UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING AND PRESERVATION
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM
FIVE YEAR REVIEW
REPORT OF EXTERNAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
May 1, 2015
INTRODUCTION/METHODOLOGY
The University of Maryland (UMD) graduate Historic Preservation Program (HISP) is
undertaking a Five-Year Review in accordance with the UMD Policy on the Review of
Academic Units. The external review team consisted of: Alison K. Hoagland, Professor Emerita
at Michigan Technological University and formerly Professor of History and Historic
Preservation; Carter L. Hudgins, Director of the Graduate Program in Historic Preservation
jointly sponsored by Clemson University and the College of Charleston; and R. Brooks Jeffery,
Director of the Drachman Institute, Coordinator of the Heritage Conservation Graduate
Certificate Program, and Professor at the University of Arizona.
Prior to its campus visit, the Review Committee reviewed the Policy on the UMD Review of
Academic Units for guidance as to criteria for this review. The Review Committee was provided
with an excellent Self Study, which examined the Program in detail, including course offerings,
faculty qualifications, student projects and employment, and facilities. The committee visited
the campus on April 2 and 3, 2015, and held separate meetings with the Director, the Dean, other
Program Directors, HISP faculty, the Program Assistant, the school’s recruiter, and HISP
students. The Review Committee also toured the program’s facilities in both the Architecture
Building and Caroline Hall.
The committee, while not charged with assessing HISP against the standards of the National
Council for Preservation Education (NCPE), nevertheless referred to the NCPE curriculum
standards during its closing discussion. The committee noted that with the proposed inclusion of
the American Architecture History course (see p. 5), HISP will meet the NCPE requirements for
re-certification.
PROGRAM STRENGTHS
The committee observed a number of attributes, some tangible and some not, that are both
distinguishing and strengthening and that deserve special mention.
The Review Committee found that HISP provides a high-quality academic experience for its
students while it prepares them rigorously for a career. The curriculum is noteworthy for its
reach and its diversity, especially given the small number of full-time faculty (1.5) assigned to
the program.
Particularly noteworthy is the week-long orientation the Program provides its entering students at
the beginning of the fall term. This week serves not only to introduce new students to the
program’s culture and its academic expectations, but provides an intensive introduction to the
architectural, historical, and cultural resources on which the program draws. This week also
seems to serve not only to bond members of the incoming cohort together into a class but creates
linkages between the new cohort and students who entered the program in prior years.
The Program’s Director provides energetic and enthusiastic leadership and, the committee
observed, centers the program effectively. He has gathered a well-respected and highly-regarded
faculty and appears to be an effective manager of the program’s human, curricular, and financial
resources. Don Linebaugh’s accomplishments as a scholar provide a role model for the
program’s students. Well-respected by the program’s students and his colleagues, he is an
effective leader of the program.
The Program boasts a strong multi-disciplinary curriculum that draws effectively not only on
historic preservation’s inherently multi-disciplinary character but also on a rich array of
programs, departments, and projects whose courses and research complement the program’s core
courses.
Of particular interest to the committee were courses organized around the innovative PALS
program, a model for effective community outreach. The academic experience and the public
assistance PALS provides may be unique. That may also be true of the course Social and Ethnic
Issues, a course that puts concerns about race and class—issues almost all historic preservation
courses brush past—at the center of instruction and discussion rather than at the periphery.
The committee noted too that the program has access to two “laboratories” in Bostwick House
and Kiplin Hall. Very few programs can boast that their students have access to the kind of
hands-on learning both historic buildings make possible.
The program’s faculty reflects both Linebaugh’s effective recruitment and his commitment to
grounding the program in the challenges of contemporary practice. He has made the best use of
the program’s proximity to federal, state, and private programs and the access that provides to
potential adjunct faculty. The faculty is, simply, remarkable. It is an effective and innovative
mix of practicing professionals and members of the University of Maryland’s permanent faculty.
Students could not hope for, or be exposed to, a better equipped, more experienced, or more
accomplished faculty.
The committee noted what appeared to be a genuine spirit of collegiality among the program’s
many constituent groups—faculty, students, and staff. The positive effect of this spirit was
palpable and the supportive role it plays quite clear.
2
AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT
Curriculum
 Lack of ample elective offerings in curriculum
 Lack of HISP students’ access to the School’s Real Estate Development program
 Lack of advisors for Final Projects
Student Recruitment
 Lack of adequate financial assistance
 Lack of diversity (not just at UMD, but nationally)
Faculty
 Need for the program to have more presence in the School
 Lack of sufficient faculty
 Inconsistent expectations of skill sets by faculty toward students
 Unclear faculty status (to students)
 Need for more diversity of expertise among faculty
 Overstretched Director
Staff

Overstretched, with impending departure
Facilities
 Location of program in two buildings
 No central gathering space
RECOMMENDATIONS
Strategic Planning
New Strategic Plan. Updating the 2006 HISP Strategic Plan would serve to both reinforce
legacy strengths and codify emerging strengths based on the existing institution context and
ongoing evolution of the program. A clearly defined strategic plan would not only guide internal
decision-making, but also be a useful tool to inform candidates for the anticipated dean search to
understand the HISP program as a School asset and to negotiate for additional resources.
Focus. Any future strategic plan should reinforce the program’s current values of teaching,
research, community outreach, and diversity. It should also reinforce HISP’s locational
advantage in its proximity to Washington, DC, and its multiple cultural and institutional
resources. The Review Committee observed a discrepancy between these legacy values and the
international preservation focus in the teaching and research interests of HISP’s 0.5FTE faculty
member. The Review Committee recommends the Program’s strategic plan remain focused on
3
its legacy values and locational advantage, and not dilute these with an international focus in
which other regional historic preservation programs have already created a reputation.
The Review Committee also recommends developing stronger linkages to the UMD’s Social
Sciences academic programs (e.g. History, Anthropology, etc.) for undergraduate recruitment as
well as research and infrastructural capacity through the Center for Heritage Studies. These
linkages should be used to explore future alignments and collaborations with HISP.
Curricular Mapping. An updated strategic plan should also refine the current curriculum map to
clearly identify the strategic placement of the Program’s comprehensive learning objectives.
Students are not introduced to the entire breadth of faculty in time for selecting advisors for their
final project. The curriculum map should clearly define and assign the technical competencies
(drawing, graphics, presentation, writing, etc.) required prior, during, and upon completion of the
Program and then ensure that faculty implement those competencies as assigned. There also
seems to be a lost opportunity to strengthen undergraduate offerings in HISP and provide an
opportunity to integrate the Architecture program’s students, resources, and proficiencies with
HISP, as well as providing a feeder to the graduate program.
Business Plan. The Review Committee recommends the development of a business plan as part
of the strategic plan update. Given the financial realities of public educational institutions,
identifying and securing alternative non-state funding will ensure the financial sustainability of
the program to offset current budget challenges and to endure future fluctuations in state funding.
More than just quasi-professional opportunities for HISP students, grant- and contract-funded
projects can be seen as alternative vehicles to fund adjunct faculty and recruitment-critical
graduate research assistantships. Other funding mechanisms to explore include tuition revenue
supplements, especially applicable to the Professional Certificate (differential tuition, program
fees, etc.), which could fund much-needed administrative support and adjunct faculty. We
recommend more fully engaging the School and University’s development professionals to
enhance HISP’s endowment portfolio to take advantage of the internal networking capacity of
faculty (e.g., Connie Ramirez) and the region’s wealth of preservation-oriented resources.
Link with UMD Resources. HISP should also take advantage of UMD services in student
recruitment, alumni services, development, etc., to track and nurture HISP alumni through
traditional and emerging media. This would serve to build a potential donor base and
ambassadors for program recruitment. Integral to this is the update of HISP’s website to reflect
the informational expectations of prospective students, including the posting of student work,
image-rich portrayal of the program’s values and assets, and links to HISP social media sites.
Curriculum
The Program’s internal discussions about the curriculum provided a springboard for the Review
Committee’s comments. A Curriculum Draft dated 11/20/13 included many moves in the right
direction. Generally, the Review Committee felt that the Program should move away from
opportunistic curricular development and focus on its strengths related to its proximity to the
4
national capital (e.g., Policy, Planning, Vernacular Architecture, work in diverse communities),
which might distinguish it from its nearest competitors (e.g., Penn, Columbia).
Architectural History. The Review Committee endorses the proposed curriculum revision that
adds a required course in American Architectural History. Consequently, the curriculum will
meet NCPE standards, which require two courses in “the history of the designed environment.”
The American Architectural History course would define the foundation for discussion of what is
significant, and the Vernacular Architecture course would provide the additional tools for
assessing and defining significance.
International Perspective. International Preservation should not be a required course, but rather
be integrated as a theme throughout the curriculum. Expertise in international preservation
issues will not be a skill that most employers seek, but a familiarity with methods employed
outside the US will enable a comparative and analytical understanding of preservation issues.
The international need is for materials conservation skills, which are not a core strength of this
program. This program’s emphasis on policy and planning makes it particularly effective in U.S.
contexts.
Social and Ethnic Issues should remain a core focus and program strength to build awareness.
The student work in communities—the studio, the final project, and PALS projects—will
reinforce this instruction. An ability to handle social and ethnic issues sensitively and deftly will
serve students well in the marketplace and in their careers.
Law, Policy, Planning. The Review Committee endorses the proposed curriculum revision that
consolidates Preservation Law and Policy.
Core Skills. The Program should define the core technical skills that are used in the field and
then determine whether a general awareness of the possibilities of these skills or a true facility
with them is necessary. That will then suggest where in the curriculum these should be
introduced (such as in the opening “boot camp”) or applied (such as in Research Methods or
Vernacular Architecture). When the appropriate course or level of expertise cannot be obtained
from existing offerings of the School, outside people might be brought in, such as Deirdre
McCarthy at the NPS for GIS instruction. Some technical skills might be offered in mini-courses
during the Winter Break.
Technical writing and public speaking should be placed on a par with other technical skills.
Employers look for both skills and both should be similarly mapped into the curriculum.
Professional Certificate. The Program should reinstitute the Professional Certificate and
explore differential tuition and program fees based on market price points. Given the number of
professionals in government in the Washington area who take on preservation duties without any
background in the field, the professional certificate could find a market of older students
interested in night classes, whose employers might underwrite their costs.
5
Real Estate Development (RED). Courses in this program would add depth to HISP offerings,
but students are unable to take these courses because of differential tuition. This situation should
be remedied.
Student Recruitment
The Program has experienced a recent downturn in applicants and acceptances. An entering
class of 6-12 is ideal for classroom discussions and personal attention. The Review Committee
welcomes the attention that student recruitment is receiving from the newly hired recruiter and
offers these additional suggestions.
Funding. The Review Committee recommends that more funding sources could be identified
for Graduate Assistants. Developing a Business Plan will help identify multiple sources for this
type of funding.
Feeder Audiences. More feeder audiences should be identified, particularly those that are local
(and who don’t find the local cost of living to be such a hurdle). The College Park campus is one
natural pool; the challenge is drawing students to a field that they have not heard of or
considered as a profession. General Education offerings in the Program might introduce a broad
range of students to Historic Preservation as a field. Cross-listed undergraduate and graduate
courses might introduce Architecture undergrads who are discouraged with their prospects as
architects to consider the graduate program in historic preservation. Similarly, History and
Anthropology course offerings might include preservation courses. Another pool of potential
students is local employers, particularly the federal government.
Diversity. Diverse students could be drawn to the program by the undergraduate course HISP
200, The Everyday and the American Environment, which satisfies a general education
requirement for diversity. If this course were renamed slightly to advertise its diverse aspect, it
might serve as a feeder course for diverse students into the Program.
Faculty
Need for Additional Faculty. While HISP has considerable disciplinary depth, it lacks a robust
presence within the school. Director Linebaugh is the program’s only full-time faculty member.
While the committee noted his enthusiasm and energy, it also noted that he is pulled in many
directions and cannot by himself give the program the kind of gravitas it will need to move to the
next level. One symptom of the faculty’s lack of depth is the difficulty students have assembling
faculty advisers and committees for their Final Projects. Advising seems to fall now entirely on
Linebaugh’s shoulders, yet another indication that adjuncts, no matter how accomplished, cannot
provide the kind of support and guidance full-time faculty can.
HISP is currently supported by a faculty member who splits her time between HISP and
Architecture. However, students do not perceive this half-time faculty member to be a “true core
HISP faculty” member. It is unclear whether the shared position with Architecture is a
6
successful model or whether the “fit” of the current person does, or does not, align with HISP
core strengths.
In short, HISP needs at least one additional faculty member. One potential solution is to create a
Clinical Faculty category for faculty like Dennis Pogue whose responsibilities would focus on
teaching rather than research. Faculty in this category would, unlike adjuncts, perform
departmental service and serve on student and school committees.
Faculty Expectations. Students complained that they were unsure of faculty expectations in
writing (academic vs. technical writing) or whether they could, or should, employ technical skills
in completion of their assignments (CAD was mentioned by several students). There appears to
be a need for the faculty to reach a consensus of academic expectation about which skills are
considered fundamental and thus essential for successful completion of class projects and
assignments. Several students also complained that one faculty member expected them to
continue to work on projects into the next semester.
Student Perception. Students indicated they were unsure of the status of faculty in the program.
This confusion (who are the core members of the HP faculty? Who are adjunct faculty?
Affiliated?) manifests itself in uncertainty about which faculty can perform academic services
duties, e.g. serving on Final Project Committees and advising. The Review Committee
recommends that the program, perhaps during the fall orientation, provide clearer explanation of
how the program’s faculty is composed and the roles that the faculty can, and cannot, perform.
The current half-time HISP faculty member is not introduced to students until they are in their
second year. She is thus not considered approachable nor do they consider her as a potential
Final Project committee member. Students perceive adjunct faculty member Dennis Pogue,
rightly or wrongly, as the “other” HISP faculty member because he is introduced in Year 1. He
is seen as more accessible to students than his full-time, tenure-track colleague. The Director
should distribute a list of faculty who have agreed to serve on Final Project committees so that
the formation of committees and the advising and guidance that follows are less worrisome.
Disciplinary Diversity. The Review Committee applauds the HISP program for the range of
professional and research interests its adjunct and affiliated faculty bring to the program, but
recognized a need for the program to acquire a wider diversity of faculty expertise to
complement the Director’s core strengths. The professional backgrounds and academic
accomplishments of the current faculty incline toward historical archaeology and material
culture.
Overstretched Director. The Program Director is overstretched in his responsibilities as
Associate Dean, Program Director, teaching, committee service, advisement, and research. The
Review Committee recommends that the Director reduce his research activities and focus more
on core teaching and administrative tasks.
7
Staff
Ruth Davis-Rogers and Christine Henry provide necessary administrative support for the
program and its funded research projects. They clearly also serve as the social glue for program.
They are however, overstretched. Ruth provides support to several programs and their directors,
but the number of adjuncts in HISP requires more of her time. The result is that she cannot
provide the level of support HISP needs to grow. Christine’s pending departure will leave a
substantial gap in administrative support, and there is no transition plan in place to replace her.
The Review Committee recommends that additional administrative support be assigned to the
program to continue development of mandated reports (e.g. learning outcomes), recruitment,
admissions, student advisement, adjunct administrative support, and grants/contracts.
Facilities
While it would be nice to have all HISP resources in the Architecture Building, dispersal of the
program’s activities in two buildings does not seem to be hindrance to the effective delivery of
the program.
Graduate space is not seen as an institutional priority, but a lounge area as a gathering space for
HISP students would help build community. This is, however, not seen as a high student priority
as most are night-time only commuter students.
Culture
The Review Committee commends HISP for what it sensed was a genuine camaraderie among
its faculty and students. It sensed too that there are opportunities to build better relationships
between HISP students and those enrolled in other programs in the School. Planning seems to be
the most integrated with HISP. Architecture is the largest program and occupies the most space
while other programs are perceived to be second-tier. A better balance should be struck at the
same time that the faculty explores opportunities draw more effectively on the School’s wider
faculty.
CONCLUSION
Based on its comprehensive evaluation, the Review Committee commends HISP for a course of
study that is academically sound, well run, and expertly led. HISP is an asset to the School of
Architecture, Planning, and Preservation and, more broadly, makes a significant contribution to
the wider purposes of historic preservation. The Review Committee enthusiastically and strongly
recommends that HISP continue its role in the School. These recommendations of the Review
Committee aim to make HISP stronger and healthier in the nation’s increasingly uncertain
academic climate. We look forward to seeing the Program thrive for many years to come.
8