The University of Hawai'i at Manoa
Academic Affairs Prioritization Committee
P. Bion Griffin
Roderick A. Jacobs (chair)
Sumner LaCroix (Faculty Senate)
Alan Yang (Student Affairs)
The AAPC submitted its report on the Manoa 102 (primarily research) units on October 17, 1997. Its charge from the then Vice-President for Academic Affairs, Dr. Carol Eastman, was to help develop a plan for the prioritization of programs and units at Manoa. At a joint meeting on February 6, 1998, AAPC members reported many serious flaws in the companion Vertical Cuts Committee draft on instructional units, including the faulty use and interpretation of quasi-statistical tables and many serious errors of fact and judgment arising from a lack of adequate knowledge of most of the areas examined. The AAPC, with Dr. Edward Laws' encouragement, took on the task of revising and editing the VCC report on instructional units. The AAPC found the VCC report unacceptably flawed and therefore undertook the task of rewriting it completely. We regret that the VCC as of this date still stands by its January draft, except for minor revisions and a few additions.
The AAPC was not charged to recommend cuts in university programs, nor to advise on revamping the whole university. Given the limited amount of current data available to us, either would have been both irresponsible and presumptuous. It is, of course, the responsibility of the university administration and the Board of Regents to decide where to cut, if cuts are necessary, after consultation on the appropriate areas with the Manoa Faculty Senate and, where required, with the University of Hawai'i Professional Association and other such units.
What we have done is point to a significant number of areas and units in the university that might be candidates for merging or reorganization. These should be looked at in more detail by the administration, which has far better access to the relevant data. We have also evaluated and in some cases rejected many of the more radical (and, we consider) poorly thought-through recommendations of the VCC's January report.
In the light of the six criteria described in the next section of this report, we recommend the following:
1) The University must define and implement more efficient and streamlined processes for collecting, organizing, updating and making accessible the data needed to assist it in measuring the quality and effectiveness of its units in the light of the best data available. This has not, unfortunately, been the case so far. We have not been successful in obtaining current information about a number of units we were charged to examine. The goals of the improved data procedures should be to aid internal oversight and to provide evidence to the people of Hawai'i of the value of the University to its graduates and the State.
2) The administration needs to re-open the question of whether this University can afford a School of Medicine. The School of Medicine has only 2.4% of UHM's total enrollment, yet it takes 14.39% of instructional expenditures at UHM. It thus places a very heavy burden on the university budget in relation both to the number of students it trains and the fact that there is no present lack of physicians in the state. Can we afford such a burden? If the answer is negative, then it might be necessary to eliminate the clinical units and incorporate certain non-clinical research and instructional units into the College of Natural Sciences. If affirmative, then it is clear that considerably more resources are needed for this unit.
3) After careful consideration of several alternatives and the VCC's arguments, we strongly recommend that the present decentralized four-college organization of the Colleges of Arts and Sciences be retained as the most academically effective and economical way of organizing those units without severely impacting their quality or faculty morale. Savings from a regression to a huge, slow-moving, single unit structure are illusory while the result of such a regression would inevitably be crucial subject-area decision-making by administrators unfamiliar with the relevant disciplines and faculty. Decisions as to resource allocation should be close to where the resources are encumbered. This will help ensure that they are spent wisely; there are significant benefits to be gained from more direct contact between faculty and their dean. Any reconfiguration or consolidation en the scale envisaged for merging again the four colleges should be subject to a faculty vote, as it was when the four colleges were formed.
4) The university administration and the College of Education should consider concentrating what resources are available in two areas: (i) the training of K-12 teachers, including teachers and counselors for students with special needs, and administrators, and (ii) the Hawai'i State Department of Education's research and evaluation needs. One possible structure would reorganize the College to comprise the following academic areas:
(1) Teacher Education and Educational Administration, K-6;
(2) Teacher Education and Educational Administration, 7-12;
(3) Research and Evaluation.
The administration should consider the desirability or not of merging the Curriculum Research and Development Group (CRDG), and possibly the Laboratory School unit contained in it, into the College of Education. The issue is one of similarities and differences in mission. The CRDG should, in any case, increase revenues by marketing their curricular materials more aggressively.
The Laboratory School affords its students the equivalent of a private school education, yet minimal fees are charged to those fortunate parents whose children who have been admitted. Given the worsening financial scenario, we recommend a tiered fee based on family income similar to the financial aid program available to undergraduates at Manoa.
It must be emphasized, here as elsewhere, that such reorganization must be based on a more comprehensive collection and analysis of current data. We were unable to obtain from the budget office data that we needed for a firmly based analysis.
4) The proposal to establish a huge School of Integrated Life Sciences made up of units from the College of Natural Sciences, the School of Medicine, the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, the Pacific Biomedical Research Center, the Cancer Research Center of Hawai'i, the Lyon Arboretum, and the Waikiki Aquarium is an impractical fantasy, given the present budgetary situation and likely budgetary situations in the near future. Two such mega-units in the nation, Mayo and Scripps, are organized this way, but they rely en a very large endowment or trust to support the centers. In both cases several hundred million dollars are used as seed monies. In the present state of Hawai'i's economy, there is no prospect of such huge amounts being made available.
5) The School of Hawaiian, Asian, Pacific Studies should be studied with a view to possible downsizing. At present it appears to be seriously overstaffed. In a leaner, more efficient form, it could function as a facilitator for program development by faculty throughout the university. There is no need to bulk it out further by shifting departments from the colleges and certainly not by ripping out selected faculty from their disciplinary departments. The degree programs could be wedded to discipline degrees, or a streamlined B.A. and M.A. operation managed with far fewer SHAPS personnel. This, however, is a longer term recommendation, not an immediate money-saver in the short term. We must be wary of an over-hasty modification of SHAPS, which could diminish the few productive units therein.
6) The following additional colleges and schools should be examined for consolidation and internal reorganization, with the goals of minimizing administrative overhead and refocusing the schools on their missions: the School of Architecture, the College of Business Administration, and the School of Travel Industry Management.
8) The proposals by the VCC to restructure the entire campus by creating two monster units, a giant School of Life Sciences and an equally enlarged SHAPS are misguided both budgetarily and academically. Mammoth units are not necessarily more effective in terms of costs or more likely to achieve educational distinction. Their very size makes for unwieldiness. Moreover the damage inflicted on the remainder of the campus would be serious indeed.
9) The proposal presently before the Manoa Faculty Senate to merge the Summer School and the College of Continuing Education is a sound one. We are not in favor of any plan to close down these two successful units and have individual colleges and programs nm the courses and organize the publicity and recruiting. It is questionable whether colleges and departments would want the additional administrative burden. It is important, however, that the merged unit be self-supporting, that it not draw upon G funds.
The body of our report contains more detailed recommendations as to how we can maintain and improve quality at a first-class research university even in times of fiscal crisis, by selective reorganizing taking care not to damage what is good about the University, without harming the institution's very fabric. Reorganization, planning, personnel, and reallocation of existing resources should not require centralization and the creation of an ever more hierarchical administrative structure, with the higher levels ever more distant from the students and teachers who form the true core of any good university. Greater autonomy and corresponding accountability are important for efficient functioning, with the crucial educational decisions being made by those best equipped to make them, within the limits set by the resources available to the University.
Between June and September 1997, two sets of Manoa faculty were asked, at different times, by the administration to form committees to advise as to how to prepare the Manoa campus for anticipated major budgetary cuts. We believe that at some time in June 1997, a committee was formed, restricted to researchers rather than instructional faculty, and consisting only of individuals in certain of the natural sciences, primarily the life sciences. This committee, known as the Vertical Cuts Committee (VCC), was asked by the then Senior Vice-President for Academic Affairs "to identify lower priority units and programs for possible reduction, merger and consolidation, transfers from state general fund support, and closure as strategies for meeting the goals of the strategic plan" (Manoa draft, covered by memo of Senior Vice President Carol Eastman, June 30, 1997). The VCC was asked to examine instructional units, i.e., those administered by Dr. Eastman, rather than research units administered by the Senior VP for Research and Graduate Education. This committee issued a first draft report in January 1998.
Somewhat later, a number of us, instructional faculty plus an APT and the Dean of Students, were asked in a memorandum from Dr. Eastman, received at the beginning of August 1997, to form an Academic Affairs Prioritization Committee (AAPC), initially to examine units under the Senior VP for Research and Graduate Education. Because so many of us were off-campus and off-duty at that time, we were unable to meet until the first week in September. We were to help develop a plan for the prioritization of programs and units at Manoa and we were given approximately four weeks to prepare our report.
As we noted in our October 17, 1997 report on research units, we found ourselves unable within the four weeks we were given to obtain adequate and reasonably current data concerning most of the units within our charge. Rather than manipulate questionable data from external sources, we submitted a report identifying areas and issues requiring further investigation and consideration plus some tentative findings concerning certain of the units. We were not aware that the other committee, the VCC, were able to continue working on their report until they presented a bulky initial draft at our first joint meeting on January 29, 1998. We understand that this strictly confidential report-or material from it had been provided to members of the higher administration and later found that numbers of faculty around campus were already familiar with some of the draft's content. AAPC members, who had not seen the draft before, noted a number of errors, some serious, some trivial due to fairly obvious misunderstandings and an understandable lack of familiarity with both undergraduate instruction and most of the instructional areas examined.
At a second joint meeting on February 6, AAPC members reported many much more serious errors and problems with the VCC draft. The AAPC, with Dr. Laws' encouragement, took on the task of revising and editing the VCC report on instructional units, while the VCC itself was to revise and expand on the APC's report and to examine CTAHR. There would then be another joint meeting to "reconcile" the reports, presumably into a single document.
In fact, unknown to us, the VCC was supplied with the AAPC's spring 1998 progress reports and drafts on instructional units as it re-examined its own flawed report on instructional units. The AAPC, unsupplied with any progress reports or drafts from the other committee, continued working on the same area. In February, Academic Vice-President Smith mistakenly told the Manoa Faculty Congress that the "Reconciliation Committees" had met to work out their final conclusions and recommendations. On hearing rumors AAPC chair requested such a meeting and was later informed that the VCC was unenthusiastic about meeting with us.
We have included as Appendix 1 to this report an analysis of the problem-ridden January VCC report, along with additional appendices examining just some of the programs condemned by the VCC on the basis of poorly understood data and dubious handling of numbers and the values they represented. It should be understood that the units examined were chosen on the basis of the expertise of committee members affiliated with those programs and hence able to provide the necessary data soon enough for the timely production of this report.
The AAPC has understood its role as one of providing input and advice on prioritization to the University administration as it considers how, in the context of a severely constrained state budget, the University can be maintained and even strengthened. In the past few years, the University has been assigned a steadily shrinking budget which has not only required frequent program restrictions and cuts, but also fairly steep increases in tuition. These increases have led to reduced enrollments in many cases, thereby frustrating the important goal of improving access for the state's youth.
One problem with past steps to implement the required cutbacks is that the perspective has been too short-term. Each successive year has thus required a new set of cuts, many of them across the board. It would hardly be surprising then if such arbitrary across the board cuts, with the freezing of positions, did not lead to a serious weakening of the state's only public university. Another sizable more or less across-the-board cut could leave us with a campus full of crippled units.
What we consider is needed is a longer-term perspective in which we all consider areas which could yield significant and longterm savings without undermining the mission of the University. Freezing vacant positions can be dangerous to quality unless the units in which they occur have been carefully examined and the total savings are significant. Eliminating the odd doctoral program may seem to highlight our determination to be lean, but the savings may, as the sample cases in our appendices illustrate, be insignificant or even non-existent, while the damage done to those units and to their mission can be serious.
Clearly, if the university is to survive as a quality institution in these hard times, any cuts made must be vertical and purposeful, and they should relate to large-scale units rather than allow penny-pinching to undermine the level of all and devalue the university's degrees. Neither the AAPC nor the VCC has had adequate access to the rich body of data that we assume the administration possesses. Limited as the committee has been by lack of current data and the extremely short time deadlines for reaching our conclusions, we have, unfortunately, had to deal with many units for which current information is often unavailable or difficult of access. Certain areas were off-limits to us, for example the Athletics program, the higher administration, the ratio of cuts proposed for Manoa as compared to those proposed for the Community Colleges, etc. Current data regarding the School of Ocean and Earth Science Technology and the Institute for Astronomy were not made available, nor were we able to obtain through the Budget Office current data en the College of Education. Like the VCC, we have had to work with one hand tied behind our backs.
Although we have tried to apply as rigorously as we can the set of six criteria based on the University of Hawai'i at Manoa's Unit Strategic Plan, the November 1996 University of Hawai'i Strategic Plan; the University of Hawai'i November 1996 Mission statement, and VP AA Carol Eastman's memoranda, we cannot honestly, on the basis of the data at our disposal, do more than point to areas that need further, more informed, examination.. We will not therefore presume to recommend areas for instant cutting.
Since the majority of our members, but not all, work in one or other of the Colleges of Arts and Sciences, we are obviously vulnerable to the charge that we are protecting our kuleana. Similar charges could be levied against the VCC, of course, since they are all in the biosciences or ocean sciences, have recommended not only that significant resources be cut from other areas, but that a portion of the resources cut be moved to units to which they themselves belong, and have advocated more off-scale hiring and merit raises for their fields, along with bonuses "to help advance quality" January Draft Report, p.71). Both committees have worked earnestly, collecting data, revising and re-revising their write-ups so as to best advance their conception of what our university should look like. A totally unbiased report could only be made by true outsiders, if these indeed exist, and it would inevitably suffer fatally from ignorance of the domains under review.
The varied academic units of this University cannot be considered in isolation. Adhering as far as possible in the light of the data made available to us to the criteria of centrality, comparative advantage, demand, cost, effectiveness, and quality, we have examined Manoa's programs and made recommendations based on an integrated view of the instructional, research, and service missions of the University. The six criteria are broadly defined as follows:
Although we are well aware that there are complex political considerations involved, we recommend that the whole question of whether this University can afford a School of Medicine be re-examined. If the answer is negative, then it would be necessary to eliminate the clinical units and incorporate certain non-clinical research and instructional units into the College of Natural Sciences, which has need of the highly qualified faculty working in them. As Interim School of Medicine Dean S.L. Hammar pointed out in a July 21, 1997 memorandum to Dr. Carol Eastman, vertical cuts within the School are not a realistic possibility as a cost-saving mechanism because of LCME accreditation requirements. In the light of the criteria we must apply, it seems clear that the School is presently a major burden on the University budget despite the funds it brings in from other sources. To keep it going at an acceptable level of quality means that sizable additional resources must be found and the quality of other programs across the University, programs that seem more central to the University's mission and the needs of Hawai'i 's students, must be sacrificed.
1. CENTRALITY to the University's Class I Carnegie Research University status
The University of Hawai'i at Manoa is a Class I Carnegie Research University, as defined by its range of baccalaureate programs, a commitment to graduate education through the doctorate, and the high priority given to research. We consider central those programs that are necessary to maintain this status as a Class I Carnegie Research University. With respect to centrality, it is, of course, clear that medicine is not crucial to our status as a Class I institution.
2. COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE with respect to the Hawai'i location
In certain areas, most notably research in tropical medicine, the School should have a comparative advantage over most mainland medical schools, though there are other institutions carrying out such research. We would assume that, whatever is decided about the School of Medicine, such research, whether carried on in the College of Natural Sciences or in specialized organizations such as the Cancer Research Institute can continue to function.
3. DEMAND for university products, i.e., graduates, services, and expertise
In their report to the President, Medical Education at the University of Hawai'i, (Chapman, Fein, Morison and McDermott, p.ll), which was written to advise the president as to the desirability of extending the then-two-year program into a four-year medical school, the authors point out:
It may be noted in passing that the argument for extending the medical school cannot be primarily based (as it is in most other states) on any serious existing shortage of health personnel. The ratio of physicians to potential patients on the island of O'ahu is approximately 1 to 700, a figure which is reached on the mainland in only the important medical centers. Although the ratios are less favorable on some of the adjacent islands, they compare favorably with those exhibited by rural areas on the mainland. Furthermore, the generally healthy condition of the population suggests that most demands are being reasonably well met. [A footnote reports that 'infant mortality, generally considered to be a valuable indicator of community health status, is consistently low.']
It should be clear then that justification for continuing to support so extensively from G funds a very expensive medical school at this university cannot be based on any purported shortage of physicians in this state. The hospitals in this state obtain hospital residents from the school, it is true, but approximately two-thirds of their residents are drawn from out-of-state and it seems unlikely that it would be difficult for them to return to their earlier practice of drawing wholly on other institutions.
As for local students who may desire a medical education, it would be considerably less expensive for the State to send them to better equipped institutions elsewhere. In fact, the Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education (WICHE), with which we are affiliated, enables states to send students to programs at other universities affiliated with WICHE, provided ill similar program is offered in the sending state. Thus local students wanting to study veterinary medicine can go to the , University of Colorado, while students from that institution can come to the Asian Studies program at UH. We should be able to do the same for would-be medical students.
Currently, JABSOM administers and staffs the medical residency program in Hawai'i's hospitals. If JABSOM is closed, it is alleged that the medical residency program would end and the cost of medical care in Hawai'i would increase. This implies, however, that JABSOM is subsidizing the cost of care at Hawai'i's hospitals. Since residents provide lower-cost care than fully certified doctors, Hawai'i's hospitals have incentives to ensure that the medical residency program continues to operate. Currently, two-thirds of the residents in Hawai'i's hospitals are from mainland medical schools. It is not unreasonable to expect that residents from Hawai'i (who attended mainland schools) would be able to fill the resulting gap.
Another problem is that JABSOM faculty now supervise hospital residents. It may,however, be possible that this oversight could be provided by a consortium of doctors from Hawai'i's hospitals.
4. COST: the highest valued opportunity foregone for a program's accomplishments. The cost to the State of Hawaii of a UHM program consists of the general funds expended for the program.
a. Expenditures and Enrollment at UHM School of Medicine
The 1995 accreditation report concluded that State of Hawai'i support for the UHM School of Medicine is more than twice the national average for public medical schools. The UHM school receives more than 50% of its budget from state funds, while the typical medical school receives only 15% (1995 Liaison Committee on Medical Education Accreditation Report, p. 36). Although not all departments, divisions and programs within the School are funded from G funds, the School still places a far too heavy burden on the university budget in relation to the number of students it trains. Its 1996-97 expenditures from G-funds were $15.765 million without fringe benefits and $18.72 million with fringe benefits. The School enrolls 409 students, only 2.4% of UHM's total enrollment, yet it takes 14.39% of instructional expenditures at UHM. In 199697, the UHM Medical School had 125.45 FTE for its 409 students, much of it fractionated into .10-.20 FTEs which serve as salary supplements to medical professionals already earning sizable salaries from external employment.
b. Could Tuition Cover Instructional Expenditures?
Current tuition receipts at the UHM School of Medicine amount to approximately $5 million. In lieu of retrenching the school, the administration might consider moving to make it self-supporting. The administration has already adopted this strategy with respect to the UHM Law School where tuition is being increased over a number of years to levels requiring no G Funds from the University. But to make the UHM School of Medicine self supporting, there would have to be (1) significant increases in tuition (presently $10,692 residential $24,396 and nonresidential) and/or (2) significant increases in the proportion of out-of-state students. The proportion of students in the 1993~94 entering class from Hawai'i or the Pacific Basin was 96%. Average student debt, for those who graduated with debt was $29,048 in 1995 (when in-state tuition was just $5,710).
To support fully the UHM medical school from tuition payments would require average tuition to be $45,770 per year. Over the nation, the highest residential tuition at a public university's medical school in 1996 was the University of Missouri at $16,962. The highest nonresidential tuition was the University of Colorado at $51,669. If 300 residential students paid $41,000 annual tuition and 109 non~residential students paid $60,000 annual tuition, instructional costs would be fully covered by tuition. But it is highly unlikely that the UHM School of Medicine could attract high-quality students at these sky-high tuition rates.
5. Effectiveness: How well a program accomplishes its part of the UHM goals
Unfortunately, the committee was unable to locate objective data regarding effectiveness for the medical school. More generally, the lack of means to assess programs' effectiveness at this university was noted as a problem in the last WASC Accreditation report.
6. Quality: the excellence of the faculty and program, of the students they attract, and, to a lesser degree, the quality of the facilities available to it.
Quality is extremely hard to define in this context. As Allan M. Carter points out, "In an operational sense, quality is someone's subjective assessment, for there is no way of objectively measuring what is in essence an attribute of value." An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education, 1966. We can, however, note that the School is accredited, although a number of weaknesses were identified by the accreditation agency and these have not been remedied. The fact of their accreditation indicates at least minimal standards of. quality. Local students who are qualified and able and would have been admitted here should be able to enter reputable schools participating in the WICHE agreement.
In these times of severe financial stringency and the threat of cuts that would inflict major damage on a great many programs important to the State and to the majority of UH students, the disproportionately large expenditure of G-funds on such a small percentage of UHM's students seems difficult to justify. The Medical School's instructional programs (1) are not central to the University, and (2) do not fill critical needs in the State of Hawai'i. Moreover many of the School's science programs duplicate work offered in the College of Natural Sciences and serve only a very small number of students. Indeed, some faculty in the School, supported by instructional funds, are reported to h a v e gone over to research units where no teaching is required. Since there is a significant shortage of qualified instructors for courses in the College of Natural Sciences, it seems wrong to have diverted instructional funds to other uses. However, since we presently lack reliable data on this, we simply recommend that this matter be looked into. Given the fact that there is no present lack of physicians in the state and that providing truly adequate support for a quality medical school requires very considerably increased expenditures, we question whether the State is willing and able to provide major new resources.
We strongly recommend that the present decentralized four-college organization of the Colleges of Arts and Sciences be retained as the most effective and economical way of organizing these units without severely impacting their quality. The core of any university is the arts and sciences program. Professional schools are highly desirable components of a modem university but are less essential to the university's fundamental mission of "preparing a highly educated citizenry" for the State of Hawaii. Proposals to restructure UHM around a lower funding base should be constituted to preserve the arts and sciences core. Given the severe funding cuts that UHM arts and science programs have endured over the last 5 years, the UHM administration should look first to professional schools for programmatic cuts. Little is to be gained, however, by cutting professional schools that are becoming self-supporting.
Emphasis should be placed either on cutting professional programs that use large amounts of state general funds or on providing incentives for those programs to reorganize to become self-supporting (following the model of the UHM School of Law).
There are issues concerning the possible consolidation of programs within the individual A&S colleges. It has been suggested that the departments of Communication, Journalism, and Speech might be consolidated into a single unit. There are, however, questions of accreditation (for Journalism), and of significant disciplinary differences (among all three fields) that need to be further investigated. Similar proposals to merge Music, Dance, and perhaps Drama, seem less plausible, though they might merit more detailed consideration than we have been able to afford them. Our main focus here is on a widely circulated proposal to force the four colleges of Arts and Sciences into a giant single college. This, in our view, would be a retrograde step, threatening both educational values and, very significantly, faculty morale. The gains from the original splitting up of the old College of A&S have been major, both in terms of educational and administrative validity. A retreat to the unwieldy megacollege structure might seem to make sense to a vice-president preferring to talk to a single mega-dean rather than four deans representing the different clusters, but such a fusion would move vice-presidents yet further from the faculty and students they have to work with and be likely to add an additional level of decision-making. Any reconfiguration or consolidation on this scale should, in any case, be subject to a faculty vote. as it was when the four colleges were formed. We will now discuss the issues here in terms of the six criteria we have been using:
Centrality and Demand: Clearly there is no question as to the centrality of and demand for A&S. One in every three degrees and certificates offered at Manoa is offered by the A&S colleges. Of the 50 departments, 28 offer Ph.D.s and there is no shortage of applicants for such courses. The deans have complex programs to oversee. Within each A&S college, its dean is responsible for an average of 10 disciplines with sometimes very different intellectual and educational goals and sizable enrollments. Demand has grown. For each of the four colleges, the number of majors has increased significantly in the last 10 years. During the period 1987-97 the number of majors in the College of Social Sciences increased by 18.66%. Arts and Humanities increased by 21.99%, Natural Sciences by 66.47% and the College of Languages, Linguistics and Literature by 66.6%.
At least as important is the fact that the colleges of A&S are primarily responsible for the general education core for all undergraduates, for thousands of non-majors who may be in the colleges of Business Administration, Education, and so forth. According to the Fall 1997 Course Registration Report issued by the Institutional Research Office, there was a total of 68,672 student registrations for courses on the Manoa campus. Of these, 44,520, i.e., almost 65% of the student registration were in the four A&S colleges. Arts and Humanities had 11,293 of these, LLL 10,169, Natural Sciences 12,346, and Social Sciences 10,210. Compare this with SHAPS 2,067 and its own dean, the College of Business Administration with 4,169 and its own dean, the School of Architecture with 848 and its own dean, the School of Medicine 2,667 and its own dean, the College of Engineering 1,841 and its own dean, SOEST 1,294 and the College of Education 4,472, both with their own deans to work with their faculty. In the light of such figures it would be ludicrous to force four units, each with over 10,000, into a mega-college with a single mega-dean. The present decentralization ensures that the present four deans are relatively close to the teaching faculty and students, as a "mega-dean" with four assistants would not be.
Comparative Advantage: All four colleges, each of which easily exceeds the size of any of the professional schools, work individually and together to exploit the advantages of their geographical location as well as the special Asia/Pacific orientation of many of their faculty and programs. The College of Arts and Humanities is renowned for its work on Asian and Pacific drama and music, and has obtained an Asian theatre endowment of $2 million. Its history and philosophy departments provide unique perspectives on Hawai'i, the Pacific region, and Asia. The College has been working on a number of useful projects relevant to this region, e.g., endowing the historic. preservation program, working with the visitor industry and the culture and arts community throughout the state to integrate the arts and culture of the local people into the visitor industry in a positive way. One interesting project is the development of Asian theatre program suitable for the new Convention Center. Offering more Asian and Indo-Pacific languages than any other university in the nation, the College of Languages, Linguistics and Literature gives our university an edge over other comparable institutions in the areas of both teaching and research. In leading recent fund raising efforts, President Mortimer has clearly recognized that UH-Manoa programs in Indo-Pacific Languages, together with English as a Second Language and Astronomy and Marine Sciences, have world-class standing. LLL's many and strong language programs are central to the $1.3 million in grants that the college received in the 1997 fiscal year, many of those grants predicated on collaborative and comparative language research. In fact, all four colleges have been successful in raising grant money, most outstandingly the College of Natural Sciences, which brought in $10 million plus sizable amounts more which are, sometimes questionably, credited to research units rather than to the departments and college to which the faculty belong. The same is true of the College of Social Sciences, which brought in $1.5 million, and Arts & Humanities, which, despite the current paucity of support for the arts, still brought in a quarter million. Each of the four A&S colleges has departments whose instruction and research are strongly Asian & Pacific centered; to name only a few: Economics, Anthropology, ESL, Linguistics, Theater, History, Biology, Botany, and, perhaps surprising to some, English (a topic we return to in an appendix to this report).
Cost: The recommendation to collapse the four colleges into one is reportedly not budget-driven, but budgetary issues still must be considered. 1. Budgetary gains from collapsing the four large colleges into a super-large one are trivial, if not nonexistent, while the educational harm and damage to faculty morale could be very serious. There has been a surprisingly impractical proposal to merge the four colleges and reduce the size of the resulting megastructure by moving 8 programs and all Asian & Pacific-centered research and teaching out of A&S to SHAPS, eliminating or heavily retrenching 3 programs, and collapsing several others. Of course, the costs of such a major restructuring would be heavy; furthermore, A&S would still remain a massively large college requiring more than one dean to be effectively managed. It is not at all clear how all or even most Asian and Pacific-centered teaching and research could be ripped out of the many departments engaged in it. 2. When the ratio of 101 to 104 funds is assessed, the range for the A&S colleges is 0.02 to 0.04 while the range for the non-A&S units is 0.04 to 0.01. 3. At present the 104 budgets for the A&S colleges are a little short of 1.5 million:
These figures include the salaries of 4 deans, 1 full-time associate dean, 1 part-time associate dean, office staff, including fiscal & grant officers and student-help. In 1995-6 the ratios of total FTE total Administrative FTE for the four colleges were by far the best of the 33 units examined:
For comparison, that for SOEST was 9.4, for Engineering 7.6, and for SHAPS 4.2. So, administratively speaking, the four colleges are very efficient indeed.
How much would the budget amount to for a unified A&S office with one mega-dean, perhaps four associate deans, and a possibly reduced staff? It is not clear, however, how much of a reduction would be possible without severely lowering quality yet further. Even the most cursory look inside the deans' offices reveals that they are nm en a shoestring. Granting organizations do require a certain number of grant officers when they know an office is managing a large number of grants? What are the savings if we look at LLL, for instance? The associate dean would go from his present faculty ll-month salary to a 9month salary, and there would be an associate dean salary or a faculty salary rather than a dean salary. Is the saving considerable? We do not have figures for these projections but we would like to know what they are.
1. In the case of Arts & Sciences, the present decentralization serves both diversity and accountability in an exceptionally cost-efficient way. Specifically, the deans' close and specific knowledge of their departments promotes: excellence and development; constructive management of change; timely problem solving; effective communication of units' priorities to the higher administration and the rest of the university. [these are categories on which OFDAS is evaluating deans]
2. "The ratio of A&S deans' administrative FTE to College faculty/APT/CS/GA FTE ranges from 14.6 to 18.9, while in non-A&S units the range is 0.08 to 9.7." In terms of efficiency, this is impressive.
3. The four deans have been able to raise funds far more effectively from their decentralized positions than one "super" individual could.
4. In preparation for the 1996 report on "The Structure of Arts and Sciences at UH-Manoa," the efficiency of our A&S decentralized organization was tested by comparison with mainland peer institutions. We quote from that report, our emphasis: "For instance, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, with approx. 12,500 undergraduate A&S students, employs, in addition to one dean: 9 associate deans, 9 assistant deans, and 12 unit directors, plus chairs for each of their 31 departments." Data on the University of Illinois at Urbana and the University of Washington are similar. At UH-Manoa, we have 4 deans and 1.5 full-time associate deans.
5. A&S at UH-Manoa assumed its present decentralized structure in 1980 (with the strong support of mega-dean David Contois, who declared himself overwhelmed by the size and awkwardness of the huge college). In the 1990s, many institutions like the University of California at Davis and UC at Santa Barbara have undergone a similar restructuring in the direction of multiple colleges. In fact, "a comparison of the 1992 CCAS Membership Directory to the 1995 Bulletins shows that 20 institutions moved from a single A&S college to more than one."
Quality: The present structure of the A&S emerged in 1980 in response to the inadequacy of its earlier centralized structure. In this unwieldy A&S college with a single mega-dean, department chairs could not get appointments with him within a reasonable time and were more often referred to associate or assistant deans lacking authority to make the necessary decisions. The result was a severe lack of flexibility in responding to student and teacher needs--and sometimes an unnecessary waste of human and material resources. Furthermore, because the dean was so removed from specific disciplines and needs, decisions often proved to be damaging in spite of good intentions.
Several years after the restructuring of A&S, the chairs of LLL confirmed that decentralization had made an important and positive difference when they urged in 1996 President Mortimer to appoint the then Interim Deans of LLL and A&H as regular Deans. Clearly this four-college structure enhances the quality of education in the units and of interpersonal relationships--an important factor when dealing with over 800 faculty members and over 10,000 undergraduate and graduate students. Specifically, looking at criteria for evaluating the performance of a dean as set up in the OFDAS questionnaire, decentralization would be key to:
understanding the needs and concerns of units; awareness of quantity and quality of professional work by unit members; promoting recruitment [based on the knowledge of needs and strengths of each unit]; advocating appropriate curriculum offerings; commitment to ensuring proper and fair process in tenure and promotion cases.
From the students' perspective, the flexible organization of A&S has made for a qualitatively superior experience in several ways. Particularly significant for first year students are the Freshman Advising Center, the reorganization of Freshman Seminars, and the recent and very well-received "First Year at Manoa" and "Learning Communities" efforts. Individual deans have been free to experiment and to direct their limited resources in varying and productive ways. Success in one college would lead another of the colleges to follow suit. Such educational pioneering is inevitably more difficult in a larger centralized unit.
Equity Considerations: If the present structure is still considered to be problematic in light of additional data or considerations, then the question of equity arises and needs to be addressed: if one dean is to be in charge of 1/3 of Manoa programs, let's even say 1/4 after some consolidation and retrenchment, will there then be 2 or 3 more deans in charge of all the other programs? Or will there continue to be one dean for schools that may have as few as 200 something students at the same time that the A&S dean is responsible for serving 10,000 plus students?
The following discussion contains a number of initial recommendations which should only be regarded as very tentative, since we need much more information, both financial and curricular, in order to make adequately informed recommendations as to the various constituent parts of the College.
The College of Education is a difficult unit to consider due to major personnel and policy changes and a number of complex factors. It is clearly crucial for our public schools that we have a good College of Education at this university. It is important that the College be a source of a good number of high quality teachers (not an assembly-line factory producing as rapidly as possible the number of teachers, regardless of quality, the State Department of Education requests) and that it be the center for much-needed educational research relevant to the State's situation. As a constituent college of a Class 1 Carnegie Research University we should expect high standards in both areas.
While there are some areas of high quality in the College, there has for some time been a wide-spread feeling in the other colleges and, to some extent in the community, that the present College is not up to snuff. Our present findings suggest that, in general, this feeling is well-founded.
The external reviews of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction in 1987 and of all COE departments in 1993 recommended major changes and noted four serious and continuing problems:
It should be stressed that these problems were by no means all or only the fault of the College of Education and its faculty. In a few departments, research productivity had been increasing, with recent hires helping in that regard. Some external review teams reported dedicated staff going above and beyond in an effort to meet student and State needs. Unfortunately, excessive teaching, counseling, service, and (sometimes even in the case of new junior faculty) administrative loads were among the factors leading to a relative low priority for research and scholarly work in the College as a whole. Worse, the Hawai'i State Department of Education continued to pressure for higher numbers of teachers to be produced annually, and for more in-service programs for the neighbor islands.
1. CENTRALITY to the University's Class I Carnegie Research University status
The College of Education is not a unit that has demonstrated (or perhaps has lacked the staff and support to demonstrate) a high priority for research or for graduate education through the doctorate. Many doctoral enrollments that do exist, e.g., in Educational Administration, moreover, seem driven by funding from, and a desire for career advancement in, the Hawai'i State Department of Education, rather than the search for new knowledge.
2. COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE with respect to the Hawai'i location
With one obvious exception, no special features of the physical, biological or human environment in Hawai'i give College of Education programs a superior position relative to other universities. The main exception to this is the State's multilingual/multicultural school-age population. While the interest of some individual faculty members has resulted in valuable comparative/cross-cultural work, this dimension of education in the Islands might also have been expected to encourage College (and the Hawai'i State Department of Education) to make major priorities of such areas as bilingual, immersion and second dialect education-which are of pressing importance and interest internationally, not just in Hawai'i - but it has not.
3. DEMAND for university products, i.e., graduates, services, and expertise
The pressing local demand for teachers, coupled with the prohibitive cost and relatively low effectiveness of recruiting them from elsewhere, justifies maintenance, focusing and strengthening of some College of Education programs when the financial situation of the State improves. In the meantime, we continue to expect problems with respect to teacher supply.
4. COST: The price paid for the program's accomplishments
Unfortunately we lack adequate information regarding costs. There would obviously be savings in reduced numbers of departments, faculty, students, etc., but we lack reliable figures at present. The committee will continue to work on this crucial area.
5. Effectiveness: How well a program accomplishes its part of the UHM goals
The external reviews report that this is low overall, even in some areas of clear local need, partly due to over-stretched human and other resources (hence, inability to produce more graduates per year), partly as a result of problems with such matters as teaching and research focii, internal structural coherence, and unnecessary duplication of courses available elsewhere on campus.
6. Quality: the excellence of the faculty and program, of the students they attract, and, to a lesser degree, the quality of the facilities available to it.
With few exceptions, the external reviews report many individual departments and the College of Education as a whole struggling to meet externally determined needs with inadequately distributed staffing and other resources, and a correspondingly low overall productivity in the research and scholarship that should be expected of a large unit at a research university.
Since there exists, and will obviously continue to exist, a pressing need for locally trained teachers, and administrators for Hawai'i's public schools, what is needed of the College of Education first and foremost are creative and efficient training options for those two constituencies. Given the widely recognized dismal state of public education in the Hawai'i, and given the fact that the State is, embarrassingly, dead last (50th out of 50) in the percent of its budget allocated to education, it makes sense to concentrate what resources are available in two areas: (i) the training of K-12 teachers, including teachers and counselors for students with special needs, and administrators, and (ii) the Hawai'i State Department of Education's research and evaluation needs. One possibility is for the existing departments to be consolidated into the following structure, or some variant thereof:
(1) Teacher Education and Educational Administration, K-6;
(2) Teacher Education and Educational Administration, 7-12;
(3) Research and Evaluation.
Most (but not necessarily all) faculty and staff from the Departments of Counselor Education; Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies (the merged Curriculum and Instruction, and Field Studies); Educational Administration; Educational Technology; Kinesiology and Leisure Science (Health, Physical Education and Recreation); and Special Education; would potentially fit into the first two of the three new departments in the proposed structure, with little change to their existing research activities, teaching and service duties. Similarly, most (but not necessarily all) faculty and staff from the current Departments of Educational Foundations and Educational Psychology would make up the core of the third proposed department, Research and Evaluation. There would clearly be some cross-overs at the individual level, however.
The Curriculum Research and Development Group (CRDG) has done some useful work and its curriculum publications have been widely praised. The separation of this unit from the College of Education itself and the administrative duplication involved may be justifiable because of differences in mission. But, in any case, it is unfortunate that interaction between the two units appears almost non-existent, given their many common interests. Certainly the administration should consider the desirability or not of merging the CRDG into the College of Education, but, in any case, we recommend that the CRDG increase revenues by marketing their curricular materials more aggressively.
The Laboratory School affords its students the equivalent of a private school education, yet minimal fees are charged to those fortunate parents whose children who have been admitted. Given the worsening financial scenario, we recommend a tiered fee based on family income similar to the financial aid program available to undergraduates at Manoa.
The trend now and over time should be greatly to improve the quality of the new College of Education. Reducing the number of separate units at the outset, as proposed, would be the first step in this direction. It would produce critical masses of faculty, staff and students in fewer areas of potential excellence and gradually free up resources. At some future time, we hope that resources will be available to support them more adequately. At present, the budgetary situation allows of no such relief.
Second, retirement of unproductive faculty members should be encouraged. Third, any recruitment of new faculty should emphasize top quality young scholars in the narrower range of research and training areas envisaged above, the majority of future hires specializing in issues where Hawai'i either has clear local needs in common with education systems everywhere, such as curriculum innovation, measurement and evaluation, and/or clear local interests and advantages, e.g., the education of linguistically and culturally diverse populations.
Finally, support services for the reduced numbers of faculty and students in the three new departments are likely to be inadequate for some time to come. We would hope that as the State's situation improves, better provision would be made.
Where the Hawai'i State Department of Education and/ or the State demand increased services, e.g., higher numbers of graduates or new programs on the outer islands~ they must provide the needed funding to achieve those goals. In the longer run, if a high quality, research-oriented, as well as training-oriented, College of Education is what is desired at UH, as the State's financial situation improves, funding should be improved for what would gradually be a smaller number of higher quality faculty and students in Research and Evaluation than in the current College of Education overall.
The VCC report recommends the creation of a giant School of Integrated Life Sciences made up of units from the College of Natural Sciences, the School of Medicine, the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, the Pacific Biomedical Research Center, the Cancer Research Center of Hawai'i, the Lyon Arboretum, and the Waikiki Aquarium!
Most peer institutions are structured along the line of what we have here at UHM. For example, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the Biochemistry Department was with the College of Agriculture, as was Genetics. The Medical School (a good medical school with a hospital) contained the Molecular Biology, Immunology, Microbiology and other health-related departments. Other life sciences (Botany and Zoology) were rolled into a "Biology" Department. Most other institutions we are familiar with are organized along these lines (without the three or four "Biochemistry" Departments we have here).
We are aware of of only two examples of "Life Science" institutes, though there may perhaps be more. These are the Mayo and Scripps Institutes. These are the mega-examples of an Integrated Life Sciences environment. They are both very successful in what they do. However, this success comes at a price. Both institutes rely on a very large endowment or trust to support the centers. In both cases several hundred million dollars are used as seed monies to establish cutting-edge research projects in the life sciences. Researchers are fronted the monies to begin a project and allowed to used the foundation/trust reserves to hire numbers of graduate students/postdocs/senior researchers, and supplies and equipment. It is then expected that the Principal Investigators will obtain federal! extramural support for these projects to replenish the source funds. Without this level of seed funding. these and other institutes could not be successful.
Few educational institutions have gone this route. At a reduced level, a health sciences unit may support a medical school-hospital complex. However, a directly attached clinical unit is almost universal in these cases. Even at a fraction of what the two institutes above accomplish, this type of allied-health research center is very expensive in support staff, state-of-the-art facilities and modem equipment. The infrastructure alone would be likely to cost around $20M to $45M per year to run. This is without seed monies.
The University of Hawai'i does not have the resources to establish this type of program. Where will we be able to come up with a minimum of $100 million as seed monies? We have no modem facilities to offer. We have no equipment from which to start. Unless some sizable starter funding is made available it does not make sense to attempt to establish a School of Integrated Life Sciences. How many University of Hawai'i colleges would need to be eliminated to provide such a money base?
With, say, a $256 million annual budget, that might mean that, as a starter, about 40% of current programs would have to be eliminated.
The goal of SHAPS was presumably to strengthen the University's mission by integrating into a single school the work being done with an Asian-Pacific-Hawaiian focus and to give such work greater visibility and effectiveness. Unfortunately this has not happened.
While, as noted below, some areas, notably those covering Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands, have done reasonably well, crucial areas areas such as Japanese, Chinese, and South Asian have lost major grants, possibly because the units focus on culture and language, while the grant-awarding agencies have tended to look for political and economic foci, expertise found outside SHAPS in the College of Social Sciences. We considered the option of reorganizing and enhancing SHAPS by ripping all relevant areas out of A&S, but this seemed damaging to A&S without ensuring that a monster SHAPS would be effective.
There is no evidence that the enlargement of SHAPS in order to strengthen it is desirable. cost-effective or efficient. At a time when money was more abundant, SHAPS was not able to create a coherent drive for excellence when it was financially favored. No reasons exist to believe that an effective institution could be built simply by adding in yet more units.
SHAPS is not SOEST. Most faculty are instructional and disciplinary in orientation and they have not been very successful at generating extramural funds. At best, consolidation of additional units and faculty into a "mega-SHAPS"would have only the advantage of allowing the claim that Hawai'i-Pacific-Asia emphases have been strengthened, whether or not this claim was true.
Attractive alternatives exist. SHAPS could be profitably be down-sized to become a facilitator for Asian-Pacific program development by faculty throughout the university. The degree programs could be wedded to discipline degrees, or a streamlined BA and MA operation managed with fewer SHAPS personnel.
From the budgetary perspective, however, we have been overtaken by events. None of these moves would save much money for fiscal year 1998-99. In addition, hasty modification of SHAPS could diminish the few productive units therein. For example, the Center for Southeast Asian Studies has been successful in generating extra-mural funds, many of which support language instruction in CLLL. The CSEAS will have generated minimally $2,380,397 from 1991-2000. The Center for Pacific Island Studies is successful in acquiring extramural funds, while the Center for Korean Studies has secured a goodly amount through the UH Foundation. Whatever the plans for SHAPS, the university administration should undertake a careful consideration of the relationships among leveraging funds, research in the region, and student training.
The VCC has proposed closing down Summer Session and Continuing Education, leaving the individual colleges and departments to shoulder the additional administrative burden. We question the ability or desire of individual colleges and programs to run the courses and organize the complex publicity and recruiting. This has been tried in a number of universities, most notably the University of Michigan, and the results have not been at all satisfactory. Our Summer Session is presently self-supporting and very successful. It may be that the administration should rethink the ratio of payments by Summer Session to the academic programs from which it draws its courses and, for the most part, its faculty.
But to dismantle such a successful institution goes against the grain. We consider the proposal presently before the Manoa Faculty Senate to merge the Summer School and the College of Continuing Education is a sound one, especially in light of the BOR's encouragement of distance education. CCECS is not yet fully self-supporting. It is important that the merged unit become self-supporting, that it not draw upon our very limited G funds.
The appendices attached here are of some importance in considering the validity of this report vis-a-vis that of the VCC. Appendix 1 is concerned with general problems with the Vertical Cuts Committee report, including the bizarre mis-handling of numerical values, and the too frequent intrusion of personal biases. We must be clear, however, that we are not claiming that these distortions were deliberate, though they were, perhaps, predictable, given the make-up and academic experience of the committee. One rather glaring example of an inappropriate measure on page 44 of the January VCC report. is the table "Cost Per Degree". The cost for Hawaiian and the other languages and literatures in HIPLL is given as $231,131, while that for Zoology is $37,159. This makes Hawaiian and the other regional languages and literatures look like an exceedingly extravagant indulgence. In fact, the very large numbers of students taking Hawaiian language courses, for example, are not generally Hawaiian language majors. They may be majoring in Hawaiian Studies, English, or even Zoology. Students, especially those with Hawaiian blood, very understandably want to learn a language so central to the history and culture of this state. What is wrong is the kind of distortion created by choosing an inappropriate measure.
The next three appendices cover three very successful (and inexpensive) academic programs which were seriously mis-evaluated in the VCC report. We are not suggesting here that these are the only units suffering from uninformed analysis. It should be understood th a t the units examined were chosen on the basis of the expertise of committee members affiliated with those programs and hence able to provide the necessary data soon enough for the timely production of this report. Others of the units arbitrarily specified for consideration with a view to elimination merit equal attention. The inclusion, for example, of European Languages and Literature (VCC February 28 report, p. 2) reveals not only an insensitivity to languages of some importance for our state (including prospects for future tourism that don't rely so heavily on Asia) and the national culture, but also a lack of awareness of the fact that every other Class I Carnegie Research University in the nation offers instruction in European languages. Why should our young people in this state be treated so differently?
Our object here is not so much to point fingers at the VCC as to try to ensure that any reform of institutional structures not be based on seriously flawed data and analyses. As research personnel rather than teachers, with narrow academic training covering very few of the areas examined, the VCC members lacked the necessary experience with the kinds of instructional units they had to evaluate and brought to the endeavor the biases and prejudices one might expect of those trained in their disciplines. The point here is not that they were so frequently and seriously in error, but that such errors can be very harmful if important managerial recommendations and decisions are based on them.
We invite interested readers to examine closely the three program appendices to see if their content is mere puffery, or if there are hard facts and solid numbers to back up the evaluative statements made. Then look at what the VCC has to say on the same department programs.
The original administrators' plan for the two reports was to have research faculty evaluate instructional programs while instructional faculty prioritized research units. The goal was to avoid the errors of previous reports in which faculty tended to protect their own kuleanas rather than evaluate them objectively. But problems instantly arose because each committee lacked expertise in the other domain and therefore made errors out of ignorance.
Data of varying quality had been collected and interpreted on instructional and research programs across many disciplines, covering many areas very far from the drafters' expertise. Moreover the authors of the VCC report dismissed as "logrolling" and thus failed to consult - the many useful external evaluations of our programs available in Bachman Hall. They were apparently unaware of important sources such as, for example, a document dealing with such issues here published by the UH Office of Planning and Policy in August, 1994, or, in evaluating graduate programs, The Official GRE/CGS Directory of Graduate Programs, 14th edition.
It is, of course, crucial that, when a committee is asked to recommend major cuts in university programs, it should have the appropriate analytical expertise and familiarity with the area OR be energetic in consulting with those possessing the relevant skills. Otherwise their recommendations are likely to be of little value.
We earnestly recommend attention to three appendices following this one, which deal with specific cases of initial mistargeting based on faulty data, a lack of familiarity with basic techniques for handling both quantitative and qualitative data, and seriously flawed interpretations of whatever data had been obtained. We trust that the detail provided on those programs will correct the very misleading impressions given by the January VCC report. But we need to emphasize that these are examples and that there are many other such errors of judgment.
In most cases the problems arose because of lack of knowledge of the academic fields examined, a heavy though natural bias toward the disciplines of the committee members, a possible desire on the part of one or more members to push a particular political agenda (which led, for example, to the use of writings by a well-known extreme right-wing pundit, Thomas Sowell, as a major reference for the report's discussion of public education), and the failure to check the reliability of the information on which the faulty recommendations were based. In many cases, for example. categorizations appear to have been based on a hasty look at a university catalog description of a program or department.
Our committee, which differs from the VCC committee in consisting primarily of instructional faculty familiar with most programs under consideration and with much current classroom experience, drew the attention of the convener of the VCC committee to the many and obvious problems with the initial draft of the VCC report. The danger was, of course, that two factors-the drafters' lack of expertise or accurate information about so many of the academic areas, and their lack of substantial involvement in teaching would undermine the validity of any preliminary conclusions reached. Any proposals for radically modifying the organization of the university in these areas need to be securely based on valid data and knowledgeable analysis of those data.
We therefore hope that the VCC report, if not abandoned, will at least have been thoroughly overhauled by the time this document comes out. Originally the VCC convener had suggested we edit that report but we found the problems with it so pervasive that we had to work on a more accurate substitute, one in which we necessarily acknowledge many areas for which data was not made available to us, so that we would have been irresponsible to make the kind of recommendations made in the original VCC draft and, we hope, discarded in any later version of that report.
When times are hard, and tough decisions must be made, it is important that they be based on good data and sound analysis. The lives of many may be affected by such decisions -faculty, staff, and their families, and, most importantly, the lives of our present and future students, the future of our State. Serious damage to our University damages all of us. The administrators who must make the final recommendations need to be sure that what feeds into their considerations is sound. The responsibility is a heavy one, but it must be attended to.
There were serious questions as to the quality of much of the quantitative data used and hence with the validity of the initial recommendations based on those data. We can hardly expect most scientific researchers to possess the training to understand social sciences research, which tends to be far more complex than research in the natural sciences in terms of the number and types of variables that must be considered. What we had was a report presented by a small group of primarily non-teaching science researchers representing, at best, mainly non-teaching science researchers in general.
At first glance, the physical bulk of the tables used to organize data in the earlier draft was impressive and many taken from other sources are useful. One might question the value of including Wytze Gorter's 1972 listing of graduate programs taking advantage of Hawai'i's location, etc. (p.24), since it is over a quarter of a century old and, as the VCC admitted, they "don't pretend to understand" his ordering. But this is not of great import. What was extremely problematic is the use of numbers, or rather, pseudo-numbers, in the ranking of programs according to criteria, as for example on page 67. Let's consider this in some detail since it forms the very shaky basis for many of the draft conclusions.
First it was far from clear where the numbers came from? There were many tables and many explanations of the criteria. but nowhere were we told the exact procedures for calculating these numbers. Exactly what scales were used? Exactly what was the degree of agreement among those doing the rating? Without information explaining and supporting the logic and rigor of their scoring procedures, it could only be concluded that another sample of committee members would come up with entirely different results.
The five scales (centrality, comparative advantage, demand, cost, and quality) were not the same for all programs. Through the use of an elaborate system of letter references and blanks, the "researchers" left a total of 31 pukas in rating the 93 programs (with 5 x 93 = 465 scores, that means 31/465 = .066 or about 7% of the data were completely missing or unrated). Thus some programs were effectively given zeros without actually being rated. So the criteria were not the same for all programs.
Using zeros in the pukas, the reliability of the five scales taken together was low (Cronbach alpha = .37). Moreover, the five scales (centrality, comparative advantage, demand, cost, and quality) were not equally weighted. They had means (.43, .60, .96, .78, .19) and standard deviations (.72, .81, .58, .42, .34) that indicated that the scales were quite different in distribution and quite different in their impact on the total score. Clearly the first two scales were more highly weighted than the others and "quality" has very little influence relative to the other scales. Skew statistics indicated that the distributions for centrality and quality were positively skewed; these two scales had standard deviations that were much larger than the mean. The scores would need to be standardized for them to have equal weighting.
The bias of the researchers was very clear: t-tests (adjusted using the Bonferroni procedure to maintain study-wise alpha of .05) indicated that a significant difference between science programs (n = 24) and all other programs (including the School of Medicine) (n = 69) on four of the five subscales (comparative advantage, demand, cost, and quality) and the total scores. For example, there was a 1.64 point difference on the total scores with sciences scoring on average 4.19 and others scoring 2.55. Such differences might. of course, have been due to actual superiority among the science programs over all other programs, but there is a strong possibility that they might have been due to bias on the part of the primarily non-teaching science researchers doing the study. The latter possibility certainly cannot be ruled out and might have seemed to be the likely explanation to their teaching colleagues elsewhere on the campus and perhaps to the general public.
It is important that those units capable of attracting external funding realize their potential. The VCC report makes extensive use of a "leverage ratio" parameter to guide some of its recommendations on this.
Unfortunately this measure is very difficult to determine fairly. It may well be, for example, that if multiuser expenses such as ship operations are excluded, SOEST's share of the extramural grant pie , is quite small compared to that of other "academic" units involved in competitively funded research.
It seems to be the case that quite a number of grants credited to the Pacific Biomedical Research Center or the Cancer Research Center of Hawai'i arise from work by faculty of the College of Natural Sciences, but was channeled administratively through these other units. When this is considered, how much of the extramural funding should be attributed to the academic units and/or be subtracted from the research units? If the VCC uses the "leverage" factor, then the factor should be equitably applied. With respect to fixed, multiuser costs, the question arises as to how much should be designated to a particular unit? Possibly it should be calculated in terms of the amount of time/resources allocated to that unit. If the Institute for Astronomy receives x million dollars to run a telescope but only gets 20% of the time on that instrument, then the funds for the full amount should not be considered in the IFA leverage.
Frequently researchers enter into collaborative research projects with others within the university community. For the I faculty in natural science, for example, these arrangements would be with groups in SO EST, PBRC and CRCH. A natural products chemist recently wrote a joint proposal with someone in CRCH. The two are investigating the anti-carcinogenic properties contained in plants. The CRCH person takes the plant extracts and screens them for anti-carcinogenic activity. The natural products chemist isolates and identifies the active component. The grant is 60/40 Chemistry(College of N at Sci)/CRCH. However, because CRCH only deals with research funds, the grant is administered totally through CRCH. This minimizes delays in processing orders for supplies since the fiscal personnel do not have to deal with the instructional burden.
This is a matter of convenience for the researchers. But when seed funds are allocated to foster such research, it seems inaccurate and unfair for the CRCH alone to claim the full credit and therefore the full funding.
The authors correctly noted the problem of deciding, just by looking at a list of units, the extent of a university's commitment to particular academic fields. Departmental organization is a function of local administrative needs, of local history, and of politics. The draft's authors tried to do their best to find out whether a field is covered by a university, even in the face of differing organizations. In many cases, notably in those cases with which they were personally well-acquainted, they seemed successful. In others, they were not.
Failure has particularly serious consequences for the "centrality" measure, and for other cases that depend on making comparisons across universities.
A root problem in the report is a failure to distinguish adequately between the evaluation of a field (or "discipline"-their favored term) and the evaluation of particular administrative structures. It is one thing to investigate whether a research university should, say, train dental hygienists--a question of field. It is quite another thing to ask whether, say, the best way to treat "custom" undergraduate majors is in a Department of Liberal Studies.
The conceptual framework of the first draft of the instructional unit report really worked properly only for fields with long-established traditional coincidence of academic area and administrative organization, and general agreement on naming, and where the local UH organizational scheme is pretty much what everyone else has. It works for "vanilla" units. Interestingly, it worked best of all in the 'hard' sciences, where virtually every university recognizes a field of chemistry organized administratively into a named chemistry department (or something very close to that). The scheme worked poorly in new areas, interdisciplinary programs, and in programs where the Hawai'i organizational scheme may not coincide with the usual mainland university. (Ironically, programs in which Hawai'i has unique strength might fare particularly badly.)
Where the authors of the draft were ignorant of a field, it is hardly surprising that they failed to evaluate the unit adequately. At UH, applied linguistics is unusually strong, with a large and well-respected faculty. According to a 1992 survey of the major programs in the field internationally, UH was ranked first. The VCC report excludes it from the "Best reputations for graduate programs" list on page 57, and on page 67 awards it the lowest quality rating possible. Partly as a result of its strength and size, applied linguistics at UH is organized in its own separate department, that of English as a Second Language. But the report's centrality measure cannot "see" applied linguistics at other universities, since the units that house the discipline are often included in other variously named units. At UH, applied linguistics is even more central than it is nationally.
Now, it is possible to distinguish questions of centrality and quality of field from administrative structure. The authors of the draft themselves recognized the problem:
"This measure must be used with caution... Our counts are not based on deep understanding of what each unit does, but only on its self-descriptive name. Traditional disciplines with simple, common names are easy to find. The counts will be too low if there is diversity in the names and we did not look for all possibilities. We have tried to avoid such errors, but some must be present." p. 9
But the VCC report did not heed its own caution when it based recommendations on faulty categorizations. The report could not distinguish a case like UH supporting research and graduate education in applied linguistics from a case like UH training dental hygienists.
The authors of the VCC report have recommended that certain areas be cut. This is clearly within their purview. However, the report sometimes also recommends wholesale changes in administrative structure, reorganizing colleges and schools, adding or eliminating deans and vice presidents. While some of these ideas may have merit, many of them clearly go beyond the mandate of the committee, and in most cases they go beyond the expertise of the report authors. For example, the report may quite properly propose that the University cease to offer some program, but it is something quite different to propose that linguistics and various languages be put under a new super-college with an Asia-Pacific focus. In general, all such large-scale organizational recommendations should have been removed from the report.
The pervasive confusion of elaborate organizational recommendations with content recommendations compromises the report in several cases. For example, the report argues that the discipline of linguistics be maintained and strengthened. On the other hand, they recommend eliminating the Liberal Studies Office. But the Liberal Studies Office is precisely the unit which administers the undergraduate degree in linguistics. Now, there may be valid reasons to eliminate the office of Liberal Studies, but the considerations which should motivate such a choice are not the criteria which decide whether a discipline is to be retained.
With respect to organizational structure, it is sometimes necessary to move beyond U.S. models. When we consider the status of a "College of Languages, Linguistics, and Literature," for example, we are more likely to find such a college (usually named a "Faculty of Philology") outside the U.S. That UH has such a college reflects, in part, its strength in this area, and its international orientation.
A major research university operates in an international arena. The VCC report largely focuses on the United States. In the case of some fields at UH, especially those which are very highly ranked, the relevant comparisons are international. To take applied linguistics and ESL as an example, some of the "peer" institutions are in the United States, but many are not.
Several of the most important peers are in Europe. A student may be deciding whether to study in Honolulu or in Stockholm, or in Edinburgh, or in Tilburg, or in Barcelona. In order to understand the reputation of UH in this area. one must go beyond the United States. Theatre and Dance are rated average in the VCC Report with respect to the same criterion and their quality rating is 0.00, yet the work they do in Asian and Pacific dance and drama is the major focus of the programs and has attracted international attention for its originality and quality.
The Economics Department has a long-established and extremely successful Ph.D. program that has focused on the economies of the Asia-Pacific region and the economic policies pertinent thereto. The program was established in 1969. The first Ph.D. was granted Spring 1972. Through December 1997, the program has produced 179 Ph.D.s.
Graduate students are largely drawn from the international community, with the majority coming from the Asia-Pacific region. As of Fall 1997, 74 students were pursuing graduate degrees in the Economics Department. Applicants to UHM economics are among the finest competing for East-West Center (EWC) graduate support and routinely receive EWC Degree Fellowships. Currently, six (6) graduate students in the Economics Department are EWC Degree Fellows. The reputation of the Economics Department was a critical factor in securing Asian Development Bank (ADB) scholarships for students pursuing graduate study in economics, business, and urban planning. This scholarship program, which is administered by the East-West Center, supports a total of 24 students at the University of Hawai'i. Currently, five (5) graduate students in the Economics Department are ADB Scholars.
Applicants to the Ph.D. program of the Economics Department are among the finest young scholars applying to the UHM campus. Every year the Graduate Division conducts a campus-wide competition for 12 Research Corporation of the University of Hawai'i (RCUH) Fellowships. Currently two (2) Ph.D. students in the Economics Department are RCUH Fellows. Additional support to attract high quality applicants comes from the family of Emeritus Professor of Economics Fred Hung.
The Hung Family endowment supports graduate study an the Chinese economy. Currently one (1) Ph.D. student in the Economics Department is a Hung Family Fellow.
Centrality: Economics is a central discipline for the University and the State of Hawai'i, and this importance is recognized in the Hawai'i State Constitution. Section 304-5 ("Purposes of the University") states that the University is responsible for
providing instruction and researches in and disseminating knowledge of ... economic, political and social sciences...
Economics is at the core of the University's goal of "Strengthening the University as the premier resource in Hawaiian, Asian and Pacific affairs and advancing its international role."l Among the social science disciplines, economics has become increasingly important as a consequence of recent trends in world history and international relations. Particularly since the end of World War II and the passing of the Cold War, the realization of some measure of global political stability and liberal democracy has conferred unprecedented salience an economic issues, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region.
The undergraduate programs of the University are particularly dependent upon Economics courses for core, distributional and pre- requisite requirements. Every year approximately one thousand (1000) Manoa undergraduates study the Principles of Economics with the Economics Department.
Nine (9) Graduate Assistants (GAs) serving as Teaching Assistants (TAs) are critical to the instruction, organization and cost-effective management of these courses. The Ph.D. program is an essential element in undergraduate education.
Comparative Advantage: "... The mission of the University of Hawai'i at Manoa Department of Economics is to discover, refine and disseminate economic knowledge, with particular focus an policy issues involving Hawai'i and the Asia-Pacific region." The proximity to Asia, the large number of UHM scholars and students who speak Asian languages, the ties of the Hawai'i economy to Asia, the huge base of UHM economics Ph.Ds working in the region's universities and government agencies all act to increase the gains from the Department of Economics focusing its research, teaching, and service towards Asia and Hawai'i's economy. With the financial crisis in Asia focusing the attention of the world an Asia's economies, the Department's specialization has become increasingly valuable.
Demand: The UHM economics Ph.D. program has extremely successful in generating a high-quality applicant pool. The scores of applicants an the Graduate Record Examination have been increasing during the 1990s. In 1996, the doctoral students admitted averaged Verbal 558; Quantitative 760; and Analytical 660-an impressive record. The program is the only economics doctoral program in the United States that specializes in the Asia-Pacific region (including the Hawai'i economy). As the demand for higher education in Asia increases with development and higher incomes, the demand for Ph.D. economists trained to analyze Asia-Pacific issues will increase dramatically. The entering Ph.D. class for Fall 1997 (17 students) was the largest entering class in the 1990s.
Cost: By any measure, Economics ranks squarely in the middle of a distribution of UHM 10l-budget departments. At $4,811 per equivalent semester hour, Economics ranks 27th of 62 "101" units with regard to cost. At $16,705 per degree granted, Economics is 47th out of the 67 ranked. Economics Department expenditures per SSH and per FTECE were $176 and $5193, respectively, compared to $215 and $6279 for the College of Social Sciences; $223 and $6566 for the Colleges of Arts & Sciences; and $520 and $14,965 for UHM as a whole. The Department of Economics budget for 1997/98 amounts to 11% of the College of Social Sciences budget, and produces 15.5% of the College's Ph.D. degrees. In sum, Economics is squarely in the middle of UHM departments on a wide variety of cost indicators.
Effectiveness: A central indicator of effectiveness is placement of Ph.D. students upon. graduation. The UHM Economics Department has a stellar reputation in placing its Ph.D. students in important positions with prestigious institutions, including the Asian Development Bank; the University of the Philippines; University of Indonesia; Yonsei University, Korea; Thammasat University, Thailand; Korean Development Institute; . Kobe University, Japan; Ministry of Population, Republic of Indonesia; Economic Planning Agency, Japan; and central banks of Taiwan, Singapore, and Thailand. UHM economics Ph.Ds have also been placed in the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Hawai'i State Department of Health, and the Hawai'i State Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism. This large network of successful graduates has increased the reputation of the University throughout the region and has markedly enhanced the quality of applicant pools in the 1990s.
Quality: Faculty have been honored for their research (Naya by the Western Economics Association), teaching (La Croix, Russo, Bonham with UHM teaching awards), and service (La Croix with UHM Clopton Award). Oxford University Press, Cornell University Press, and University of Hawai'i Press have recently published important books by economics department faculty. Although research funding was relatively low in the early 1990s, the National Science Foundation. the Rockefeller Foundation. and the Korean Development Institute have all awarded research grants to department faculty over the last three years. Articles in the two most prestigious economics journals, the American Economic Review (Bonham) and the Journal of Political Economy (Roumasset), have significantly increased the visibility of UHM economics in the profession. A major research project on Asian economies (Mason) was recently the focus of an international meeting at the World Bank. Six faculty from UHM economics (LaCroix, Mason, Gangnes, Konan, Lee, and Mak) are central participants in a Stockholm School of Economics/University of Hawai'i project "Japan's Economy in the Twenty-First Century: The Response to Crisis."
The Department of English as a Second Language (DESL) and its M.A. in ESL and its cross-disciplinary Ph.D. in Second Language Acquisition have been rated number one in the field internationally. We know of no other unit or program at UH with this distinction. It is thus ludicrous that the VCC has chosen to rate its quality as 0.0, the minimum possible, and to recommend elimination of a Ph.D. program, in order to refocus [the unit] on [its] more important undergraduate instructional mission (p.3). Since DESL is a graduate department with no major and no undergraduate mission, this would be somewhat difficult. It is unfortunate that the VCC did not check on this.
DESL's work covers an area known as applied linguistics. It conducts and provides expertise in far more than just English language, e.g., for foreign languages at this university and elsewhere, on second dialect issues in Hawai'i, on Hawaiian immersion, and many other areas of language in education, the professions, and other areas relevant to the State's economy. (The label applied linguistics is perhaps misleading because of its closeness to that for a very different discipline, Linguistics, which is also well represented at this university.) The ESL Department's graduate faculty offers an M.A. and also administers a Ph.D. in Second Language Acquisition, with a graduate faculty which overlaps that of ESL. Contrary to the VCC report, there is no Ph.D. in ESL.
Applied linguistics is a discipline found in many major research universities. The term "applied linguistics" is used to refer to a field sometimes also called "second language acquisition", "second language studies", "second language research", etc. The major journals in the field include Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Applied Linguistics, Applied Psycholinguistics, Language Learning: A Journal of Applied Linguistics, Second Language Research.
Centrality: According to its international professional association, as laid out in its TESOL Directory of Professional Preparation Programs and the American Association for Applied Linguistics Graduate Programs Directory, there are, just in the U.S.A. and Canada, 36 doctoral programs and 208 M.A. degree programs (not 8, as the VCC report indicated!) in this field. These include universities like the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Boston University, the University of New Hampshire, Georgetown University, Michigan State University, SUNY Albany, NYU, Fordham, SUNY Stony Brook, Syracuse, the University of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, Delaware, UT Austin, Georgia State U, the University of Illinois Urbana, Indiana University, Ohio State University, the University of Wisconsin, Kansas, Colorado, Arizona State, UCLA, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, George Mason, McGill, and Columbia.
Comparative advantage: Hawai'i's multilingual/multicultural population make it a perfect location for the DESL, as does the fact that many native-born residents are speakers of Hawai'i Creole English (so-called "Pidgin") and of standard English as a second dialect.
Language and languages are an issue of major importance in just about every aspect of life in the Islands, including education, business (notably the tourist industry), the media, the professions, the criminal justice system, and the arts. Hawai'i is a living laboratory for many of the major teaching and research concerns of the Department's programs, and those concerns, in turn, are critical for the State, the U.S.A., and for numerous multilingual societies throughout the world.
Demand: Demand for the Department's course offerings is intense, as demonstrated both by the extremely high standards required of candidates, and the extremely low proportions of admits to applicants, for both programs. The courses also draw heavy enrollments from across the campus.
Graduates of the programs are among the few today whose job market is actually expanding, and likely to continue to do so for decades to come, among other reasons, because of the insatiable demand for skilled language teachers and for the people needed to educate them in the rapidly expanding numbers of tertiary institutions that offer such programs around the world (208 masters programs in the U.s. and Canada alone). Many M.A. graduates take jobs with higher salaries than full professors at UH. The program's Ph.D. in SLA graduates must typically choose from among a number of job offers. A growing number of candidates for admission to both graduate programs are from foreign language backgrounds, and have successful careers in Spanish, German and Asian languages, particularly Japanese, Chinese anti. Korean, also a rapidly growing job market. While called ESL, the Department is widely recognized as offering first-class training for teaching other foreign languages, not just English.
Cost: At anyone time, DESL has an average of some 70-90 M.A. students, and about a dozen Ph.D. students, all full-time, plus about 25 undergraduate ESL majors from the Liberal Studies Program. Each program could easily double in size without lowering standards were faculty and facilities available, but they are not. The large average class size (including the highest teacher-student ratio for graduate courses in LLL), and the use of exactly the same faculty for all three degree programs, makes DESL highly cost-effective. The Ph.D. in SLA Program was established in 1989 with an explicit stipulation that it would require no additional instructional positions/funds whatsoever, and that has indeed been the case. There is no additional financial cost to the University from having the doctoral program, whereas the program attracts top quality students, faculty and visiting scholars from around the world, as well as major research funding, which in some cases would not be awarded to UH if there were no such faculty and doctoral students able to carry out the work. Department faculty have brought in several million dollars in grants in the 1990's alone, money which serves not only to underwrite prestigious research studies, and to support graduate students, but also helps offset costs of the Department's programs.
Effectiveness: The Department is a notably effective, smooth-running operation. Faculty hires and student recruitment over the past decade have been carefully planned and highly successful, as shown by several of the achievements listed above.
The curriculum is coherent and flexible, and the programs successful, as shown both by the quality and quantity of applicants and graduates, the steady completion rate, a negligible drop-out rate, and tangible Department products, such as research funding and scholarly publications and, most obviously, by DESL's number one ranking world-wide. Despite the fact that large federal grants are very hard to obtain outside of the natural sciences, the National Foreign Language Resource Center has brought over $4,000,000 of Federal money to UH since 1990. The Ke A'a Makalei grant (for indigenous language revitalization) has brought $300,000 over three years and there have been several other smaller grants (under $100,000).
Quality: As past five-year program reviews confirm, the DESL at UHM has an enviable record in research and graduate education, as would befit an institution of Class I Carnegie Research University status. In 1992, the Dean of the College undertook to identify and contact 80 peer units across the nation and on four continents, asking them to respond to a set of survey questions. The 1992 survey covered aspects of faculty quality, M.A. program quality, Ph.D. program quality, and overall rating. In all areas, UH ranked first in the world, according to survey results. Typically. UH received more ranking points than the next two or three programs combined. often with two to three times as many votes as the next-ranked institution. Nearly all ranked UH among the top five such programs in the world. Its M.A. in ESL, and Ph.D. in SLA programs were all judged the best of their kind. The faculty and curriculum were also judged best. (UCLA was rated a distant second overall, and the University of Toronto third.) The Department's publication record in the four major refereed international journals during the ten-year period, 1982-1992, was superior to those of the next three institutions combined. The strength of UH's graduate faculty in second language acquisition was cited as a major reason for the award of one of five National Foreign Language Research Centers (NFLRC) for three three-year periods, and two subsequent renewals, by the USDOE, bringing UH so far a total of over $4,000,000. The reputation of the Department's programs is international, as is the applicant pool, and competition for entry is intense and growing (a ratio of approximately one out of every 15 applicants are admitted to the Ph.D.).
Graduates from both the M.A. and Ph.D. programs find lucrative employment at prestigious institutions throughout the world. Numerous prizes, awards, research grants, positions as editors and board members of major journals and presses, and other forms of recognition attest to the high regard in which both DESL faculty and students are held internationally. The United States Department of Education ranked the University of Hawai'i NFLRC grant application first, citing the strength of its SLA faculty. DESL is, we believe, the only top-rated unit at Manoa, and the only one so rated internationally.
The Ph.D. program in English was approved in 1986, admitted its first students in 1987, a total of 47 to date. It is a small program which still has provisional status. The first Ph.Ds graduated in 1992 and 19 doctorates have been awarded so far.
We now examine the program in some detail, applying the six criteria used to examine other programs.
1. Centrality: (a) Every single one of our peer institutions as identified by the UH Office of Planning and Policy in August 1994 offers a Ph.D. in English. (Source: The Official GRE/CGS Directory of Graduate Programs, 14th edition). The program helps meet the University's mission, as stated in the Master Plan, in three ways: by offering a doctorate in what is clearly a central discipline in any research university (all UH's peer institutions in the U.S.A. offer one); by helping to upgrade instruction in English in public education in the State; and, through the Asia Pacific/Cultural Studies offerings (see below), by promoting Pacific-Asian studies and related research.
(b) Given the UH mission to become "more involved in the improvement of public education," advanced training of teachers in the field of English is also central. In addition to those UH Ph.D. graduates teaching at mainland institutions, a number teach at other local colleges and schools. Indeed, one is Dean of Instruction at Chaminade University. Many of these are local residents who for various reasons cannot go to the mainland to for doctoral study. Education in the state benefits considerably from the program.
2. Comparative Advantage: (a) The doctorate provides an additional option for students from elsewhere at UH, e.g., Hawaiian Language or Literature, Pacific Island Studies and Ethnic Studies, who wish to pursue work at this level, but whose own departments, do not offer a doctorate. The graduate program includes a concentration in Asia/Pacific Cultural Studies at the M.A. level offering courses which Ph.D. students can take as well. Indeed, almost a third of the Ph.Ds so far have written dissertations with an Asia-Pacific focus.
(b) Several faculty members have developed a national reputation in the fields of postcolonial, ethnic, local, Asian American, and Pacific literatures.
(c) As writers and critics, English Dept. faculty, Ph.D. graduates, and graduate students have also been actively involved in the production and nurturing of Hawai'i's literatures as performances, publications, curriculum, and conferences demonstrate.
Thus, the extremely low score (0) in the VCC January report (based on catalog information) seems hardly matched by the actual ways in which the program operates in the areas of teaching, research, and service to Hawai'i.
3. Demand: (a) The Ph.D. program has been highly selective in its admissions (which of course relates to the quality of the program as well). Admission standards are consistently high. The department admits on average slightly less than a third of those who apply. Looking at applications over the years, it is clear that the program is in demand because it is one of only 28 programs in the U.S. offering a doctorate for creative writers and also because of the expertise offered in Asian, Asian American, and Pacific Literatures. Of course it has attracted numbers of students from the U.S. mainland and Asia as well as from Hawai'i.
(b) While the national need for Ph.D.s in English has decreased, the need for advanced expertise in the areas in which the English doctoral program has' unique and outstanding resources is increasing, especially, in colonial and postcolonial studies, in Asian-American Literature, and the literatures of Hawai'i and the Pacific.
4. Cost: (a) Here are some additional data to provide a perspective on how general workload, cost per semester hour, and cost per degree information do not add up to an accurate picture of specific graduate program costs. "Student Semester Hours for graduate courses in the English Department (which are taken by both M.A. and Ph.D. students) accounted in Fall, 1995 for 21% of the total number of graduate courses taught within the LLL College." Because of the interdisciplinary nature of these courses, the English graduate program also attracts graduate students from other disciplines (approx. 20% of students enrolled). Total faculty resources allocated to the graduate program amount to 11% and of the total headcount of graduate students in English (88 in 1995),30% are in the Ph.D. program.
(b) Quite simply, given the interconnectedness of the M.A. and the Ph.D. programs among other factors, the cost of the Ph.D. program in English is minuscule. This Ph.D. program has been supported beyond the department by one additional FTE for graduate assistantships and 1/2 of a clerical position newly allocated to the department.
5. Effectiveness: The VCC report stated that "some of our recommendations about Ph.D. programs are based, in large part, m effectiveness as determined in the NRC report" (p. 66). The UH program was not ranked in the studies selected for consultation because it is new, still provisional, and therefore had graduated too few in the five year period to be ranked in the national surveys. Graduates are clearly very satisfied with the quality of the program. In a recent survey, on a scale of 1 for poor to 5 for excellent, Ph.D.s in English rated their overall graduate experience at UH 4.4; the quality of their doctoral program 4.4; and the quality of UH as an institution 3.7.
6. Quality: Standards are high, as attested by the average total GRE score among those admitted of 1708, including an average 639 (87th percentile) on the verbal sub-test, and an average graduate GPR of 3.87. The average TOEFL score of 643 (97th percentile) for admitted international students (roughly 30% of the total to date) is very high. Students' writing ability is also rigorously assessed before acceptance into the program. Other indications the quality of students are the fact that several have publications in hand en entry, and several have won highly competitive RCUH awards. A reflection of steadily rising standards, moreover, is the gradual decline in the percentage of applicants admitted from an initial rate of 50% to 33% or less since 1992. The average completion period is 5.95 or 6.4 years, according to Department and Graduate Division figures, respectively, a period roughly comparable to figures for Humanities doctorates elsewhere. The attrition rate is rather high, at roughly 20%, although part of this figure, too, is due to the maintenance of high internal standards. The quality of teaching. too. is generally rated very highly (justifiably. in light of the Division and Campus-wide teaching awards that Department faculty have won over the years ).
Some general comments: The Department plays a major role in helping to meet UH, State of Hawai'i, U.S. national, and international needs, both in absolute terms through its faculty's (and increasingly, its doctoral students') creative literary and scholarly output, by the training it provides to students from Hawai'i, the U.S.A., and other countries, and through specifically Hawaiian and Asia/Pacific contributions. The contribution within Hawai'i is not only within the usually understood literary terrain of such a program, although that is significant in itself, but more generally, through its important impact on standards in reading, writing and critical thinking in the population at large. Elimination of the Ph.D program would achieve very very little in terms of cost savings while inflicting serious damage on one of the most central departments at this university in terms of faculty morale and opportunities for Hawai'i's young people, many of whom cannot afford to go out of state for graduate study.