CUE Report: Processes

CUE REPORT:  PROCESSES                                    Sections 9-13
======================



-------------------------
9.  THE ACADEMIC CALENDAR
-------------------------

While one might suppose that the calendar would be one of the few common
points of reference for the campus, Stanford does not follow a single
timetable. We have a quarter system, but one school (Law) operates on
semesters. The academic year begins and ends on certain dates, but in
parts of the university these boundaries mean very little. Special
periods (such as Dead Week) are observed (or not) in many different
ways. Four years is the canonical time allotted to an undergraduate
degree, but many students take less or more time.

Despite this variety, the calendar does give shape to the year for most
undergraduates. The quarter system determines the pace and, to some
extent, the style of instruction. Other conventions, such as the nine-
month year and the four-year degree, are deeply rooted in most colleges
and universities. Any of these conventions could be changed, and we do
recommend some minor modifications. However, we have not tried to alter
radically the structure of the academic calendar.


--THE QUARTER SYSTEM
The nine-month academic year is perhaps the most deeply ingrained
tradition of our educational system, existing as it does from grade
school through the university. Many aspects of our academic lives are
shaped by this schedule: faculty depend on the summer to work on their
research; student financial aid packages assume that students will use
their summers to earn money to apply to their education; administering
the university and its facilities depends on a summer break in the usual
routines. But while almost all colleges and universities have a nine-
month year, they divide it in many different ways. At present, about 61
percent use the so-called early semester system; 22 percent use the
quarter system-a number that has declined in recent years.

Stanford adopted the quarter system in 1917-18. At least four times
since then-in 1932, 1954, 1968, and 1982-committees reevaluated this
decision. Some recommended changing back to semesters; others endorsed
the status quo. To the delight of some and the dismay of others, the
quarter system has survived. One reason for its durability is certainly
the not inconsiderable cost of changing virtually every aspect of
teaching and learning at Stanford. To effect such a change would require
clear evidence that its possible benefits would match its unavoidable
costs. This evidence does not seem to exist. Without it, there is little
chance of finding either the administrative will or the political
consensus necessary to scrap the quarter system. Therefore, despite the
enthusiasm of some members of the Commission for semesters, we have
decided not to recommend that Stanford abandon the quarter system.

We do believe that the present system can be made more efficient and
effective.

First, we recommend that the beginning of the academic year be set so as
to guarantee a minimum of three weeks between the end of autumn quarter
exams and the beginning of winter quarter. This can be done simply by
always beginning the autumn quarter no later than fourteen weeks before
January 1. This means that classes would generally start no later than
the fourth week of September rather than the first week of October.
Registration, orientation, and other prequarter activities would also be
about one week earlier. According to the director of Housing and Dining
Services, this would not pose significant logistical problems, nor would
it reduce revenues from summer programs in the residence halls.

Second, we recommend that all classes end on the Wednesday of the tenth
week of the quarter. Thursday and Friday of that week would be a
dedicated study period, prior to the beginning of finals, thus ensuring
four full days (including the weekend) for reading and preparation. At
present, Dead Week, according to the Faculty Handbook, is supposed "to
permit students to concentrate on academic work and prepare for final
examinations." In practice, there appears to be considerable variability
in the way the faculty interpret the meaning of Dead Week. It is clear
that the period is rarely a time of significantly reduced activity. Many
faculty simply ignore it; others find it impossible to distinguish
between class meetings during Dead Week and other class meetings. No one
seems happy with the current system.


--THE SUMMER QUARTER
The only significant way to alter the cycle of nine-month academic years
would be to make the summer quarter an integral part of the educational
experience of more students.

Some institutions vigorously exploit the opportunities offered by the
summer: At Dartmouth, for example, undergraduates are required to remain
on campus during the summer after their sophomore year. This is used as
a time when a single cohort of students can take a common set of classes
in relative isolation from other students. Dartmouth reports (and this
is confirmed by anecdotal evidence from students) that its program has
been quite successful. It is a good "bonding", as well as a productive
academic, experience for the students; the faculty find it a good time
to teach.

Even without such an elaborate formal program, we believe that more
students should be encouraged to spend one or more summers at Stanford.
According to data from the registrar's office, 26 percent of Stanford
undergraduates take summer courses at some institution, though only
about 8 percent enroll for summer work at Stanford. Obviously many
students attend institutions near their homes, but we presume some would
consider remaining at Stanford if it were more attractive to do so.

We identified three impediments to undergraduate studies during the
summer.

First, Stanford's cost is high compared to the costs of most other
summer programs. Many institutions charge lower tuition in the summer
than during the academic year. This is done in part to attract visiting
students from elsewhere, and in part to let matriculated students enroll
without drawing financial aid. Since students are limited to twelve
quarters of aid, most would not use a quarter's eligibility for the
summer, especially if they were taking less than a normal load. We
strongly recommend that the summer session office be allowed to
experiment by lowering the tuition to a level that is competitive with
that of other major programs. The purpose of the experiment should be to
determine whether the number of students increases as the price is
lowered. If so, and if there is no net loss in revenue, we recommend a
permanent change in the pricing structure.

Second, there is little or no incentive for regular Stanford faculty to
teach in the summer. Authorized compensation levels for summer session
teaching are too low to be attractive to most faculty. As a result,
courses are mainly staffed by visiting faculty and lecturers. The
attractiveness of these courses to Stanford students is therefore
reduced. We recommend that the summer session office be allowed to
increase compensation rates for Stanford faculty who are willing to
teach in the summer on an extra-service basis. We also encourage the
summer session office to experiment with different schedules during the
summer-for example, by offering four-week sessions on a more intensive
daily schedule so that some faculty could spend part of summer away from
campus but still have time to offer a course.

Third, there are some glaring deficiencies in the summer curriculum.
Some departments have been unwilling to structure faculty teaching
assignments or courses to allow for summer offerings. This is
particularly true in the sciences, an area of great demand on the part
of our students. In fact, anecdotal evidence suggests that many students
take science courses during the summer, then transfer the credits back
to Stanford. We recommend that departments be encouraged to plan at
least some representative sample of courses during the summer so that
students have a full range of disciplines from which to select courses.

There are some obvious economic advantages in using our facilities for
four quarters rather than three. This was, in fact, the major impetus
for the introduction of the quarter system into American higher
education by the first president of the University of Chicago.

In addition to these economic considerations, the summer can also be
used for various kinds of educational experimentation and innovation.
One example of what can be done is the highly successful Honors College,
a three-week program that was established two years ago for students
about to begin their senior honors projects. Another possible use of the
summer would be a Sophomore College, in which students entering their
second year would have the opportunity to return to Stanford in
September for special courses. This would have many benefits: it would
provide an unhurried, intensive, guided learning experience; it would
create a number of opportunities for formal and informal advising; it
would give students a chance to explore possible majors and encourage
them to reevaluate their goals for the remainder of their time at
Stanford. We recommend that a working group be established to consider
the feasibility of a Sophomore College, with the goal of creating a
pilot program for September 1995.


--TIME TO DEGREE
No other aspect of the Commission's work has generated as much national
attention as its charge "to consider whether it is possible and
desirable to give more students the opportunity to graduate in less than
four years." The way in which the idea of a "three-year degree" seemed
to capture people's imagination surely reflects widespread concern about
the rising costs of higher education and might reflect growing
uncertainty about its proper content and ultimate purpose.

Rather than debate the merits of the three-year degree in the abstract,
we examined data from registration records showing what Stanford
students do with their four years and whether the present curriculum
actually takes that long to complete. Our sample was the three cohorts
of students who entered Stanford in 1987, 1988, and 1989. Of the 3,931
students who had graduated from these three cohorts as of 1994, close to
85 percent did so in four years. Less than 2 percent-55 students-
graduated in three years. The remaining 13 percent graduated in five
years or more.

While the vast majority of students remained on campus for four years,
many of them accomplished much more than the minimum requirements for
graduation. Almost 11 percent of all students graduating within four
years completed two majors, 9 percent completed within four years a "co-
term" degree, in which they earned both a bachelor's and a master's
degree, and 3 percent completed two bachelor's degrees-an A.B. and a
B.S. Just under one-quarter of our undergraduates was able to accomplish
more than a single degree in a single major within the space of four
years.

Additional evidence about the rate of "over-achievement" is the number of
credits earned by graduating students. All Stanford undergraduates must
earn 180 units of credit for graduation. Of the 2,602 students who
earned a single degree in a single major, the average number of units
earned at graduation was approximately 200. Assuming an average quarter
load of fifteen units, these students earned more than one quarter's
worth of additional credits. Students earning more than one major
graduated with an average of 211 units, or more than two quarters of
additional credit. Students earning dual degrees and co-terminal degrees
typically finished with 240 to 250 units, or well over one year of
additional credit beyond the average work load.

Looked at another way, 21 percent of students in the 1987-1989 entering
cohorts had earned their 180th unit by the end of their third year (see
Appendix 3, Table 3). This does not mean that all of these students
could have graduated within three years; many of these units may not
have applied to degree requirements. The data do suggest, however, that
it is possible for many students to accumulate enough credits in three
years or less to complete some Stanford degree programs.

It is important to note that the accumulation of credits rests heavily
on Stanford's fairly liberal policies regarding Advanced Placement
credits and transfer credits. Of the students in our three cohorts, 71
percent entered Stanford with Advanced Placement credits-typically 20 to
30 credits per student (see Appendix 3, Table 4). Up to 45 AP credits
may be applied to a Stanford degree, although they may not be used to
meet distribution or major requirements. Of the same three cohorts of
students, 38 percent received transfer units (our sample does not
include transfer students); the average was approximately thirteen
transfer units per student. Up to 90 transfer units may be applied to a
Stanford degree.

One argument often given in favor of the four-year degree is that it
allows time for students to sample a range of courses in different
disciplines, to take their time in selecting a major, and indeed to
change majors relatively late in their undergraduate careers. It is
difficult to measure the extent to which students actually use their
four years in this way. We gathered data on the kinds of courses taken
after the accumulation of the 180th unit of credit and note that the
most frequently taken courses are in the athletics, physical education,
and recreation department (about 7 percent of all courses taken after
the 180th unit). However, close behind are courses in human biology,
biological sciences, psychology, English, physics, economics, and
chemistry. While it is clear from looking at randomly selected
transcripts that some students lighten their loads substantially during
their last few quarters at Stanford, many others continue to work on
their requirements up to the last day of their fourth year. And some
take fewer courses during their senior year so that they can devote more
time to working as research assistants or writing honors theses.

While all of these data are far from conclusive, they suggest that a
significant subset of Stanford students might be able to complete their
undergraduate degrees in less than four years if they were properly
motivated and properly advised. This is true, at least, under the
current requirements for an undergraduate degree in many, if not all,
majors.

We do not think that Stanford should push students to graduate early.
What and how well students do here is far more important than how
quickly they can get it done. Our aim, therefore, should be to encourage
exploration and dedication to learning among our students, not to help
them find the shortest way to a degree. On the other hand, we should
recognize that there are students who might benefit from completing
their undergraduate degrees in less than the conventional time. And
there are a growing number of students and families who may conclude
that three years at Stanford is a better choice than four years at a
less expensive institution. We should make it clear that such students
are welcome at Stanford and that it is possible for them to complete a
degree here.

We recommend that advisors be available to help plan shortened degree
programs for anyone who is interested. We also recommend that the
university prepare a special publication describing some typical paths
toward a bachelor's degree, including three-year, double-degree, and co-
terminal programs that would be available to interested and qualified
students. From the beginning of their time at Stanford, students should
be aware of the options available to them, and of the costs and benefits
of each.



-------------------------------------------------------
10.  TECHNOLOGY AND TECHNIQUES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING
-------------------------------------------------------

The Commission on Undergraduate Education was charged "to consider new
ways of instruction made possible by computers, video equipment and
other forms of new technology." In response, we established a
subcommittee to examine how Stanford faculty use technology in teaching
and to define the principles that should guide our response to the new
opportunities in this rapidly changing area. Two things were clear to us
from the start. First, we could not hope to make specific
recommendations about which technological innovations could or should be
employed at Stanford; second, all considerations of technology should be
seen in the light of the institution's educational goals. Educational
technology should be viewed as ancillary to the process of teaching and
learning, not as an end in itself.

The subcommittee began by defining three principles.

First, the university's teaching and research rely heavily on the
generation, manipulation, transmission, presentation, and storage of
information. Information exists in many forms and ranges over a vast,
complex field that only begins with simple "facts." Just knowing the
facts is becoming increasingly difficult, given the quantity of
information being generated. Understanding the relationships between
sets of facts is harder still-and at times, impossible-without new means
for information processing.

Second, the technology of information processing is evolving very
rapidly. If used properly, this technology cannot help but change the
ways in which the university's mission is fulfilled. In some instances,
it will allow us to do what we already do more effectively; in others,
it will allow us to do things that were previously impossible.

Third, there are so many means by which students can become educated
that our current reliance on standard lectures-a pedagogy based solely
upon the transmission of knowledge-should be questioned. When
alternative teaching and learning practices are effectively used,
students improve their skills, learn more, and acquire a deeper
understanding of the material.

In order to get an idea about present uses of technology in teaching,
the subcommittee sent a questionnaire to about 750 faculty in the three
schools responsible for undergraduate instruction. The responses showed
that most faculty members do not employ technological aids in their
courses, that the vast majority do not exploit existing campus resources
on technology, and that little systematic work has been done to evaluate
the effectiveness of teaching technology. Despite the fact that few use
educational technology, most respondents are not opposed to such
technology and most acknowledge its value. The most frequently cited
impediment to using technology was the lack of time to acquire the
necessary skills.

The subcommittee recognized that in order to encourage faculty members
to take advantage of educational technology, it was necessary to work
within the limits set by the personal and individualistic nature of
teaching and learning. It is simply not part of the academic culture at
Stanford (or any other university) to specify the procedures, methods,
and techniques-in short, the style-of teaching a course. Thus it is
neither feasible nor desirable to try to mandate changes in an
individual's pedagogy. The problem is to effect real change in a
noncoercive manner, without relying solely on suggestion or exhortation.

We make the following recommendations.

The university must position itself to take advantage of rapidly
evolving information technology, and recognize and reward the use of
innovative educational practices.

It is unlikely that the pace of technological development will slacken
in the near future. In fact, the pace will quicken; consider, for
instance, the near-exponential growth in the number of nodes on the
Internet, the explosion of electronic databases, and the inevitable
merging of television and computer technologies. What will it mean when
500 courses from around the country are available to Stanford students
using video-server technology? Will the unquestioned value of human-to-
human, face-to-face interactions survive this and related developments?
Will we be able to make creative use of technology to reduce the number
of large lectures, freeing at least some faculty time for other
educational activities? Will the flexibility offered by some
technologies outweigh the benefits of those face-to-face interactions,
at least some of the time? These are the types of questions that must
become permanent fixtures in our culture. Driven by rapid changes in
technology, their answers will change at a correspondingly high rate.

There will never be some "golden moment" at which it becomes appropriate
or imperative that a certain piece of technology be adopted for use at
Stanford. Rather, we must recognize that developments pertinent to the
educational enterprise will continue apace, and that various segments of
our community will make more or less use of them as time goes by. The
question is, how can Stanford make optimal use of appropriate
innovations?

The university must champion those who innovate by using a well-defined
incentive structure and by widely publicizing the success stories of
these individuals. It is imperative that deans, department chairs,
department review boards, award committees, and promotion review
committees encourage innovative teaching practices through proper
incentives. Perhaps one of the university's many teaching awards should
be used to highlight technological innovation in education.

The university must allocate sufficient resources to enable individuals
to bring about innovation in teaching and learning.

The university must actively assist those who want to be innovative in
their teaching activities and grant them sufficient time to develop
these innovations. It must be realized that the most effective use of
innovative practices will often involve complete redesigns of courses.

The physical infrastructure of the university with regard to information
technology must be recognized as inadequate; a commitment to address
these inadequacies must be made. High priority should be given to proper
classroom outfitting and to distributed information technology
facilities for faculty and student use.

We are delighted that President Casper has already acted on our
recommendation to create a permanent group to facilitate innovative
teaching and learning practices.

We suggest that this group consider the following questions as part of
its mission: What should be its relationship to other administrative
agencies responsible for technology at Stanford? How can it coordinate
the many activities occurring on campus that are related to technology
in teaching and learning? How can the university be in a position to
take advantage of changes in technology and to avoid costly mistakes?
How can those faculty members already using innovative technology be
included in the committee's work?

If the proposed "science for nonscientists" sequence of courses is
established, we recommend that it make extensive use of educational
technology for things such as the simulation and modeling of physical
systems and the visualization of numerical data. Competency in standard
computer techniques, such as the use of electronic mail and file
transfers, spreadsheets, and simple databases, should be achieved by all
students completing these courses.

In conclusion, we must all recognize that technological innovation will
not be without cost. To acquire and maintain the necessary space,
hardware, and software, as well as to create the faculty and staff time
for the requisite development activities, will require resources. At
least in the short term, the use of these innovative practices will
rarely lead to greater educational efficiency or productivity (however
one defines these elusive qualities). Nevertheless, we are convinced
that no matter how expensive innovation may be, ignoring changes of this
magnitude is certain to be even more costly.



----------------------------------------
11.  THE ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT:  ADVISING
----------------------------------------

Advising goes on throughout the university. It is done by the
professionals at the Undergraduate Advising Center (UAC), by faculty and
staff acting as "general advisors" for students who have not declared a
major, by members of various departments and programs, and, perhaps most
frequently, by an informal network composed of resident fellows and
their staffs, faculty members, and students. In different ways and with
varying degrees of success, these advisors provide students with the
information and direction they need to make their way through the
university. Since almost everyone who enters Stanford graduates, it
might be argued that the advising system works, but few students think
that it works as well as it should. Despite the devoted work of the UAC
staff and the volunteer efforts of faculty, staff, and student advisors,
advising turns out to be the aspect of undergraduate education with
which there is the most dissatisfaction.

The most visible and least successful kind of advising is that given to
those who need it most: the incoming students who are assigned an
advisor to guide them until they declare a major, which usually happens
at the end of their second year. The available evidence suggests that
only a minority of students think the general advising system works
well; a disturbingly large number find that their advisors are unable to
give them the advice they need. Student dissatisfaction with general
advising is combined with, and perhaps in part is caused by, widespread
faculty indifference. Only about one-third of the general advisors are
regular faculty members. Of the 1,320 members of the Academic Council,
no more than 119, or less than 10 percent, take the time to help
students begin their academic careers at Stanford.

The Commission formed a Subcommittee on the Academic Environment to
study the advising system and suggest measures to improve it.

The subcommittee began by examining two alternative models. The first,
similar to the system used at the University of Chicago, takes advising
out of the hands of the faculty and gives it to a group of full-time
professionals, who advise undergraduates throughout their time at the
university. The second, practiced at Yale University, for example, makes
advising an obligation that must be fulfilled by all faculty members.
Although both these approaches have appealing features, in the end
neither seemed appropriate for us: the first because it went against our
conviction that students should have intellectual ties to the faculty,
the second because we feared that compulsion would lead to a further
erosion of quality-as it had a few years ago when departments were
compelled to produce a certain quota of advisors. Indeed, the more we
looked at other universities, the more we realized that the advising
system was a source of dissatisfaction at most of our peer institutions.

We do not have a single dramatic remedy for the ills in our advising
system. Rather, we have sought to clarify and improve the existing
system. In addition, we have suggested some pilot programs that should
be tried and, if successful, institutionalized.

First, we urge that more be done to clarify what advisors and advisees
should expect from their relationship. One reason why advising is such a
common problem may be that it combines at least two essential functions:
providing quite specific information about courses and requirements, and
giving general advice about students' intellectual interests and career
alternatives. Often neither the advisor nor the advisee is quite certain
how to strike a proper balance between technical advice and mentoring.
In this regard, it is useful to contrast students' unsatisfactory
relationship with their advisors with their much more satisfying
experiences at the UAC. We suspect that the difference is not only that
the professionals at the UAC know the answers, but also that the
students who go there know the kind of questions they want to ask. In
many advisor-advisee relationships there is no comparable symmetry
between the advice the advisor is willing and able to give and the
advice the advisee wants to receive. Faculty members should make clear
to students how they define their role as advisors. Students should be
encouraged to take the initiative in seeking advice, and if their
relationship with their advisor is unsatisfactory, they should be free
to change.

Second, we recommend that the UAC be given additional resources so that
it can become a more active element in the advising relationship.
Advisors should be better aware of the services the UAC can perform;
advisees should know what is available there. Whenever appropriate, the
UAC should provide technical advice so that faculty members can
concentrate on discussing students' long-range goals and educational
values.

Third, we recommend that the system of peer advising be strengthened.
The head advising associates and the advising associates who work with
general advisors are an essential part of the system. We recommend that
the head associates be given monetary compensation and that they be more
fully integrated into residences that house first-year students. The UAC
and the Office of Residential Education should examine the feasibility
of having all advising associates live in first-year dorms. During the
year, all the peer advisors should participate in workshops taught by
the UAC staff with the assistance of experienced faculty advisors.

Fourth, we recommend that more vigorous steps be taken to improve the
advising available to sophomores, who too often become unattached from
their general advisors and drift until they become moored to a major.
Many second-year students need advice on selecting a major. This is also
a time when a mentoring relationship with the faculty would be of
particular value. The summer Sophomore College, which we discussed
earlier, would encourage this sort of relationship.

Fifth, we recommend that more faculty be encouraged to serve as
advisors. The president, provost, and deans must make clear that
advising is a valued part of the faculty's teaching obligation. We will
discuss later how advising can be given a more prominent role in the
university's reward structure.

Sixth, we recommend that the university create a broad range of
opportunities for first- and second-year students to work closely with
faculty members.

The university should develop spring quarter tutorials and seminars-
small group courses modeled on the successful Sophomore Dialogues and
Peters Seminars-taught by faculty advisors and other faculty who wish to
offer courses for students at the end of their first year. These courses
should be taught in the residences (with student participants selected
from among the dorm residents) and should serve as introductions to a
topic of interest to the faculty or as introductions to a field or
discipline. Ideally, these courses would help students think about their
academic future at Stanford and encourage mentoring relationships
between students and professors. A variety of dorm settings (e.g., four-
class dorms, all-frosh dorms, and theme houses) should be selected as
possible sites for these freshman spring quarter tutorials and seminars.
Faculty who teach these courses should be compensated, depending on the
number of units, just as they are now compensated for teaching in the
sophomore programs.

More opportunities should be available for sophomores to explore
academic disciplines and interdisciplinary programs. The
institutionalization of the Sophomore Dialogues and Peters Seminars was
an important first step in providing more small group courses for
second-year students, but student demand for these courses continues to
outstretch supply.

We also recommend that every department and program offering
undergraduate degrees develop, as a core part of its curriculum,
introductory courses to assist sophomores in selecting a major. These
courses could be a series of faculty presentations on their teaching and
research interests (for one or two units); or they could be directed
readings for small groups of students to discuss a discipline's methods
and distinctive problems; or they could be introductory lecture courses
that give an overview of the discipline. In some cases, faculty from
clusters of departments might collaborate to develop courses providing
an introduction to the social sciences or an introduction to the
humanities. A few good examples of such courses have been developed by
certain departments and schools (e.g., Engineering 1 and 6), but a real
need exists for all departments and programs to help sophomores find a
major and a faculty advisor. University funds should be made available
to develop such courses.

Seventh, we recommend that one or two residences be selected for a pilot
program in which resident fellows could appoint a team of "dorm faculty
mentors," who will develop intellectual connections with dorm residents
through discussions, formal dorm-based courses, or other activities.
This program would resemble the "college system," but on a much smaller
scale. Its goal would be to increase the opportunities to have
intellectual exchanges and develop mentoring relationships with
interested faculty. Such programs would be particularly appropriate for
the academic theme houses and focus houses.

In conclusion, we want to emphasize that advising is inseparable from
the university's other attempts to communicate its goals and values.
This process should begin with students' first contact with Stanford and
continue throughout their undergraduate career. We urge that those
responsible for undergraduate education examine the material sent to
prospective and incoming students, starting with the pamphlet, Stanford
Preview, that is sent to potential applicants. All of this material
should not only provide information but should convey the institution's
expectations and aspirations. During the summer before their first year,
students must be sent a copy of Courses and Degrees and a tentative time
schedule so that they can begin their academic planning as early as
possible.



-----------------------------------------------------
12.  THE ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT:  RESIDENTIAL EDUCATION
-----------------------------------------------------

A large majority of Stanford undergraduates live in the university's 75
residences. First-year students are all assigned university housing.
Thereafter, students choose their housing through a lottery system or
can request special housing priority. At present there are 9 all-frosh
houses, 22 four-class houses, and 44 upper-class houses. They range in
size from 25 to 300 students; some are large residence halls, but there
are also student-managed houses, cooperatives, and apartments. Slightly
more than half of the living groups have faculty or staff resident
fellows; all have a student staff, which can include resident
assistants, theme associates, residence computer consultants, residence
tutors, and advising associates.

Five residences are organized as "academic theme houses," in which the
programs revolve around an academic subject (e.g., American Studies or
Haus Mitteleuropa). Half of the residents draw into these dorms by
requesting priority status in the housing lottery. In addition to the
theme houses, there are six "focus houses," whose programs emphasize a
particular interest (e.g., community service). One-third of their
residents can request priority status in the draw. Finally, there are
four ethnic theme houses, whose programs are associated with the culture
of an American ethnic minority. No more than half of the spaces in these
ethnic houses are reserved for members of the relevant ethnic group.

According to a mission statement issued in August 1991, "the essential
conviction behind the Stanford residence program is that formal
teaching, informal learning, and personal support in residences are
integral to a Stanford education. Residential Education programs extend
the classroom into the residences and complement the academic curriculum
with activities and experiences essential to students' preparation for a
life of leadership, intellectual engagement, citizenship and service."

The Commission did not set out to examine all of the many different
facets of residential life at Stanford. In the light of our particular
mission, we decided to concentrate on those aspects that were directly
related to undergraduates' academic and intellectual experiences.
Together with advising, this became the main task of the Subcommittee on
the Academic Environment.

The subcommittee gathered a great deal of information about residential
education. It reviewed materials provided by Acting Director Ann Porteus
and her staff, developed questions for the residential education survey
distributed to students in January 1994, conducted two focus groups in
student dorms, and met with resident fellows, resident assistants, and
the ResEd staff. In addition, the Commission worked closely with the
Committee on Undergraduate Studies' Subcommittee on Residential
Education and Advising, chaired by Professor Jeremy Cohen, which met
during the spring to examine the program's objectives and organizational
structure.

We found that most undergraduates value the role of residential
education in their Stanford experience. In the most recent Senior
Survey, over two-thirds of the participants said that living in the
residences had positively affected their "personal growth." And in reply
to our questions in the residential education survey, the residents of
all but two dorms agreed that the program provided intellectual
stimulation. Opinion was more divided as to whether ResEd helped the
advising program or encouraged leadership, as well as to whether it met
the objective of "promoting a pluralistic community." According to the
Commission's Student Advisory Group, the most successful part of
residential education is the staff system of resident fellows and
resident assistants.

Our investigations convinced us that residential education is an
essential part of undergraduate life at Stanford. A dedicated
professional staff, a remarkable cadre of resident fellows, and a large
group of student leaders work hard to make this program a success. We
especially admire the variety of living opportunities Stanford offers
and urge that all of them be retained. Our recommendations are designed
to strengthen, not replace, the existing system.

First, we recommend that those responsible for residential education do
a better job communicating its goals and values to both faculty and
students. Our Student Advisory Group pointed out that few students were
aware of ResEd's mission. "This ignorance has led to the negative image
of an imposed system that ResEd has acquired among a significant portion
of students." Professor Cohen's subcommittee also found "a gulf between
general perceptions from outside . . . and the actual goals and
practices of Residential Education."

Second, we recommend that the residential education staff regularly
reevaluate how its programs and activities fit into the broader context
of formal classroom instruction and advising. As we have recommended
elsewhere, dorm-based courses can help develop valuable mentoring
relations between students and faculty. The residential education staff,
however, should keep in mind the Student Advisory Group's useful point
that while "intellectual programming . . . maintains academic
characteristics, it exists in creative independence allowing different
possibilities for interaction and learning than lecture-based classroom
academics."

Furthermore, the ResEd staff must redouble their efforts to ensure that
their programs provide balanced perspectives in order to expose students
to a diversity of views about a wide range of subjects.

Third, we recommend that the three types of theme houses be maintained
and that the guidelines distinguishing among them be clarified. We also
recommend that greater oversight be exercised over the theme houses and
that a review mechanism be established.

Fourth, we recommend that the Committee on Undergraduate Studies'
Subcommittee on Residential Education and Advising, which was
reactivated this January, remain a active source of policy-making and
oversight. As we will argue later, we believe that the academic side of
residential education should be part of the portfolio of a vice provost
for undergraduate education.



-------------------------------------------------------
13.  FACULTY RESPONSIBILITY, ASSESSMENT, AND GOVERNANCE
-------------------------------------------------------

"The fox knows many things," says a fragment of the Greek poet
Archilochus, "but the hedgehog knows one big thing." Thus far, our
report has been like the fox; we have looked at many different aspects
of Stanford's undergraduate education and have made many suggestions for
improvement. In this section, we change from fox to hedgehog, from the
pursuit of many things to the statement of one big thing. And that big
thing is this: In order to survive and flourish as an institution,
Stanford must renew and reaffirm its dual commitment to excellence in
both research and teaching. This section considers the implications of
this dual commitment for faculty recruitment and compensation, the
evaluation of courses and programs, and the governance structure of the
university.


--FACULTY RESPONSIBILITY
In the three schools with undergraduate programs, the overwhelming
majority of the faculty does some undergraduate teaching. In Humanities
and Sciences, for example, 95 percent of faculty taught undergraduates
in 1992-93; 70 percent of the school's enrollments were in classes
taught by a member of the Academic Council. At the same time, the number
of courses taught, size of enrollments, number of students doing
directed readings or individual research, participants in general and
major advising-in other words, all measures of faculty participation in
undergraduate education-vary greatly from department to department and,
we suspect, even more dramatically within departments. Of course such
data are often crude and sometimes misleading; the quantity and quality
of an individual's contributions to the university are notoriously
difficult to measure. Nevertheless, it is clear to us that teaching
responsibilities at Stanford are very unevenly distributed. Indeed,
recent arrivals from other institutions are sometimes struck by the
comparative ease with which individuals can decide how much, or even
whether, they wish to be involved with undergraduates. As one recently
appointed senior faculty member wrote to us, "I have noticed since
coming here the most enormous disparity between the amounts that my
different colleagues contribute to the university and its students."

This disparity should not be tolerated. If we are to fulfill our
commitment to excellence in teaching and research, individuals cannot be
allowed to opt out of their teaching responsibilities. Teaching can and
should involve many different kinds of activities, including classroom
work and advising, teaching large introductory courses, and directing
individual research. Most of us will not do all of these things equally
well, but all of us should be expected to contribute to the university's
teaching mission-and in those parts of the university where
undergraduates are taught, "teaching" must include teaching
undergraduates.

We realize that there will always be members of the faculty who do not
meet this norm; for a variety of reasons, some will be unwilling or
unable to teach effectively, just as some will be unwilling or unable to
do research. At present, however, the consequences of not doing research
are frequently quite different from the consequences of inadequate
teaching; a poor research record usually has a direct effect on a
faculty member's salary and status, while poor teaching may not have any
adverse consequences at all. We believe this is wrong. Because Stanford
cannot afford to have "free riders" in either research or teaching, a
commitment to both must be built into the structure of faculty
selection, promotion, and compensation throughout the university.

In order to make this dual commitment an integral part of our
institutional life, we recommend the following.

First, Stanford must ensure that there are incentives and rewards
through which faculty members can be compensated for their sustained
commitment to undergraduate education. At present, we reward outstanding
teaching with special prizes. Other incentives and rewards (especially
levels of compensation) are usually based on research performance. Some
benefits (sabbatical leave, for example) are entitlements given to all
faculty. We recommend that this system be changed to put more emphasis
on teaching performance. For example, a certain percentage, say one-
third, of an individual's annual salary raise should depend on teaching
performance. Similarly, research funds should be used to compensate
those who serve as advisors, direct undergraduate research, and perform
a variety of other forms of "hidden teaching." Sabbatical credits should
be increased for those who contribute an unusual amount of service to
the university's teaching mission-an absolutely symmetrical exchange, in
which faculty members are compensated in kind for contributing time,
that most valuable and nonrenewable human resource.

These rewards and incentives will not revolutionize the way resources at
Stanford are distributed. But they will represent concrete expressions
of the university's commitment to undergraduate education. As such, they
will contribute to that change in institutional culture that is
essential to sustaining teaching excellence.

Second, teaching effectiveness as well as research productivity should
always be a central part of the selection, promotion, and review of
faculty members. Compelling evidence of teaching effectiveness must be
present in all hiring decisions. Moreover, the teaching responsibility
of new faculty members must be clearly defined and mutually agreed upon
at the time of appointment. Teaching must play a role in the annual
discussion of salary. And, perhaps most important of all, no one should
be given tenure who cannot contribute to the university's teaching
mission. Finally, teaching effectiveness must also be taken into account
when a faculty member receives an offer from another institution. In
sum, research alone should not be the only measure of a faculty member's
value to Stanford.

Although we believe that the professoriate must take full responsibility
for teaching undergraduates, we are also convinced that lecturers play
an essential role at Stanford. This role is of particular importance in
the small group settings where first- and second-year students acquire
the foundational skills upon which their education will be built. In our
investigation of Writing and Critical Thinking, language training, and
CIV, we have been impressed by the effectiveness of the university's
lecturers. In both writing and language programs, they provide the core
of professional expertise upon which the entire enterprise depends; and
those aspects of CIV most worth preserving are unimaginable without the
program's dedicated group of young teachers. We are very skeptical about
the alleged budgetary gains and pedagogical advantages that would come
from de-emphasizing the role of lecturers. Indeed, we are persuaded that
they provide a cost-effective teaching resource that should be sustained
and encouraged.


--ASSESSMENT
Most faculty members at Stanford are part of complex evaluative systems.
We are accustomed to having our research judged by funding agencies,
referees for scholarly journals, book reviewers, and many others. But in
comparison to the elaborate mechanisms that exist for evaluating
research, the methods of evaluating teaching are uneven and imprecise.
They rarely provide the kind of evidence necessary for either
institutional decision-making or individual self-improvement. All of our
previous recommendations about rewards and incentives for teaching,
therefore, depend on developing a more accurate, discriminating system
of evaluation.

Because student opinions are an important part of any system of
evaluation, it is essential that we have better means of sampling these
opinions than the current course evaluation forms. We recommend,
therefore, that the Committee on Academic Appraisal and Achievement,
working with its Subcommittee on the Evaluation and the Improvement of
Teaching, produce an improved form as quickly as possible. In this
regard, it is worth noting that the form currently used by the School of
Engineering is superior to those in Humanities and Sciences and Earth
Sciences. In Engineering, teaching evaluations are published and thus
can serve as guides for students selecting courses. This seems to us a
worthwhile kind of consumer protection.

It is essential that we be able to evaluate the quality as well as the
popularity of an individual's teaching. Although research on the subject
suggests that students are astute and discriminating judges of teaching,
it may be true that excellent teaching is not always immediately
recognized and that popular teaching does not always have the greatest
long-term impact. Teaching evaluations should include, therefore, a
summary of a course's contents and objectives, a statement on the way
teaching assistants are supervised, and similar forms of explanation and
self-evaluation. As we have repeatedly noted, teaching is not only a
matter of particular courses; accordingly, work in small groups, the
direction of honors projects, various kinds of advising, and other
informal modes of teaching should also be evaluated. Some form of peer
evaluation of teaching, comparable to what is taken for granted in
research, should be employed. We are pleased to note, therefore, that
four Stanford departments are participating in a national project on
peer evaluation, organized by the American Association of Higher
Education and led by Professor Lee Shulman. Their efforts, together with
procedures now being used by the Graduate School of Business and some
other departments, can be models for new evaluation procedures.

Teaching evaluation is not only important for institutional decision-
making, but also a valuable source of self-improvement. Therefore,
faculty members should be encouraged to use a variety of evaluative
means in order to increase their teaching effectiveness. We especially
recommend the services of the Center for Teaching and Learning. Indeed,
it is our hope that the center will become a more central part of
Stanford's life so that a larger number of faculty members can take
advantage of its resources.

The university must also develop more effective ways of assessing its
programs. Here again we are struck by the contrast between teaching and
research: Whereas we can measure the success of our research mission in
a number of ways-volume of research support, number of fellowships and
awards, faculty membership in national societies-our ability to assess
teaching is much more limited. In addition to the course evaluation
forms, we have the surveys sent to graduating seniors and a few other ad
hoc evaluations. We need to know a great deal more about how well we are
fulfilling our educational objectives; above all, we need to know not
simply what is being taught, but also what our students are learning.
The most important purpose of acquiring this information-and the
principle governing its collection-must be the improvement of teaching
and learning.

The need for assessment has been a recurrent theme in our report. In our
discussion of Writing and Critical Thinking, we recommended that the
effectiveness of writing instruction be regularly assessed. Similarly,
one of our proposals for strengthening language instruction was to
measure the proficiency of a sample of those who fulfilled their
requirement with a year of instruction at Stanford.

We recommended that the CIV program use focus groups in order to monitor
and improve the coherence and consistency of its component tracks. And
finally, we recommended that the curricula of departments, like those of
interdisciplinary programs, be evaluated at regular intervals.

In addition to these specialized modes of evaluation, we recommend that
Stanford begin a program of assessment comparable to the Harvard
Assessment Seminars organized by Richard J. Light. (For a description of
these seminars and a summary of their findings, see Richard J.Light, The
Harvard Assessment Seminars (Cambridge, Mass., 1990 and 1992)).  These
seminars involve faculty, students, and alumni in a series of studies of
education. They use interviews, focus groups, and surveys. Their purpose
is to gather information that can be used to improve the quality of
courses and programs. At Stanford, such a program should begin modestly,
with a faculty director and a few participants, whose selection and
composition might resemble those of the current university fellows.
Their first task would be to define a set of issues to be explored and
to begin the process of data collection. They should report the results
of their efforts to the university.

At the beginning of our report, we defined the work of the university as
the search for knowledge. Among the things we should know are how well
we teach, how well our students learn, and how we can improve both
teaching and learning.


--GOVERNANCE
Our final set of recommendations confronts a persistent problem at all
research universities: How should the interests of undergraduate
education be represented in the administrative structure? Stanford's
efforts to answer this question underscore its difficulty. In 1968, The
Study of Education at Stanford recommended the creation of a dean of
undergraduate studies; this position was then converted into a vice
provost for undergraduate studies, whose responsibilities were
eventually transferred to an associate dean of the School of Humanities
and Sciences. These various offices have been occupied by some of our
most energetic and distinguished colleagues, who have made lasting
contributions to education at Stanford. But there is a widespread sense,
shared by many of the incumbents themselves, that the governance problem
has never been solved.

As our predecessors did in The Study of Education at Stanford, we
recommend the creation of a position in the central administration that
is responsible for undergraduate education. It seems to us appropriate
that this position be in the office of the provost, the chief academic
officer of the university. We are attracted by the idea of having a vice
provost for undergraduate education that would parallel the vice provost
for research and graduate affairs and thus underscore our dual
commitment to undergraduate teaching and research. Moreover, we are
convinced that many of the problems of undergraduate education-advising
and residential education are obvious examples-are best addressed at the
provostial level because they transcend school boundaries. To locate
responsibility for undergraduate education in Humanities and Sciences
tends to marginalize the other two schools that teach undergraduates,
and also to inhibit the development of cooperative ventures with the
professional schools.

We recognize that this office must have the authority and resources
necessary to effect change. We recommend, therefore, that the vice
provost for undergraduate education be given the following
responsibilities:

First, to monitor the system of incentives and rewards directly related
to teaching, to approve decisions on promotions and hiring, to
participate in salary setting, and to be involved in negotiations
concerning offers to Stanford faculty from other institutions;

Second, to play a leading role in the assessment of teaching and
learning at Stanford, to supervise programs required of all
undergraduates (Writing and Critical Thinking, language, the breadth
requirements, and CIV), and to participate in the regular evaluations of
programs and departments;

Third, to assume responsibility for the Center for Teaching and
Learning, the Haas Center for Public Service, the Undergraduate Advising
Center, the Office of Undergraduate Research Opportunities, and the
educational functions of residential education; these critically
important aspects of undergraduate education should be firmly tied to
the academic structure of the university;

Fourth, to take the initiative in implementing the various
recommendations of the Commission on Undergraduate Education, including
strengthening the writing and language requirements, developing a new
science course, redefining CIV, creating new mechanisms for curricular
evaluation, monitoring reforms in academic bookkeeping, participating in
discussion of the pedagogical uses of technology, working to improve the
advising system, clarifying the goals of residential education,
enhancing the role of teaching in faculty selection and compensation,
and gathering the information necessary for the continual assessment and
improvement of teaching and learning.

It is not an accident that Stanford, like every other research
university, has had such difficulty finding the best way to represent
undergraduates in its administrative structure. We do not claim that we
have found the perfect solution to this persistent problem; indeed we
are skeptical that a perfect solution exists. But we are firmly
convinced that there should be one person, strategically located at the
center of the university, who is responsible for undergraduate
education. Among the various alternatives, it seems to us that a vice
provost is the best person to carry out this responsibility.