Academic Program Review
Department of Sociology
January 18-19, 2005
Reviewers:
Dr. Margaret L. Andersen, University of Delaware, Review Team Chair
Dr. Gary Lee, Bowling Green State University
Dr. Gregory Squires, George Washington University
The review team visited the campus for two days, holding meetings with the
University administration, the department chair, groups of departmental faculty, graduate
students, and undergraduate students. We also observed the departmental facilities. Our
overall evaluation of the department is very positive, and we make our comments to
guide planning for the future. We thank the staff, faculty, and administration at the
University for organizing our visit and hosting us while we were in Atlanta.
We think that the Sociology Department at Georgia State is well-positioned to
become an even stronger program. It has an excellent faculty, many of whom have
national reputations in their field. Moreover, there is strength in the faculty at every rank
and the department has been making very good new hires. The Department wants to build
the national reputation of the graduate program, consistent with the University’s goal of
becoming a stronger research university. We think this is attainable, presuming that the
conditions needed to build a research institution are met—particularly, having more
competitive salaries and a workload consistent with those of other doctoral degreegranting programs in Sociology.
With regard to the University mission, the Department is clearly contributing to
the College and University strategic plans. The teaching and research activities in the
department are consistent with and firmly support the goals indicated in those plans.
Faculty members in Sociology are publishing in respected outlets, they are actively
involved with research centers on campus, and they are conducting applied research that
contributes valuable service to the Atlanta metropolitan area
We found the peer institutions the department has chosen as its comparators are
appropriate and conclude that the Georgia State department compares quite favorably
with them.
1. Historical and Current Context
The Department of Sociology at Georgia State University has expressed a goal of
positioning itself as one of the top 50 graduate programs in the nation. While we think
strengthening the graduate programs is an important and attainable goal, we encourage
the Department and the University to think in terms of becoming one of the strong
“second tier” programs in the nation, focusing less on a numerical ranking and more on
1
positioning themselves to recruit strong students, promoting the visibility of the Ph.D.
program, and continuing to enhance the scholarly productivity of the faculty—all goals
on which the Department has made excellent progress since the last review.
However, we caution against measuring the success of the graduate programs
solely by moving into “the top 50.” It is very difficult to dislodge the rankings of existing
programs, given the tendency for these ratings to be based on historical perceptions of
prestige. Also, the department’s goal is to be defined as “in the top 50” within their
specific areas of specialty, but rankings of Ph. D. tend to be based on more
comprehensive measures, and it would be unreasonable for Georgia State to try to
compete with much larger and long-established comprehensive Ph.D. programs.
We do think that the department is correct to focus on their three areas of
strength—family and the life course, gender/sexuality, and race and urban studies,
thereby defining their unique niche in the field. Its reputation in these areas can be
enhanced by the continued productivity of the faculty, recruitment of strong students,
placement of their doctoral graduates, and continued and enhanced visibility in the
professional associations (especially the American Sociological Association and the
Southern Sociological Society). Many, if not most of the faculty and graduate students in
the Department are active in these associations and we encourage them to continue doing
so. For the faculty, being on editorial boards, serving as reviewers for major journals, and
actively participating in the sections and activities of these associations can further
enhance not just the reputation of individuals in the department, but the department as a
whole.
Graduate programs like the one at Georgia State are increasingly focused on a
smaller range of specialty areas, just as the Department of Sociology at Georgia State is
doing. We find their areas to be appropriate in number and focus, given the size and
interests of the faculty. We discourage any further narrowing, because it is typical for
Ph.D. students to concentrate in at least two areas of research, but also to have a broad
background in sociological theory and research methods. Were the Department to narrow
their areas of focus any further, they would be out of step with the national trends in the
discipline. Moreover, it would likely weaken its pool of applicants to the graduate
program and would make their graduate students less competitive on the job market. The
current areas grow from the faculty’s areas of strength and also from connections to other
programs on campus (such as the Gerontology Institute, the Women’s Studies Institute,
and African American Studies). We encourage the Department to continue these focal
points, while ensuring that their students—both graduate and undergraduate—also
acquire some breadth in sociology as a whole.
At the request of the administration, we considered the question of whether they
should eliminate the terminal M.A. We think this is probably not wise, though we do
think the department could consider eliminating the joint M.A./Ph.D. program, thus
reducing the number of programs they describe themselves as having from three to two.
In an institution like Georgia State, the M.A. program can be an excellent recruiting tool
for attracting the best Ph.D. students. Many students enter M.A. programs in Sociology
2
not intending to pursue Ph.D., but decide, once in the program, to continue on.
Eliminating the terminal M.A. program would likely reduce the quality of the applicant
pool for this department. The terminal M.A. program can also provide a way to
discourage weaker students from continuing in the Ph.D. Program. The requirements for
the joint M.A./Ph.D. program are simply those of the M.A. program plus those of the
Ph.D. program; it is not a truly different entity. Its function is to allow the department to
differentiate entering students according to their educational goals, and thereby to
allocate funding only to those aspiring to the Ph.D. It is somewhat deceptive to advertise
this as a third “program,” and there are better ways of making funding decisions. We
realize there will be some challenges in figuring out how to fund the best Ph.D. students
while not funding those pursuing only a terminal Master’s degree, so we suggest that the
department make its funding offers to the highest quality students, except in cases where
it is clear that the student has no intent of pursuing a doctoral degree. A stronger annual
review system for funded graduate students will assist in this regard.
2. Progress Toward Goals and Objectives
The department has made good progress toward its goals. Developing the
graduate program around the three areas of family, sex and gender, and race and urban
was a wise strategic move. It gives the department an appropriate focus, which it can
build on in efforts to increase its visibility. An already productive faculty has been aided
by collaborative research nurtured, at least in part, by the explicit focus on these three
areas. One particularly important accomplishment has been the fostering of a culture that
values diversity. This was clearly revealed in discussions with faculty, graduate students,
and undergraduate students.
The progress has been more than satisfactory since the last review. But, as the
self-study and our discussions indicate, the department is aware that more needs to be
done. For example, graduate student stipends are higher but they are still not on a par
with those institutions that Georgia State competes with for students. This gap still needs
to be addressed.
The commitment, research productivity, and teaching excellence by the faculty,
coupled with the enthusiasm of the students are the main factors that have contributed to
this progress. The major barriers towards further progress identified by the faculty are
faculty salaries and the new workload policy. At all ranks, salaries are relatively low.
With new faculty coming in at salaries that are several thousand dollars higher than some
productive faculty who have been in the department for several years, some morale
problems may be emerging. This situation is not unique to Georgia State, of course. But
it remains a problem to be addressed. Recruitment of new faculty, and the real possibility
of losing current faculty (and one person has recently left) are also problems that may
well surface.
The new workload policy was a point of particular contention. The general
understanding of the policy that was presented to us was that faculty could “buy down”
from a five-course load primarily by supervising a given number of dissertations or
3
theses. Everyone understood, of course, that they could reduce their teaching through
grants, but they expressed frustration that the direction of graduate students now weighs
so heavily. Their understanding is that even people with continuous high levels of
research productivity and publication would still teach five courses if they do not work
with a sufficient number of graduate students. They indicated a number of potentially
perverse incentives this could create. Faculty might compete inappropriately for
students. Students might shy away from more demanding faculty (as may be the case in
many departments) but now the better faculty would be punished more directly.
A question arose, however, as to whether this was an accurate understanding of the
policy. Our reading of the policy indicates there may be more flexibility than several
faculty members believe. If this is a communication problem, it can and should be
resolved soon. At most research universities it is understood that the standard teaching
load is four courses per year and faculty can buy down from that. With grants and
various administrative appointments, faculty at Georgia State can do so as well. But if
the perception is that faculty start with a five-course load, it can send a negative signal to
the kind of scholars the department wants to recruit as it continues its efforts to solidify
its position among major sociology programs.
3. Quality of the Curriculum:
Course offerings are appropriate for each of the programs that are offered. The
quality of instruction and accessibility of the faculty were praised by undergraduate and
graduate students. Students praised the efforts of the faculty, noting an open-door policy
that makes them feel they have good advising when they need it. The undergraduate
students were particularly praiseworthy about the efforts of the faculty to create a strong
learning environment in classes marked by great diversity. The students commented that,
more than other Georgia State faculty, the department’s faculty made diversity an asset in
classroom instruction, encouraging students to learn from each other and benefit from the
different experiences of those in the class. As one student put it, “they know how to use
us to teach each other.”
With regard to the undergraduate program, the department is teaching a very large
number of majors, particularly relative to other departments across the nation of
comparable faculty size. The curriculum is consistent with the standards of the American
Sociological Association and the department has done a good job of providing students
with internship opportunities in specific areas of focus. But, they are unable to do other
things that would enrich the undergraduate experience (such as honors degrees, more
internship opportunities, and undergraduate research experiences), given the size of the
full-time tenure-track faculty. For example, the internship program could be expanded
and could include a seminar with all student interns were there more faculty resources.
Additional faculty to serve this large group of majors would be a real asset in the
undergraduate experience.
With regard to the graduate program, one concern is the relatively large number
of courses required for Ph.D. students. The current program requires four or five more
4
courses than most doctoral programs in sociology. Another area of concern expressed by
graduate students was the pro-seminar, currently a required, credit-bearing course. It is
not clear whether the purpose is professional socialization or an introduction to the
faculty, and students do not see the course as coherent or engaging. We suggest that the
faculty consider a revision to this course. Some departments require a pro-seminar, but do
not necessarily offer it as a credit-bearing course.
The survey data and comments by students and faculty reveal that current students
and alumni are most satisfied with their experience at Georgia State. From anecdotal
data that were presented it appears doctoral students are finding suitable positions in
academic and non-academic settings. The Alumni Office can assist by providing the
department with more systematic data on the activities of its undergraduate and graduate
students after they leave the university.
One area where the Department can better serve its majors would be to sponsor an
annual Career Day panel, perhaps with recent alumni returning to campus to discuss how
their sociology degree prepared them for their current work, how they found their job,
and so forth. This is relatively easy to implement and could be done in cooperation with
the Undergraduate Sociology Club and/or AKD, the Sociology Honor Society. A similar
program could be developed to advise students on applying to graduate programs and
professional schools.
4. Quality of the Students:
As an urban state university, Georgia State serves a population that is very diverse
in its academic preparation as well as in social and demographic characteristics. The
undergraduate students with whom we met were a very impressive group. They were
articulate, motivated, and very involved in both the life of the Department and their own
educations. The list of graduate schools in which graduates of the program have enrolled
attests to both the quality of the students and the quality of their undergraduate
educations, although with the large number of majors the value of this anecdotal evidence
is difficult to assess.
At the graduate level, the GRE scores of the population of students admitted and
enrolled are certainly in the acceptable range, but perhaps a bit lower than would be
desired under optimal conditions. As we would expect, the GRE scores for those on
assistantships are notably higher than those of all enrolled students.
The data indicate that a high proportion of those who are admitted actually enroll,
and that the trend in this proportion is upward. This is surprising because many students,
particularly those in the M.A. program, are admitted without funding; the motivation to
attend Georgia State is clearly strong. The faculty recognize that too many students have
been admitted in the last cohort or two and that, in consequence, seminars are too large
and the thesis- and dissertation-direction burden on the faculty is perhaps excessive. This
might be a good time for the faculty to consider raising admission standards, thereby
producing a smaller number of better-qualified graduate students in the entering cohorts.
5
If the proportion of admitted students who matriculate decreases, standards can be
adjusted for the next recruiting cycle.
The graduate students with whom we met were impressive in terms of their
orientation to the profession, dedication to their careers and discipline, and
thoughtfulness about the program. The list of colleges and universities at which Ph.D.
graduates have found employment contains a good mix of research institutions and
teaching colleges.
We also recommend that the department increase its efforts to publicize its
programs and recruit graduate students from outside the Atlanta region. Having more
students from other universities in the South, and perhaps other regions of the country,
would increase the intellectual diversity of the graduate student population.
Overall, the quality of students served by the Department, both undergraduate and
graduate, is good. From the point of view of the faculty and the quality of both
instructional and research programs, we are much more concerned about the quantity of
students; the numbers of both undergraduate and graduate students are excessive for a
faculty of this size.
5. Quality of the Faculty:
The quality of the faculty in this department is very good. Many faculty have
national reputations in their areas of specialty. Indeed, we find that the reputation of
many individual faculty exceeds the known reputation of the department as a whole. The
faculty are hardworking and productive and most are active in their national and regional
professional associations. They are publishing regularly in good journals, though we
would encourage some of them to reach even higher in the publication outlets to which
they submit their work. Many are publishing in the best journals of the field as well as
good specialty journals in their areas of expertise. There is a solid record of external
research funds in the department, and we encourage additional faculty to pursue
additional ways that they can support their research interests.
Many of the faculty have demonstrated leadership in their areas of research, and
we encourage them individually and collectively to consider ways that they can continue
to do so. For example, it would heighten the visibility of the department and the record of
the faculty were one of the major research journals to be located at Georgia State. The
editorships of such journals as Social Problems, Gender & Society, Race & Society,
Teaching Sociology rotate on a regular basis and we think this department and individuals
within it would be well-positioned to compete for some of these and other editorial
positions. The faculty could also consider hosting small conferences in their areas of
focus. Such conferences would bring nationally visible scholars to the campus and
enhance the department’s reputation in these areas. Perhaps some funding for such a
conference could come from the American Sociological Association’s Problems of the
Discipline grant program. These activities would require some institutional support, but
6
the support needed would be minor compared to the benefit of enhancing the reputation
of the department’s scholarly activities.
Compared to the peer institutions used in the Self-Study, the faculty is similarly
productive. Moreover, the productivity of the faculty seems to be relatively even across
the ranks, though, as is typical of most departments, some faculty are publishing in higher
quality journals and more regularly than others. This is common in most departments
across the nation. We think it is appropriate for faculty who are not active in their
research program to do more classroom instruction, as required by the workload policy.
We are concerned, however, that the Department and University may not be able
to continue retaining and recruiting a high quality faculty, given the below-average
salaries at all ranks. Although we recognize that there are budgetary constraints, the
Department is not in a competitive position to attract the best faculty—even with the
attractiveness of an urban area like Atlanta. Starting salaries for assistant professors in
other research universities are much higher, and although nationally there is a wide salary
range for Associate and Full Professors, we find that the floor for senior faculty appears
to be below what would be expected in comparable universities. Without improvement in
the compensation for faculty, Georgia State may find itself unable to maintain even the
current level of quality among the faculty.
Moreover, the lack of competitive salaries will make it very difficult for the
department to recruit and retain minority faculty. In a University as diverse as Georgia
State University and in a city with the diversity of Atlanta, it is unacceptable not to have
more minority faculty, particularly African American faculty. Graduate and
undergraduate students also expressed serious concerns about this. The Department has
recently lost one African American faculty member and will find it hard to make
comparable replacements without more competitive compensation.
6. Resource Adequacy
a.
Faculty
There is little doubt that faculty size is too small for the very large numbers of
students served by the Department’s programs. With the number of undergraduate
majors well in excess of 500 (and increasing), the teaching resources of the Department
are stretched somewhat beyond capacity. This also affects student progress through the
curriculum as some students cannot get required classes until their fourth year when they
should be taking them earlier in their studies.
In addition, the large numbers of graduate students in recent cohorts mean that
seminars are somewhat overcrowded. It also means that, over time, a larger proportion of
the faculty’s research time will be devoted to supervising the research of master’s and
doctoral students. This work is important and can be productive in many ways, but it can
also cut down on the faculty’s own productivity.
7
Because of the very high ratios of students to faculty in both the undergraduate
and graduate programs, a high proportion of undergraduate courses are taught by nontenure track faculty. The College and University have done a very good job of cutting
down on the number of part-time instructors and replacing them with full-time “visitors”
and lecturers. This has produced an improvement in the quality of instruction, with many
students complaining about the quality of instruction by part-time instructors.
The relative shortage of faculty has also meant, however, that senior graduate
students have assumed a greater role in undergraduate instruction. To a degree this is
beneficial. Graduate students, when properly trained and supervised (as these students
are), can deliver high-quality instruction and the Department has done a superior job of
preparing graduate students in their teaching responsibilities as future faculty. Teaching
experience makes the department’s graduate students more attractive on the academic job
market, but as the amount of teaching increases the marginal utility of each additional
class decreases. The function of a graduate program is not to provide cheap
undergraduate education. Graduate students should not be asked to teach more than one
course per semester, or to prepare more than perhaps two or three different courses
during their graduate careers. Too much teaching retards progress toward degrees and
constrains opportunities to do good research and to publish. This, in turn, makes them
less attractive on the job market and less prepared for jobs involving research and
scholarship. In other words, there is an optimal level of teaching for graduate students,
and many of these students have exceeded it, some substantially.
We do not have data on student credit hour production per FTE across
departments in the College, but suspect that, if we did, Sociology would rank very high.
Because they are carrying such a heavy instructional load, Sociology has a very strong
case for the faculty lines it requests in goals and objectives. We recognize that resource
constraints are serious, and that it may be difficult to increase faculty size as rapidly as
desired, but we think it is very important to do so to maintain the quality of the
Department’s undergraduate, graduate, and research programs in the face of such heavy
demand. If resources do not permit the addition of several tenure-track faculty over the
next few years, we suggest temporizing with fixed-term, full-time instructors or a visiting
faculty program for senior scholars who could contribute substantially to the Department.
And, we repeat from above, that its is very important in this institution to increase the
representation of African American and other non-white faculty in the Department.
Perhaps a program funding postdoctoral faculty, who come to Georgia State for a twoyear period, with a limited teaching commitment (one course per semester), while
initiating a research program, would be one way to attract new junior faculty of color to
the institution.
b. Administrative Resources
The number of administrative support personnel seems adequate, and the quality
of their performance appears to be excellent. We heard many positive comments, from
faculty and students, about their work, their helpfulness, and their competence. The fact
that the undergraduate advising is done by an administrative staff member who takes this
8
as her primary role is a great benefit to the students, and helps the faculty to concentrate
their efforts on teaching and research.
c. Technological and Laboratory Resources
Faculty are adequately provided with computers, although the Department is
struggling to provide sufficient software for research. Computer availability for students
is problematic. We do not have information about the availability of computers to
students in other locations at the University, but it is very helpful to have a good
computer facility for graduate students in the departmental areas, and nine computers are
not enough for the number of graduate students in the program.
d. Space Resources
Office space is currently limited for graduate assistants, and will become
insufficient for faculty as new lines are filled. Graduate students teaching their own
classes need space to hold office hours and meet with students; their current space is
crowded and offers little opportunity for privacy. While space is undoubtedly at a
premium, the Department’s ability to expand to the necessary size to offer quality
instruction to its many students is constrained. This could problem could potentially be
solved through some re-modeling of the room now set aside for graduate student carrels,
but, as the department grows, more space will be needed.
e. GSU Foundation Resources
We do not know the size of the two accounts with the GSU Research Foundation,
but the Department expresses no concern with them. Demands on these funds appear
relatively small, but perhaps provide a way for the faculty to develop collaborative
projects with others on campus.
f. Library Resources
The Department expressed no serious concerns with the adequacy of library
resources. The availability of books and periodicals appears to be sufficient, as does the
amount and quality of assistance available from library personnel.
7.
Strengths and Weaknesses
The self-study does a good job of listing the Department’s strengths and
weaknesses. Among the strengths, quality of instruction and credit-hour production stand
out clearly. The gender diversity of the faculty is excellent, although the current absence
of women at the full professor rank is a cause for concern. The faculty is collegial and
collaborative.
The three clearly-defined specialties constitute a major strength of the
Department. The strategy most likely to lead to success, in terms of research and a
9
quality graduate program, is to identify substantive areas of strength and commit a high
proportion of available resources toward maintaining and building those strengths. Too
many areas of concentration result in a dilution of resources, a loss of identity, and
programs without direction or focus. Too few produce a situation where a department is
known only within a narrow range of the profession, has difficulty attracting quality
faculty and graduate students who are not completely committed to the department’s
area(s), and is less able to place graduate students because their training lacks breadth. It
is also hard for departments that are too narrowly focused at the graduate level to offer a
comprehensive curriculum at the undergraduate level. We believe that the three
substantive areas offered by the Department provide an excellent blend of depth and
focus. Further, they go well together and complement one another. We recommend no
changes here.
The Department also offers a good combination of theoretical and methodological
approaches to the discipline. The faculty are accomplished in both qualitative and
quantitative methodologies, and do not seem to be embroiled in disputes over the
superiority of one or the other approach, as is often the case in departments with strong
scholars of varying methodological preferences. We encourage them to maintain a
balance in quantitative and qualitative approaches because students need strong
methodological training in both. Collaboration among faculty on research projects and
publications is good, due partly to the fortunate combination of substantive foci and the
concentration of faculty within each, and partly to a general sense of congeniality and
common purpose.
Research productivity is generally good. A high proportion of the faculty are
research-active. If there is a shortcoming in the faculty’s publication record, it is that not
enough of their publications are in the most visible general or specialty journals. We
should note that, in the discipline of sociology, rejection rates in the leading journals
(both general and specialty) are very high, verging on or exceeding 90 percent. It is
important, particularly for junior faculty, to get their work in print in order to begin
building a reputation. But we feel that many faculty are doing work of a quality that
would be appropriate for somewhat more prestigious journals.
Collectively, the faculty is doing a good job of attracting extramural funding for
their research. We would like to see more of the faculty involved in the pursuit of federal
and foundation grants, however. Publication is more important than receipt of grants for
assistant professors, but there are enough senior faculty with a record of success in
attracting grants to mentor some of their more recently tenured colleagues in the process.
The extramural funding numbers are good, but could be better if more scholars were
participating.
Some of the weaknesses of the Department and its programs stem from a lack of
resources. Funding for graduate students is indeed problematic, in terms of both the level
of funding and the number of students who are funded. The Department is still able to
attract a large number of graduate students, many of whom come without funding, but
their ability to attract better students would be greatly improved with increased funding.
10
It is also the case that those students who are on funding work very hard for it. Those
who teach a class also have additional responsibilities, and some teach two or even three
classes. As noted earlier, this diminishes the quality of their educational experience and
hinders the development of their scholarly productivity.
Faculty salaries are more problematic than graduate student funding, however.
Given salary levels, the faculty is a remarkably accomplished and committed group with
extraordinary potential. But the low salaries will certainly become more problematic in
the immediate future in terms of the Department’s ability to attract and retain quality
faculty. We applaud the institution’s efforts to raise all faculty salaries to minimum
levels within rank, but more needs to be done. The minimum salaries for each rank are
very low. This situation will produce morale problems, as well as recruitment and
retention problems, if it is not addressed soon. We recognize the resource shortages the
University is currently facing, but it is difficult to overstate the severity of this problem.
The faculty have invested considerable effort in revising the graduate program, to
good effect. They recognize, however, that the program can still be improved, as is the
case for every program – no one has got it “right” yet. In spite of recent reductions in the
number of course requirements for both programs, we believe that the M.A. and Ph.D.
programs are too course-intensive. For example, a total of twenty seminars for the Ph.D.
is more than most programs require. Reducing the number of required courses further
would have the dual advantages of reducing class sizes somewhat, and allowing students
to invest more in independent scholarship.
Ph.D. students currently have required coursework in theory and methods, and
also take comprehensive examinations in these areas. Doctoral students specialize in
only one of the Department’s three areas, however, and do not take a comprehensive
examination in their specialty. We suggest that the faculty consider (a) requiring a
second area of specialization; and, (b) examining students in two areas of specialization,
rather than in theory and methods. (Some departments require two areas and an exam in
theory/methodology.) A second substantive specialty adds breadth to a student’s
education, and makes the student more attractive on the academic job market. Preparing
for examinations in substantive areas provides students with the opportunity to organize
and synthesize the literature, make connections between their various courses, and read
independently in the areas beyond the material required for their courses. This
knowledge serves them well in future teaching and research endeavors. Examinations in
theory and methods serve largely a gatekeeping function, because the Department does
not offer specialties in these areas and it is unlikely that many of their graduates will go
on to teach or publish in them.
8. Goals and Objectives:
A.
Teaching
The department has identified two goals: to enhance their level of excellence in
instruction while meeting the growing needs of students and to gain greater recognition
11
of the quality of their program and continue contributing to pedagogical advancement in
the discipline. We endorse these goals. Achieving them will mean additional faculty
resources and more promotion of the graduate program.
B.
Scholarly Activity
The department’s primary goal is to become one of the best Ph.D. granting
sociology departments in their areas of specialization. We also support this goal. Further
progress toward this goal will require continuing excellence in research and strong
recruitment of graduate students.
C.
Service
The department wishes to increase its visibility in the regional, national, and
international professional organizations. This is an attainable goal and can be
accomplished by the faculty continuing their current level of professional and community
service to the community service.
Summary
In sum, the review team applauds the efforts of the department since the last
review. The department has excellent leadership and a strong faculty at all ranks. They
are well-positioned to further their contributions to the discipline of sociology, to Georgia
State University, and to the students they serve. The desire of the department and the
University to become a top-notch research institution will require increased resources so
that the department can recruit and retain the best faculty, be able to support high quality
graduate students, and continue recruiting from a diverse pool of students.
We think that the department, with more competitive faculty salaries, a workload
commensurate with other research universities, and continued productivity in strong
sociology publications can enhance and significantly increase the department’s profile in
the discipline. This is an energetic and hard-working faculty, many of whom already have
established national reputations and others of whom are well-positioned to become
nationally visible. We look forward to witnessing the progress of the department over the
coming years.
12
Comments on the Academic Review Process
1. Self-Study Process. We found the process of this review to be well-organized,
efficient, and effective. The staff of the Provost’s Office and the Department were
particularly helpful in facilitating our visit and our time in Atlanta and we thank
them for their effort.
2. Focus and Information: We would have liked to receive more information on the
placement of students (undergraduate and graduate) from the program. We
encourage the Alumni Office to maintain good records on the placement of B.A.
graduates and suggest that the department track their former graduate students as
best they can. Such information can also be useful to University’s fundraising
efforts.
We would also have liked to have information about the average time to complete
Ph.D.s in the program—a time frame we suspect may be longer than comparable
programs. We also did not need the excessive level of detail on student
satisfaction surveys that was provided in the appendix to the self study. A 500+
appendix is much more material than needed and blurs the picture of the
institution. It is also difficult to download and manage. We suggest streamlining
this information to provide reviewers with a clearer and more concise picture on
critical measures.
We note that the web site for the self-study is particularly well-presented and
organized.
3. Self-study quality. We found the self-study to be thorough and well-done by the
department’s team.
13