Transylvania University
Quality Enhancement Plan
Enhancing Living and Learning at
Transylvania University
January 8, 2002
corrected version 01/15/02
Preface
Transylvania University is a member of the Commission on Colleges (COC) of
the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. In August, 2000, Transylvania
accepted an invitation from the COC to participate in the Pilot Review Program of the
Accreditation Review Project (ARP). A component of the new accreditation
requirements proposed in the ARP is to complete a Quality Enhancement Plan (Core
Requirement 12). This document is submitted to the COC to meet this requirement.
The plan was developed under the leadership of Jack Furlong, Professor of
Philosophy and Michael Vetter, Dean of Students and with the guidance of
Transylvania's ARP Leadership Team (Charles Shearer, President; James Moseley, Vice
President and Dean of the College; Tom Nowack, Director of Institutional Research and
Assessment; David Shannon, Self-Study Director). The editor of the document was
Bryan Trabold, Instructor in Foundations of Liberal Arts and Associate Director of the
Writing Center. The plan represents the efforts of many members of the Transylvania
University community including students, alumni, faculty, staff, and trustees.
i
Table of Contents
Introduction
1
A Brief History of Transylvania University
1
Continuous Planning as the Context for Quality Enhancement
2
Overview of the Quality Enhancement Plan Process
8
Evaluation and Control of the Quality Enhancement Plan
13
Structure of Report
14
Quality Enhancement Plan
15
Integrating and Extending Learning
Convocation and Lecture Series
International Education
Team Teaching
General Education Requirements
15
15
17
18
19
Enhancing the Academic Environment
Advising
Library Services
Recruitment by Greek Organizations
21
21
25
27
Living/Learning and Diversity
The Transylvania Community
Outreach to the Surrounding Community
28
29
34
Preparing for Life Beyond Transylvania
Incorporating Life-Skills in Curriculum
Improving the Career Development Center
35
35
36
Living/Learning Spaces
Academic and Support Spaces
Residence Spaces
Faculty and Student Meeting Spaces
37
38
42
45
Summary
47
Implementation Timetable
48
Assignment of Responsibilities for Implementation and Assessment
49
Financial Resources Required for Implementation
51
Summary of Recommendations
56
List of Appendices
60
Appendices
61
ii
INTRODUCTION
A Brief History of Transylvania University
Chartered in 1780 by the state of Virginia when Thomas Jefferson was governor,
Transylvania University’s historic mission was the education of the populace west of the
Allegheny Mountains. Since its inception, the University has been linked with famous
names in American history. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and
Aaron Burr were early supporters of the fledgling institution, and Henry Clay was both a
law professor and a member of the College’s Board of Trustees. The College also takes
pride in a distinguished roster of alumni, including individuals ranging from Jefferson
Davis to the outspoken abolitionist Cassius M. Clay, as well as two United States vice
presidents, 50 United States senators, and 36 governors.
With the appointment to its presidency in 1818 of Horace Holley, a Yaleeducated, Boston Unitarian minister, Transylvania reached its nineteenth-century zenith.
Holley’s vision of higher education that “pursue[s] the liberty of philosophical, political,
and religious investigation, unawed by civil or ecclesiastical power” remains the telos of
American liberal education in general and Transylvania in particular.1 Affiliated with the
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) since 1865, Transylvania has sought to align itself
with progressive education and religious liberalism. The school, for example, resolved to
teach evolution almost a decade earlier than the notorious Scopes Monkey Trial,
demonstrating that it could affiliate with a religious denomination while protecting
freedom of inquiry.
During its long history, the College has faced and overcome many challenges. In
1980, for example, the endowment was as low as $10.7 million and the number of
students enrolled in the University in 1983 was 655. Today, in its 222nd year, the
endowment stands at $122.5 million, an eleven-fold increase over the past two decades,
and 1,052 students from 31 states and 5 foreign countries are enrolled. The most recent
entering class consisted of 324 students, 50 percent of whom were in the top 10 percent
of their high school class. The student-faculty ratio is 13:1, with an average class size of
18. Ninety-seven percent of faculty holds the Ph.D. or equivalent terminal degree.
Transylvania University is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to award the Bachelor of Arts degree. The
University is also a member of the American Council on Education, the Association of
American Colleges, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities,
and the Southern University Conference. The College’s teacher education program is
accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. Transylvania
is in its second year of provisional membership in the National Collegiate Athletics
1
Wright, Jr., John D. Transylvania: Tutor to the West. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky,
1980, 117.
1
Association (NCAA) and retains membership in the National Association of
Intercollegiate Athletics during the transition to Division III of the NCAA.
Transylvania offers 24 majors as well as the option of designing an individual
major. Students are expected to gain a strong grounding in liberal education throughout
their four undergraduate years. The University emphasizes excellence in teaching and
provides individualized academic advising, career planning, practical learning through
internships, and a variety of opportunities to study abroad. Majors in all disciplines lead
to a variety of vocational opportunities after graduation, ranging from graduate or
professional school to positions in such fields as business administration and computer
science.
Small classes and close student-faculty relationships are among the College’s
most distinctive assets. Although many of the faculty are recognized for scholarly
research and creative activity, teaching and advising are their primary concerns. Students
and alumni often refer to personal relationships with the faculty as the most valuable
aspect of their college experience.
Another distinctive asset is Transylvania’s location in Lexington. The city lies in
the heart of Kentucky’s beautiful Bluegrass region, and it is among the most progressive
and dynamic metropolitan areas in the nation. Home of the University of Kentucky as
well as Transylvania, Lexington offers an exceptional range of cultural and recreational
activities. Students and faculty take full advantage of these opportunities and regard
them as valuable extensions of campus life.
Because Transylvania is concerned with students’ intellectual growth and with
their development as individuals, involvement in campus activities is an intrinsic aspect
of student life. Regardless of their major, students may participate in athletic activities,
music ensembles, drama productions, publications, and student government, as well as
social, recreational, and athletic activities. Students are engaged in a broad variety of
community service projects and programs in preparation for a lifetime of responsible
citizenship.
Continuous Planning as the Context for Quality Enhancement
The Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) process has provided the Transylvania
community with an opportunity to involve a broad range of constituencies in evaluating
the institution’s mission and assessing the College’s environment for learning. This
process has been particularly effective because it dovetails with Transylvania’s ongoing
long and short-term planning processes. For the past two decades, especially throughout
the 1990’s, Transylvania’s commitment to continuous planning and assessment has
significantly enhanced the learning process and the campus environment for students. In
turn, many of the accomplishments that were direct results of this planning process, as
articulated in the 1991 and 1997 Long-Range Plans, served as starting points for
initiatives discussed in the body of this report. Thus the QEP process built upon and
extended the achievements of the past, and its recommendations will provide an
2
important foundation for future strategic planning. Because the QEP must be viewed as
part of a larger continuum for Transylvania, a brief review of the accomplishments that
have resulted from the ongoing strategic planning process is in order.
The Strategic Planning Process
At the beginning of the 1990-1991 academic year, Transylvania’s Board of
Trustees appointed a Long-Range/Strategic Planning Committee composed of trustees,
administrative staff, and faculty members. The Committee’s charge was to develop a
plan, to be implemented over a five-year period, that would enhance Transylvania’s
quality as an educational institution, enable Transylvania to continue to attract and retain
outstanding students, and permit favorable comparisons with other high-quality colleges.
The plan was submitted to the Board in May and adopted in October 1991. In November
1996, the President and the Board determined that the 1991 Plan should be updated. The
scope of this updated Plan differed in several important aspects from the 1991 Plan, the
most significant of which was the creation of a 21st Century College Technology
subcommittee and the formal inclusion of students on the subcommittees. The new plan
was submitted to the Board and adopted in May 1997. The 1991 and the 1997 LongRange Plans have been reviewed at least annually by the Board’s Planning and
Evaluation Committee, which is composed of trustees, administrative staff, faculty, and
students.
In addition to these Long-Range Plans, the Committee on Program and
Curriculum (CPC), the President’s Cabinet, the Writing Assessment Committee, and the
Teagle Subcommittee on Advising provide further examples of Transylvania’s planning
and assessment process. The annual work of these committees, coupled with the 1991
and 1997 Long-Range Plans, has significantly enhanced Transylvania’s living and
learning environment over the years.
Accomplishments of the Strategic Planning Process
Academic Enrichment of Faculty and Students
The 1991 and 1997 Long-Range Plans played an essential role in promoting
student learning in and out of the classroom by mandating funds to enhance teaching and
to facilitate independent research on the part of faculty and students. For example,
recognizing the importance of recruiting, rewarding, and retaining great teachers, the
1991 Plan established a goal of increasing the endowment for the Bingham Program for
Excellence in Teaching. Moreover, since outstanding teaching requires strong faculty
development efforts, both the 1991 and 1997 Long-Range Plans also played an important
role in strengthening the David and Betty Jones Program, which was originally developed
to support faculty scholarly and creative work and now also provides funding of facultydirected student research projects. Today, the Jones Fund annually provides $50,000 for
faculty scholarship and $10,000 for faculty-directed student research during the summer
months.
3
Along with these efforts, additional funds were acquired through the Kenan Fund
for Faculty and Student Enrichment. Thus far, $3 million of the $3.2 million pledged to
support this endowed program have been received. This fund currently provides $25,000
for faculty scholarship and $25,000 for faculty-directed student research, in addition to
$50,000 for supporting faculty sabbatical projects on a yearly basis. Next year the Kenan
Fund will provide $50,000 for each of these three faculty/student development programs.
Considering that Transylvania has about eighty full-time faculty members, the Kenan
Fund and the Jones Fund provide a strong endowment for scholarly and creative activity.
The impressive growth of the Study Abroad Program is also due in large measure
to the 1997 Long-Range Plan. By calling for an increase in the endowment of this
program, the 1997 Plan sought to increase opportunities for student study abroad. Since
that time, the endowment for study abroad has grown to $228,000, and the number of
students participating has increased even more dramatically. In 1994-1995, 45 students,
or 17% of the graduating class, had participated in the program. By 1999-2000, the
number of students participating in this program had increased to 118, which represented
34% of the graduating class. This figure increased yet again in 2001, with 38% of the
graduating class. The increasing number of students studying abroad has begun to
influence the campus ethos, as seen by a “World Events Column” in the school
newspaper and a generally heightened awareness among students concerning
international events.
Improvements in the Curriculum
Changes in areas such as curriculum and advisement have resulted primarily from
the planning and assessment process of several standing committees. Over the years, the
faculty’s standing Committee on Program and Curriculum (CPC) has been an effective
vehicle for implementing improvements to the curriculum. This committee, which plays
a significant role in the assessment of all major programs, the General Education (GE)
curriculum, study abroad, and the Foundation of the Liberal Arts (FLA) Program, began a
rigorous review process and schedule in 1994-1995. Since then, every program has been
reviewed on a five-year rotating basis. Programs are expected to present to the CPC their
use of a number of assessment instruments including the required capstone course,
standardized tests such as the ETS major field tests, alumni surveys, and benchmarking
comparisons to show continuous improvement. Additionally, peer review by a faculty
member from another institution is required every ten years.
The work of the Writing Assessment Committee has also led to various changes
in the curriculum. Based on annual examination of portfolios collected from students
from all four years, this committee made recommendations that led to revisions in the
General Education program, reducing the number of required introductory courses and
requiring students to take at least four advanced courses outside their major, two of which
must be writing intensive. Continuing assessment has begun to indicate improvement in
the quality of student writing.
In addition to curricular improvements, Transylvania has strengthened its student
advising process, primarily through the work of the Teagle Subcommittee on Advising.
4
Under the auspices of a 1994 Teagle Foundation grant, this group of students, faculty,
and administrative staff meets three or four times per year to assess advising and to
recommend improvements. Several significant changes have occurred as a consequence.
In 1996, following a Teagle subcommittee recommendation, first-year advising was
combined with UNIV 1111, a required year-long orientation class directed by a faculty
mentor and a student leader. In 2000 the committee recommended moving to greater
reliance on electronic communication in order to give instructors more timely enrollment
data, to provide more comprehensive information to academic advisers, to improve
efficiency in the Registrar’s Office, and to reduce paperwork and waste. These goals are
now being met.
Learning Resources
The 1991 and 1997 Long-Range Plans played crucial roles in enhancing and
expanding the University’s technology and library resources. The 1991 Plan, for
example, recommended that the President appoint a committee to conduct a careful
analysis of the technological needs of the University. By 1997, recognizing the essential
role of technology in the learning process and in preparing students to succeed in the
world after graduation, the new long-range plan assigned a subcommittee entirely to
examining the issue of twenty-first-century technology. As a direct result of this
subcommittee’s ambitious agenda, Transylvania has enhanced technology on campus in
the following ways:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
constructed and equipped six general-use computing laboratories;
provided three multimedia teaching centers to complement and extend standard
teaching techniques;
converted and equipped four classrooms to modern teaching centers;
equipped each faculty office and each administrative office with a workstation
and a letter quality printer;
added computers and printers to upgrade laboratories in biology, computer
sciences, social sciences, fine arts, and modern foreign languages;
added six portable multimedia teaching units;
installed a comprehensive administrative computer system;
established a Desktop Publishing Center, a cluster of four workstations and
printers with state-of-the-art publishing software;
installed 20 personal computers and 10 printers in the library to permit access to
the campus network;
upgraded the library computer system to a windows-based system connected with
the Kentucky Commonwealth Virtual Library and accessible through the campus
network.
While the acquisition of technology is crucial, it is equally important to provide
appropriate training so that these resources are used effectively to enhance student
learning. After visiting other colleges and assessing their technology programs, the
University designed and implemented a series of summer workshops with generous
grants from both the Jessie Ball duPont Fund and the Booth-Ferris Foundation for the
purposes of training faculty. Thus far, seminars for 38 faculty members have been
5
conducted over the past three summers, and funds remain to train another 12 in 2002.
Providing instructors with the knowledge and skills to incorporate technology into the
classroom is enhancing the quality of instruction while simultaneously introducing
students to, and increasing their familiarity with, new technologies.
Both the 1991 and 1997 Plans also recognized the need for expanding access to
library resources for faculty and students, and called for an increase in the library’s
collection of books, periodicals, and audio-visual material to bring the undergraduate
resources up to the average of its benchmark colleges. Over the years, funding for the
library has increased significantly. In the current budget, $86,500 was designated to
purchase books as compared to $48,000 in 1996-1997. Transylvania has also received a
$100,000 bequest since the 1997 Plan, which was designated for library endowment. In
addition to increasing funding for the library at Transylvania, the 1991 Plan recognized
that the campus is located across town from the University of Kentucky libraries, the
richest library resource in Kentucky, developed expressly for the purpose of serving all of
its residents. Accordingly, the Plan recommended that Transylvania operate a shuttle
bus, a service that began in 1993, to bring both faculty and students to and from this
facility. The shuttle service extends the capacity of Transylvania’s fine undergraduate
library to embrace extensive resources that would otherwise be available only at the
graduate or professional level.
Buildings and Spaces
The 1991 and 1997 Plans played an essential role in altering the physical
landscape of Transylvania to meet its students’ intellectual needs and to improve the
quality of life on campus. Both plans, for example, recommended renovating and
improving the Mitchell Fine Arts Center, and the 1997 Plan recommended seeking the
funding balance for the construction of the Lucille C. Little Theater. In 1998, the
University completed the construction of this theater, a highly flexible performance space
that allows for various forms of theatrical productions. In addition, Transylvania
purchased a former Fayette County school at the edge of campus in January 1999 to
provide better classroom and studio space for the Art Program.
Continuing to address the need for the additional and improved classroom space
called for in the earlier plan, the 1997 Plan recommended seeking full funding for the
Cowgill Center for Business, Economics, and Education. This two-story, 24,000 square
foot facility, which opened Fall Term, 1999, houses a computer laboratory, 14 faculty
offices, a large conference room, and 7 high-tech multimedia classrooms, where classes
from every academic division are taught.
The vastly improved athletic facilities on campus are also in large measure the
result of the 1997 Plan. At the time, Transylvania’s facilities were at a competitive
disadvantage compared to Asbury, Berea, Cumberland, and Hanover colleges, which had
recently constructed state-of-the-art athletic complexes. Despite the fact that
Transylvania had recently built the John R. Hall Field – an impressive home for women’s
soccer and softball, as well as the outdoor intramural programs – the plan recognized the
need for other competitive facilities. Its ambitious recommendations included acquiring
6
land for a new baseball field and raising funds for a new athletic and recreational center.
Both objectives were soon met: The William A. Marquard Field was completed in Spring
1999, and The Clive M. Beck Athletic and Recreation Center, a 97,000 square foot
facility, opened in January 2002. In addition to improving the campus for current
students, faculty, and staff, these new facilities are helping to ease Transylvania’s current
transition from the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics to the National
Collegiate Athletic Association’s Division III.
Improving campus residential facilities and expanding social spaces for students
have also been ongoing concerns. The 1997 Plan, recognizing that the Clay-Davis
Residence Hall had been built in 1962, noted some of its shortcomings and recommended
a study to determine the most appropriate course of action for this facility in the future.
Since that time, improvements have been made to this building, including a thorough
renovation of the Clay-Davis entry lounge. The 1997 Plan also recognized that one of the
most pressing student concerns was the lack of an area to gather in the later evening
hours to eat and to socialize. It thus recommended that the University initiate a review of
options to meet this need, which was ultimately met by the construction of 1780 Café.
This café, built on the lower level of Clay-Davis Residence Hall in the summer of 1998,
has become very popular, serving food after hours to as many as 180 students a night.
Campus Ethos
Both the 1991 and 1997 Plans recognized the importance of creating a more
diverse campus, a desire that has been widely expressed over the years in senior exit
surveys, alumni surveys, and most recently, in the QEP survey of the faculty and staff.
The 1997 Plan set a goal of hiring three minority faculty members and recommended an
appropriate increase in the general endowment in order to accomplish this objective. As
a result, Transylvania was able to hire a political science professor from Nigeria. With a
grant provided by the Knight Foundation, Transylvania has also hired an African
American doctoral student who may consider a permanent teaching appointment at a
liberal arts college such as Transylvania upon the completion of her dissertation.
Although aggressively pursued, the goal of adding at least three minority faculty
members has not yet been fully met.
Ongoing Planning and Assessment
Transylvania’s long-range strategic planning process provides a summative
context for integrating the QEP into the ongoing life of the institution. As outlined
above, a number of matters that are treated in the body of the QEP concern issues about
life and learning on campus that were initially addressed in the 1991 or 1997 strategic
plan. In turn, the QEP and the Accreditation Review as a whole will lead into the
development of a new strategic planning process that will occur in 2002-03. The next
strategic plan will be monitored at least annually, as were the previous plans, by the
Planning and Evaluation Committee of the Board of Trustees.
Similarly, Transylvania’s ongoing planning and assessment processes provide a
formative context for overseeing and assessing the implementation of the
7
recommendations of the QEP. Faculty and administrative staff members at the College
work by way of organizational structures and processes that will naturally guide the
implementation of the QEP recommendations through regular assessments, and feed-back
loops are in place to ensure that improvements occur on the basis of those assessments.
Progress in the formative sense will be monitored, moreover, through a special section of
the institution’s annual planning report that tracks improvement on the basis of
assessment in the College’s academic and administrative units.
When taken together, the summative and formative assessments that are in place
for the College should ensure the long-term success of the QEP's goal of enhancing the
learning and living environment at Transylvania.
Overview of the Quality Enhancement Plan Process
To develop the QEP process, the University was guided by the initial description
of the Quality Enhancement Plan as articulated in the Handbook for Pilot Institutions of
the Accreditation Review Project, rev. 1/25/01:
The Quality Enhancement Plan, engaging the wider academic community,
is based upon a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the effectiveness
of the learning environment for supporting student achievement and
accomplishing the mission of the institution. The objective of the QEP is
to lead to a course of action for institutional improvement by addressing
an issue, or issues, that contribute to institutional quality, with special
attention to student learning.
To that end, the University established several guiding principles:
•
•
•
the focus should be on student learning;
the plan should be developed by engaging all the constituencies of the University;
the plan should lead to actions that would enhance the mission of the college as an
undergraduate, liberal arts institution and would directly impact the quality of
student learning.
In addition, it was anticipated that the plan would build on the impressive list of
accomplishments of the University, noted earlier in this introduction, as well as begin
new initiatives.
Thus, from the very outset, the University sought to make this a “bottom-up” as
opposed to a “top-down” process. As will be described in some detail below, several
steps were taken to receive substantive feedback and active participation from every
constituency within the Transylvania community, including students, parents, alumni,
faculty, staff, and trustees. Consulting and working with these groups had the obvious
advantage of providing a more holistic perspective of the University’s strengths and
shortcomings. In addition to being inclusive, there was also a concerted effort to make
8
this process as open as possible, and to inform the various constituencies continuously
about the issues and recommendations being considered in this report.
The narrative below summarizes the key stages of the QEP process that has led to
this report. It will also briefly describe the last, but important, stage of implementation
and assessment; the details of this latter stage will be included in the body of the report.
Given that the QEP process has extended over a long period of time, and involved many
people, much research, many meetings, and many reports, this overview necessarily
chronicles only the most significant events. Additional details can be found in the full
QEP file, available in the Self-Study Room. For convenience, the QEP process was
initially viewed as having four phases. The description below reflects that structure.
Phase I: November 2000 to February 2001
This phase perhaps best exemplifies the “bottom-up” feature of the QEP process
at Transylvania. Rather than have one person or a small group of people decide the
theme(s) and direction of the plan, the entire campus community was consulted to help
make this determination. In November 2000, the Director of Institutional Research and
Assessment at Transylvania sent out a survey to the entire faculty and staff with a cover
letter asking them “to give their immediate thoughts concerning the strengths and
weaknesses of Transylvania and their proposals for the Improvement Study.”
("Improvement Study" was the original SACS-COC term for what later became titled the
"Quality Enhancement Plan".) Copies of this survey and letter are included in the QEP
file. Also during Fall 2000, QEP and Mission Review questions were added to the 5-year
Alumni Survey which was mailed to 3700 alumni in early January. There were slightly
over 1000 responses.
During the January-February 2001 period, a series of meetings was held amongst
the faculty, staff, and students. For example, the Student Government Association
discussed possible themes for the QEP at its January 2001 meeting. In February, a very
well attended, open faculty meeting was held in which there was a broad-ranging
discussion of topics that could improve student learning at Transylvania. The President
sent a letter to each member of the Board of Trustees and to each member of the Parent's
Council inviting their suggestions as to possible topics to be studied. During this period
there were several focus group meetings with students, staff, and alumni organized by
various members of the Steering Committee. In each case, there was discussion about the
strengths and weaknesses of the University and solicitation of ideas for enhancing the
educational experience of students at Transylvania. For example, it was from some of
these discussions with students, that the idea of "life-skills" courses first emerged, an idea
that ultimately has become part of the QEP. Another example of a QEP topic that
emerged early on from the responses in the faculty survey and in the discussions in the
faculty meeting was the desire to find ways to increase student "academic" engagement.
It should also be noted that concurrently, the Mission Review Committee was conducting
interviews of members of the various constituencies of the University that often resulted
in ideas germane to determining the focus of the QEP study. The compilation and
analysis of the data coming from all these sources was coordinated by the Director of
9
Institutional Research and Assessment and by the Self-Study Director. The data from
this phase are included in the QEP file that is available in the Self-Study Room.
Phase II: March 2001 to August 2001
Based on the data collected during Phase I of the QEP study, the Steering
Committee approved a recommendation of the Leadership Team of the Accreditation
Review Project (ARP) that the focus of the Quality Enhancement Plan should be:
“Enhancing Life and Learning at Transylvania.” Specifically, four central goals with
accompanying strategies were identified:
Goal 1: Living/Learning Environments: Programs
• to enhance student learning activities, tutoring, technology instruction, student
internships, community service, study abroad, and learning resources;
Goal 2: Living/Learning Environments: Physical Resources
• to provide and promote attractive, inviting spaces for large group meetings and
for informal, spontaneous meetings of small groups;
• to provide residential environments that enhance living and learning;
• to provide appropriate space for essential student services such as bookstore,
campus ministry, career center, community service, and related support functions;
• to develop a Learning Center plan and appropriate space;
Goal 3: Academic Enhancement
• to continue to enhance the intellectual life of the entire campus community;
Goal 4: Advisement
• to enhance the scope, content, understanding, and effectiveness of the role of
student advising.
The Leadership Team of the ARP determined that four committees should be
formed to conduct research on each one of the goals listed above and selected Dr. Jack
Furlong, Professor of Philosophy and Chair of the Humanities Division, and Dr. Michael
Vetter, Dean of Students, to serve as co-chairs of the study. Dean Vetter was charged
with overseeing the two committees examining living/learning environments (Goal 1 and
Goal 2), and Professor Furlong was charged with overseeing the two committees
pertaining to academic enhancement and advising (Goal 3 and Goal 4). Besides
facilitating the work of the committees, the co-chairs were responsible for making sure
that the committees did not work in isolation from one another, and that discussions
between committees took place when appropriate.
Early in March, 2001, the Leadership Team of the ARP and the QEP co-chairs
chose four senior members of the faculty to chair the committees and then selected
individuals from a broad-range of constituencies – students, alumni, faculty and staff –
to serve on these committees. In particular, care was taken to select both junior and
senior faculty members from all six of the academic divisions; staff members from all the
10
various administrative offices, e.g. human resources, library, student life, and athletics;
and students from various years and disciplines. Attention was paid to the matching of
the expertise and interests of the individuals selected and the specific focus of each
committee. In late March, it was determined that a fifth committee, called Financial
Resources, should be constituted to analyze the costs associated with QEP proposals,
with the ultimate goal that the feasibility of the QEP proposals would take into account
costs of the proposals and the financial resources of the University. While the
membership of this committee was established in Spring 2001, it was anticipated that this
committee would not be active until Fall 2001 (Phase III). A list of the members of each
QEP committee can be found in Appendix 01.
During the April-May 2001 period, each QEP committee met several times for the
purpose of organizing their respective studies, initial deliberations on the topics in their
purview, and establishing specific research assignments and data needs. At the end of the
academic year, each committee submitted a preliminary report summarizing the progress
that had been at that point, identifying work that still needed to be done, and elaborating
on tentative timelines for future research as well as data needs. These reports were
compiled into a document called the QEP Interim Report that is included in the QEP file
available in the Self-Study Room. During the summer of 2001, various members of the
committees carried out research and data collection.
Phase III: September 2001 to December 2001
Several events at the beginning of the fall term 2001 served to refocus the
energies and attention of the campus community on the QEP. Copies of the QEP Interim
Report were made available to all members of the University. At the opening staff
meeting the President reviewed the status of the QEP study, emphasized the importance
of the project, and encouraged members of the staff to participate in the study during the
next few months. At the President’s annual Cabinet Planning Retreat and at the
Executive Committee meeting of the Board of Trustees in October, the President reported
on progress in developing the QEP report. At the annual faculty fall retreat at
Shakertown, the QEP study was a major focus. Every faculty member had been mailed a
copy of the QEP Interim Report prior to the retreat. At the retreat itself, faculty input was
solicited in two ways. First, a series of concurrent open sessions was held in which the
chair of each QEP committee both provided an overview of the progress made thus far by
his/her committee and solicited suggestions concerning the future activity of the
committee. Faculty members were also encouraged to provide feedback anonymously on
lap top computers that were set up in various locations. The retreat thus served two
important functions: it provided faculty members with the opportunity to contribute to the
work of committees that they may not have been serving on but which was focusing on
issues of concern to them, and secondly, it served to re-energize and refocus the
individual committees for the important work that needed to be done in the fall.
During September and October, each QEP committee met several times, at times
as committees of the whole and at times as subcommittees focusing on specific issues.
The co-chairs monitored the progress of the deliberations and kept the Steering
11
Committee informed of the issues being discussed. On September 27, the Leadership
Team of the ARP, the QEP co-chairs, the chairs of the QEP committees, the co-chairs of
the Financial Resources Committee, and the QEP editor had a dinner meeting at which
problems were identified, the timeline was refined and guidelines for the reports were
discussed. At this time members of the Financial Resources Committee began meeting
with members of the QEP committees, identifying proposals that were being considered
and beginning cost analysis on these proposals. It should be noted that among the issues
studied by the QEP committees were facility needs. Concurrent to the QEP study was a
campus plan study conducted by Charles Craig of Dober, Lidsky, Craig and Associates,
Inc., Campus Planners and Facility Planning Consultants from Belmont, MA. Various
members of appropriate QEP committees, including the Financial Resources Committee,
met with Mr. Craig several times. The resulting campus planning report and this QEP
report reflect this mutual collaboration.
By the first week of November, the Chairs of the four committees submitted their
final reports to the QEP co-chairs, the QEP editor, and the Leadership Team of the ARP.
In early November there were several meetings held to determine how to incorporate the
analysis and recommendations contained in these four reports into a single coherent
document. The result of these meetings was a rough draft that was distributed to the
Steering Committee at its November 16 meeting, made available to the Transylvania
community on library reserve, and posted to the Self-Study web-site.
Several meetings were then held in late November and early December to shape
this rough draft into a final product. One key meeting included the chairs of the four
QEP committees with the purpose of making sure the final report accurately reflected the
research and ideas of the members of the committees. Another important meeting
included the President and the Dean of the College with the purpose of making sure the
report reflected the extensive planning of the University over the last ten years as well as
making sure the proposals were feasible in terms of the financial, administrative and
academic resources of the University. On December 17, 2001, Draft #9 of the Quality
Enhancement Plan report was presented to the Steering Committee, where it was
accepted and recommended to the President for his consideration with the recognition
that some modifications and final editing would still be required in constructing the final
report. On December 21, 2001, Draft #10 was submitted to the President, the other
members of the ARP Leadership Team. In early January, recommended modifications
were included and the final editing was completed.
Phase IV: January 2002 and Beyond
Phase IV of the Quality Enhancement Plan is the implementation phase. Some of
the recommendations will be carried out in a relatively short time. Indeed,
implementation of some of the ideas that emerged in the QEP study has already begun.
For example, initial QEP discussions of the need for enhanced technology support for
students, faculty, and staff resulted in the creation during the summer of 2001 of the
Technology Learning Center. While the services will undoubtedly evolve and increase
over the next few years and may become part of the more comprehensive learning center
12
discussed in the QEP, this is an example of a learning support need identified in the QEP
study that is already being met. However, many of the recommendations can only be
implemented with careful planning, consultation and development. In addition, some
will require substantial additional financial resources, and strategies for accomplishing
them will necessarily become part of the University’s 2002-2003 Long-Range Plan. The
College recognizes the need for an increase in endowment to sustain the increased
expenses required by some of the recommendations, as well as the increase in
endowment needs to meet existing operating expenses. In any case, specific strategies
for the implementation and assessment, and for funding of all recommendations and
proposals are included in the body of the report as well as summarized at its conclusion.
The University views this Quality Enhancement Plan as an important step in
strengthening the commitment to our mission as a high quality, undergraduate, liberal arts
college. We believe we provide our students with many excellent educational
opportunities and an environment that supports a high level of student achievement, but
we also recognize that we can do even better. The report provides concrete proposals for
fulfilling this belief while at the same time recognizing that the University has strong but
limited financial resources and thus must be cautious in initiating new programs and
planning new facilities.
The narrative above attempts to provide sufficient detail to demonstrate the
inclusive and open nature of this process. Continuous attempts were made to keep all
members of the campus community informed and involved in this important project.
This was in particular true of students. Two members of the Steering Committee were
students who worked diligently at getting student input at various forums and keeping
students informed of the issues being discussed. During the formative Phase I stage,
students had several opportunities to offer suggestions for topics to be considered in the
QEP study. Each of the four QEP committees had student members who were active in
the committees’ research and deliberations. And, finally, students, as well as the other
members of the campus community, were continuously informed about the progress of
the QEP, as evidenced by the three articles that appeared in The Rambler, the student
newspaper, which provided updates and encouraged students to contact the QEP CoChairs with their suggestions. In addition a self-study website contained key self-study
information in an easily accessible location.
Although conducting a “bottom-up” process involving so many different
constituencies poses certain logistical challenges, it was, in the end, extremely beneficial.
Bringing together talented and energetic people who have different perspectives on the
University not only served to generate ideas, but will also facilitate the future
implementation of the recommendations contained in this report.
Evaluation and Control of the Quality Enhancement Plan
The thought and research undertaken by the committee members and all the
individuals who participated in the development of the Quality Enhancement Plan will be
of negligible value unless the recommendations are monitored and implemented in a
13
timely and organized manner. To assist in this effort, specific evaluation and control
mechanisms are being recommended and are planned as an integral part of the QEP.
Evaluation and control will occur through several existing processes, all of which
are stated under the Implementation and Assessment section for each subject in the body
of the QEP report. A number of the shorter-term recommendations will be assigned to
individual cabinet members who will include the recommendations as goals in the
Transylvania University Planning and Assessment Document that is updated and
reviewed annually. The review of each cabinet member’s goals and assessments takes
place early in the fiscal year at the President’s Cabinet Annual Goal Setting and
Evaluation Retreat. The long-term, and normally capital-intensive projects, will be
incorporated in the 2002-2003 Long-Range Plan that is reviewed at least annually by the
Board of Trustees Planning and Evaluation Committee. It is important to note that these
short and long-term planning processes track the progress to goals very well but do not
necessarily evaluate improved student satisfaction or achievement. The measurement of
satisfaction and achievement are accomplished by ongoing assessments, many of which
are mentioned in the body of the QEP report. These assessments, which are part of
almost every program and service the University provides, have worked well for
Transylvania over the past decade and should continue to provide the foundation for
future improvements driven by the Quality Enhancement Plan.
Structure of Report
Generally, each area studied in the Quality Enhancement Plan is organized under
four subheadings:
Background: historical and other context needed to understand the problem.
Rationale: reasons, evidence, support for a recommendation to solve the problem.
Recommendation: a description of the proposed solution.
Implementation and Assessment Plan: a brief statement of the process or
timeline for pursuing the recommendation to completion and appropriate
formative and summative evaluation procedures.
In some cases, an additional category is added: Financial Resources Needed.
This category appears in the body of the document when Endowment or Capital needs
might be required within five years of the beginning of implementation. Endowment and
Capital needs planned for beyond five years from the beginning of implementation are
found in the Summary under “Financial Resources Required for Implementation of the
Quality Enhancement Plan.” This Appendix lists all financial needs, both within and
beyond the five-year target.
14
QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN
ENHANCING LIVING AND LEARNING AT
TRANSYLVANIA UNIVERSITY
Integrating and Extending Learning
The recommendations in this section are designed to enhance the intellectual life
of Transylvania for students, faculty, and staff by integrating programs across disciplines,
in curricular and extracurricular activities, and within the General Education (GE)
curriculum so that students experience an enriched, more coherent experience at
Transylvania.
All of the recommendations set out below require approval. It should be noted,
however, that, through months-long discussion of the issues attaching to these
recommendations, many faculty, staff, and students have involved themselves at some
point or another. Nonetheless, the Implementation Plans reflect the need for further
examination, approval, and evaluation of all recommendations.
Convocation and Lecture Series
Background:
Transylvania University currently offers a number of extracurricular academic
and cultural events on campus each year. These include lectures, plays, art exhibitions,
and musical performances presented not only by invited guests but also by Transylvania
faculty and students. Though these occasions provide an opportunity for cultural
enrichment on campus and provide the opportunity for – as the college's Integrating and
Extending Learning goals specify – conversation across disciplines and discussions of
values, they sometimes are poorly attended by students and faculty and are not
sufficiently integrated. Therefore, the committee elected to look into ways in which the
intellectual life of the campus can effectively benefit from these events in ways that will
create a more intellectually vital, cohesive community.
Rationale:
A survey of benchmark institutions reveals that Centre College and BirminghamSouthern College have well attended, high quality programs that require students to
attend a minimum number of events. Full-time students at Centre must accumulate at
least twelve "convocation credits" each year in that college's Convocation Series. They
may choose their twelve events from an array of lectures, plays (some student
performances), exhibitions, and other cultural events. In order to avoid lengthy,
particularized arguments, no student, for any reason, is excused from this requirement; in
short, it is up to the students themselves to anticipate problems before they arise and to
attend the twelve events in a timely manner. Birmingham-Southern College provides a
15
second possible model for Transylvania in their "Intellectual and Cultural Foundations"
program. Here, students accumulate forty points over a four-year period, prior to
graduation. For a full report on the convocations programs at Centre College and
Birmingham-Southern College see Appendix 02. Since such programs seem to have
created a heightened intellectual climate on their respective campuses, pooling otherwise
disparate resources into a coherent operation, such a program seems a reasonable move
for Transylvania.
Indeed, Transylvania already has several funds – Bingham-Young, Kenan,
Delcamp, Moosnick, Marshall, and Lilly – for the purposes of bringing speakers to
campus, many of whom have profoundly enriched our community. Still, though, the
problem of audience and linkage to a larger instructional purpose prevent such excellent
programs from having maximum effect on the community. In a coordinated convocation
program, all events so sponsored would be available for convocation credit. Even so,
these rich funding sources are dedicated to specific purposes, and they are spread over a
full academic year, producing, at best, perhaps, a dozen events. Further funding,
therefore, should be sought for general lectures/performances that would be overseen by
the Dean of the College and the faculty so that, in any year, these funds could combine
with others to invite a major academic or public figure to campus or to sponsor several
events of more local interest.
Since Transylvania is located in a city, we also strongly suggest that local events
such as those held at the Lexington Opera House or at the University of Kentucky be
included in the convocation program. The convocation committee should continue to
pursue student discounts and Transylvania subsidies for these events.
Recommendation 1:
Develop a Convocation Program similar to successful benchmark institutions
where students are required, or receive credit, to attend a specific number of approved
events every year. The College should continue to seek funds for lectures and other
events as part of a Convocation Program.
Implementation and Assessment Plan:
The Dean of the College should form a committee of faculty, staff, and students to
formulate procedures for the monitoring of student participation and selection of events
for convocation credit. The convocation program would then be presented for a faculty
vote at the May 2003 faculty meeting and for implementation for Fall 2004. After two
years in place (May 2005), the committee will review the structure and process of the
program then determine the need for a faculty/staff coordinator. Once the convocation
program is in place, assessments in the form of student satisfaction surveys, and focus
groups, and informal feedback through conversations with students, faculty, and staff
would be used.
16
International Education
Background:
The topic of international/global education is vitally important in the 21st century
and has assumed even greater stature since the events of September 11, 2001. The
overriding reason for examining this topic is the need to enhance the University’s ability
to fulfill its statement of institutional purpose, specifically the stated goals that “the
College seeks to prepare students for the responsibility of fostering a healthy society in a
world shared by many different people, cultures, and nations,” and “to stimulate in
students an understanding of themselves and their relation to others in a diverse, everchanging world.”
In addition, international education enhances student achievement by providing
focus and direction to the ability of the University “to equip students with skills and
knowledge that will allow them to function effectively across cultures and nations.”2
These skills include competency in foreign language and understanding, through direct
experience, the challenges of rapid global change, economic interdependence,
international and national security interests, environmental problems, and health issues.
Rationale:
The 1997 Long-Range Plan recommended an increase in the number of students
who devote a full semester to study abroad to 40 per year and an attempt to increase the
current restricted study abroad endowment to support scholarships for study abroad to 2
million dollars. While the number of such students has risen to 23 for the current year,
the endowment has not increased proportionately. Until significant endowment funds are
raised, it is unlikely that the corresponding goal of 40 students will eventuate.
Viewing the long term, and assuming that Transylvania reaches its targeted
funding and student numbers, staffing for oversight of the program may need to be
expanded. Telephone interviews were conducted with directors or program assistants
from international programs offices at benchmark institutions during the week of
September 12-19, 2001. The survey revealed that all of Transylvania’s benchmarks have
centers or offices specifically designated for international or off-campus education,
programs, or studies. (At Transylvania, the current Director of Special Programs devotes
a majority of her time coordinating the Study Abroad program.)
The responsibilities of the directors of the international education centers or
offices were focused on the myriad but related duties associated with planning,
promoting, and coordinating study abroad and other international education programs.
An examination of non-benchmark but nationally recognized liberal arts institutions
revealed that virtually all have centers or offices dedicated to either international or offcampus education, programs, and studies. Non-benchmarks that have particularly
relevant models are Franklin & Marshall and Gettysburg colleges (PA), Skidmore
College and St. Lawrence University (NY), and Macalester College (MN).
2
American Council on Education, Preliminary Status Report 2000 Internationalization of U. S. Higher
Education. ACE: Washington D.C., 2000, p. 5).
17
Recommendation 2:
Enhance the international education program to fulfill the 1997 Long-Range Plan
goals, examine how international study can be emphasized in the curriculum, and then
assess the need for and the feasibility of creating an office of international education as
student interest and endowment increase.
Implementation and Assessment Plan:
The 1997 Long-Range Plan goals for such programs should continue to be
pursued. A permanent subcommittee of CPC should be established, consisting of faculty
and the Director of Special Programs, to examine how international study can be
emphasized in the curriculum. While this subcommittee for study abroad will examine
ways to monitor the year-to-year progress toward the goals of the number of student
participants and curricular involvement, the need for establishing an office of
international education will be determined by the Dean of the College and the President.
Two goals – the number of students studying abroad and the endowment value – will be
thoroughly reviewed in the upcoming 2002-2003 Long-Range Plan to determine if
changes to the 1997 Long-Range Plan should be made. The existing student evaluations
of their study abroad experiences will continue.
Team Teaching
Background:
Liberal arts education is, in part, committed to developing the ability in students
to think across disciplines; this opens the way to making connections between disciplines
and between ideas and practices within and without the academy. Perhaps most
important, interdisciplinary courses can help unify the curriculum and lead students to
develop multiple ways of thinking about a topic. Indeed, one of the most direct ways for
students to receive an interdisciplinary experience is to enroll in a team-taught course. In
the interest of helping students to connect a variety of ways of thinking, Transylvania
offers a number of team-taught courses, primarily in May Term. Interviews with faculty
and students who have participated in such courses in the past two years reveal great
enthusiasm for interdisciplinary study. As one professor wrote, students are enriched by
the "two talented, committed, high-energy, and different people" who teach them. This
very important quality of academic life lies at the heart of Transylvania's goal "to
encourage inquiry and conversation across the traditional academic disciplines." Hence,
the committee determined that enhancing interdisciplinary study had solid merit as a way
of establishing a more cohesive, vital academic culture.
Rationale:
Interviews with the faculty and students who have participated in team-taught
courses in the last two years (QEP file, self-study room) confirm the benefits of the
practice. Both faculty and students felt enriched by cross-disciplinary teaching and
although all faculty respondents felt team-teaching required more effort and preparation
than did teaching singly, they expressed a strong commitment to true collaboration and a
rejection of the pedagogical model in which faculty members alternate lectures or tasks.
18
For a summary of courses team-taught, interdisciplinary courses taught in the May Term,
see Appendix 03.
As popular as such courses are, two problems exist in offering them – namely, the
reduction in one faculty member’s course load for the semester and the consequent
reduction in course offerings. Currently, the Dean requires that team-taught courses have
a certain number of students in them before they can be offered, but this method,
according to the Dean, is ad hoc. For instance, students cannot plan for taking teamtaught courses because currently they are not notified in enough time to make thoughtful
decisions about them. Second, faculty teaching the courses often complain that they do
not have enough time to coordinate their efforts, read and discuss texts, etc. Both
problems could be addressed by requiring that all team-teaching courses be approved at
least a semester before they are proposed to be offered. Any increase in the number of
team taught classes needs to be evaluated based on financial implications.
Recommendation 3:
Organize and monitor team teaching proposals and learning outcomes.
Implementation and Assessment Plan:
A subcommittee of CPC, in connection with the Division Chairs and the Dean of
the College, will present a plan to the faculty for encouraging and monitoring teamteaching proposals by December, 2002. Realizing the possible financial implications,
such a plan should include a formula for determining how many team-taught courses can
be supported per semester, given the mandated 14-1 student-faculty ratio, and number of
courses needed; also, criteria for judging team-teaching proposals should be advanced.
Upon faculty approval of the plan, all team-teaching proposals will be vetted for offering
in a particular semester. Collaborative research for such projects could be funded
through grants from existing faculty development programs. In addition to the CPC
subcommittee providing the justification and plan for team-taught courses, each time the
courses are offered, at the conclusion, an evaluation of the benefits for student learning
will be made by the faculty members using such assessment instruments as course
evaluations and verbal input from students.
General Education Requirements
Background:
In 1997, the Transylvania University faculty initiated a major overhaul of its
general education requirements based on findings from the Writing Assessment
Committee, exhaustive student and faculty interviews, and from intensive investigation of
other colleges' requirements. The new system reduced the overall number of GE’s and
deepened students' experience in areas outside the major by requiring them to take one
pair of upper-level courses outside the major and a second pair outside the major
division. Two of these upper-level courses had to be "writing intensive." Although such
a program has much merit, several reasons have been discovered to review the general
education requirements. These include two most often voiced by students and faculty:
that the list of courses approved for both introductory and upper level GE’s is too
19
restrictive (and sometimes seems to be arbitrary) and that the system, itself, is overly
complex. In the interest of greater freedom of choice – in part, to "promote opportunity
for students to develop as independent thinkers…" – the committee examining this area
determined to look at ways in which the general education program could be less
restrictive and better organized.
Rationale:
A student poll using Blackboard, a software program, canvassed from each class
35 students randomly chosen to participate in this survey. The actual percentage of each
class represented in this survey was 4.3% first-years, 8% sophomores, 8% juniors, and
12% seniors. For the specific breakdown of responses, see Appendix 04.
In general the survey indicated a number of positive reactions to the current GE
system: 60% of students polled reported that the general education requirements helped
to create a well-rounded education and gave them a better understanding of other
cultures, 69% of students reported that the requirement exposed them to courses that they
would not normally take, and 51% found their GE courses interesting. Several
disquieting negative reactions to GEs, however, suggest that a revision of the GE system
could be worthwhile: 30% of students reported that they spend more time thinking about
classes they need to fulfill their GE requirements than requirements for their major, and
50% of sophomores and juniors report that they had to pass over a class in their major in
order to take a required GE. Furthermore, over 50% of all students reported that it was
difficult to get the classes they needed to fulfill GE requirements and 70% of the
sophomores, juniors, and seniors reported concern with getting a class that fulfilled a GE
requirement.
A second question arises in light of the restricted list of courses designated as
fulfilling GE credit. In a survey of six liberal arts colleges at each of the so-called first,
second and third tiers – a total of eighteen schools – as reported in the recent college
issue of U.S. News and World Report, only Transylvania and Wittenberg indexed a
restricted list of courses that would count toward a specific GE requirement. In the other
institutions, students could freely select courses in their catalogues as fulfilling GE’s.
In addition, the committee has questioned the consistency and criteria for courses
listed as fulfilling the Area IV requirement. Area IV was designed to encourage students
to pursue a field beyond the introductory level and was instituted on the grounds that
students rarely retain information and patterns of thought from a single course exposure
in an isolated field of study. Unfortunately, there is no clearly stated rationale for
including/excluding courses. Although each course must be approved by the Committee
on Program and Curriculum, the absence of clear criteria and a sense of coherence in the
course offerings are confusing to both faculty and students and may detract from, rather
than add to, the improvement of intellectual culture on campus.
Significant problems with Area IV suggest as a remedy that this category be
changed, perhaps by deregulating the list of courses prescribed for GE’s and substituting
a required minor for the Area IV requirements. In any event, the Committee on Program
20
and Curriculum should investigate the feasibility of such an alternative to the current
practice.
Recommendation 4:
Review General Education Area IV Requirements to discover and implement a
scheme better designed to deepen student learning at a non-introductory level outside
their major programs.
Implementation and Assessment Plan:
CPC will present a plan for modifying Area IV requirements (e.g. by substituting
a minor for Area IV courses) and present it for a faculty vote at the May 2003 faculty
meeting for implementation for Fall 2004. Once changes are approved, but before
implementation, CPC will develop “before and after” student satisfaction measurements
and continue to explore methods of measuring the GE Program’s success in improving
student learning at a non-introductory level outside major programs. The aforementioned
assessments would be included in the five-year CPC reviews.
Enhancing the Academic Environment
The recommendations in the following section are designed for the purpose of
promoting student performance in the classroom by improving and enhancing alreadyexisting services and resources on campus, and also by creating a more academicallyoriented campus ethos among students, particularly in their first semester at Transylvania.
Advising
Background:
First-year advising is critical, not only for the academic success of students but for
a number of institutional reasons as well, e.g., reducing attrition. Since 1994, under the
auspices of the Teagle grant, first-year advising has been a major focus for the College.
Since 1996, the College has used its orientation course, University 1111, each section
directed by a faculty mentor and a student leader, as a medium for first-year advising.
Thus, the University 1111 mentor is now the student’s adviser. As a result, instead of
visiting with their academic adviser three or four times during the first year, students see
mentors twice a week during the fall semester and three or four times during the second
semester. Another initiative to improve the advising process has been the development of
a fifty-page Advising Manual that was produced by the Office of the Dean of the College
that contains general advice, suggestions, and reminders about student advising. This
manual is very useful, especially to first-year and sophomore advisers, and is updated and
distributed to all faculty annually.
After their first year, students are encouraged to select an academic adviser in the
major they have chosen. (Students are required to declare a major by the time they
register for their junior year.) While some continue with their mentor from the first year,
most will select or be referred to an adviser in their major if available. The College tries
to limit the advising load of individual faculty members to no more than twenty-five,
21
although some go as high as thirty, and in years past, some were overburdened with fifty
or more. Equitable distribution of the advising workload among faculty remains an area
for improvement; an enhanced training program will balance the load as well as improve
advisement overall.
Beyond working with individual academic advisers, many students begin to work
with advisers who have expertise about professional fields, e.g., pre-law or pre-med
advisers. Students interested in professional schools are referred to designated advisers
for law, medicine, and the ministry. The number of advisees for some of these faculty
members is often dramatically greater than that of other faculty, and, although they are
not necessarily formally-assigned advisees, often take more time than regularly-assigned
advisees. There are also higher advising loads in “popular” major programs such as
biology, psychology, and business. Again, faculty members in allied fields could be
trained to advise in areas such as these, improving advisement generally. Students
planning to enter graduate programs are encouraged to consult early with faculty in their
area of interest, which is usually not a problem since after the first year students are
encouraged to select an adviser in their major.
Since advisement includes traditional academic matters, travel opportunities,
internships, scholarship opportunities, co-curricular activities, post-graduate career
considerations, and other matters, a number of college personnel may become involved –
which also means that there is no single governing source. Given its close connection
with the educational program of the College, traditional academic advising falls within
the jurisdiction of the faculty Committee on Program and Curriculum (CPC) and the
Dean of the College. Both recognize academic advising to be an important responsibility
of all full-time, regular faculty members. Under the guidance of CPC and the Dean, the
Registrar’s Office serves as the administrative unit responsible for coordinating academic
advising. Other administrative personnel who advise for such aspects of the learning
process as foreign study programs, premier scholarships, and career development are
staff under the Dean of the College and the President. In the process of training better
advisers, it stands to reason that these disparate yet advisement-relevant areas should
continue to be coordinated, most plausibly by the Dean of the College.
Rationale:
The QEP task force on first-year advising examined student advising from several
different perspectives, including focus group discussions with first-year students, student
orientation leaders, and advisers/mentors. In all three discussions, the committee sought
answers to such questions as: 1) What are the strengths of the first-year advising process?
2) What are the areas that need improvement? 3) What might improve first-year advising
at Transylvania? Results of these discussions indicate that, overall, the first-year advising
is done well, but that it could be improved with more training of the Student Orientation
Leaders (SOL’s), better communication between the advisers and the SOL’s, and a
simplified advising process.
The College also conducts exit surveys of all graduating seniors. Analyzing the
latest senior exit survey, the committee found that it does not include any questions that
22
specifically address advising. The only way a graduating senior could address this issue
would be in the “comments” section of the survey, which does not provide any
quantifiable data to utilize.
Questionnaires are administered annually to the UNIV 1111 classes asking
students to assess the course, with several questions focused on the effectiveness of
academic advising. Both the content of the course and the advising process have been
revised as a consequence of these surveys, more in terms of “fine-tuning” rather than
radical changes. Surveys of mentors revealed no major complaints nor calls for dramatic
change. Most believe that the system does a good job dealing with both adjustment and
advising matters and some believe that a modified version of the course should be
designed for the second year. There was some concern expressed about the need for
more training for both mentors and student leaders.
The committee also consulted information obtained from faculty regarding the
advising process. One major recent effort of the Teagle Subcommittee on Academic
Advising was to poll faculty advisers regarding their opinion on the usefulness of an
electronic information system related to academic advising. About 60% of faculty
advisers responded to the survey (which was electronically delivered). Transylvania
University advisers identified the following items. These include electronic access to:
•
•
•
•
•
a student’s progress toward degree requirements (While such a degree audit
system has yet to be implemented, progress continues with anticipated completion
during the 2002-2003 academic year.);
a list of advisees, including e-mail capacity (This capability is now available as a
part of the Faculty Information Center (FIC) to all advisers on-campus. Included
is a digital image of advisees.);
“real-time” class rolls, with e-mail capacity, which is now available through the
FIC;
a current listing of all majors/minors, which is now available at FIC;
advisees’ course schedules.
In addition to these forms of assessment, the committee gathered data on firstyear advising at Transylvania’s benchmark institutions. The questions for the benchmark
institutions included 1) How is advising coordinated at your institution? 2) Is there an
office and/or director of advising? 3) Do faculty members do most of the advising and, if
so, how are they compensated? 4) How are advisers and advisees matched? 5) Are
current students involved in the advising process as peer advisers? All of the benchmarks
contacted use faculty as primary academic advisers, and most do not have an office of
advising. There is little information on faculty compensation for advising, nor is there
much information on how faculty advisers are matched with advisees. We have found in
other surveys that most schools do not offer additional compensation for advising, which
is also true at Transylvania. At Transylvania, however, first-year advisers, all of whom
teach in the University 1111 Program, receive an annual stipend of $500. Finally, like
Transylvania, most benchmarks are making some attempt to use upper-level students as
mentors in the advising process for first-year students.
23
One practice that seems to focus benchmark advisement initiatives is a mission
statement for advisement, which is published in their catalogs and referred to in faculty
training and student orientation events. Such a useful document should complement
Transylvania plans for improving advising.
The committee received information from a number of benchmark schools.
Basically, it was found that Transylvania compares favorably with benchmarks in
undergraduate advising. All use faculty for advising. There is no additional
compensation for advising at either the benchmarks or Transylvania, where, aside from
University 1111, it is considered part of the teaching job. Advising is mandatory for all
students at all the schools surveyed, including Transylvania. Finally, the vast majority of
the colleges in the survey do not have formal methods for assessing advising
effectiveness.
In conclusion, though advising structures seem to be in place, continued work on
clarification and definition of institutional aims, policies and practices are required.
Specifically, the following questions need to be pursued with method and oversight: what
we hope to achieve; what are the boundaries; what specifically is expected of advisers;
and how should the effectiveness of individual advisers be assessed.
Recommendations for Advising:
5.1) Adopt a mission statement (Appendix 12) for academic advising.
5.2) Enhance Training of Advisers: All schools do some training, with the norm being a
five to eight hour training program. Although Transylvania does some orientation
(training) for those advising first-year students, there is no systematic training beyond
that point. Transylvania could consider implementing formal training for academic
advisers.
5.3) Include a question about the quality of advising on the Senior Exit Survey.
5.4) Offer electronic access for advisers to student ongoing academic records and current
course schedules.
5.5) Integrate such services as study abroad and career development in the advising
process.
Implementation and Assessment Plans:
5.1) Mission statement: The proposed draft cited above should be offered for faculty
consideration by the Dean of the College in the Fall 2002 for eventual implementation in
the Fall 2003. The acceptance of the mission statement and its implementation will be a
goal in the Dean’s plan, which is assessed at the President’s Cabinet Annual Goal Setting
and Evaluation Retreat, hereafter referred to as “President’s annual planning retreat.”
5.2) Training of Advisers: The Dean of the College and the Dean of Students, in
consultation with the Registrar and selected faculty, should propose an enhanced training
24
plan for implementation by Fall 2003. In this process, the Deans should carefully
consider appropriate administrative support and coordination. Again, this
recommendation will become a goal in the Dean of the College’s plan and assessed at the
President’s annual planning retreat.
5.3) Senior Exit Survey: The Dean of the College and the Director of Institutional
Research and Assessment will add a question about the quality of advisement to the 2002
Senior Exit Survey and begin to evaluate its effectiveness. Along with the year-to-year
monitoring of other results from the Senior Exit Survey and the results from student
satisfaction advising questions on the College Student Survey, the Director of
Institutional Research and Assessment will report the results to the President and the
President’s cabinet at least annually to determine the effectiveness of the advising
changes.
5.4) Electronic Access: Online access to such data should be available for the 2002-2003
academic year. The Dean of the College will take this as a goal for 2002-2003, and its
implementation will be assessed at the 2003 President’s annual planning retreat.
5.5) Integration of Services: The Dean of the College will form an Advisement
Committee to study ways better to integrate these areas into advisement beginning in the
Fall 2002, developing a plan for implementation in Fall 2003. Implementing the
integration of such services as study abroad and career development with advising will be
measured by analyzing student responses to the Senior Exit Survey and informal
discussions with seniors regarding their level of satisfaction with the comprehensiveness
of their advising. A report will be made annually to the Board of Trustees Academic
Affairs Committee concerning the results of assessments and plans for improvement.
Library Services
Background:
The library supports Transylvania’s mission of liberal education by promoting the
free search for knowledge and lifelong learning. Its role in this context is twofold: to
acquire, organize, manage and preserve materials for the instructional and intellectual
needs of the university; and to provide training in library skills, and encourage the
effective utilization of its resources.
Rationale:
Although the actual use of all library resources is difficult to assess because of the
increased reliance on remote electronic resources, this committee estimates there is room
for improvement in the use of library services and resources. This conclusion comes
from analyzing college and library surveys from 1999 to 2001, and annual reports by
library staff from 1999 to 2001. An increase in the frequency of use, as well as use of
more of the library’s available resources is desirable.
Library surveys from 1999 to 2001 indicate that while students overall give high
marks to the library, faculty members express significant dissatisfaction with the library
25
in certain areas. In a 1999 faculty survey, a high percentage of the faculty expressed
dissatisfaction with the library’s book collection and academic journal holdings. Also,
few faculty members avail themselves of library resources. For example, annual reports
submitted by library staff indicate that approximately 7% of faculty checked out materials
from the library’s collections in 1998-2000.
Many sections of University 1111 provide an introduction to library facilities and
services. However, some faculty members do not make full use of the library’s
instructional services. For instance, in 1999-2000 library staff worked with only 19 of
the 29 FLA classes, and this figure includes some classes who came to the library for
more than one session. In 2000-2001, 25 of the 27 FLA classes received instruction from
librarians, but this figure also includes repeat sessions. Because the FLA program is
geared toward teaching students research skills, it is vital that all FLA instructors bring
their classes to the library. Other divisions responded even less to the library’s
instructional services. For instance, only one Social Sciences faculty member brought a
class to the library for instruction in 1999-2000; in 2000-2001, two Humanities classes
and three Social Sciences classes came to the library. There was also minimal response
to the library staff’s offer for faculty-specific instruction in electronic resources.
Library surveys indicate the primary purpose of students coming to the library is
to study. Annual reports show a 37% decrease in all types of reference inquiries in 19981999, and a 13% decrease in 1999-2000. Although this is consistent with national trends,
due in great part to increased use of electronic resources, students should be urged by
faculty to consult the librarians for assistance with research and use of the electronic
resources. The Senior Exit Survey for 2000 and 2001 indicates a small percentage of
students had been given assignments requiring use of the library. Library staff also
regularly informs students of the availability of a Research Assistance Program (RAP) for
students working on research papers. No students took advantage of this program from
1998 to 2000, and only six did so in 2000-2001.
While the Transylvania library collections are not extensive in many disciplines,
they are adequate in conjunction with the wide range of services offered, which are
significant and appropriate to the liberal arts mission of the College. Negative
perceptions related to the size of the collections, as well as lack of information or misinformation, lack of research skills, and often lack of interest can lead to the less than
optimal utilization of library resources and services.
Recommendation 6:
Faculty should require library expertise from students by encouraging greater use
of the library and its various resources in their classes.
Implementation and Assessment Plan:
A committee comprised of two library staff members and one representative from
each division of the College will meet regularly in 2002-03 in order to develop a plan for
integrating the use of library materials and services in the research process and for
teaching and evaluating library research skills. The plan should be presented to the
26
faculty before the end of academic year, 2004-05. The committee is to keep the Dean of
the College and the faculty apprised of the development of their plan at least
semiannually, and, once the plan is approved by the faculty in 2004-2005, measure its
success through additional questions on the College Student Survey and through
indicators of better-researched papers, from such programs as the Writing Center, FLA,
and other facets that may be part of the proposed learning center. On an annual basis, a
report will be made to the Board of Trustees Academic Affairs Committee concerning the
results of assessments and plans for improvement.
Recruitment by Greek Organizations
Background:
Approximately 55% of Transylvania students are affiliated with Greek
organizations. Under current recruitment practices, more than half of incoming first-year
students and returning members of Greek organizations each year spend their first weeks
on campus, in the fall semester, occupied with sorority and fraternity issues and other
social events. Fall rush has long been discussed by the faculty, administration, and
students; for example, two years ago, the Faculty Concerns Committee began discussions
with representatives of Greek organizations to investigate the possibilities of moving
recruitment to the second term or, at least, of reducing the disruptive effects of
recruitment on academic life. Although some adjustments have been made in recruitment
procedures, the emphasis on this social event detracts from the academic atmosphere of
the school, interferes with class work, and tends to create a gulf between Greek and nonGreek students. Overall, fall rush helps to create an initial impression that college life
focuses on social rather than academic pursuits. In the interest of beginning the year with
a focus on academic rather than social life, the committee has raised the desirability of
fall rush.
Rationale:
Most of the on-campus discussion in regards to recruitment took place in
discussions with representatives of the Faculty Concerns Committee, representatives of
sororities and fraternities, and the Coordinator of Greek Life. The minutes of these
meetings and files of materials in support of fall – as opposed to winter – recruitment are
housed in the office of the Dean of Students. Most of the well-reasoned arguments that
support fall recruitment focus on social concerns: that students find an immediate cohort
of compatible persons if they choose a group at the outset of their college career and that
fall rush circumvents the year-long recruiting that may be attendant on second semester
recruitment to Greek organizations. In looking at the effects of fall rush on the academic
culture of the College, however, many members of the faculty note that upperclass as
well as first-year students become preoccupied with social events at the expense of the
general academic culture. Although students point to the fact that they "keep their grades
up," the interruption of academic life at its very beginning has a harmful effect on the
intellectual culture of the College as evidenced by continual and strong faculty objections
to the practice, based on their observation of its toll on students.
27
Of the benchmark institutions – with similar levels of student participation in the
Greek system – four colleges have winter rush; along with Hanover College, they are
Centre
Denison
Wittenberg
Fraternity, 58%; sorority, 65% of the student population
Fraternity, 33%; sorority, 46%
Fraternity, 15%; sorority, 34%
In addition, DePauw University, with an enrollment of 2220 students, has 77% of
its men in fraternities and 74% of its women in sororities. It instituted winter rush in the
1998-99 academic year. The committee is waiting for these colleges to respond
regarding the intellectual, social, and economic implications of moving rush from fall to
winter.
The Office of the Dean of Students is examining the question of moving rush
from Fall Term to Winter Term.
Recommendation 7:
Develop a Winter Term recruitment program including, but not limited to, the role
of sororities and fraternities during the first semester of each school year, rules governing
interaction between first-year students and upper-class members of Greek organizations
during the first semester, the need to develop a full and active social calendar in the fall
semester to engage students, and, above all, minimum grade-point averages for students
participating in rush.
Implementation and Assessment Plan
As this measure is already maturing, a 2003-2004 implementation date is
suggested. The move from fall to winter recruitment should be in place by the 2003-2004
academic year and no later than 2004-2005. Ongoing investigation of the academic,
social, and economic effects of rush should be carried out by a committee consisting of
faculty, the Coordinator of Greek Life, the presidents of the Panhellenic and
Interfraternity Councils, alumni, representatives of the Greek organizations, and a
selection of non-Greek students. Further, assessment of the recruitment program will
become a goal of the Dean of Students in his annual plan and progress reported at the
President’s annual planning retreat and to the Board of Trustees Student Life Committee.
Measures of the benefits, or drawbacks, of the change will come in the form or both
formal and informal surveys of students and faculty and adjustments made as appropriate.
Living/Learning and Diversity
As noted in the section on International Education, several sections of
Transylvania’s Mission Statement explicitly recognize the importance of preparing
students to interact and thrive in a diverse nation and world. The recommendations
contained in the following sub-sections – “The Transylvania Community” and “Outreach
to the Surrounding Community” – both attempt to foster the conditions necessary to
achieve these objectives.
28
The Transylvania Community
Background:
Though the term diversity includes race, ethnicity, and gender on the one hand
and internationality and "able-ism" on the other, race and ethnicity primarily concern the
College at this time. Some recent research shows a strong correlation between a diverse
student body, direct teaching of diversity and student achievement and satisfaction.3
Moreover, several goals of the College’s mission require such a focus. Among these is
the intent to "stimulate in students an understanding of themselves and their relation to
others in a diverse, ever-changing world" and to "foster a campus community
characterized by compassion, respect, ethical concern, and social responsibility."
Transylvania has made serious efforts to recruit a racial mix of students and
faculty, as well as to increase formal and informal discussions about race and diversity on
campus. For example, Transylvania has recently created a full-time position with
responsibilities divided equally between multicultural affairs (reporting to the Dean of
Students) and minority student recruitment (reporting to the Director of Admissions). In
addition, under the College’s first Bingham-Young faculty development program, a
Political Science professor has coordinated a three-year program on “teaching race” that
has involved students and faculty across campus. Nevertheless, in keeping with its 80%
composition of students from the racially homogenous state of Kentucky, the College
remains preponderantly white; moreover, programs and initiatives dealing with diversity
might be better coordinated, and the faculty have not examined how these issues are
taught across the curriculum.
It stands to reason that if Transylvania is to make a place for its students in a
diverse world it must, indeed, continue to diversify its population, to enhance and
organize its curricular offerings on race and ethnicity and carefully to examine its current
practices, language, and symbology. To that end, this aspect of the QEP focused on
general questions of campus climate and curriculum; on raising the percentage and actual
number of non-white students; and on increasing the number of non-white faculty
The current state of affairs on the Transylvania campus was gauged by gathering
institutional data and soliciting ideas and opinions from the College's student, faculty,
and staff populations. Also, the committee studied benchmark institutions and other
liberal arts colleges, surveyed published literature on the subject, and some members
attended conferences. It became apparent that the three issues addressed here were
interdependent. That is, by making the campus climate more welcoming, students and
faculty of color would more likely be attracted to the school; in turn, of course, a more
diverse student body and faculty would improve the campus climate in regards to
diversity.
3
Mitchell J. Chang, “The Positive Educational Effects of Racial Diversity,” in Gary Orfield, ed. Diversity
Challenged. The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University: Harvard Education Publishing Group, 2001, pp
175-187,
29
Also, the committee looked into other issues that will contribute to a more
attractive work environment for faculty and a more engaging academic environment for
students. Here the committee directed its investigations toward the curriculum and extracurricular events, toward sensitization of the faculty and administration to minority
issues, and towards evaluating symbols of racial and ethnic culture on campus.
Recruitment of Minority Students
Rationale:
To prepare Transylvania students for life in a multicultural world, it is important
to provide them with adequate resources and direction. Because of the relative
homogeneity of the campus population, the goal of creating a multicultural experience at
the College will not take place without increasing the number of students of color.
Indeed, this homogeneity is demonstrated by the fact that Transylvania's African
American student population rests at 2.9% with a 6.6% minority population overall.
While such figures comport well with in-state benchmarks (see Appendix 05), a ten year
study of incoming class enrollment shows little progress in moving the figures higher,
despite the efforts of Admissions (see Appendix 06). That office has a recruitment plan
specifically for minority students (see Appendix 07, 08). The achievement of the goal of
enrolling 9% of minority students in 2002, and the increased percentage over ten years
will give Transylvania a much more balanced student population and therefore a richer
educational and social experience for all.
By exposing all students to varieties of racial and ethnic experiences, the College
will decidedly initiate and engage in discussions of differing values and will bring to the
fore wide-ranging issues that affect an increasingly interdependent global community.
Ultimately, Transylvania should address the widest possible range of issues on diversity;
however, at this juncture, limiting its focus to increasing the numbers of AfricanAmerican and Hispanic students on campus represents the best strategy for success.
Furthermore, by concentrating on African-American and Hispanic populations, the
College will tie itself more closely to the ethnic and racial mix of its Lexington
community.
Recommendation 8:
Follow the new Admissions Recruitment Plan goals for minority recruitment.
Implementation and Assessment Plan:
The Office of Admissions will implement its plan. The Director of Institutional
Research and Assessment, in his/her yearly report, will update the College community on
the Admissions Recruitment Plan and outline measures taken over the year for attaining
these goals. The Office of Admissions will implement the plan working closely with the
Office of Financial Aid and the Director of Institutional Research and Assessment.
Based on the Office of Admissions’ final recruitment report, containing the results of all
minority populations, the Director of Institutional Research and Assessment and the
Director of Admissions will report the results at the annual president’s planning retreat.
Additionally, the long-term minority recruitment goals with the associated funding needs
30
will be included in the 2002-2003 Long-Range Plan and be monitored at least annually
by the Planning and Evaluation Committee and the Admissions and Financial Aid
Committee of the Board of Trustees.
Financial Resources Needed:
To attract African-American and Hispanic students, additional financial aid will
be needed. Total costs are estimated at $100,000 annually or $2,000,000 in endowment.
Recruitment of Minority Faculty
Rationale:
Without a diverse faculty, a diverse student population could not by itself enhance
the educational experience at Transylvania, much less make students of color feel “at
home” – so much is known from the experience of other educational institutions.4 In
fact, Transylvania is, presently, taking steps to increase the number of African-American
faculty members. Through funding from the Knight Foundation, Transylvania has
established the John S. and James L. Knight Minority Teaching Fellowship, a one-year
teaching award that is given to a minority candidate, preferably an African American.
Since the College has only one African and one Hispanic member in an otherwise allCaucasian faculty (there are no Asian or American Indian faculty members), this is a
much-needed initiative. Although the College does have a Nigerian professor teaching
African politics and history, a Peruvian professor teaching Spanish, and an African
American as the first recipient of a Knight Fellowship, it still has no minority
representation in the natural sciences, business, education, and fine arts.
The 1997 Long-Range Plan recommended the hiring of three minority faculty
members with a strategy to fund such positions. One minority faculty member has been
hired since, but the two other positions have not yet been filled.
Recommendation 9:
At least two minority faculty members should be hired within the next five years,
with sensitivity to their distribution across disciplines.
Implementation and Assessment Plan:
Search Committees should advertise positions in disciplinary journals and among
national organizations devoted to diversity issues. This goal will be included in the 20022003 Long-Range Plan and monitored at least annually by the Board of Trustees
Academic Affairs and Planning and Evaluation Committees. The additional costs
associated with the search and hiring of minority faculty members will be included in the
Plan’s goal.
4
See Scott R. Palmer, “A Policy Framework for Reconceptualizing the Legal Debate Concerning
Affirmative Action in Higher Education,” in Orfield, p. 60, for the legal discussion involving desegregating
student bodies without desegregating faculties.
31
Financial Resources Needed:
In order to hire two minority faculty, $10,000 in salary enhancements and
$10,000 in program development funds are needed for each of the two positions, plus an
additional $5,000 annually for enhanced searches. Total cost is $45,000 annually or
$900,000 in endowment.
Enhancement of the Teaching of Diversity in the Curriculum
Rationale:
As mentioned in the introduction, researchers have begun to discover a correlation
between the teaching of diversity and student achievement and satisfaction. A study of
current offerings of courses, or parts of courses, involving the issues of race and ethnicity
has demonstrated the presence of an array of courses but no oversight. Moreover, as
shown by the enthusiasm faculty have recently exhibited for two experts on teaching race
who have come to campus as a result of the Bingham-Young program, an attempt to
develop a plan to continue faculty discussion on teaching race and ethnicity should be
linked to integrating and augmenting current curricular offerings.
Recommendation 10:
Enhance teaching of diversity in the curriculum and sustain the campus-wide
discussion on issues of race and ethnicity begun by the Bingham-Young program.
Implementation and Assessment Plan:
The Diversity Issues Subcommittee of the Committee on Curriculum and Program
Committee (CPC) will continue to study offerings, patterns, content, and approaches of
courses involving race and ethnicity and will present to the faculty a plan to enhance the
kinds and quality of courses on such issues by the end of the 2002 academic year. It will
also host, in concert with the Coordinator of Multicultural Affairs, a discussion on some
aspect of the teaching of race and ethnicity every term, which may involve experts from
off-campus.
In addition to tracking the number of course offerings and the number of students
enrolled in courses, it would be prudent to measure student achievement and satisfaction,
which can be accomplished through a number surveys such as the Senior Exit Survey, the
College Student Survey, alumni surveys and informal conversations with students and
faculty. All such assessment tools will be used to determine not only satisfaction levels
but changes in attitudes about diversity, which are measured in first-year and senior
student surveys. The reporting of these survey results will be the responsibility of the
Director of Institutional Research and Assessment with follow-up actions taken by the
Dean of the College and the Diversity Issues Subcommittee.
32
Providing Appropriate Support for Multicultural Affairs
Background:
In August 2001, Transylvania established the part-time position of Coordinator of
Multicultural Affairs. This new position emphasizes and strengthens Transylvania's
continuing growth towards a more diverse campus.
Rationale:
Research of Transylvania's benchmark institutions identified titles of persons who
were responsible for multicultural affairs. Each benchmark was contacted in order to
ascertain the responsibilities of these persons. All interviews with personnel concerned
with multicultural matters were conducted by phone between July 2001 and September
2001. These persons were generally located within either the office of Academic or of
Student Affairs, some sharing responsibilities between these offices, as well. In turn,
each of these key respondents indicated all of the personnel at his or her school who were
responsible for minority groups under consideration and, finally, each of these
individuals provided information on students, staff, and faculty who were involved.
At the end of the summer of 2001, all of Transylvania's benchmark institutions
had established a paid professional as the primary contact person for multicultural issues
among students – most often (in five institutions) – the person served as an officer of
multicultural affairs. In five of these institutions, the person served as an officer of
multicultural affairs, in some instances filling this role on a full-time basis, and in others,
splitting this role with other responsibilities.
Recommendation 11:
Continue to assess campus culture in terms of diversity. As responsibilities grow,
the current coordinator’s position may require full-time status, which would, in turn,
require sufficient resources and staff to initiate student programs, sustain current
activities (the Minority Enhancement Program, the Martin Luther King celebration
committee, etc.); carry out appropriate changes in campus practices, language, and use of
symbols; and design and implement other measures (such as faculty, administration, and
staff diversity training, collaboration with the Diversity Issues Subcommittee, etc.) that
would help create an inclusive and vibrant campus environment.
Implementation and Assessment Plan:
As the Diversity Issues Subcommittee and the Coordinator of Multicultural
Affairs begin to develop and support programs and initiatives, and as these grow, a fulltime director of multicultural affairs may become necessary. The Diversity Issues
Subcommittee, along with the Coordinator for Multicultural Affairs, and the Minority
Enhancement Program will develop the programs, initiatives, and recommendations
outlined above. The Dean of Students, working closely with the University’s diversity
organizations, will monitor the development of diversity support programs and activities
and keep the President, the President’s cabinet, students, and the faculty apprised of
progress. The reporting will take place at cabinet meetings, Student Government
Association meetings and faculty meetings. As the programs and activities expand, the
33
Dean will also assess the need of additional staffing and/or assignment of responsibilities
to existing staff. Student satisfaction with the new programs and activities will be
measured through existing student satisfaction surveys and informal input from students,
faculty and staff.
Outreach to the Surrounding Community
Rationale:
The College’s commitment to community service is demonstrated by its recent
creation of the new full-time position of Coordinator of Community Service. Through
the Division of Education, University 1111, and various on-campus groups, community
service in the surrounding African American community is increasingly connected to the
curriculum. Such services provide tutorial and material help for surrounding
neighborhoods as well as insight and experience to our mostly white students. Specific
collaborative programs currently in existence include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
helping with Saturday School at Johnson Elementary;
tutoring at the Carnegie Center for Literacy and Learning;
tutoring at the Manchester Center for inner-city youth;
helping with homework at the Florence Crittenden Home, a shelter for young
women;
assisting the Big Brother/Big Sister program;
helping the participants in the ARC of the Bluegrass College for Living, a
program for adults with developmental disabilities;
working with the youth at the Catholic Action Center and at other faith-based
organizations.
Recommendation 12:
Increase tutoring and other academic outreach programs in neighborhood schools,
agencies and churches. In addition, Transylvania needs to improve tracking the volunteer
activities of its students who often perform community service that is not
comprehensively assessed by the University.
Implementation and Assessment Plan:
The Coordinators of Community Service and Multicultural Affairs, the faculty
Diversity Issues Subcommittee and student groups such as the Minority Enhancement
Program and fraternities and sororities, in concert with the Division of Education will
coordinate current endeavors in the surrounding schools and neighborhood and arrange
for other opportunities. Possible connections between such operations and course work
should be fostered. The prime responsibility for measuring and reporting on the progress
of the outreach programs and activities will lie with the Dean of Students, with
operational support from the Coordinator of Community Service. The number of new or
expanded programs will be tracked and reported on as part of the Dean of Students’
annual report at the President’s annual planning retreat. Satisfaction with the programs
and activities will be measured through soliciting feedback from assisted organizations’
staff as well as the students who participate in the outreach programs and activities.
34
Preparing for Life Beyond Transylvania
The following sections contain recommendations designed specifically to prepare
students for their lives outside of the classroom and after they graduate from
Transylvania.
Incorporating Life-Skills in Curriculum
Background:
Because Transylvania University promotes liberal education as “the best
preparation for life beyond college,” certain “life-skills” programs are necessary to
encourage the cultivation of habits and ideas that contribute to an individual’s social,
emotional, spiritual, and physical well-being.
Rationale:
On the Senior Exit Surveys, students rate highly their academic experience and
their preparedness for the move from college to the workplace or professional school.
They do not, however, report feeling prepared for responsible adult lives outside the
safety zone that college provides. Life-skills programming was one of the top priorities
of students identified in focus groups and the Student Government Association as well.
CPR, scuba diving, manners and etiquette, interviewing and money management skills
received the most enthusiasm from students. Research into this problem uncovered
evidence of a number of existing efforts to address this need on campus. The Student
Activities Board and the Department of Public Safety both offer workshops and help
sessions on life-skills; so do the Student Affairs and the Career Counseling staff.
Unfortunately, however, students do not face up to the need for such services in time to
take advantage of them and, therefore, do not receive the kind of guidance and direction
they later claim to need – a common problem on college campuses. A program at Smith
College addresses this impasse, but, as the academic program is affected in this case, it
was felt more study should be expended before bringing the matter before the faculty.
Two areas need to be addressed to provide quality, timely life-skills training
programs: campus wide coordination of efforts, and a structure that encourages students
to participate in the programs and services possibly involving academic credit.
Recommendation 13:
Incorporate more practical material in the University 1111 curriculum along with
those life-skills already being offered. Hence, in addition to introducing students to
electronic communications (email, Internet management, library database research, etc.),
such matters as budgeting spending money, using credit cards responsibly, etc., might
also be added.
Investigate the feasibility of offering a life-skills program to seniors, other
interested students, and possibly faculty and staff. This program could perhaps be
modeled on University 1111, offering lectures in a monthly series on “practical” concerns
(for example, obtaining insurance, managing a personal investment portfolio, conducting
35
employment and graduate school searches, leasing an apartment, buying a home, and
managing personal finances).
Implementation and Assessment Plan:
The Dean of the College and the Dean of Students will incorporate hands-on
training in money management (budgeting, using credit cards responsibly, etc) into
University 1111 by Fall 2003. The Dean of the College will also explore the feasibility
of developing a life-skills program for seniors and other interested students, using, if
appropriate, elements of the Smith College model. If faculty action is necessary, the plan
should be forwarded to that body by Fall 2003.
Implementation will be incorporated into the annual goals of the Dean of the
College and the Dean of Students. Progress will be monitored by reporting on the
number and variety of the new life-skills offerings, as well as the students’ level of
satisfaction with the offerings as measured by the University 1111 evaluations.
Improving the Career Development Center
Background:
The Career Development Center is intended to provide a centralized and
comprehensive program that addresses the career needs of students from first-year to
seniors. The Center promotes a career planning and development model that allows
students to discover their potential and make informed decisions about career goals. The
services offered should assist students in three primary areas: self-assessment,
exploration of the world of work, and preparation for a successful career or continuation
of education.
During the academic year 2000-2001, the Career Development Center
administered the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to all incoming first-year and transfer
students; held career workshops; and sponsored many career fairs. The activities and
services offered by the Career Development Center compare favorably with those offered
by our benchmark schools. However, improvements can be gained in how these services
are marketed to both students and faculty in order to increase the number of students who
take advantage of these opportunities.
Rationale:
In March 2001, the Career Development Center retained a consultant to assess the
current effectiveness of the department (see consultant report in QEP file). In addition,
each year surveys are mailed to the graduating seniors to gather their opinions of the
effectiveness of the Career Development Center. Both the survey results and the
consultant’s report indicate that students are not taking adequate advantage of the
services. Some of the reasons for this may be:
•
•
•
the services are not marketed properly;
the Web-site is severely underdeveloped;
lack of follow-through with students;
36
•
•
lack of communication with faculty and staff;
the physical space is inadequate, especially for conferences with individual
students and for meetings with job interviewers.
Recommendation 14:
Enhance career development services in the following ways:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
work closely with faculty in gathering and disseminating information on careers;
promote the Center as an education resource and not just as a placement office;
work towards a paperless environment by updating and enhancing the web-based
information and services;
institute a 5-year review cycle by the CPC;
designate private office spaces for confidential student counseling;
develop a strategic plan for one, two and three years;
become proactive in helping students decide on a major/minor;
promote on-the-job experiences for students;
encourage the construction of a "learning center" which would centralize all
career and professional advising as well as providing for better training in writing,
technology use, and other functions;
relocate and expand the space for the Career Development Center to include
private offices, interview rooms, resources, and computer work stations. Since
career development is so closely related to academic work, the Career
Development Center should continue to be associated with academic support
programs and located in or near classroom buildings.
Implementation and Assessment Plan:
The Career Development Center staff, together with the Dean of the College, will
develop a long-term plan by Winter 2003, including the recommendations to enhance
their services and the possible relocation of the Center. A number of the plan’s goals will
be phased in starting in 2002-2003 and reported on by the Dean of the College and the
Director of Career Development in the Transylvania University Planning and Assessment
Document, which is updated annually. Student satisfaction with the improvements will
be measured by existing assessment instruments, such as the Senior Exit Survey, the
College Student Survey, and the Alumni Survey.
Possible Financial Resources Needed:
The cost estimate for relocation of the Career Development Center and the
reconfiguration of space for offices and meeting rooms as described in the
recommendation is $50,000.
Living/Learning Spaces
Transylvania University’s mission statement places high value on the “social,
emotional, spiritual, and physical well-being” of its students, and on the encouragement
of student participation in community service. It also asserts the desire to “prepare
37
students for the responsibility of fostering a healthy society in a world shared by many
different people, cultures, and nations.” The specific goals of the College include the
establishment of “a foundation for graduate and professional study and a variety of
satisfying careers.” Therefore, regular evaluation and improvement of physical spaces
for the student services addressed in this report is critically important because these
spaces facilitate major aspects of Transylvania’s institutional purpose.
For the purposes of this report, essential student services include, but are not
limited to, the University bookstore, campus ministry office, community service office,
student health services, counseling services, academic advising, Career Development
Center, and Special Programs (Center for International Education). Evaluation of the
physical resources for student services involved committee and subcommittee
deliberations, focus groups, and individual meetings with service personnel.
Academic and Support Spaces
Academic Support/Learning Center
Background:
As Transylvania continues to increase its intellectual demands on students, it is
important to provide the necessary support structures and programs. These academic
support programs play a crucial role by facilitating Transylvania’s commitment to
“excellence in undergraduate education in the liberal arts and sciences,” and at every
stage and in myriad ways assist the College’s efforts to realize the goals set forward in
the statement of institutional purpose. Encouraging and challenging our students through
all phases of their development as readers, writers, and thinkers needs to be the aim of all
Transylvania’s learning support programs. Graduating skilled, confident, well-read and
well-rounded citizens of the globe whom we have helped shape into life-long learners is
something we strive to do and improve upon.
Students are recruited to Transylvania with a promise of support across all four
years and in all facets of their academic lives. In order to keep this promise, we must
endeavor to provide programs such as the Writing Center, Technology Learning Center,
science tutoring services, and Foreign Language Laboratories with physical facilities and
resources conducive to their effectiveness.
Rationale:
The committee reviewed the history of Transylvania’s current learning programs
to chart their development in relation to the professional standards in evidence at
comparable institutions nationwide. We also read through program review documents
(particularly those conducted with outside evaluators), annual reports, and surveys of
student evaluation of programs (the Foundations of Liberal Arts Program, the Writing
Center, the Writing Assessment Committee). Additionally, we surveyed the College’s
learning support programs’ missions, operating practices, and long-range plans.
38
A somewhat cursory web site survey and a fairly extensive telephone survey were
conducted to examine learning services and facilities at several benchmark colleges.
Among the colleges reviewed in this manner were Albion, Centre, Denison, Millsaps, and
Wittenberg. Additionally, on-site visits were made to Hanover College, Thomas More
College, and Georgetown College.
Focus group discussions were conducted with support program directors,
students, faculty, and staff. Areas identified by several groups for improvement include
the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
increase services in the area of testing and advising of students with learning
disabilities and other special needs (in cooperation with Growth Resources and
the Dean of Students Office);
provide on-line tutorial service through a Writing Center web page;
provide study skills assistance in reading, critical thinking, test taking, time
management, academic integrity, etc (in collaboration with the University 1111);
provide assistance in research skills (in collaboration with the library and FLA
staff);
offer workshops on job search materials and graduate school applications (in
collaboration with the Career Development Office);
offer review courses for the MCAT, LSAT, GMAT, AND GRE;
expand/improve the spaces in the Library in order to provide more comfortable
furnishings for study, more study spaces with multimedia equipment for groups of
students and designated rooms for skill classes.
We found that all major learning support services favor consolidation. In general,
these services have considerations such as: (1) the development/renovation of space –
particularly specific types of space, (2) the acquisition of more computer stations and
other technology, along with technology support, and (3) extension of hours for all
learning support services. Grouping(s) of services would create the possibility of sharing
some common spaces (equipped with computer stations) with their own adjoining offices,
tutorial spaces, meeting rooms, etc. Suggestions for the arrangement and alignment of
service locations include the renovation of existing space as well as rearranging current
programs in new sites.
Certain services have related needs, such as the Writing Center and Foreign
Language Lab’s for more computer stations. These concerns, together with the desire for
extended hours, raised the possibility of combining these two services with the
Technology Learning Center in a common Learning Center. All three services noted the
advisability for communal space with tables, for separate computer stations, and nearby
offices for support staff. Locating these three services together would economize in
design and renovation providing for the sharing of computers, common spaces, and some
individual spaces in regular hours as well as under the oversight of a single supervisor in
late hours. Such consolidation would allow students to work in multiple learning modes
in a single space – from research and studying to tutoring and group instruction. As plans
39
develop, other support programs such as the Career Development Center and
science/math tutorial services could also be included in a central Learning Center.
This enhanced Learning Center should be located at the heart of academic life at
Transylvania – somewhere in the vicinity of Haupt, Old Morrison, Mitchell Fine Arts,
and the Library; and we would like to see it become a “student center” – a place students
and faculty are drawn to, not only for its rich services, but for its inviting environment.
None of the colleges surveyed had a facility that combines all student learning services
under a single roof, but many do have a dean or director in charge of making a
cooperative venture out of the whole complex web of services available to students.
Recommendations:
The idea of an improved delivery of academic/learning support programs is
strongly supported. The consolidation of several existing programs as well as developing
new ones is recognized as a complex task that will take further study and be
accomplished over a period of time. The following recommendations reflect a phased
approach with the latter phases based on the implementation and experience of the early
phases.
15.1) Develop a Virtual Learning Center:
Regardless of when or how the University meets the physical resource needs of
the learning service programs, a Virtual Learning Center should be created and put online
in 2002. This would be an academic web page that lists links to all learning support
services. (See Hanover College’s web page for an example:
[http://cfi.hanover.edu/LearnAsst/]). If virtual learning services are made available, it is
an additional way to offer limited services in extended hours.
15.2) Expand Writing Center space:
The Writing Center, one of the main learning support services on campus, was
cast as a focal part of the study. The Writing Center needs, at a minimum, additional
space for meeting in small groups and individual sessions (i.e., spaces that are separate
from each other.) Also needed are additional computer stations out of range of common
space. Such needs should be accommodated by any renovation, consolidation, or
building plans.
15.3) Increase and enhance the study space on campus including the library:
By 2002-2003, a plan will be developed to improve the furnishings, study spaces
and meeting rooms, and will be submitted to the Dean of the College for review and
action.
15.4) Consolidate academic support programs in existing space:
In 2002-2003, consolidation of some or all academic support services in a single
or various locations should be initiated. For example, the Writing Center, Technology
Learning Center, and Foreign Language Labs might be grouped together in a renovated
space that allowed for the needs stated above. Buildings/locations that could serve as
candidates for renovation and sites for consolidation include the Library, the basement of
40
Haupt Humanities Building, Hazelrigg Hall, and the Language House. Consolidation of
current services should be accomplished by 2003.
15.5) Construct a new facility:
By 2005, planning should begin for a facility (either by renovating existing
buildings or by providing a new building) that would house all the current learning
support services: Writing Center, Foreign Language Labs, Technology Learning Center,
Career Development Center, with spaces for science/math tutoring and internship
oversight by all academic programs which offer such services. An addition to the Library
to serve this purpose was also discussed with the Campus Planning Consultant.
15.6) Staff support:
As academic/learning support programs are added or expanded
and/or if there is increased utilization of current services, additional staffing may be
required. This issue will need to be reviewed at each phase of implementation.
Implementation and Assessment Plan:
The Dean of the College will appoint a committee to implement a phased
approach of the Learning Support Center. A proposal for the expansion of the Writing
Center and the consolidation of several programs into one space should be considered as
the 2002-2003 Long-Range Plan is developed. If new construction is required, a plan
should be submitted to the Board of Trustees Planning and Evaluation Committee in
2005 for review and action.
Since the implementation of the recommendations covers both short-term and
long-term projects, some that can be implemented within the next several years at
relatively low cost and others that require significant capital spending, the assessment of
progress against the goals will occur in two forms. The shorter term improvements will
be included in the Dean of the College’s annual plan, and the longer term needs will be
included in the 2002-2003 Long-Range Plan. Both are monitored at least annually. As
implementation occurs, each phase will be measured by asking the users of their
satisfaction with the new services.
Financial Resources Needed:
15.1) Develop a Virtual Learning Center: The cost estimate to develop a Virtual Learning
Center that includes computer hardware, software and office furnishings is $50,000.
15.2) Expand Writing Center space: The cost estimate to expand the Writing Center
space in the lower level of Haupt Hall to accommodate the design features listed in the
recommendation is $50,000.
15.3) Increase and enhance study space: The cost estimate for extensive construction of
meeting rooms as additions to the library or other buildings, and the renovation of
existing space in the library for study groups, skill classes and quiet study is $1,000,000.
41
15.4) Consolidate academic support programs in existing space: As a second phase in the
development of the Learning Center, the estimate for consolidating offices to one
location requiring reconfiguration of space in existing buildings is $500,000.
Campus Service Center
Background
Transylvania acknowledges that personal development and learning take place
through involvement with student groups, organizations, and programs as well as through
individual contact with faculty and staff.
Rationale:
In focus groups with faculty, students, and staff, several needs were identified that
relate to programs and services that support student learning:
•
•
•
•
•
the primary student organizations do not have adequate office space to conduct
their work and to provide for continuity;
private office space for counseling through our contracted services does not exist
on campus;
the Campus Minister’s office needs to be more visible and proximate to students;
the current Health Services Office needs to include: (1) a location that would
improve privacy, (2) a more defined reception area that would be separate from an
examining area, and (3) a private bathroom for medical use;
the community service program has expanded and needs more space for storage,
equipment check-out, information/resources for students as well as office meeting
space.
Recommendation 16:
Develop a Campus Service Center for campus ministry, counseling, community
service, health services, and student organizations. We endorse the campus planning
consultant’s proposal for a Campus Service Center (“Transylvania University Campus
Plan 2002”).
Implementation and Assessment Plan:
The Board of Trustees Planning and Evaluation Committee will review the
proposal for a Campus Service Center for future consideration and action in the 20022003 Long-Range Plan. As the improved services are implemented user satisfaction will
be measured through existing and new surveys.
Residence Spaces
Background:
As with other areas studied in this report, the residential environments play a
crucial supportive role in Transylvania’s efforts to realize the goals set forward in its
statement of institutional purpose. Learning takes place not only in classrooms but also
in residence hall rooms, study lounges and dining facilities. At Transylvania we
42
recognize the importance of providing spaces to extend learning and to foster a sense of
community. Spontaneous or planned discussions among students and with faculty
enhance learning. In addition to a comfortable and pleasant living space, research has
shown that a living and learning community contains the following:
•
•
•
•
space for large group and small group activity;
space for academic activity beyond study rooms;
a variety of room configurations to meet the needs of students a s they progress in
college;
space for faculty/staff participation and involvement.
Furthermore, in the competition between colleges to recruit and retain highly
qualified, well-prepared students, comfortable, attractive student housing plays an
increasingly important role.
Rationale:
The “Transylvania University Campus Plan 2002” prepared by the Campus
Planning Consultant proposes strategies to bring “space allocation in line with typical
collegiate accommodations.”
The analysis accompanying the consultant’s proposal showed the gross square
foot (GSF) per bed to be 169 for Clay-Davis Hall and 174 for Forrer Hall according to
Dober, Lidsky, Craig, and Associates’ data for residential liberal arts colleges (see
Appendix 11). An allocation of 300 GSF is generally considered a reasonable planning
target. Poole Residential Center (251 GSF) and Rosenthal Residential Complex (260
GSF), fare somewhat better in this analysis. Like most college housing constructed in the
last forty years, Forrer, Clay-Davis, and Hazelrigg were designed to house as many
students as possible for the least amount of money. All these buildings have doubleloaded corridors, built-in furniture, and communal baths. Hazelrigg Hall is the only
residential facility where single rooms are widely available. They are crowded and afford
no study or social gathering spaces on residential floors. Again, in comparison,
Rosenthal (1987) and Poole (1990) fare better and have many of the current housing
trends incorporated into their designs. Through focus groups and surveys, current
students have voiced complaints typically associated with traditional residence halls such
as Forrer, Clay-Davis, and Hazelrigg: (1) lack of study and social space, (2) communal
baths, (3) bad lighting, (4) bad color schemes, (5) lack of storage facilities, (6) lack of
food preparation facilities, (7) lack of private rooms, and so on. These students would
prefer more “pod” living arrangements similar to Rosenthal and Poole.
Visits to other campuses, such as Otterbein College in Westerville, Ohio;
Bellarmine College in Louisville, Kentucky; and the University of Florida in Gainesville,
Florida, confirmed the prevalence of current trends of residential housing. At Otterbein,
residents live in suites of four separate bedrooms and share a common kitchen and living
area. This arrangement was so popular with students that many choose to rent college
housing year-round and work in the surrounding area during summer months. At
Bellarmine College, the newly opened Anniversary Hall features 196 units, an abundance
43
of natural light, bright color schemes, wide hallways, and large social spaces on each of
the four floors. All heating and cooling units (HVAC) are concealed behind walls. This
increases the sense of space and gives each student use of all four walls when
personalizing their room.
Another trend that has been expanded on other campuses is “theme housing.” In
this plan residents are assigned to live together on floors or halls by academic major or
special interest. For example, Transylvania has a Language House and fraternity and
sorority floors in Clay-Davis and Forrer Halls. While sometimes difficult on small
campuses, further developments in this area would also enhance the living and learning
environment.
Recommendations:
17.1) New Student Residence Center:
The Administration should carefully consider the “Transylvania University
Campus Plan 2002” proposal for a new student residence center with space for 90 – 110
new beds. This new housing would be constructed in the near-to-mid-term (depending
on available funding), and would provide flexibility in housing assignments and
decompress existing housing. Since these new housing units would probably be designed
as pods, they could be built in stages. It is not the purpose of this recommendation to
expand residence hall occupancy. Current trends for university housing would be
incorporated into the design of the new facility, including: (1) spatial allowance of 300
SF per bed, (2) suite or apartment style housing with semi-private baths, (3) ability to
accommodate fluctuation of gender numbers, (4) provisions for single rooms, (5) ample
open space on each floor for study and socializing, (6) wide hallways, (7) ample natural
light in rooms and stairwells, (8) HVAC and other amenities, such as computer and cable
lines, (9) classroom space, and (10) adjacent usable green space. Residents may be
clustered according to designated living themes.
17.2) Remodel existing spaces:
Following the construction of a new residence center, Forrer, Clay-Davis Halls
would be renovated in order to achieve the description in a living and learning
community identified above. Specific recommendations in the “Transylvania University
Campus Plan 2002” include: (1) eliminate 24 rooms (6 per floor) in both Clay-Davis and
24 rooms in Forrer to alleviate density, (2) convert most of the eliminated rooms to social
and study spaces (3) convert some of the rooms to private rooms (1 or 2 per floor),
(4) provide common area cooking facilities, (5) provide new, brighter color schemes.
17.3) Renovate/Replace Clay-Davis Hall:
The “Transylvania University Campus Plan 2002” proposes eventual replacement
(8 –10 years) of Clay-Davis Hall. The Campus Planning Consultant recommended an
immediate engineering study given the age of the facility. Based on the results of an
independent engineering study and the availability of funds, Clay-Davis Residence Hall
will either be replaced or modified. If modification is chosen, it may include the addition
of elevators, new entranceways, updated safety systems and expanded green space plus
additional items recommended by the engineering study. If replacement is chosen, the
44
Hall would have about 230 beds, assuming that the Residence Hall previously mentioned
in Recommendation 17.1 will be built with 90 to 110 beds.
Implementation and Assessment Plan:
The administration will review the Transylvania University Campus Plan 2002
and develop a proposal for the construction of a new residence center, renovation of
Forrer, Clay-Davis halls and the long-term plans for Clay-Davis. The proposal will be
submitted to the Board of Trustees Planning and Evaluation Committee and the Physical
Plant Committee, and included in the 2002-2003 Long-Range Plan. Once the new
facilities and their costs have been agreed upon by the Board of Trustees, the
implementation progress will be reported on at least annually to the Board of Trustees
Planning and Evaluation Committee. After occupancy of the facilities, student
satisfaction with the improvements will be made through existing surveys.
Financial Resources Needed:
17.1) New Student Residence Center: The estimate from the campus planning consultant
based on projected costs of a new residence center for 90-110 students with the design
features listed in the recommendation is $6,000,000.
17.2) Remodel existing spaces: The estimate from the campus planning consultant to
create lounges and study areas out of existing student rooms on each floor in Clay and
Davis Halls is $800,000 and in Forrer Hall is $500,000
Faculty and Student Meeting Spaces
Background:
The objective of this area of study is to provide and promote attractive, inviting
spaces for informal, spontaneous meetings or gatherings of students, faculty and staff.
Consideration of meeting spaces is important because the number, types, and suitability
of these spaces affect the quality of interaction among students, faculty and staff.
Therefore, these spaces impact student learning and the general mission of the University.
Specifically, interaction contributes to the social and emotional development of students,
a particular goal set forth in the College’s mission statement.
Rationale:
Discussions at open fora of faculty and staff indicated that when faculty and
students want to continue discussions “over a cup of coffee” there is a lack of appropriate
space. The Rafskeller, a dining facility on the academic side of campus, is very popular
during lunch hour but faculty do not consider it a desirable location for such discussion.
The 1780 Café, which opened a few years ago in a residence hall, has been a very
popular place to get food after hours, with as many as 180 students attending the Café on
a nightly basis. This clearly reveals that students have and will take advantage of social
spaces that are made available for them. Although the Café has served the students well
in this particular capacity, due to its location it does not ultimately serve as an ideal
meeting space for students and faculty. Both students and faculty have indicated a need
for more informal small group meeting spaces. In addition to indoor meeting spaces,
45
student focus groups of the Student Government Association have for several years
requested that additional outside seating be added to the campus both around academic
buildings and around residence halls.
Recommendations:
18.1) Create a place for a coffee shop for faculty and student interaction:
Many faculty members have expressed a desire for a coffee shop convenient to
both faculty and students especially in conjunction with a revised bookstore, the Library,
and/or the development of a Learning Support Center. A coffee shop would be an
especially desirable place for impromptu, informal meetings. A bookstore/coffee shop
was included in the “Transylvania University Campus Plan 2002.”
18.2) Develop outdoor meeting spaces:
Enhance outdoor meeting spaces campus-wide by providing benches and tables
near the academic and residential buildings. This recommendation is underway as the
University recently developed a redesign of Haupt Plaza (academic area) that includes
new walkways and seating. Furthermore, permanent tables and chairs should also be
considered in front of the Library and in the back circle near the 1780 Café.
Implementation and Assessment Plan:
The administration will review the “Transylvania University Campus Plan 2002”
and the Haupt Plaza redesign and develop a proposal for the addition of outdoor seating
and a coffee shop. The proposal would be developed in the 2002-2003 academic year,
and included in the next strategic plan. The proposal would be further developed as part
of the long-range plan. As with all items in the long range-plan, the progress of the
proposal will be monitored by the Board of Trustees Planning and Evaluation Committee
and the Board of Trustees Physical Plant Committee. Once the projects are completed,
students, faculty and staff would be informally asked of their satisfaction regarding the
improvements.
Financial Resources Needed:
18.1) Create a place for a Coffee Shop: The estimate to renovate existing space possibly
in or near the Rafskeller for a coffee shop with the design features described in the
recommendation is $250,000.
18.2) Develop outdoor meeting spaces: The estimate to redesign Haupt Plaza and to
provide additional outside tables and benches as described in the recommendation is
$500,000.
46
SUMMARY
The following pages summarize various processes and proposals found in the
Quality Enhancement Plan for quick reference, verification, and tracking.
47
Implementation Timetable
RECOMMENDATION
1. Develop a convocation
plan
2. Enhance International
Education program
3. Organize and monitor
team teaching
4. Review GE Area IV
requirements
5.1. Adopt a mission
statement for advising
5.2. Enhance training for
advisers
5.3. Add question to senior
exit survey about advising
5.4. Offer electronic access
for advisers to student
academic records and
schedules
5.5. Improve integration of
services into advisement
FALL 2002
Or Before
CPC Committee to
plan
Committee of CPC
& others to study
Comm. of CPC to
propose plan to
faculty
Faculty vote in
May
FALL
2003
WINTER/
MAY
2004
Propose plan to
faculty for vote
FALL 2004 AND
BEYOND
Implemented
CPC propose
change in May
Implemented
Implemented
Implemented
by Deans
Implemented by
Dean of College
May 2002
Implemented by
Registrar for Fall
Dean of the
College establishes
comm. to study
6. Require library expertise
from students by faculty
7. Develop a Winter Term
recruitment plan
Proposal for
integration
Committee meets
8. Follow Admissions Plan
goals for minority student
recruitment
9. Hire at least two minority
faculty members
10. Enhance teaching of
diversity in curriculum
11. Enhance Multicultural
Affairs Office
12. Increase tutoring and
academic outreach
programs in neighborhood
13. Increase life-skills
programs
14. Enhance Career
Development Center
15. Phased approach to
Learning Center
Ongoing
16. Develop a Campus
Service Center
17. Create/renovate new
residence halls
Board reviews for
consideration
Proposal to Board
developed for next
Long-Range Plan
Proposal to Board
developed for next
Long-Range Plan
18. Create Coffee
Shop/Outdoor meeting
spaces
WINTER/MAY
2003
Committee
Meets
Implemented
by Winter
Term
Proposal
before May
Two Faculty
hired w/in 3 years
Propose plan by
May
Ongoing
Implemented
Implemented
by Deans
Strategic Plan
Developed
Writing Center
proposal
Enhance library
space
48
Consolidation
Construction?
To Board by 2005
if necessary
Assignment of Responsibilities for Implementation and Assessment
RECOMMENDATION
1. Develop a
convocation
plan
2. Enhance
International
Education program
3. Organize and
monitor team teaching
4, Review General
Education Area IV
requirements
5.1. Adopt a mission
statement for advising
5.2. Enhance training
for advisers
5.3. Add question to
senior exit survey
about advising
5.4. Offer electronic
access for advisers to
student academic
records and schedules
5.5. Improve
integration of services
into advisement
6. Require library
expertise from students
by faculty
7. Develop a Winter
Term recruitment
program
COMMITTEE
ON PROGRAM
AND
CURRICULUM
Proposal for
faculty
Vote
Committee
under aegis of
CPC to study
OTHER
COMMITTEES
DEAN OF
THE
COLLEGE
BOARD
LONGRANGE
PLAN
X
X
X
X
Follow-up by
Dean/Division
Chairs
Proposal for
faculty vote
For faculty
approval
With Dean of
Students
In
consultation
with Director
of Inst.
Research and
Assessment
Registrar
Form
committee
Library
Committee
Committee
established
according to
Recommendation
Dean of
Students
8. Follow new
Admissions
Recruitment Plan goals
for minority student
recruitment
9. Hire at least two
minority faculty
members
OTHER
ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER
Directors of
Admissions
and Inst.
Research
and
Assessment
Faculty
Appointment
Advisery
Subcommittee in
consultation
with Dean
49
In
consultation
with Faculty
Appointment
Advisery
Subcommittee
Assignment of Responsibilities for Implementation and Assessment (cont.)
RECOMMENDATION
COMMITTEE
ON PROGRAM
AND
CURRICULUM
OTHER
COMMITTEES
DEAN OF
THE
COLLEGE
10. Enhance teaching of
diversity in curriculum
Diversity Issues
Subcommittee
X
11. Enhance
Multicultural Affairs
Office
Diversity Issues
Subcommittee
Dean of
Students
12. Increase tutoring and
academic outreach
programs in
neighborhood
13. Increase life-skills
programs
14. Enhance Career
Development Center
15. Phased approach to
Learning Center
Committee
appointed by
Dean of the
College
16. Develop a Campus
Service Center
17. Create/renovate new
residence halls
18. Create Coffee
Shop/Outdoor meeting
spaces
In
consultation
with relevant
persons
In
consultation
with C.D.C
In
consultation
with
appointed
Committee
OTHER
ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER
Director of
Inst.
Research
and
Assessment
Coordinator
of
Multicultural
Affairs in
consultation
with D.I.S
Coordinators
of
Community
Service and
Multicultural
Affairs
BOARD
Career
Development
Center
X
X
LONGRANGE
PLAN
X
X
50
X
X
X
X
Financial Resources Required for Implementation
of the Quality Enhancement Plan
Operating Expenditures and Endowment Needs
Recommendation
First Five Years
Annual Costs
Endowment Need
Recruitment of minority students:
(Recommendation 8)
To attract African-American and Hispanic
students, additional financial aid will be needed.
$100,000
$2,000,000
Recruitment of minority faculty:
(Recommendation 9)
In order to hire two minority faculty, $10,000 in
salary enhancements and $10,000 in program
development funds are needed for each of the
two positions plus an additional $5,000 annually
for enhanced searches.
Subtotal
$45,000
$900,000
$145,000
$2,900,000
Recommendation
Beyond Five Years
Annual Cost
Endowment Need
Enhance Multicultural Affairs Office:
(Recommendation 11)
As the Multicultural Affairs Office is developed,
it is assumed that at some point a full-time
Director of Multicultural Affairs may be needed.
The position will include salary, benefits, and
other operating expenses.
$50,000
$1,000,000
Phased Approach to Learning Center:
(Recommendation 15)
As the Learning Center is developed, a
program/facility Director may be needed. While
this may be funded initially part-time by faculty,
the cost of a full-time director will include
salary, benefits, and other operating expenses.
Subtotal
$65,000
$1,300,000
$115,000
2,300,000
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES:
TOTAL ENDOWMENT NEEDS:
$260,000
$5,200,000
51
Capital Needs
First Five Years
Recommendation
Cost
Enhance Career Development Center:
(Recommendation 14)
Estimate includes costs for relocation of the Career
Development Center and for the reconfiguration of space
for offices and meeting rooms
$50,000
Develop a Virtual Learning Center:
(Recommendation 15.1)
Estimate includes projected costs to develop a Virtual
Learning Center. This would include computer hardware,
software, and office furnishings.
$50,000
Expand Writing Center space:
(Recommendation 15.2)
Estimate includes costs to expand Writing Center space in the lower
level of Haupt Hall to accommodate the design features
listed in the recommendation.
$50,000
Increase and enhance study space:
(Recommendation 15.3)
Estimate includes extensive construction of meeting rooms as
additions to the library or other buildings. It also includes
renovation of existing space for study groups, skill classes,
and quiet study.
$1,000,000
Consolidate academic support programs in existing space:
(Recommendation 15.4)
As a second phase in the development of the Learning Center,
the estimate includes consolidating offices to one location
requiring reconfiguration of space in existing buildings.
$500,000
New student residence center:
(Recommendation 17.1)
Estimate from the campus planning consultant is based on
projected costs of a new residence center for 90-110 students
with the design features listed in the recommendation.
$6,000,000
52
Capital Needs (cont.)
First Five Years
Recommendation
Cost
Remodel existing residence spaces:
(Recommendation 17.2)
Estimate from the campus planning consultant includes
creating lounges and study areas out of existing student rooms
on each floor.
Renovate Clay and Davis Hall
Renovate Forrer Hall
$800,000
$500,000
Create a place for a coffee shop:
(Recommendation 18.1)
Estimate includes renovating existing space possibly in or
near the Rafskeller for a Coffee Shop with the design features
described in the recommendation.
$250,000
Develop outdoor meeting spaces:
(Recommendation 18.2)
Estimate includes a redesign of Haupt Plaza as well as
additional tables and benches as described in the
recommendation.
Subtotal
$500,000
53
$9,700,000
Capital Needs
Beyond Five Years
Recommendation
Cost
Construct a new Learning Center:
(Recommendation 15.5)
Estimate by the campus planning consultant includes new
construction of a facility for the Learning Center. This center
will include all the learning support services described in the
recommendation.
$5,000,000
Develop a Campus Center:
(Recommendation 16)
Estimate by the campus planning consultant includes new
construction of a facility for a campus ministry, counseling,
community service, health services, and student organizations.
$1,000,000
Renovate/Replace Clay-Davis Hall:
(Recommendation 17.3)
While the long-term use of Clay-Davis Hall is yet to be
determined, the estimate by the campus planning consultant is
for the construction of a new student residence center for 230
students which is contingent on building space for another
100 students.
Subtotal
$12,000,000
$18,000,000
TOTAL CAPITAL NEEDS: $27,700,000
GRAND TOTAL (Capital Needs and Endowment): $32,900,000
55
Summary of Recommendations
1.) Develop a convocation plan: Develop a Convocation Program similar to successful
benchmark institutions where students are required, or receive credit, to attend a specific
number of approved events every year. The College should continue to seek funds for
lectures and other events as part of a Convocation Program.
2.) Enhance the International Education program: Enhance the international education
program to fulfill the 1997 Long-Range Plan goals, examine how international study can
be emphasized in the curriculum, and then assess the need for and the feasibility of
creating an office of international education as student interest and endowment increase.
3.) Organize and monitor team teaching proposals and learning outcomes.
4.) Review General Education Area IV Requirements: Review General Education Area
IV Requirements to discover and implement a scheme better designed to deepen student
learning at a non-introductory level outside their major programs.
5.1) Adopt a mission statement (Appendix 12) for academic advising.
5.2) Enhance Training of Advisers: All schools do some training, with the norm being a
five to eight hour training program. Although Transylvania does some orientation
(training) for those advising first-year students, there is no systematic training beyond
that point. Transylvania could consider implementing formal training for academic
advisers.
5.3) Include a question about the quality of advising to the Senior Exit Survey
5.4) Offer electronic access for advisers to student ongoing academic records and current
course schedules.
5.5) Integrate such services as study abroad and career development in the advising
process.
6.) Faculty should require library expertise from students by encouraging greater use of
the library and its various resources in their classes.
7.) Develop a Winter Term recruitment program including, but not limited to, the role of
sororities and fraternities during the first semester of each school year, rules governing
interaction between first-year students and upper-class members of Greek organizations
during the first semester, the need to develop a full and active social calendar in the fall
semester to engage students, and, above all, minimum grade-point averages for students
participating in rush.
8.) Follow the new Admissions Recruitment Plan goals for minority recruitment.
56
9.) Hire at least two minority faculty members: At least two minority faculty members
should be hired within the next five years, with sensitivity to their distribution across
disciplines.
10.) Enhance teaching of diversity in the curriculum and sustain the campus-wide
discussion on issues of race and ethnicity begun by the Bingham-Young program.
11.) Enhance Multicultural Affairs Office: Continue to assess campus culture in terms of
diversity. As responsibilities grow, the current coordinator’s position may require fulltime status, which would, in turn, require sufficient resources and staff to initiate student
programs, sustain current activities (the Minority Enhancement Program, the Martin
Luther King celebration committee, etc.); carry out appropriate changes in campus
practices, language, and use of symbols; and design and implement other measures (such
as faculty, administration, and staff diversity training, collaboration with the Diversity
Issues Subcommittee, etc.) that would help create an inclusive and vibrant campus
environment.
12.) Increase tutoring and other academic outreach programs in neighborhood schools,
agencies and churches. In addition, Transylvania needs to improve tracking the volunteer
activities of its students who often perform community service that is not
comprehensively assessed by the University.
13.) Incorporate more practical material in the University 1111 curriculum along with
those life-skills already being offered. Hence, in addition to introducing students to
electronic communications (email, Internet management, library database research, etc.),
such matters as budgeting spending money, using credit cards responsibly, etc., might
also be added.
Investigate the feasibility of offering a life-skills program to seniors, other
interested students, and possibly faculty and staff. This program could perhaps be
modeled on University 1111, offering lectures in a monthly series on “practical” concerns
(for example, obtaining insurance, managing a personal investment portfolio, conducting
employment and graduate school searches, leasing an apartment, buying a home, and
managing personal finances).
14.) Enhance Career Development Services.
15.1) Develop a Virtual Learning Center: Regardless of when or how the University
meets the physical resource needs of the learning service programs, a Virtual Learning
Center should be created and put online in 2002. This would be an academic web page
that lists links to all learning support services. (See Hanover College’s web page for an
example: [http://cfi.hanover.edu/LearnAsst/]). If virtual learning services are made
available, it is an additional way to offer limited services in extended hours.
15.2) Expand Writing Center space: The Writing Center, one of the main learning
support services on campus, was cast as a focal part of the study. The Writing Center
57
needs, at a minimum, additional space for meeting in small groups and individual
sessions (i.e., spaces that are separate from each other.) Also needed are additional
computer stations out of range of common space. Such needs should be accommodated
by any renovation, consolidation, or building plans.
15.3) Increase and enhance the study space on campus including the library: By 20022003, a plan will be developed to improve the furnishings, study spaces and meeting
rooms, and will be submitted to the Dean of the College for review and action.
15.4) Consolidate academic support programs in existing space: In 2002-2003,
consolidation of some or all academic support services in a single or various locations
should be initiated. For example, the Writing Center, Technology Learning Center, and
Foreign Language Labs might be grouped together in a renovated space that allowed for
the needs stated above. Buildings/locations that could serve as candidates for renovation
and sites for consolidation include the Library, the basement of Haupt Humanities
Building, Hazelrigg Hall, and the Language House. Consolidation of current services
should be accomplished by 2003.
15.5) Construct a new facility: By 2005, planning should begin for a facility (either by
renovating existing buildings or by providing a new building) that would house all the
current learning support services: Writing Center, Foreign Language Labs, Technology
Learning Center, Career Development Center, with spaces for science/math tutoring and
internship oversight by all academic programs which offer such services. An addition to
the Library to serve this purpose was also discussed with the Campus Planning
Consultant.
15.6) Staff support: As academic/learning support programs are added or expanded
and/or if there is increased utilization of current services, additional staffing may be
required. This issue will need to be reviewed at each phase of implementation.
16.) Develop a Campus Service Center for campus ministry, counseling, community
service, health services, and student organizations. We endorse the campus planning
consultant’s proposal for a Campus Service Center (“Transylvania University Campus
Plan 2002”).
17.1) New Student Residence Center: The Administration carefully considers the
“Transylvania University Campus Plan 2002” proposal for a new student residence center
with space for 90 – 110 new beds. This new housing would be constructed in the near-tomid-term (depending on available funding), and would provide flexibility in housing
assignments and decompress existing housing. Since these new housing units would
probably be designed as pods, they could be built in stages. It is not the purpose of this
recommendation to expand residence hall occupancy. Current trends for university
housing would be incorporated into the design of the new facility, including: (1) spatial
allowance of 300 SF per bed, (2) suite or apartment style housing with semi-private
baths, (3) ability to accommodate fluctuation of gender numbers, (4) provisions for single
rooms, (5) ample open space on each floor for study and socializing, (6) wide hallways,
58
(7) ample natural light in rooms and stairwells, (8) HVAC and other amenities, such as
computer and cable lines, (9) classroom space, and (10) adjacent usable green space.
Residents may be clustered according to designated living themes.
17.2) Remodel existing spaces: Following the construction of a new residence center,
Forrer, Clay-Davis Halls would be renovated in order to achieve the description in a
living and learning community identified above. Specific recommendations in the
“Transylvania University Campus Plan 2002” include: (1) eliminate 24 rooms (6 per
floor) in both Clay-Davis and 24 rooms in Forrer to alleviate density, (2) convert most of
the eliminated rooms to social and study spaces (3) convert some of the rooms to private
rooms (1 or 2 per floor), (4) provide common area cooking facilities, (5) provide new,
brighter color schemes.
17.3) The “Transylvania University Campus Plan 2002” proposes eventual replacement
(8 –10 years) of Clay-Davis Hall. The Campus Planning Consultant recommended an
immediate engineering study given the age of the facility. Based on the results of an
independent engineering study and the availability of funds, Clay-Davis Residence Hall
will either be replaced or modified. If modification is chosen, it may include the addition
of elevators, new entranceways, updated safety systems and expanded green space plus
additional items recommended by the engineering study. If replacement is chosen, the
Hall would have about 230 beds, assuming that the Residence Hall previously mentioned
in Recommendation 17.1 will be built with 90 to 110 beds.
18.1) Create a place for a coffee shop for faculty and student interaction: Many faculty
members have expressed a desire for a coffee shop convenient to both faculty and
students especially in conjunction with a revised bookstore, the Library, and/or the
development of a Learning Support Center. A coffee shop would be an especially
desirable place for impromptu, informal meetings. A bookstore/coffee shop was included
in the “Transylvania University Campus Plan 2002.”
18.2) Develop outdoor meeting spaces: Enhance outdoor meeting spaces campus-wide by
providing benches and tables near the academic and residential buildings. This
recommendation is underway as the University recently developed a redesign of Haupt
Plaza (academic area) that includes new walkways and seating. Furthermore, permanent
tables and chairs should also be considered in front of the Library and in the back circle
near the 1780 Café.
59
List of Appendices
Note: For the sake of consistency, the Appendices contain only collected data. Other
supporting documents will be found in the Self-Study room marked “Quality
Enhancement Plan Supporting Materials.”
APPENDIX
NUMBER
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
TOPIC
List of Participants
Benchmark Convocation Programs
Team Teaching/Data Collection
Blackboard Survey of General
Education Requirements
Minority Enrollment Benchmark
Comparison
Incoming Class Enrollment
Multi-Cultural Recruitment Plan
Recruitment Goals
Learning Support Center Plan
Campus Plan Program Summaries
Residence Hall Summary and
Alternatives
Draft of Mission Statement
60
APPENDICES
61
Appendix 01
Quality Enhancement Plan Study Groups
Programs & Facilities
co-chairs: Jack Furlong (faculty), Michael Vetter (staff)
Goal 1. Living/Learning Environments: Programs
Members: Melissa McEuen (Chair, faculty), Gary Anderson (faculty), Alan Bartley
(faculty, alumnus), Sarah Bell (student), David Carr (staff, alumnus), Simonetta Cochis
(faculty), Michael Covert (staff, alumnus), Sharon DeBrocco (staff), Martha Gehringer
(faculty), B.J. Gooch (staff), Abbey Green (student), Mike LeVan (faculty), Michael
Morgan (staff), Robert Norton (student), Susan Rayer (staff), Kathy Simon (staff).
Goal 2. Living/Learning Environments: Physical Resources
Members: Dan Selter (Chair, faculty), Mark Blankenship (staff, alumnus), Ray Brown
(staff), Kathleen Bryson (staff), Ingrid Fields (faculty), Diane Fout (staff), Dan Fulks
(faculty), Morgan Greer (student), Danny Hwang (student), Paul Jones (faculty), Alexis
Rowland (student), Matt Stinnett (student), Scott Van Fossen (staff).
Goal 3. Academic Enhancement
Members: Nancy Wolsk (Chair, faculty), Karen Anderson (staff), Brian Austin (staff),
Martha Billips (faculty, alumna), Vince Bingham (staff, alumnus), Kim Cook (student),
Jimmy Carpenter (student), David Cecil (staff), Kim Cook (student), Rose Mary Stamler
Dow (alumna), Peter Fosl (faculty), Jessica Hash (student), Marie Helweg-Larson
(faculty), Eric Thomason (student), Annie Townsend (student), James Wagner (faculty).
Goal 4. Advisement
Members: Don Dugi (Chair, faculty), Sharon Brown (faculty), Sarah Coen (staff), Robert
Croft (student), Robin Fleischer (staff), Tylene Garrett (faculty), Kim Kirkpatrick
(faculty), Jim Mills (staff), Jeff Mudrak (staff), Sarah Stewart (student), Richard
Thompson (faculty), Scott Wolford (student).
Financial Resources
Co-chairs: Gary Anderson (faculty), Debra Balles (staff, alumna)
Members: Bill Baldwin (faculty), Ray Brown (staff), David Cecil (staff), Julie Anderson
(staff), Don Lane (faculty), Bart Meyer (staff), John Newton (trustee), Peggy Palombi
(faculty), Jerry Ray (staff)
62
Appendix 02
Benchmark Convocation Programs
CENTRE COLLEGE: All Centre students who attend for the entire year are required
to earn 12 convocation credits. Most events given convocation status are worth one
credit; those designated campus-wide convocations are worth two credits. Over 50
convocations are presented during the year.
Programs: Convocation programs include guest lectures, plays, readings, films, musical
performances, Norton Center for the Arts programs (at no additional cost to students),
and special events. A calendar of events for the current school year is available at
www.centre.edu.
Policies: Students must be seated before the program begins, remains for the entire
programs, and turn in their convocation ticket with required information and signature
immediately following the event. Convocation credit is entered and maintained by
computer; students are responsible for verifying the computer record’s accuracy.
At the end of the academic year, students who complete the convocation requirement
have one hour of “A” figured into their grade point average and noted on their transcript.
Students who do not fulfill the requirement have one hour of “U” figured into their GPA.
Convocation credits are not credit hours and do not count toward the 111 credit hours
necessary for graduation.
Students participating in Centre-sponsored off-campus student programs receive
appropriate convocation credit. Other off-campus student situations are reviewed on a
case-by-case basis by the Convocation Committee.
Event Choice: Each term, the Convocation committee considers proposals submitted by
students, faculty, and staff. The Committee coordinates the selection and is the final
authority in all convocation matters. It consists of two students, two faculty members,
three administration members, and the Convocation Coordinator.
Source: Student Handbook, Centre College, 2001-02
BIRMINGHAM-SOUTHERN COLLEGE: Instituted this year, the BirminghamSouthern College’s “Intellectual and Cultural Foundations” Convocation program
requires that all students accumulate 40 points in the school’s “intellectual and cultural
life program,” which they call “The Commons.” Points must be accumulated prior to
graduation. Many of the events will be held during “common hour” (11:00 T/Th); others
are in the evening and some are off-campus. No more than 10 of the requisite 40 points
may come from off-campus events, and students are encouraged to attend 10 per year.
63
Appendix 02 (cont.)
Programs: Based on the Calendar of Approval Foundations Intellectual and Cultural
Events on the BSC web site, the approved programs include lectures, readings, musical
events, dance programs, and films. The calendar is available at www.bsc.edu.
Policies: According to Irvine Penfield, Provost, records are kept via computer. Students
receive a card when attending an event; after turning it in at a specified location, a notice
of their attendance is immediately sent to the advisor. The advisor keeps the record of
attendance. A Birmingham-Southern College computer science professor designed the
system.
Transfer students and those studying off-campus receive appropriate convocation credit.
Event Choice: According to Dean Penfield, the Associate Dean, Academic Council, and
a Faculty Committee decided which events would receive a “convocation” designation.
He said that on review the group found 50 events already occurring on campus which
seemed appropriate convocation events. He also said that events tied too closely to a
single class were not included in the convocation schedule. According to Dean Penfield,
the Associate Dean oversees the program for now. A faculty committee will probably be
appointed in the future.
SOURCE:
Birmingham-Southern College web site, www.bsc.edu.
Interview, Irvin Penfield, Provost, Birmingham-Southern College, 28
September 2001.
64
Appendix 03
Team Teaching/Data Collection
University Policy
Transylvania doesn’t have a written policy regarding team-taught courses. Instead, a
“team-taught course has to be approved by the Dean of the College depends on the range
of courses offered and enrollments - we have to be sure that a sufficient number of
courses is offered. Basically, team-taught courses are approved by the dean on an ad hoc
basis” (e-mail to Martha Billips, 19 Oct. 2001).
Courses Offered
Based on a review of the Assistant Registrar’s records, the following courses were teamtaught during the past two May terms. As the list indicates, most team-taught courses fall
into the special topic (St) category and most are cross-listed in more than one discipline.
May 2001
Anth 3024
PS 2294
St: Politics and Society
Barbara LoMonaco
Don Dugi
Art 2294
Hist 2204
WS 2294
St: Women and Violence-Atlantic World
Kim Miller
Catherine Nolan-Ferrell
Eng 2294
Hist 2204
St: Remembering Vietnam
Ingrid Fields
Melissa McEuen
Hist 2204
Phil 2294
St: The Ancient Polis
Frank Russell
Peter Fosl
Art 3314
St: Discovering Paris in Art
and Literature
Nancy Coleman Wolsk
Simonetta Cochis
Chem 2294.01
Chem 2294.02
St: Beer and Wine in Europe
Eva Csuhai
Gerald Seebach
NS 1104.01
NS 1104.02
Sight and Sound
Peggy Palombi
Jamie Day
Span 2294
Soc 3134
St: Hispanic Experience in the
United States
Martha Ojeda
Brian Rich
May 2000
65
Appendix 03 (cont.)
Faculty Interviews
Martha Billips, member of the Academic Enhancement subcommittee of the QEP,
interviewed all those involved in team teaching via e-mail during the week of October 1,
2001. Questions asked included:
•
•
•
•
What do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of this mode of interdisciplinary
education?
Would you like to see the number of team-taught courses expanded? Do
particular types of courses best lend themselves to cross-disciplinary team
teaching?
Could this type of teaching be expanded beyond May term?
Could you recommend any student or students from the course who might be
willing to talk with us about their experience in the course?
Of the faculty contacted, nine (Dugi, Lomonaco, Palombi, Csuhai, Seebach, Fields,
McEuen, Rich, and Miller) responded. Due to an oversight, Professors Fosl and Russell
were not contacted concerning team-teaching. Relevant results from the interviews are
summarized in the committee’s report.
66
Appendix 04
Student Survey of General Education Requirements
These tables summarize the results of a campus wide survey via Blackboard. Thirty-five
students from each class were randomly chosen to participate in the survey. The response
rate varied, with 46% (16/35) of the first-year students, 60% (21/35) Sophomores, 51%
(18/25) Juniors, and 66% (23/35) of the Seniors completing the survey. We had a target
response of 71%, giving us 25 students from each class (~ 10% of students for that year).
The actual percentage of each class represented in this survey is 4.3% First-years, 8%
Sophomores, 8% Juniors, and 12% Seniors.
Values reported in the tables are Percent response within the class. Questions in the
actual survey were in a different order than reported in this summary.
________________________________________________________________________
1. To fulfill my G.E. requirements, I have taken classes I probably never would have taken on my
own.
Percentage of
responses
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
2005
First year
2004
Sophomore
38
33
10
19
0
2003
Juniors
28
39
17
11
6
2002
Seniors
30
52
4
13
0
2. The general elective requirements help to create a well-rounded education.
2005
2004
First year
Sophomore
Strongly agree
38
14
Agree
56
33
Neutral
6
33
Disagree
0
14
Strongly disagree
0
5
2003
Juniors
22
44
22
11
0
2002
Seniors
30
39
13
13
4
0
56
25
12
0
3. The class I took to fulfill my Area III Cultural Traditions requirement (also known as Western
and Non-western) has given me a better understanding of other cultures.
2005
First year
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
I have not taken an
Area III class yet
67
2004
Sophomore
0
0
0
6
0
0
29
19
19
0
2003
Juniors
22
33
22
11
6
94
33
6
2002
Seniors
4
57
17
17
4
0
Appendix 04 (cont.)
4. The G.E. requirements allow me to take interesting courses outside my major.
2005
2004
First year
Sophomore
Strongly agree
12
0
Agree
62
38
Neutral
19
14
Disagree
6
38
Strongly disagree
0
10
5. I find it is easy to get the classes I need to fulfill my G.E. requirements
2005
2004
First year
Sophomore
Strongly agree
6
0
Agree
69
62
Neutral
25
5
Disagree
0
33
Strongly disagree
0
0
2003
Juniors
2002
Seniors
6
39
33
17
6
2003
Juniors
4
43
35
13
4
2002
Seniors
6
50
17
22
6
9
48
13
26
4
HOW THE CURRENT GE SYSTEM INTERACTS WITH THE STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION OF THEIR
MAJOR
6. I spend more time thinking about which classes I need for my major than I do for my G.E.'s
2005
First year
19
44
25
6
6
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
2004
Sophomore
38
19
10
29
5
2003
Juniors
17
50
6
28
0
2002
Seniors
9
35
17
30
9
7. Because of the course load for my major, I will probably never be able to take a class 'just for fun'.
2005
First year
19
38
31
12
0
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
68
2004
Sophomore
38
33
10
19
0
2003
Juniors
11
78
0
6
6
2002
Seniors
17
26
9
43
4
Appendix 04 (cont.)
8. I wish I could take more classes of interest outside my major.
2005
First year
19
38
44
0
0
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
2004
Sophomore
29
38
19
14
0
2003
Juniors
28
28
33
11
0
2002
Seniors
9
57
13
17
4
9. When registering for classes, I don't concern myself much with getting into classes that will fulfill
my G.E. requirements.
2005
First year
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
2004
Sophomore
0
6
50
31
12
5
14
10
33
38
2003
Juniors
0
11
11
67
11
10. I have missed out on taking a class in my major because I had to take a required G.E. class.
2005
2004
2003
First year
Sophomore
Juniors
True
0
52
50
False
75
43
50
2002
Seniors
0
9
13
61
17
2002
Seniors
39
61
11. During the winter registration period, my number one concern is:
Getting a specific class in my major
Getting a specific class in my minor
Getting a specific class in my Area II G.E.'s
Getting a specific non-western (Area III, List A) class
Getting a specific western (Area III, List B) class
Getting an Area IV class
Getting a writing intensive class
I don't have any concerns for registration
69
2005
First year
44
0
6
6
0
6
0
31
2004
Sophomore
38
0
10
33
0
10
5
5
2003
Juniors
61
0
6
6
0
6
11
11
2002
Seniors
30
4
4
0
9
13
13
26
Appendix 04 (cont.)
HOW WOULD STUDENTS LIKE TO CHANGE THE GE SYSTEM?
12. I would prefer if we had fewer G.E. requirements BUT we were required to do a minor instead.
2005
First year
25
19
31
19
6
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
2004
Sophomore
38
33
19
0
10
2003
Juniors
33
39
11
17
0
2002
Seniors
22
17
17
35
9
13. What part of the G.E. requirement would you most like to change?
Drop the UNIV 1111 requirement
Drop FLA requirement
Drop Area II requirement
Drop Area III (western and non-western) requirement
Drop Area IV writing intensive requirement
Nothing, I feel no desire to change the G.E's
2005
First year
6
6
25
6
19
38
2004
Sophomore
10
10
14
14
43
10
2003
Juniors
33
17
0
6
44
0
2002
Seniors
17
13
0
13
39
17
2003
Juniors
11
22
44
0
22
2002
Seniors
HOW DOES THE GE's INFLUENCE STUDENT'S VIEW OF COURSE CHOICES?
14. Which of the Area II G.E.'s have you most avoided taking?
2005
First year
Class in the Humanities
0
Class in Fine Arts
19
Class in Natural Sciences
31
Class in Social Sciences
6
I don't feel strongly about any of the classes
38
2004
Sophomore
14
14
48
5
19
15. Area IV writing intensive courses requires more writing than any other courses on campus.
2005
2004
2003
First year
Sophomore
Juniors
Strongly agree
6
14
11
Agree
12
24
56
Neutral
0
5
6
Disagree
0
5
11
Strongly disagree
0
5
0
I don't know, I never had a Area IV writing
81
48
17
intensive class
70
9
9
57
0
26
2002
Seniors
26
35
0
35
4
0
Appendix 04 (cont.)
16. In terms of my Area IV writing intensive requirements, I have already decided from which
program (for example - Philosophy, Fine Arts, Business) I will get those courses.
2005
2004
2003
First year
Sophomore
Juniors
TRUE
19
48
72
FALSE
75
52
28
2002
Seniors
96
0
17. I have avoided a class because it was listed as writing intensive
2005
2004
First year
Sophomore
TRUE
19
38
FALSE
75
62
2002
Seniors
61
39
2003
Juniors
44
56
18. I have taken a class only because it fulfilled my Area IV writing intensive requirement (you may
skip this question if you have not taken an Area IV writing intensive class).
2005
2004
2003
2002
First year
Sophomore
Juniors
Seniors
TRUE
0
14
22
78
FALSE
31
29
61
22
19. I ended up getting a minor in the same area in which I took my Area IV requirements
2005
2004
2003
First year
Sophomore
Juniors
TRUE
6
29
28
FALSE
56
43
72
71
2002
Seniors
48
52
Appendix 05
Minority Enrollment
Benchmark Comparison
College
State Enrollment %
Black¹
Albion
BirminghamSouthern
Centre
Denison
Earlham
Hanover
Millsaps
Rhodes
Transylvania
Wittenberg
Wofford
Georgetown
MI
AL
1419
1528
KY
OH
IN
IN
MS
TN
KY
OH
SC
KY
1022
2089
1191
1123
1314
1510
1070
2117
1103
1672
3.0
11.9
%
Private
Minority 4-year
%
Minority
By
State²
6.3
20.7
16.9
46.5
State
Minority
Population
vs.
(divided)
College’s
3.3
2.7
21.4
29.7
2.8
4.4
8.3
0.5
8.9
3.9
2.3
5.7
9.2
2.5
4.1
8.5
13.2
3.7
12.9
7.9
5.8
7.8
11.5
2.9
1.8
1.5
0.8
2.9
2.4
2.1
1.3
1.7
3.0
2.6
10.7
16.0
14.2
14.2
39.3
20.8
10.7
16.0
33.9
10.7
7.6
13.0
10.8
10.8
31.0
16.4
7.6
13.0
34.4
7.6
Overall
Minority
By
State³
¹ Source: National Center for Education Statistics – Fall 1999 Enrollment. The Fall 2000 Transylvania
University enrollment was 2.9% Black and 6.6% Minority
² Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac – September 2000, minority enrollment at private 4year colleges
³ Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2000
72
Appendix 06
Transylvania University Incoming Class Enrollment Ten-Year History
2001
International
1
African
American
6
Native
American
0
2000
0
10
1
9
5
306
18
349
1999
0
9
0
5
2
268
24
308
1998
1
10
3
8
3
292
28
345
1997
0
6
0
14
0
318
5
343
1996
0
4
1
11
2
319
6
343
1995
1
6
0
15
3
271
0
296
1994
1
8
0
12
1
258
3
283
1993
2
2
0
11
2
251
1
269
1992
3
6
1
2
3
259
1
275
1991
2
7
0
5
2
256
0
272
Asian
3
73
Hispanic
3
White
287
Unknown
24
Total
324
Appendix 07
Transylvania University Office of Admissions
Multi-Cultural Recruitment Plan
Note: This is part of a larger overall recruitment plan, which includes many
strategies to recruit all students.
KEY STRATAGEY:
To attain the University goal of 30 multi-cultural students, or 9% for the fall of 2002,
including 12 African-American students.
DESCRIPTION:
· Enter all names of African-American students in Kentucky with an ACT score of
24 or higher onto communications flow.
· Hire a current African-American student to serve as an intern in the Admissions
Office (Catrice Bolton will work 15 hours/week this year)
· Contact the Black Achievers organizations at Louisville and Lexington. (meetings
currently scheduled with leaders of both programs)
· Send a letter to all the African-American churches in the respected regions of the
state.
· Make personal telephone contact with all minority prospects via phone team,
admissions counselors and faculty.
· Send a letter to all high school guidance counselors telling them about our new
position of Coordinator of Multicultural Affairs.
· Send a letter to all prospective minority students telling them about our new
position of Coordinator of Multicultural Affairs.
· Host an overnight visit program for minority students.
· Attend college fairs that have large minority representation.
· Visit all the surrounding African-American churches to implement programs for
the local youth.
· Inform all achievers of the many scholarship offers at Transylvania University,
including the Frederick Douglass scholarship.
· Admission Counselors and the student phone team will contact each student about
an on campus visit, and scholarship information.
· Each counselor will visit one additional high school this academic year that is
majority African-American.
74
Appendix 07 (cont.)
TIMETABLE
Date
August-September
August-September
October
On-going
October-November
To Be Announced
September-May
September-May
Task
Start communication flow
with African-American
students
Send letters to Black
Achievers Org. of
Louisville and Lexington
Announce scholarship
offers from TU.
Student phone team makes
contacts with students
Visits to predominantly
African-American High
Schools and Churches
Black Achievers Banquets
Advise the Diversity
Enhancement Program
Invite high school students
to attend various seminars,
and events on campus.
Responsibility
SC/VB
VB
VB
VB/CB/LL
Counselors/VB
ALL
VB
VB
EVALUATION
The evaluation will be based on figures collected over the past five years dealing with
Multi-cultural recruitment. The African-American, Asian, Native American, and
Hispanic students have been calculated along with the total incoming classes to account
for the percent total each year.
Source: Transylvania University Office of Admissions Enrollment Plan, 2001-2002.
75
Appendix 08
Transylvania University Recruitment Goals
African American
Hispanic
Current
6
3
Five-Year
18
9
Ten-Year
30
15
Transylvania University Recruitment Goals
35
30
Number
25
20
African American
Hispanic
15
10
5
0
Current
Five-Year
Ten-Year
Targeted Student Population
76
Appendix 09
Enhancement of Living/Learning Environment
Physical Resources Committee
Learning Support Center Plan
Learning Service
Program
Internship
Education/Exercise
Science
Foreign Language
Lab
Tutoring
Humanities
Tutoring
Natural Science
Tutoring
Independent
Research
Project/Internship
Social Science
Advising/Supervising
Study abroad &
International
Education
Activity/Location/
Current Physical
Resources
Advising/career dev
& faculty offices
23 cassette listening
stations with 6
personal computers
Haupt Humanities
Review & study
sessions class rooms
Haupt/Rosenthal
Center
Individual tutoring
for students in
Natural Sciences &
Mathematics
Library
Supervising/advising
students
Haupt & Hazelrigg
faculty offices
Student advising
course & program
selection, resource
library, faculty
advising for study
abroad, assist in
coordinating
institutional
programs
209 & 203 Old
Morrison
77
Number
Served
Space Desired
4 to 5
students
per
semester
30 to 40
students
per day
Advising space
200 per
year
Appropriate
area for both
small & large
groups
25 student
stations
Technology
Requirements
25 personal
computers + 5
VCRs
1 to 18
students
per day
20 to 30
per
semester
for
division
Varies
Laboratory
research
facilities with
appropriate
storage
space/Resource
room for
internship &
research
1,405 net sq.
feet*
proposal
attached
Personal
computers for
research
Personal
computer to
support
advising &
research
components
Appendix 10
Campus Plan Program Summaries
SOCIAL/EVENTS/MEETING PLACE
Interviewees:
Michael Vetter
PROVISIONAL FACILITY NEEDS
Function
CAMPUS PLAN ESTIMATE
existing
NSF
Events/Meeting (300 party, 200-250 to dine)
Catering Kitchen
Equipment, Chair & Table Storage
Meeting Room *
Meeting Room *
Student Organization Offices
Vending Room
Trash/Recycling
TOTALS
No.
No. Sta.
NSF/sta.
NSF
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
300
50
25
2-5
-
10
25
25
-
3,000
100
150
1,250
625
1,000
70
80
est. GSF
6,275
9,200
c. 200/ space
12
(68%)
* Configurations of meeting rooms could vary to achieve a programmatically desirable mix of spaces.
BOOKSTORE/COFFEE BAR
Interviewees:
Michael Vetter
PROVISIONAL FACILITY NEEDS
Function
CAMPUS PLAN ESTIMATE
existing
NSF
No.
No. Sta.
NSF/sta.
NSF
Bookstore/Convenience Shop (2 x’s existing)**
Coffee Bar
3-5
1-2
-
-
2,800
500
TOTALS
4-7
est. GSF
3,300
5,600
(59%)
** Bookstore should include a small convenience concession that could be operated on an expanded
schedule, separable from the bookstore.
78
Appendix 10 (cont.)
SERVICE CENTER
CAMPUS MINISTRY & COUNSELING
Interviewees:
Michael Vetter
PROVISIONAL FACILITY NEEDS
Function
CAMPUS PLAN ESTIMATE
existing
NSF
No.
No. Sta.
NSF/sta.
NSF
Office (Campus Minister, future e.g. Seminarian)
Office, Admin./Reception/Waiting
Program Lounge
Office, Counselors
2
1
1
2
1
1
12
1
150
150
25
160
300
150
300
320
TOTALS
6
1,070
COMMUNITY SERVICE
Interviewees:
Michael Vetter
PROVISIONAL FACILITY NEEDS
Function
CAMPUS PLAN ESTIMATE
existing
NSF
No.
No. Sta.
NSF/sta.
NSF
Office
Conference
Workroom/Projects
Project/Program Storage
2
1
1
1
1
15
6
-
150
25
60
-
300
375
360
180
TOTALS
5
COMBINED TOTALS
1,215
22
62%
79
est. GSF
3,775
6,100
Appendix 10 (cont.)
Career Center
CAREER CENTER
Interviewees:
Michael Vetter
PROVISIONAL FACILITY NEEDS
Function
CAMPUS PLAN ESTIMATE
existing
NSF
Office (Dir., Asst. Dir., Mgr.)
PT Office (shared)
Interview/Tutoring/Training
On-line Resources
Resource Library
Workroom/Files
TOTALS
No.
No. Sta.
NSF/sta.
NSF
3
1
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
4
10
2
150
75
80
35
25
60 + equip.
450
150
320
140
250
180
11
80
1,490
Appendix 11
Residence Hall Summary and Alternatives
NAME
2001 OCCUPANCY
CAPACITY
% Occup.
WOMEN
MEN
150
131
341
153
156
377
98%
84%
93%
341
150
131
-
Hazelrigg Hall
Poole Hall
Rosenthal Apartments
36
51
77
36
55
84
100%
94%
93%
18
28
47
18
23
30
331 North Broadway
439 North Broadway
446 North Broadway
12
3
6
15
4
7
80%
75%
86%
12
3
6
-
338 North Upper
439 West 4th
429 West 4th
8
12
4
11
13
4
73%
92%
100%
8
12
4
831
915
92%
Clay Hall
Davis Hall
Forrer Hall
average
479
352
Residence Hall Analysis
Typical allocation of residential space range between 250 GSF to 386 GSF per bed as
sampled among seventeen small, liberal arts colleges. An allocation of about 300 GSF
per bed is a reasonable planning target.
NAME
Clay- Davis Hall
Forrer Hall
Hazelrigg Hall
Poole Hall
Rosenthal Apartments
Total beds (94% of
inventory)
No. Beds
[Capacity]
Existing
GSF
GSF per
BED
309
377
36
52,257
65,690
10,660
169
174
296
55
84
13,836
22,120
251
260
861
191
average
GSF listings are consultant estimates and account only for living spaces (e.g. 2 floors of Hazelrigg) and
supporting lounges. Chapter rooms and computing labs are not included for Clay-Davis for instance.
81
Appendix 11 (cont.)
Residence Hall Alternatives
The table below lists the deficits of beds created if existing residential buildings were to
be renovated using the targeted gross area allotments listed at the heads of the right-hand
columns. For example, if a general space allotment per bed in Clay-Davis were to be cast
at 300 GSF/Bed, then only 174 Beds could be accommodated in the existing shell
(52,257 GSF ÷ 300 = 174 rounded), a deficit of 134 beds to be replaced (308 beds
existing capacity – 174 to remain in Clay-Davis = 134).
These projections are based on the following assumptions:
• Forrer and Clay-Davis will require the most significant renovations to bring space
allocation in line with typical collegiate accommodations.
• Despite Hazelrigg being relatively well-appointed with space, the lack of floor
social spaces is addressed by reducing the population by 2 single rooms per floor.
(4)
• No change is anticipated in the Rosenthal Apartments. (0)
• Creation of an additional study or social space at Pool is not viewed as desirable
at this time. (0)
deficit numbers of beds
NAME
Clay- Davis Hall
Forrer Hall
Hazelrigg Hall
Poole Hall
Rosenthal Apartments
No. Beds
[Capacity]
GSF per BED
300 GSF
per BED
250 GSF
per BED
200 GSF
per BED
308
367
36
169
174
296
134
157
4
99
113
4
47
48
4
55
83
251
260
0
0
0
0
0
0
295
216
99
Tallies (beds to replace)
Note: GSF listings are consultant estimates and account only for living spaces (e.g. 2 floors of Hazelrigg)
and supporting lounges. Chapter rooms and computing labs are not included for Clay-Davis for instance.
Using the 200 GSF per Bed allotment, this would mean that 12 double rooms per floor
level would be removed from the space inventory in Clay-Davis and in Forrer, which
may be ambitious.
The replacement cost per bed (project dollars) may range between $40,000 and $50,000,
and possibly more. This range for 99 beds would yield total project costs of $3.9 to $5.0
Million.
n DLC+A
82
Appendix 12
Draft of Advising Mission Statement
The primary purpose of academic advising at Transylvania University is to assist students in the
clarification of life goals and the development of meaningful educational choices in terms of those goals.
While the ultimate responsibility for both goals and choices rests with individual students, Transylvania is
committed to providing thoughtful, responsible assistance as part of its dedication to excellence in
undergraduate education. Toward these ends, Transylvania's advising efforts seek to accomplish the
following:
• Clarification of life and career goals
• Assistance in understanding the College mission and its curricular offerings and requirements
• Awareness of college resources that expand and/or enhance the students curricular activities (e.g.,
travel, internships, conferences, research opportunities, community service, etc.)
• Development of decision-making skills and self-direction so as to engender autonomy, selfreliance, and responsibility
• Putting students in the best possible position to achieve both their undergraduate and post-graduate
goals (including assistance with graduate and professional schools and other career guidance)
Because accomplishing these goals requires responsible action on the part of both university
personnel and students, the College has the following expectations of each.
Whether individual faculty, administrative officers, or through career services, the College expects
advisers to
• Nurture an atmosphere of trust and care in the advising relationship, recognizing that the primary
purpose of the process is to promote student success
• Be informed about institutional policies, procedures, and requirements and the rationale for same
• Be knowledgeable of resources that enhance the intellectual and personal well-being and referring
to persons with more specialized skills when necessary
• Be proactive in assisting "at risk" students, especially when they have received notice of
deficiency in course work and other indications of academic difficulty
• Be available in a regular and easily accessible way
• Maintain confidential and up-dated documentation of student progress
While advising may be seen as a "service" for students, it is important that students realize that
ultimate responsibility for their lives and choices rests with them. Thus, the College has the following
expectations for students.
• Accepting responsibility which in a practical sense means reading/understanding college policies,
procedures, and requirements as articulated in the Catalog and accepting final responsibility for all
decisions related to their academic success
• Understanding that effective advising can only be achieved though open and candid
communication
• Make and keep appointments when assistance is necessary. Use available institutional resources
to clarify personal goals, values, abilities, interests, and career choices
• Provide feedback when appropriate so as to strengthen the advising process
83