1
Central Washington University
College of Arts and Humanities
Department of Philosophy
Program Review-Report of External Evaluator
Spring, 2007
Visit of April 9&10, 2007
Prepared by: Terry L. Mazurak
Professor of Philosophy and Religion
Bernie McCain Chair in the Humanities
Albertson College of Idaho
Introduction
In February, 2006 Dr. Jeffery Dippmann, then acting Chair of the Department of
Philosophy, inquired if I would serve as external evaluator for his Department’s five year
program review; and in the summer of that year Dr. Linda Beath, AVP issued a formal
invitation. During the fall and winter of AY 2006-7, Dr. Beath and Dr. Chenyang Li,
Chair of the Department, with the help of Jan Farrell, Department Secretary, coordinated
scheduling and other logistical matters.
The Self Study was mailed in March of 2007, in ample time to be reviewed before
the on-sight visit of April 9 and 10. The Self Study was thoughtful, well-written and
generally illuminating, though it did suggest unfamiliarity with the standards of the
Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities. Requested supplemental material
was promptly made available.
Administrators and the members of the department were well-prepared,
informative and generous with their time and insights during my visit. The great
cordiality and warmth exhibited by all was greatly appreciated.
I. Overview
In spring, 2007 the Department of Philosophy consisted of two tenured professors,
one tenured associate professor, two tenure-track assistant professors, 4 non-tenure track
full-time lecturers and several part time, non-tenure track lecturers. In addition, several
emeritus professors had taught within the last several years. A new tenure-track position
has been filled to begin AY 2007-8. The Department does not make use of paid teaching
assistants, though several interns have worked in the capacity of tutors for lower level
courses. Members of the Department team teach with members of other departments;
occasionally for trips abroad.
Several general features stand out about the Department. First, after a long period
of stability in the ranks of its tenured professors, the Department has undergone
considerable transformation in the last decade. Indeed, with the retirement of Dr. Peter
Burkholder next December, the Department will have no full-time member who has been
at CWU more than eight years and only one full professor. As already noted, the
Department will add a new member next Fall, and is proposing to add two additional
positions in the near future. This is a relatively young department, certainly in terms of
experience at CWU, and a dynamic one.
2
So far, the Department seems to have met the inherent challenges of this situation
with great success. The Self Study speaks with pride of “a successful and smooth
transition to a new generation of faculty” and great success at recruiting new tenured and
non-tenure track faculty. Department morale in regard to these changes is quite high and
there is a very strong sense that the changes are opportunities not threats.
In this evaluator’s judgment, this success can be traced to deeper features of the
Department. The evaluator was impressed time and time again by the warm collegiality
in the department, and the professional egalitarianism among its members of all ranks,
whether NT, TT or T. It is clear that the senior members of the department, especially its
Chair, have worked hard to establish this atmosphere. While formal departmental
meetings are said to be rare, members constantly consult by email and the Chairman
frequently discusses issues with other members, especially concerning class assignments
and curriculum change.
That atmosphere is tied to, and probably caused by, a clear, shared sense of
mission that animates all its faculty members. Faculty are united in their dedication to the
education of their students, a commitment to professional development, a passion for
scholarly research and a selfless acceptance of service inside and outside the department.
This evaluator did not encounter a student who did not lavish praise on all his or her
teachers in the Department from the most senior member to newest adjunct (an
impression quantified by the student evaluations). Students volunteered many examples
of selfless assistance from faculty and again and again spoke of faculty who took time out
of busy schedules to help them. Nor did the evaluator speak with a faculty member who
spoke of his or her students with anything but respect (if sometimes exasperation). The
Department not only encourages professional development and scholarship, but supports
it to an impressive degree, even for the NT. The service the Department provides the
University and the community at large is all out of proportion to its size.
There are causes for concern, however. There is real sense that the Department as
a whole and its members as individuals are under some strain. Part of the story is
revealed in the rather startling student numbers reported in the Self Study. The
Department services two of the University’s General Education requirements (Basic
Skills,d; Philosophies and Cultures of the World) and it is obviously a popular choice for
each. Average class size and student/faculty ratio for these classes approaches twice that
of the University average. While the number of majors is relatively small, there is a
substantial number of minors and individuals who take more than one class and class size
in its upper level courses are also large. FTE production nearly equals that of departments
two or three times its size.
The commitment to service to the University forces some to cut back on class
offerings, sometimes to the bone. Resource allocation is somewhat troubling. Not only is
support for faculty development and scholarship funded by the Department’s own
teaching efforts during the summer; so too are the basics of support for instruction that
ought to be covered in the Goods and Services budget.
At the individual level, the new collective bargaining agreement has created real
morale problems by adding further burdens and irritations to the already over-extended.
While the principles of collective bargaining are embraced by many, and many still see
promise in it, there is an apparently universal sentiment that its implementation has
created unnecessary problems. Some see this mainly as a matter of first year stumblings;
3
but some are considerably less charitable in describing the administration’s attitude in
carrying out its responsibilities. Whatever the source, faculty across the board and even
administrators complain of massive new amounts of paper work now required for annual
reports, promotion, renewal and application for merit raises. Even more troublesome,
faculty universally believe completing the annual work load reports in a manner
acceptable to the Administration requires systematic underreporting: whereas 45 units is
the imposed “standard” for T and TT faculty, with anything above that blue-penciled out,
most say that honest listing would easily total in the low 50’s, with 60 units not rare. (See
here NWCCU, Standard 4.A.3, Policy 6.2)
II. Faculty
All the faculty of the Philosophy Department are suitably qualified academically
and professionally for their teaching assignments, some exceptionally well qualified.
While the atmosphere of the Department is egalitarian, two categories of faculty exist,
separated by expectations and responsibilities.
Tenured and tenure-track faculty
The Department has a long record of distinguished teaching and that dedication
persists among its T and TT faculty today. Again, students speak glowingly of their
teachers’ dedication and skill in the classroom; and appreciate the wide diversity of
approaches. In and of itself the teaching load carried by T and TT faculty is heavy, but
not exceptional for a teaching university. However, there are other burdens, as already
indicated.
One of the most important aspects of the “generational shift” in the department
has been marked increase in self-expectation for research and other aspects of
professional development. Indeed, the present Departmental standards of professional
growth and scholarship employed in considerations of promotion and tenure are regarded
as “absurdly low” by even the most junior members (who have already exceeded them).
The Department has recently proposed new, more rigorous standards that seem to have
been accepted by all. Though the new collective bargaining agreement apparently
provides $750 per faculty member per year of support for research, members of the
Department have generally made use of relatively generous resources generated by the
Department itself through its summer offerings. There is a shared sense that faculty are
not given enough credit for time spent in research. Some are concerned with a new
rhetoric of “scholar teachers” and the uncertainties of what the use of that label may bode.
A major issue here is the professional work involved in developing new courses, or even
modifying old ones. No credit and no support are granted for such work, a rather
troublesome reading of “scholarship” by a self-proclaimed teaching college. (See
NWCCU Standard 4.B)
T and TT (and several NT) have been quite active in serving the University, the
Department and various student and community constituencies. Much positive has
flowed from this service for the individual faculty, the Department, the University and
the community. There can be no doubt, however, that a price has been paid in terms of
untaught courses, students served in a rushed way, and individual exhaustion. Part of the
responsibility for overextension is a matter of individual choice, but part is systemic: in a
very small department, members must hold committee memberships and serve other
4
assignments much more often than in a larger one. Perhaps membership rules regarding
certain committees or bodies of the faculty should be rethought. Much administrative
service to the University and the Department is recognized and credited on work loads,
but some is not. Especially irksome is that time spent working on the Self-Study and
other tasks concerned with assessment are not credited.
Tenure-track faculty are comprehensively reviewed by the Chair every year using
student evaluations (SEOI), class visitations and dossiers. Tenured faculty are reviewed
every three years and for promotion. It is worth noting that NWCCU requires evaluation
of faculty only every five years. (See NWCCU Policy 4.1)
Non-tenure track faculty
The Department makes heavy use of part-time and now full-time “lecturers”, i.e.
non-tenure track faculty hired on a non-permanent, quarterly or annual basis. In most
years of the past five such faculty taught between 40 and 50 percent of the classes and
nearly all the summer classes; the figure was reported to have been 60 percent this
quarter. NTT teaching load can be quite heavy. Full-time lecturers on annual contract
teach 45-50 hours per AY, plus summer work. Nearly all of the classes they teach are at
the lower levels, and thus have enrollments of at least 40. That is, to say the least, an
exhausting burden, even for the most energetic.
The Department, led by the Chair, has worked hard to cultivate and support a
cadre of well-qualified, effective teachers to fill this important part of its faculty; not an
easy accomplishment for an area as isolated as Ellensberg. Several of the lecturers were
regularly singled out for praise by the students; and perhaps most tellingly, few students
were able to distinguish lecturers from the regular faculty. As noted above, several are
active in service to the University. Some are active professionally and have active
research agendas. All seem to actively participate in the life of the Department, both
professional and social.
It is then disappointing to learn that morale is not high among this group. While
the creation of annual contracts for some NT has been positive, many NT point to a series
of steps by the Administration of the University that seem to signal at best a
misunderstanding of the importance and role of such faculty to the institution. Some seem
to be petty, for instance, a dismissive circulation by the Administration of the Governor’s
proclamation of the importance of NT; others more serious, refusing to publish names of
lecturers in the catalog, refusing to allow NT to have a voice in the election of chairs, and
most importantly, requiring annual re-application to a pool for NT. Since it is no
exaggeration to say that the University simply could not run without these faculty, it
seems rather poor managerial policy to alienate them without very important reasons.
All NT are reviewed by the Chair annually.
II. Curriculum
The Department’s course offerings may be broken down into three categories.
First, lower division courses that serve the CWU student body as a whole, generally to
fulfill General Education requirements. Second, courses intended mainly for those
5
seeking a major or a minor in Philosophy or the major or minor in the Religious Studies
Specialization. Finally, there are occasional “individual studies” at the graduate level
leading to an MA.
Assessment of Academic Effectiveness
NWCCU now emphasizes educational assessment in its ten year re-accreditation
reports and, if anything, will put more emphasis upon this matter in coming years given
new pressures from the federal government. The evaluation of compliance with Standard
Two has come to orbit around a vision of assessment outlined in Standard 2.B and the
infamous Policy 2.2. Like a good many departments (including the evaluator’s own), the
Philosophy Department of CWU needs to take steps to comply with this vision.
The Department has some of the pieces in place to create a good process of
assessment as outlined in Standard 2.B and Policy 2.2. It uses student surveys (SEOI) for
every class and has a final “capstone” exercise for all its majors. However, SEOI are now
used mainly for faculty evaluation, not assessment of curriculum; nor is the capstone
experience. That is, there does not seem to be a regular, formal process by which
information gleaned from these sources and other sources is analyzed for each class and
for the curriculum as a whole. And there does not seem to be a regular, formal process by
which the results of that analysis are tied back into planning of the curriculum and
allocation of resources.
Other indicators should be added to the two already in use. Many institutions have
moved away from sole reliance on surveys toward targeted interviews of students (“focus
groups”) or solicitation of review letters from alums or the graduate schools they attend.
Acceptance rates at graduate schools, or scores on national exams such as the LSAT, are
also widely used. However, the real deficiency here is the process. There is a process in
place by which the faculty decides which classes to teach, but it seems to be largely
informal. What is critical is that that process be made formal and regular, and that it be
informed by assessment data collected in some regular manner. The Department in
consultation with Dean should begin developing such a process as soon as possible, a
process that employs multiple metrics, longitudinal study and is tied back into planning.
Lower Division courses and General Education
The Department’s offerings emphasize lower division courses that fulfill the
General Education requirement. For example, according to rough calculations based upon
data supplied by the Department, in AY 2004-2005 74% of the classes in the fall were
such, 72% in the winter and 69% in spring; and in the following year, 77%, 71% and
74%. Such balance is not atypical of colleges where philosophy and religion provide
important service to the college as a whole; and, in fact, that mission is embraced by the
Department. More problematic is a decision to allow class size to grow to a cap of 40 or
50 in the case of logic. Some suggested this was a necessary response to the increased
enrollment, but it also seems clear it is a strategy to increase FTE. In and of itself, class
size may not be detrimental to students’ educations, but in this case student/ faculty ratio
comes into play. While students expressed little concern with class size, faculty are
clearly aware of the draw backs in terms of instruction: real discussion is difficult,
students remain anonymous and, hence, often can not be helped in meaningful ways,
6
writing assignments must be cut to the minimum. The other factor that makes such class
size so troublesome pedagogically is that so many of these classes are taught by NT who
at any given time may be teaching three classes of the same size.
Upper Division Courses and Majors
The T and TT faculty are well-qualified to teach the upper division courses in
both programs. In addition, the several NT faculty who teach upper division courses have
all the requisite training and professional experience or special expertise.
The major and minors in philosophy follow the more or less standard model,
although there is a greater emphasis upon non-Western philosophy than is typical. What
many would regard as the one major defect of the philosophy curriculum-not offering an
adequate number of “analytic” courses-has been addressed with a new hire to begin next
year. The Department recognizes that with the retirement of Dr. Peter Burkholder next
December it will be left with gaps in its teaching expertise in ethics and the history of
Western philosophy. The Department looks to remedy that problem with a new position;
and further strengthen its teaching of ethics, a laudable desire given the importance of the
field not only to the major and the Department, but also the University as a whole.
Religious Studies is listed as a “specialization,” not a major. The reason given for
this unusual label was that the “major” designation requires a complicated process
involving the state board. However, the Department wishes to pursue major status for the
program, quite correctly in this evaluator’s view since the academic discipline of
Religious Studies has out grown its traditional sense as an adjunct of the Department of
Philosophy. The Religious Studies curriculum is a bit further removed from the norm
with which the evaluator is familiar in requiring no course dedicated to the study of
Christianity and little emphasis on Western religion out of comparative context. However,
the specialization is certainly still within the recognized parameters of academic study of
religion and accommodates the expertise of the Department’s faculty. The Department
has already requested a new position in religious studies, and presumably will review its
curricular needs in the process of pursuing that request.
The Master’s Degree
While the Department has no formal MA program, the Department and the
Graduate School leave open the option of acquiring an MA in philosophy or religious
studies through the Individual Studies program. In the past several years one student has
completed an MA in comparative philosophy and another is seeking to finish a similar
degree this spring. These students are described by faculty as those who do not wish to
leave the area or can not do so, and yet seem capable of successfully pursing graduate
level work. The programs are administered and governed by Graduate Studies, and
students must meet all the requirements of standard MAs. Nonetheless, participants for
MA study in philosophy must secure considerable voluntary help from the Philosophy
faculty. While the director of an MA thesis used to recieve “comp time” for his or her
service, it is no longer clear he or she will; and other faculty must be called upon to offer
independent study classes and/or serve on the thesis reading committee.
Without at all meaning to impugn the qualifications of the Philosophy faculty to
offer this level of instruction, the abilities of the individual students involved or the
quality of their work, this evaluator cannot help but express deep reservations with this
7
program. The notion of an “individualized” MA is credible in departments with
established regular courses of graduate work distinct from undergraduate offerings, and
corresponding levels of support in terms of dedicated faculty time, library resources and,
not unimportantly, a community of students engaged at a comparable level of work. In a
department without these resources “individualized instruction” can only mean
attempting to somehow cobble together a program with considerably less depth and
substance. Moreover, the possibility of such study puts well meaning and generous
faculty in the awkward position of either having to turn down requests for graduate study
from deserving students or undertaking yet another burden, this one considerable.
Without having given the matter the depth of study it deserves, it seems to this
evaluator that students and faculty would be much better served by either placing these
courses of study in a department with an established MA (with Philosophy faculty as
adjuncts to the departments), or committing the resources to the Philosophy Department
to support a full graduate program, or dropping them altogether. At the very least, the
Department together with the Graduate School should undertake a careful comparative
study of this degree with others at the University and other programs in philosophy and
religious studies across the country. The institution will also need to insure that an
adequate process for assessing the effectiveness of the program is in place.
III. Commendations and Recommendations
Commendations
1. The members of the Department of Philosophy are commended for their
dedication to the education of their students, their enthusiasm for scholarship and
professional development and their service to their University.
2. The Chair of the Department of Philosophy and its other senior members are
commended for establishing an atmosphere of warm collegiality within the
department by their words and examples.
Recommendations
1. The Department in consultation with the Dean of the College of Arts and
Humanities should revisit its curricular assessment process, formalize and
regularize it, and tie it to planning and resource allocation. (NWCCU Standard
2.B., Policy 2.2)
2. The Department together with the Associate Vice-President for Graduate Studies
should re-examine the structure and goals of and support for the MA in Individual
Studies in Philosophy or Religious Studies to insure that it satisfies NWCCU
Standards 2.D & E and 5.A, and Policy 2.2.
3. The Department, through the appropriate channels, needs to join with the
Administration and other concerned members of the University in thoughtful
discussion toward meaningfully addressing the morale issues created by the
implementation of the collective bargaining agreement. (NWCCU Standard 4.A.3
and Policy 6.2. )