Survey06

AAUP 2006 State of the University Survey Results

Below are the results of the 2006 AAUP “State of the University Survey.” One hundred and twenty-four faculty responded from across all divisions except Military Science.

For each item on the survey the statement assessed appears first, followed by the grand mean for that item if applicable. The accompanying graphs depict either the frequency of responses across the 1- to 9-point scale range or the percentage responding to given choices. In the former case, zeros on the x axis indicate failure to respond to that item, and the number above the bar in the zero column represents the number of faculty who did not respond.

Summary data for each item appear below the corresponding graph. In addition, for items that have been replicated across time on the AAUP Survey an historical perspective is provided.

Thank you for your participation in this process.

1.      The administration operates in a trustworthy and meaningful manner that promotes transparency in its policies and procedures.   M=4.47, sd=2.66

 

 

 

 

 

 

HISTORY: Percent of respondants agreeing across time

 

2004	2006
53.5%	41.5%

 

 

^ Ambivalent: having “conflicting feelings or thoughts,” or feeling “uncertainty or indecisiveness”  (The American Heritage Dictionary, 1985, p. 101)

 

 

2.   With regard to the curriculum offered at Truman:

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.   Truman State University has successfully promoted a reflective culture in which current and future plans result from careful consideration of the impact and effectiveness of past programs and policies.   M=4.42, sd=2.36

 

 

 

 

 

 

HISTORY: Percent of respondants agreeing across time

 

2004	2006
46.5%	37.1%

 

 

 

 

4.   Physical facility resources (e.g., space, supplies, etc.) are adequate for my teaching and scholarly needs.   M=5.58, sd=2.60

 

 

 

 

 

 

HISTORY: Percent of respondants agreeing across time

 

1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2004	2006
36.5%	54.2%	52.7%	41.8%	56.1%	58.3%	57.3%

 

 

 

 

5.   Changing the administrative structure of the University should be a primary goal.   M=4.36, sd=2.71

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.      Proposals for restructuring and curriculum change were presented in a manner that allowed thoughtful consideration based on adequate and appropriate information about both processes.   M=4.03, sd=2.41

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.      Technology on campus is adequate for my teaching, service, and scholarship needs.    M=6.38, sd=2.18

 

 

 

 

 

 

HISTORY: Percent of respondants agreeing across time

 

1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2004	2006
54.7%	65.1%	57.9%	77.7%	69.8%	66.9%	73.2%

 

 

 

 

8.   Adequate time, support, and resources are available for my scholarship needs and requirements.   M=3.96, sd=2.57

 

 

 

 

 

 

HISTORY: Percent of respondants agreeing across time

 

1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2004	2006
34.5%	40.7%	45.1%	40.1%	28.1%	32.5%	33.3%

 

 

 

 

9.   Salaries and benefits at Truman are commensurate with comparable institutions and reflect the teaching, service, and scholarship loads undertaken by faculty.    M=2.27 sd=1.67

 

 

 

 

 

 

HISTORY:  Percent of respondants agreeing across time

 

1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2004	2006
28.4%	25.8%	35.0%	20.3%	20.4%	23.8%	5.7%

 

 

 

 

10.    Morale among faculty at Truman is currently very high.    M=3.08, sd=2.03

 

 

 

 

 

 

HISTORY:  Percent of respondants agreeing across time

 

1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2004	2006
20.2%	49.4%	33.4%	32.4%	23.4%	30.7%	15.4%

 

 

 

 

 

 

11.    Moving to an overall 16-1 student-faculty ratio is the most appropriate way for the administration to make funds available for increases in faculty and staff salaries.    M=4.48, sd=2.49

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12.    My personal commitment to Truman and to the programs undertaken here is as strong as it ever was.    M=5.68, sd=2.87

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HISTORY: Percent of respondants agreeing across time

 

2001	2002	2004	2006
60.1%	56.7%	n/a	58.5%

 

 

 

 

 

13.    The restructured Faculty Senate provides an effective and distinct voice for faculty.    M=5.25, sd=2.11

 

 

 

 

 

HISTORY: Percent of respondants agreeing across time

 

2002	2004	2006
I support restructuring Faculty Senate to provide a more effective and clear [faculty] voice	The newly restructured Faculty Senate provides a more effective and distinct [faculty] voice	The restructured Faculty Senate provides an effective and distinct voice for faculty
68.5%	47.6%	36.9%

 

 

 

14  The Study Abroad office effectively mentors students’ international experiences by facilitating information exchange, travel arrangements, coordination with host institutions, transfer of course credit, etc.

M=4.99, sd=2.25

I have personally mentored students regarding their study abroad arrangements. Yes: n=64,  M= 4.94    No:  n=59, M=5.12 (p=.654)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HISTORY: Percent of respondants agreeing across time

 

1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2004	2006
%	%	%	%	%	54.1%	37.2%

 

 

 

15. Which of the statements below regarding Truman’s assessment program best reflect your opinion about assessment at Truman?

 

 

 

 

 

 

v v GRAND SUMMARY v v

 

v Out of 13 scaled items the following are survey topics on which a majority of faculty agreed (in descending order):

7.   Technology on campus is adequate for my teaching, service, and scholarship needs. 73.2%

12.  My personal commitment to Truman and to the programs undertaken here is as strong as it ever was.    58.5%

4.   Physical facility resources (e.g., space, supplies, etc.) are adequate for my teaching and scholarly needs.    57.3%

 

v Out of 13 scaled items the following are survey topics on which a majority of faculty disagreed (in descending order):*

9.   Salaries and benefits at Truman are commensurate with comparable institutions and reflect the teaching, service, and scholarship loads undertaken by faculty.    88.6%

10.  Morale among faculty at Truman is currently very high.    74.0%

8.   Adequate time, support, and other resources are available for my scholarship needs and requirements.    61.8%

6.   Proposals for restructuring and curriculum change were presented in a manner that allowed thoughtful consideration based on adequate and appropriate information about both processes.   54.8

3.   Truman State University has successfully promoted a reflective culture in which current and future plans result from careful consideration of the impact and effectiveness of past programs and policies.   50.8%

1.   The administration operates in a trustworthy and meaningful manner that promotes transparency in its policies and procedures.    50.4%

 

* On all other items except one, the number disagreeing exceeded the number agreeing.

 

v For three items “ambivalent” was the single strongest response category:

13. The restructured Faculty Senate provides an effective and distinct voice for faculty.  46.7%

14  The Study Abroad office effectively mentors students’ international experiences by facilitating information exchange, travel arrangements, coordination with host institutions, transfer of course credit, etc.   35.5%

11. Moving to an overall 16-1 student-faculty ratio is the most appropriate way for the administration to make funds available for increases in faculty and staff salaries.  22.2%

 

v The grand mean was below scale midpoint on nine of the 13 scaled items, indicating disagreement at various levels.

 

v v Open-Ended Comments v v

• Why ask exact years at truman? What about grouping years to maintain confidentiality? It would be simple to match years and divisions and get the exact person.
• Question 2: I prefer a curriculum based in teaching students the skills of communication and NOT concerning itself with GENDER and sex as recreation. I would like to see some curricular revisions that mean improving the knowledge and skills of our students NOT the whims of faculty. What does “true liberal arts” mean to you? I once had an administrator tell me that it was a bit like religion and [said administrator] did not want to talk about it. Question 3: I am not sure that the current plans to adjust faculty salaries will, in fact, consider the effectiveness of past policies. I have heard that there is a plan NOT to give across-the-board raises but somehow to institute what might be called “merit” raises. I suspect this will make things much worse for some hardworking, productive people. Many of us were hired to teach, NOT to do research, and have sought to teach, not to do research. Question 5: I do NOT see how making division heads into deans (and I suspect hiring new VP’s or such will make the place a better institution. Our reputation was made on the fact that we advertised that we would demonstrate quality and work on what was not quality. We seem to have bought the argument against assessment that not all good things can be assessed. Question 6: I get the sense that some of our changes are for the comfort or pleasure or renewal of those driving change. Question 9: No, we are not paid on par with other schools. But, I took this job knowing what the salary scales were. We once had an administration that protected ALL of us… Question 11: It appears to me that moving to a 16 to 1 ratio will hurt my discipline… AND not rehiring our lost faculty will hurt even more! Question 12: No, my commitment is not what it once was. It saddens me to say but I feel less and less like I can support Truman. Question 16: I think that assessment is broken at TSU. Once we were leaders in assessment but now there are others leading and we seem content to let it be so. I think that an old title I have heard from some administrator, “Toward Degrees with Integrity” ought be our goal. But how can we claim integrity when grade inflation is rampant or when administrators can change graduation requirements so that failing students can take the degree? Who is using the assessment data for anything? I have heard that maybe somebody in Business does.
• The VPAA has failed to provide effective leadership in a variety of areas such as: (1) developing attainable goals and objectives with the different departments and divisions, (2) implementation and monitoring of the LSP, (3) equitable class loads across campus, (4) understanding and implementation of an institution-wide assessment system, and (5) monitoring the RCP. He is not a leader and accordingly he does not enjoy the trust of the faculty. Most of the problems on campus can be traced back to the VP’s ineffective leadership. The President must be allowed to implement the organization plans or the entire institution will lose. This is the President’s responsibility, not the policiticans’ on campus. Social Science (just like a little two year-old) cannot be allowed to throw tantrums and win or the tantrums will never end.
• This is my first year at Truman. I can honestly say that it is the best job I ever had. I think Truman and Kirksville and all the people I’ve met here and worked with are great. But yet I am very seriously considering leaving and taking a job at a different university in the Fall. The only reason I am doing this is because the 16:1 ratio plan has removed job security from my position. As wonderful as Truman is, I don’t want to sit around and wait to get laid off.
• I believe that faculty need a significant pay raise in order to be motivated to undertake the revisions asked for and needed by the administration. We can’t wait 3 years to be rewarded. We are already way behind in salary raises, and aren’t even up with cost of living changes, especially with the increased costs of health care.
• The news that there will presumably be no health insurance funding for professors retiring before age 65 is disheartening; should the administration decide on partial funding, there needs to be a formula. Nothing should be arbitrary. There are tales of “sub par” faculty and staff members receiving the best retirement packages (to encourage early retirement). In an ideal world, poor performance should not be the ticket to a good deal. …Perhaps the envisioned changes are not well advised. With the elimination of this health insurance funding, many faculty members will indeed work until age 65; given their higher salaries, the University will be in an even worse position financially.
• Question 3 raises a deeper issue about uses of the past. I’m extremely concerned that dedication to the university’s history too often leads to slavish following of what some THINK President McClain and Dean Kruger would want. It has also led to the tail wagging the dog: some colleages apparently believe that because we have decades’ worth of data piled up, we should never change our assessment program. Both of these uses of the past are unproductive and dangerous, and they stifle honest attempts to move Truman towards a true liberal arts culture.
• I think lecture type courses should have more students in them. It does not matter how many are in the class if there is no discussion. One of my friends has an english class that requires discussion in a close group. There are 24 people in it. Thanks Truman for keeping 16 to 1 in classes that should be!
• President Dixon has been too slow. Why did she not clean house soon after she came? She retained incompetent administrators (especially VPAA Gordon) who were key to Magruder’s criminally corrupt regime, but seem to have very little to do with her programs. In fact, they will have nothing to do with her reforms and do not support her. I guess, she is not as smart as she seemed when she first arrive. She talks a good talk, but cannot act. If things do not change soon, we are doomed to a steep decline. Decline has already set in, clearly.
• The folks pushing to change the curriculum to make it distinctive speak of copying other institutions’ curricula, how would that make us distinct? We have a distinct curriculum – we have strong majors (mostly) *and* a strong liberal arts core. We have the teaching load of a community college with the expectation of research with no reward structure for research-active faculty – no realistic salary increase will compensate for that.
• The administration needs to pay more attention to the needs of faculty — research, sabbaticals, library holdings (yes I know, Richard does a good job within his limits — and he’s wearing too many hats now), etc. Not to mention salary. Not to mention the kind of subtle threat that 16:1 poses in terms of student load, potential for teaching extra classes, etc.
• This place is entirely dysfunctional! People get administrative position because they are “nice people” not because they have the competence and expertise to do the important jobs they are entrusted with. There seems to be no accountabilty around here. Work loads are very unequal. There are people who seem to be able to get away with treating their positions here as well-paying part-time jobs. The university as a whole does very little to recognize and reward faculty members who shoulder a disproportionate share of the service load around here. The way that the restructuring proposal was handled was insulting to the faculty. Some of the proposed changes under those models are more appropriate for comprehensive universities rather than for a liberal arts college. The primacy of Academic Affairs has been eliminated under President Dixon, so that it is now just one of several equal entities with a budget line. There seems to be no ability to prioritize around here and appropriately sequence the multiple issues we are trying to simultaneously take on. The movement towards using more contingent faculty is very troubling and hinders our ability to accomplish some of our key university goals with respect to timely graduation, retention, and graduate school placement. I am completely exhausted and demoralized!
• The current administration continues to work in secret, address issues that don’t help the faculty and staff on the “front lines,” and seems to suggest any opposition is just a bad attitude. Moral is as low as I have seen it in my 15 years, and it will only get worse by waiting for 33 of us to leave, get sick, retire, etc. Someone needs to stand up and take the leadership role and start addressing real problems.
• The President’s restructuring models were developed without significant formative input from the Deans and VPAA. This is not strong leadership; it is insular thinking. She has created uncertainty about nontenured faculty job security and this harms morale. Despite the President’s insistence that restructuring will save money or be revenue neutral, there are credible estimates that restructuring will be expensive and will reduce funds available for increasing faculty salaries/benefits. Her subsequent response that any increased costs would be justified suggests that she did not know what she was talking about when she claimed savings or that she was not candid. I believe that the President lacks faculty support for her still-vague restructuring plans and does not enjoy their trust. If she continues on her present course, she risks the loss of confidence that forced President Warren’s resignation.
• I have little confidence in the administration. The president should clearly and publicly abandon her proposals for restructuring. The current structure was sufficiently robust to carry us through a transformation to a liberal arts institution and she has given no sound reasons for changing it. She has done well to start a capital campaign and should be commended for that. She has no business trying to restructure the curriculum and her exploitation of ambitious faculty to attempt to accomplish this is quite transparent.
• I’m not sure changing the administrative structure is worth the grief it will cause.
• Although restructuring and curricular reform were introduced poorly this year, I am optimistic that the discussions next year will be beneficial and ultimately help the University
• It is a good idea to engage in assessment. I just have not observed well thought out and effectively designed evaluation programs. I think it would be helpful for key stakeholders to undergo some program evaluation training or to seek out some outside assistance in terms of designing some effective ongoing program evaluation in various areas.
• I really care about Truman, but I can’t afford to stay here much longer without a pay increase, especially with every year more expensive and declining medical coverage.
• The VPAA and Administration is not supportive of the needs of the students, faculty and individual disciplines.
• Faculty Senate needs to accept its role with more seriousness and a stronger commitment to goal setting and timetables. Faculty need to support the 16:1 concept as it is vital to the future of this university.
• In order for us to survive, the institution, AS A COMMUNITY, must examine student recruitment and retention. Our biggest problem in declining enrollment and a lack of willingness by many constituents on campus to embrace recruitment as part of faculty responsibilities. Also, this campus will continue to be flounder in a quagmire of inertia so long as UGC and FS (and other members of the academic community) continue to see administration as adversaries and not allies. Members of these two groups seem to take greater pride in “sticking it to the administration” rather than looking at the task at hand and determining how they can reasonably coordinate their efforts with those of the administration. We will go nowhere so long as our faculty governance continues with such myopathy.
• I think we need to rethink denoting classes as writing enhanced. All classes should be writing enhanced. Writing is a way of learning and thinking. If I have writing in a class not denoted, students are awfully testy about it.
• Morale is a serious issue. Many more colleagues are actively seeking other positions, and since they’re the good ones and since we’ve been told they won’t be replaced, there’s a definite feeling of being on a sinking ship. The new president does a great job of listening and appearing to care & understand, but the only decisions she’s actually made to date (closing the CDC, urging us to radically restructure both the administrative structure and the curriculum simultaneously) have only made things much, much worse. (And things were already pretty dire due to budget cuts.)
• I think some of problems with the “full” curriculum may be the responsibility of the majors and not the LSP.
• During the last year faculty morale has dropped to an all-time low. While a tight budget might be partly to blame, I feel that President Dixon and Vice President Gordon are primarily responsible for this situation. I disagree with the way they handled the closure of the CDC and the policy of not replacing faculty who retire or resign. The administration claims that budget cuts need to be made to improve faculty salaries, which would in turn make Truman more attractive to candidates for positions at Truman. I just don’t buy that argument. The administrartion claims that all this austerity is necessary to hire new faculty, and then in the next breath they say they won’t be hiring anyone for several years. The policy of not replacing faculty who leave the university is much too rigid, especially in the context of small disciplines like theater. They might be making the university more attractive to potential faculty at some distant point in the future, but if it is at the cost of losing someone of the caliber of Becky Becker through their inflexibility, I think it is time to reconsider our options.
• I applaud the current President for trying to bring transparency and reform to a University that was mismanaged for years. The backlash against her (and I think we are starting to see one) is because she is facing difficult issues head on instead of avoiding them as in the past. As the President, she becomes the focal point for real anger, but that anger is misplaced. Still, these are very difficult times, and morale is as low as I have ever seen it, and justifiably so.
• On Item #2: Some discipline curricula are determined by the national body of scholars in the discipline and/or the discipline’s accrediting organization (e.g., accounting, chemistry, speech pathology and audiology), and these cannot be altered by the university nor even by the Truman faculty in the discipline.
• We are in a bind. The inability to hire and expand where there is student demand hurts us. However, we need higher salaries, and the money must come from somewhere. Complicated.
• The administration has lost focus and vision. Academic standards have been forgotten in order to pander to students who want a “feel good” environment or in order to pander to faculty who want higher pay but no real intellectual or moral responsibilities.
• Some of your questions are silly and clearly biased. #3 doesn’t make any sense #6 is asking two very different questions
• I don’t object to the 16:1 plan per se, and I certainly applaud the attempt to raise faculty salaries so that we’re more easily able to hire new faculty. But I am very concerned that the plan may take us in the direction of enormous intro courses (the absence of which is one of Truman’s best features in my opinion) and/or elimination of many specialized upper-level courses essential to a liberal arts & sciences education. Comment on instrument: Future versions should include a “no opinion / don’t know” option. My lack of experience on certain issues is not equivalent to a senior faculty member’s informed ambivalence.
• In regard to question 2, two of the possible answers include the phrase ‘true liberal arts curriculum’. I think we already have that; or at least the potential for such is there for any student who wants it. If this is a way of suggesting dispensing with the professional programs, frankly, as someone who lives in the world, I want the professionals around me – business people, health care people – to in fact be liberally educated! So, those two answers do not quite work for me. However, I do favor at least considering a 4-course per semester system. Question 11 – If the only reason for this is to increase salaries, then I am very dubious about the 16:1 ratio. The great fear on campus now is that faculty may be fired in order to effect this ratio. If it comes down to actually firing faculty, if it comes down to depriving some people of their livelihood ONLY in order to moderately increase the salaries of those who remain, then I oppose such a move. Moreover, I question the pedagogical value of overloading some courses, to the detriment of the student. If we value ‘active learning’ there comes a point when a cut off point in terms of bodies in a classroom must be enforced, otherwise there will be less opportunity for students to join in discussion, in classroom activities, there will be less freedom for instructors to assign complex projects, etc. which require time to carry out and assess. In regard to question 12, my commitment to the programs of Truman and to the students of Truman is still strong, but I fear that may change. I think Truman is a very good school where anyone who wants a rigorous education and is willing to work for it can obtain a sound education. I am less committed to the administrative side of Truman (with the exception of my Division, where I am well supported in my efforts). But I also feel as if the quality of education here is being eroded, and I fear that the sound education I think can be had, may at some point become more difficult to obtain, as necessary resources (human and material) become increasingly scarce, thus diminishing the quality.
• TSU needs a CFO and CIO reporting directly to the President
• Please change the question about faculty morale. The conclusion always seems to be that faculty morale is low. This may be, but this does not follow from the statment that people disagree that faculty morale is “very high”. Also the question asks what I think the collective morale of the faculty is. How would I know what that is? Why not just ask what my own personal feelings are? For the record, I am concerned about some of the challenges that we are facing, but I still feel like I have the best job in the world.
• current administration seems to be wildly disorganised–proposing several initiatives–some quite mad…and not following through: “ready, fire, aim”
• Traditionally, universities seem to run a little behind the times in their innovated prospective, and truman is certainly no exception. In order for an institution to remain viable, it must change with the times. However, for some reason, Truman faculty seem very reluctant to change or even to contemplate change. Some wonder why enrollment is declining; could it be because we are behind the times in our offerings, curricula, and appeal? It would appear that “liberal arts” is fine as long as it is defined by the way this tunnel-visioned faculty says it should be. Truman’s reputation is not exactly what we all think it is!
• President Dixon is attempting to bring change to (i) the core curriculum (ii) the University’s Divisional organization (iii) the faculty distribution profile (iv) the faculty merit/reward structure (v) faculty governance (vi) admissions criteria, and many other MAJOR components of our professional lives, and she is attempting to do this all at once, in what can only be described as a semi-chaotic fashion, totally devoid of coherent justification, direction, timelines, goals, planning, etc. And all of this is occurring against a backdrop of profound fiscal distress involving frozen salaries, loss of benefits and health care, loss of personnel, etc. By her ill-conceived actions, Dixon is completing the annihilation of any residual faculty morale that has survived the dismal era of the past seven years. Each day as I come to work, I am overwhelmed with a general feeling of dread, sensing that we are spiralling hopelessly and inevitably into total extinction. I often wonder if this institution will survive another ten years on its present course, and I agonize over the decision to begin applying for a position elsewhere—a bracing thought to someone in my age bracket. As a postscript: who wrote the unbelievably offensive (and unspeakably unintelligent) Question 2 on this survey, and how does the author of that question define a “true” liberal arts curriculum? This question, so rife with naive tacit assumptions, is an embarrassment; the entire institution will receive a black eye if this drivel becomes public.
• Too many things are happening at one time. So many issues in play cause a distraction from our primary goal of teaching and make it impossible to give adequate attention to any single issue.
• The major problem with the restururing is that it is taking too long, either do it or quit talking about it. The problem with teh LSP is that it is needlessly complex and reduces student choices.
• I think the curriculum question leaves out the key option — that we should finish our current review of the LSP before coming to conclusions of what and how much to change. Similarly discipline curricula should be under continuous review. A number of programs “drive” far too large a percentage of a students credits for graduation including choices in the LSP. It is only for these students that the curriculum is too rigid, too focused on a single disicpline, and too difficult to incorporate study abroad, internship, or undergraduate research opportunities.
• In 20 years, I have not experienced a more discouraged and discontent faculty except during the worst of the Warren period. Granted, tight budgets are stressful for everyone. But this goes deeper — it just does not work to dismantle the administrative structure (deans) and indefinitely post-pone either replacing them or re-structuring. Things are NOT working in the absence of an administrative structure, and it is definitely putting undue pressure on faculty. The staff is also more stressed than I can ever recall. While we are short-staffed and under funded and beginning the first every capital campaign is NOT the time to “restructure” the university — I don’t even think there has been consideration to what this means in terms of the composition of every committee, every routing slip, application form/procedure, nearly every piece of paper in the place. Come on! We have much more important things to focus on at the moment. It may well be time to reconsider the curriculum. But, the faculty have to feel relatively secure. At the moment, you can’t even get people to be officers or chairs in important organizations and committees because everyone is over-extended. This could have gone differently. I never hear any words of VISION or inspiration (except the Baldwin Lecture guy, who was great — THAT’s what we should be talking about).
• Getting rid of all Magruder appointees, especially Gordon, is the first step toward a healthier university. Morale will soar the moment Gordon is no longer VPAA.
• We have many challenges to face as an institution. I believe that securing funds to reinvest is a wise thing to do, but the President seems to want alll of the burden to come from academics and the faculty. All areas of the university should make the kinds of difficult changes like those that are happening within the academic programs (16:1). It will be easier for we faculty to support this reallocation if we know that all areas are contributing to the same degree.
• The key academic problems remain with the VPAA and a curriculum that purports to be liberal arts when the LSP is the fabrication of political rather than learning imperatives and far too many majors are much too large based on certification and other criteria that have nothing to do with the liberal arts and are not based on the reality that truly liberal arts schools have majors that require fewer credits but still place their students in highly regarded grad and professional schools. Now is the time to undertake systematic review of the administrative structure and curriculum with an eye toward significant changes to establish a truly liberal arts institution.
• I suport the prez and hope she wins this one or we are sunk.