
Appendix 4). Approximately $15,000 is spent annually on student programming from the
Rhodes Dunlap account, consistent with the recommendation of the previous program
review (Appendix 5.1).
$30,000
The previous review also highlighted the need to increase academic opportunities for
honors students. The committee felt that the course offerings were top heavy, becoming
available to students only late in their academic career. Therefore the University Honors
Program, with the support and cooperation of the colleges and departments, has provided
a slate of course offerings that students can use early in their academic career to meet
General Education requirements. These courses are available in a number of formats, from
small seminars of fewer than twenty students, created and taught only for honors students,
to laboratory or discussion sections of general University courses specifically set aside for
honors students. Specific honors course options are augmented by the “honors course
designation,” which allows students in non-honors courses to receive honors credit for
additional depth of study on the course topic. While initially developed to increase student
interactions with faculty in introductory courses, they have recently been used by
departments to provide capstone opportunities for students within the major, at times even
helping meet departmental requirements for graduation with honors.
University Honors Program Self-Study
5
1250
Total
Honors
Enrollments
1000
750
Honors
Designation
500
250
0
1997/98
1998/99 1999/00
2000/01 2001/02
2002/03
Interest in honors course work has risen consistently since its introduction in the spring
of 1996, as can be seen above. This graph presents the total number of students in honors
courses each academic year, including courses taught through the University Honors
Program, courses taught by individual departments, and honors-designation course credit.
While there is a consistent rise in students doing honors course work, with over 80%
enrollment across the eighty to eighty-five honors courses offered per year, credit for
honors designation has risen the most dramatically in the last two years (over 450%).
Another mechanism put in place to enhance the educational experience of honors
students beginning their collegiate experience was the Honors Learning Community in
Daum Residence Hall. This greatly helps develop that sense of community for incoming
honors students, not only in their first year at the University, but continuing throughout their
academic career, as many of the Daum students move to on- or off-campus locations
together at the end of their first year. These students study together, form intramural teams,
join student groups, participate in late-night discussions, and generally involve each other
in the activities of the University. We supplement these student-to-student interactions
through specific social, cultural, and academic programming done by the Honors
professional and student staff.
While a large percentage of the students directly admitted to honors out of high school
are academically successful, those who live in Daum are especially strong, earning an
average UI GPA in their first year of over 3.60. In fact, Honors Learning Community
students are more likely to
have a grade point average
90.00
80.00
of 4.00 or above (15%) at
70.00
the end of the first year
60.00
than to drop below the 3.20
All Honors
50.00
standard for continuing in
40.00
Honors Non Daum
the program (12%). These
30.00
Honors in Daum
data come from the current
20.00
10.00
academic year in which the
0.00
Honors Program has been
>3.20
>3.33
>4.00
located at a distance from
our learning community. It
can only be expected that the academic success and use of honors by students in Daum
will be improved as we move to the Blank Honors Center.
6
University Honors Program Self-Study
The new Honors Center is also expected to increase our involvement in recruiting and
ability to attract high-caliber students to the University. This was a significant area of
concern in the last review. As part of our efforts to facilitate recruiting outstanding students,
we have moved to having a professional and student staff member attending the academic
fairs during Hawkeye visit days. The Assistant Director also attends and speaks at a
luncheon with prospective students who have high ACT or SAT scores as part of these
visits. We also meet individually with prospective students as part of their campus visit.
During the past academic year, we met with nearly three hundred students on an individual
basis for thirty to sixty minutes as part of the Top Scholar recruitment effort organized
through Admissions. These visits to the Program are always hosted by one of our two
professional staff members, but we also try to include time to meet with one of our student
staff members as part of the visit. The University Honors Program works in collaboration
with an assistant director of Admissions who is committed to scholar recruitment, and
serves to organize on-campus as well as outreach programs for high-achieving students.
A table of CLAS departmental requirements to graduate
with honors in the major is included in Appendix 6. The
most significant finding noted in this table is that thirty
programs require a thesis. An additional eighteen programs
require research without specifying a thesis; three of these include writing as an additional
requirement, and some may require a written document that is not called a thesis. Twentyseven departments require students to take an honors seminar course.
Requirements to Graduate
with Honors in the Major
Only five majors do not require a thesis or research to graduate with honors in the
major. In the economics bachelor of science and in business, there is an option to graduate
with honors by taking three honors courses with papers in each. The Department of
Classics requires a series of essays and a final long paper. The Department of Russian
requires reading, discussion and writing, and the Department of Social Work requires indepth study of an area of interest.
Some CLAS departments require a higher GPA in the major than the UI GPA required
for Honors Program membership. Ten require a GPA of 3.5, four require a GPA of 3.4, two
require a GPA of 3.3, and eighteen require a GPA of 3.2 in the major. Of the remaining
departments that do not specify a GPA in the major, the requirements in other aspects may
provide a de facto GPA in the major. For example, in biochemistry a B+ or better average is
required in the three core courses to do senior research; thus, all students doing honors
research also have a GPA of 3.2 or higher in their major in almost all cases.
Thirty-four departments list other requirements for graduation with honors in the major.
For example, a number of the departments that require a research project also require
written and oral reports of the research. Other requirements include producing a web site,
performing and composing projects, having an outside area of interest, writing in the
language, and taking graduate-level seminars, proseminars, and honors tutorials.
From these requirements, it is clear that in many if not most departments, students need
to begin coursework in their junior year to graduate with honors in their major in four years.
University Honors Program Self-Study
7
This is not usually stated explicitly as a requirement of the department, but from the
sequence of courses needed, there is de facto an optimal time of entry.
We conducted a survey of honors students
by using the various honors listservs. The
anonymous survey included a text box for
free response. We received 395 responses from students as of July 15; these have been
compiled for this review. Some of the questions addressed graduating with honors and
advising:
Reasons Students Elect or Do Not Elect
to Graduate with Honors in the Major
2. Are you planning to graduate with
honors in your major?
3. Why did you choose not to
graduate with honors?
244
146
5
86 - Too little time because of work,
classes or personal reasons
45 - Didn't know about it
17 - Not interested
11 - Not eligible for department
- Yes
- No
- No response
However, of the forty-five students who listed “didn’t know about it,” twenty-two also
listed another reason such as “too little time” or “not interested.” Thus, only twenty-three of
395 students who used an honors listserv did not do honors in their major from a lack of
knowledge. The most common reason by far was “too little time.” The question did not
break this out into different reasons, but that may be pursued this fall during a follow-up
questionnaire about advising.
Honors advisors in departments provide most of the honors advising about graduating
with honors in the major. These advisors were asked for their thoughts about why students
do or do not elect to graduate with honors. They gave a variety of reasons, which repeated
and amplified the reasons given by students. Some reasons were given by several
advisors, as noted in Appendix 7. It appears from both the student and the advisor
responses that the major barrier to students’ graduating with honors is competition for time.
Only a small proportion of students appear not to be graduating with honors because of not
knowing soon enough to use the opportunity.
Information about how students used the programs and
courses offered by Honors and what areas could be
improved or expanded was also gained from the
questionnaire. Five questions asked how often students took honors courses or used cocurricular opportunities. Results are presented in Appendix 8.
Student Use of Honors
Advising and Programming
These responses show that most honors students take advantage of honors course
opportunities, with over a third doing so occasionally or often. The free tickets, volunteer
opportunities, and workshops are not used as often, but about a third of the students have
used each of these one or more times. The Foreign Relations Council lunches have been
attended by the fewest students. However, there are also fewer of these seats than there
are arts tickets, and the students who attend these lunches the most tend to be Presidential
8
University Honors Program Self-Study
scholars and applicants for international scholarships, so these lunches are serving a
particular population well.
We also asked where students were receiving honors advising. The four potential
sources are the Academic Advising Center, the Honors Program (which offers informal
advising on request), departmental honors advisors and faculty advisors. Many students
listed more than one source.
9. Where have you gotten honors advising?
119
76
80
97
140
- Academic Advising Center
- Departmental honors advisor
- Honors Program
- Faculty advisor
- No response
We are concerned that 140 students listed no source at all. Possible remedies for this are
highlighted in Appendix 9.
The last field of the questionnaire was an open comment field, “Please let us know any
other thoughts you have on what to keep and what to improve in the Honors Program.”
Slightly more than half the students (55%) left no answer. However almost all of these
students had used one or more of the services of the program, and many planned to
graduate with honors in their major. We therefore consider these students as finding the
program valuable.
For the remaining 45% of students, answers were divided as follows: strongly positive
about the program, mildly positive or requesting more of the services already offered (as
students would only want more of valued services), mildly negative, or strongly negative
comments. Of students making comments, 29% were strongly positive. These spoke
warmly of all aspects of the program: graduating with honors, honors classes, scholarships,
free tickets, volunteering, the Foreign Relations Council lunches, workshops, and Daum
residence hall. Of the 55% mildly positive comments, a common theme was more: students
wanted more honors classes, scholarships, workshops, tickets or Foreign Relations Council
lunches, and volunteering opportunities. They also wanted more information about
graduating with honors and doing research. Requests that occurred more than once have
been tallied and are listed with our plans to address them in Appendix 9. Some of these
concerns are already being addressed. We have added links to the honors web pages that
direct students to the departmental page on honors in that department (where available)
and to a page of faculty research interests. Several students asked for social occasions;
these are part of what is planned for programming in the new building.
Many of the student requests would require more resources or are outside the control
of the Program. Classes, scholarships, tickets, and Foreign Relations Council lunches all
require funding, the first two substantial funding. The tickets and lunches are not as
expensive per student, but they are funded from the same endowment as the University
Honors Program scholarships, so we have elected to continue the level of support for these
University Honors Program Self-Study
9
as before. Early registration would have policy implications that have been discussed in the
past; it is presently available for selected groups such as Presidential and National Merit
scholars.
Some student requests can be met by changes in organization. We will explore
having several times for workshops and adding additional sessions. We have asked the
Foreign Relations Council whether their speakers would be willing to come and speak with
the students later in the day, thus permitting more students to share in this. We are
designing a lottery system of allotting tickets and lunches that should provide for wider
participation.
Many of the concerns that were
raised in our student survey were
associated with communication.
There are several forms or “lines” of
communication maintained between the Program and its liaisons in administrative,
departmental, and program offices. Within the Program, these are responsibilities
maintained specifically by the director and assistant director. The Program director sits on a
number of administrative committees, such as the Enrollment Management Committee and
CLAS Educational Policy Committee. This allows her to raise issues with senior
administration of the University on issues as they relate to the Honors Program. The
director also is given the opportunity once each semester to address the collected DEOs
for the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. This presentation allows her to bring up major
changes or Honors programs that can be best implemented at the level of a department
chair or honors advisor. While these are especially valuable arenas for maintaining
consistent communication between Honors and deans and DEOs, a critical locus of
interaction between honors and departments is the departmental honors advisor.
Communication Lines between the University
Honors Program, the Colleges, and Departments
The honors advisors serve as representatives of honors to the faculty and students of
their department, and it is critical that they effectively iterate University Honors Program
policy to their department. Our effectiveness within a department is more or less dependent
upon these advisors; therefore, a solid base of knowledge, as well as consistent and early
notification of any program changes or opportunities that would impact a department’s
students, must be maintained. This is accomplished through two primary mechanisms. The
first is a luncheon series hosted in the fall of each year for departmental honors advisors in
CLAS by the Program. The director and assistant director of the Program meet with small
groups of honors advisors (eight or fewer) to highlight honors topics that we would like
conveyed to their department. These luncheons were begun two years ago and have been
extremely beneficial, not only because the Program can speak to the advisors, but also
because the advisors can speak to one another, with seasoned advisors sharing their
knowledge with faculty that are new to this position. The luncheons also have provided an
avenue for departments to learn more about requirements and expectations placed on their
students, increasing the consistency of honors opportunities across departments. We can
then back up the associations and ideas that arise from these personal meetings with email correspondence on our honors advisor listserv, where information about upcoming
opportunities, deadlines, or calls for assistance can be rapidly relayed to these
10
University Honors Program Self-Study
departmental contacts. A meeting similar to these CLAS honors advisor luncheons is also
held with collegiate honors representatives. Given that many departments and colleges
also have unique honors seminars taught within their department, advisors are given an
open invitation to have the University Honors Program assistant director come speak to
their students as part of the course. This has become a standard component for many of
these seminars in the last two years, with some departments even bringing their classes to
the program as part of the course.
Ties between the University Honors Program and University programs such as the
Academic Advising Center, Careers Center, and Study Abroad are also essential to
Honors’ meeting our mission of providing intellectual opportunities and challenges to the
strongest undergraduates. Each of these offices has a liaison to the Program, and the
assistant director meets with each program at least once per semester. A representative
from the Careers Center and Study Abroad also present at our weekly speaker series to
help keep students informed of opportunities these offices provide for them. These are
critical channels to keep open to students. While our institution has a tremendous range of
offices and programs, one of the greatest challenges faced by undergraduates is learning
how these can serve them. This is no different for honors students. For example, a student
who is interested in pursuing research and would like to find out what funding opportunities
are available would need to visit the Program, Careers Center, UISG at the Iowa Memorial,
their departmental major office, the Office of the Dean for their College, as well as the
Office of the Vice President for Research. If a student were going to pursue research
abroad, additional offices would need to be included. Each of these locations provides
information about funding opportunities that are targeted at undergraduates pursuing
research with faculty, with unique programs, applications, and funding dates. Through ties
maintained throughout the University, we can share our knowledge of these resources with
the students who can gain and contribute the most to the ongoing research efforts of our
faculty.
The University Honors Program does not have
a general program in place for keeping in
touch with graduates. This spring the Honors
Program provided information to the UI
Foundation on students who have graduated with honors since 1996, and they are now
able to provide us with addresses for these individuals. There are, however, senior surveys
done by many departments on campus that look at what graduate and professional
programs their top students move on to. These surveys provide valuable information to
departments on courses, research and mentoring opportunities their students have made
use of. Because these top students are all in the University Honors Program, surveys done
by the Program would duplicate these efforts. However, we will begin instituting an
electronic survey of recent honors graduates in the upcoming year making use of a similar
survey to the one used for current students in the present Self-Study, and this information
will be added to our information received from the Office of the Registrar on graduating
honors students.
Communication Between the University
Honors Program and Graduates
University Honors Program Self-Study
11
The function of the Honors Faculty Advisory
Committee is to support and advise the director of
the University of Iowa Honors Program. The
committee consists of six tenure-track faculty
members, with at least one holding a primary appointment in a college other than the
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. The members serve two-year terms, with half the
members leaving the committee in a given year. Members will be chosen from faculty who
have served or are serving as honors advisors, who have extensive experience with
supervising honors projects, or who show other significant involvement with the Honors
Program.
Composition and Role of the Honors
Faculty Advisory Committee
The Honors Faculty Advisory Committee will meet twice a year, once in the fall and
once in the spring. The fall meeting will focus primarily on present concerns and needs and
the spring meeting will reflect on policy, long term planning and goals. If additional advice
or support is needed the director may seek it informally by communication with the
members or by an additional meeting.
The charge to the committee is to advise and support the director in the following ways:
•
•
•
Offer advice on questions of program involvement and commitment and on
academic policies
Offer support by facilitating communication with the faculty and by serving as an
advocate for the program
Hearing appeals from decisions of the director and assisting with resolution of
conflicts
One aspect of enhancing recruitment that was
focused on during the last program review was
developing a stronger connection between the
University Honors Program and the Belin-Blank International Center for Gifted Education
and Talent Development. In fact, this became an important justification for the creation of
the Blank Honors Center—to increase the interaction between the University Honors
Program and the Belin-Blank Center. For example, students who come for programs put on
by the Belin-Blank Center may one day become honors students at the University of Iowa.
In turn, honors students may serve as mentors, resident assistants, and teaching assistants
in the programs offered through the Belin-Blank Center. It will be possible for honors
students to be aware of and attend seminars offered through the Belin-Blank Program.
Honors students may be appropriate research partners or research subjects for graduate
work offered through the Belin-Blank Center. A growing and closer relationship between the
two programs will undoubtedly reveal other possibilities as well.
Opportunities Created by the Move
to the New Blank Honors Center
Opportunities for honors students that would be created by the Blank Honors Center are
both academic and co-curricular. The Blank Honors Center will house five classrooms that
will give first priority to honors courses offered by both the University Honors Program and
by departments. It will increase for honors students the sense that their honors coursework
12
University Honors Program Self-Study
is interconnected and distinct. It will also increase the chances for honors students to meet
one another and to interact.
Co-curricular opportunities will be greatly expanded. The third floor of the Blank Honors
Center was designed expressly as a student learning-and-living floor. It will be joined by a
skywalk to Daum Residence Hall, in which the honors floors are housed. The third floor
includes medium and large lounges, multiple study rooms, a commons equipped for food
and light meals, and a larger commons appropriate for social events. Present plans include
developing the north medium-sized lounge as an expanded honors lending
library/exchange library based on the approach currently used but with a much larger
selection of books, in general creating a reading-room atmosphere in which honors
students can relax in quiet reflection.
The south medium-sized lounge is currently planned as a game room with chess,
checkers, Scrabble, and other games suggested to us by honors students. Several of the
tables will have chessboard tops, and it will be possible to have regularly scheduled nights
and times that students can simply arrive and expect the opportunity to engage with other
players. The center, larger lounge and the two commons will be well used for a variety of
social events, such as our Diversity Series, Speaker Series, informal meetings with faculty,
honors society meetings, special-interest groups of students, informal workshops on a
variety of subjects, and many other possibilities. The four study rooms will be available for
scheduling and will be useful for quiet study and also for group projects in which a space
for four to six students is helpful but difficult to find otherwise.
The library on the floor is the Blank Research Library, but its equipment would also
make it appropriate for modest research efforts by honors students as it will be equipped
with computers and computer hook-ups. The ITC on the floor will provide twenty-four
workstations, may be used for computer-based classes and will offer easy access to the
Daum Residence Hall. The north commons will be equipped with refrigerator, microwave,
boiling-water faucet, and food vending machines and will have furniture appropriate for
comfortable eating. It will also have facilities for video viewing so that movie nights or a
movie series can be conducted in that room. The south commons will include several email stations and furniture and equipment that would be appropriate for social gatherings of
thirty to forty people at a time. This will provide a venue for a variety of social events.
The cumulative effect of these rooms is greater than any one by itself. By providing the
space in which honors students can study and relax, can interact with each other, and can
spend time quietly, the Blank Honors Center will create a physical space highly conducive
to community and increased interactions among the students. Because of the skywalk to
Daum, we are hoping that the first-year students housed in that residence hall will come to
think of the third floor as their living room while they are at the University, building a sense
of community with their fellow students and the Honors Program that we hope will continue
beyond their years here as a student.
Staffing levels for all of this will definitely need to be greater than the present situation.
They are discussed in the attached file (Appendix 10).
University Honors Program Self-Study
13
Honors programs differ in many dimensions:
academic (requirements for entry, persistence, and
graduation), co-curricular (housing, special
programming, perks) and support (scholarships,
staff, and facilities). These characteristics and others are tabulated for the other Big Ten
universities in Appendix 11, presented as eight tables. Every attempt was made to make
these entries accurate. Because it is difficult to gain a sense of comparison for so many
entries, a summary table (Appendix 11.9) lists most of the categories and indicates which
Big Ten universities exceed the University of Iowa, which ones are roughly comparable,
which ones the University of Iowa surpasses, and those for which data were not available.
From this summary table a graphical presentation, Appendix 11.10, has been prepared that
displays the characteristics in approximate rank order, with those at which the University of
Iowa excels at the top. The comparison below draws on these tables.
Comparisons with Other Big Ten
Honors Programs and Colleges
The University of Iowa Honors Program will provide (or, strictly speaking, soon will
provide) clearly one of the two best, if not the best, facilities for honors students and staff.
The Blank Honors Center is better and in some cases far better than the facilities available
to other programs, with the possible exception of the program at Pennsylvania State. The
Center was discussed earlier.
The UI Honors Program is comparable to most Big Ten programs and better than some
in three categories: honors housing, the kind and number of honors courses provided, and
average seminar size. If the skywalk into the Blank Honors Center is considered, the UI
honors housing could be considered among the best in the Big Ten.
The scholarships offered by the UI Honors Program, which include first year,
sophomore, and Rhodes Dunlap scholarships and grants for travel and research, are more
ample or cover a wider range of needs than do those of five other Big Ten programs. They
are approximately comparable to two and surpassed by two. If, however, the freshman
scholarships at Penn State are similar to the freshman scholarships here (which are
administered through Financial Aid), only one program provides better for their students.
The special programs and perks for honors students at UI are comparable to those of
the other Big Ten programs, in that we offer some that other programs do not, and some
programs offer a few that we do not. These are listed at the foot of Appendices 11.9 and
11.10. Ones that may merit further consideration for adoption include extended
orientations, summer book reading, and priority for registration. The latter has many policy
implications, however.
In terms of academic standards, requirements for entry, persistence and graduation, the
University of Iowa is comparable to four Big Ten institutions, stricter than one or two, and
less demanding than four or five. The principal differences in persistence and graduation,
however, relate to the number of honors courses taken, and a direct comparison is not
simple because the UI Honors Program does not require that specific courses be taken. An
honors student who does honors commendation in the first two years and then completes
14
University Honors Program Self-Study
departmental requirements would have as many semester hours of honors credit as honors
graduates at Indiana and Minnesota, for example.
The only category in which the UI Honors Program is at a significant disadvantage is
that of staffing; all of the other Big Ten programs have more staff members, ranging from
15 (Indiana) to 5 (Purdue), compared to the three and a half FTEs for the UI program. Even
if the advising staff at these programs is discounted, the disparity is still significant: 11 to 5
staff members.
Overall, then, the University of Iowa Honors Program offers outstanding students an
experience that in many respects is one of the best in the Big Ten, and one that is clearly
academically challenging. It does so with great efficiency as the staff is the smallest in the
Big Ten.
University Honors Program Self-Study
15
Table of Appendices
1:
CLAS Departments with Their Number of Majors, Number, and Proportion of University Honors
Program Students (Spring 2003)
2:
CLAS Department Graduates, Graduates with Honors, and Proportion of Graduates with Honors
(2002/2003)
3:
Honors Program Financial Review
4:
Student Feedback
5:
1995 External and Internal Committee Review Reports
6:
Departmental Honors Requirements
7:
Advisors Table
8:
Student Participation in Honors Co-Curricular Programs
9:
Student Open Comments and Program Response
10: Staffing Needs in the Blank Honors Center
11: Comparisons between the University of Iowa Honors Program and Other Honors Programs in the
Big Ten
12: Honors Program Prospective Student Handouts
University Honors Program Self-Study
17
Appendix 1: CLAS Departments with Their Number of Majors, Number,
and Proportion of University Honors Program Students (Spring 2003)
Dept # Dept. Name
22T Actuarial Science
129 African Amer. St.
45 American Studies
113 Anthropology
1 Art (Studio)
01H Art History
39 Asian Languages
39A Asian Studies
29A Astronomy
BLS Bach. Liberal Studies
99 Biochemistry
02A Biology
4 Chemistry
48D Cinema and Comp Lit
43 Classics
36 Communication St.
22C Computer Science
137 Dance
06E Economics
07E Elementary Ed.
8 English
159 Environmental Sci.
27 Exercise Science
9 French
44 Geography
12 Geoscience
13 German
47 Global Studies
28 Health & Sport St
16 History
University Honors Program Self-Study
Number of
Majors
22
26
23
143
576
48
54
8
31
106
78
452
67
221
15
830
342
71
319
505
879
80
123
34
108
47
19
58
107
357
Number in
UHP
18
0
11
63
222
24
31
1
16
10
46
170
36
63
9
210
96
42
53
251
374
26
86
29
17
11
18
34
12
103
% Majors in
UHP
82
0
48
44
39
50
57
13
52
9
59
38
54
29
60
25
28
59
17
50
43
33
70
85
16
23
95
59
11
29
19
Dept #
145
18
19
20
169
103
33
22M
61
25
26
29P
30
38
31
41S
32
41
97
42
34
35
03H
22B
49
131
20
Dept. Name
Interdept. Studies
Italian
Journalism
Latin
Leisure Studies
Linguistics
Lit. Sci. & Arts
Mathematics
Microbiology
Music
Philosophy
Physics
Political Science
Portuguese
Psychology
REES
Religious Studies
Russian
Science Ed.
Social Work
Sociology
Spanish
Speech Sciences
Statistics
Theatre Arts
Women’s Studies
Number of
Majors
10
10
278
4
49
27
43
128
67
195
57
39
516
1
955
4
54
12
17
76
249
136
131
6
153
16
Number in
UHP
4
5
184
4
8
26
21
70
27
114
36
28
190
1
301
3
44
6
9
36
46
120
42
3
85
13
% Majors in
UHP
40
50
66
100
16
96
49
55
40
58
63
72
37
100
32
75
81
50
53
47
18
88
32
50
56
81
University Honors Program Self-Study
Appendix 2: CLAS Department Graduates, Graduates with Honors, and
Proportion of Graduates with Honors (2002/2003)
Dept #
22T
129
45
113
1
01H
39
39A
29A
99
02A
4
48D
43
36
22C
137
06E
07E
8
159
27
9
44
12
13
47
28
16
145
Dept. Name
Actuarial Science
African Amer. St.
American Studies
Anthropology
Art (Studio)
Art History
Asian Languages
Asian Studies
Astronomy
Biochemistry
Biology
Chemistry
Cinema and Comp Lit
Classics
Communication St.
Computer Science
Dance
Economics
Elementary Ed.
English
Environmental Sci.
Exercise Science
French
Geography
Geoscience
German
Global Studies
Health & Sport St
History
Interdept. Studies
University Honors Program Self-Study
Number of
Graduates
Honors
Graduates
9
9
8
54
69
16
8
2
3
20
99
15
52
3
310
95
11
156
181
264
13
60
9
30
15
5
20
102
88
8
% Graduates
with Honors
2
0
0
3
21
4
2
0
0
9
18
3
5
0
6
2
3
4
1
16
1
25
0
2
1
0
6
1
2
0
22
0
0
6
30
25
25
0
0
45
18
20
10
0
2
2
27
3
1
6
8
42
0
7
7
0
30
1
2
0
21
Dept #
18
19
169
103
33
22M
61
25
26
29P
30
31
32
41
97
42
34
35
03H
22B
49
131
22
Dept. Name
Italian
Journalism
Leisure Studies
Linguistics
Lit. Sci. & Arts
Mathematics
Microbiology
Music
Philosophy
Physics
Political Science
Psychology
Religious Studies
Russian
Science Ed.
Social Work
Sociology
Spanish
Speech Sciences
Statistics
Theatre Arts
Women’s Studies
Number of
Graduates
Honors
Graduates
2
118
5
9
16
28
26
10
19
6
125
305
29
4
10
30
86
67
33
3
37
5
% Graduates
with Honors
1
13
1
0
2
3
9
4
3
3
13
27
0
1
0
1
6
2
4
0
2
0
50
11
20
0
13
11
35
40
16
50
10
9
0
25
0
3
7
3
12
0
5
0
University Honors Program Self-Study
Appendix 3: UI Honors Program Financial Review
UI HONORS PROGRAM
FINANCIAL REVIEW
1999-00
Actual Expense
2000–01
2001–02
2002–03
218,582
170,954
236,083
230,513
Other State Funds
General Expense
Capitalized Equipment
48,497
10,691
33,487
10,160
34,772
0
38,529
0
Other Funds (see note 1)
Non-federal Restricted Funds
31,668
14,656
26,440
40,749
Total
309,439
Transfers to other units (see note 2) 15,000
229,257
25,000
297,295
5,000
309,792
10,147
Salaries & Fringe — State Funds
Uses of Salary Funds
FTE
tenured/tenure-track faculty
FTE visiting
and paid adjunct faculty
1999–00
2000–01
2001–02
2002–03
.50
.50
.50
.50
.47
0.00
.60
.40
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
FTE
P&S and Merit staff
HTE
graduate teaching assistants
.33
0.00
0.00
.25
HTE
grad research assts
.10
.20
.22
0
Note #1: These funds are the Rhodes-Dunlap endowment maintained by the UI Foundation. They
are used to support senior research and travel grants to undergraduate honors students.
Note #2:
FY00: $7500 was transferred to the French Department ($6890 used for travel), $7500 was transferred to the
Classics Department ($4979 used for travel)
FY02: $5000 was transferred to the Classics Dept – ($4855 was spent by the department & $145 was returned
unspent to the College). Of those funds $1000 was spent to pay the reviewers honorarium for Prof. Storey’s
review, $1000 for faculty membership in professional organizations and $2855 on travel expenses.
FY03: $5000 was transferred to the Classics Dept – ($4308 used for travel), $5000 was transferred to French
($2681 used for travel), $147 was transferred to Philosophy for general expense.
University Honors Program Self-Study
23
Appendix 4: Student Feedback
I like how the Honors Program is very voluntary—we participate when we want to
participate. I love the Wednesday night grad school info sessions—they are very
helpful and informative.
I think that the volunteer opportunities are great. I am so happy that the University
provides so many outlets to help and support the community.
Keep the free tickets coming! I love those things… Also, the scholarship
opportunities are much appreciated.
I love the Honors Program! It's given me opportunities I never would have had
otherwise. Don't change a thing!
The ICFRC luncheons have provided fantastic experiences for me and I commend
the Honors Program for maintaining this aspect of the program.
All of the benefits of the Honors Program sold me on the University of Iowa, and I
had serious reservations about attending. I think the Program is essential to attract
high caliber students to Iowa.
I just graduated with honors, and I liked that the Honors Program was more of what
you made of it…. I lived on the Honors Floor in Daum, which overall, was a
wonderful experience…. The honors website is excellent!
The Honors seminar I took last spring with Steven Ungar and Sophie Watt
(143:050:003) was excellent—one of the best courses I have taken.
I have really enjoyed my experience with the Honors Program at U of I. I have both
taken honors sections of classes and have designated courses as honors; it was so
nice to have a chance to work more closely with the professors of the courses I
found really interesting.
In an exciting and fruitful undergraduate career that included incredible personal
growth, outstanding academic and co-curricular opportunities, and many notable
successes, the Honors Program stands out as the most important single university
program to affect and guide this experience.
The Honors program is a wonderful resource full of qualified personnel who make it
their job to help, encourage, motivate, connect and challenge me. They provide
facilities and resources that allow me to strive above and beyond the average
student.
The Honors staff is absolutely amazing from top to bottom. Everyone there is so
helpful and caring that it makes coming to the Honors program an educational joy. I
hope the program is able to expand once the actually get into the new building—
more classes, advising, service opportunities. I realize that with budget constraints
this is not highly possible but it should be.
Give Bob Kirby a raise! He rocks!
University Honors Program Self-Study
25
Appendix 5.1: 1995 External Committee Review Report
INDIANA UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY HONORS DIVISION
To:
From:
Re:
Date:
Judith R. Aiken, Dean
College of Liberal Arts, University of Iowa
Julia Conaway Bondanella and David Hothersall, External Reviewers
University of Iowa Honors Program and College of Liberal Arts Honors Program
May 5, 1995
Overview
We found much enthusiasm about the Honors Program among staff, students, faculty
and administrators. We find the educational aims of the program, as expressed in its mission
statement, both reasonable and laudable. The mission statement emphasizes the
development of a greater sense of community among honors students, a four-year honors
experience to enrich the education of Iowa's outstanding undergraduates, and an interactive
environment where students make strong connections with faculty and with other students
who share their interests. In light of these aims, the program's strategic plans to increase
faculty involvement in teaching and extracurricular activities and to improve support staff and
facilities are right on target for a program whose numbers have increased from a total of
1,117 in 1983 to 2,349 in 1994.
Since the 1985 review, the program has made progress in implementing the
recommendations concerning staffing, curriculum, and educational and cultural activities, but
the resources given to the program have not kept pace with its growth. The program currently
provides the students it is intended to serve with a good array of services and opportunities,
especially at the junior and senior level, where the strong number of honors graduates attests
to the faculty's general support for undergraduate honors research. Still, the program is only
beginning to provide a solid honors experience for its freshmen and sophomores, because of
a shortage of staff and general honors courses. Also, the internal review committee
perceived some concern on the part of faculty who felt that they simply did not have sufficient
time to assume more than a small number of honors researchers. This situation bears
watching, since the program attempts to provide research experiences for lower level
students as well as junior and senior majors. It is clear that the support of high level
administrators can determine how successful the Honors Program will be in achieving its
strategic plans. If honors is perceived to be a priority and faculty are persuaded that it is an
important part of their professional activities, they will be more likely to support the honors
programs. We think that the new general honors courses and an expanded extracurricular
activities program are extremely promising in two ways. First, they will promote a high degree
University Honors Program Self-Study
27
of interaction among individuals; secondly, they will greatly enhance the teaching and
learning experience at the undergraduate level.
The encouragement students receive during their first years at Iowa will enrich their
education, prepare more of them for the honors degree programs, and increase their
satisfaction with their undergraduate experience. We were impressed with the atmosphere in
Shambaugh Honors House and with the energy and loyalty of the staff members, including
the student workers. In the following report, we have tried to suggest ways in which the
campus might help the program achieve its goals.
We have divided the report into two sections: the first deals with crucial
programmatic matters and the second with the structural details which will make it possible
to implement program developments. In general, we believe that movement toward an
undergraduate honors experience extending over four years can make the
University of Iowa an even more attractive place for outstanding undergraduates. The Honors
Program can help Iowa achieve its goal of enhancing undergraduate education.
Programmatic Elements
In the following paragraphs, we have outlined our recommendations
concerning the educational portion of the honors program which we consider to be
interrelated and interdependent: recruitment, orientation, advising, curriculum, and
educational and cultural programming.
I. Recruitment. Universities compete vigorously to enroll high ability students. Recruitment
of such students might be seen as catering to an elite minority and as being incompatible
with the history and mission of the University of Iowa. The university, however, has a clearly
articulated and widely accepted goal of attracting significant numbers of high ability students
to its campus and Honors Program. If that goal is to be achieved, attention must be paid to
recruiting such students. The University of Iowa has outstanding undergraduate programs
and a competitive merit scholarship program. High school students must be made aware
of those opportunities. We learned from our conversations with both students and faculty
that recruiting of honors students is relatively low key. We also heard from students that
they had at best limited contacts with the Honors Program while in high school. As a
result the Honors Program was rarely a primary factor in their decision to attend the
University of Iowa. Once they enrolled they were pleased that it existed, but the Honors
Program was not prominent in pre-enrollment contacts with prospective students. Given
that situation, it seems likely that students who would qualify for the Honors program and
would benefit from the university's programs, are being recruited to go elsewhere.
The on-campus visit by prospective students and their families is central to
successful recruitment. The visit should include opportunities to meet with a member or
members of the university faculty, an honors advisor, a University Honors Center staff
member, a current University of Iowa honors student, a residence hall tour and
accommodation to any other special interests a student might have.
28
University Honors Program Self-Study
Relations with high schools and in particular with high school guidance counselors
are critical. We recommend that particular attention be paid to those schools and
counselors that have been rich sources of honors students. Visits to those schools by
University Honors Center students and staff members would be most worthwhile.
A major recruiting resource at the University of Iowa is the Connie Belin Center for
the Gifted and Talented. In our meeting Dr. Assouline expressed enthusiasm for the
honors program and an interest in identifying and recruiting prospective honors students.
The developing relationship between Honors and the Belin Center must continue. The
decision by the Honors Center and the Belin Center to cooperate in awarding a number of
scholarships is an excellent example of what might be done.
Finally, in the area of recruiting, electronic resources, especially e-mail, should be
used. A University of Iowa page on the World Wide Web, an honors newsgroup, and
electronic newsletter are all possibilities.
We recommend that the Associate Director of the University Honors Center be
given the primary administrative responsibility for recruitment of honors students.
Different recruiting strategies involving a number of university offices, colleges and
departments should be used and their effectiveness assessed. Special attention should be
paid to the particular characteristics and strengths of the University of Iowa Honors Program.
II. Honors Advising. Advising contributes in a crucial way both to the recruitment efforts
and to the academic strength of an honors program. At Iowa students are first advised by
the Undergraduate Academic Advising Center, and then by departmental and college honors
advisers. The area of advising is problematic, in part because of unevenness and
inconsistencies, and in part because freshmen cannot develop strong ties with the Honors
Program from the moment they arrive at the University of Iowa. We believe this bonding is
important both for recruitment and retention.
Although the advisers in the Undergraduate Academic Advising Center have
expressed a strong interest in advising honors students, we are not convinced, given the
evidence and the experience on other CIC campuses, including the University of Michigan,
Michigan State, Ohio State, and Indiana University, that the current system is the most
effective for honors students.
We learned that many honors students are unaware of the honors program prior to
enrollment, and that they do not develop particularly close ties with the program during the
first crucial weeks on campus. Most of the students appeared to feel that
they were not given sufficient information about the Honors Program during their
recruitment, orientation and advising experiences.
Given the honors program's goal of providing opportunities for students at the
different stages of their undergraduate experience, it is important to consider how students
develop a sense of membership in an honors community. If one of the program's goals is to
recruit and retain more of Iowa's best applicants, we believe that prospective students and
University Honors Program Self-Study
29
matriculants should have early contacts with the honors staff, honors teachers, and honors
advisers. A group of honors advisers working together with the honors staff and faculty in
recruitment activities will give the program much greater visibility among prospective honors
students and their families, and such efforts could only enhance recruitment.
The point at which honors students arrive on campus is crucial to recruitment and
the formation of an honors community. When honors students arrive for orientation and
registration, the honors program should play a key role in orienting them to the campus
and to the honors experience. Ideally orientation and advising are conducted by honors
staff, honors advisers, and honors faculty; both honors students and honors parents
should have contact with the Honors Program. Currently the honors staff spends about an
hour with honors students during summer orientation, but we feel this amount of time is
insufficient. The initial contacts with students are crucial in their developing a sense of
belonging to a particular community, and the students with whom we spoke had clearly not
developed a sense of belonging to an honors community as a result of the recruitment
process or the orientation, and advising they had received when they arrived at Iowa.
Furthermore, since much research suggests that family support has a direct bearing upon
students' attitudes toward their collegiate institution, it is important to work with families.
For these reasons, we believe that both matriculants and their parents should be
oriented by honors faculty and honors staff members, including honors advisors and honors
peer advisors. Faculty who teach honors students or participate in the program's advisory
boards should also be called upon to participate in these activities. Advising incoming
freshman honors students should be planned and overseen by the honors program in such a
way that the students identify more strongly with the honors community of which they are a
part and understand the opportunities that the program has to offer. Honors advisers are in a
better position to orient students to the programs' expectations, to enable them to form
stronger connections with other honors students, and to introduce them to the academic and
cultural riches of the university.
We are convinced that the advisers at the Advising Center are competent, caring
professionals, who often make a special effort to guide the honors students. Some of the
honors students are being well served, but we believe that the best interests of the honors
students would be served by having special honors advisers located in or very near
Shambaugh House (for example in an honors residence hall) who would be trained to
address the special needs of high ability students and to help students understand honors
opportunities, including courses, research, cultural activities, and scholarships, grants, and
internships. The addition of advisers to the honors program staff is especially appropriate at a
time that general honors opportunities are being developed and expanded.
Among the Honors Program's chief goals are expanding the general honors
curriculum to establish four years of honors opportunities and developing a strong sense of
community among its students. We therefore strongly recommend that the honors
program have its own advising staff. These might be specially selected members of the
Academic Advising Center's staff, who would work part-time in Shambaugh House. But it
would be preferable for the program to have a group of independent honors advisers with
excellent academic credentials, even advanced graduate students, who would be drawn
30
University Honors Program Self-Study
from several different disciplines. Many CIC schools have independent honors advisers.
The models of advising differ somewhat, but such schools as Ohio State, Michigan State,
Pennsylvania State, the University of Michigan, and Indiana University have identifiable
honors advisers within colleges or an honors advising staff.
Among the honors advisers, It would be appropriate to have an advising coordinator
with outstanding credentials and wide experience who would serve as liaison with
Admissions and the Academic Advising Center. This person would help the director
organize the honors advising program, coordinate with Admissions and the Advising
Center, attend all informational meetings pertaining to freshman advising, and keep other
honors advisers informed about changes in requirements and programs. This person would
also assist in educating the other advisers (staff and faculty) about university requirements
and the honors program. The program should also try to make some use of faculty and peer
advisors in the advising program, particularly during summer orientation and registration.
III. Curriculum. The curriculum of the University of Honors program is "back loaded" in
that its benefits, and more particularly its courses, are concentrated in the junior and
senior years. As such it stands apart from honors programs at other CIC universities.
We found widespread agreement that the program needs to be more "front-loaded" with
a greater emphasis on an honors student's first two years at the university. The
arguments in favor of this proposition are well stated on p. 6 of the internal report. We
found strong support for such a move.
This Autumn, 160 incoming honors students will have the opportunity to enroll in
the new Honors Rhetoric course taught by Professors Klemm and Holstein. That course
builds upon the well-known and widely respected Rhetoric Course taken by nearly all first
year students at the University of Iowa. There is much enthusiasm but also some critical
skepticism regarding this new course. Professors Klemm and Holstein have excellent
reputations as charismatic and challenging teachers. Their enthusiasm for the course was
clear as was their perseverance in its development. But if this course is to be a lasting
success, it must be independent of the reputation and ability of particular teachers. This is
of particular concern in the case of Professor Holstein who has made a limited two-year
commitment to the course.
Concern has also been expressed over the "canonical" content of the Honors
rhetoric course. The two instructors have been sensitive and responsive to such
concerns. More problematic is the lack of any opportunity for students to meet in small
groups with the faculty teaching the course and the students' limited opportunities to
develop their writing and oral skills. Given such concerns, it is clear that the course will be
carefully observed. We recommend that careful attention be paid to the course's
effectiveness. Both student and faculty evaluations should be used.
A second curricular development relates to the need for a larger number of honors
courses meeting GER requirements. Such courses must be offered if the honors program
is to attain its goal of reaching a "real curricular collegiate experience for the first two
University Honors Program Self-Study
31
years." We recommend that such courses be developed, that their enrollment be limited,
and that wherever possible they be taught by members of the faculty.
A third curricular development is honors seminars at the freshman and sophomore
levels. We recommend such course offerings as a way to enrich the general honors
curriculum during the first two years and to promote pedagogical innovation and
instructional development among faculty.
Finally, for senior honors students departmental capstone or cross-disciplinary
courses would be worthy additions to the curriculum.
We support the decisions that have been made to increase curricular offerings
to first and second year students, particularly those taught by faculty members. We
recommend that a department's or college's honors opportunities be made an integral part of
each year's budget conference. In this way, honors offerings will become an institutional
expectation. Honors teaching might also be given consideration in salary, tenure and
promotion decisions.
IV. Educational and Cultural Programming. The Dunlap bequest opens a variety of new
and exciting possibilities for creative extracurricular programming. Along with advising, these
programs can make the honors program more central to the lives of the students. Carefully
designed extracurricular programming serves as an important means of community building
and of nurturing intellectual, cultural, personal, and civic development. It is important to
schedule a good number of small group programs (with the number of participants under 25),
so that real interaction is promoted.
Current research suggests that much learning occurs outside of the classroom and
that extracurricular activities are very important in helping students establish their own
identities and a sense of personal worth. Involvement in such activities
encourages students to develop and articulate their own views, which can help them in their
classwork and their future careers. Such events also help students understand that what they
learn in their classes is connected in a real way to the world in which they live; they teach
honors students that intellectual inquiry is appropriate to all the different areas of their lives,
that it can be both rewarding and entertaining.
A budget of approximately $15,000 would be reasonable. (This is the amount typically
budgeted for programs for the Honors Division and Wells Scholars activities at Indiana
University.) Activities could include (1) special educational and cultural activities associated
with specific honors seminars, (2) cooperative programming with departmental and college
honors programs, and (3) a carefully designed series of programs to inform and excite
honors students. Some of these small group programs could focus upon a specific theme,
draw upon the talents of Iowa's talented faculty, address particular issues, or present
information of particular interest to students, including such matters as selecting a specific
major. The programs could utilize lecturers and professionals who regularly visit the
University of Iowa campus. At Indiana University, the Honors Division has an informal
32
University Honors Program Self-Study
agreement that important lecturers and guests will participate in an extracurricular program
with honors students. Most of these distinguished visitors seem highly appreciative of the
opportunity to meet with students. Students are sometimes even given a reading assignment
for a particular program.
After discussions with the honors staff, it appears that it would be difficult for them to
produce more than 4-5 programs a semester which are not directly connected with honors
seminars. Yet there is funding available for 10-15 small group programs each semester,
which could be organized around pizza suppers, lunches, or even dinners.
We agree that approximately $15,000 of the Dunlap bequest should be used for
educational and cultural programming. We also recommend strongly that the honors
staff be increased in order to develop a strong and varied extracurricular program
and to maximize the benefits of the Dunlap bequest.
V. Evaluation. In addition to periodic internal self-studies and external reviews we
recommend that formal evaluation procedures for the honors program be developed. Such
evaluations should be both quantitative and qualitative. In an era of increasingly intense
competition for scarce university resources the results of such evaluations will be essential
for continued support of the Honors Program. Measures of success might include: student
and faculty participation in the honors program, academic success, post-graduate awards
and recognitions, graduate and professional school placements. Of particular note is the
success of Iowa students in competitions for the Rhodes Scholarship. Such success requires
considerable effort in identifying and mentoring potential candidates. The Honors Center is
ideally placed to continue to perform that function.
We support and recommend the idea of regular formal evaluation procedures
and record keeping, recognizing that these tasks will involve more staff time.
Administration and Budget
l. Reporting Lines. An unusual feature of the University of Iowa honors program is that the
Director reports to both the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and to the Provost of the
University. A more typical arrangement in CIC universities is for the honors director to report
to the university's senior academic officer alone. Given the special circumstances at Iowa,
the present reporting line appears to work well and we recommend that it be continued. Both
Provost Nathan and Dean Aiken expressed strong support for the honors program. Such
support will be essential as the program continues its mission of being a university wide
program.
We support the current organizational arrangements for the reporting lines of
the Honors Program.
University Honors Program Self-Study
33
II. Staffing. In our interviews with the staff at the Shambaugh Honors House, we were struck
by how much they are able to accomplish with so few people. Although the size of the
Honors Program as well as the number of its responsibilities have grown significantly over
the last decade, the number of staff members has remained extremely small. Their
enthusiastic, efficient, and professional service deserves the highest commendation.
We find it troubling, however, that they seem to spend more than even "normal" long
hours at their tasks. One staff member describes how difficult it is to concentrate upon tasks
which involve composition or inputting data because of the constant interruptions either by
phone or by people dropping by the office. It is so difficult for her to work with any kind of
continuity that she occasionally has to come to the office at 6 a.m.
When we examined the job descriptions for the three staff members, the number and
types of tasks they are expected to carry out, and the number of students, faculty, and
administrators which whom they must keep in contact, we found clear evidence that the
honors staff members are overextended. We were struck by the time-intensive labor involved
in overseeing the student staff who keep Shambaugh House accessible to students. Other
problematic areas at this juncture are identifying students for the major fellowships and
maintaining regular contact with different offices, faculty, staff, and students. If the honors
program becomes more involved in recruitment, orientation, curriculum development and
alumni outreach efforts and fundraising, we find it difficult to see how the present staff could
possibly devote enough time to these projects to carry them out effectively.
As the program has grown in the last decade, the staff has grown slightly. The
response to the 1985 review has been essentially satisfactory, but the number of
responsibilities and students has, we believe, quickly outdistanced the growth in staff FTE.
As the program develops into a kind of "full service program" from one in which most of the
honors course work and independent study was located in the departments and colleges, it
will be impossible for the staff to provide the same level of personalized service that is crucial
to the recruitment, retention, and, more important, the intellectual nurturing of outstanding
students.
The Director's responsibilities have grown, since the program is now conceived of as
"campus wide." Besides trying to maintain contact with a large number of college and
departmental honors programs to insure that they survive and thrive, the Honors Director
now must work with individual faculty, departmental chairs, and college deans to develop
general honors courses for students at the freshman and sophomore level. He must also
oversee the coordination efforts with Admissions and the Advising Center.
In our discussions with faculty and staff, we sensed that many would welcome more
extensive consultation. It is obvious that regular consultation with the honors advisory groups
is essential to consensus building, but it requires time. Some of the faculty we interviewed
suggested that the Director needs to have sufficient time to consult on a regular basis with
the departmental and college honors advisors. It seems unlikely that this will be possible,
unless steps are taken to provide him with appropriate support.
34
University Honors Program Self-Study
The administration of the program, given its growth, is quite simply insufficient in
size. The University of Iowa student staff is central to creating the right atmosphere in
Shambaugh House, and we strongly urge that they be maintained and even increased to
include peer counseling. It is possible the program might prefer to have a part-time clerical
position. If new initiatives in the areas of advising, extracurricular programming, and
curriculum development are to succeed, as they can at Iowa, the regular staff will have to be
increased. We believe that the staffing issues could be best resolved by providing the
program with two additional professional staff; several academic advisers; an upgraded
clerical position; and an additional half-time clerical position. Most importantly, the program
needs an Associate Director with faculty credentials; an Assistant Director with scholarly
background for educational programming and academic advising; an Administrative
Assistant with managerial skills to oversee the budget, some of the data gathering
operations, including evaluation, some of the scholarship programs, and appropriate aspects
of the office administration; and an advising staff of approximately 2 full-time or 4 faculty
assistant advisers. Further, given the supervisory, budgeting, and technical responsibilities of
the current secretarial position, it should be upgraded from a "2" to a "3."
We recommend that the program have (1) a full-time (12-months appointment)
Associate Director with faculty credentials who can work effectively with faculty
throughout the University on recruitment, curriculum issues, and other educational
matters. This person should have the credentials to teach and to advise; this person
would assume the important responsibility of sustaining the University of Iowa's
notable performance in the competition for prestigious national and international
scholarships. It takes someone with a scholarly background and experience to
coordinate the identification of students for these awards, to lead faculty committees
which select and nominate students, and to write nominating letters on behalf of the
University.
The program also needs (2) a full-time Assistant Director who could oversee
the educational programming and/or, academic advising, and (3) a full-time
Administrative Assistant who could focus on administrative matters (management,
information systems, publications, budgeting).
We recommend that (4) the current secretarial position, a "Two" be upgraded to
a "Three"; because of the significant amount of time devoted to the advising,
supervisory, and computing activities associated with the position. This position
oversees undergraduate staff, assists in selection and hiring of student staff,
interviews and informs prospective students and their families, and oversees the
program database. The question of whether or not the office should have (5) another
part-time clerical position to assist with record-keeping, mailings, reception services
needs to be addressed.
III. Consultation with Advisory Boards and Departmental Contacts. If a university wide
honors program is to succeed, it must have the support of a wide range of constituents—
faculty, administration and students. The Iowa Honors Program has two advisory groups. We
encountered some confusion as to their functions.
University Honors Program Self-Study
35
The Liberal Arts Honors Advisory Committee is a group of approximately six faculty
members appointed by the Director. They are people active in the Honors Program and
supportive of honors students. They meet once a semester to advise and support the director
as a "thinking group" with regard to honors. The Director appreciates their advice and
support. We met with some members of this group and were impressed by the strength of
their commitment to Honors. But there was also some confusion as to how they were chosen
and what was their role, concern as to their effectiveness, and a feeling that more regular
meetings would be useful.
The second advisory group consists of college and department honors advisors. They
meet on an irregular schedule. We see this group as being potentially of great value. We
recommend that its membership be strengthened, that its mission be clarified and that it meet
regularly.
Finally, we were impressed with the enthusiasm for the Honors Program shown by
current Iowa honors students. They have a strong feeling of ownership of the program and a
strong commitment to its goals. They are also knowledgeable about the program. We
recommend that a Student Advisory Board be appointed by the Director.
We recommend that the functions and membership of the Liberal Arts Honors
Advisory Committee and the College Advisory Board be clarified and that they meet
on a more regular schedule. We further recommend that a Student Advisory Board be
appointed by the Director.
IV. Scholarships. The University awards a variety of scholarships including 20 Presidential
scholarships of $5000 each year as well as 75 Dean's scholarships of $1000 each year. The
University should review both the impact of their scholarships on the enrollment and retention
of outstanding students and the question of the relationship of the recipients to the Honors
Program.
Centralizing the scholarship programs for academically talented incoming students in
the Honors Program, or linking them to some—even minimal—honors requirements would
promote stronger ties between the students and the Honors Program. In order to renew their
awards, all recipients of the Presidential and Dean's scholarships might be required to take
one honors class and attend one extracurricular event for each year they hold the
scholarship. This requirement would have a beneficent impact on honors course enrollment.
The Dunlap bequest will allow the Honors Program to award its own scholarships and
research grants or internships. The level of funding for these two types of awards ought to
depend upon an analysis of the other resources available in the University as well as the
potential benefits to the Honors Program in its efforts to shape a community and reward
academic excellence. In principle, devoting $50,000 to a research and internship grant
program is not an unreasonable goal. Other programs in the CIC have $50,000 to $100,000
to award for research or internship experiences.
36
University Honors Program Self-Study
We support in principle the plans for the Dunlap bequest, but we recommend
that the University analyze its undergraduate scholarships and research funding to
maximize the benefits for the Honors Program and the campus in light of the aims to
enhance undergraduate education and to increase the impact of the Honors Program.
VI. Budget. We found the cuts in the Honors Program budget troublesome, especially
considering the current plans for extending its activities in the areas of recruitment, advising,
curriculum, and extracurricular programming. These plans will clearly incur costs beyond
those allowed in the current allocations for such things as postage, copying and printing,
telephone, and supplies. Take one example: Iowa allows about $3,000 for telephone charges
and $3,500 for postage; another CIC institution allows $10,000 and $9,029 respectively.
The Iowa Honors Program's operating budget (excluding staff salaries) seems
somewhat less adequate than the budgets for programs of a similar size at other CIC
schools. We have attached a sample from one school at the end of this report, which reflects
the actual operating expenses. Note that line 4580 contains funds for instructional
development.
Given the number of students and the tasks assigned to the Honors
Program, we recommend that the current budget be increased to support the
programmatic changes.
VII. Physical Facilities (Shambaugh House, Honors Residence Center). Shambaugh
House is an attractive and centrally located home for the Honors Program. Students and
staff take justifiable pride in the house. The seminar and meeting areas, the two computer
centers and the library are all widely used. The house is open for extended hours and
provides a second home for many honors students. The staff and students working at the
Honors Center are strongly committed to making the house a welcoming and warm
environment for all students.
Office space appears to be adequate. A commitment has been made to make
some much needed exterior repairs, especially in the area of the handicap ramp, and to
paint and recarpet the first floor.
The possibility of an Honors Residence Hall or Living/Learning Center is worth
considering. Such housing is not offered at Iowa, though it is a feature of other CIC
universities. There are a number of residence halls in the immediate vicinity of
Shambaugh House. Honors housing might be offered in one of them on a trial basis.
We support the current commitment to making needed exterior repairs and to
refurbishing the first floor. We urge the university to refurbish the rest of the building
and to consider installing a good dehumidifier in the basement to attempt to combat
the mold. We also recommend the development of an honors residential program with
additional office and program space.
University Honors Program Self-Study
37
SUMMARY
The University of Iowa Honors Program has had notable successes, and we
believe that it has additional potential as a recruitment tool for the university. By
enhancing recruitment and advising, enlarging the general honors curriculum, developing
more extensive educational and cultural programming, and maximizing the impact of
scholarship funds, the University of Iowa's Honors Program can have an even greater
impact.
Such improvements as those underway will, however, require additional staffing.
We recommend that the university consider adding the following positions to the honors
program staff: several advisers, an associate director, and assistant
director, and administrative assistant, an upgrade for the current clerical position, and
another half-time clerical.
We are also concerned that the expansion of the programmatic elements and staff will
require some additional funding in supplies and expenses. We recommend some rethinking
of the amounts budgeted for telecommunications, printing and copying, postage, supplies,
and equipment (computers).
The development of the Honors Program at the University of Iowa has been steady
and impressive, and staff from the past and present deserve considerable credit for their
individual contributions.
38
University Honors Program Self-Study
Comparative Budget Figures1
Wages
Computer Service
Telephone
Office Supplies
Copy Machine
Printing
Publications/Books/Magazines
Postage
Computer Software
Service Maintenance Contracts
S and E
Membership Dues
Supplemental Pay (Course Development)
TOTAL -
12,160
897
10,835
4,233
3,095
15,632
794
9,029
421
1,021
4,500
225
28,807
79,489
Other Items:
Travel
Recruitment Bulletin (separate budget)
Equipment (separate budget)
4,435
10,300
3,000+
__________________
1
These figures are from the budget for a CIC Honors Program with about 12 staff members
and a student population similar to that of the University of Iowa Honors Program.
University Honors Program Self-Study
39
Honors Program Fiscal Year 1994 Revised Budget Proposal
Expense Category
Acct #
Amount
Office Supplies
6070
4,000
Subscriptions
6075
45
Software
6080
550
Desktop publishing software $396 to enhance publications and
reduce costs by creating in-house, $152 Microsoft Office package for
Honors Program staff computers on the LAN network.
Non-Food Supplies
6140
25
Supplies to host receptions and University guest speakers for Honors
students
Professional and Non-Medical Staff
6200
135
Publications
6210
3,860
Newsletter costs will be reduced for 1994-95 approximately $1,500. A
new faculty update communication piece will cost approximately $450
and a new alumni update is estimated at $400. This does not include
funds for new recruitment brochure, which will be at least an
additional $3,000.
Copy Charges
6212
4,021
Copy charges reduced due to cut in handbook use and reduced cost
of newsletter with new format and printing.
ITC Computer
6215
2,220
Fixed cost for University-wide ITC centers $1,398 no increase in cost
allowed for in this estimate, and LAN fees costing $720.
Other Services (HRW DI tab)
6235
2,800
Honors Recognition Week DI tab and other advertisements through
the Honors Program, such as employment opportunities. We are
attempting to reduce $200 from last year’s expenses.
Postage
6250
3,500
Increase in mailing: student newsletter with increased enrollment and
proposed new alumni publication.
Repair and Maintenance
6265
1,900
Fixed cost associated with maintenance contracts for
equipment and emergency repairs.
Telecommunications-fixed
6270
2,782
This amount is reduced due to disconnection of unnecessary phone
lines. Included: 17 circuit fees, ITC split, 4 phone lines and voice mail.
Telecommunications-variable
6275
500
Long distance charges—we will attempt to reduce the 1995 estimate
amount approximately 30%.
Machine Rental and Lease
6430
612
Fixed fee for typewriter rental, used by Honors students for
scholarship forms and other applications.
Duties, Licenses and Fees
6405
200
Movable Equipment
6730
Honors Recognition Week Student Awards
Honors House Daily Iowan must come from General
Expense; no complimentary paper is provided by DI for this
office.
Cost for guest speakers at receptions and educational programs at
SHHC.
National Collegiate Honors Council Annual Membership dues.
Necessary upgrading of computer equipment ($2340.70 new
computer HNF charged out in FY93-94), K Klein: Hard Drive $262,
VGA monitor for Windows $313, Epson computer $300, SIMS
upgrade for computer $294, memory upgrade for printers $237.
6,000
Total Allocated by the College Liberal Arts
33,150
Work-Study and Monitors
Funds Previously Allocated from Provost
Travel
Recruitment Brochure--Publications
5,000
6021
6210
Expense Description ___________________________________________________
This amount is $2000 less than our projected expenditures. We will
attempt to reduce our spending by 33% from our projected estimates.
This amount incorporates use of supplies by several honorary
societies as well as students and groups affiliated with the Honors
Program, including AIHS.
$6000 provided for the express purpose of scholarship awards during
HRW will be transferred to acct #10-050-49-4665-00005-7-18890006305-80. These awards are defined and provided by the College of
Liberal Arts.
College of Liberal Arts recurring General Expense amount $35,000
less $1,850 from the 1993-94 deficit.
2,761
3,000
38,911
Additional Requests for 1994-95: Non-recurring
Recruitment Brochure
6210
3,000
Recruitment brochure financially supported by the Offices of the
President. Provost and Admissions.
Computer Upgrading
6730
1,410
Necessary computer improvements to increase efficiency and
campus-wide communications from the Honors Program.
Amount Requested for use in FY1994
Total Budget Request for FY1994
40
4,410
43,321
This amount is $9,359 less than the budget estimate for FY1994
previously submitted.
University Honors Program Self-Study
Appendix 5.2: 1995 Internal Committee Review Report
Internal Committee Review Report
University of Iowa Honors Program
May 22, 1995
Review Committee
Internal:
Herbert Hethcote, Chair
Philip Lutgendorf
Katherine Tachau
External: Julia Bondanella
David Hothersall
University Honors Program Self-Study
Mathematics
Asian Languages and Literature
History
Indiana University
Ohio State University
41
The Honors Program Review Committee was appointed in October 1994 by Dean Judith P.
Aikin of the College of Liberal Arts. The members are Professors Herbert Hethcote, Mathematics;
Philip Lutgendorf, Asian Languages and Literature; Katherine Tachau, History and external
members Professor Julia Bondanella (Director, The Honors Division, Indiana University) and
Professor David Hothersall (Director, The Honors Society, Ohio State University). This report was
prepared by the internal committee. The report of the two external members is included as a separate
report. The reports of the internal and external committees have not been merged; however, there are
no conflicts between these separate reports. Although the two reports are organized differently and
may express recommendations in different ways, their recommendations are very similar.
In writing this report, the Committee made use of the 1994-95 Honors Program Self-Study
Report as well as the previous (1985) Report of the Review Committee. The Committee was asked
to respond to the six questions for all reviews plus the eight special questions for review of the
Honors Program (see Appendix A). The individuals interviewed by the Committee are listed in
Appendix B. These interviews included the Directors of the Honors Program, the Office of
Admissions and Undergraduate Academic Advising Center, departmental and college Honors
advisors, and the Liberal Arts Advisory Committee. Questionnaires (see Appendix C) for students
currently enrolled in Honors courses were sent to the instructors of each Honors course for
distribution. The site visit of the external reviewers was on April 9-11, 1995.
Overview
The Honors Program is a central part of the University of Iowa's mission to provide a high
quality education for its students. The Honors Program provides enriching and challenging
experiences for the best Iowa students. Student involvement in the Honors Program has increased
steadily in recent years. A strength of the University of Iowa's Program is that it continues to provide
high quality departmental and collegiate Honors experiences for many junior and senior students.
The Honors Program is now attempting to expand by offering special Honors seminars for freshmen
and sophomores and by experimenting with an Honors Rhetoric course for freshmen in Fall, 1995.
The goal of this expansion of Honors offerings for freshmen and sophomores is to make stimulating
Honors courses available to students earlier in their undergraduate studies.
In 1994, the number of students in colleges who have joined the Honors Program is 1818 in
Liberal Arts, 335 in Engineering, 46 in Nursing, 41 in Pharmacy and 109 in Business. In spring
semester 1995, there are 437 students enrolled in 24 Honors classes (see Appendix D). Each
semester there are about 15-20 students who do special projects in courses so that these are
designated as Honors courses for them. Each calendar year approximately 45 students do an Honors
Research Practicum (143:100) and about 16 students do an Honors Teaching Practicum (143:101).
Senior Honors projects, individually supervised by a faculty member in a department or college, are
a major feature of the junior-senior level Honors Program. Each year approximately 330 seniors
complete an Honors project and thereby qualify to receive their bachelor's degrees with Honors.
Our committee found some evidence of ambivalence regarding the very notion of having an
Honors program as inherently "elitist." These worries seem to us to depend upon a confusion of
purposes. The recognition that, given the variability of intellectual abilities from person to person, if
42
University Honors Program Self-Study
universities are to educate every student, they must provide among their courses some that challenge
the very ablest minds, does not amount to thinking that such minds are the only ones we ought to
value or enrich. As a democratic culture, we have a stake in expanding the intellectual horizons of alt
our students; as creators of "higher" education, we must also prepare the next generations of gifted
students to criticize and protect, reshape and renew the multifaceted scientific and cultural legacies
of humankind. Insofar as the Honors Program throughout the university helps us so to prepare a
diverse community of intellectually and creatively talented students, it is among the departments and
programs that are most central to our mission as a public research university.
The committee has found that the self-study report is quite comprehensive and adequately
answers many of the questions posed to this committee. General questions (labeled G1-G6) and the
special questions (S1-S8) are considered in the appropriate topic sections of this report.
Leadership
S6: Now that the Honors Program is an all-University program, are the administrative structures
and procedures appropriate? What steps might be taken to enhance University-wide involvement?
We recommend continuation of the current arrangement with a faculty member from
the College of Liberal Arts serving as a half-time Director of the Honors Program at the
University of Iowa. This person should continue to serve as the Coordinating Director of the
Honors Programs in the Colleges of Business, Engineering, Liberal Arts, Nursing and
Pharmacy at the University of Iowa, as well as the Director of the Honors Program in the
College of Liberal Arts. Although this dual rote may seem awkward, it is an effective arrangement,
particularly because students start in the College of Liberal Arts before they enter the Colleges of
Business, Nursing and Pharmacy. Moreover, we recommend that the Director continue to report
to both the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and the Provost of the University. The latter
two administrators should make joint decisions regarding changes in leadership or budget for
the Honors Program.
There are currently two Honors Advisory Committees: the University-wide committee
consisting of collegiate Honors advisors and Deans, and the Liberal Arts Honors Advisory
Committee. The latter committee seems to have met less often than the former. Even though it has
met infrequently in the past, the Liberal Arts Advisory Committee should be used more by the
Director as a resource, since its members have many years of experience with the Honors Program.
When new members of the Liberal Arts Advisory Committee are needed, we recommend that
the Director of the Honors Program give a list of candidates to the Dean of the College of
Liberal Arts and that the Dean choose individuals and appoint them for a period of three
years.
Staff
S8: What staff structure would be most conducive to the effective administration of the Honors
Program? What is the appropriate distribution of responsibilities to the staff positions in the
recommended structure?
University Honors Program Self-Study
43
The Honors Program staff now consists of a full-time administrative director and a full-time
secretary. The job descriptions in Appendix I of the self-study seem fine. They clearly show that
these positions require multitalented individuals. The administrative director needs not only to be an
efficient administrator, but also someone who works well with students, faculty, and administrators
throughout the University. Similarly, the Honors Program secretary should be knowledgeable about
the Honors Program and able to answer questions and provide advice to students. Because the
Director changes periodically, it provides continuity if these positions are filled by very capable
long-term employees. These staff members are important because they represent the Honors
Program to students, parents, and faculty. The Honors Program has benefited greatly by having
capable staff
We recommend that the full-time administrative director and full-time secretary
positions be retained. We also recommend that a full-time Associate Director be added to the
staff. As teaching faculty members, we are reluctant to recommend additional administrative
(nonteaching) personnel in any department or program; however, the needs of the Honors program
clearly justify adding an Associate Director. The Associate Director is needed to maximize the
benefit of the Dunlap Bequest, to nurture and guide students to the Rhodes and other national
scholarships, to coordinate the continuous evaluation of the Honors Program by Honors students,
faculty research advisors, and alumni, to oversee the cultural program, to develop a recruiting and
summer advising program, to facilitate the Honors advisors from UAAC and to serve as a public
relations person for the University of Iowa to current and potential students and their parents.
The Associate Director should have faculty rank in order to be knowledgeable about
faculty and student interactions and in order to be a respected member of the academic
community. The direct benefits to current students and the enhanced image of the University of
Iowa among potential students and their parents clearly justify adding an Associate Director. The
external report also recommends an additional half-time secretary and a full-time Assistant Director;
we agree that these would be desirable, but recommend their addition to the staff as the Honors
Program grows.
We recommend that the position of the current full-time secretary be changed from
level 2 to level 3. In addition to the normal secretarial duties, the current secretary solves student
problems, advises students, meets with parents and is the front line representative of the Honors
Program. She received very strong endorsements from students on the questionnaires and in our
interviews with Honors advisors.
Departmental and Collegiate Honors
Each department in the College of Liberal Arts has established criteria for graduation with
Honors. Moreover, the Colleges of Business, Engineering, Nursing, and Pharmacy have criteria for
graduation with Honors. Often, these requirements involve a senior research project or
undergraduate thesis. These departmental and collegiate Honors Programs for junior and senior
students are a key part of the Honors Program at the University of Iowa. A strength of the Honors
Program is the well-established system of departmental and collegiate Honors advisors, seminars,
and projects.
44
University Honors Program Self-Study
In general, departmental and collegiate Honors advisors expressed enthusiasm and optimism
about the Honors Program. Most were satisfied with its current organization and administration and
many praised its staff. In nearly all the departments/colleges examined, the program functions
primarily at junior and senior levels, through special Honors seminars and projects, usually resulting
in a thesis or other substantial piece of work (e.g., a film, musical recital, or screenplay). Such
projects allow students to work closely with an individual faculty mentor, offer an experience of
sustained research toward a substantial output of some kind, and occasionally (e.g., in Chemistry,
Education, Nursing, and Psychology) even result in an individual or co-authored publication. In the
view of many interviewees, Honors research offers to their most-highly motivated students ideal
preparation for graduate study, and may facilitate their admission to graduate school (since they can
submit an Honors thesis as evidence of their undergraduate accomplishments). In most of the
departmental programs surveyed, the numbers of Honors students enrolled roughly corresponds to
the University-wide statistic of about 8%, though somewhat fewer actually graduate with Honors. In
a few departments, faculty overload was cited as a factor in making some faculty members unwilling
to assist more than 2 or 3 upper-level Honors majors on their research projects, so that it is
sometimes difficult to find a willing faculty mentor for a qualified Honors student.
S2: How can departments be encouraged to develop their departmental Honors Programs and to
involve their best students in those programs?
The degree of participation at the junior-senior level seems to be very dependent on the
enthusiasm and energy of each Honors advisor in a department or college. Participation is highest
when the Honors advisor is enthusiastic, when there are Honors seminars, and when the faculty work
well in helping students with their Honors projects. In several instances, new advisors remarked that
they had been appointed specifically to enliven rather moribund programs that had not received
much effort or interest in the past, and that they now hoped to see a substantial expansion of their
departmental programs. At the same time, the success of Honors also seems to depend on
departmental degree requirements and the nature of the major. Thus, relatively few students sign up
for Honors work in some programs that have very heavy basic requirements and little scope for
electives (e.g., Asian Languages and Literature, and Music), or in which the skills required for the
major may not always harmonize with overall academic achievement (e.g., Theater Arts and Music,
in which many students are kept extremely busy with production and performance, sometimes to the
detriment of other coursework). Generally, advisors noted that "tracking" and actively recruiting
students is essential to a vital Honors Program, and several observed that they have increased
enrollment over previous years by keeping better records, sending out letters (with which the Honors
House helps), and taking more personal interest in qualified students.
One way to encourage departments is for the University Honors Program Director actively to
enroll the chair and Honors advisor in a department into more extensive participation. Several
Honors advisors mentioned that they find the newsletters and faculty outreach activities useful, but
others expressed the wish to know more about how the program works in other departments, so that
they might develop new ideas and initiatives for their own. A few expressed the wish for group
informational sessions for Honors advisors, perhaps targeted to specific clusters (such as foreign
language and area studies).
University Honors Program Self-Study
45
G3: What are the criteria by which the program evaluates itself? How does the program compare
with similar programs at other universities?
The Honors Program would benefit greatly from an improved process for evaluating
itself. We recommend that the Honors Program adapt a "total quality management" approach
with more feedback from students and faculty at the end of Honors courses, seminars,
research practica, teaching practica, senior Honors projects, etc. Moreover, periodic surveys of
Honors alumni in conjunction with an Honors alumni newsletter could also be effective. Improving
the self evaluation should be a goal of the Associate Director.
Expansion of Freshman-Sophomore Honors Program
S1: What is an appropriate balance between Honors courses and other curricular activities for firstand second-year students and those for upper-class students? What is an appropriate balance
between specially designed Honors courses and Honors sections of existing courses? Haw can these
balances be achieved?
This question seems to relate to the goal given so much prominence in the Honors Program
Self-Study: the development of "a comprehensive four-year program" (p. 8) which would
incorporate "a real collegiate curricular program for the first two years" (p. 6). In interviewing
faculty members and administrators, the internal reviewers have found this goal to be a controversial
aspect of the Honors Program, which reflects conflicting ideas concerning the University's mission.
On a more concrete level, the question points to potentially tough choices over the allocation of
resources in a time of scarcity and even downsizing.
The Iowa Honors Program has been described, in a recent national guide to Honors
Programs, as "back-loaded" (Sullivan and Randolph, Ivy League Programs at State School Prices,
1994, p. 51), meaning that its benefits tend to be concentrated in the junior and senior years. The
same guide identifies "front-loaded" programs as more generally advantageous to students, pointing
out that higher-level courses tend to be smaller and faculty-taught, regardless of whether they are
Honors or not. Our interviews with departmental and collegiate Honors advisors have confirmed
this; relatively few departments have much to offer Honors students before they become majors, and
in the majority of cases Honors work is restricted to one or more seminars and a senior research
project. The present Self-Study proposes to make the program more "front-loaded" by three
strategies:
1) by adding more Honors sections to large GER courses;
2) by encouraging small, faculty-taught Honors seminars and departmental Honors courses at
freshman and sophomore levels;
3) by developing a common Honors curriculum, for which the pilot project is the new 10:3
Honors Rhetoric slated for next fall.
46
University Honors Program Self-Study
The first has long been in place in a number of departments (e.g., Anthropology, Chemistry,
Communications Studies, Nursing, and Psychology); expanding it will require aggressive outreach
to DEOs and Honors advisors in departments offering suitable GER courses, but its success may be
compromised by cutbacks in TA funding that might otherwise "free up" a faculty-taught section in a
large course. Several Honors advisors expressed interest in developing a more "front-loaded"
program (freshman and sophomore years), by developing or increasing the number of Honors
seminars or sections in introductory courses. However, especially in departments with large numbers
of majors (e.g., Communications Studies, English, and Psychology), concern was expressed over the
demand that such courses would make on scarce faculty time.
The second strategy has been slowly gathering momentum for several years. Five Honors
seminars for freshmen were offered in 1994–95 and seven are planned for 1995–96. Based on the
questionnaires returned to us, these Honors seminars are highly rated by the students in them. In
contrast, most of the departmental Honors seminars and proseminars that have been added are aimed
at juniors and seniors. Scarcity of resources and the many demands made on faculty time are often
cited by departments to explain this. For example, although some faculty in English are eager to
teach Honors seminars, the requirements of more than a thousand majors necessitate actually
offering only half the Honors courses that faculty proposed and these only at upper levels. In several
other departments, faculty feel so overburdened that they cannot spare the time to work with more
departmental Honors majors, much less teach additional Honors courses at elementary levels. One
advisor commented, "Our department is cutting back on course offerings because faculty are
overburdened and funds are being cut; how can we add Honors courses?" A few advisors expressed
reservations about "front-loaded" courses, particularly if they are to comprise an "Honors
curriculum" required of all Honors students.
There is some contention about the third strategy. Some faculty members are enthusiastic
about the new 10:3 Honors Rhetoric course as an early introduction to the Honors Program. They
also see it as a gathering course for outstanding freshmen Honors students. Although Honors
Rhetoric has been approved on a trial basis by the EPC, other faculty members continue to express
concern both over its curricular content—which some regard as too narrowly "canonical," and overly
geared to lectures rather than oral and written expression—as well as about the merits of selectively
teaching a small coterie of Honors freshmen selected solely on the basis of high school GPA. Some
English Department faculty regard this course as detrimental to the University's commitment to
develop students' skills in oral and written expression. Others faculty and advisors expressed
reservations that the quest for "common ground" in a core curriculum would result in courses overly
weighted toward the classical "Euro-American canon," and urged the incorporation of greater
diversity. One advisor expressed the view that using "paper scores" and high school gradepoints as
the sole determinant of qualification for Honors tended to produce an elitist, "preppy" program with
little diversity, excluding students with other kinds of strengths, or skills that may not have quite
matured, and thus diluting the mission (and special quality) of a large university. Still another
advisor also expressed concern over the criteria for admission to freshman and sophomore Honors
courses or sections. At the other extreme, one advisor frankly yearned for a more "elitist" system that
would help to recruit superior students. It is surprising that this course has raised fears of fostering
elitism and of moving toward the "Honors college-within-a college" model found at some other state
institutions. Complaints of elitism have always arisen about the concept of Honors courses, but
University Honors Program Self-Study
47
special courses for our most capable students are clearly consistent with the goals of the University
to foster academic excellence and to help each student reach her or his maximum potential.
As the Self-Study implies, a more "front-loaded" Honors curriculum may help the University
to recruit and retain a larger proportion of high-caliber undergraduates. The skyrocketing costs of
private education, and likely cutbacks and cost-increases in educational loan programs should make
state universities more attractive to many bright students in coming years, and an Honors Program
stressing smaller classes and more personal contact with faculty members at entry level may well be
a selling point. However, as the Self-Study makes clear, significant expansion of the Iowa Program
at freshman and sophomore levels would require substantial investment of resources by the
University.
We recommend that the Honors Program and the College of Liberal Arts continue to
monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the freshman Honors seminars and the new Honors
Rhetoric course. Since the Honors Rhetoric course is controversial, the Honors Program could
consider using another course such as Interpretation of Literature as a first Honors course. We
recommend that the instructional budget of the Honors Program be increased to provide for
more Honors seminars and courses at the freshman and sophomore levels. We also
recommend that participation in the Honors Program continue to depend primarily upon
grade point average rather than upon enrollment in any fixed number of lower-level Honors
courses. This is especially important for late blooming students who enter the Honors Program as
upper class students.
Advising
S3: Are the arrangements for advising Honors students satisfactory, both in the Undergraduate
Academic Advising Center and in departments? How can they be improved?
In the Honors Program Self Study, the Director points to advising as "a weak area . . . both
for the open major and in the departments," chiefly because of its inconsistency. Following his
concern that some advisors at the Undergraduate Academic Advising Center "do not know very
much about the [Honors] program," and "advise students with excessive caution about taking honors
courses," we discussed honors advising with the Director of the Advising Center at Dey House. We
were positively impressed with her assessment of the ways in which the Honors Program is changing
and, with it, the responsibilities of her office in guiding good students into the Program and helping
them to flourish in it. The UAAC Director's insights into the support systems that need to be in place
to help talented students of color, and her suggestions of ways in which Honors students can (and, in
the summers, do) help to support minority students, indicated to us that she is an invaluable resource
with whom the Honors Program should work intensively as its staff and Director strive to build a
more diverse Honors student body. She was, for instance, the first person to bring to our attention
how successfully Honors students serving as "peer mentors" to students in the summer Project
Achieve have helped minority students and others at "high risk" academically to achieve. Such
experiences may also help to introduce the assisted students to the possibility of joining the Honors
Program themselves. The UAAC Director believes that it is impractical to select only some of the
48
University Honors Program Self-Study
Center's advisors to advise Honors students, but we believe that there are great potential benefits to
students in having designated Honors Advisors.
We recommend that some UAAC advisors be designated as Honors Advisors and that
all Honors students be advised by them. Liberal Arts students in the Honors Program are about 25
percent of the 7100 freshmen and sophomores in the College of Liberal Arts. Designating 25 percent
of the UAAC advisors as Honors Advisors seems reasonable and desirable. These Honors Advisors
can focus on nurturing and guiding these Honors students into enriching and challenging courses.
We recommend that the Honors advising be done at the Shambaugh House Honors
Center. For example, if there were four half-time Honors Advisors, then there would be two Honors
Advisors at the Honors Center at all times. Having the Honors Advisors at the Honors Center will
help students identify more closely with the Honors Program and facilitate communication between
the Honors Advisors and the Honors staff.
At a large university with continual turnover in the ranks of staff and faculty, the ongoing
task of informing advisors (at UAAC, in several colleges, in departments, and elsewhere) of the
Honors options for qualified students is a major challenge. Some departmental Honors Advisors
suggested that a regularly updated handbook be prepared by the Honors Director and staff with the
assistance of the Honors Advisors to assist departmental advisors in strengthening their departmental
programs, in evaluating their recruitment of students and heuristic goals vis-à-vis those of other
departments, and in preparing their successors as Honors Advisors. This seems to us a fruitful idea,
which could be developed by the Associate Director.
Students
The questionnaires filled out by students in Honors courses in Spring 1995 revealed much
enthusiasm for their Honors courses, seminars or sections. Many students learned about the Honors
Program while at summer orientation or while in high school. Most of the students who were invited
to join the Honors Program did so as freshmen. They joined to get more contact with faculty
members in smaller courses, seminars or sections. Although the existence of the Honors Program
was rarely a primary factor in their decision to choose the University of Iowa, they were pleased that
it existed. As the Honors Program grows stronger, it will become a more important factor in
attracting outstanding students to the University of Iowa. Some students indicated that they were
advised about Honors courses by their advisor or someone at the Honors center, but many indicated
that no one was advising them about Honors courses. The change in Honors advising should
alleviate these problems. Many rated their Honors courses as excellent or very good. Some indicated
that Honors courses are harder, but many students felt that the stimulation and challenge of the
Honors courses were worth the extra effort.
S4: How can the proportion of Honors students who are actively involved with activities sponsored
by the Honors Program be increased?
There was widespread praise of the facilities and atmosphere of Shambaugh House by both
advisors and students. The student questionnaires show that a moderate percentage of Honors
students make use of the facilities, mainly for study and computer access. A smaller percentage
University Honors Program Self-Study
49
participates in the various activities associated with the Program. The Self-Study proposes to
increase such involvement by targeting a portion of the Rhodes Dunlap bequest income for cultural
programming. The internal reviewers support this proposal, but urge that the programming be
selected to appeal to a broad spectrum of students with diverse backgrounds. In addition, a Program
representative might work with the Director of Hancher Auditorium to identify and invite a number
of visiting artists to pre- or post-performance discussions at Shambaugh House, or might encourage
faculty members teaching Honors courses to consider extra-curricular field excursions, lectures, or
performances relevant to course content that might be subsidized through Cultural Programming
funds. A wide variety of events and activities will attract more Honors students to Shambaugh House
and increase participation in activities.
S5: How can the diversity of students in the Honors Program be increased?
The Director and staff of the Honors Program are aware of the need to increase diversity
where students of color are concerned. To this end, meetings were held on September 8, 27 and
October 12, 1994, with representatives of Special Support Services, Upward Bound, New
Dimensions in Learning, Opportunity at Iowa and Future is Yours at Iowa. The Honors Program
received many suggestions and is proceeding in some new directions. The interior decor of
Shambaugh House (including, for instance, the prominent placement of donor and director portraits)
itself may signal different, and quite unintended, messages of welcome or exclusion to men and
women, students of color, and persons with disabilities. We urge the members of the Honors
Program to continue experimenting with ways to increase the recruitment and retention of a more
diverse student population. Moreover, among the different kinds of people we hope to reach and
include in the life of the Honors Program, persons with physical and sensory disabilities—as
opposed to those with learning disabilities—remain largely unconsidered as they do throughout the
university. It will be important for the staff and Director of the Honors Program to initiate planning
with the Office of Student Disability Services and the Council on Disability Awareness to develop
approaches to identifying and recruiting into the Honors Program talented students with physical and
sensory disabilities (e.g. in mobility, sight, and hearing). Such students are often highly motivated
academically, and can provide the Program with invaluable expertise in modifying the physical and
social environment for greater accessibility. As we note elsewhere, Shambaugh House cannot be
made completely accessible, so that diversifying the cohort of honors students to include men and
women with disabilities may require creative assistance from the University.
Dunlap Bequest
S7: What will be the impact of the Dunlap bequest?
The income of about $93,000 per year from the Rhodes Dunlap Endowed Honors Program
Fund will strengthen the Honors Program by providing money for scholarships and research grants
to undergraduates in the Honors Program. In Appendix 4 of the Self-Study, the Director proposes to
use approximately $6,000 for two newsletter editor scholarships; $6,000-$9,000 for new
scholarships for sophomores, juniors and seniors; about $15,000 for the "cultural scholarships"
program; about $5,000-$10,000 for a Director's discretionary fund; and the balance about $53,000$61,000 for student research grants (equipment and supplies, travel to libraries or museums, research
50
University Honors Program Self-Study
study abroad, etc.). The Internal Review Committee generally approves of the proposed funding
directions, but suggests that careful consideration be given to the amounts allocated for scholarships,
the cultural program, the discretionary fund and the research grants. We recommend that the
Director or Associate Director be given the authority to approve research grants requests of less than
$500 but that larger requests be approved by the advisory committee. Several Honors advisors
expressed the hope that a major portion of the Rhodes Dunlap bequest funds would be made
available for student scholarships, both at the University and also in the form of $2,000-$3,000
scholarships to support Honors students participating in study-abroad programs (foreign language
departments and Global Studies particularly cited the scarcity of funds to support Iowa students
studying outside the country). The availability of funds for Honors Scholarships and Research
Grants will definitely help Honors students and will thereby strengthen the Honors Program.
Facilities
The Shambaugh House Honors Center is in most respects a good facility and is an excellent
focal point for the Honors Program, except for the fact that the House is not fully accessible for
persons with physical disabilities. It provides a gathering place for Honors students in a central
location on the campus. It is important that the University maintain and improve this historic
building. At present, there are clear signs of neglected maintenance by the University, e.g. worn,
taped carpets on the first floor; slap-dash installation of an airconditioner in a second floor seminar
room that, as a consequence, must be drafty in winter, and is also notable for inadequate lighting.
Worst of all, the ramp along the side of the house that is intended to make the center accessible
requires a permanent canopy to be usable in winter and other modifications to be useful to persons
without full range of arm motion.
The Director and staff appear to have sufficient work spaces, and these appear inviting; they
do not, however, allow for much expansion if; as members of the Honors Program hope, the
numbers of honors students—and their involvement with the Program—grow substantially. Such
expansion, along with the impossibility of making Shambaugh House completely accessible from
top to bottom (without fundamental destruction of its architectural character), indicate that the
University should develop additional spaces for Honors Students to gather.
We recommend that the Honors Program arrange for an Honors residence hall or for
an Honors floor at a nearby residence hall. This would not involve any extra costs and would be a
valuable option for some students. Honors housing has been successful at other universities.
Budget
General Expense and instructional budgets are in Appendix E. The general expense budget is
clearly inadequate. Some amounts in the general expense budget are ridiculously low, e. g., $25 for
supplies to host receptions and $135 for cost of guest speakers. It is our impression that careful line
item budgets have not been prepared until recently. The Honors Program has now started
maintaining better records of items spent in various categories. This line item budget approach will
make it easier in the future to determine amounts spent and amounts needed next year in the general
University Honors Program Self-Study
51
expense budget. We recommend that future general expense budget requests list amounts spent
in each category and justification for changes.
The TA budget proposed for 1995-96 shows that the modest instructional budget for the
Honors Program has been spread thinly in order to support Honors Rhetoric and the Honors
seminars. In the case of the funds to mathematics and philosophy, they are suitable if they are used
to encourage new activities, but they may not be appropriate if they are for continued support of
Honors sections of existing courses. In general, we support the Director's initiative to get
departments to offer Honors sections because it is in their best interest and not because of financial
supplementation. Nevertheless, some departments in Liberal Arts (e.g. History) have explained to us
that they do not receive a TA budget from Liberal Arts sufficient to meet undergraduate demand,
much less to continue or initiate Honors sections without the funding that the Honors Program
provides. Thus, any effort to discontinue the Honors Program's current financial support to such a
department will require a prior firm commitment from the Dean of Liberal Arts to the Honors
Program and to the department that this supplementary funding will be supplied by the College of
Liberal Arts to the department in addition to the current TA funds. Otherwise, courses now made
possible only by Honors Program funding will perforce be lost despite the conviction of department
faculty and the Honors Program that such courses are critically important. The Honors Program and
the University need these courses; as the 1995 Self-Study of the Honors Program states (p. 2), "[t]he
Honors Program [in Liberal Arts] is growing in terms of total numbers and in terms of demand for
coursework. In fact, the supply of available honors sections and courses has not kept pace with the
growing demand."
52
University Honors Program Self-Study
APPENDIX A
Honors Program
Special Questions to Be Addressed in the Review
[College of Liberal Arts review procedures provide that some questions, in addition to those
addressed in every review, may be tailored to the particular situation of a department or program.
These questions were designed by the Dean in close consultation with the College's associate deans,
Executive Committee, and Educational Policy Committee. The responses should help inform future
decisions made by the College. While they generally address unanswered questions and concerns,
these questions should not be taken as criticisms of the program.]
1. What is an appropriate balance between honors courses and other curricular activities for firstand second-year students and those for upper-class students? What is an appropriate balance
between specially designed honors courses and honors sections of existing courses? How can
these balances be achieved?
2. How can departments be encouraged to develop their departmental honors programs and to
involve their best students in those programs?
3. Are the arrangements for advising honors students satisfactory, both in the Undergraduate
Academic Advising Center and in departments? How can they be improved?
4. How can the proportion of honors students who are actively involved with activities sponsored
by the Honors Program be increased?
5. How can the diversity of students in the Honors Program be increased?
6. Now that the Honors Program is an all-University program, are the administrative structures and
procedures appropriate? What steps might be taken to enhance University-wide involvement?
7. What will be the impact of the Dunlap bequest?
8. What staff structure would be most conducive to the effective administration of the Honors
Program? What is the appropriate distribution of responsibilities to the staff positions in the
recommended structure?
BY\DREV\QUESTION\HONORS.DOC 7/11/94
University Honors Program Self-Study
53
from the
COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS
PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF NON-DEPARTMENTAL PROGRAMS
General Review Questions. In all program reviews, the self-study and review reports
address any of the following questions that are relevant:
1. How does the program serve the needs of students in the College and the University? How does
the program contribute to the research or creative work of faculty associated with it?
2. How have the recommendations of the previous review been implemented? What other
important changes or events have occurred since the last review? In what ways has the program
contributed to meeting the objectives of the strategic plans of the College and the University?
3. What are the criteria by which the program evaluates itself? What are the strengths of the
program? How does the program compare with similar programs at other universities?
4. For academic programs, how does the program evaluate its curriculum and requirements? In
programs that award a bachelor's degree, how is the program using the results of its assessment
of student achievement in the major to improve its instructional programs?
5. What are the program's chief problems?
6. What are the program's realistic aspirations? How can the program work toward achieving these
aspirations and serve the goals of the College and the University more effectively?
Special Review Questions. At the start of the review process, the Dean of the College of Liberal
Arts will formulate a set of questions tailored to the specific situation of the program.
54
University Honors Program Self-Study
Appendix 6: Departmental Honors Requirements
CLAS Major
African American
World Studies
American Studies
Anthropology
Honors Research
Seminar Project
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Asian Languages and
Literature
& indep
study
Yes
Cinema and Comp Lit
Yes
Communication
Studies
Yes
Computer Science
Yes
German
Health and Sport
Studies
International Studies
Journalism and Mass
Communication
Yes
Yes
3.2
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
must take 2:196
must take 4:162
identify outside area of
interest
series of essays, final long
paper
Yes
must take 36:101 and 36:102
3.2
3.2
3.5
Yes
Yes
Yes
3.2
Yes
Yes
3.2
3.5
3.4
Yes
Yes
Yes
3.5
Yes
Yes
3.2
Yes
research
3.2
Yes
3.5
Yes
Yes
University Honors Program Self-Study
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
graduate-level seminar req’d
studio students hold
exhibition
must take 039:191 Honors
Tutorial
journal & oral report to dept.
3.5
Yes
Other
yes
Yes
Classics
Dance
Economics (BA, BS)
English
Environmental
Sciences
Exercise Science
French and Italian
Geography
3.5
3.5 incl
studio
3.2
Biochemistry
Thesis
Yes
Art and Art History
Biological Sciences
Chemistry
Major
GPA
must complete 4-6 hrs
22C:099
8-10 sem. hr.
oral defense of thesis
two honors proseminars
dept presentation
French/Italian writing required
bilingual readings and
discussions
Yes
Page 55
CLAS Major
Leisure Studies
Linguistics
Literature, Science,
and the Arts
Honors Research
Seminar Project
Yes
Yes
Microbiology
Yes
Yes
Yes
3.4
3.8
3.4
Yes
Yes
Political Science
Yes
Yes
3.5
Psychology
Yes
Yes
3.3
Religious Studies
Russian
Science Education
Social Work
Sociology
Spanish and
Portuguese
Speech Pathology and
Audiology
Yes
present written report at dept
seminar
complete either research or
thesis
individual research
collaboration with faculty
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
reading/discussion/writing
Yes
3.2
Yes
Yes
3.3
Yes
Yes
3.4
Theatre Arts
Yes
3.2
56
Yes
Yes
Statistics and
Actuarial Science
Women's Studies
Other
admission requires dept
approval
course options in lieu of
project
written and oral reports of
research
perform & composition
projects
Yes
Yes
Philosophy
Physics and
Astronomy
Thesis
Yes
Mathematics
Music
Major
GPA
Yes
3.2
in-depth study of interest
adv course or grad course
honors designated course,
oral defense of thesis
complete 3 courses beyond
B.S. requirement in Actuarial
Science
Project oral presentation or
performance with research &
written work
Yes
University Honors Program Self-Study
Other undergraduate Honors Research Major
college
Seminar Project
GPA
Business
3.5, 3.5
Yes
Yes
(Option 1)
cum
Business
3.5, 3.5
(Option 2)
cum
Thesis Other
Yes
complete 3 honors courses
with research papers
Education
Yes
Yes
Engineering
Yes
Yes
3.5
written and oral reports of
research
Nursing
Yes
Yes
3.5,
3.25
cum.
1 additional seminar or
project
Pharmacy
Yes
Yes
University Honors Program Self-Study
Yes
Page 57
Appendix 7: Advisors Table
Students who choose to do the work to graduate with honors…...
- are generally looking for experiences that will distinguish them from their peers in
order to pursue advanced training (4)
- either are interested in research for various reasons, or are already working in a
research laboratory
- do either because there is a structured program (English) or because individual
faculty encourage them for particular reasons (LSA, CCL).
It affords a formal mechanism for them to receive recognition for exceptional (i.e., above
average) academic performance. (2)
- because it’s an honor to be asked to be in the program –
- They are our most intellectually engaged students. They thrive on the challenges of
honors work and the close mentoring they receive from our faculty. They join our honors
program because of the excellence of our honors proseminars and the rewards of the
thesis writing experience. They enjoy being part of a community of like-minded
individuals. They see their honors degree both in terms of how others will see them
("this will help me get into grad/law school") and how they see themselves ("I want to
grow morally, intellectually, and emotionally").
By the time they COMPLETE the honors project, most of them discover that it has
turned out to be a source of both pride and enjoyment, maybe even enlightenment. (2)
Students who choose not to do honors…...
- may not see the "need" to graduate with honors if they have other experiences that
distinguish them or they do not wish to pursue an advanced practice.
Majors in Classics sometimes elect not to do honors work because this is not their only
major and they're too busy in their final year here.
- either feel that their GPA is high enough and other experiences appropriate enough
that they will be able to enter the graduate program of their choice or that a research
experience will not assist them in attaining their educational goals.
Those who don't: There are always students with very high GPAs who opt out of
honors. Some have other commitments, some don't want to engage with the honors
community, some don't want the intellectual challenge. Some students find out too late
about their honors options and run out of time and money.
University Honors Program Self-Study
Page 59
Appendix 8: Student Participation in Honors Co-Curricular Programs
How often have you ….
4. …taken honors classes or courses?
115 - Never
108 - Once
122 - Occasionally
46 - Often
4 - No response
5. …used the free tickets offered by the Honors Program?
243 - Never
59 - Once
57 - Occasionally
29 - Often
7 - No response
6. …taken part in an Honors volunteer activity?
282 - Never
53 - Once
40 - Occasionally
15
5
- Often
- No response
7. …gone to a Foreign Relations Council luncheon?
313 - Never
36 - Once
22 - Occasionally
19 - Often
5 - No response
8. gone to a Wednesday workshop on scholarship, graduate school, honors opportunities
or similar topics?
269 - Never
67 - Once
46 - Occasionally
8 - Often
5 - No response
University Honors Program Self-Study
Page 61
Appendix 9: Student Open Comments and Program Response
Please have
more -
# who
asked
Information on
graduating
with honors
16
Honors
advising
13
Information on
honors
program
events
Honors
Courses and
sections
12
11
FRC lunches
11
Tickets
10
Volunteer
opportunities
Informal
events to
socialize
Program Response
This information is primarily distributed through the
departments. To assist the departments with this advising, the
Program has added links to each department’s web pages on
graduating on honors and will focus the fall advisors’
workshops on communication and best practices. We will add
to the footer of the listserv links to the departmental advisors,
departmental requirements and faculty research interests
This is primarily the responsibility of the Academic Advising
Center and the departments. We will be exploring with the AAC
whether the advising for honors students can be structured to
provide more time that would allow more complete honors
advising. We will continue to offer the advisors’ workshops for
departments.
We will planning events more in advance this coming year and
will try a monthly and weekly format for announcements to
allow students to have the information longer and to see it more
than once.
This lies with the departments and the administration to
provide.
We cannot provide more, but we plan to distribute them
through a lottery so that more students can have access than in
the past.
We cannot provide more, but we plan to distribute them
through a lottery so that more students can have access than in
the past.
9
Noted. We will arrange more, at a variety of times.
6
The new building will greatly facilitate these.
Information for
faculty
6
We will continue to work with departments to the extent that
they permit. Several have invited us to faculty meetings and we
will encourage other departments to do so.
Assistance
with
scholarships
3
Noted. Will be facilitated with more resources.
workshops
3
Scholarships
2
Noted. We can arrange these, especially with the new spaces
available
Needs more resources.
University Honors Program Self-Study
Page 63
Appendix 10: Staffing Needs in the Blank Honors Center
With the opening of the Blank Honors Center, the Honors Program will have new staffing
needs that arise both from the building itself and from an expected increase in student
participation. This report is a discussion of these staffing needs.
Why do we need to expand the staff of the Honors Program?
The present financial situation of the University of Iowa is dire, perhaps the worst since the
Depression. It would seem an unfavorable time to contemplate expanding a program.
However, the Blank Honors Center is under construction and its occupancy is forecast for
December of 2003 or soon thereafter. Once the building opens, either the spaces in it will
be staffed appropriately or else they will be unused. Therefore it is appropriate to begin
planning now for providing such staffing.
Why should the University support expanding the staff of the Honors
Program?
Appropriate staffing of the new honors center will increase the opportunities that the Honors
Program can offer to honors students. The Honors Program is one of the major attractions
for top scholars, and increasing what it can offer to such students will increase the number
of such students who choose the University of Iowa. Such students increase the quality of
education for all students by their contributions in classes, and they offer faculty stimulating
teaching opportunities and research support.
Brief review of the student floor of the Blank Honors Center
Because the staffing needs are directly related to the new spaces, a brief review of the
student floor will set the context for considering staffing. The extended hours floor, or
student floor, is the third floor of the Blank Honors Center and will be connected to Daum
by a bridge. It will contain the following rooms;
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Four small seminar-study rooms
Two small and one medium lounge; central station in medium lounge
A student commons with facilities for food
A library shared with the Belin-Blank program
A 24-seat ITC, with monitor station
One large lounge/meeting area
A porch
Three clinic/study rooms shared with the Belin-Blank program
In considering these spaces and the opportunities they offer, there are differences in the
immediate staffing needs and long-term strategic planning for the Honors Program. The
immediate needs will be discussed first.
University Honors Program Self-Study
Page 65
Immediate needs, as of the opening of the Blank Honors Center
To make the student floor available and useful to students, oversight by student staff is
needed during the hours the floor is open. These hours are projected to be 8:00 am to
11:00 pm on weekdays, one hour longer than our current student hours. The additional
hour reflects many student requests. On weekends the student floor would be open noon to
6 pm on Saturdays and noon to 11 pm on Sundays.
The increased student staffing needs reflect these hours and the spaces on the floor. We
project the need for two new student positions, a central desk monitor and a student
librarian.
The central desk monitor would be seated at the central station that is currently designed
for the edge of the central, medium sized lounge. From there the monitor can have
oversight over the floor (viewing the main hall and the passage of students into and out of
the student rooms). The monitor can also provide information about the Honors Program.
Additionally, the monitor would serve as the ITC monitor as our present experience
indicates that a student staff member can be positioned at a moderate distance from the
ITC as long as it is clear where the monitor is when needed. We project the following hours
for the monitor:
75 hours / 15 hours x 5 week days
11 hours / Sunday
6 hours / Saturday
-------------------------------92 hours / week
92 hours x 30 weeks academic sessions = 2760 hours
2760 hours @ $8 / hour = $ 22,080 for central desk monitors
during academic sessions
As our present student staff currently serve ~35 hours per week, the increased need would
be about $14,000 for staffing the central desk with a monitor.
The student librarian would be seated in the library shared with the Belin-Blank program.
The Belin-Blank program will provide staffing during weekday daytime hours. We project
the following hours for the student librarian:
30 hours / 6 hours x 5 weekdays (evenings only)
11 hours / Sunday
6 hours / Saturday
-------------------------------47 hours / week
47 hours x 30 weeks academic sessions = 1410 hours
1410 hours @ $8 / hour = $11,280 for the student librarian
66
University Honors Program Self-Study
Permanent staffing needs
After the opening of the Blank Honors Center the current staff of three permanent staff
members will continue to function as the assistant director (Bob Kirby), the student program
coordinator (Michael Brooks, interim) and the program secretary (Mary Uhl). However we
believe an additional full-time staff member will also be needed.
This person would be a “floor/ITC coordinator” and would supervise the two new student
positions of central desk monitor and student librarian. Supervision would include hiring,
training and oversight of the students staffing the two positions; an appointment at grade 6
would probably be appropriate. This person would also take over the responsibilities of ITC
coordinator, responsibilities currently filled by Ms. Uhl. If feasible, the floor/ITC coordinator
might be able to replace the student central desk monitor for part of the daytime hours. If so
this will reduce the cost of student staff. As time permitted, the floor/ITC coordinator could
also assist the assistant director and student program coordinator with student-parent visits
and with orientation.
Our present ITC monitors also do programmatic planning for the Honors Program. It is
anticipated that significantly more administrative time will be needed to serve the 24 work
stations in the expanded ITC. If this new position is approved, student staff in the ITC would
be supervised by the floor/ITC coordinator. Other students would have programmatic work
supervised by the student program coordinator as it is presently. The student program
coordinator will continue to supervise the co-curricular programs, learning community, and
honors societies, and to assist the assistant director with scholarship advising, parentstudent visits, and orientation.
Long term needs
The staff described above will be needed when the Blank Honors Center opens in late
2003 to early 2004. We anticipate that with increased student participation and top-scholar
recruiting the demands upon the program will continue to grow. For that reason we would
like to raise the possibility of further expansions in later years.
After 2-3 years: Add a staff person whose sole responsibility is ITC coordinator; this
position in most places is a full time position. When a full-time ITC coordinator is added, the
original floor/ITC monitor position would evolve into a floor/volunteer coordinator. This
coordinator would retain the responsibility of supervising the students staffing the floor and
would add responsibilities for supervising internal volunteer programs for the Honors
Program (mentoring, tour guides, peer advising, etc).
After 3-5 years: Add a staff person whose sole responsibility is scholarship and academic
advising. This person would maintain databases to allow tracking prospective candidates,
offer additional workshops beyond the few we currently offer, give more extensive advising
for internal and local scholarships and increase departmental contacts relevant to
scholarships. This person could also offer drop-in academic advising on honors issues as
time permits.
University Honors Program Self-Study
Page 67
Justification
The short-term requests are the minimum needed to staff a much larger space. We believe
the long-term requests will expand services that the Honors Program can offer and
increase the attractiveness of the University of Iowa to out-of-state students. Thus, it is
likely that to some extent these expansions may be self-supporting as the national scholar
awards have been. In any case, the staff expansion will ensure that honors students will be
able to make the fullest possible use of their Iowa education and go forward to the widest
possible variety of opportunities afterward.
68
University Honors Program Self-Study
Appendix 11: Comparisons between the University of Iowa Honors Program
and Other Honors Programs in the Big Ten
Information was gathered for many characteristics of these programs, principally from
publicly available sources. A matrix was made of all information obtained, and from this
matrix the following tables were extracted:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Appendix 11.1
Appendix 11.2
Admissions standards
Average seminar size, requirements to remain in the program, and
courses offered
Appendix 11.3 Requirements to graduate with honors
Appendix 11.4 Scholarships
Appendix 11.5 Honors housing and facilities (these have been compared to the
Blank Honors Center as of 2004)
Appendix 11.6 Special programs and “perks”
Appendix 11.7 Staff
Appendix 11.8 Relation to other University Programs
Appendix 11.9 Summary Table
Appendix 11.10 Graphical Summary
These tables were used to make an approximate comparison for these characteristics
between the University of Iowa Honors Program and other honors programs in the Big Ten.
For each characteristic, the other programs were scored as having more or better in that
characteristic, being about equivalent, or having less or worse to offer than the UIHP. When
not even an approximate comparison could be made, that is noted. These approximate
comparisons are given in the last table.
Because some Big Ten universities offer a centralized program while others support
decentralized programs in individual colleges, we have provided a summary below of the
nature of each Big Ten program outlined in the appended tables. Note that Northwestern
University does not have an honors program and is therefore not included
Character of
Program
University of Illinois
campus
University of Illinois
college
Indiana University
campus
University of Michigan
college
Michigan State University campus
University of Minnesota
college
Ohio State University
campus
Penn State University
campus
Purdue University
college
University of Wisconsin
college
Institution
University Honors Program Self-Study
Sponsoring Unit
Campus Honors Program
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Honors College
College of Literature, Science and the Arts
Honors College
College of Liberal Arts
University Honors Program
Schreyer Honors College
College of Liberal Arts
College of Letters and Science
Page 69
Appendix 11.1: Admissions Standards
Institution
Admissions Standards
Illinois
ƒ Campus
Entering freshmen with high ACT/SAT scores and exceptional
high school records are automatically invited to apply for
admission to the CHP, but any incoming or currently enrolled
freshman may apply. Admission based on test scores, HS rank
and GPA, evidence of creative and leadership abilities, essay
Illinois
ƒ CLAS
Top 15% of entering freshmen; continuing/transfer students with
a cumulative 3.5 GPA may self-nominate
Indiana
Combined SAT score of 1300/above or ACT composite score of
30/more and class rank in top 10% of graduating class; appeals
process similar to Iowa's; continuing IU students: minimum
14 s.h. and 3.5 GPA
Michigan
High school GPA of 3.8, an SAT combined score at or above
1400, ACT combined score at/above 32
Michigan State
Top 5% of high school graduating class and either an ACT
composite score of at least 30 or an SAT total score of at least
1360; continuing and transfer students: 3.5 MSU GPA
Minnesota
ƒ College of Liberal Arts
Freshmen: top 10% of high school class and ACT score of
28/above and SAT of 1260/above. Continuing/transfer: at least
3.5 GPA in all college-level coursework. Juniors/seniors must
have at least 40 graded s.h., a declared CLA major, and at least
3 semesters before graduation
Ohio State
Freshmen: top 10% of high school class and ACT composite of
29 or SAT combined of 1300; students who do not meet both
criteria may write an optional essay. Continuing/transfer
students: apply to college of interest.
Pennsylvania State
Freshmen: students with minimum 1350 on the SAT,
outstanding high school records, and a commitment to serious
academic and intellectual pursuits are eligible to apply.
Purdue
ƒ College of Liberal Arts
Freshmen: top 10% high school class or 1150 SAT or 26 ACT.
Dean’s Scholars are automatically eligible. Continuing/transfer:
must have a 3.0 GPA to remain in the program.
Wisconsin
ƒ College of Letters and
Science
Freshmen: Admission based on 3.3 GPA or above; apply
directly to the Honors Program Office for admission to Honors in
the Liberal Arts, but apply to their major department(s) for
admission to Honors in the major
University Honors Program Self-Study
Page 71
Appendix 11.2: Average Seminar Size, Requirements to Remain in the
Program, and Courses Offered
Institution
Size
Requirements to remain in program
Courses offered
Illinois
ƒ Campus
N/A
A 3.3 GPA and steady progress in
completing course/activity
requirements
GE courses; upper
division interdisciplinary
seminars
Illinois
ƒ CLAS
N/A
A 3.5 GPA, need two Honors courses/
year (includes Honors Credit learning
Agreement courses)
N/A
Indiana
20 Usually one honors class/semester
N/A
Michigan
N/A
Two Honors+ courses / semester;
students take ~ half their course work
in Honors courses during first two
years, Great Books or Classical
Civilization = freshman composition
course; Students apply for an Honors
concentration in department year 2/3
all departments,
introductory sections;
sophomore seminars;
Honors sections; junior
and senior department
concentration and
research
Michigan State
N/A
Minimum GPA of 3.20, submit
approved Academic Progress Plan
annually, pursue enriched program of
study including Honors-caliber courses
honors courses, sections,
options, independent
research, graduate and
international study
Minnesota
N/A
First two years = 3+ Honors
opportunities and >3.5 GPA;
Juniors/seniors complete four Honors
opportunities (honors courses or
contracts , honors commendation,
graduate courses)
Honors colloquia,
seminars, departmental
upper and lower division
Ohio State
Pennsylvania
State
19 Honors coordinators in each college
review Honors students' records
according to their college criteria
over 200 Honors classes
taught per year
15-25 One-third of first-year and sophomore 200+ offerings/year
coursework must be in Honors, and at across majors; GE
least one-quarter for subsequent years English 30, Honors FirstYear English Comp,
required; Honors options;
Advanced Curriculum;
Honors Independent
Research; International
study
University Honors Program Self-Study
Page 73
Institution
Size
Requirements to remain in program
Courses offered
Purdue
N/A
A 3.0 GPA to remain
Honors seminar and
research
Wisconsin
N/A
Maintain minimum GPA as set by
major department ~ 3.3 and 3.5
Honors-level courses;
seminar; sections;
designation
74
University Honors Program Self-Study
Appendix 11.3: Requirements to Graduate with Honors
Institution
Illinois
ƒ Campus
Requirements to graduate with honors
Requirements vary from one department to the next, but usually involve a
minimum GPA, a certain amount of honors coursework, and a thesis or
senior research project
Indiana
Complete at least 18 credit hours of approved honors courses w/ GPA of
3.3 or higher; overall GPA of 3.3 or higher
Michigan
Senior Honors thesis, as per department requirements and direction of a
professor
Michigan
State
Complete at least eight Honors-caliber courses; for students completing a
second degree two additional Honors-caliber courses are required
Minnesota
Eligibility is based on the GPA in the student's final 60 graded credits at
UMN and satisfactory completion of at least four upper-division honors
opportunities. Students must complete requirements in their major
departments in CLA.
Ohio State
N/A; specific to department
Pennsylvania
State
Thesis for all majors as specific to departmental requirements
Purdue
Requires 24 credit hours of Honors with a B or better in each course.
(study 21 credit hours); complete Honors courses in at least 3
departments; at least 9 hours in Honors courses at the 400 level or above;
at least 12 hours outside major (up to 12 hours may be outside the School
of Liberal Arts with the approval of the Director of the Honors Program);
GPA must be 3.3/4.0 or better. All programs require an honors project or
thesis, but each may also have its own, individually designed criteria
Wisconsin
2 options: General Honors in Letters and Sciences; Honors in a Major
(with specific departmental requirements)
University Honors Program Self-Study
Page 75
Appendix 11.4: Scholarships
Institution
Scholarships
Illinois
ƒ Campus
In-state: $200 tuition grant each semester, freshman year; Out-of-state—tuition
waiver brings to ~ in-state; renewable for sophomore year; 15 awards annually;
research grants: $1,000; travel for education, $500; for research $1,000.
Indiana
Honors College Scholarships (~75) $1,000 - $6,000/year for incoming 1st-year
students, up to 3 years; Wells Scholarship for 20-25 incoming freshmen is
tuition, fees, and a living stipend for four years; thesis-research grants, $2501,000; ~ 5 creative activity grants (~ $1,750); teaching internship grants
($600/semester) comparable to our Teaching Practicum; Travel Grants (~
$600); research grants ~ $600 fall/spring, $1,750 summer; International
Experiences grants ~ $2,000; Professional Experience Internship ~ $600
fall/spring, $1,750 summer;
Michigan
Graf Scholarship and Prizes (one award of $1500 to $2000), Wasserstein
Scholarship for students who write or edit for Michigan Daily, research and
travel awards, and Virginia Voss Awards for excellence in writing. Honors
Program also works with students for major national scholarships and
fellowships.
Michigan
State
National Scholarship of $5000/yr to non-resident; resident $2,000 STATE
Scholarship; out-of-state tuition grant ~ resident; Study Abroad Scholarships;
several endowment awards to defer costs; two thesis funding awards $2,200
each; Honors College Research Fund; Honors College—two scholarships,
renewable for four years to incoming freshmen and two one-year scholarships,
$3000 annually.
Minnesota
Meet GPA eligibility for CLAS merit scholarships; Honors thesis/research grants
Ohio State
Battelle and Joyce Scholarships, the Presidential, Medalist, Tradition, and
University Scholarships, and National Merit and National Achievement
Scholarships
Pennsylvania Automatic first-year (freshman) Academic Excellence Scholarships (renewable
State
four-year merit awards of between $2000 and $3000 per year, up to 300 awards
each year)
Purdue
School of Liberal Arts offers $11,000 in merit scholarships for Honors students,
including include Outstanding Honors Senior Scholarships ($1,500) and
Outstanding Junior Scholarship ($1,000). Additional for from $200 to $700.
Over twenty each year. Must have 3.3 GPA and be in good academic standing.
More Honors courses and participated in Honors events are given preference.
Wisconsin
Four named senior thesis grants ($700-4,000); two named merit Honors awards
($3,000 and 2,500); three named study abroad ($500-2,500); Business
Scholars Program; Chancellor's Scholarship Program; McNair Scholars
Program; Medical Scholars Program
University Honors Program Self-Study
Page 77
Appendix 11.5: Honors Housing and Facilities
Institution
Facilities
Honors Housing
Illinois
ƒ Campus
No
Honors House, 1205 W. Oregon St
Illinois
ƒ CLAS
N/A
N/A
Indiana
Academic communities; Honors
residential community; Honors
Freshman Interest Group (FIG)
Honors College House
Honors College Advising House
Michigan
80% entering Honors students and
25-30% return the second year;
residential advisors; women-only
option
Honors Program, 1330 Mason Hall
Michigan
State
Honors floor in one of five residence
halls
The Honors College Michigan State
University, Eustace-Cole Hall
Minnesota
For entering Honors freshmen in CLA, Honors Division, College of Liberal
Institute of Technology, or Carlson
Arts, 115 Johnston Hall
School of Management.
Ohio State
Four Honors residence halls, one with Kuhn Honors & Scholars House,
direct access to University Honors and University Honors & Scholars Center
Scholars Center
Pennsylvania Two residence halls 90% of incoming Schreyer Honors College, 10
State
Scholars choose Scholars Housing
Schreyer Honors College
and about 20-30% of the students are
not Scholars, but choose it
Purdue
No
Honors and Research Experiences
Office of the Provost Retention
Initiatives South Campus Courts
Wisconsin
No
L&S Honors Program, 409 South
Hall, 1055 Bascom Mall
University Honors Program Self-Study
Page 79
Appendix 11.6: Special Programs and “Perks”
Institution
Illinois
ƒ Campus
Special Programs
Orientation Program; Senior
Sibling Program; Honors
Convocation (students read/
discuss a book by guest lecturer)
Illinois
ƒ CLAS
Perks
Priority registration for classes; access to
library stacks; Chancellor's Scholar status
noted on transcript; orientation/ senior
sibling programs for incoming students
Early registration; access to stacks; James
Scholar status each year noted on
transcript; may apply for research awards;
special recognition at graduation
Indiana
Mentoring program; Honors
Advisory Board
Honors advising; grants for research,
creative activities and international travel;
career/placement counseling; varied livingcommunity options
Michigan
Independent study, research;
summer reading; visiting Honors
professors seminars; field
experience and study abroad;
Classes; advising; interest groups; faculty
firesides, tickets for concerts for the arts
and special lectures; Honors Round Table
conversation in the dining hall
Michigan State Courses, sections, options;
Advising; some graduate courses; limited
research, independent study;
and priority enrollment; student
graduate courses; academic
organizations
scholars program; debate team;
gifted and talented; study abroad
Minnesota
Honors Student Association
(social, diversity and volunteer
programs)
Academic, peer and faculty advising;
Honors library privileges; Honors societies;
Listserv; CLA Honors news
Ohio State
Admissions scholar hosts;
faculty dinners; cultural
programs; field trips; research
forum; mentoring
Advising; university priority course
scheduling
Pennsylvania
State
Co-Curricular activities;
Advising; international experience,
international programs;
independent research, service, diversity
mentoring; service organizations programming, leadership development
Purdue
Colloquia; arts tickets; book club N/A
Wisconsin
Education Fellows Program;
Senior Research Fellowships,
Pathways to Excellence Project;
Undergraduate Research
University Honors Program Self-Study
Research apprenticeships, co-curricular
events like group theater evenings or field
trips
Page 81
Appendix 11.7: Staff
Institution
Staff
Illinois
ƒ Campus
5: director, associate director, assistant director for operations, two
secretaries
Illinois
ƒ CLAS
N/A
Indiana
15: dean of the honors college; directors of recruitment, extracurricular
programming, publications, academic advising; assistant director for
administration/planning; administrative assistant, Wells Scholars Program;
program services assistant; recruitment and scholarships coordinator;
extracurricular programming assistant; four graduate-student advisors; 1
secretary
Michigan
9: director; associate director of academic services; assistant director of
admissions; senior scholarships; honors housing;
financial operations; admissions assistant; receptionist and webmaster;
student records and graduation coordinator
Michigan State
12: director; visiting honors faculty; assistant director, external relations;
admissions counselor; executive staff assistant; 7 academic advisors
Minnesota
10: director; assistant program director; 4 academic advisors, 2 advisors;
senior office specialist; career and community learning center liaison
Ohio State
10: director; administrative assistant; human resources; webmaster;
leadership programming; residence hall coordinator; research; visit
ambassador; funding and scholarship coordinator; activities director
Pennsylvania State
10: dean; associate dean; coordinator of selection and International
programs; student programs and service learning; coordinator of alumni;
budget executive; 2 administrative assistant; coordinator of student
records; receptionist
Purdue
5: director; assistant director; database coordinator; senior assistant;
junior assistant
Wisconsin
9: Director; assistant dean; 6 unknown including peer advisors
University Honors Program Self-Study
Page 83
Appendix 11.8: Relation to Other University Programs
Institution
Program
Name
Relation to Other University
Programs
Program Size
Campus
Honors
Program
Campus-level Program. Illinois 125 first-year students; a few join
also sponsors department-level sophomore year; "Chancellor's
honors programs.
Scholars"
Illinois
James
Scholars
Program
College-level program; details
here are for the College of
Liberal Arts and Sciences
N/A
Indiana
Honors
College
University-wide; individual
schools and departments also
have programs
About 10% of each entering firstyear class
Honors
Program
College of Literature, Science,
and the Arts
400 to 450 freshmen; sophomores
may apply; upper-class entry
decided by department
Michigan
State
Honors
College
University-wide; individual
departments and college
members
N/A
Minnesota
Honors
Division
College of Liberal Arts and
Sciences
N/A
Honors
Program
University-wide; individual
departments and college
members
N/A
Shreyer
Pennsylvania Honors
State
College
Works with all the other
academic colleges at Penn
State
1800 students enrolled in all
majors
Purdue
Honors
College-level program; specific
to departments therein; also
interdisciplinary options
(information here as per CLAS) N/A
Wisconsin
School and
College
College-level program
Honors
(information here as per Letters
Program
and Sciences)
N/A
Illinois
Michigan
Ohio State
University Honors Program Self-Study
Page 85
Appendix 11.9: Summary Table
Other Institution’s offering is ______________ that of UI
Category
Admissions
standards
Average
seminar size
Requirements
to remain in
More/Better
Than
Michigan, MSU,
Minnesota, Penn
State
--UIUC, Indiana,
Michigan, Penn
State, Minnesota
Courses
offered
Requirements
to graduate
with honors
Scholarships
Indiana ; Purdue ;
Minnesota; MSU;
Wisconsin (see*)
Penn State (?),
Indiana
Honors
Housing
---
Facilities
(compared to
BHC 2004)
Special
programs
---
UIUC, Michigan,
MSU, OSU,
Wisconsin (**)
About Equal to
UIUC, Indiana,
OSU, Wisconsin
Worse/Fewer
Than
Purdue
Not known
Indiana, OSU,
Penn State
UIUC, MSU,
OSU, Wisconsin
---
UIUC, MI, MSU,
MN, Purdue, WI
Purdue
UIUC, Michigan,
MSU, Minnesota,
Penn State, OSU,
Wisconsin
UIUC, Michigan,
Penn State,
Wisconsin
,Minnesota (?),
MSU
Purdue
IN
No thesis
required: MSU,
Indiana
Michigan, UIUC,
OSU, Purdue,
Wisconsin
UIUC, Purdue,
Wisconsin
OSU
Indiana,
Michigan, MSU,
Minnesota (?),
OSU, Penn State
OSU
MSU, Penn State
Michigan, Purdue, UIUC, Indiana,
Minnesota, MSU, Penn State
Wisconsin
UIUC, Indiana,
Michigan, Purdue,
Minnesota, OSU,
Wisconsin
Indiana, OSU,
Purdue
Wisconsin, MSU
UIUC, MSU,
Michigan,
OSU; Indiana
Minnesota, Penn
(***)
State
ALL; # below
----Staff
#: UIUC, 5; Indiana,15 (11); Michigan, 9; MSU, 12 (5); Minnesota, 10 (6), OSU, 10; Penn State,
10; Purdue, 5; Wisconsin, 9 (?); (# in parentheses indicates without honors advisors)
*: Indiana (18 s.h.); MSU (~24 s.h.); Minnesota (~12 and dept requirements); Purdue (24 s.h. and
distribution); Wisconsin General in Liberal Arts
** UIUC, orientation, sibling; Michigan, summer reading; MSU debate; OSU, several; Wisc, fellows
*** Early or priority registration: UIUC, MSU, OSU; Indiana, personal honors advising
“Perks”
University Honors Program Self-Study
Page 87
Appendix 11.10: Graphical Summary
Other Institution’s offering is ……………… that of UI
Category
Facilities
(compared to
BHC 2004)
Honors
Housing
Courses
offered
Seminar size
Scholarships
Special
programs**
“Perks” ***
Admissions
standards
Requirement
to graduate
with honors*
Requirement
to remain in
Staff
More or Better
Than
About Equal to
Worse or Smaller
Than
Not
Known
■
■■■■■
3
■■■■■■
■■■
■■■■■■■
■
■■■
■■
■■
■■■■■
1
6
■■■■■
■■■■■■■
■■■■
■■■
■■■■
■■■■
■■■■
■
■■■■■
■■■■
■■
■■■■■
■■■■
1
1
1
■■■■■■■■■
numbers shown
below
#: UIUC, 5; Indiana,15 (11); Michigan, 9; MSU, 12 (5); Minnesota, 10 (6), OSU, 10; Penn State,
10; Purdue, 5; Wisconsin, 9 (?); (# in parentheses indicates without honors advisors)
*: Indiana (18 s.h.); MSU (~24 s.h.); Minnesota (~12 and dept requirements); Purdue (24 s.h. and
distribution); Wisconsin General in Liberal Arts
** UIUC, orientation, sibling; Michigan, summer reading; MSU debate; OSU, several; Wisconsin,
fellows; some institutions listed twice if missing programs
*** Early or priority registration: UIUC, MSU, OSU; Indiana, personal honors advising; some
institutions listed twice if missing perks
University Honors Program Self-Study
Page 89
Appendix 12: Honors Program Prospective Student Handouts
University Honors Program Self-Study
Page 91