Many typos corrected; reprinted May 2001
26 June 1998
To: Dean O. Smith
Interim Senior Vice President, University of Hawaii, and
Interim Executive Vice Chancellor, University of Hawaii at Manoa
From: Vertical Cuts Committee
Rebecca L. Cann Professor of Genetics and Molecular Biology
Marilyn F. Dunlap Specialist in Pacific Biomedical Research Center
Barry LaBonte Astronomer in Institute of Astronomy
Ralph Moberly, Chair Professor of Geology and Geophysics
Thomas A. Schroeder Associate Professor of Meteorology
Craig R. Smith Professor of Oceanography
Harry Y. Yamamoto Professor of Plant Molecular Physiology
Subject: Final Report
Attached is the Final Report of the 1997-1998 Vertical Cuts Committee, commissioned by Dr. Carol Eastman, with additional charges by you.
We have rearranged some sections and added others, but essentially the form remains that of the two earlier versions, with an Executive Summary before introducing the main body of text. There is our assembly of information about units at Manoa with respect to the criteria we were to use, followed by discussion and recommendations. The final section of the text has our opinion of what units should be preserved from budgetary cutting during times of fiscal difficulties, and why they should be saved. An appendix has background statements and tables.
As it is past mid-May, we trust that we are no longer obligated to keep these recommendations confidential.
On March 27,1998, the Vertical Cuts Committee (VC), selected from faculty of Budget 102 units and advisors to the Administration, discussed its reports with Executive Vice President Dean Smith, who then asked the VC to combine its two earlier reports and edit them for final submission after mid-May. Thus, this is the final report.
Upon submitting its report of Budget 101 units on January 29, 1998, to Dr. Smith, the VC was asked by Dr. Smith to expand its scope of inquiry and recommendations to include the research units of the University. An initial evaluation of those units had been submitted October 17, 1997, by the Academic Affairs Prioritization Committee. We were also to read that report and to reconsider our own report in light of it.
Additional findings and recommendations were submitted 27 February as a new section to the January report. In a discussion with Dr. Smith on 27 March it was apparent that some of our phrases required editing for clarity. Our Executive Summary now reads as follows:
This committee was formed to identify how to reorganize the academic and research units of the University in a way that maintains, even improves, its standards in the context of a contracted state budget.
The instructional units of the University cannot be considered in isolation. Adhering 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. Our guides have been the Mission Statement, current drafts of the Strategic Plan, our intention to maintain our status of a Research University I in the Carnegie classification, and information we have been able to gather from the University or outside sources. Recommendations of broadest import are summarized here.
We have reconsidered our report in light of the other report and our expanded mandate, and see no reason to change our January recommendations, except for additions below, and in the sections on research. We give specific points of agreement or disagreement with the other report on pages 148-150, and in the concluding section we combine our January and February opinion about where cuts might be and should not be made, in planning for budget reductions.
The following academic and research units should be integrated into a single school of life sciences. The goal is to improve the visibility, effectiveness, and quality of the University in using its comparative advantage in biological sciences, and perhaps human medical sciences, to perform its mission. SILS, the School of Integrated Life Sciences, would have two broad departments, of Molecular and Cellular Biology and of Ecology, Evolution and Conservation Biology, as well as a number of ORUs. Existing units that could be integrated into this school are these:
-- Biology Program, Botany, Microbiology, and Zoology from the College of Natural Sciences;
-- Anatomy and Reproductive Biology, Biochemistry and Biophysics, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Tropical Medicine and Medical Microbiology from the School of Medicine;
-- Animal Sciences, Entomology, Environmental Biochemistry, Plant Molecular Physiology, and Plant Pathology from the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources
-- Pacific Biomedical Research Center;
-- Cancer Research Center of Hawaii;
-- Lyon Arboretum;
-- Waikiki Aquarium.
Certain units should be integrated into a single school with an Asian-Pacific-Hawaiian focus, encompassing both research and instructional resources. The goal is to improve the visibility, effectiveness, and quality of the University in using its comparative advantage in human resources to perform its mission.
-- Anthropology, East Asian Languages and Literatures, Ethnic Studies, Hawaiian and Indo-Pacific Languages and Literatures, Linguistics, and Asian-Pacific-Hawaiian scholars from Geography, Philosophy, Religion, and Sociology, from the Colleges of Arts and Sciences;
-- the School of Hawaiian, Asian, and Pacific Studies.
-- Elements of the Social Sciences Research Institute.
The Colleges of Arts and Sciences should be merged into a single college comprising strong undergraduate programs based on the departments of
-- Art, Chemistry, Economics, English, European Languages and Literatures, History, Information and Computer Science, Mathematics, Music, Philosophy, Physics, Political Science, and Psychology, with a goal of maximizing the effectiveness of the college.
These additional units should be examined for merging into fewer, broader units within the college, with the goals of minimizing administrative overhead and duplication and maximizing the resources available to the college for performing its mission.
-- American Studies, Sociology, Women's Studies, Theater and Dance, Music, Communication, Journalism, Speech;
-- Religion, Philosophy.
Elements of Social Sciences Research Institute should be added under Arts and Sciences to aid its research and service obligations. See also recommendation (9).
Units are listed here that ranked in the lower one-half of a list based on the criteria we were given with the charge to set units into priority. They should be examined individually to determine if they can be eliminated or, in some instances where some criterion identifies their importance, to see how they can be improved. Some units are parts of other recommendations; e.g., mergers. The goal is to free resources to apply to higher priority units. We realize, however, that legal or other factors we were not asked to consider may preclude strict adherence to the order of this list:
-- Summer Session and Continuing Education (tied, lowest); Pharmacology, Liberal Studies, Anatomy and Reproductive Biology, Women's Studies, Biochemistry and Biophysics, Public Administration, Medicine, Urban and Regional Planning, Interpretation and Translation Studies; Dental Hygiene, Decision Science, Second Language Acquisition, Communication, Doctor of Education, Speech, Physiology, Journalism. Food Science and Human Nutrition, Speech Pathology and Audiology, Special Education, Biosystems Engineering, Educational Foundations, Management and Industrial Relations, Population Studies; English as a Second Language, Environmental Biochemistry, Educational Technology, Marketing, Kinesiology and Leisure Science, Counseling and Guidance, Animal Sciences, Tropical Medicine and Medical Microbiology, Educational Administration, Classics, Cell Molecular and Neurosciences, Mechanical Engineering, Business Admin. Special Professional Programs, Theatre and Dance, Russian (and misc. Eur. Lang.), Human Resources, Social Work, Law, Educational Psychology, German, Sociology, French, Agricultural and Resource Economics, Financial Economics and Institutions, Religion, American Studies (last four tied at median of list).
The following units should be examined individually to determine if their doctoral degree programs can be eliminated. The goal is to refocus the units on their more important undergraduate instructional mission.
-- American Studies, Economics, English, English as a Second Language (Second Language Acquisition), Geography, Mathematics, Music, Nursing, Pharmacology, Philosophy, Social Welfare, Sociology, and Theater.
Schools and Colleges:
-- The following schools should be examined individually to determine whether they can be made substantially self-sufficient, or else be eliminated. The goal is to free resources to improve higher priority units that have special advantages or serve special needs in Hawaii.
Law, Medicine, Public Health, Social Work
-- The following colleges and schools should reestablish their missions, size, organization, and resource base with the important goal of improving Hawaii in two critical areas: public education and a technology-based private economy.
Arts and Sciences, CRDG, Education, Engineering, SILS, SOEST, and to the extent of its languages, A-P-H focus.
-- The following additional units should be examined for consolidation and internal reorganization, with the goals of minimizing administrative overhead and refocusing the schools on their missions.
School of Architecture, Urban and Regional Planning, College of Business Administration, IRC, School of Travel Industry Management
-- The following programs should be eliminated, and their responsibilities and fiscal advantages and disadvantages should be transferred to colleges and departments willing to assume them.
Continuing Education, Summer Session
The body of our report contains many recommendations of how to maintain and improve quality at a first-class research university, in particular in times of fiscal crisis when new attitudes about responsibility, delegation, reorganization, planning, personnel, and reallocation of existing resources are as important as wholly new resources. Greater autonomy is of paramount importance.
None of our units is yet at the level of achievement expected in first-class research universities; further, too many programs approaching that level have already been harmed by past budget cuts. With respect to "Manoa in the Year 2007," we identify four aspirations that can be achieved:
-- Academic programs that can be improved to rank in the top quartile in national surveys: Oceanography, Geology and Geophysics, Astronomy, Psychology, and Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation Biology.
-- Academic programs that can be improved to rank in the top half, perhaps top third: Political Science, Physics, Chemistry, Anthropology, Linguistics, and Molecular and Cellular Biology.
-- A guide towards attaining international preeminence in Asian scholarship.
-- Recommendations to aid UHM's return to the top 50 universities in extramural funding.
The University must define and implement a process for measuring the effectiveness of its units. The goals are to aid internal oversight and provide evidence to the people of Hawaii of the value of the University to its graduates and the State.
ORUs and Schools under SVPRGE.
-- Facilitation of research is the subject of a number of individual comments and recommendations in the body of our January report and in the newer sections on research.
-- Organized Research Units (ORUs) are vital, but vary in mission, size, and other aspects. Each should be examined, asking, Does it belong properly under a vice president, a dean, or a chair? After outside review, is its mission, organization, size, or even its existence still valid?
-- Centrality is not applicable to ORUs, and the criteria of cost, effectiveness, and quality largely have the same measure. Therefore we cannot assign numbers to ORUs in such a way as to meld them fairly within the l01-budget programs listed in recommendation (4) above.
-- We endorse the other committee's comments against legislative mandates. Activities of these units fall outside UHM's mission. They should recharge to cover their expenses, or be cut.
Environmental Center, IRC
-- Certain 102 units serve specific State and Pacific needs, but costs of providing the service are not fully recovered. These units should be examined to see if they can recharge to cover their expenses, or have their organization and mission changed, or be cut:
CRDG, JABSOM, WRRC
-- Certain ORUs have greater education and public-service responsibilities than research ones. These units should have their 102 allocations replaced by 103 and be placed within SILS:
Lyon Arboretum, Waikiki Aquarium
Evaluate, by an external committee using appropriate criteria, the college, its new reorganization plan, and its proportion of 101, 102, and 103 funding, with respect to its present and future mission for
Both committees agree that (1) the medical school cannot function as currently underfunded, and (2) the clinical and basic sciences parts of JABSOM should be split and basic sciences placed somewhere else. We believe, however, that our solution of placing them in SILS has more foresight with respect to the UHM mission and resources. We recommend against placing CRCH and PBRC in JABSOM.
HIMB requires a hard examination of its mission and of the organization, staffing, and facilities appropriate for any changed mission.
Ocean Engineering should be incorporated into a larger unit, either within SOEST or within the College of Engineering.
The first five sections that follow were to introduce our report that was submitted on 27 January 1988 as a final draft lacking only a few minor parts. At that time, however, we were given additional charges, which we completed on 27 February (see cover memos in Appendix 1). By that time some of our earlier report had been leaked and questions were in the newspapers. On 27 March we were asked to complete and submit our final report, and so the three final sections of this introduction have comments about our further charges and experiences.
The University of Hawaii's budget has decreased substantially in recent years, and it is likely to remain reduced in the near future. Slices from departmental allocations, removal of equipment funds, cancellation of scholarly books and journals, deferred maintenance of buildings, suspension of hiring, and other measures including increases in tuition allowed the University to remain solvent with no closure of programs. The result, however, is that existing programs are ineffective from lack of resources, and are destined to diminish further in quality. Of equal or greater concern is the lack of funds to mount new programs and augment existing ones that are urgently required for the long-term benefit and the general well-being of the State of Hawaii.
Further budget cuts would lead to program closures. Senior Vice President Carol Eastman asked deans and directors to set their programs into priority and recommend vertical cuts (June 27, 1997). The Mission Statement and the Manoa and unit Strategic Plans recognize the difficulty of building quality in times of fewer resources. Manoa is "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). Criteria for establishing priorities were set by Dr. Eastman (Appendix 2).
Early in our work we became convinced of three over arching concepts, which we have followed in addition to the usual academic
guides of the primacy of students, and of faculty responsibilities in each of instruction, research, and service:
1. The presence and organization of colleges and schools at UHM should be based on the principal external criterion affecting them: (a) College of Arts and Sciences mainly by centrality, (b) professional schools and colleges by demand, and (c) special cross-disciplinary schools by comparative advantage.
2. All criteria must be examined for each program; no one criterion should be sufficient to increase or cut an individual program;
3. Help for certain existing and new programs is more important for this State institution than any desire to keep the status quo. To free the resources for nourishment requires substantial reorganization, not superficial trimming.
- If you don't know where you are going, you'll end up somewhere else (Yogi Berra)
We committee members are all scientists, a group perhaps more aware of the inevitability of change than any other academicians but historians. We study the evolution of stars and of life; calculus is the language of change.
We worked knowing that universities evolved over many years and continue to do so. A brief history of those changes (Appendix 3) is not to show trends to predict the future, but to impress on our readers the certainty of change. Students search for departments as job availability changes. Faculty members resign; new ones are hired; curricula mutate. Leadership by chairs, deans, and presidents changes. Faculty, administrators, and regents must choose wisely which programs to close or reorganize. If the resources gained are large enough, then the BOR can direct the change at Manoa for the overall, long-term benefit of Hawaii, rather than merely react to random changes that otherwise are inexorable.
Recognizing the futility of asking anyone to recommend cuts in one's own program, the senior vice presidents for Academic Affairs and for Research appointed faculty committees to examine each other's programs. Thus, this committee is composed of faculty in units that reported to Senior Vice President Dean O. Smith. Dr. Edward Laws served as our liaison with the administration.
We were charged to set into priority those units that reported either directly or indirectly to Senior Vice President Carol Eastman, and to recommend units which could be cut with least adverse impact on the University of Hawaii. Our secondary assignment was to identify those consolidations or other cost-saving measures that would allow UH to use its limited resources more efficiently with minimal impact on essential programs and priorities.
The name of our committee, perhaps rooted in the wording of Dr. Eastman's June 1997 memos, is unfortunate in its connotation that we wield a hatchet. Faculty members, students, and citizens of Hawaii may read our report prejudiced by the term 'vertical cuts'. We stress that we are establishing priorities based on given criteria, and making recommendations in the face of declining quality and resources. It is the University Administration that mayor may not act on our advice.
Our earliest meetings in July and August 1997 explored the scope of work. The committee elected its Chair and commenced gathering information. We decided upon working definitions of the criteria we were charged to apply to programs. The criteria were the six combined from Dr. Eastman's memos of June 27 and 30, namely centrality, comparative advantage, demand, cost effectiveness, and quality. We attempted to define each one unambiguously.
We proposed that the final report be in two main parts. The first we organized around the six criteria, as an evaluation of existing programs. It has the material we consulted, mainly in the form of tables, and any conclusions based on a single criterion (e.g., on centrality alone). The part concludes with a matrix of our group opinion (ranking vote) for each of the criteria against each UHM unit.
Thus with respect to our charges, we would set units into priority.
The second part has discussion and recommendations in the context of groups of criteria (for example, centrality with respect to quality and demand). The part also has the rationale for major recommendations about UHM and public education and economic development in Hawaii, and about the life sciences and an Asian-Pacific-Hawaiian focus. The part includes lists of the recommendations for each major unit. Thus we would meet the charge to identify those consolidations or other cost-saving measures that would allow UH to use its limited resources more efficiently with minimal impact on essential programs and priorities. The broader, more inclusive recommendations are assembled into the Executive Summary.
We confirmed with Dr. Eastman that we were on the right track; see Eastman-Laws email correspondence in Appendix 2, along with other definitions we used.
We divided the work among ourselves. Although we moved to a weekly meeting schedule to discuss each others' drafts, the wealth of materials and the travel obligations of members did not allow us to move as rapidly as we initially thought we could. With respect to our charge to evaluate units under Dr. Eastman, we nevertheless saw reason to include units under Dr. Smith in tables, discussion. and recommendation. One instance is in the organization of the biological sciences, with units in Natural Sciences, Organized Research, College of Tropical Agriculture, and the Medical School. Another is in response to state needs for a stronger base in advanced technology, involving Natural Sciences and Engineering under Dr. Eastman. and also departments and institutes under Dr. Smith. Finally, we added a section on how a "zero-based budget"-approach would affect every UHM college and school, and in many instances the elimination of an entire college would have ramifications through the remaining colleges, regardless of the vice president through which the college or school reports.
It should be obvious to readers what is factual, what is someone else's opinion, and what is the Committee's opinion.
It is inevitable that almost every recommendation of ours will come under fire by some in the university community or general public. We do hope, however, that our report is not viewed as inherently flawed because our disciplines differ from so many others in this University. Committee members are all scientists. It has been said that scientists are trained to think in a rigorous data-based method, whereas other people commonly have value-based perspectives. We believe we have been as rigorous as the amount of data and our time allowed.
Moreover, each of us faculty members places great value in the liberal-arts part of our undergraduate education. We recognize that universities exist primarily for their students, and most of us have been instructing students for many years even though much of our own careers have been in the research and service components of academe. We are pleased that the UHM mission stresses diversity in undergraduate programs and professional schools, as well as its mission for graduate education, research, and public service. We have been guided by the UH Mission Statement and by our intention to remain a Research University I in the Carnegie classification. That class requires a range of baccalaureate programs, the awarding of 50 or more doctoral degrees each year, and the annual receipt of $40 million or more in federal support.
On January 29,1998, the Vertical Cuts Committee was asked by now-Interim Senior Vice President Dean Smith to expand its scope of inquiry and recommendations to include the Organized Research Units (ORU) of the University, and, in fact, all units under the administration of the Senior Vice President for Research and Graduate Education. An initial evaluation of those units had been submitted October 17, 1997, by a committee whose faculty members are from the arts and sciences. Each committee was to hold confidential the reports, read the other's report, and reconsider applicable parts of its own report in light of the
other one. The two committees were to be combined as one Manoa Prioritization Committee, with the hope they would be able to reconcile any differences. At the request of Edward Laws, chair of that Manoa Prioritization Committee, and in light of a rapidly deteriorating budget situation, the VC committee was also to summarize our opinion of essential programs and priorities to preserve, and attempt to identify where cuts of more than $16 million could be realized on short notice.
During the Faculty Congress - Manoa Faculty Senate meeting of February 18, 1998, Dr. Smith stated that the committees were looking at all aspects of the Manoa budget, presumably meaning the 103, 104, 105, and 106 parts in addition to the 101 and 102 budgets. We believed it was more important to finish and submit our findings from our July and January charges than to search out the background information to support findings for these other aspects of the University, other than the most obvious ones, which we do describe.
As we were told that our report would not be needed until after mid-May, we then melded our new findings and recommendations of February 27, 1998, with our January 27, 1998, report to Dr. Smith. We made a number of editorial changes, such as numbering tables and recommendations consecutively, and moving background sections to the appendix, that we hope will make our report easier to read. Our support or disagreement with the individual findings of the arts and sciences committee, and our opinions about essential programs and large cuts are clearly indicated. Our principal recommendations are carried forward from the old and new report, and become the Executive Summary of this present consolidated report.
A number of our concepts evolved while we were working, and they deserve to be brought together in this introductory section so that the reader has a clear understanding of the constraints placed on us by the materials available, by the evolving circumstances of the State and the University, and by ourselves.
Criteria: Our recommendations are based on the criteria we were to use, as influenced by our individual views of the state of the Nation and national universities, and of Hawaii and the University of Hawaii. Our ability to judge the setting of UHM in the context of centrality, comparative advantage, and demand was relatively straightforward. On the other hand, our ability to judge the outcome for UHM in terms of cost, effectiveness, and quality was difficult. Measures of cost depend strongly on the disciplines of colleges and their departments and the relative emphasis that each department places on undergraduate or graduate education. Measures of effectiveness are exasperatingly rare. No detailed published external review of undergraduate quality exists.
Zero-base budgeting: We saw no sacred cows, and acted as if this were an exercise in zero-base budgeting. To us, each unit must have its very existence justified against centrality, comparative advantage, and demand, and then against. the other criteria. For the units that are weak or failing, we considered options of how they might be refitted into centrality, or use an advantage, or meet the demand. The options we selected are aimed at cutting costs, improving quality, and (we hope) increasing efficiency. In some instances it seems that no effective alternative to closure exists.
Units to cut versus units to save: Our initial charge was, after putting them into priority, to recommend those units which could be cut with the least adverse impact on the University of Hawaii. A later charge was to recommend what units should be retained. We have done both, as asked, but if we had known at the beginning of this exercise what we know now, we would have pressed strongly for involvement only in the second, namely what to cut and why. We would have left the first with the Administration (what to save, and why). Units to be preserved can be identified clearly on the basis of strength in two or more criteria. On the other hand units that are candidates for cutting earned so few points anywhere that an extra fractional point lobbied for here or there might move them several positions in the ranking.
Scale of cuts and reorganization: Some sections in this report prompt these questions: If there are to be vertical cuts, further horizontal cuts,
and reorganization, should the total savings only be enough to maintain the status quo of the colleges and departments selected to remain? Or would it not be better to cut more than that minimal amount, to provide new resources to strengthen or redirect programs vital to the University? Because the State of Hawaii cannot afford for its University to be both broad and deep, it is better in our opinion to reduce the breadth of offerings in order to maintain or improve a selected number of fields.
Tone of our words: Wording of our recommendations assumes that UHM requires the maximum scale of cuts and reorganization, and so the wording may be brutal. Thus we may say "Retrench Departments X and Y" rather than "Consider retrenching either Department X or Y or both." We realize, of course, that this report is merely advisory to the university administration, and that the extent to which our advice is acted upon will depend on many factors beyond the criteria we were given.
Since January we have heard some support and some criticism on campus. We appreciate the support. Although basically we believe our report should stand on its own. we do comment on some criticisms because others may have read or heard the leaked sections out of context. In what we have been given to read from the Arts and Sciences Committee, and from what we have heard on campus, criticisms of our report include several points that we address in Appendix 11.
We have criticized our own report that it is very long. Part of the length results from the extensive tables of data, which we make available so that someone else can use them to draw up a new matrix, if different weightings of criteria were desired. The other reason for length was that we repeated ourselves in several places, to provide context for those who scan only those sections of direct interest.
What is centrality, and how does one judge it?
The University of Hawaii 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 our status as a Class I institution.
Centrality as a part of mission: Every university requires the presence of certain academic fields of study in order to accomplish its mission. In our report we separately consider such factors as comparative advantage and demand for fields that distinguish UH Manoa from other universities. We restrict our definition of centrality to the basic elements that UHM shares with other universities, and seek to identify those fields or disciplines that are necessary to make an institution a university. This issue of centrality dates to the founding of universities in the Middle Ages, when every one was expected to offer the trivium and quadrivium as its curriculum.
A university is distinguished from a college by its graduate and professional schools and its commitment to research, as well as its undergraduate program. The University of Hawaii Strategic Plan 1997-2007 describes the kind of university that UH Manoa is supposed to be:
"The University of Hawaii at Manoa is a research university of international standing. It creates, refines, disseminates, and perpetuates human knowledge; it offers a comprehensive array of undergraduate, graduate, and professional degrees through the doctoral level, including law and medicine, carries out advanced research, and extends service to the community."
Our views in defining centrality and in the paragraphs above appear to coincide with those of the administration and Manoa faculty. A 1992 memo from Acting President Yuen to the University Executive Council indicated that centrality involves the activities and programs considered essential for timely accomplishment of the University's or unit's goals and objectives. Those objectives, according to the current (December 2, 1997) draft of The Mission of the University of Hawaii at Manoa, include continuing Manoa's wide range of undergraduate options, its graduate programs, and its significant research component. The Manoa Faculty Senate in 1994 proposed that first priority in the allocation of instructional resources be for a wide range of offerings in the courses and disciplines that constitute a student's basic undergraduate education, and that second priority in the allocation of instructional resources be to maintain the highest standards in graduate programs of proven excellence. Moreover, the Senate's three highest priorities for the research budget would all support Manoa as a Class I Carnegie Research University.
The Carnegie Institution ranks universities in the US according to their level of effort. The top rank is the Research Universities I, which "offer a full range of baccalaureate programs, are committed to graduate education through the doctorate, and give high priority to research." These top universities award 50 or more doctoral degrees each year and receive $40 million or more in federal research and training support. Manoa is one of the 88 Carnegie Research I universities. We therefore identify the type of peer university against which we measure the centrality of a field to be Carnegie Research I. Our Mission, the statements of our Faculty, and our peer placement lead to our summary definition of Centrality.
Centrality in times of reduced resources: At present the comprehensive nature of Manoa is under the pressure of budgetary reductions. We ask ourselves, which of our existing baccalaureate programs, graduate programs through the doctorate, and research programs are more central or less central than others? Here we consider only centrality, not cost, quality, or other factors.
Measures of Centrality: At the national scale, centrality within a range of disciplines can be estimated from the number of universities that believe they should offer (and can support) certain basic disciplines. For example, if more universities have Physics departments than have Geology departments, then it is a reasonable assumption that Physics is more central to a university than Geology. Gathering the information is fairly tedious, except for doctorate-granting departments, for which readily available data exist.
In the preparation of our rankings we have considered three general sources of information. The first is directly related to the three-fold concept of a Carnegie Class I research university having a breadth of disciplines, a number of doctoral programs, and a strong research component. Most importantly, we took into account the statistics for (a) the numbers of programs in our peers, the Carnegie Class I research universities, but we also examined (b) the numbers of doctoral programs in the United States, and (c) the numbers of undergraduate programs at a large selection of American universities. The second draws on views others have expressed about Hawaii, for which we considered (a) the current mission statement and strategic plan of the system and for Manoa, (b) views by the Faculty Senate in 1994, (c) a ranking by some Manoa Deans of their own programs, in 1993, in response to Acting President Paul Yuen's memo of 31 July 1992, (d) a ranking by Manoa Deans of all programs in 1983, (e) views of Dean of the Graduate School and Director of Research Wytze Gorter in 1972, and (f) some miscellaneous lists. The third comes from our own views and backgrounds, what we read about universities and trends in them, and how we weight the several lists, because for example, not one of the lists covers all existing UHM programs.
The "core": One might presume that the General Education requirement of the UH Manoa Baccalaureate degree defines those fields that are central to a university education. We have not used the "core" as a measure of Centrality. The core itself has two components, of different character. One component of the core is a base of subjects that are required to prepare students for advanced studies. Mathematics as a base for the study of science is an example. The second part of the core is a diversity of subjects required to give students a broad perspective of the range of human knowledge (see further on pages 87-88). Virtually every department offers courses that enable students to meet some core requirement. Nineteen departments offer core courses in the natural sciences against a requirement that all students take three courses; twenty-six languages are offered against a requirement that all students take four courses. Few of those programs and departments are central to the university. The others exist at UH Manoa because of Comparative Advantage or Demand. Confusing participation in the core with centrality is not productive.
Cross-referencing: Commencing on page 85 we present our recommendations on the combination of centrality with other factors. In particular we comment on, and make recommendations about, central programs that either have quality or might with proper resources attain quality, and that might meet critical state needs or exploit natural advantages. It is there that we contrast the concepts of central disciplines and general education, or "core". In the recommendations there, our lower priorities go to programs that are less common in universities, are mediocre in quality and not likely to improve without exceptional new resources, and that are unlikely to meet needs pr take advantages.
Centrality is a component of other sections, too. On page 102 we show that change in the university must be guided by the central principle of putting the student first. There also we discuss the present-day costs and benefits of education to the bachelors, masters, and doctors levels. Cost-saving recommendations listed on pages 135 and 140 include that the large number of units at Manoa must be consolidated and fit closer to our Mission. The evolution of the American Research University is outlined in Appendix 3.
We find that Centrality is most closely related to the undergraduate part of any university. While a Research I university must have a range of fields in which it awards doctorates and conducts research, there is no requirement that those fields be identical in all such universities.
The concepts of centrality related to national research universities led our Committee to identify those disciplines that are basic in universities with regard to undergraduate instruction. We believe, however, that the programs that confirm Manoa as a doctoral-granting research university of international standing are established by criteria beyond centrality alone.
With respect to centrality, we make the following observations.
A range of baccalaureate programs Regardless of budgetary pressures on UH Manoa, we consider certain undergraduate departments and programs as essential to retain our Carnegie classification; in fact, their absence would not permit us to identify ourselves as a university.
1. We find that these disciplines are the most essential ones for basic undergraduate education in any university (alphabetical order).
Biology, Chemistry, Economics, English, Foreign Languages and Literatures, History, Information and Computer Science, Mathematics, Philosophy, Physics, Political Science, and Psychology
2. We find that these disciplines are useful in supporting basic undergraduate education in any university (priority order).
Anthropology, Art, Music, Sociology, and Geological Sciences.
A range of doctoral programs It is essential to offer a range of doctoral programs in order to retain our Carnegie classification. We cannot find, however, any requirement that each department in the range of baccalaureate programs have a corresponding doctoral program. nor a need that all doctoral programs at a university have a corresponding undergraduate program.
Our evaluation of centrality indicates that comparative advantage, cost, demand,effectiveness, and quality are more important criteria than centrality for determining whether or not a specific doctoral program supports a Class I institution.
A high level of research It is essential that UHM foster a range of extramural research activities in order to retain our Carnegie classification. There is no requirement, however, that undergraduate departments and doctoral fields of study necessary for the first two Carnegie criteria be the only sources of success in extramural funding.
We find that comparative advantage, cost, demand, and quality are more important criteria than centrality for the sources and magnitude of research needed for Class I.
Centrality can be measured from both internal and external perspectives. External ones include our survey of peer universities, an examination of research-doctorate fields, and tabulations for the Gourman Reports of undergraduate programs.
Survey of Peer Universities As a measure of Centrality, we determined the frequency that a given department occurs among a group of peer institutions. The peer group consisted of most of the 88 Carnegie Research I classification universities plus two other universities, UC Santa Cruz and University of Delaware, that some external reviews have identified as comparable to UH Manoa. The organizational information for each university was taken from the World Wide Web pages of each institution to obtain the most current snapshot of the department list. Care was taken to get a listing of all departments, not only those with Web sites. Approximately 5 of the Carnegie Research I universities are not accessible in this way. We assembled information from a total of 70 of the possible universities, because of the limitations of time in working with some of the sites.
There is ambiguity in some organizational details. The distinction among college, school, division department, program, center, institute, or field of study is not always clear. The same discipline can have different names at different universities; we make no distinction between Geology and Earth Science, or Hispanic Studies and Latino Studies. We have tried to be reasonably consistent with the intent of identifying which departments are central. We use the department as the unit of interest because it is our organizational unit. Other choices, such as degree offerings or course offerings, could be used but our work would be more difficult.
We have limited this measure to academic units. A survey of research units is possible, but much more time-consuming.
This measure must be used with caution.
With 70 universities, each having nearly 100 units, our counts are not based on deep understanding of what each unit does, but only 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.
The tables that follow summarize the measure. Table 1 lists the University of Hawaii departments and the count of universities, both UHM and peers, that have a comparable department. Table 1 is listed in the UHM organizational structure. The total count is listed opposite the name. Below are listed related keywords that were searched to check for differences in department names at the peer universities. This listing gives a sense of the possible ambiguities. The list that breaks down the related names shows only those names actually found; others were sought but not found among the peers.
|Sorted by UH Manoa organizational chart. Unit name Number of peers (breakdown of related names given below)|
ARCHITECTURE, SCHOOL OF 36 17 (School, College) 19 (Department) ARTS AND HUMANITIES, COLLEGE OF American Studies 21 20 American Studies 20 1 (American Civilization) Art 51 History 68 Music 66 52 (Department) 14 (School) Philosophy 70 Religion 45 15 Religion 30 (Religious Studies) Speech 17 5 Speech 12 (Speech Communication) Theatre and Dance 44 9 Theatre and Dance 21 (Dance) 22 (Theatre) 13 (Drama/Dramatic Arts) COLLEGE OF LANGUAGES, LINGUISTICS, AND LITERATURES East Asian Languages & Literatures 23 16 East Asian Langs & Lits 7 (Asian) 1 (South Asian) English 70 66 English 4 (Literature) English as a Second Language 8 European Languages and Literatures 67 2 European Languages & Lits. 34 (French)* 33 (Italian)* 31 (Spanish)* 4 (Portuguese)* 14 (Romance) 44 (German)* 5 (Scandinavian)* 45 (Slavic) * 22 (Russian)* * including various combinations Hawaiian and Indo-Pacific L & L 2 Interpretation & Translation Studies 2 Linguistics 46 (Manoa) Writing Program 18 COLLEGE OF NATURAL SCIENCES Biology 66 57 Biology 9 (Biological Science) Botany 14 Chemistry 70 Information & Computer Science 66 5 Information and Comp. Sci. 12 (Information Science) 61 (Computer Science) Mathematics 70 68 Mathematics 2 (Mathematical Science) Microbiology 48 Physics and Astronomy 70 25 Physics and Astronomy 45 (Physics) 20 (Astronomy) COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Anthropology 66 Communication 55 Economics 70 Ethnic Studies Program 41 7 Ethnic Studies 34 (African American/Black Studies) 16 (Chicano/Latino/Hispanic/Mexican American) Geography 43 Journalism 46 33 Journalism 11 (Mass Communication) Political Science 61 Population Studies Program 4 Psychology 68 Public Administration Program 13 Sociology 63 Urban & Regional Planning 30 19 (City also) 11 (Urban/ City Planning) 3 (Regional Planning) Women's Studies 46 Futures Studies 1 BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, COLLEGE OF Accounting 35 Decision Sciences 6 Financial Economics and Institutions 37 1 Financial Econ & Institutions 36 (Finance) Management and Industrial Relations 2 Management & Indust. Relat. 7 (Industrial Relations) 6 (Labor Relations/Studies) 3 (Management & Human Resources) Marketing 33 CONTINUING EDUCATION AND 17 COMMUNITY SERVICE, COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, COLLEGE OF 34 Counseling and Guidance 13 2 Counseling and Guidance 11 (Counseling) Curriculum and Instruction 18 Educational Administration 8 Educational Foundations 5 Educational Psychology 18 Educational Technology 6 Health, Physical Ed, and Recreation 21 6 Health, Phys Ed, & Rec 3 (Recreation) 6 (Leisure) 10 (Sports Science/Studies) 15 (Physical Education) 5 (Exercise Science) 12 (Kinesiology) 6 (Health Education) Special Education 18 ENGINEERING, COLLEGE OF 33 Civil Engineering 50 Electrical Engineering 59 Mechanical Engineering 60
HAWAIIAN, ASIAN & PACIFIC STUDIES, SCHOOL OF Asian Studies 28 14 Asian Studies 14 (East Asian) 6 (South Asian) 3 (Southeast Asian) 1 (West Asian) 1 (Central Asian) Hawaiian Studies 8 1 Hawaiian Studies 7 (Native American/American Indian) Pacific Island Studies 3 2 Pacific Island Studies 1 (Australian Studies) HEALTH SCIENCES 7 AND SOCIAL WELFARE, COLLEGE OF LAW, SCHOOL OF 31 LIBRARY AND INFORMATION STUDIES, 13 SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, SCHOOL OF 27 Allied Medical Studies 7 Anatomy and Reproductive Biology 22 1 Anatomy & Repro Biology 21 (Anatomy) 1 (Reproductive) Biochemistry and Biophysics 62 6 Biochemistry & Biophysics 15 (Biophysics) 56 (Biochemistry) Biomedical Sciences 5 Family Practice & Community Health 21 5 Family Pra & Com Health 16 (Family Practice/Medicine) 5 (Community Health) Genetics and Molecular Biology 33 1 Genetics & Molec Biol 32 (Genetics) 26 (Molecular Biology) Medical History 4 Medical Technology 24 8 Medical Technology 16 Biomedical Engineering Obstetrics and Gynecology 15 Pathology 28 Pediatrics 24 Pharmacology 34 Physiology 38 Psychiatry 24 Speech Pathology and Audiology 17 8 Speech Path & Audio 9 (Speech and Hearing Science) Surgery 25 Tropical Med & Med Microbiology 6 (all Medical Microbiology) NURSING, SCHOOL OF 24 Dental Hygiene 2 Nursing 11 OCEAN AND EARTH SCIENCE AND 1 TECHNOLOGY, SCHOOL OF Geology and Geophysics 65 9 Geology and Geophysics 17 (Geology) 4 (Geophysics) 14 (Earth Science) 5 (Geoscience) 20 (Geological Science) Meteorology 23 8 Meteorology 15 (Atmospheric Science) Ocean Engineering 4 Oceanography 7 Oceanography 2 (Ocean Science) 8 (Marine Science) PUBLIC HEALTH, SCHOOL OF 16 8 (School) 8 (Department) 13 (Epidemiology*) 13 (Biostatistics*) (* within Public Health here but not necessarily so at these peers) SOCIAL WORK, SCHOOL OF 29 SPECIAL PROGRAMS Air Force ROTC 30 30 (Also Aerospace Science) 26 (Army ROTC/Military Science) 15 (Navy ROTC/Naval Science) (UH Manoa) Study Abroad Center 3 TRAVEL INDUSTRY MANAGEMENT, SCHOOL OF 13 1 Travel Industry Management 3 (Travel) 12 (Tourism) 5 (Hotel and Restaurant) TROPICAL AGRICULTURE & HUMAN 11 RESOURCES, COLLEGE OF Agricultural and Resource Economics 21 8 Agricultural & Res Econ 13 (Agricultural Economics) 4 (Resource Economics) Agronomy and Soil Science 12 1 Agronomy and Soil Science 10 (Agronomy) 11 (Soil Science) Animal Sciences 30 Biosystems Engineering 15 11 Biosystems Engineering 4 (Bioresource Engineering) Entomology 27 Environmental Biochemistry 1 Food Science and Human Nutrition 26 14 Food Sci & Human Nutr 12 (Food Science) 4 (Human Nutrition) General Agriculture 2 Horticulture 19 Human Resources (also Human Dev) 20 Plant Molecular Physiology 1 Plant Pathology 22
Table 2 lists the same total counts as Table 1, but sorted by frequency of occurrence. Percentile levels are listed in the right-hand column for reference. UH Manoa units that rank high on this list are presumed to be more Central than those that rank low.
Some departments occur at peer universities, but not at UH Manoa. Table 3 lists the most common departments in the peer universities that have no Manoa counterpart. In most cases the absence of these units at UHM reflects our comparative disadvantage at the particular topic. The limited selection of engineering departments and the absence of specialized ethnic studies departments are the most common difference of UHM from our peers. UHM offers courses in many of these areas. Some of these departments represent limitations of the peer universities; Art History is common at peers that do not offer studio artwork as UHM does.
|Unit name||No. of peers
(Max = 70)
|African Amer./Black Stu||35|
|Latin American Studies||26|
|Near Eastern Studies||13|
|Middle Eastern Studies||11|
|Native American / Am Indian||7|
Carnegie Research I universities include some technical universities with fewer broad departments in humanities and social sciences than other more general universities. Land Grant universities have departments to cover subjects mandated by Federal Law. Universities with professional schools commonly have a corresponding set of departments in the fields required by the professions. Table 4 lists UH Manoa professional schools and shows the occurrence of those schools among the peers. It also gives the total of the most common department, in the field but not in a college. It shows that of 36 departments of Architecture, 17 are in a separate school and 19 are in a broader college; of 60 departments of the most common engineering field, Mechanical Engineering, 27 are outside a specific college or school of engineering. Apparently some departments are connected with science rather than clinical parts of Medicine. Table 4 gives some idea of whether it is more common to have the separate School or College structure, or just an included department in a general college. The real lesson for UH is that our peers do not agree that Architecture or Engineering (and perhaps medical disciplines) need separate School or College structures over and above a department in a regular college.
School or College
|Included in a|
The total number of units at universities ranges from the mid-forties to over two hundred. Table 5 lists the total number of units at the peer universities, sorted by number of units. The expense of our large structure leads to recommendations on page 136.
NRC Study of the Doctorate. 1995: Table 6 shows the numbers of US institutions awarding a sufficient number of PhDs in the listed fields, for 1986 -1992, to be included in Research-doctorate Programs in the United States: National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council (NRC), 1995 (Table 2.2, p. 20). We assume there is some correlation between numbers of graduate and undergraduate programs.
Table 7 displays the NRC findings along with our survey of peer institutions. There is good agreement between the measures. With a few exceptions, the list of departments at UHM is nearly complete down to Music. Below that ranking, UH Manoa has only a minority of the fields listed. At the same ranking there is an abrupt drop in frequency of occurrence of the peer departments. Both these facts convince us that ranking the lesser fields is optional, rather than mandatory, as judged by the commitment of resources by the peer universities.
A. All fields listed by NRC|
B. Doctoral institutions
C. Number of peers including UH unit
D. Number of peers, but no UH PhD unit
|*note that NRC listings in the biological sciences do not match UH ones. Extensive comments elsewhere in this committee report.|
From the 1993 and later Gourman Reports. These are the numbers of a "selected number of institutions" granting a degree in a discipline, in 1992 (The Gourman Report - A Rating of Undergraduate Programs in America, 1993; 8th ed.) We used this edition because the 9th (1995) and 10th (1998) editions are less inclusive, reporting on about 10 fewer majors and more than 500 fewer institutions. Note that section on Quality, pages 58ff, also makes reference to The Gourman Report.
|About 150 named degrees are in the 1993 The Gourman Report. More than one-half of the institutions give degrees with these names.|
|Undergraduate degrees (and programs) offered at UH Manoa listed in the The Gourman Report, but less common at other Gourman-surveyed institutions than those in Table 8.|
|Field||No. of Institutions|
|Bacteriology / Microbiology||280|
|East Asian Studies||44|
|Geology / Geophys/ Earth Sci||555|
|Home Economics / Human Res||117|
|Religion/ Religious Studies||473|
|South Asian Studies||10|
|Southeast Asian Studies||10|
|Speech Pathology / Audiology||233|
Some miscellaneous listings that suggest centrality of disciplines. The Graduate Record Examination has achievement tests in 16 fields (Table 10), and US News and World Reports ranks the top 25 US graduate schools in 12 broad categories.
Mission Statement and Strategic Plan
Any attempt to view centrality in Hawaiian terms must consider our current Mission Statement. The Committee notes that the mission of UHM includes the three requirements of a Carnegie Research I university: baccalaureate range, doctoral degrees, and research component. To avoid misunderstandings, we quote sections of "Synopsis of: Mission Statement and Focus and Quality: University of Hawaii Strategic Plan 1997-2007," dated November 1996.
"The mission of the University of Hawaii system is to provide quality college and university education and training; create knowledge through research and scholarship; provide service through extension, technical assistance, and training; contribute to the cultural heritage of the community; and respond to state needs. The campuses, organized under one board, differentially emphasize instruction, research, and service. The system's special distinction is found in its"
"Hawaiian, Asian, and Pacific orientation and international leadership role. Common values bind the system together: Aloha, academic freedom and intellectual vigor; institutional integrity and service; quality and opportunity; diversity, fairness, and equity; collaboration and respect; and accountability and fiscal integrity."
"The University of Hawaii at Manoa is a research university of international standing. It creates, refines, disseminates, and perpetuates human knowledge; it offers a comprehensive array of undergraduate, graduate, and professional degrees through the doctoral level, including law and medicine, carries out advanced research, and extends services to the community. Students have special opportunities for Asian, Pacific, and Hawaiian educational experiences, involvement in research activities, service learning, and co-curricular activities."
- Improve the quality of learning in the first two years; ensure that students are prepared to take advantage of the Manoa experience; set higher standards for education and graduation; increase faculty involvement with students.
- Become the institution of choice for more of Hawaii's best high school graduates; guarantee access for AA graduates; maintain undergraduate enrollment of 13,000-14,000; provide a student-oriented campus.
- In undergraduate instructional resources, give priority to seven colleges (Languages, Linguistics, & Literature; Arts & Humanities; Social Sciences; Natural Sciences [these 4 in Arts & Sciences, plus:} Business Administration; Education; Engineering), as well as other schools and colleges involved in undergraduate education.
- Focus graduate offerings in areas of special strength and societal need; work with Hilo in developing selected graduate programs at UHH.
- Support research as a primary function; concentrate on areas of natural advantage and importance to the state; involve students in research; apply research results to societal problems; encourage involvement in service and outreach.
- Give the library high priority; establish special financial relations for professional schools; expand distance education.
Faculty Senate Academic Priorities of 1994
In January 1994 the Manoa Faculty Senate approved a set of Academic Priorities for the allocation of resources for each of the six General Fund budgets and the Capital Improvement budget. There were three levels of priority in each of those seven budgets. For example, within the 101 (Instruction) budget, first priority would go to the courses and disciplines that constitute a student's basic undergraduate education, second to graduate programs of proven excellence, and third to graduate and undergraduate programs that serve the special needs of the people and the state of Hawaii.
In its meeting of Wednesday February 28, 1996, however, the Faculty Senate declined to reaffirm its 1994 priorities. The Senate was presented by its Committee on Administration and Budget with a statement of reaffirmation in order to guide the Administration into "vertical" cuts rather than additional "across the board" cuts. According to the Minutes, which reflected the comments of many of the senators, the Academic Priorities, "originally determined in a different fiscal climate", should not now be used to guide vertical cuts. A simple reading of the draft statement, however, showed that most of the adverse comments came from seekers of self-preservation; their comments had little relevance on the Priorities as worded in 1994, or the newer statement of 1996.
Even though the Senate reneged, it nevertheless is useful to review the Senate's Academic Priorities of 1994. Below, the three priorities for the 101 budget are quoted.
INSTRUCTIONAL BUDGET (101)
Priority 1. Given that all UH-Manoa undergraduate students, whatever their majors, take most of their courses from departments other than their own, and that the fundamental purpose of a university is not to provide specific job training but to provide the thinking and writing skills that will be required in all professions in the twenty-first century, the first priority in allocating
instructional resources must be the maintenance of a high standard of excellence and a wide range of offerings in the courses and disciplines that constitute a student's basic undergraduate education.
[definition of the range of offerings in disciplines that constitute a student's basic undergraduate education is the purpose of this section on Centrality]
Priority 2. Given that the university has developed graduate programs of national and international caliber in some disciplines, and that it has a commitment to the graduate students who have chosen to enroll at UHM rather than attend another institution, second priority in the allocation of instructional resources must be given to maintaining the highest standards in graduate programs of proven excellence.
[graduate programs of proven excellence are listed in the section Quality, on pages 61-63]
Priority 3, Given that the university serves a unique function as the only large graduate and research institution in the state, third but very high priority in the allocation of instructional resources must be given to graduate and undergraduate programs that serve the special needs of the people and the state of Hawaii.
[serving the special needs of the people and the State of Hawaii is discussed under the criterion of Demand, page 41, and on page 109.]
The Senate's Academic Priorities of 1994 for the 102 budget were, in brief, (1) for outstanding research programs that attract extramural funding, (2) for research that enhances undergraduate and graduate instructional programs, and (3) for research expertise to serve local, regional, and international communities.
Note that the Faculty Senate's Academic Priorities 101-1, 101-2, and 102-1 cover the three requirements of a Carnegie Research I university: baccalaureate range, doctoral degrees, and a research component
Deans' own views, 1992-1993
In response to the Board of Regents' system-wide Review and Prioritization exercise, and under guidelines given in Acting President Paul Yuen's memo of 31 July 1992, Manoa units began a process of self-examination, assessment, and review. Centrality was included. Faculty, staff, students, the Executive Committee of the Manoa Faculty Senate, and the Administration were involved. Deans reviewed the reports, and developed a ranking profile for their units. The Vice President for Academic Affairs, with assistance and consultation, reviewed the prioritizations, and reported them on 18 March 1993.
We must point out that Centrality for the 1992-1993 ratings were with respect to the campus and its Level V academic missions, For example, professional programs were rated with respect to state manpower needs, a concept we have placed with demand. For that reason, and because almost all programs received a ranking of 4 or 5 on a 1 to 5 basis, most members of this present committee do not give much weight to the following rankings:
|Units by rank||Departments Unless Noted|
|Rank of 5||
|Rank of 4||
|Rank of 3||
Council of Deans, 1983 listing of Basic to a University: Attached to this committee report in Appendix 5 is an explanation and listing by quintiles of all departments and programs in UHM in 1983, including library services, honors, institutes, etc.
We assume that the term "basic" to the Council of Deans is analogous to our use of "central". The 34 programs or departments at the top of Table 13 received 10 or more votes as Basic to a University, on a scale of 20 high to 0 low; i.e., half or more of the 20 Manoa deans who voted considered the field to be basic. The right-hand column are the numbers of our peer institutions with those disciplines (max. 70)
Gorter's 1972 listing of graduate "fields offered by virtually every first-rate university": In 1972 the Dean of the Graduate School, Wytze Gorter, prepared a report to the Board of Regents on graduate programs at UHM and why they had been established. Table 14 is the list of 14 fields in his category 3, Fields offered by virtually every first-rate university. At Manoa, all of these graduate fields also have undergraduate fields except Genetics (Linguistics through Liberal Studies).
We assume that the phrase "offered by virtually every first-rate university" by Dean Gorter is analogous to our use of "central".
|Field||No. of peers|
|Geology and Geophysics||65|
What is comparative advantage, and how does one judge it?
COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE results from the physical, biological, and human environments of Hawaii that give programs at University of Hawaii a superior position relative to other universities in areas of teaching, research, and service.
In the past, Comparative Advantage had been presented as Hawaii's location and its natural and social environment. The advantage gives the University of Hawaii, by virtue of its situation here, a superior position relative to other universities in the academic programs, including research and service, based on those environments. Certain programs or units within UHM, owing to the disciplines in which they are based, can and do use that advantage relative to other units at UHM.
Hawaii is a natural laboratory in the biological and earth sciences, a site for observatories and from which to mount expeditions, and a focus for cultural and social studies of Asia and the Indo-Pacific Islands. The heart of studies of Hawaiian culture and language must be here. Compared to other areas and other universities, programs in these areas at UHM have a natural advantage in attracting good faculty, good students, and a substantial level of funding from granting agencies and private foundations.
At one level, the university and its departments and programs essentially use their own declarations to judge themselves against this criterion of Comparative Advantage. They use phrases for the missions of schools and programs, in the titles of departments and courses, and for interests claimed by faculty.
At a more sophisticated level, however, judgment about comparative advantage can be based on actions that have actually transpired from outside the University of Hawaii relative to the programs we claim to have a comparative advantage. For example, in the support of research and training proposals by foundations and agencies, in the publication of scholarly works reviewed outside UHM, and how outsiders respond to the kinds of conferences held here. It is a factor in the numbers of students and post-docs who want to study here [we term this Demand]. Invested capital can also measure comparative advantage, to the extent that it is recognition from outside the university that an advantage exists. Gifts of a Korean temple or of a marine biology laboratory are indications that private individuals saw our Asian cultural and marine natural advantages. An observatory or a ship are indications that federal science agencies recognized advantages. Investment by the Legislature and Governor in special facilities, including land, indicates that natural comparative advantage is recognized from outside the Manoa campus itself.
We are a committee to recommend places for vertical cuts, and so we cannot recommend cutting programs that truly capitalize on Hawaii's natural advantages. We describe in some detail the environmental advantages, so programs that fall outside this criterion can be compared against those which fit in. To keep all in perspective, we describe the components of comparative advantage and the programs exploiting the advantages, whether they are under Academic Affairs or under Research.
Schools, departments, institutes, and programs that are exploiting the physical and biological environment of Hawaii are relatively more successful than those that should be exploiting the societal or human advantages. See sections on Effectiveness (on pp. 54 and 33) and Using Comparative Advantage at UHM (on p. 124).
Statements by the UHM community about comparative advantage, and actions by those outside the community, lead us to list programs exploiting, or that have the greatest potential to exploit natural advantages.
Components of the physical and biological environment of Hawaii include
Beach erosion, Changing climate, Coastal pollution, Earthquakes, Endangering rare species, Groundwater contamination, Hurricanes, Landslides, Over-fishing, Reef destruction, Soil erosion, Tsunamis, Volcanic eruptions, etc.
Cultural resurgence in art, music, and literature that reflect human concerns, Economic development and technological transfer, Fault-line wars relative to Peace Studies, Global environmental concerns, Growth versus suppression of human rights and democratic institutions, Military adventures, Persecution of ethnic minorities, Population growth, Trade and trade barriers, Weapons proliferation, etc.
Hawaii's infrastructure: Compared with other places having, say, reefs, volcanoes, multiethnic populations, and ties to other customs and civilizations, these sets of advantages are aided by Hawaii's infrastructure of ports and airports, a literate and skilled work force, and
cultural attractions for academics, all within a participatory democracy and market economy.
Good promotes good: Faculty drawn by these comparative natural advantages have, in turn, acted as magnets drawing additional scientists and scholars. For example, programs in geology and astronomy were the lure for planetary geoscientists, who have now given Space Grant status to UHM. The cadre of early specialists on Asia and the Pacific helped draw new faculty and new research in the history, anthropology, and linguistics of the region.
Hawaii's mid-Pacific location. excluding any physical, biological, and human aspects of the environment, is of importance to a number of our schools and programs.
President's Office. In his recent convocation address, President Mortimer explained what he meant by "Becoming Competitive", as follows (Ku Lama, 19 Sept 1997):
"... our ability to attract the best students, scholars, and faculty in the fields where we are blessed with unique resources, so that we have a cadre - the cadre -- of experts, a knowledge resource for the world in a Pacific family of fields and disciplines. These include Pacific and Asian cultures and languages, ocean and earth sciences, tropical agriculture and medicine, global trade and international relations. We own the franchise in the Pacific. It is within our reach, and it can be within our grasp, to be the first choice for scholars and faculty with those interests."
"What I am talking about is the ability to attract the resources -- the grants, gifts, and endowments -- to empower that cadre and enlarge that knowledge resource. Private support can allow us to achieve what state support alone can never do, for UH or any public institution. Private support can, for example, underwrite the endowed chairs that put us on the map in such fields as cancer research, renewable energy, international banking, volcanology, and business enterprise, to name just some of the fields already represented by our endowed chairs."
Pacific and Asian cultures and languages|
Ocean and earth sciences
Tropical agriculture and medicine
Global trade and international relations
Graduate Division: In his 1972 analysis for the Board of Regents of graduate programs in Hawaii, Wytze Gorter listed 22 graduate fields of study as "taking advantage of Hawaii's location and natural and social environment", which are in Table 16 in his order.
Agronomy and Soil Science|
Geology and Geophysics
Food Science and Technology
Drama and Theater
Pacific Island Studies
Catalog: The 1997-1999 General and Graduate Information Catalog allows us to estimate how programs at Manoa see themselves relative to Hawaii's natural advantages.
Table 17 has all programs listed in the order they appear in the
Catalog [Ed. note: sorted for the web]. In the comments,
Env indicates that the program, mission, mandate, or aims part of the catalog text states that the program takes advantage of Hawaii's physical, biological, or human environment. (example: "The Botany Department, with its unique tropical location, emphasizes the study of Hawaiian and tropical plants and their environment.")
Fac indicates faculty specialties that can or do take advantage of the location or environment. (for example, "W. Tanabe, PhD - Asian art history (Japan)").
Major, modest, trace, or none refer to the extent of the any text statement, faculty contribution, or other component in the catalog.
Cour indicates course titles or descriptions that are relevant.
Other means that although specifics are lacking in this catalog, other information is relevant. (for example, Cancer Research Center claims no advantage in the catalog, but they conduct epidemiology research based on ethnic groups).
Serv means a service program that exists because of the location or local environment. (for example, the Diving Safety Program).
Loc indicates that the catalog text states that the program takes advantage of, or provides for the needs of, our (mid)Pacific location. (example: the Psychiatry Department says it "provides leadership in psychiatric training, teaching, research, and services in Hawaii, Asia, and the Pacific Basin").
|List of all programs in the 1997-1999 Catalog, and indication of their wording with respect to natural advantages.|
|Miscellaneous in pages 12-17.|
|Alumni Affairs Office||none|
|CRCH||Other (ethnic groups)|
|Center on Aging||none|
|Diving Safety Prog||Serv|
|Hawaii Interact TV||none|
|IFA||Loc; major phys env.|
|Industrial Relat Cent||none|
|Information Tech Ser||none|
|Lab Animal Service||none|
|Library||Serv (Spec collections)|
|Lyon Arboretum||Loc.; major biol env.|
|Matsunaga Ins Peace||Loc.|
|Off Faculty Develop||none|
|Office of Internat Aff||Serv.|
|PBRC||Loc.; major biol env.|
|SSRC||Modest human env.|
|Aging||Other (ethnic cohort)|
|Cell Molec Neurosci||trace|
|Communicat Info Sci||trace|
|Ecol, Evol Cons Biol||Loc.; major biol. env, fac, & cour|
|Arts and Sciences|
|Anthropology||Loc.; major human env, fac, & cour|
|Art||modest in loc and fac|
|Astronomy||Loc.; major phys env & observat. fac.|
|Botany||Loc.; major biol. env, fac, & cour|
|Chemistry||trace faculty interest|
|Communication||trace in affiliations|
|East Asian Lang Liter||Loc; Loc.; maj human env, fac & cour|
|Economics||trace in mission|
|English||trace; plan B culture|
|English as a Second L||Other (many languages in Hawaii)|
|Ethnic Studies||Loc.; major human env, fac, and cour|
|European Lang Liter||none|
|Geography||Loc; modest fac & cour|
|Hawaiian Indo-P Lang & Lit||Loc.; major human env, fac, and cour|
|History||Modest fac & cour|
|Informat Comp Sci||Loc|
|Interp Transling Stu||Other (many languages in Hawaii)|
|Liberal Studies||trace in human env.|
|Linguistics||Loc; major human env, fac, and cour|
|Music||Loc., Modest fac, & cour|
|Philosophy||Loc; Hum. Env fac but modest. cour.|
|Political Science||trace faculty|
|Religion||Modest hum env, fac, & cour|
|Second Lang Acquis||Other (many languages in Hawaii)|
|Sociology||Modest hum env, fac, & cour|
|Theatre and Dance||Loc. modest fac, & cour|
|Urban Regional Plan||trace|
|Zoology||Loc; major biol. env, fac, & cour|
|Bus Adm Spec Pro P||Loc|
|Financial Econ Instit||none|
|Manag Indust Relat||none|
|Doctor of Education||none|
|Counseling and Guid||none|
|Kines Leisure Sci||none|
|Teacher Ed Curric S||none|
|Buddhist Studies Program||Loc, hum env, fac|
|Center Chinese Studies||Loc, hum env, fac|
|Center Hawaiian Studies||Loc, hum env, fac|
|Center Japanese Studies||Loc, hum env, fac|
|Center Korean Studies||Loc, hum env, fac|
|Center Pacific Islands Studies||Loc, hum env, fac|
|Center Philippine Studies||Loc, hum env, fac|
|Center for Russia in Asia||Loc, hum env, fac|
|Center South Asian Studies||Loc, hum env, fac|
|Center Southeast Asian Studies||Loc, hum env, fac|
|Asian Studies||Hum env, fac & cour|
|Hawaiian Studies||Hum env, fac & cour|
|Pacific Islands Studies||Hum env, fac & cour|
|School of Law||Loc, modest fac & clas|
|(ex- Sch Lib Info Stu||none|
|School of Medicine|
|Allied Medical Sci||none|
|Anatomy and Repro||none|
|Family Pract Comm||none|
|Speech Pathol Audio||none|
|Trop Med Med Micr Loc, major biol. env, fac, & cour|
|HIGP||Loc.; major phys env|
|HIMB||Loc.; major phys env|
|HNEI||Modest phys env|
|HURL||Loc.; major phys env|
|Look Lab||Loc.; major phys env|
|JIMAR||Loc.; major phys env|
|Sea Grant||Loc.; major phys env|
|Space Grant||(Most fields in loc & maj phys env).|
|Geology Geophys||Loc.; major phys env., fac, cour|
|Meteorology||Loc.; major phys env., lac, cour|
|Ocean Engineering||Loc.; major phys env., lac, cour|
|Oceanography||Loc.; maj phys & bio env., lac, cour|
|School Public Health||Loc|
|School Social Work||Loc|
|Summer Session||trace human env (Elderhostel prog)|
|Travel Industry Management||Loc|
|College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources|
|Agricult Res Econ||none|
|Agron Soil Science||Loc; mod phys env, lac, cour|
|Entomology||Loc.; major biol. env, fac, & cour|
|Food Sci Human Nutr||none|
|Horticulture||Loc.; major biol. env, fac, & cour|
|Plant Molecular Physiology||Loc.; major biol env, some faculty|
|Plant Pathology||Moderate biol. env & cour|
Their own statements (above) that are in the 1997-1999 UHM catalog indicate a range of responses to advantages. In Table 18 are the programs that claim strength in a comparative advantage that results from the physical, biological, and human environments of Hawaii.
Thus, these programs at UHM claim a superior position relative to other universities in areas of teaching, research, and service. They are grouped a, b, and c by type of advantage.
|a. Major physical environment|
|Astronomy||Loc.; observational faculty|
|Geology & Geoph||Loc.; faculty, courses|
|Meteorology||Loc.; faculty, courses|
|Ocean Engineering||Loc.; faculty, courses|
|Oceanography||Loc.; faculty, courses (and biol. environ)|
|Space Grant||(most fields in major phys env.)|
|SOEST Certif Prog||Loc.|
|b. Major biological environment|
|Agron. & Soil Science||Loc.; faculty, courses (and moderate phys environment)|
|Ecol, Evol Con Biol||Loc.; faculty, courses|
|Botany||Loc.; faculty, courses|
|Zoology||Loc.; faculty, courses|
|Entomology||Loc.; faculty, courses|
|Horticulture||Loc.; faculty, courses|
|Trop Med Med Micr||Loc.; faculty, courses|
|Plant Molec Phys||Loc.; some faculty,|
|c. Major human environment|
|East Asian Lang Lit||Loc.; faculty, courses|
|Hawaiian Indo-Pac L||Loc.; faculty, courses|
|Anthropology||Loc.; faculty, courses|
|Linguistics||Loc.; faculty, courses|
|Asian Studies||Faculty and courses|
|Hawaiian Studies||Faculty and courses|
|Pacific Is Studies||Faculty and courses|
|Ethnic Studies||Loc, faculty, courses|
|Buddhist Studies Pr||Loc, faculty|
|Cent Chinese Stu||Loc, faculty|
|Cent Hawaiian Stu||Loc, faculty|
|Cent Japanese Stu||Loc, faculty|
|Cent Korean Stu||Loc, faculty|
|Cent Pacific Is Stu||Loc, faculty|
|Cent Philippine Stu||Loc, faculty|
|Cent Russia in Asia||Loc, faculty|
|Cent South Asian Stu||Loc, faculty|
|Cent SE Asian Stu||Loc, faculty|
Table 19 lists UHM programs with some claim towards a comparative advantage in Hawaii. Their statements indicate they have a favorable position relative to other universities in their fields They are listed by order in catalog.
Comments in 1997-1999 UHM catalog indicate that the programs given in Table 20 have little or no claim upon Hawaii's location or comparative advantages. Listed in the order printed in the catalog.
Here we note that a large proportion of Federal and Private funds and donations received by UHM benefit the units for which a Comparative Advantage is claimed. We assume this pattern of funding is in large part an investment or a recognition from outside the university of those advantages.
Extramural support In the section on Cost, pages 50-51, we show leveraging by extramural research and training support by units over the past 5 years. Here we group the programs given in tables 18, 19, and 20 into five categories, for the past fiscal year (1996-1997). That is a sufficient length of time for the figures to make our point, which is that our natural advantages are recognized by funding agencies outside UHM. Other aspects of the table is presented in the sections on Effectiveness, p. 54, and Using comparative advantage at UHM, p. 124.
|Groups of programs||$M||$M/Prog|
|1. Physical advantage (first 14 programs Table 18)||53.7||3.8|
|2. Biological advantage (next 10 programs Table 18)||16.2||1.6|
|3. Human advantage (last 18 programs Table 18)||1.2||<0.1|
|4. Some advantage claimed (34 programs of Table 19; about half is in CRCH)||19.1||0.6|
|5. Little or no advantage claimed (79 prog. of Table 20)||39.9||0.5|
With strong caveats (programs vary greatly in number of faculty; line 4 is not broken down into PIs who did or did not aim at exploiting an advantage), this nevertheless suggests that the physical and biological programs are doing well with respect to the rest of the university in utilizing their competitive advantage. On the other hand, programs that should be able to exploit the societal or human advantages are not doing so; they may believe that G funds alone suffice for their needs.
There are other kinds of support, which although of lesser monetary value than extramural grants, nevertheless show trends. For example, donations of time and labor by citizens at the Hawaiian Studies kalo loi and at Lyon Arboretum (thousands of hours volunteered annually at the latter), donations of special library holdings in a number of these fields, and renovation of the PBRC labs at Leahi Hospital in support of the minorities training program.
Capital investment Here we note land, buildings, and other facilities provided by State, Federal, and Private donors in support of activities for which UHM claims a comparative advantage. At Manoa there are Hawaii Institute of Geophysics Building, Hawaiian Studies complex, Korean Temple and Studies, Marine Sciences Building, and Pacific Ocean Science and Technology Building.
Nearby is the Institute for Astronomy complex.
At Kakaako-Kewalo Basin are a PBRC building and Look Lab. On the waterfront are the buildings and shops of Snug Harbor, home port to University vessels. The complex of observatories on Mauna Kea is unsurpassed in the world, and the Mees solar observatory on Haleakala continues to be a substantial asset.
A major private gift is allowing the HIMB labs on Coconut Island to be rebuilt. These structures, which were funded from a mix of state and extramural sources, lie on State land at IFA, Kakaako, Snug, etc. Land itself is a substantial investment by a state having so little. Other land includes Lyon Arboretum, which is relatively old, and a no-cost lease on the Hakalau Forest Biological Field Station, which is brand-new.
We don't want to give the impression that all CIP is related to Comparative Advantage.
There are capital improvements designed specifically for programs for which UHM claims no particular advantage, and no claim about using any advantage was made when the buildings were constructed. Those buildings were designed to provide a central point for the professional schools of Architecture, Agriculture, Business, Engineering, Law, and Medicine, or to provide specialized classrooms, studios, and labs for such disciplines as Art, Chemistry, and Music. And of course there are buildings with general classrooms and offices. Our point is that these buildings for which there was no comparative advantage to exploit were built with little or no Federal or Private matching contributions to the State CIP funds.
Views on Comparative Advantage from this Committee
In the matrix of programs and criteria (pages 67 ff), we rank highest those programs for which propinquity is important -- to have immediate access to the natural or societal environment as well as a location within Hawaii ("better studied here than in Wisconsin"). They are the programs that are exploiting, or have the greatest potential to exploit, the comparative advantages Hawaii offers. Examples are Astronomy and Hawaiian Studies.
We give intermediate ranking to those programs that contain a component for which location in Hawaii or proximity to the. environment of Hawaii is important. An example is Architecture, positioned with respect to Asia, for culture, training, and clientele. Lowest ranked are those programs with little or no potential to use Hawaii's natural advantages. Mathematics and English are examples.
What is demand, and how does one judge it?
DEMAND for university products, i.e., graduates, services, and expertise, is of various types. One is the demand by students for courses and degree programs. Another is demand by Pacific, Asian, mainland, and other overseas students to study in Hawaii. There is also the demand by the state or nation for university graduates as evinced by the availability of jobs in Hawaii and the national work force. We also have state, national, and international demands for professional expertise in research and service by the Manoa faculty.
The types of demand can be classified into two general categories: academic and economic.
Academic Demand. This is demand by students within or outside the university for courses and degree programs offered by the various university units. Measures of academic demand include class enrollments, numbers of students in degree programs, and numbers of applicants. As broad indicators of academic demand we used two general metrics.
As a check on the SSH metric, we examined student enrollment in degree programs from 1986-1996. Pathology had no majors, further supporting the notion of merging it with another department. Plant Molecular Physiology, Plant Pathology, Ocean Engineering, and Entomology all had at least 10 majors (undergraduate and graduate combined) suggesting that these might be maintained as degree programs, or they might be merged with another one. Hawaiian and Indo-Pacific Language and Literature was noteworthy in having 6,360 SSH, but only 20 majors in 1995-1996. In contrast, Hawaiian Studies had 83 majors and only 889 SSH. Based on these disparities, from an instructional perspective it may be worthwhile to consider merging these programs.
Economic Demand. This is demand from outside the university for the products of university programs, including graduates, technical information, and consulting services. This was evaluated for the various degree programs through consideration of (1) Forbes (May 6, 1996) listing of the top jobs, by number employed, in the U.S. (Table 23), (2) "Projection of Employment Trends, State of Hawaii" (Table 24, as presented in Employment Outlook for Industries and Occupations: 1994-2005 (published by the Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, 1996), (3) the annual average number of graduates from UHM degree programs over the last five years compared to state job openings (Tables 25 and 26), (4) legislative demand as indicated by Land Grant, Sea Grant, or Space Grant programs, and (5) demand, as judged by this committee, for graduates and technical expertise in the areas highlighted for economic growth by the Governor's Task Force on Science and Technology (i.e., biotechnology, environmental technology, health care, extramural research, and software, see pages 114-118). Our synthesis of economic demands based on these sources of data are given in Tables 24 and 26, and are reflected in the scores given in the Matrix, pages 68-69.
Tables and further discussion
Table 22 of student semester hours has three parts: A, by college or school, and enrollment by level within them, B, by college or school, and departments within them, and C, by college or school at the graduate-level only.
|Excerpted from Table 2 of Course Registration Summary, UHM, Fall 1996|
|A. College and Level||Student Sem Hrs||Equiv Sem Hrs|
|Arts & Sciences||129,022||6,522|
|Travel Industry Mgt||2,144||80|
|B. College and Department||Student Sem Hrs||Equiv Sem Hrs|
|Arts & Sciences||129,022||6,522|
|Arts & Humanities|
|Languages, Linguistics, Literature|
|East Asian L&L (Japanese>Chinese>Korean)||7,381||576|
|English as 2nd L||1,677||129|
|English Language Institute||735||45|
|European L&L (Spanish>French>Latin=German>|
|Hawaiian & Indo-Pac L&L (Hawaiian>>Ilokano>Tagalog=|
|Information & Computer Sci||5,286||135|
|Physics & Astr||4,877||177|
|Public Administration [?]|
|Urban & Regional Planning||425||42|
|Other A&S (Honors>Interdis Stu>Commun & Info Sci)||722||63|
|Asian Studies Program||752||75|
|Pacific Islands Studies||194||23|
|Geology & Geophys||1,380||171|
|Finance Economics & Institutions (Finance>Bus Law>Real Est> Bus Econ)||1,722||54|
|Management & Industrial Relations (Management>Human Res Mgt>Ind Rel)||816||34|
|Travel Industry Management||2,144||80|
|Travel Industry Management||1,898||68|
|Counsel & Guidance||476||62|
|Curriculum & Inst (Currie & Instr > Sec Ed=Elem Ed)||3,725||241|
|Agriculture & Resource Economics||891||37|
|Agronomy & Soil Science (Soil Science>Agronomy)||304||45|
|Food Science & Human Nutrition||2,051||65|
|Plant Molecular Physiology||94||5|
|Textiles & Cloth||849||57|
|Allied Medical Science (Speech Path & Audi>Medical Tech)||858||78|
|Anatomy & Reproductive Biology (Anatomy > Reproductive Biology)||153||16|
|Biochem & Biop (Biochemistry>>Biophysics||459||31|
|Family Pr & C H||511||41|
|Obstetrics & Gyn||416||51|
|Trop Med & Med Mic||133||14|
|C. Graduate Student Equiv||Student Sem Hrs||Equiv Sem Hrs|
|Arts & Science||9,379||1,899|
|- within A & S:|
|-- Arts and Humanities||1,916||488|
|-- Languages, Linguistics & Literature||2,054||335|
|-- Natural Science||1,644||368|
|-- Social Science||3,680||693|
|Travel Industry Management||66||11|
These jobs employed 56 million, or 21% of the US population in 1995. In the right column, we have indicated the UH unit(s) that provide graduates with an education suited for these jobs [see also US job changes, Appendix 7, p. 179].
|1. Retail salespersons||6.6||none|
|2. Teachers||4.5||Educ, A&S|
|3. Secretaries||3.4||a business sch|
|4. Truck drivers||2.9||none|
|5. Farmers; fm labor||2.3||Col Agricul|
|6. Janitors; cleaners||2.1||none|
|7. Cooks||2.0||a community college|
|8. Nurses||2.0||Col Nursing|
|9. Engineers||1.9||Col Engineering|
|10. Freight handlers||1.9||none|
|11. Policemen; guards||1.8||a community coll|
|12. Bookkeepers||1.8||a business sch|
|13. Nurses aides, etc.||1.8||a community coll|
|14. Vehicle mechanics||1.7||a community coll|
|15. Financial salespers||1.7||A&S, Col Business|
|16. Health technicians||1.6||A&S, community coll|
|17. Wholesale brokers||1.5||A&S ?|
|18. Account.; auditors||1.5||Col Business|
|20. Hotel & rest m'ngrs||1.3||TIMS, community coll|
|22. Precis'n prod. sup.||1.2||community coll or none|
|23. Math & comp sci||1.2||A&S|
|24. Moving-equip ops||1.1||none|
|25 Comp program'rs||1.0||several, community coll, A&S,Engr|
|26. Postman, clerks||1.0||none|
|28. Lawyers & judges||0.9||Law, after A&S|
|29. Child-care workers||0.9||none|
|30. Professors||0.8||A&S & other|
Table 24 gives the average annual job openings in different occupational groups. Table 25 shows how that demand might be met by units at UHM.
This information is based on Employment Outlook for Industries and Occupations: 1994-2005, by Hawaii State Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, August 1996.
Seven occupation groups are given: Managerial, Professional, Marketing and Sales, Clerical, Service, Agriculture, and Production. The booklet only. projects from the 1994 data and current trends of employment; there is no prediction of entirely new industries. We make some comments about each of the seven groups:
Managerial. Average annual openings, 798. The vast majority of these executive, administrative, and managerial positions will require a college degree of some sort. For Some, the kind of college training might be assumed, for instance, most of the medicine and health service managers, with 22 job openings per year, probably will come from backgrounds in medicine, nursing, and public health, but there might also be accountants, biologists, lawyers, and other backgrounds forr some of these managers. For some categories the wording gives no clue about the kind of preparation in college, for example, the 239 average annual openings for "general managers and top executives". Therefore, we have not attempted to match this occupation group to Manoa colleges.
Professional. Average annual openings, 2,969. Almost all of these professional, technical, and paraprofessional occupations require a baccalaureate college degree, and many require post-graduate training. Table c.4 that follows comes mainly from this occupation group.
Marketing and Sales. Average annual openings, 2,619. Most of these jobs demand no more education than what is given in high school or community college, e.g., for retail salespersons, cashiers, and door-to-door vendors. Those requiring training at the college level are placed in the table, e.g., real estate brokers and sales engineers.
Clerical. Average annual openings, 3,190. The clerical and other administrative support occupations can be met through training in high schools (meter readers; warehouse stock clerks), or in secretarial or business schools and community colleges (bookkeepers; secretaries; loan and credit clerks). A baccalaureate college degree may be required by an individual employer, e.g., to be a bank teller, or a personnel clerk, but more as an indicator of a person's level of ambition and intelligence rather than of skills learned.
Service. Average annual openings, 5,491 Service occupations can be met through training in high schools (security guards; fast-food cooks; housekeeping cleaners), in special schools (hairdressers and cosmetologists), and community colleges (restaurant cooks). A baccalaureate college degree is required for a few (federal criminal investigators) and is advisable to reach supervisory levels in several fields.
Agriculture. Average annual openings, 272. Few of the openings in agriculture, forestry, and fishing require a college education, and some that do, such as foresters and veterinary assistants, can only be trained out-of-state, e.g., through WICHE.
Production. Average annual openings, 3,166.
Workers in the construction, precision production, food and clothing manufacturing, operating and maintenance, and related trades do not require a degree from UHM. Many are trained in the community colleges, or as apprentices after high school.
|Abstracted from Employment Outlook for Industries and Occupations: 1994-2005, by State Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, and arranged by colleges at UHM.|
|Matrix Code||Occupations, and Comments||Jobs/Yr||UHM Unit|
|* 213||Buyers and purchasing agents||84||any|
|430||Sales in travel, advertising, etc.||65||any|
|More than 400 jobs per year as buyers or in sales have no specific college discipline required. Probably all colleges contribute, with most from Arts and Sciences. Ambition, personality, and in some instances language skills are the key factors.|
|* 312||Post-secondary teaching||160||any|
|Openings for faculty for Hawaii's colleges will depend on the specialty needed at the time.|
|* 313||Teachers, K-12, incl. special and vocat.||561||any|
|315||Education Teachers aides, librarians||91||any; Ed;L & ICS|
|About 650 teaching jobs open each year. At present most are filled from the College of Education or from products of similar normal schools on the mainland. There is, however, a national movement to have teachers in public schools trained in the subjects they will teach. Those subjects are predominantly in the Arts and Sciences.|
|* 340|| Misc. professional|
(writers, reporters, announcers, photographers,
artists, musicians, actors, interior designers, etc.)
|148||Arts & Sciences|
|Many of these will be trained in Journalism, Art, and other creative disciplines, but many others will depend on talent, taste, or ambition regardless of their major.|
|* 223||Marine architects; surv. & mapp. sci||7||SOEST|
|241||Physical scientists||23||Nat Sci; SOEST|
|243||Life scientists||39||Nat Sci; Agric; Med|
|245||Science technicians||44||Nat Sci;Agric; SOEST|
|251||Computer programmers; compo sci s||69||ICS; any sci or eng.|
|253||Mathematicians and statisticians||10||Math; sci; social sci|
|490||Sales reps scientific products||21||any sci or eng.|
|About 210 jobs open each year for scientists. Some require quite specific training, but many could be filled by scientists from a variety of backgrounds. A number of the technician jobs might be filled by intelligent graduates of other disciplines, :who may, for example, have worked as a Student Helper in a research lab.|
|* 271||Social scientists and urban planners||23||Social science|
|* 223||Architects (except marine & mapp sci)||14||Architecture|
|* 211||Accountants; other financial special'ts||177||Business|
|219||Analysts and management support||136||Business|
|430||Real estate brokers; securities; related||74||Business|
|510||Clerical supervisors||262||any; Business|
|531||Tellers and various financial clerks||97||any; Business|
|About 440 business-based jobs open each year. Moreover, business graduates would have a superior chance at an additional 360 openings, which could, however, be handled by the average college graduate.|
|225||Engineering technicians and drafters||107||Engineering, etc.|
|About 240 engineering jobs open each year. Some require quite specific training, but many could be filled by engineers from a variety of backgrounds, and many of the technician jobs might be filled by intelligent graduates of other disciplines.|
|*281||Lawyers and judges||68||Law|
|*273||Social workers||134||Soc Wk; Pub Health|
|Most of the following can be trained in Community Colleges. Some, however, may be filled by UHM graduates.|
|283||Paralegals; other legal assist's||29|
|325||Licensed practical nurses||64|
|329||Other health pro and techs||137|
|399||All other professionals & techs||107|
|610||Service superv's (police, etc)||216|
|Unit and note||Graduated UHM|
(avg past 5 yr)
(round to 5)
|a) Col's A&S, total 1,587 385 min to 1,500 max|
|b) Arts & Humanities||300||part of 148 creative|
|c) Lang, Ling., Lit||300||-|
|d) Natural Sci||219||part of 210 scientists|
|e) Soc Sci||768||23 soc sci; and part of 148 creative|
|f) Business Ad||701||440, to as many as 800|
|g) Education||404||650 or fewer, depending on reforms|
|h) Engineering||193||135, to as many as 240|
|i) CTAHR (Food, N, HR 92 Ag sci 57)||149||part of 210 scientists|
|1) Library Studies||68||part of 91 aides and libr.|
|k) Medicine (Medicine 53 M sci & tech 53)||106||part of 83 sci & techs|
|g) Nursing||158||270 registered nurses|
|m) Public Health||117||part of 135 social works|
|g) Social Work||108||136|
|d) SOEST||47||part of 210 scientists|
Synthesis from Table 26.: The number of employees needed over the next few years to fill various job openings will be met by a combination of UHM graduates, graduates of other colleges in Hawaii, and graduates of mainland colleges. Nevertheless, let us compare solely the supply from Manoa to the demand in the State (colleges keyed to the letters in Table 26):
a) Apparently the market for Arts and Sciences graduates is saturated. Some may go on to graduate school or a professional school, or seek employment out of state. Others may end up employed but in an "overqualified" situation. A more detailed breakdown of A&S suggests that:
b) Arts and Humanities graduates about 300 students per year. They, and the 200 potential communicators and journalists from Social Sciences (see d below) are more than sufficient to fill the 148 openings for professionals in the creative fields. Some should enter education or will go to graduate school. Many, however, must enter the work force in fields in which they did not train.
c) Language, Linguistics, and Literature has about 300 graduates per year. The approximately 75 SHAPS graduates have many of the same skills. Some will go into specialized sales or education, or take a second degree in business. Many must enter the workforce in fields in which they did not train.
d) Although there are approximately 260 scientists and computer specialists receiving degrees each year from Natural Sciences, SOEST, and Trop Ag, large numbers of BS graduates go to medical school or other graduate schools. Thus the 210 needed per year may not be met now, and will not be met in the future if there is educational reform and if Hawaii attracts high tech industries.
e.) Social Sciences graduates about 770 students per year. About 200 are from Communications and Journalism; see b) above. The 23 available jobs are easily covered, and some may go to law school or into social work. Large numbers must enter the work force in fields in which they did not train.
f) The best graduates of Business Administration can fill the truly professional positions available. Others will become overqualified fiscal clerks or attain clerical supervisory jobs.
g) The numbers of UHM graduates of Education, Nursing, and Social Work are not enough to meet State needs, if it were true that only UHM graduates from those colleges could satisfy the demand.
h) The best graduates of Engineering can fill the truly professional positions available. Some Engineers may end up overqualified as technicians or in other jobs, or may leave the state until more high-tech jobs are available locally.
i) Many of the baccalaureate graduates of CTAHR must enter the work force in fields for which they did not train.
j) Apparently, Architecture graduates more professionals than can be absorbed in Hawaii.
k) Lawyer and physician openings, and law and medical school graduates are about balanced.
1) Library studies is now amalgamated with ICS
m) School of Public Health graduates can enter various health and social fields.
We emphasize that the 1996 DL&IR report's prediction of need is base on:
1) Hawaiian employment trends from 1981 to 1994,
2) a national (Bureau of Labor Statistics) "change factor" matrix to factor in, for example, predicted changes in technology in certain occupations, and
3) a local adjustment for "reasonableness", based on "current knowledge of the industries and the economy".
Thus these predictions do not take into account any State-stimulated or market-driven re-direction of the economy, e.g., to develop high-technology industry, Asia-Pacific business or science hubs, or other well paying and environmentally friendly enterprises that will require highly trained personnel.
Scoring of Demand for the Matrix
Academic Demand. For the first major metric of academic demand, we took the highest total of SSH for Fall 1996 (9,238 SSH in the English Department and divided it by 2.0. We then divided that quotient into the SSH for each unit, yielding scores that ranged from 0.0 to 2.0.
As the second major metric of academic demand for various degree programs, we use the mean number of applicants for Masters and Doctoral programs over the period Fall 1992-Spring 1997 as a raw score. The mean number of applicants for the 55 degree programs listed by the UHM Graduate Division was 366 (s.d. = 372); the range was 0 (Russian) to 2,751 (Business Administration). To convert these raw scores to scores ranging from 0.0 to 2.0, we took the highest raw score (2,751), divided it by 2.0, and then divided this quotient into each raw score. The score for overall academic demand was then taken as the average of the scores for metrics one and two above.
Economic Demand. As mentioned in the beginning of this section, this demand was evaluated for the various degree programs through consideration of (1) Forbes (May 6, 1996) listing of the top jobs (by number employed) in the U.S. (Table 23), (2) Projection of Employment Trends, State of Hawaii, as presented in Employment Outlook for Industries and Occupations: 1994-2005 (published by Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, 19%) (Table 24), (3) the annual average number of graduates from UHM: degree programs over the last five years compared to state job openings (Tables 25 and 26), (4) legislative demand as indicated by Land Grant, Sea Grant, or Space Grant programs, and (5) demand, as judged by this committee, for graduates and technical expertise in the areas highlighted for economic growth by the Governor's Task Force on Science and Technology (i.e., biotechnology, environmental technology, health care, extramural research, and software, see p. 114).
In most cases, economic demand could not be divided into categories smaller than the college or school level so ratings are made at this level (there are some notable exceptions, e.g., high national external demand for graduates from departments of computer sciences). Ratings of economic demand were determined in the following stepwise manner. A low economic demand rating (score=0) was assigned to colleges and schools that produce at least twice as many graduates as there are projected annual job openings in Hawaii (e.g., Arts and Humanities and Social Sciences, which combined produce 500 graduates vying for about 150 openings for professionals in "creative fields" per year), or for which there are fewer than 100 job openings per year. For colleges and schools producing graduates with more than 100-200 Hawaii job openings, and for which the number of graduates roughly matched the number of openings (i.e., an excess of graduates of < 50%), a moderate demand rating (score=1) was assigned. For college and schools whose graduates are qualified for > 200 open jobs per year in Hawaii, and produce an excess of graduates of < 50%, a high external demand rating was assigned (score=2). In the absence of any data on job availability within the State of Hawaii, a college or school that supplies graduates employed in one of the top 30 jobs in the U.S. was rated as having "moderate external demand" (score=1).
Finally, for those programs meeting the demands of Land Grant, Sea Grant or Space Grant legislation through either research or teaching functions, we assigned an economic demand score of no less than 1. For programs supporting one of the growth areas highlighted by the Governor's Task Force on Science and Technology, we assigned an economic demand score no less than 1; for programs supporting two or more of these growth areas, we assigned a score of 2.
c. Overall Demand Score. The overall score assigned to each program for "demand" was then the average of the scores for academic and economic demand. These overall scores are presented in Table 48.
WHAT is cost and how does one judge it?
COST is the price paid for a program's accomplishments. The price essentially is the cost in General Funds, less extramural income and other revenues, and the products are students who take classes in the program and who graduate from the program. Other products are research and service.
Cost is one factor in the evaluation of a program. The high cost of college education makes it an important factor in Hawaii and nationally (see section on changes in academia, p. 101-102). Unfortunately, cost often becomes the dominant factor. This is, in part, because numbers are "objective" and easier to define than effectiveness or quality. Nevertheless, cost analysis provides clues to potential problems and can lead to deeper investigation.
Cost cannot be the sole criterion for recommending vertical cuts, but if for example two programs are ranked about the same in centrality and other factors, the less expensive program should have higher priority for remaining. General fund allocations reflect administrative implementation of strategic planning priorities as well as policy choices in times of budgetary restraint. Thus they can be considered as a test of adherence to planning.
We have used a combination of statistics developed by the Institutional Research Office (IRO) and information provided by the Manoa Budget Office. In some instances we used information from individual schools or colleges.
Instructional Workload Instructional workload is a standard measure used by the UH Manoa administration to measure faculty classroom activity. We have made direct use of the Fall 1996 report on Workload Measures prepared by the IRO. The statistic we use is the ratio of equivalent semester hours (EQSH) to Analytical Full Time Equivalent Faculty (FAC). The UHM standard of EQSH/FAC is 9.00. Table 27 shows the workload measures for all units reporting to the Office of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs (OSVPAA). Since the primary instructional budget is classified as UHM 101 we shall refer to these as 101 units. For completeness we compiled similar data for those units reporting to the Office of the Senior Vice President for Research and Graduate Education (OSVPRGE) These units are the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (CTAHR), the School of Ocean and Earth Sciences and Technology (SOEST) and the John A. Burns School of Medicine (JABSOM). Since the first two units have budgets in research (UHM 102) or extension (UHM 103) or both, we refer to them as 102 units. Table 28 is a complete listing of all units by instructional workload.
The lowest workloads of the 101 list units reside in professional schools, the College of Business Administration, and the School of Nursing. Programs in JABSOM have equivalently low workloads (Table 28). The high workload end of Table 27 is dominated by College of Education units. The campus-wide data show a wide range (EQSH/FAC of 2.16 to 30.61) but most units reside between 6.00 and 13.00. On the low-end of this population are Mathematics, Pacific Island Studies, and Physics. In this presentation we have presented Physics and Astronomy in two ways. Data show a discrepancy between workloads of the two components. Therefore we present both "Physics" and "Physics and Astronomy". If we arbitrarily assume a standard range of 9.00 ± 2.00, we find that there are nine units below 7.00, and 12 units above 11.00.
Costs of Instruction We obtained the FY 1997 budgets for each unit from the Manoa Budget Office. To incorporate the "102" units we had to go to CTAHR and SOEST to obtain their 101 portions. JABSOM has only a 101 budget line. (Note: All units have a 104-Administration budget, which was not considered in the calculations). We took the equivalent semester hours reported for the Fall 1996 semester by IRO, annualized them by multiplying by two, and then divided the UHM 101 budget by the annualized equivalent semester hours. Thus the units of Tables 29 ("101" units) and Table 30 ("All") are dollars per equivalent semester hour.
As in the workload data, the professional schools occupy the high-cost positions. In general the next ranks are occupied by the sciences typified by Chemistry which has high supplies (chemicals) expenses. A few surprises are the relatively high costs for Asian Studies and Theater and Dance. On the low end we find programs in languages and CTAHR (Table 30). The low costs of CTAHR arise in part from the meticulous manner in which workloads are partitioned among the faculty. A typical CTAHR faculty member may have fractions supported by all the three budget lines (101, 102, and 103). In CTAHR as in SOEST, faculty in R and S categories often take on teaching assignments. Thus R and S budgets "subsidize" instruction. When data are arranged by school or college we find that costs are reasonably consistent within a given school, but vary among schools and colleges.
The IRO table breaks down its ratios of each department into lower-division, upper-division, and graduate-level instructional workload, and whether instruction is by regular faculty, lecturers, graduate assistants, or other faculty. For Manoa as a whole, and for each college, school, and department with both undergraduate and graduate programs, we see that lower division courses commonly depend heavily on instruction by other than regular faculty. Student-faculty ratios are highest for lower division courses; they are approximately halved for upper division courses, and halved again for graduate-level instruction. We comment and make recommendations in the latter part of this report about quality with respect to the low cost of lower-division instruction, and about the high cost of graduate education.
Cost per degree awarded (The price of that diploma) Another measure we used is cost per degree granted. This might be considered a measure of cost-effectiveness. We obtained average graduation numbers for the past five years. The UHM 101 budget was then divided by this five-year graduation average. These results ranged widely (Tables 31 and 32). General trends are that professional schools and sciences are expensive, whereas Business is fairly inexpensive. Surprises to us are in Hawaiian and Indo-Pacific Languages (few degrees awarded), and in Music, Religion, and the other languages, all of which showed up on the high-end of the range.
Leveraging As a final measure we determined the amount of extramural support generated by the faculty. The funds may be either research or training funds. In FY 1997 UHM brought in nearly equal amounts in research and training. We obtained the FY 1997 extramural funding report from the Office of Research Services (ORS). The numbers reported by ORS differ slightly from those used by the Manoa Budget Office. Therefore our numbers may not exactly match those used by our sister committee. The extramural funds were divided by the UHM 102, 102 and 103 budgets as appropriate to derive a "leveraging" ratio. Again we offer tables for "101" units (Table 33) as well as "all units" (Table 34). In some instances it was convenient to group sub-units, as in Asian Studies and College of Business Administration.
The leader is Population Studies, a small program but very successful in securing funds. Generally the sciences dominate, though Teacher Education shows strongly in the "101" listing, and Asian Studies does well. Fifteen of the "101" units generate extramural funds equal to at least one-half of their UHM 101 budget. Twenty-eight units campus-wide do so.
We omitted listing units which had no extramural funding whatsoever. Among these was Sociology, which showed no extramural funds over a five-year period, although some Sociology faculty may have grants within the Social Sciences Research Institute. In an effort to account for the vagaries of annual funding cycles we prepared leveraging estimates for two and five year periods as well (not shown).
Tuition and gifts also offset costs, but they are controlled by administrative and donor decisions, not by faculty action.
The 1992-1993 internal evaluation. In July 1992, Acting President Yuen directed the University Executive Council to review University of Hawaii programs and activities in anticipation of the "essentially zero-growth budgets for the University over the next several years." One of the three criteria was termed efficiency by Dr. Yuen. Units that make optimal use of their allocated resources to meet their goals would score high. Such measures he suggested as student-teacher ratios and faculty teaching loads indicate that this criterion is what we call cost.
The self-study by deans and adjustment by administration were reported by Dr Goodman to Dr Yuen on March 18, 1993, with the comment that "scores reflect only the current situation and not the reasons for the level of efficiency observed:" We list the ratings in Table 35. Almost all numbers are 5s and 4s on a 5 high to 1 low scale. For our own rankings we saw little that was useful in this information.
Cost as an indicator
We stated that costs must not be a sole decision criterion, but rather one indicator. Some items came to the fore, which merited additional discussion:
1. Mathematics is a large department with a major service role, especially to the sciences and engineering. Mathematics has a low workload (lowest in the Colleges of Arts and Sciences), the sixteenth highest cost of instruction for the campus, a microscopic leveraging ratio (0.02), and eleventh highest cost per degree. These flags identify a problem.
2. Languages. Low costs of instruction and high-cost of degree characterize the language programs. UHM has made foreign languages a campus-wide core general education requirement. Many departments consider the concept to be meritorious, but we pay a price. In sequence the highest FY 1997 budgets at UHM were CTAHR with HITAHR, JABSOM, SOEST, and the College of Language, Linguistics and Literature (LLL). Hawaiian and Indo-Pacific Languages graduate about 6 students per annum at a cost of nearly $1.4 million. The Fall 1997 Schedule of Classes indicates that faculty of I-3 rank and above are seemingly absent from language sections numbered 101 through 202 (the core requirement). Who is teaching these courses and at what price?
[later note: public controversy over languages has led us to separate out costs of individual languages for the Matrix (p. 68-69), rather than keep them grouped by departments as here]
Tables of Data
What is Effectiveness, and how does one judge it?
EFFECTIVENESS here means how well a program accomplishes its part of the UHM goals, not merely how cost-effective it is. An effective program has useful and functioning components.
Effective programs: If the demand is present, an effective undergraduate program will graduate students who will get jobs, or be admitted to graduate school, or achieve whatever their aim is relative to societal needs or their own development. An effective core course or service course will prepare students for the next level of rigor in course work in the same department or in a different one. Effective programs will foster the intellectual and personal growth of their students (see discussion of Talent Development in the section on Quality, on p. 59). Graduates of effective professional schools will obtain licenses. Graduates of effective doctoral programs will be recognized by the quality of their. research as time passes on. An effective program will exploit the comparative advantage Hawaii offers its given area. If other factors are equal, priority for not receiving a vertical cut should go to the more effective schools and departments.
Evaluating Effectiveness Unfortunately, the committee had a difficult time locating objective data that it could use to score effectiveness for the majority of programs. Also, the committee found that evaluations of effectiveness overlapped with assessments of several of the other criteria considered. As a consequence, the committee decided not to score this criterion on the matrix of programs (p. 68-69). The problem of a lack of means of assessing program effectiveness was noted as a problem in the last WASC Accreditation report. We believe that measures of effectiveness are crucial to evaluating UHM programs and we strongly urge that such assessments be developed. To that end we describe the limited data on effectiveness available and some of our attempts to develop other measures evaluating programs' effectiveness.
As indicated above, the data for evaluating effectiveness are limited. The report of the National Research Council provided information on effectiveness of UHM research-doctoral programs. Other measures we examined were the relationship between purported comparative advantage and how it was utilized to attract extramural funds. We examined previous internal efforts to rate effectiveness of programs by Manoa deans, and reviewed surveys of graduating seniors for their ratings of their undergraduate education. We have come to the following conclusions.
a. The best reputations for effectiveness of doctoral programs in educating research scholars and scientists as seen from outside are in Geosciences (UHM Geology and Geophysics), Oceanography, Astrophysics and Astronomy (UHM Astronomy), History, Physiology, followed by Ecology, Evolution and Behavior (UHM Zoology, Botany and other contributors), Pharmacology, Psychology, Linguistics, Anthropology and Geography. Seven UHM programs ranked "minimally effective" and three were considered "not effective."
b. The UHM programs that purport to exploit Hawaii's physical advantages have been doing well in attracting extramural research and training funds. The programs purporting to have advantages because of Hawaii's biological resources are doing reasonably well in securing extramural funds for their programs. On the other hand, programs that should be able to exploit the human and societal advantages of Hawaii's multi-ethnic populations and cultures seem not to be doing so well. Programs without obvious comparative advantage in Hawaii also are relatively ineffective at attracting extramural funds.
c. In a 1993 survey, most Manoa Deans ranked their programs high on effectiveness at meeting the goals they had set for their units.
d. Most UHM programs have acceptable graduation rates at both the undergraduate and graduate levels when one takes into the account the increasing number of non-traditional students who may not be able to attend school on a fun-time basis and thus have to extend their educational careers. Graduation rates of fewer than 30% of their upper-level majors per year suggests either that students are not receiving the courses they need in a timely manner, or that students enter without a clear realization of the demands, requirements and. prerequisites. Nevertheless, on the undergraduate level we believe the programs that graduated fewer than 20% of majors in 1996 need to be examined for the reasons for their low rates: Ethnic Studies, Music, Architecture, Geology & Geophysics, Biosystems Engineering and General Agriculture. At the graduate level, rates below 14% may indicate problems in: American Studies, Botany, Chemistry, Geography, Mathematics, Religion, Zoology, Doctor of Education, Educational Communication & Technology, Elementary Education, and Secondary Education.
e. Recipients of UHM undergraduate degrees in 1996 ranked their overall undergraduate experience as a B- or C+.
Tables of data or information, and discussion
UH Manoa Ph.D. programs ranked for effectiveness The study Research-doctorate Programs in the United States (Goldberger, et al., 1995), conducted by the National Research Council (NRC) and published by the National Academy Press in [termed NRC in this report], covered 3,634 Ph.D. programs in 41 fields at 274 universities. The following section, on Quality (p. 58), has extensive comments on methodology, the names of biological and other programs and why some programs or areas are not included. in the survey.
In the NRC report effectiveness is an assessment of the reputation of the doctoral programs for educating research scholars! scientists, and is stated as follows :
Educators and policy makers agree that certain distinctive features of the doctoral training environment facilitate the preparation of research scholars and scientists. These include a blend of well-prepared graduate students, talented faculty, and sufficient institutional resources to permit the independent exploration of promising new research directions. Doctoral programs ought to be 'effective', too, in the sense that students that enter the programs complete their doctoral studies and do so in a timely manner (NRC, page 30).
Raters in the survey were asked to assess "....performance of graduates, clarity of stated program objectives and expectations, the appropriateness of program requirements and timetables, the adequacy of graduate advising and mentorship, the commitment of the program in assuring access and promoting success of students historically underrepresented in graduate education, the quality of associated personnel (post-doctorates, research scientists, et a1.), and other factors that contribute to..." effectiveness.
Using the 1995 NAS-NRC names, and marked 5.00 high to 0.00 low, no UHM program ranked as having an "extremely effective" program (score > 3.5)
Eleven UHM programs.ranked as having a "reasonably effective" program (score 3.50 to 2.50)
|Astrophysics and Astronomy||3.09|
|Ecology, Evolution and Behavior||3.05|
|Seven UHM programs were ranked as "minimally effective" (score 2.50 to 1.50)|
|Molecular and General Genetics||2.41|
|Biochemistry and Molecular Biology||2.00|
|Cell and Developmental Biology||1.67|
|Three UHM programs were ranked as "not effective" (score < 1.50)|
Programs not listed either were in fields not covered by the survey because the fields do not grant many degrees nationally, or were in fields covered by the survey, but the Manoa program did not grant enough degrees in the 5 years of the survey to be included. Note that the survey only covers Ph.D.-granting programs and thus excludes such professional doctorate degrees as those offered by social work or law. In the scoring matrix (p. 68-69) we have indicated these rankings for effectiveness with letters a (reasonably effective), b (minimally effective), or c (not effective).
Effectiveness in utilizing comparative advantage to attract extramural funding In the earlier section, Comparative Advantage, we have discussed the units that purport to utilize the comparative advantage offered by Hawaii's natural physical or biological resources or human or cultural advantages. In the section on Cost, we show the leveraging estimates (ratio of extramural funds secured/General-fund budget) for the 101 units and for all units for the past fiscal year (1996-97). We believe that a unit's ability to utilize its comparative advantage to secure extramural funding for its program is a measure of effectiveness. Since leveraging estimates were used as one factor of the score for Cost, and Comparative Advantage had already been scored, the use of combinations of the same data to score Effectiveness was deemed inappropriate. Examination of the data are instructive, however, and we make use of them in later parts of this report.
Review of Table 21 in the section of this report on Comparative Advantage suggests that the UHM programs that have exploited Hawaii's natural physical and biological advantages seem more effective than those that claim advantage because of the human and societal uniqueness of Hawaii's multi-ethnic and cultural populations. We realize these data cannot be easily equated. Research in astronomy, oceanography and the geological sciences can be costly and thus individual grants may be larger in dollars than those for biological and biomedical research which in turn would be larger than awards for research in the humanities and social sciences. We recognize that the program groupings cannot be equated on number of researchers per program or the number of researchers exploiting the advantage. The results suggest however that the programs exploiting Hawaii's physical advantages are doing very well. The programs exploiting Hawaii's unique biological resources are doing reasonably well. On the other hand, programs that should be able to exploit the societal and human advantages of Hawaii's unique multi-ethnic populations and cultures may not be doing so well. Their faculty may believe that G funds alone suffice for their needs. Faculty in all units should be encouraged to seek extramural training and research funds in their areas.
The 1992-1993 internal evaluation of effectiveness, by Manoa deans. In July 1992, Acting President Yuen directed the University Executive Council to review University of Hawaii programs and activities in anticipation of the "essentially zero-growth budgets for the University over the next several years" [in retrospect, zero-growth budgets were a pipe-dream]. One of the three criteria of the review was "effectiveness." Programs which met their approved goals and objectives would receive a high rating on this criterion. Program quality and strength could be ascertained from accreditation reports, campus reviews, comparisons with similar institutions, degree completion rates, productivity indices, and other outcome measures.
The 1993 self-study by deans assumed that each program knew how effective it was. Deans gave themselves 5s if they thought they were
effective in "reach[ing]" the level of expectation of the unit. A score of 3 or 4 implied that for whatever reason, the unit was not as effective as it should be. Reasons could range from inadequate space to obsolete instructional equipment to insufficient personnel and operating budget (memo, Goodman to Yuen, of 18 March 1993).
We do not place much credence in these evaluations because: (1) the rankings are now five years old; (2) a unit that set its own goals low and easily met those goals would be rated as effective; (3) on a 0 to 5 scale with 5 the highest, only a very few units ranked lower than 4; (4) part of the Yuen definition for effectiveness overlaps with the current report's "quality" criterion; and (5) this committee gave little weight to self-evaluations in general.
Graduation rates at UHM. In the assessment of student outcomes relative to departments or colleges within an university, graduate rate is the only one readily determined (paraphrased from Alfred, in Waggoner and others, eds. 1986, Academic Effectiveness).
We attempted to determine graduation rates at the undergraduate level by dividing the number of upper division majors in Fall 1995 (from Headcount Enrollment, by Major, University of Hawaii at Manoa Fa1l 1986 to Fall 1996) by the number of degrees awarded (from Degrees and Certificates Earned, University of Hawaii at Manoa, FY1985-86 to FY 1995-96). We also calculated the graduation rates at the graduate 1eve1 using data from the same reports.
The data were not as useful as we had hoped. For instance, some departments in the College of Business Administration ended up with > 100% graduation rates, apparently because the exact major was declared quite late in the students' course work. We had similar types of problems with graduation rates in the College of Education. The, data, however, do reveal some departments with extremely slow graduation rates that require follow-up examination.
The data for rates of graduation for undergraduates and graduates in 1995-1996 are in Table 58, in Appendix 8. The data also give a snapshot of the number of graduates from different programs, which has been discussed more thoroughly under the criterion of Demand.
Other measures. Other measures of effectiveness, such as relation of the graduate's job to curriculum, personal income, pattern of promotion, and employer's evaluation of performance should be more important than graduation rates. These measures, however, are costly to assemble, and dependent on finding a representative sample. The measure of alumni gifts is more an indication of a graduate's overall satisfaction with a university than of satisfaction with any given department.
The University has attempted to assess the quality and effectiveness of its programs by surveying graduating seniors and alumni and collecting other benchmark data in the following types of reports:
Survey of Graduating Seniors University of Hawaii at Manoa, Spring 1996, from the OVPPP
Alumni Outcomes Survey University of Hawaii at Manoa 1994, from the OVPPP; University of Hawaii Benchmarks: Performance Indicators Report, Fall 1996 Update, from the OVPPP.
While these data are worthwhile, in most cases there were not enough responses from graduates of any given department to be useful in scoring effectiveness at the departmental level. We do summarize some of findings from the survey of graduating seniors because they do indicate some areas of weakness and strength with UHM's undergraduate instruction:
Selected Comments from Survey of Graduating Seniors University of Hawai'i at Manoa Spring 1996 (Office of the Vice President for Planning and Policy, University of Hawai'i, August 1996)
A) General Education Core Experience
Spring 1996 graduating seniors felt their general education core experience was Helpful or Very Helpful in developing their writing skills (62%), their ability to put ideas together (66%), and their awareness of other cultures, peoples, and lifestyles (68%).
Over 59% of the respondents indicated that general education courses were Somewhat Helpful or Not Helpful in (1) developing their ability to express ideas using numbers and symbols (66%) and (2) contributing to their knowledge and enjoyment of music, art, and dance (59%).
A relatively high percentage of graduating seniors indicated that the general education core did not help them at all in developing computer skills (23%).
Over one-half of the graduating seniors were Satisfied or Very Satisfied with the content of their genera1 education courses (51%), the variety of the general education courses (54%), knowledge gained in these courses (57%), and the overall quality of instruction in general education courses (54%).
More than 20% of the respondents were Not Satisfied with general education courses relative to: availability (22%), relevance to
their life (22%), preparation for work in their major (24%), use of teaching assistants (27%), and the number required (29%).
When asked to identify the general education core courses that were most helpful to their undergraduate education, most respondents mentioned English, Social Sciences, and Arts and Humanities. English was perceived as the most helpful general education course.
Less than half of the respondents were Very Satisfied or Satisfied with the availability of courses in the major (45%) and laboratory facilities (47%).
B) Overall Academic Experience
Between 60% and 70% of the graduating seniors rated Good to Excellent the quality of instruction to: improve oral communication skills (60%); increase knowledge of other cultures and world affairs (61%), improve writing (63%), improve critical thinking (69%), and increase ability to gather information and learn on your own (70%).
Less than half of the respondents rated the quality of instruction to (1) improve mathematical ability (42%), and (2) increase appreciation of literature and the arts (48%) as Excellent or Good.
Over 67% rated the overall quality of their academic experience at Manoa as either Good or Excellent. Breakdown by field of study showed that of the five majors with the largest number of total responses, graduating seniors in Social Science and Engineering seemed the most pleased with their overall academic experience.
Over 23% thought their degree was Above Average. The largest share (69%) perceived their degree from Manoa as being of Average quality.
Over 83% of the respondents felt that the quality of the academic programs at Manoa was About What They Expected or Better.
C) Background Data on Respondents
Nearly three-fourths of the spring 1996 graduating seniors had attended public (53%) or private (21%) high schools in Hawai'i.
Over three-fourths (78%) of the baccalaureate students reporting taking 5 or more years to complete their program. The most frequently reported (32%) time-to-degree was 5 years.
For UHM colleges with more than 20 responses, over 50% of the Arts and Humanities, Nursing, and Engineering majors took 6 or more years to complete their baccalaureate degrees.
Work (17.6%), Availability of Courses (15.5%) and Change of Major (13.3%) were cited as the three most important reasons for taking more than 4 years to graduate.
D) Comments About Undergraduate Experience
Forty-six percent or 226 of the survey respondents provided additional written comments about their undergraduate experience at UH Manoa. It needs to be recognized that those providing comments may tend toward the negative and, given the small number of comments provided, results are not necessarily representative of the entire population of degree candidates (1,253). With these caveats, highlights of these comments are worth sharing.
Of those providing comments, 80% were negative. Most were dissatisfied with Core Requirements (20%), Instructors (18%) and the Availability of Courses (15%). Generally, they felt core requirements--especially foreign language--are excessive and need to be reevaluated relative to their (1) usefulness or relevance to personal growth and (2) adequacy in preparing students for upper-division courses and work in their major.
Of those providing favorable comments, Personal Growth (25%), their Departments or Programs (23%), and Instructors (18%) were most frequently mentioned as factors contributing to their educational gains.
Future efforts to assess effectiveness
We believe there are several ways in which programs can be reviewed. The present
five-year program reviews could be improved by the addition of external members. Also needed is careful tracking of UHM graduates, both those that go on to graduate school and those that enter the work force, to see how they fare. Perhaps the alumni office could assist in these efforts or departments or larger units could be provided with the resources to survey their graduates at 2, 5 and 10 years after graduation. Alumni might be more favorably disposed towards UHM if they were asked to assess their experience and suggest improvements. It would be quite useful to have assessments from local employers of UHM graduates to determine what strengths and weaknesses they discern in their employees' educations.
When these data are obtained they must be maintained in some central repository where they can be readily accessed by the administration, external reviewers, or by committees such as this one.
What is quality, and how does one judge it?
QUALITY is the excellence of the faculty and program, and of the students they attract. To a lesser degree the quality of a program is also reflected in the facilities available to it.
A range of definitions:
"In an operational sense, quality is someone IS subjective assessment, for there is no way of objectively measuring what is in essence an attribute of value." Allan M. Cartter, An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education, 1966.
"What is quality in American higher education? It 'Would appear that the definition of quality varies with the context, depending on who is doing the assessment, by what means, and for what purpose." Lawrence and Green, A Question of Quality: The Higher Education Ratings Game, 1980.
" ... impressions of quality, if widely shared, have an imposing reality of their own, and therefore are worth knowing in their own right." Jones and others, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1982, p. 200.
"Quality .., you know what it is, yet you don 't know what it is .... But some things are better than others, that is, they have more quality. But when you say what the quality is, apart from the things that have it, all goes poof!... for all practical purposes it really does exist. What else are the grades based on? Why else would people pay fortunes for some things and throw others on the trash heap? ... What the hell is Quality?" Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, 1974.
According to one committee member, quality is the criterion hardest to define and gauge but easiest to recognize. Quality essentially means faculty quality; the quality of research equipment and library holdings are important but secondary to the excellence of the faculty in a program. Quantification of excellence is not easy; most evaluations have a degree of subjectivity. Even where quantification exists, such as by counting numbers of books published by a historian, teaching awards collected by an engineer, concerts given by a musician, or extramural funds gained by a chemist, it is difficult to compare from one discipline to another. Also, academicians commonly have an inflated sense of their own worth. We are, after all, sufficiently egotistical to have chosen a career of professing our knowledge to others. Here more than in any other category, evaluations from outside the university of Hawaii are important. These range from peer-reviewed grants, to applications to graduate school, to reviews of books or performances, to the ability to attract good post-docs, and on to reviews of programs by national academies.
Views of assessing quality
The two standard methods used to judge quality are by reputation and by resources.
(1) Reputation: This is an assessment of prestige as revealed in various national rankings or by the number of times an institution or program is mentioned in various positive contexts.
A digression to show the importance of a reputation for quality. A 20 August 1997 Star Bulletin article, "UH-Manoa ranked 47th on Asian-American list" showed our relatively low ranking in the minds of Asian-Americans. According to the article, UHM has been marked so low in the various college guides that the August-September issue of A.Magazine ranked UHM 47th of 110 colleges in the US as best for Asian-American students. Manoa's good points with respect to percentage of Asian-American students, their retention rates, the mixed society of Honolulu, and so on could not overcome those low marks in reputation, giving Manoa an overall low ranking.
We should consider almost worthless any self-generated puffery about quality from inside the University of Hawaii. Even periodic program reviews suffer from the "soft questions" asked by a log-roller in another department, knowing that his or her own department will be up for review soon. When self-studies are completed, to have any value they should be given to external consultants in the same field for an independent review (Marcus and others, 1983, The Path to Excellence).
Therefore we have assembled published "reputational" information from outside the university.
(2) Resources: Library size, faculty size and salaries, and similar measures are considered resources. The extent of library holdings is an indicator of quality of the university as a whole, but usually not of the quality of individual departments or programs. There is a good correlation of faculty size and of percentage of faculty who publish to perceptions of quality, if size of faculty and research activity are resources, and we also believe they are. As we point out below, much of this information is not easy to obtain. The Gourman Reports have a large reputational component, but claim a basis on resource-type information received from colleges and universities.
(3) Talent Development: In her April 25, 1989, paper titled Quality, VP Colleen Sathre described the views of Alexander Astin, Director of the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA, who wanted to add a third view of quality to the "reputational" and "resource" views. We read Astin's paper. Astin believed the two traditional views did not address one of the primary purposes of higher education -- undergraduate instruction. He proposed that the concept of quality include what he termed talent development, equated with the intellectual and personal growth of undergraduate students.
This Committee, however, places the important concept of the intellectual growth of undergraduates within the criterion that we term Effectiveness. We regret that UH has no good measures of program effectiveness.
Our sources of information are good to nonexistent for undergraduate programs, fair to nonexistent for masters programs, and excellent for doctoral programs. Our main sources of information, from the National Research Council, US News and World Reports, and the graduate and undergraduate Gourman reports, lead us to these conclusions:
1. Overall, the reputation of University of Hawaii at Manoa is between about 60th and 80th of what have been termed the national universities. It is about in the middle of public state universities, but quite low among the Carnegie Class I research universities.
2. None of Manoa's professional colleges or schools except Architecture (and in one publication, Nursing) enjoys a good reputation relative to the professional colleges and schools in other universities (note: for Law, see New Information, Appendix 12).
3. The best departmental reputations of faculty in doctoral programs are grouped in Astronomy, Oceanography, and Geology and Geophysics, followed by Zoology, Botany, and other contributors to "Ecology, Evolution, & Behavior", Psychology, Linguistics, Anthropology, Physiology, Physics, Molecular and General Genetics, and History. A number of fields of study at Manoa, however, ranked quite low within the US totals.
4. Best reputations for graduate (masters, or masters and doctorate) programs are in Agriculture Economics, Astronomy, Architecture,
Botany, Geography, Geology and Geophysics, Horticulture, Linguistics, Oceanography, and Plant Pathology. (note: for Art MFA, see New Information. Appendix 12).
5. Overall, the reputation of undergraduate programs at University of Hawaii at Manoa is at about 115th, or "Acceptable Plus", of American colleges and universities. Best reputations for undergraduate programs are in Agricultural Economics, American Studies, Animal Science, Anthropology, Architecture, Asian Studies, Botany, Chinese, Electrical Engineering, Entomology, Geography, Geology, Geophysics, History, Home Economics, Japanese, Linguistics, Nursing, and Political Science.
Our conclusions about Quality are discussed with respect to such other factors as centrality, demand, and cost starting on page 78, Recommendations on Broad Issues, and on page 143, Recommendations for Each College and Other Unit at Manoa. Where other factors are equal, we recommend that high-rated programs receive priority for retention and resources over low~ranked ones. In some instances, however, we indicate the need to improve the quality of certain low-ranked programs. Moreover, within the perspective of the overall needs of the university, we even consider for either. horizontal or vertical cuts some programs that were not among the lowest ranked.
Quality of UHM as a whole (overall quality of the institution):
(1) US News and World Report America's Best Colleges 1998, published August 1997, shows UHM ranked at 25th among the 147 public "National Universities". Actually, UHM is in a four-way tie for 25th place in the top 28 public institutions. Based on the Carnegie Foundation categories, there are 147 private and 81 public universities -- total 228 -- that offer a range of baccalaureate majors, as well as master's and doctoral degrees, and place a strong emphasis on research, and therefore are termed National Universities by the magazine. US News methodology (explained on its p. 67-68) includes 25% of the ranking that is based on surveys by University presidents, provosts, and deans of admission. of the "academic reputation" of institutions in their own Carnegie categories. This 25% is therefore a subjective ranking of one's peers. The remaining 75% is on such objective factors as freshmen retention rates, graduation rates, class size, faculty salaries, student selectivity, and other statistics.
The way US News presents its tables makes it difficult to find exactly where within the 228 institutions UHM lies, but it ranks no higher than 61st and no lower than 81st. The top 50 institutions overall are listed by US News in rank order Only 14 public universities are in the ranks of that top 50. Below fifty, they are given alphabetically within tiers: a second tier from 51 through 116, a third tier from 117 through 174, and a fourth tier from 175 through 228. Although UHM is tied for 25th in the rank order of public universities, there are so many private universities in the top 50 that UHM is in the second tier, as it has been in recent years. The second tier has 45 public institutions and 20 private ones. If the second tier had only the 10 public institutions (of the "top 28" list) and no private ones above UHM, then UHM would rank as high as tied for 61st. If those 10 public institutions plus all 20 of the private ones were above UHM, we would rank no lower than tied for 81st.
The US News ranking of 71 ± 10 can be used in some generalizations. For example, although the Carnegie classifications and US News listings use different criteria, almost certainly the fact that we rank in the top Carnegie class is a consideration both in the peer-reputational part and the statistical part of the US News placement. If we slip in our Carnegie classification we probably will slip in the US News, Gourman, and NRC surveys of quality.
(2) We have looked at some other college guides, including Barron's Profiles of American Colleges, The College Board's The Complete Handbook, and its Index of Majors and Graduate Degrees, the Kaplan-Newsweek College Catalog, and Lovejoy's College Guide. Their findings are about the same as the US News ones above (and the NRC, Gourman Reports, and US News rankings for programs, below), but the college guides have a number of factual errors about programs with which some of us are familiar. Therefore, we use only the US News, Gourman, and NRC rankings and comments.
On page 95 we discuss ramifications of the low position of UHM within in the second tier of the US News ratings. Improvement of quality will be difficult, but on pages 90-91 we recommend some ways.
Programs within UHM
(1) Research-doctorate programs in the United States, Goldberger and others, editors, is the most recent comprehensive study of research-doctorate programs in the United States. It covers 3,634 PhD programs in 41 fields at 274 universities. It was conducted by the National Research Council (NRC) and published by the National Academy Press in 1995 (termed NRC in this report of the VC Committee). Several UHM doctoral programs are in the NRC report.
Quality is expressed as "Scholarly quality of program faculty", part of which is the subjective judgment by peers, and part is statistical including such data about faculty as numbers of honors and awards (in Arts and Humanities), percentage of faculty with research support (in Science and Engineering), publications, citations, Gini coefficients, percentages of RAs and TAs, etc. There are data on total students and doctoral recipients.
The design of the study is explained at great length. There also is a clear section entitled "What reputational measures do and don't tell us", but we realize there will be objections by some faculty members at Manoa for any sort of list that includes "value judgment" as a part of a ranking that may show their own program below average.
We must mention some points for those who have not read the full NRC report. In other parts of this Committee report we will return to points b, c, and d. These are the reasons certain Manoa doctoral programs do not appear in the NRC listings.
Manoa Field does not grant the PhD. Only research doctorates are included, and so Education (EdD), Law (JD), Medicine (MD), and Public Health (DrPH) are not included.
Manoa Field not among NRC fields. Some disciplines produce so few PhDs nationally that they are not rated by NRC.
A discipline is not included unless it is sufficiently "robust" that there were about 50 or more institutions awarding the PhD and about 500 degrees were granted in the period 1986--1990. Examples of exclusion are Manoa doctoral programs in Agricultural and Resource Economics, American Studies, Asian Languages and Literatures, Drama and Theatre, Educational Psychology, Meteorology, Ocean Engineering, and Second Language Acquisition.
The fields of Atmospheric Sciences and Theater are close to the "50 and 500" threshold, and so UHM's Meteorology and Drama and Theatre may be included in future reviews. American Studies is far from close, and the others at UHM must be fields that are so insignificant nationally that they received no discussion at all in the NRC book (further comment in sections of Recommendations about each unit at Manoa, starting on p. 143)
Manoa programs not productive: Some departments at Manoa may graduate so few PhDs that they do not meet the minimum number to be in the survey. Manoa examples are Civil, Electrical, and Mechanical Engineering.
About 50% of engineering PhDs come from institutions in the top quarter of departments nationally. In Electrical Engineering, 154 institutions have doctoral programs; of those, 126 award 98% of all degrees. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. (discussion in section D.2.e).
Biological Sciences. The designation of the six NRC fields in the biological sciences differed greatly from the set of names of the 10 doctoral fields, about 24 departments, and one program spread over three colleges at Manoa, to say nothing of 3 special programs also having biological content. Coverage of the biological sciences is discussed at length in Ch. 2 of the NRC report. The six-field taxonomy was developed in consultation with professional organizations, and the institutional coordinators (who provided a university's data) were shown a "crosswalk" to match what a university might have to the six. For example in Natural Sciences at UHM, Botany and Zoology were placed in Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, and Microbiology into Cell and Developmental Biology. Fewer and fewer departments retain the names Botany or Zoology today.
Other names. Aside from the biological sciences, names in the NAS report match ones at UHM with two exceptions that are, however, clear. NAS Astrophysics and Astronomy is UHM Astronomy, and NAS Geosciences is UHM Geology and Geophysics.
Table 38 shows UHM research-doctorate programs ranked by quality of their faculty, for 1995. Using NAS-NRC names, and marked 5.00 high to 0.00 low
With respect to scholarly quality of program faculty,
|Astrophysics and Astronomy||3.60||Strong|
|Ecology, Evolution, & Behavior||2.94||Good|
|Molecular & General Genetics||2.52||Good|
|Cell & Developmental Biology||1.63||Marginal|
|Biochemistry & Molecular Biology||1.57||Marginal|
(2) The Gourman Report, A rating of graduate and professional programs in American and international universities (8th ed.), by Jack Gourman, 1997. Princeton Review has taken over publication of this series. University of Hawaii at Manoa has some colleges and individual graduate programs within the listings. We also examined the 1996 edition; there were few differences.
Overall, Gourman ranks Manoa as tied for 97th of 435 graduate schools, within an Acceptable Plus category, which is below the Very Strong, Strong, and Good categories, and above the Adequate, Marginal, and Not Sufficient categories). Rankings of individual Manoa programs are in tables 39 and 40, whereas Table 41 lists UHM programs that were below the cut-off of the ratings.
UHM Architecture is placed 22nd of 29 top programs listed in architecture; 89 programs were evaluated (25th percentile). Gourman makes no category distinction for architecture scores.
UHM Business is neither within the listed top 50 MBA-Management schools, of 528 colleges, nor within the top 50 doctoral programs in business and management, of Gourman
Colleges of Education are all marked Not Approved* in the Gourman Report.
UHM Engineering is placed 125th of 139 engineering schools; Acceptable category. Note no change from ranking in the 1996 edition.
UHM Law School is placed 146th of 175 law schools (86th percentile); Adequate category.
UHM Library Studies is not among the 20 library programs listed.
UHM Medical School is placed 103th of 125 medical schools (82nd percentile); Adequate Plus category. Note slight improvement from 104th in 1996 edition.
UHM Nursing is not among 73 Nursing programs listed. No change from 1996
UHM Public Health is placed 21st of 28 programs that were evaluated (16th percentile).
UHM Social Work is not among 31 social-work programs listed. No change from 1996
(* With respect to Education, Gourman states (1996, p. 179), "Meaningless courses of no substance" downgrade the major, and "The major should be abolished by all institutions" No Education degrees or majors are acceptable, in either public or private colleges, in any state. Gourman lists 450 graduate programs in education, approving none, but assigning scores for overall academics, attitude and policy of administration, quality of leadership, and library resources. UHM, at 236, ranks slightly below one-half of the teacher-training schools in the country. The national problem about colleges of education and about K-12 education, are discussed in in the section on the future of public education in Hawaii, commencing on p. 118, and in Appendix 9 of this Committee report.)
The 1997 edition of The Gourman Report ranks these UH Manoa graduate programs. The number of programs evaluated is in parentheses, and the percentile is calculated. Note that these are graduate programs; not doctoral alone.
The 1997 edition of The Gourman Report does not rank the UH Manoa graduate programs of these next-listed disciplines. The first number in parentheses is the number of "top" programs listed, and the second is the number of programs evaluated. For example, Agronomy and Soils (26/69) means that UHM Agronomy and Soil Science was not within the 26 foremost departments listed, of the total of 69 US programs evaluated.
(4) US News and World Report America's Best Graduate Schools 1997, published August 1997, lists on1y one UHM school, the Richardson School of Law. It is ranked alphabetically in the second tier, but average of ratings by academics (98) and lawyers/judges (112) places Law at 105, of a total of 179 accredited law programs (at 60th percentile). The UHM schools that were not listed are in Table 42.
In US News and World Report America's Best Graduate Schools 1997. UHM is not among the:
* Parenthetical explanations of the size of the populations is quoted from p. 86-92. The Committee does not know what differences, if any, lie between so-called accredited programs, PhD programs, programs, etc.
Rankings of the top 25 programs in each of only twelve large doctoral graduate fields are presented in Table 43.
No UHM program is listed in:
No other fields are discussed.
(5) The Gourman Report, A Rating of Undergraduate Programs in America. We have examined the new 10th edition, 1998, but mention of UHM programs is so sparse that we also use information from the 8th edition, 1993, and the 9th edition, 1996. There is some inconsistency from year to year. For example, in 1993 UHM History is listed as 72nd rank of 1,212 US programs, but in 1996 and 1997 only the top 46 undergraduate programs in History are listed, and UHM is absent.
Overall, Manoa does not make the list of "The Top 100 Undergraduate Schools in the US", but by counting the numerical ratings in Part II of the Report, it appears to be tied in rank 125.
Rankings of undergraduate departments in fields appear to be almost identical from year to year; perhaps it takes a long time to change a reputation. We carry forward to the conclusions and our rating matrix the name of a Manoa undergraduate program whether it appears in one, two, or all three years. Some details:
The Gourman Report for 1993 examined and rated 162 undergraduate fields of study in a selection of more than 1,350 colleges and universities (not named). Both the 1996 and the 1988 reports examined 140 undergraduate fields in apparently 1,726 colleges and universities. The rating methods are not well explained, but are claimed to depend heavily on resource information solicited from the institutions, such as size of a department's faculty, library, salaries, and so on. With few exceptions, institutions' programs are only reported if they scored above 4.0 on a 0.0 low to 5.0 high scale. Thus the lists are but a fraction of the programs examined by Gourman. Two examples (at alphabetical extremes).
|a. Selected number of institutions granting degree||1,198||165|
|b. Total number of programs evaluated||1,198||165|
|c. Institutions listed [scores above 4.0]||47||21|
We show first the results for 1993, and then changes for 1996 and 1998. Sixteen fields had UH Manoa represented in 1993. In the list that follows, 19th of 70 (27%) means that 70 of the selected institutions granted a degree with that name or a name close to it, and the UH undergraduate degree program ranked 19th of the 70, which is at the 27th percentile. The second (indented) line shows the changes for 1996 and 1998, if any.
|Agricultural Economics||19th of 70 (27%)||unchanged in 1996 and 1998|
|American Studies||29th of 190 (15%)||unchanged in 19% and 1998|
|Animal Science||33th of 112 (29%)||unchanged in 19% and 1998|
|Anthropology||27th of 370 (7%)||unchanged in 1996 and 1998|
|Architecture||31th of 94 (33%)||unchanged in 19% and 1998|
|Asian Studies||8th of 130 (6%)||unchanged in 1996 and 1998|
|Botany||31th of 227 (14%)||30th in 19% and 1998|
|Chinese||10th of 50 (20%)||unchanged in 19% and 1998|
|Electrical Engineering||unranked in 1993||54th of 170 (32%) in '96 & '98|
|Entomology||31 of 55 (56%)||not listed among 26 of 55, '96 & '98|
|Geography||19th of 352 ( 5%)||18th in 1996 and 1998|
|Geology||49th of 364 (13%)||unchanged in 1996 and 1998|
|Geophysics||22th of 47 (47%)||21st in 1996 and 1998|
|History||72th of 1,212 (6%)||not listed among 46 of 690, '96 & '98|
|Home Economics||unranked in 1993||30th of 177 in 1996 (17%)|
|Japanese||11th of 43 (26%)||10th in 19% and 1998|
|Linguistics||unranked in 1993||19th of 62 in 1996 and 1998 (31%)|
|Nursing||52th of 562 (9%)||not listed among 39 of 507, '96 & '98|
|Political Science||53th of 1,170 (5%)||not listed among 50 of 427, '96 & '98|
The 1993 edition of The Gourman Report does not rank the UH Manoa undergraduate programs of the disciplines in Table 45. The two numbers in parentheses are the number of "top" programs listed in rank order, followed by the total number examined in the US. For example, Accounting (47/1,198) means that UHM Accounting was not within the top 47 departments listed, of the total of 1,198 departments in the US that gave a degree in Accounting. The 1996 and 1998 reports are similar, except (*) indicates UHM is included later.
Business Ad (45/1,340)
City/Reg. Plan (9/61)
Civil Eng (55/200)
Computer Sci (58/1,279)
Electrical Eng (62/234)*
Food Science (18/100)
Home Econ (24/177)*|
Mechanical Eng (58/218)
Social Work (15/584)
South Asian Studies (4/10)
Southeast Asian Studies (5/10)
Speech Pathology & Audiology (31/233)
No external evaluations
The 1993 edition of The Gourman Report does not mention the disciplines of the UH Manoa undergraduate programs listed in Table 46. They are so indicated in the matrix for prioritization, and normalized in the count.
Under Liberal Studies
English as a Second Language
Pacific Island Studies
Travel Industry Management
The doctoral programs in Table 47 are not mentioned in NRC, The Gourman Report, or US News: These programs with no external evaluation are so indicated in the matrix for prioritization, and normalized in the count.
Second Language Acquisition
d. Quality of UHM Resources
Many of the following measures used to rank quality relate to resources of the university as a whole, not to individual programs. Take libraries for example. Volumes in library holdings, the number of serial subscriptions, and annual library expenditures are easily found for
the nearly 300 doctorate-granting universities in the us. But the lists don't subdivide, to show how many serials specifically support Botany or History or Law. Nor does it show what control if any a specific field has over a library. For instance, a study of science libraries a number of years ago showed that 22 of the 23 highest-ranked geoscience departments in the US had libraries within departmental spaces, that were either entirely under the department or were branches of the campus library with departmental control over ordering, hours and so on.
We may be able to collect some of this information, but how will it let us rank the quality of Botany against History and Law at UHM? Or Botany at UHM against Botany at Arizona State?
Measures other than libraries will be harder to track down, if they can be found at al1. These are some measures of resources we would like to compare among departments, but we have few ways to obtain the information:
Is the student body of a department a good resource?
Is the department or program faculty a good resource?
Is the infrastructure a good resource?
Can the resources be maintained?
[note by committee: the following are also important questions, but seem to belong under some rubric like; societal awareness' or 'effectiveness' rather than 'quality':
After we assembled the information about UHM programs in terms of the six criteria we were to use, we evaluated each and placed our findings about them on a spread-sheet.
Table 48 is that matrix of programs versus criteria, fined in with our evaluations. The following paragraphs summarize our procedures and conclusions.
Methodology Most "programs," in the broad sense, are departments, but some are schools, or programs in the restricted sense. Programs are in their page-order in the 1997-1999 UHM General and Graduate Information Catalog. School of Medicine is an exception; clinical departments are not listed because the Department of Medicine is the only MD-awarding department. The non-clinical departments are listed separately.
In SHAPS, Buddhist Studies and the nine centers are not listed, as they don't give degrees and we cannot determine separate costs. All, however, would rank high on Comparative Advantage. Other programs without degrees are collected at the end (Continuing Education, Summer Session; interdisciplinary programs; certificate programs including Interpretation and Translation and Population Studies; and CTAHR's environmental biochemistry).
The numbers represent our consensus about the method, or our averaged vote. Within a criterion, a vote of two represents the most favorable result: greatest centrality, lowest cost, highest quality, and so on. A one is intermediate and a zero is little or none. The word "lack" means there is a lack of information. After discussion the VC decided the way to assign numbers for each criterion; each was determined a different way that we deemed appropriate for that particular criterion. We did not necessarily attempt to distribute votes symmetrically (as many twos as zeros). There was no attempt to have a equal number of points for all criteria; for example, no UHM undergraduate program ranked in the highest levels in external reviews, and so we awarded no full points.
The leaked version of our January report caused much consternation on campus. Although we thought that faculty at this university are used to the concept of binned or classed grades (only A, B, C, D, and F, rather than A+, A, A-, B+ ...), we did not consider that there would be objections to our initial grouping with zeros for the lowest bin, of not only those disciplines here that fell below the national rankings of their disciplines, but also those in disciplines that were not considered for national ranking.
We have therefore revised our rankings for cost, demand, and quality, breaking out the figures that had been binned, breaking out each of the languages (because of publicity in the newspapers), breaking out the reports on quality, and normalizing scores where no information exists.
We have tried to hold some balance between the undergraduate and graduate programs, as the UHM mission includes both, as does the concept of our Carnegie class institution. Centrality stresses undergraduate programs, even though all of the most-central departments also have graduate programs. Comparative advantage stresses graduate programs, even though nearly all of the departments with high comparative advantage have undergraduate degrees or course offerings. We have tried to keep undergraduate-graduate weightings in balance for demand, cost, and quality. We could not for effectiveness, where the only good information available is about research-doctoral programs, and so we gave no points at all, in order to preserve undergraduate-graduate balance.
|Notes explained in text. Ranking is 2.0 high to 0.0 low|
|Arts and Sciences||-||-||a||-||-||-||-||-||-||-|
|American Studies||0.1||0.0||1.0||1.1||0.9||-||0.8 n||1.7 n||2.8 n||3.1|
|Communication||0.0 c||0.0||0.2||0.2||0.9||-||0.2 n||1.1 n||1.3 n||1.4|
|East Asian Languages & Literat.|
|-- Chinese||2.0 b||2.0||0.1||4.1||0.4||-||0.8 n||1.2 n||5.3 n||5.8|
|-- Japanese||2.0 b||2.0||0.4||4.4||0.5||-||0.7 n||1.2 n||5.6 n||6.2|
|-- Korean||2.0 b||2.0||0.1||4.1||0.3||-||0.0 nn||0.3 nn||4.5 [2n]||5.5|
|English as a Second Language||0.0||1.0||0.2||1.2||0.7||-||0.0 n||0.7 n||1.9 n||2.1|
|Ethnic Studies||0.1||2.0||0.3||2.4||0.8 n||-||0.0 n||0.8 n||3.2 n||3.5|
|European Languages & Literat.|
|-- Classics||2.0 B||0.0||0.0||2.0||0.4||-||0.3||0.7||2.7||2.7|
|-- French||2.0 b||0.0||0.1||2.1||0.6||-||0.3||0.9||3.0||3.0|
|-- German||2.0 b||0.0||0.0||2.0||0.6||-||0.3||0.9||2.9||2.9|
|-- Russian||2.0 b||0.0||0.0||2.0||0.5||-||0.3||0.8||2.8||2.8|
|-- Spanish||2.0 b||0.0||0.2||2.2||0.7||-||0.3||1.0||3.2||3.2|
|Hawaiian & Indo-Pacific Lang.|
|-- Hawaiian||2.0 b||2.0||0.4||4.4||0.5||-||0.0 n||0.5 n||4.9 n||5.4|
|-- Indo-Pacific Lang/certificate|
|Information & Computer Science||2.0||0.0||1.5||3.5||1.2||-||0.3||1.5||5.0||5.0|
|Liberal Studies||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||i/lack||-||0.0 n||0 [4n]||0.2 [4n]||0.3|
|Religion||0.6||1.0||0.4||2.0||0.6||-||0.2 n||0. n||2.8 n||3.1|
|Second Language Acquisition||0.0||1.0||0.0||1.0||d/lack||-||0.0 n||0 [3n]||10 [3n]||1.4|
|Speech||0.0 c||0.0||0.4||0.4||0.8||-||0.2 n||1.0 n||1.4 n||1.6|
|Theatre and Dance||0.6||1.0||0.2||1.8||0.7||-||0.3||1.0||2.8||2.8|
|Urban and Regional Planning||0.0||0.0||0.1||0.1||0.9||-||0.1||1.0||1.1||1.1|
|Women's Studies||0.0||0.0||0.1||0.1||0.5 g||-||0.0 n||0.5 n||0.6 n||0.7|
|Bus. Adm. Spec. Professional||0.0||0.0||2.0||2.0||0.5||-||0.3||0.8||2.8||2.8|
|Decision Science||0.0||0.0||0.5||0.5||0.6||-||0.1 n||0.7 n||1.2 n||1.3|
|Financial Economics & Instutio||1.0||0.0||1.1||2.1||0.7||-||0.3||1.0||3.1||3.1|
|Management & Industrial Relat.||0.0||0.0||1.1||1.1||0.7||-||0.3||1.0||2.1||2.1|
|Doctor of Education||0.0||0.0||1.0||1.0||i/lack||-||0.3||0.3 nn||1.3 nn||1.6|
|Counseling and Guidance||0.0||0.0||1.3||1.3||1.0||-||0.1||1.1||2.4||2.4|
|Educational Psychology||0.0||0.0||1.2||1.7||0.8||-||0.1 n||0.9 n||2.6 n||2.9|
|Kinesiology &. Leisure Science||0.0||0.0||1.3||1.3||.07||-||0.3||1.0||2.3||2.3|
|SHAPS (Hawaiian, Asian, Pacific Studies)|
|Asian Studies||0.0||2.0||0.7||2.7||0.7||-||0.9 n||2.0 n||4.7 n||5.2|
|Hawaiian Studies||0.0||2.0||0.6||2.6||0.6||-||0.0 n||0.6 n||3.2 n||3.5|
|Pacific Islands Studies||0.0||2.0||0.5||2.5||0.5||-||0.0 nn||0.7 nn||3.2 nn||4.0|
|School of Law||0.0||1.0||1.0||2.0||0.4||-||0.4||0.9||2.9||2.9|
|School of Medicine|
|Anatomy &. Reproductive Biol||a||0.0||0.0||0.0+||0.0||[a]||0.2||0.6||0.6+||0.6+|
|Biochemistry &. Biophysics||a||0.0||0.5||0.5+||0.6||b||0.1||0.4||0.9+||0.9+|
|Genetics &. Molecular Biology||2.0 a||0.0||0.5||2.5||0.6||b,[a]||0.3||0.9||3.4||3.4|
|Speech Pathology &. Audiology||a||0.0||0.5||0.5+||1.0||-||0.1||1.4||1.9+||1.9+|
|Tropical Med. & Med Microbiol||a||2.0||0.0||2.0+||0.0||[a]||0.2||0.6||2.6+||2.6+|
|School of Nursing|
|Dental Hygiene||0.0||0.0||1.-||1.0||1.1||-||0.2 n||0.2 n||1.2 n||1.3|
|SOEST (Ocean & Earth Science & Technology)|
|Geology & Geophysics||1.1||2.0||1.8||4.9||1.2||a||1.6||2.9||7.8||7.8|
|Meteorology||0.0||2.0||0.8||2.8||0.7||-||0.0 nn||0.8 nn||3.6 nn||4.5|
|Ocean Engineering||0.0||20.0||1.3||3.3||1.1||-||0.0 n||1.0 n||4.3 n||4.7|
|School of Public Health||0.0||0.0||1.5 d||1.5||0.9||-||0.3||1.7||3.2||3.2|
|School of Social Work||0.0||0.0||1.5 d||1.5||0.9||-||0.1||1.4||2.9||2.9|
|Travel Industry Management||0.0||1.0||1.3||2.3||0.9||-||0.0 nn||0.9 nn||3.2 nn||4.0|
|CTAHR (Trop Ag &. Hm Res)||-||-||e||-||-||-||-||-||-||-|
|Agricultural & Resource Econ||0.0||0.0||0.8||0.8||0.8||-||1.2||2.3||3.1||3.1|
|Agronomy & Soil Science||0.0||1.0||0.7||1.7||0.8||-||0.3||2.0||3.7||3.7|
|Animal Sciences||a||0.0||0.7||0.7+||0.7||-||0.7 n||1.7 n||2.4 n+||2.6+|
|Biosystems Engineering||0.0||0.0||0.7||0.7||0.7||-||0.0 nn||1.0 nn||1.7 nn||2.1|
|Food Science & Human Nutrit.||00||0.0||0.5||0.5||0.9||-||0.2 n||1.2 n||1.7 n||1.9|
|Plant Molecular Physiology||a||1.0||0.7||1.7+||0.8||[a]||0.7||2.5||4.2+||4.2+|
|Cell, Molecular, &. Neurosci.||a||1.0||1.3||2.3||i/lack||b||0.3||0.3||2.6 n||2.8|
|Ecology, Evolution, & Cons.Biol||a||2.0||2.0||4.0||i/lack||a||0.5||0.5||4.5 n||5.0|
|Indo-Pacific Languages||2.0 b||2.0||0.5||4.5||0.3||-||0.0 n||0.3 n||4.8 n||5.3|
|Interpret. & Translation Studies||0.0||1.0||0.0||1.0||d||-||lack||0.0 a||1.0 n||1.1|
|Population Studies||0.0||0.0||0.5||0.5||1.4 g||-||lack||1.4 a||1.9 n||2.1|
|Environmental Biochemistry||a||0.0||0.7||0.7||1.3 g||-||lack||1.3 a||2.0 n||2.2|
All committee members agreed that twelve disciplines were essential for a university's offerings at the baccalaureate level. Five other disciplines had average scores less than 2.0 but higher than 1.0. These disciplines are listed in the findings for Centrality. All but one of them is in Arts and Sciences. Some notes follow.
After only moderate discussion on a couple of points, we were able to reach consensus for scoring this criterion.
Our evaluation of the statistics we collected indicated that demand has two components, namely (1) the academic demand, by students, in terms of credit hours taken, numbers of majors, and applications for graduate study*, and (2) the economic demand, or the job-market demand for our product. We first discussed and listed them separately, then we combined the two individual demand scores, and put scores in proportion of 2.0 high to 0.0 low. Details of how we assigned scores is on p. 42.
[* later note: important new information from Graduate Division was released in November 1997, and is assembled in Appendix 12.]
Columns Centrality though Demand
As we have indicted, issues of centrality, comparative advantage, and demand will shape each university's offerings, and so we subtotal these for Hawaii. The criteria of cost, effectiveness, and quality indicate how well a university has managed what it offers; they also are subtotaled in Table 48.
The committee recognized the cost parameters with their broad range of numerical values are amenable to development of decimal scores (e.g., 1.1, 1.2, etc.). Therefore, ranking schemes were developed for each parameter. We then averaged the three rankings (a, b, and c below) to obtain a final value. If an three rankings could not be determined, we averaged what was available (see notes).
As stated before, we had great difficulty in assembling much that is meaningful about the effectiveness of undergraduate programs and the professional schools and colleges. Therefore we did not assign numerical scores in the Effectiveness column of the matrix.
The expense and visibility of research doctoral programs, however, lead us to note their effectiveness, because some of our recommendations about the PhD programs are based, in large part, on effectiveness as determined in the NRC report. Rather than assigning to those UHM programs numbers that would be meaningless for the majority of degree programs here, we merely note categories a through d for fields covered by the NRC report:
The simplified scoring for the criterion of quality in our January report evoked a number of objections. In this section, we still adhere to the concepts that only external information is likely to be without bias, and that undergraduate and graduate programs are treated equally with each able to earn 1.0 points for the maximum of 2.0 points for quality. We have, however, 1) instituted a gradation that considers the actual placement or rank of UHM programs in fields for which ranked lists are published, rather than lumping or binning into a small number of classes; b) arbitrarily assigned a value to UHM programs that are unranked, below the cut-off, in fields for which ranked lists are published, equal to one-half the lowest value of the ranked programs, and c) used a normalization procedure for programs neither ranked nor unranked, but rather that the fields are not considered by outside reviewers. Values are rounded to the nearest 0.1, except midpoints are rounded upward to favor the UHM field (example 0.35 becomes 0.4).
Seven categories of UHM graduate programs exist. Points are assigned as follows:
Because of the earlier controversy, some additional comments about awarding points for quality is in Appendix 11.
The column scores of Table 48 are added, with a maximum total score of 10.0. Where a value for cost or quality is lacking, we averaged what is available; Le.,the total is normalized. For example, the BA in Ethnic Studies has no external indication of quality, so its highest score could be only 9.0. The 9.0 is normalized to 1O.O by multiplying by 1.11.
Normalized scores are indicated with the letter "n" after them. A plus symbol (+) indicates units whose scores might be up to 2.0 higher, because they could contribute to centrality in their biology content.
Table 48 answers the part of our charge to set into priority the academic programs at Manoa, using criteria given to us. Programs with total scores below the median are listed in the Executive Summary.
We make no pretension that we have ranked all programs in a perfect order, but we are confident that UHM programs with the most attributes are distinguished from those with the least attributes, with many average ones in between.
This section is from our 27 February supplement to Dr. Smith, answering our added charge to evaluate; set into priority, and make recommendations about the Organized Research Units (ORUs) and the 102-budgeted units in the same way that we did for other units in the January report.
Our new findings based on the given criteria, are in this separate section. Our recommendations however, are now melded into the major sections on Restructuring the University of Hawaii at Manoa, and Recommendations about each unit at UHM). Next, we report our support or disagreement with the individual findings of the arts and sciences committee, and our opinions about essential programs and large cuts.
In February we discussed and reaffirmed our earlier conclusions about centrality and the UHM Mission. UHM must foster a range of extramural research activities, in ORUs as well as in departments, in order to retain our Carnegie classification. There is no requirement, however, that undergraduate departments and doctoral fields of study necessary for the first two Carnegie criteria be the only sources of success in extramural funding.
In our first report we described Hawaii's environment, society, and location, and for perspective, described the components of comparative advantage and the programs exploiting the advantages, whether they are under Academic Affairs or Research. We did not list all of the smaller ORUs, but the present matrix has the complete list of ORUs, with our opinion of how well each unit fits within the concept of comparative advantage. We use the same three-fold division (yes; partly; no) as in the earlier listing. Most institutes were organized to exploit advantages, so it is not a surprise that most are in the "yes" category. CRDG, JABSOM, and SSRI are listed as partly advantaged, whereas Environmental Center, and IRC have none.
Academic demand on ORUs is largely indirect, for example, to provide employment in labs for some undergraduates, and for facilities that may attract graduate applications to a particular field of study. The arboretum and aquarium have important public-educational duties, and in fact, most schools and ORUs have open houses or field days.
We considered, but rejected as being a form of "double counting", the assignment to an ORU of any value earned under centrality, demand, or quality by a department that is related to an ORU. For example, Anthropology rated above average at UHM in centrality and quality, but even though some Anthropology faculty and students might work in SSRI, we did not give SSRI any credit for centrality and quality.
Economic demands. The demand from outside the university for the products of ORUs includes not only technical information and consulting services, but also graduates that were trained in ORUs, at least in part. Our matrix for ORUs
|Schools & ORUs||Cent
|Comp. Adv||Demand||Cost||Eff||Qual||Overall Contrib. to research. Some serv & edu|
|US jobs||Hawaii proj. jobs||Legislated||Contrib. to Econ Grow|
|Overall leveraging coefficient of all 102 units||2.7||-||-||-|
All these units contribute modestly to Academic Demand. The demand is approximately in proportion to the G budget of each, so academic demand is not listed. See text.
* In its bookkeeping methods CTAHR would assign its $10 M extramural funding to HITAHR, which has $10 M state budget and therefore a 1.0 leveraging of its 102 budget. The mission of HITAHR is unsettled in the current college reorganization
** The arboretum and aquarium are mainly service and public-educational institutions, and should not be under the 102 budget. See text.
Vertical Cuts Committee124 Feb '98/for 26 June final report
include the following four components, but because the economic situation is strangling Hawaii, we put most weight on the last-listed component:
Costs per credit hour and degree are not applicable to ORUs. Cost-leveraging is the only measure from our report that is also applicable to ORUs.
How should we interpret cost-leveraging for research units? UH Manoa has established a number of research units in areas in which we have obvious comparative advantage. These units in turn have served as the focus of extramural funding in their area. Some funding, however, comes to a research unit because it exists; in its absence, the funding might go to a related instructional unit. Because we use leveraging as a measure of the cost of a unit, we might overestimate the value of a research unit if we include funding that depends little on the quality of the faculty or management of that unit.
Types of extramural funding include at least:
All of these sources of funds can contribute to the ability of the university to perform its mission better than in the absence of funding. The different types of funding, however, reflect on quite different aspects of the faculty and management inside and outside a research unit.
Similar doubts of the proper worth to assign for training grants also exist. Nevertheless, within the time available for our study, we will have to consider that all grant moneys have the same color of green.
Cost leveraging in Organized Research ranges from 5.2 for the Cancer Center to zero for IRC, with an overall coefficient of about 2.65. HIGP, PBRC, IFA, and SSRI show good leverage in the 3.8 - 2.7 range. As for the schools and colleges, it is difficult to gauge the contribution of HITAHR to CTAHR's overall 0.6 leveraging; HITAHR alone is about 1.0. JABSOM has a fairly nice figure of 1.4, which is 78% in training grants and the remainder in research grants. SOEST's overall figure of 3.1 includes JIMAR, Sea Grant, and four departments besides the three research institutes listed individually in the matrix.
As we stated in our original report, figures for FY-1997 extramural funding are from the Office of Research Services as reported to the BOR. The figures differ somewhat from those used by the Manoa Budget Office.
Inability to separate cost, effectiveness, and quality
If an ORU's faculty and proposals are of high quality, a good proportion of the proposals will be funded. If an ORU has high leverage, it is obviously effective as a unit of the University. Therefore, the criteria of cost, effectiveness, and quality are all essentially measuring the same thing, and so we list extramural leveraging only once, under Cost, and not repeat it under Effectiveness and Quality.
Cost leveraging, however, is not the only importance of ORUs. Certainly their effectiveness is evidenced by spin-off businesses
they foster, and by their service functions in public education, consulting for State and Federal agencies, and providing such products as improved horticultural species and complex instrumentation packages. Research quality is evident in patents, publications, selection of faculty to national boards, and election or editorships of faculty in professional organizations. Moreover, examination of the figures for number of faculty in the Manoa doctoral programs ranked by NRC indicates that cooperating graduate faculty, largely in ORUs, are counted along with the departmental faculty. All of these aspects of quality in ORUs are much more difficult and time-consuming to measure and interpret than leveraging.
We concluded that a priority listing of 102-budget schools and ORUs cannot be melded fairly into our priority listing of departments, in which instruction generally is held to be more important than research, which in turn is more important than service. In ORUs, research is more important than service, which in most units in turn is more important than instruction. Moreover, we cannot use the criterion of centrality and we prefer not to repeat cost leveraging as quality.
Therefore, we did not assign any numbers to our ORU listing; purposely to frustrate anyone's attempt to meld the two lists.
Table 49 shows, however, that Cancer Research Center is an outstanding ORU.
Excellent ones are IFA, PBRC, SOEST overall, and its HIGP. SOEST's HNEI would rank next. Good colleges and units are CTAHR, JABSOM, and SSRI, while CRDG, SOEST's HIMB, and WRRC rate as fair. Environmental Center, Industrial Research Center, Lyon Arboretum, and Waikiki Aquarium bring up the rear.
One questions how these last four should fit within the University. The centers should charge fully for their services, and the arboretum and aquarium are more of public services than research units, even though 'faculty can use their research facilities. A start would be to have their budget line reflect their mission.
In this chapter we place in perspective our evaluations that led to Tables 48 and 49. Our findings about UHM programs bear on a number of problems, which we attempt to solve. In the present-day idiom, this is a "goal-oriented" approach to our charge to identify measures that would allow UH to use limited resources more efficiently.
We commence with proposals to organize two schools, one each to emphasize our life sciences and our Asian-Pacific-Hawaiian focus. Then we point out the ramifications of our findings about centrality, quality, and demand when those findings are considered in the context of the national and local situation and our findings about the other criteria. We demonstrate how Manoa can and should contribute to improving public education and economic development in Hawaii. The section concludes with our proposals on how to utilize advantages and to regain the initiative in research. The first several sections of the chapter begin with specific recommendations, followed by the justifications. The recommendations are then collected with respect to the specific units at Manoa that are concerned. Next, we respond to some new charges given us in January 1998. Then we conclude with our requested opinion of what Manoa programs should have highest priority for protection during fiscal straits, and why.
Late in the last century the eminent biologist Thomas Henry Huxley said, "The medieval university looked backwards; it professed to be a storehouse of great knowledge. The modern university looks forward, and is a factory of new knowledge." It is time for the University of Hawaii to look forward.
Status of the life sciences at Manoa and a proposal for their future
Biology today. Biology is attracting students nationally in the same way physics did in the 195Os and 1960s, even as budgets in many biology departments have been stationary or have declined. Changes in enrollment and
the economy also require that a broad diversity of students, especially non-traditional ones, be prepared for a society that depends increasingly on science and technology. Our life-science departments at Manoa are not effectively organized to foster the development of new technologies nor transfer existing ones to the clients they serve, a recognition that the old distinctions between research and instruction are no longer valid. Many discipline-based graduate programs are poorly rated, laboratory facilities are inadequate for both teaching and research, and support services are spotty to non-existent.
The recommendations of this committee as to the fate of the biological science departments and programs we reviewed (Botany, Zoology, Microbiology, Biology) and two allied graduate programs (Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation Biology, or EECB; and Cell, Molecular, and Neurosciences, or CMNS) cannot be divorced from basic biology departments and programs that exist in the Medical School, the College of Tropical Agriculture, PBRC, CRCH, and SOEST. The struggle to do more with less suggests to us a practical solution, that a new School of Integrated Life Sciences (SILS) be organized at UH Manoa. We suggest that its organization be similar to that of SOEST, with a number of departments, institutes, programs, and facilities under one administrative structure, along with tenure in the new School, not in individual departments or institutes or past colleges. A similar kind of proposal for reorganization into a special school is made in the next section, Asian-Pacific-Hawaiian Focus.
School of Integrated Life Sciences, or SILS
We envision two departments of substantial size, with some research institutes. If, as in SOEST, faculty members initially can choose which department to join, we suggest that the sizes will be about as shown below. The number in parentheses after an existing department represents the number of faculty of that department with research interests that fall under the new departments.
Undergraduate biological education
We intend that the Biology Program be retained, with few modifications, as the sole undergraduate instructional program in SILS. In addition to the core biology courses, there might be some formalized concentrations or tracks within the electives now allowed for
the student to concentrate in, say, botany or pre-med or technical training in bacteriology. Preparation of effective teachers for intermediate-school and secondary education in the biological sciences would be an important special purpose of the Biology Program.
Just as today there are dedicated faculty members in the Arts and Sciences biological departments who contribute part of their teaching obligations to the Program, so would we expect that any or all of the two new departments might have individuals whose primary teaching interest is at the undergraduate level.
Research Institutes. We came about proposing integration of the life sciences when we saw that the 101 and 102 division in the VC Committee charge was irrational with respect to the existing departments. With our later charge to include ORUs, we recommend that Manoa's administration place PBRC and CRCH in SILS.
Cost of SILS. Initially we see SILS as cost-neutral, with one new dean and staff offset by fewer departments. In time we would propose that new or reprogrammed Manoa resources go to SILS. If recruitment and tenure procedures are rigorous and quality can be rewarded, the SILS umbrella can shelter the departments, while the departments can grow and support the school.
Affected Colleges: The School of Medicine, College of Tropical Agriculture, and College of Natural Sciences each stand to lose faculty and departments if this reorganization takes place. In the case of Medicine, the proposal essentially splits the present clinical and non-clinical units. Elsewhere in the report we weigh the medical school along with the same criteria as the other professional schools, of architecture, law, nursing, public health, social work, and travel industry management. If the administration decides to retrench the medical school (based on whatever recommendations they receive from various committees or other sources), then the basis for the necessary expanded effort in molecular biology and biotechnology would nevertheless remain at Manoa, in SILS. If the medical school is retained, the present non-clinical part would remain available, in SILS, to provide courses for medical students.
Certain extramurally-funded programs require the inclusion of university MDs as well as medical malpractice insurance. Regardless of the fate of the Medical School, a way must be maintained for PBRC and CRCH to continue their important programs.
A parallel situation exists for Tropical Agriculture. From past histories of the Legislature we can imagine scenarios in which the college is moved to another campus, and there are past and current reorganizational attempts. Regardless of what happens to the farming, human resources, and extension parts of the college, its basic biological research and the potential for applying biotechnology to high-value agriculture would remain on the research campus, at Manoa.
Both JABSOM and CTAHR are large and expensive, with pockets of poor quality. Several departments have lost faculty and the remainder are "graying", so they no longer have flexibility on which to build strength. Collection into a school would give more flexibility and indeed preserve them for biotechnology if JABSOM or CTAHR or both become targets.
Natural Sciences would lose three important departments and a program. Elsewhere we are proposing that the college itself lose its identity, merging into one College of Arts and Sciences, but we are also proposing that Chemistry, Information and Computer Sciences, applied and statistics Mathematics, and Physics be strengthened for the future of technology-based enterprise in Hawaii.
Incentives. Some faculty may object to this reorganization unless they stand to reap significant gains. By significant, we suggest the construction of a new Biological Sciences Center (BSC), situated on The Mall and replacing the outdated Snyder-Edmondson building complex. This center should contain classroom, laboratory, computer, teleconference, and service facilities. The latter
would include a much-needed central stockroom, technical services including microscopy, DNA synthesis and sequencing, laboratory-animal services, antibody production, and growth chambers. The construction of the BSC should be planned now and completed by the year 2005.
Because no campus science laboratory or women's softball field has been designed and built correctly, we urge that one aspect of greater university autonomy be that direct contact be required between the BSC designer-user biologists and the BSC architect (and the architect's engineering consultants).
We see as further incentives allowance of off-scale salaries and conversion of some I positions to R ones. Nevertheless, for many faculty members, the greatest incentive will be the anticipation of working with colleagues in a focus with a societal purpose: in contributing to the technological base for Hawaii's future economy; or in ecology and conservation while addressing Hawaii and Earth's environmental concerns; or in the proper management of our increasingly valuable land and its life.
Specific about biological ORUs
CRCH and PBRC belong in SILS. After the part above was written we were asked in February where ORUs, in particular CRCH and PBRC, properly belonged.
In our initial report we started with the biological instructional units in Arts and Sciences and other colleges, and concluded that they should be reorganized and integrated into a single school. For a better use of the societal and biological advantages Hawaii has, we proposed that PBRC and CRCH be included in the new School of Integrated Life Sciences. In our February addendum-report we took the research perspective and focused on those two ORUs, asking ourselves if SILS is indeed the best place for them.
For one or both of them, choices seem to be: (a) cut PBRC and CRCH, (b) leave them as they are now as independent ORUs, (c) place them in Arts and Sciences, (d) merge them with JABSOM, or (e) place them in SILS as we proposed.
Our opinion is: (a) Their potential to benefit the economic growth of the state, and their cost leveraging preclude any rational attempt to cut either ORU. (b) They might be left as now, but if so they would not help to provide a broader and richer research component to some present or future school. (c) If they were placed within Arts and Sciences their continued success, which we consider vital for Manoa and the State, would depend too heavily on the attitude of a dean and A&S faculty towards research -- a problem that led in the 1950s to Hiatt's initiation of research institutes in the first place, and later led to establishment of a vice chancellor or vice president for research.
As for (d), if JABSOM, PBRC, and CRCH are merged, the excellent research performance of the latter two cover up for the lack of research productivity in JABSOM. There are analogous situations in other units. For example, in SOEST and CTAHR (and in schools and colleges under the 101 budget) some components are not as productive as others, but overall a school could limp along under its present reduced level of funding. In the case of JABSOM, however, the cost alternatives are clear, either more money, or no money. The first is that the medical school cannot be operated on its present allocations; JABSOM appears to be over-expended by about $2 million each year. Realistically, even more money must go into JABSOM if UHM wants to raise it from mediocrity up into the top 100 schools in the country. We recognize that the basic science faculty in JABSOM teach lecture and laboratory courses required by biology, zoology, botany and pre-professional nursing students for graduation. However, a large portion of the sizable JABSOM budget is directed to producing approximately 50 physicians a year for which the demand in the State is questionable. Rather than adding millions per year of more State funds, we had proposed that the clinical part of JABSOM be retrenched if it is not able to raise its full costs from tuition, grants, and endowment. The analysis of the Arts and Sciences committee suggests that if all of the
funds need to be raised from tuition, JABSOM would be the most expensive medical school in the USA. Unless substantial funds are forthcoming from Hawaii's hospitals or elsewhere, the outlook for a viable medical school is bleak.
Therefore, (e) in our ORU-based reevaluation of our recommendation for SILS, we conclude again that placing CRCH and PBRC in SILS will be in the best interests of the University and the State.
JABSOM research activity, subsidies, and other issues. Our opinion about other aspects of JABSOM is on page 111.
No portion of the University of Hawaii at Manoa's mission and aspirations is more important or has had such past frustration in full achievement than a first-class, international reputation as a center for scholarly and applied studies of eastern Asia and the islands of the Pacific. Manoa has pockets of brilliance, and a number of areas of competence, but not the overall level that our comparative advantage should have given us.
An advantage not fully utilized
As we have stated, UHM has been presented with advantages afforded by Hawaii's societal environment. To some extent they are being exploited, in SHAPS and by departments and programs in the social sciences and humanities. We regret, however, that Manoa's Asian, Pacific, and Hawaiian programs have not yet reached the level of quality to be a major source of pride for this university and the citizens who study here. We believe we have identified some of the reasons for the present situation, few of which can be blamed on individual faculty members working to improve their
programs, and none on the present leadership in SHAPS. The dean must play the cards she was dealt, and she does not hold many high cards.
If the "natural advantage" for A-P-H affairs is to be pursued further in Hawaii (and we believe it must be), the administration and faculty will have to decide if it will be in an enlarged SHAPS, or in some other form. Our ideas for reorganization follow.
Asian-Pacific-Hawaiian programs at UHM and a proposal for their future.
The size, expertise, and quality of existing departments In a time of diminishing resources the principal way a university can build strength in a targeted area is to reallocate existing resources, in terms of departments and individuals.
Not all Asian and Pacific expertise is in SHAPS. For decades certain departments in Arts and Sciences have declared their emphasis or slant to Asian and Pacific specialties within their disciplines. The NRC doctoral-program ratings show a mix of levels of success, but do not indicate the extent that the ratings depend on any Asian-Pacific advantage. One would have to examine in detail the productivity of faculty who claim Asian-Pacific interests. At any rate, the faculties rated by NRC as "good" in Linguistics and Anthropology probably gained from their Asian-Pacific advantage, because virtually all their faculty claim that expertise. To some extent that may also be true for History. On the other hand, the percentile-level of Sociology is so poor, and Geography not much better, that obviously they have missed the opportunity to take advantage of their setting. Comparison of East and West used to be a focus in Philosophy, another PhD-offering department now in the doldrums. Of the non-doctoral departments, Religion's faculty are almost unanimous in claiming expertise in Asian religions.
These A&S departments pose vexing questions for UHM decision-makers. Easiest to consider are Anthropology, History, and Linguistics. Even without reorganization if finances improve, especially in the form of endowed chairs or something else beyond General funds, a few strong new faculty members with Asian-Pacific specialties might be recruited into Anthropology, History, and Linguistics to add strength. History is too broad and central to any university to move from Arts and Sciences, but for UHM we see logic in moving Anthropology and Linguistics from Arts and Sciences into SHAPS or whatever the A-P-H focus will be.
Geography and Religion departments present special problems. Geography is more of a derived than a basic discipline. The criteria of centrality and quality work against Geography at UHM. Geography is not common in the top classes of Carnegie institutions, and of the Carnegie institutions offering PhDs in Geography, 83% are of higher quality than ours. One proposal might be to place Geography, like Anthropology and Linguistics, entirely within the A-P-H school, but one shouldn't weight down a school with below-average departments and expect the school to rise. A better alternative is to retrench all of Geography and hire back into A-P-H those geographers whose track record indicates they could contribute there. Depending on their expertise, other geographers might help some of the non-A-P-H programs of the University.
In the 19th century Religion was either the focus of study in seminaries and denominational colleges, or was a part of the curriculum within Philosophy. It is only slightly more "central" than Geography at research universities, and has few majors in Hawaii, and so has to be considered a candidate for retrenchment. We believe, however, it would be appropriate to transfer the faculty into the A-P-H school, with an undergraduate comparative religion track and an MS program in Asian religion (especially appropriate in the Huntington view of present-day cultures and future clashes), except one or two professors who might be, placed in Philosophy.
Other A&S departments that seem to have missed the boat in quality and
effectiveness are candidates to have their PhD programs curtailed. Individual faculty members, who may have built a reputation in Asian-Pacific aspects of their disciplines by virtue of their superior teaching abilities or scholarly products, might be transferred to strengthen the doctoral programs of Manoa's new Asian, Pacific, and Hawaiian focus. Perhaps that should even include a number of those A-P-H specialists currently in History.
Why are we where we are? Although not entirely sure, we suspect why the set of disciplines based on (a) the sciences performed better that those based on (b) the humanities and social sciences. Perhaps the former largely involved themselves in field studies on land and sea, or isolated themselves within their laboratories and observatories, while many of the latter as social scientists and humanists may have so involved themselves in the local social, political, and economic scene that their vision blurred and their scholarly research suffered. Both groups of disciplines were aided by the early growth of the East-West Center, and both groups have been affected by the E-W Center's decline. Both groups have, to some extent, special library collections or research libraries. Both groups received new positions in the Governor Waihee years, and important parts of both were reorganized into SOEST and SHAPS respectively, in the President Simone years.
Researcher (R) positions, with their 11-month duty-period and salaries, and few or no teaching obligations, must have been an important factor. I/R positions are an intermediate type. Moreover, the natural sciences seems to have benefited from a higher degree of integration of programs and better leadership than have the others. Funding for science has been more dependable in the past 40 years than funding for other disciplines, but there are predictions that a new wave of private trusts is on the horizon, and the funding situation is very likely to change radically through the next 40 years. There may have been differences between the groups in decisions about tenure, workload, and how such resources as equipment or travel funds were allocated, but we have only anecdotes rather than statistical evidence to support those statements.
What can we do? The programs that have been using or can use Hawaii's comparative advantages must be nurtured and maintained even in times of stable or declining resources. That includes the currently successful ones that are based on Hawaii's physical environment, the one poised at the next level of success that is based on Hawaii's biological environment, and the one or more that are at present in disarray but have great potential to utilize more effectively Hawaii's human or societal advantage. Each of these three should form the critical mass of a special school.
The Asian-Pacific-Hawaiian fields need reorganization, and we suggest it be based on the SOEST model. There, a number of departments, institutes, and programs are covered with a single administrative umbrella. We VC Committee members are not specialists in Asian-Pacific-Hawaiian studies, and so we can do no more than make a few recommendations along these lines. Perhaps most importantly, these include placing two good departments, Anthropology and Linguistics under whatever school umbrella is decided upon. That would not mean that these departments would restrict themselves to A-P-H studies -- they could develop in the manner their faculties deem best to improve overall quality of their programs in anthropology and linguistics while continuing to emphasize their A-P-H heart. By analogy, Geology and Geophysics and Oceanography do not restrict their faculties to the geology of Hawaii or the oceanography of the mid-Pacific. The growing reputation of their programs that have been based on natural advantages allowed them to attract faculty to contribute to the overall teaching and research of the departments and thus lift their departments' international reputations. For example, they have outstanding scientists who study the dynamics of Earth's deep interior, and microbiological oceanography of Antarctic waters, studies which could be based at the University of Chicago as easily as at Hawaii.
An ORU within the Asian-Pacific-Hawaiian focus
No ORUs were involved in our January recommendations to establish a school with a strong A-P-H focus. Facilitation of research afforded by ORUs, however, would help the new school on its way to international preeminence in Asian scholarship, and also in applied aspects of research and international service. We therefore now recommend that a part of SSRI, or some new institute or center, be a part of the new A-P-H school.
This section has recommendations based primarily on our centrality evaluations. The recommendations are about undergraduate (or undergraduate plus masters) programs because our definition of centrality ties it to a range of baccalaureate programs.
Centrality in a Carnegie Research University
The concepts of centrality related to national research universities led our Committee to identify those disciplines that are basic in universities for undergraduate instruction. They are given tables 1 through 14, and our vote is reflected in the Table 48 matrix. We believe, however, that the programs that confirm Manoa as a doctoral-granting research university of international standing are established by criteria beyond centrality alone. With respect to centrality, we came to the following conclusions:
A range of baccalaureate programs. Regardless of budgetary pressures on UH Manoa, we consider certain undergraduate departments and programs as essential to retain our Carnegie classification; in fact, their absence would not permit us to identify ourselves as a university. These are the programs and departments that must receive highest undergraduate priority. They must be retained and supported for both undergraduate courses and undergraduate majors. They are essential for basic
undergraduate education in any university, to provide general-curriculum ("core") courses, survey courses and advanced courses, and curricula for students majoring in the discipline: Biology, Chemistry, Economics, English, Foreign languages and literatures, History, Information and Computer Science, Mathematics, Philosophy, Physics, Political Science, and Psychology
Programs and departments of moderate centrality must receive the next-highest support in undergraduate education. They are useful in supporting basic undergraduate education in any university, as core, survey, and service courses, as well as for advanced courses and majors: Anthropology, Art, Geology and Geophysics, Music, Sociology.
All remaining programs and departments, as well as ORUs, at UHM have lower priority for undergraduate courses and as majors, with respect to centrality. They are in no way essential to basic undergraduate education. Some courses may enhance a university education, but with respect to centrality, no need exists for them in core courses or for majors. We note that important undergraduate programs in many of the colleges and schools can be supported by "demand" or some criterion other than centrality.
With respect to centrality and costs, and with respect to the discussion on pages 96 and 103 of masters and doctoral levels of education, for graduate programs in Arts and Sciences and the special schools we propose that masters-level priorities be the same as their undergraduate priorities.
If the state of finances in the University System requires cutting the support of undergraduate and masters programs at UHM, then with respect to centrality alone, degree programs not listed as essential or of moderate priority should cut before those listed under centrality are cut. Further, degree programs of moderate priority should be cut before the essential ones.
A range of doctoral programs. It is essential to offer a range of doctoral programs in order to retain our Carnegie classification. There is, however, no requirement that each department in the range of baccalaureate programs have a corresponding doctoral program, and there is no need that all doctoral programs at Manoa have a corresponding undergraduate program. Therefore we have concluded that centrality must not be the decisive factor in whether to continue or to cut doctoral programs. Comparative advantage, cost, demand, effectiveness, and quality are more important criteria in Hawaii than centrality for determining whether or not those programs support UHM as a Class I institution.
A high level of research. It is essential that UHM foster a range of extramural research activities in order to retain our Carnegie classification. There is no requirement, however, that undergraduate departments and doctoral fields of study necessary for the first two Carnegie criteria be the only sources of success in extramural funding. We conclude that centrality must not be the decisive factor in setting priorities for research. Comparative advantage, cost, demand, effectiveness, and quality are more important criteria in Hawaii than centrality for the sources and magnitude of research that makes us a Class I institution.
Centrality and general, or "core", education
A general education is that minimum content of knowledge that provides for the enculturation and education of citizens at the college level. It includes the processes, skills, and experiences needed to gain that breadth of knowledge, and acts as a basis for gaining further knowledge throughout the lifetime of the baccalaureate graduate.
General education has at least these components:
We have listed a number of disciplines we consider central to any university. We do not imply that anyone or more must be required for an undergraduate student to receive part of his or her education. We do, however, believe that a distribution of courses from these disciplines could and would provide the general education for undergraduates in a Carnegie I university, just as they would in a liberal arts college.
Our charge does not include a revision of the University-wide general education and the specific core courses available at UHM to fulfill it. We do note, however, the more than 200 core courses available in the university, and the costs needed to offer them all. If it were in our charge, we would recommend doing away with the present university-wide core entirely. We believe that the curriculum of a major should be decided by the faculty of that discipline, subject to coverage of the bulleted list above, with review and approval by the respective college curriculum committees. The curriculum for a professional field would by guided by its certification or accreditation requirements. Each department knows whether its students would be served better by, say, literacy in English alone, or in English plus an additional language. Each department knows to what extent mathematical or multicultural experiences are required.
We devoted extensive time contrasting and comparing the concepts of the breadth of disciplines we saw to be central to a university, and the breadth of courses allowed at Manoa to satisfy general education. We concluded that the proportion of baccalaureate study in general education, and designation of specific courses satisfy a general education requirement properly is the responsibility of colleges, rather than of the university as a whole.
Centrality related to comparative advantage and demand
A university's program offerings. Three criteria that represent the theater in which any university presents its programs are centrality, comparative advantage, and demand. Players in the theater are the disciplines that are central in responding to the public purposes of a university for enculturation and education of citizens, that respond to natural advantages a university may have, and that respond to the demands of the society in which the university operates.
Baccalaureate and masters programs Regardless of the state of finances in the University of Hawaii System, the disciplines essential at the undergraduate level should be continued for at least the current level of support for their undergraduate and masters programs. These are Biology through Psychology, listed above, except for the near future when the budget may require that the supported languages be only Chinese, French, Hawaiian, Japanese, and Spanish.
After the essential ones are supported, these of moderate priority should receive at least the current level of support for their undergraduate and masters programs. These are Anthropology through Sociology, listed above.
Considering baccalaureate and masters programs, and after provision of current levels to support the essential and moderate priority disciplines above, if the University of Hawaii at Manoa finances allow, these central disciplines should receive an increased level of support for certain reasons in addition to centrality (Table 50):
1. State demand for education
2. State demand for technology
3. Student demand
4. Comparative advantage
The central programs we have listed are the cores of the non-professional colleges of US Universities. Yet a number of pre-professional departments appear on many of the tables we compiled. The most common baccalaureate and masters programs outside the most central ones deserve priority after provision of current levels for the essential and moderate-priority disciplines listed above. These departments should be supported at their present levels: Accounting and Finance, Civil, Electrical, and Mechanical Engineering and Architecture.
Centrality related to cost, effectiveness, and quality
Response to a university's offerings. In this section we apply to centrality the three criteria that represent the track record of a program; i.e., what has happened to the discipline with respect to workload and other costs, effectiveness in education, and quality as perceived from outside the university.
Existing concerns. Undergraduate and masters degree programs that are of essential or moderate priority may actually rank high in cost, or be ineffective, or be poor in quality. For instance, our particular concerns include cost and instructional effectiveness of most languages, and Mathematics. We have moderate concerns about costs in English, History, and Music, and about instructional effectiveness in Art. In those and other cases, strong chairs and deans with the support of the higher administration, can take action to improve or resolve the situation.
Overlaps and redundancies. Compared with other universities, Manoa has a grossly over-extended administrative structure (Table 5). A number of program consolidations would result in cost savings. For example, American Studies and Womens' Studies should merge into Sociology, where they could retain track identity without separate formal chairs and fiscal structures. Such other studies as Russian and Peace can be moved into larger structures with no loss of value to the student. As we noted, Communication, Journalism, and Speech overlap markedly, and should be merged into one department, which should be able to gain significant stature. Factors of demand and quality indicate that Religion and Philosophy merge. The Manoa Mission can continue without a separate Department of Religion. Theatre, Dance, and Music can become a strong performing arts department with a number of tracks. If, as we propose elsewhere, the top Asian, Pacific, and Hawaiian geographers move to that new school (recommendation 8) and those geographers that could enhance other Manoa departments move to them, then Geography as a unit could be eliminated for some savings of resources and with no loss to Manoa's mission.
As final comments about units in the colleges of arts and sciences, we note that Public Administration and Urban and Regional Planning earned low scores. If the Administration decides they should be
continued at Manoa, it might consider placing the first under Political Science and the latter under Architecture. Whether Architecture remains a separate school, or becomes a department in Arts and Sciences, is a choice UHM might make after an external review of the school. Among our peer universities architecture is about as commonly organized one way as the other.
Restoration of the four colleges of arts and sciences into a single College of Arts and Sciences is also justified as a consolidation that would result in cost savings. A more important reason for the consolidation, however, is that a single substantial college should be able to attract and compensate a talented and experienced dean who can develop a strong college based on improved central departments.
Doctoral programs Masters and doctoral rankings may differ, and doctoral programs are considered elsewhere. In concluding this section, however, we propose that the level of cost, effectiveness, and quality sufficient to retain a satisfactory masters program of high centrality may not be at the level to retain a doctoral program in a time of restricted funding such as the one we have in 1997-98.
A superior level of cost, effectiveness, and quality would be required to maintain the doctoral program of the same department. "Superior" might mean within the top third of UHM's relative rankings, whereas satisfactory might mean in the middle third.
For about 15 years the quality of education at UHM has declined. Although a few programs have improved, the general trend has been downward.
So much in society depends on a sense of quality. Reputations for excellence infer competence and pride of workmanship, whether in a carpenter constructing a house or a professor teaching a class. Quality is built or maintained through quality control, redistributing resources, and adding resources.
In a zero-sum or diminishing-sum game, to retain and build quality in one place requires resources from another place. Future quality is best predicted by its recent trend. Without a compelling reason otherwise, e.g., to meet critical needs, targeted resources lie in units of poor quality or that are losing quality.
Present reputation of UHM research-doctoral programs
Manoa has departments that slumped in their programs of highest visibility, namely their PhD programs. Tables 38 - 43 show the published reputation for quality of UHM programs in the NRC findings (PhD), Gourman Reports (graduate), and the US News & World Report (universities and their graduate schools). Here we examine trends from published reports.
Trends, 1966 to 1970 to 1982 to 1995. In A. M. Cartter's An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education (1966, American Council on Education [ACE]), no University of Hawaii doctoral program was listed in the national rankings of 30 fields.
The assessment by K.D. Roose and C. J. Anderson, A Rating of Graduate Programs (1970, ACE), had more fields and longer lists than the 1966 report. Quality of faculty and Effectiveness of program were considered. No UH field was in the top of three ranks of doctoral departments. Political Science was alone in the second rank. Ten were in the lowest rank: Biochemistry, Botany, Developmental Biology, Entomology, Geology, Linguistics, Microbiology, Physiology, Psychology, and Zoology.
An Assessment of the Research Doctoral Programs in the United States (by ACE, National Academy of Science, and two other groups, 1982), continued the trend of including, more fields and more institutions within fields. Besides quality of faculty and effectiveness of program, recent improvement and familiarity of evaluators with the program were added. At that time UHM awarded the doctorate in 32 fields covered in the survey (and awarded some others in fields not covered by the survey, for example, Astronomy, Oceanography, Meteorology ).
Seventeen UH fields of the 32 awarded enough degrees to be qualified for inclusion. Twelve of the 17 ranked in the middle of the qualifying programs (55th to 45th percentile); none was higher, but five were lower. Political Science was clearly first (at 55th percentile), but other Manoa fields were so clustered that there probably is no important difference in a place or two in the rankings, which were: Political Science; Geography; a 4-way tie of Botanical Sciences, Electrical Engineering, Geology and Geophysics, and Linguistics; then Anthropology, Psychology, Chemistry, Zoology, History, Biochemistry and
Biophysics (45th percentile), followed by Philosophy, Microbiology, Physiology, Sociology, and Economics.
The 1995 National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council [NRC] report, Research-doctorate Programs in the United States, has been described. Twenty-one UH programs in the 41 fields of the survey are listed in the percentile order in Table 51.
Compared with the 1982 report:
Summary of 1995 rankings of doctoral programs at UHM Table 51 is based on the NRC rankings compiled in tables 36 and 38.
As much as any other table in this report, it displays many of Manoa's problems with respect to quality, including attracting good faculty, good students, and extramural funding. Column 1 is the percentile-level of faculty quality (e.g., Oceanography is 7th of 26 US programs, or at the 27th percentile).
Columns 2 and 3 are numerical scores (5.0 high to 0.0) for Quality and Effectiveness respectively. Column 4 sums 2 and 3 (10.0 to 0.0). Column 5 includes quality, effectiveness, and ranking relative to doctoral programs elsewhere.
|Astrophysics & Astronomy||33||3.60||3.09||6.69||20.3|
|Ecology, Evolution, & Behavior||48||2.94||3.05||5.99||12.5|
|Molecular & General Genetics||68||2.52||2.41||4.93||7.2|
|Cell &Developmental Biology||85||1.63||1.67||3.30||3.9|
|Biochemistry & Molec. Biology||86||1.57||2.00||3.57||4.2|
(1) Percentage-level, or percentile, of the ranking of faculty quality, from 1% high to 100% low. Example: if field X had 80 entries in the NRC list, where University Y's program ranked 20th, then Y is at the 25th percentile for that field. See further in Appendix 11.
(2) NAS rankings for scholarly quality of program faculty, from 5.0 high to 0.0 low. From Table 38. These rankings were discussed in the section on the criterion of quality.
(3) NAS rankings for effectiveness of the program, 5.0 high to 0.0 low. From Table 36. These rankings were discussed in section on the criterion of effectiveness
(4) The sum of 2 and 3, from 10.0 high to 0.0 low. A general indicator of the relative worth of that research doctoral program.
(5) 4 divided by 1 (x 100). This is a general indicator of the worth of the UHM program relative to the number of better programs elsewhere in the US.
Limitations of the 1995 NRC report regarding UHM programs (repeated from page 61:
The importance of Column 5 is that it predicts the relative probability of attracting excellent students and faculty, and in the case of the sciences, of attracting Federal extramural funding. Few UH programs ranked above the 50th percentile, and therefore few of them are highly attractive to the best students
In summary, many doctoral programs at UH suffered greatly in the 1982-1995 period. Only two fields improved but eleven deteriorated. The range of quality of newly listed fields is from good to very poor. Fiscal and personnel restrictions imposed on Manoa in the mid-1990s, after the data for this report were prepared, do not bode well for the next national survey.
Elimination of PhD programs
Discussion and disturbing questions. It is true that elimination of a PhD program is a "horizontal cut" rather than a "vertical cut", and owing to students "in the pipeline" there can be little immediate financial benefit. Nevertheless, elimination of a PhD program will, in time, lead to a different kind and size of faculty. There will be no need to replace someone merely to continue "breadth" in a field if that breadth is only an enhancement for the PhD but is not vital for undergraduate and masters education in Hawaii. Library holdings need not be as extensive for the area that was enhanced. Enormous amounts of the time of individual faculty members go into PhD candidates, time that could be used for undergraduate and masters education in the fields where the PhD programs are small or ineffective or the quality is low.
Some might say that the closing of a PhD program would be a blow to the morale of the department affected. If it triggered the exodus of the better faculty members of a department, probably its undergraduate programs would suffer. On the other hand, a few closings of demonstrably poor programs may have a salutary effect on departments working hard to improve their programs.
It's been stated that existence of a PhD program is required to attract a large pool of applicants when positions open. News articles about academe, however, tell of many fields that get dozens to hundreds of applicants for each advertised university position.
The 1995 NRC evaluations -- and in particular the trends since 1982 -- indicate that the elimination of the smaller, poorer, and less effective PhD programs must be an option that the Administration and Regents consider seriously.
Some UHM doctoral programs graduate very few students, yet the fields are important to the State and nation. In the 1982 NAS rankings, UHM's Electrical Engineering tied for second-best in quality of faculty and third-best in percentile among the 17 UHM doctoral programs having the size and quality to be rated. Has Engineering
deteriorated so badly that none of its three departments now attracts enough good doctoral candidates to reach the threshold to be ranked? Does the college stress its undergraduate and Master's programs, which require periodic re-accreditation, to such an extent that it neglects the PhD program, which does not require ABET accreditation? Is the engineering faculty active in research, as required for good PhD departments? Does it effectively engage its doctoral candidates in critical research? Where do our few PhDs in engineering go for employment?
The UHM administration must ask, "Should this university continue its PhD programs in engineering?" If the answer is "No," then eliminate them. If the answer is "Yes," then Bachman and the engineers themselves must: strengthen the college's leadership, recruitment of faculty and students, and processes of tenure and post-tenure review. Promote extramurally funded research. Recruit faculty and administrators who are likely to aid the college, the state's economy, and the national demand for well-trained engineers. Endorse cooperation in entrepreneurial ventures with the private sector, and encourage technology transfer. Provide such incentives as merit-based salary increases or bonuses, and redistribute lab and office spaces, for faculty who actively pursue research grants, industrial cooperation, and innovative teaching.
Some other UHM doctoral programs graduate very few students; moreover there is no particular national or local need for those graduates either in academe or industry. The UHM administration must ask, "Why should this university continue its PhD programs in, for example, American Studies, Educational Psychology, English, Music, Second Language Acquisition, Social Welfare, and Theater? Why should it start a new PhD in Nursing?".
Some UHM doctoral programs are rated as ineffective. Based on the 1995 NRC rankings above, PhD programs in Economics, Sociology, and Philosophy, which are not effective and have faculties of only marginal quality, and have dropped in quality since 1982, are clear candidates for elimination. The UHM administration must ask, "Is there any reason whatsoever to continue PhD programs in Economics, Sociology, and Philosophy? "
Some UHM doctoral programs are considered to be of poor quality relative to other programs. If two-thirds of the doctoral programs in the country rank above a program here, our Manoa program will have exceptional difficulty attracting good students and faculty. Unless there are powerful incentives of salary or natural advantages, the pattern will be that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The administration must ask, "Given the unlikely chance of success, is there any reason to place extraordinary effort and new resources to try to improve the PhD programs in Economics, Geography, Mathematics, Pharmacology, Philosophy, and Sociology?"
On the other hand, to improve the technological base for possible new businesses and extramural funding in the State, this committee believes UHM must expend effort and resources to develop Molecular and Cellular Biology (or however studies based on modern biochemistry may be named after UHM reorganization of the biological sciences.
Doctoral rankings and retrenchment: An aside comment on the NRC rankings relative to program cuts at UHM: A department or program may be selected for retrenchment for some reason other than its PhD program, such as for reorganization or elimination of an entire college, or for low departmental workload owing to a large faculty relative to a low enrollment. In those instances, very few departments can claim that the quality of their doctoral programs should "save" them.
Improving the quality of undergraduate education at Manoa. We insert here our opinion that undergraduate education can be improved, but probably not to the extent that we can rapidly earn a better external reputation. It will be difficult, for example, to improve to the extent of adding more UHM fields to those ranked in the Gourman r lists, or by raising the ranks of those now listed. Universities that are listed above Hawaii on
the list generally are different from Hawaii. They have, for the most part, large libraries, new or well maintained laboratories, and other excellent facilities in a good state of repair. Better students (as indicated by the ranges of SAT scores) and better faculty (as indicated by the range of salaries, especially with respect to costs of living) can on average work in class at a higher level and intensity. Excellence in teaching is a long tradition at the older Mainland universities. The course of those institutions can be changed rapidly and supported financially (or confirmed on course), owing to large endowments, major involvement of faculty in important decisions, and different kinds of trustees or regents (e.g., in private institutions: commonly elected from and by the alumni; in public institutions: selected for longer terms, with the main consideration being to improve the institution rather than to reach some sort of representative balance of social views or geographic location).
Implications of the data for the 65 second-tier institutions of US News, deserve comment. UHM's 2.1 score (out of 4.0) for academic reputation is close to the bottom for the tier, in which institutions ranged from 3.5 down to 1.9 (to repeat, reputation is the "subjective" 25% of the US News total score). We also rank very low on the average test scores of entering freshmen. Twenty-four schools use ACT scores; UHM is one of the 41 that use the SAT. UHM has the fourth-lowest mark (980) on the SAT 25th percentile and the third-lowest mark (1190) on the SAT 75th percentile. That is to say, the scholastic aptitude of UHM's entering undergraduates is distinctly below SATs of most of UHM's peers. UHM is also comparatively low in rates of freshman retention and alumni giving, although the latter has improved.
In spite of these low marks, the high marks for UHM's small class sizes, high graduation rates, and especially a very high "value-added" rate are enough to place us in the upper part of the second tier for quality. Value added is the difference between a graduation rate predicted on the basis of scores of entering students ("input"), and the actual graduation rate ("output"). It is considered by US News to be a positive measure of the school's role in the academic success of the students.
In other words, according to US News, UHM has a comparatively poor reputation, but treats comparatively well those of its students who survive freshman year. A part of the good treatment is that the total direct cost to students is sufficiently low that they do not leave with burdensome debts. Administrators will have to ponder the societal costs of removing during freshman year those new students who by drive or aptitude should not have been in Manoa in the first place (low SATs and low freshman retention), and the costs in workload (small class sizes) and in dollars (low tuition costs) that contribute to good graduation rates of the remainder. Further, if we keep our graduates mainly at home, isolated within Hawaii, their quality isn't observed by those who rate our "reputation".
Thus, there is no easy fix for improving the quality ranking of UHM. Nevertheless, these two actions should be considered: a) set entrance requirements high enough to put Manoa's SAT range closer to the range of our second-tier peers. That may direct more of the marginal students to the community colleges so they do not drop out of Manoa after their freshman year. It may also convince some parents to direct their bright children here rather than to the mainland if they feel that the standards are higher here. b) Raise the tuition and lift the BOR cap on out-of-state students, allowing more to enroll if they can provide both the higher level of SATs and out-of-state tuition dollars.
Undergraduate education, as well as graduate education, at Manoa will be improved by the processes listed below.
Masters and undergraduate education at UHM: What are the implications of the dismal NRC doctoral ratings? We must emphasize that doctoral education is not the same as education at the masters and undergraduate levels. A professor may be a better instructor of beginning students than of advanced ones, or vice versa. Professors differ in research and mentoring capabilities. Graduate fields of
study can select among their applicants, but departments have no control over undergraduates who may declare a major and drift over into the department. Departmental policy may emphasize one level rather than another. For example, the 1982 Gourman report listed Geology at UH reasonably high in its graduate rankings because GG used to put most of its resources there, but it did not list the department at all in its undergraduate rankings; it was not until about 1985 that GG changed its policy, to emphasize equally its graduate and undergraduate programs, and thereby could earn an undergraduate ranking. So, perhaps there is little correlation between the generally low NRC rankings of most doctoral program at UHM and the unranked undergraduate and master's programs.
Nevertheless, the question will arise, of how a faculty that is merely of adequate quality or minimally effective in its PhD program can be any better in its bachelor and masters programs? So we ask, "Are most programs at any level at the University of Hawaii merely mediocre?" If we eliminate a poor doctoral program in, say, Economics, why not go all out and eliminate the entire Economics department?
Our answer is, that most programs at UHM are indeed satisfactory at the undergraduate level, and probably also at the MS or MA level. Perspective is needed. UHM is about what is to be expected for a university that ranks in the "second tier", according to US News and World Report (actually, between 61st and 81st of national universities; p. 60). Our doctoral programs compete with the one hundred or so best to good universities; ours don't compete with many of the 3rd- and 4th-tier national universities, simply because those universities do not have extensive doctoral programs. All of these national, Carnegie research-class, universities have at least some doctoral programs, otherwise they would be in a different Carnegie class. But those in the 3rd and 4th tiers have fewer doctoral programs, because those universities or their supporting taxpayers recognized their limits in finances and advantages before UHM has. A department in any of the tiers can have competent and devoted instructors and effective curricula at the undergraduate level; it is well known that outstanding instruction can arise in small colleges in lesser Carnegie classes.
Reversing the trend of deteriorating quality: Questions that arise: "Why were so many doctoral programs started at UHM in the first place? Why are so many of them poor in quality?"
That is water under the bridge; now that we have them, the important questions to ask about each program are:
Which programs are vital to this or any other university? For those central, advantaged, and demanded ones, how can we reverse such budgetary restraints as restrictions on travel to national and international meetings, the failure to maintain library holdings, and the purchase of modern instructional and research equipment? Travel and facilities are important, but quality really boils down to faculty quality. Reprogrammed or new funds are required for improvement, but equally important are certain changes in attitudes by faculty and administration.
This committee was charged with recommending which programs to cut or reorganize to meet current budgets. That would, if carried far enough, give UHM reprogrammed funds and new structures to reverse the trend in quality and prepare for the future. We fear "pedagogical plainsmanship," a concept and term in a Science editorial and a spate of letters some years ago. In time, any university develops peaks and valleys of quality. The pedagogical plainsman seeks equality by eroding the peaks to fill the valleys. That's the easy way; razing is easier than raising, and because new materials aren't required. It is impossible to preserve the peaks and fill selected valleys unless new resources arrive or the total landscape shrinks. The deepest
valleys require immense resources. It may be a glorious aim, but with the limited tax base of Hawaii, it is totally unrealistic to expect to add new resources to fill many valleys to the height of the peaks.
Quality in Schools and Colleges without the Research Doctorate: We discussed in some detail the quality of departments offering the PhD, because mentoring is expensive and research-doctoral programs are so visible and so important for maintaining a Carnegie rating. The Gourman and US News reports show that quality is a concern throughout UHM, perhaps less so in Architecture, Astronomy, Nursing, Psychology, and SOEST, but no one is immune from criticism. Recommendations about each school and college start on page 143.
Improvement of faculty quality: When funds do become available through re-budgeting or an improved Hawaiian economy, this committee fears (besides pedagogical plainsmanship) that precious funds may be squandered in careless attempts to improve quality as fast as possible in whichever schools and departments have the ear of the President at the moment. It's true that quality of the NRC-rated programs and their number of faculty is highly correlated, but so also are the number of papers, honors, awards, and funding of the faculty (in both r is about 0.8). So merely adding bodies should, in time, improve any program. But bringing in new good faculty will improve it faster. As much ingenuity and priority of administrative time must be put into improving the UHM faculty as now seems to go into political correctness and worries about athletics.
What part of faculty quality lies in identifying the areas for recruiting? Presumably this report and several other lines of advice will allow the Administration and Regents to decide their general course. Then what? Formerly UHM used biennial Program Change Requests (PCRs), but they were both slow and generally mismanaged in the higher levels of the Administration ("one for you, one for me, ..."). Then, entrepreneurial hiring was especially difficult.
UHM must have a simple and reasonably fast process for department-level requests to pass up through deans and vice presidents for a decision, with the main competition at the dean's level. And there should be a simple and very rapid process for proposals for entrepreneurial hiring presented by deans for competition at the vice-presidential level, and on quickly for a decision.
A certain amount of trust is essential. Second-guessing wastes time, especially if both authority and responsibility are already delegated to the lowest level that confidence exists. Chairs that make good decisions earn the confidence of deans. Deans and institute directors similarly earn the confidence of vice-presidents. Serious mistakes, or the accumulation of little ones, must lead to replacement of deans, directors, or chairs, but when time is of the essence, administrators must accept that a mistake might occur.
Part of faculty quality lies in the actual recruiting. Certainly part is the result of salary negotiations relative to the cost of living in Paradise, which is now about 1.3 times the national average. Can we afford to hire the best? There is the proven concept that good attracts good; some schools and departments will have an easier time in hiring than others, and their further improvement in quality should be relatively easy. On the other hand it is difficult to persuade world-class scientists to join poorly-ranked departments. Off-scale hiring, or package deals to obtain a superstar-cum-entourage may be necessary. Some departments, however, resist the superstar concept. Search teams should contain some college members outside the specific department having a vacancy. New funds and new attitudes are required to improve faculty recruiting.
Contract renewals and tenure decisions are the main points for quality control. For several reasons the annual evaluations for contract renewal should be more important than is typical. Less stigma follows the probationary faculty member if the contract is not renewed ("perhaps there was a misunderstanding of what was required") than if tenure is denied when probation ends ("something must have been wrong"). There
is no legal basis for a suit or grievance until the actual tenure decision. Contract decisions in the first or second year are more likely based on results than on emotions (do we keep poor ones because, after a few years, we would consider it inhumane to fire someone who has become a friend?). Lax tenure requirements abet emotional decisions.
What part of faculty quality lies in retraining the poor and retaining the good? How can post-tenure review be improved? The chair in a department may be the only 11-month appointee among 9-month colleagues. The chair, of course, intends to keep the ll-month salary and life-style, and so the review of a colleague may be superficial to ensure a calm department in the eyes of the dean. Post-tenure review would have more meaning if conducted by a cross-departmental committee of college faculty, with the dean and chair jointly reviewing the findings and deciding on the kind of retraining. Finally, how can we retain the best without merit raises? It may already be too late if the only way a professor of high quality can be retained is by matching a salary offering. New attitudes and new funds are required for retraining (or eliminating) the poor and retaining the good.
What part of Manoa's quality lies in using or not using our faculty to its best advantage? Our findings of the heavy use of lecturers and instructors in lower-division classes discourages us. (see Appendix 6). As we point out, Manoa has no useful measures of effectiveness, but we strongly suspect that these teaching patterns lower the quality of education here.
A related situation lies in Summer Session and Continuing Education, which do not grant degrees or have their own faculties. Departments are frustrated when trying to offer a regular course with their own faculty members of known competence outside the "normal" hours, because evening and summer hours and classrooms are controlled by units that hire off the streets and offer courses only if they will break even financially. Quality and effectiveness should improve if academic departments and their deans would control the scheduling and staffing of all courses offered at UHM.
As we point out in another section, disciplines will have to provide retraining for the high-technology work-force as technology advances at accelerating rates. It's obvious that the retraining should be through courses and workshops designed by the academic departments rather than by Continuing Education. Possession of the title Continuing Education doesn't confer competence.
February 1998 comments about ORUs
Two new points to what was written in January.
In this section we show how the recent evolution of two paramount American institutions, the business firm and the research university, bear on each other and on some national concerns, and how they relate to the University of Hawaii.
We are bombarded with news and views of the extent of concern about many chronic problems that face the nation. Newspapers, television, and best-sellers inform us of the crisis of the week, and how to deal with it. In this section we consider the magnitude and ramifications of several of these issues and how knowledge about American business and the American research university, as they evolved since WWII, may contribute to solutions. In other instances we show how some of these concerns affect employment and universities in the nation. This becomes the background for our recommendations about the University of Hawaii with respect to preparing students for the job market in Hawaii and elsewhere.
Concerns of the nation include the scope, costs, and benefits of government; breakdown in public morality; continued racism; degradation of the environment; the costs and uncertain benefits of public education and higher education; exploitation of resources; international affairs including national security; uncertainties in economic development and job opportunities; inadequate medical care, food, and housing for some citizens; violent and non-violent crime; advantages and disadvantages of immigration; inequalities in wealth; and many others. Hawaii is perturbed by most of these.
All of these are moving targets. Public outcry about one or another waxes and wanes. There is as much concern about the rates of change, and the patterns of change, as about the issues themselves.
In what ways can the University contribute to meaningful solutions? For such ones as morality and racism, it is likely that the strongest contribution the university can make is through resolute individual examples set by all members of the university community. For others, such as international trade, perhaps no new insights are required beyond what is in the list below. Better education and employment opportunities should, in time, prove more effective than new prisons in lowering the crime rate. Trade ties in with business and international affairs. Some other issues:
The cost and quality of higher education: The purpose of this work by the VC Committee is to identify ways to cut costs at the University of Hawaii while preserving -- preferably increasing -- the quality of education here. As with our six other criteria, cost should not be the sole reason to cut a program. Nevertheless, cost is important in Hawaii and elsewhere, and so cost must receive some consideration. To put our charge in perspective, we repeat some of the criticism of the cost of higher education.
Higher education has staggering costs. For example, in fiscal year 1997-1998, an estimated 7.6 million US college students receive grants and federally subsidized or guaranteed loans totaling $43 billion. Additional billions expended by universities and community colleges come from tuition payments by students and parents. State legislatures and private endowments pay for scholarships, faculty and administrative salaries, books, equipment, utilities, and
capital improvements. Federal and state agencies and private companies pay for research and service. The annual cost of higher education in the United States is about $150 billion; see also p. 162-163. Hawaiian taxpayers have been generous to the University of Hawaii. In fairness to taxpayers and to the UH programs that have tried to achieve quality while holding down their costs, we have indicated where anomalies exist. Further in fairness, we must find ways to indicate whether or not education at UHM is effective.
The recent history and current trends in American research universities are abstracted in Appendix 3, and page 162 provides the background for paragraphs below on the usefulness, extent, and cost of incorporating research at different levels of study.
American business and predicting trends in employment: Our point in the paragraphs starting on p. 104 is that certain of the recent changes in American business can be guides for changes in the management structure and personnel policy of universities, including the University of Hawaii. Starting on p. 105 we show that the kinds of jobs have changed radically in America in the past century, with our point being that job opportunities constantly change. Therefore, we must realize that our students have some fear of that unknown. We can train our graduates for what the jobs of the immediate future will be; how do we instill a desire for a lifetime of education and ensure them a means for it?
Fostering economic development: Based on the concept of a research university and on current American enterprise, our proposals for fostering entrepreneurial enterprise in Hawaii, and for closer industry-university relationships, are spelled out in the section on the future of Hawaii's economic development (p. 114).
Reforming public education: Our concern is sufficiently deep that we devote a major section to a proposal to use UHM to improve public education in Hawaii (p.1l8).
Preserving the Environment: Environmental issues are pressed by the majority of Hawaii's citizens. Preservation of the local natural environment is of paramount concern here. Instruction, research, and public service including monitoring nature and advising government are roles for the University of Hawaii at Manoa. The centers of activity will be in the special schools, SOEST and SILS for the physical and biological aspects respectively, whereas the school with an A-P-H focus will provide social insight into many of the contentious points. See sections commencing on pages 78, 82, and 117.
Roles for Hawaii and the Pacific in international trade and international affairs: According to those who evaluate world affairs, the financial stumbling by Japan, Indonesia, and most of the erstwhile "tigers" of the Far East is serious, but can only be viewed as temporary. Hawaii's cultural basis will continue to provide us an entrance into trade and the growth of Asian and Pacific infrastructure, limited only by our intellectual and monitory capital we wish to invest there. The University of Hawaii has much to help local business and their interconnections with Asia, including first of all the expertise in its professional schools and colleges. Business Administration is central, but so also would be the new school with an Asian-Pacific-Hawaiian focus, as well as Architecture and Engineering. Many of the basic and applied sciences in Arts and Sciences, SILS, SOEST and Agriculture, and social sciences from Arts and Sciences can continue to have importance.
Although long-range jet aircraft have removed Hawaii from the physical link between the west coast of North America and the east coast of Asia, Hawaii itself remains linked to both. Moreover, the burgeoning information networks allow Hawaii's presence to remain, as long as Hawaii can provide vital services.
Social Issues: According to the report of an NSF-sponsored 1995 Sigma Xi forum "...the transformation of research universities to make them appropriate social institutions for the 21st century requires reinvention which is very different from re-engineering... the continued worldwide economic downturn and intractable social problems, especially education, jobs, housing, and physical safety of citizens living in the inner urban areas, have now brought a new dimension to the national debate. And the apparent lack of attention the research university faculty give to educating students is held up as a reason for punishing the higher education system. It is argued that research universities have become unacceptably insular with respect to society at large. The compact between society and academic science is stretched to the point of being irrevocably destroyed." ( reference and further discussion on p. 106 below)
Changes in the American university since WWII have been profound. The following is abstracted from a more detailed history in Appendix 3, The GI Bill built a larger middle class for America, and provided a trained work-force for the productivity of the mid-century that lifted America from the years of Depression and warfare. NSF and other agencies stimulated enterprise, supported research in medicine and basic science, and nurtured scientific talent. The American Research University resulted. Fueled by federal funds, universities and their programs multiplied. PhD programs were mainly to produce college-level teacher-researchers; careers in industry were also based on the same curriculum of training to be a professor.
The American Research University has changed. Now, at the century's end, funding sources and an egalitarianism of college for everyone, rightly or wrongly made American universities (and high schools) vastly different from others in the industrial world and in the underdeveloped world. Some research-doctoral fields have reached saturation; some have not. Graduate courses, seminars, exams, and the dissertation are aimed at preparing the student for a specific research niche. The explosion of knowledge is such that a PhD has to know more and more about less and less, But now very few PhDs will go into university-level instruction.
Appendix 3 also shows the usefulness, extent, and cost of incorporating research at different levels of study. The high cost of research and the sources of funds for it are especially troubling. Many fields are saturated with PhDs -- products of the extreme of incorporating research in a curriculum -- yet it is increasingly evident that undergraduates with research experience have a major advantage in securing employment in this present age. We now leave this paradox and the Appendix and return to the main text:
Undergraduate students, faculty, and research in times of change. There is a review of a new book by Donald Kennedy in the December 5, 1997, issue of Science (page 1726). The book is entitled Academic Duty. An interesting quote from the review - "One conclusion is clear: Change is required. . . . - How then can change come about?" It will come, Kennedy argues, by reclamation of the central mission of the university: "Its improvement must entail putting students and their needs first. Once that is done, the rest falls into place. . . Placing students first is a simple design principle, but it has great power." Faculty who want to engage in research must include undergraduates in their endeavors, otherwise it appears they are only satisfying their own expensive curiosity.
Times of change, such as during the involvement of undergraduates in research, the return of universities to a "students first" priority, or the loss of doctoral programs, must lead to faculty self-appraisal as to how change is handled.
F.W. Schwartz (1996, "Perspective 6, in Universities: Confronting the Challenge of Change", GSA Today, v. 6, no. 4, p. 15-16) proposed that the beginning of any commitment to change should start with an objective self-assessment, of individuals by themselves, and of the department by its faculty. Here is a cutting quote:
For individual faculty, one hallmark of success will be the unequivocal demonstration of viable and innovative educational opportunities for students... As in all tough fights, there will be casualties. For faculty unwilling to understand the issues at stake or to improve their academic performance, their most important contribution will be to retire.
Undergraduate science departments will continue, of course, to train their students in basic science so as to prepare them for conventional graduate schooling. If our recommendations are accepted, science departments will receive (in time) additional resources and new responsibilities for training their students to meet Hawaii's needs in high-tech industry and in public education. Therefore, science departments need to a) design approaches in applied science, b) develop joint science and information-science approaches to capitalize on programming and data-base management, and c) lead the way to a content-based overhaul of science education.
It is the part of a wise man not even to venture all of his eggs in one basket. (Miguel de Cervantes Saaveda)
Thus the departments' eyes must constantly be on the problem of employment prospects for UHM graduates. They must remember to keep a variety of possibilities (multiple "tracks" or assembly lines), not only through carefully considered curricula, and recruitment of good students, but also through communications with other departments and with contacts with industry, the DOE, and other employers.
Masters degrees and Doctors degrees. Originally, a master was one who had mastered a craft or trade, after an apprenticeship and a period journeying from one master to another to complete his training. A doctor was someone sufficiently well educated that he could teach those in the professions. The learned term doctor was appropriated by physicians and surgeons who tired of being called barber, sawbones, or quack.
Now in universities, training required for a masters degree usually is sufficient for most technical jobs, and indeed in some industries such as both major and small oil companies, the average lifetime pay of MS-holders is tens of thousands above the average lifetime pay of BS and PhD-degree holders in the same company. As one executive put it, people are most productive and most innovative in their 20s, so why shouldn't those years be for the benefit of a company willing to pay? Also, holders of research doctorates can be rather inflexible, and find it hard to work in a team after their PhD mentor spent years hammering them to do independent research.
Nevertheless, students pursue doctorates in spite of the smaller job market. Some cast about for research jobs in academe, government, or industry, to be able to continue in a line of research they grew to love. Many want to continue in academe, the womb they have been in for 25 or so years, and need their union card to teach. Many are urged by their professors to stay on after the MS, now that they are well trained to run the professor's black box. Snide comments are made about masters degrees as consolation prizes for those who can't hack a doctoral program. Hawaii and other universities need to be better aware of the importance of well-trained bachelors and masters graduates, especially in relation to PhD graduates, except for employment where research is to be the engine.
Today: So at present we have American universities as exceptionally expensive institutions that
Taxpayers, trustees, regents, alumni, national commentators, legislators, and university administrators are discovering these facts, and many are acting on them. There is a broad prediction in America of less and less funding for all but the most prestigious public and private universities. The main targets for closure will be the departments and colleges hewing high costs per graduate who is successfully placed in employment that depends on his or her college training. In time whole universities will be financially and intellectually bankrupt. Hawaii must take care.
Good reasons exist for Regents, Administrators and Faculty to review what has been happening in the private sector in recent years. The first reason, of course, is that most of their graduates will enter private industry, and faculty who are vocal in their disdain of corporate America may perform an injustice to their students. It is all too easy to go from justified complaints about Company A's disregard of the Hawaiian environment or Company B's unfair hiring practices to blanket complaints against all enterprise. University administrators cannot censor faculty on what they can say, but deans and presidents can, through their own actions and policy, act towards greater cooperation with the private sector and reward faculty who are successful in bridging the university industry gap.
Secondly, it is pertinent in our own budgetary situation to realize that "town" may not be sympathetic if "gown" is forced to retrench programs. Many have already gone through "down-sizing", or have a close relative or a neighbor who has.
The third reason is perhaps most important, and that is to see what trends in industry might be applied to the University of Hawaii. Universities are not private enterprises. Nevertheless there can be many parallels between academe and industry, such as ensuring that goals are reasonable and in measuring success towards them, how work is organized, and the roles of leadership and management. If UH is allowed greater autonomy, we should emulate successful practices in present-day American business. Here are some recent significant changes:
Personnel issues: Past systems were rooted in values of loyalty, morale, and satisfaction of basic needs through standard salaries and fringe benefits for standard performance in employment. Emerging value systems are based on learning, competence, technical innovation, and fairness in awarding bonuses for above-standard accomplishment. Thus there is a change from employee compensation based on longevity and attendance, to compensation based on performance. Individuals, small teams, and even large divisions of employees that do not meet goals may find themselves dismissed.
Management issues: The strict hierarchical management structure of mid-century America, exemplified by, say, General Motors or US Steel, has been replaced by groups or teams empowered to work towards their goals semi-independent of other divisions or teams. Such adjectives as dutiful and obedient are giving way to innovative and pragmatic for those in the levels between a company CEO and the front-line workers. The information age makes cost-accountability relatively easy and accurate, and communications relatively rapid and accurate, so managers can put more time into planning goals and setting up and empowering groups to work towards those goals.
Regrettably, institutions in this state including many of the larger businesses, all state agencies, and UHM retain what Peter Drucker and other management consultants described as an attitude of rigid, hierarchical authoritarian ways. Many students of management now believe, however, that workers (especially those who have been highly educated) crave responsibility and the sense of achievement that goes with it. The buzz words of the past decade are total quality management, delegation, empowerment, and autonomy.
Leadership issues: Leadership is not the same as management, but good leaders usually were good managers in their careers.
The ability to command and control, and top-down decisions, were the norm for leadership just a couple of decades ago. Large institutions had one leader; underlings were no more than managers. Today the important attributes of a leader are these four: character, judgment, the ability to inspire, and intelligence. After a big drop to knowledge of the industry [higher education, in our case] and empathy, there is another big drop to any of a number of other attributes, for example, unflappability, toughness, charisma, humility, and visibility. Leaders have the courage to develop new ideas and to act on them. They focus on communications, team-building, and negotiations to be able to act. Leaders listen carefully to those with whom they work, and draw out their ideas. By providing motivation and guidance for those with whom they work, delegating both powers and responsibility, and establishing a meritocracy to reward those who proved responsible, the good leaders get their people to realize that their value is in their contribution, not in their position.
Trends in employment: The role of higher education going into the 21st century
He who hath a trade, hath an estate. (Benjamin Franklin)
Trends in employment: An article in Forbes put the anguish of recent job loss, corporate "down-sizing", and retraining for new jobs into a broader perspective. Based on data from the Bureau of the Census and the Federal Reserve, it compared a) total US population, b) total employment, and c) the 30 largest occupations, for the three years 1900, 1960, and 1995 (see listing for 1995 in Table 23, and for all three years in Appendix 7). After nearly a century of change, the US has more jobs and many new kinds of jobs. Some trends are obvious: it took 10 million farmers to feed the 76-million population of 1900, but only 2.3 million to feed 263 million of us today. Only eight of the top 30 occupations of 1900 remain in the top 30 today. Teamsters, coachmen, and blacksmiths are replaced by truck drivers and vehicle mechanics. General laborers, household servants, railroad workers, miners, dressmakers, steel workers, cottonmill workers, tailors, -- even physicians -- still exist but do not employ enough, in proportion to other occupations, to be in the top 30 occupations today.
The tables have three trends that show major increases in jobs. Two are for attempts to stave off Ben Franklin's certainties of death and taxes: the health professions, with nurses, aides, orderlies, and technicians, and the money professions, with financial salespersons, bookkeepers, accountants, brokers, and many of the lawyers. No wonder there are the intense political debates to control Medicare and to simplify the IRS. The third trend is in increased technology. Far fewer Americans work with their backs and hands (farmers, laborers, miners, shoemakers, masons, ...) in proportion to those who work with their minds and machines (engineers, precision production supervisors, moving equipment operators, programmers, -- even professors).
Jobs in technology are available at all levels, at least on the mainland US. In mid-November 1997, the Commission of Professionals in Science and Technology (CPST), an affiliate of AAAS, met on the outlook for job market in 1998 for recent baccalaureate graduates in science and engineering fields. Marilyn Mackas, Executive Director of the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE), presented data that demonstrate a dramatic increase in starting salaries and number of students hired prior to graduation compared with five years ago. She also noted the increased utilization of undergraduate internships and cooperative programs as a successful method for finding future employees. She ended her presentation by saying that in the future, better connections between academic advising, career planning, and employers will be essential to successful placement of baccalaureate graduates.
As the Forbes article pointed out, more and more of all of the top job categories require education (not just those in high-tech). That is to say, they require some formal education beyond the mediocre one that is the norm for those graduated by US high schools today.
The major research university, which we have shown as an American concept and a post-WW II creation, is under challenge. Vannevar Bush II, Science for the 21st Century: Current and Future Challenges for Federal Support is a report by Sigma Xi, the research society, based on discussions and presentations at the 1995 Sigma Xi forum. The forum looked at Vannevar Bush's original questions, at the present concerns in America, the status of the research university, and employment trends (all given above) as the context of a new question, How do universities adapt, 50 years later, to prepare themselves for the next century?
The following paragraphs, abstracted from the report, bear on the academic situation in universities, including Hawaii.
All three primary areas of employment for PhD scientists and engineers -universities, industry, and government -- are simultaneously experiencing enormous changes. This suggests that new scientists and engineers must be prepared not only to be flexible in their work but also to be prepared to change positions and even careers more than any other previous generation.
In addition, the way we do science in general is changing. For example, research in many settings is increasingly done by teams representing more than one discipline. As a result, employers today place higher value on scientists and engineers who can communicate, collaborate, and work across disciplines. Yet the value of breadth and versatility is seldom explained to the student.
As concerns of competitiveness have grown and increasingly have influenced technology policy, we see a shift in the focus of federal technology programs. The shift arises because responsibility for competitiveness lies principally in the private sector. During the last 50 years, the customer for most of the federal technical programs carried out jointly with industry has been the US government. By contrast, the private sector is the customer for programs directed toward improving industrial competitiveness. The ultimate measures of success are business measures, and relate to effective technology diffusion, adaptation, commercialization, and use in the private sector.
Industry's observations indicate that working in partnership with the private sector as customer, while usual for the Department of Commerce, represents a departure from traditional practice for some federal departments and granting agencies. Stated simply, industry prefers programs in which industry, rather than government, specifies the research direction, controls the project spending, and owns the intellectual property.
The close connection of industry and society with the university allows academic scientists to expose their discoveries to a broad set of unrelated needs of the potential customers. Thus, the reinvented research university's first goal would be to identify customers who need the research university's new knowledge and educated or trained human resources. Industry and society have become the principal customers of academic research, with very different yard sticks by which performance is likely to be measured.
Questions posed for universities. including University of Hawaii
In the past, when most students expected to become professors, graduate school was seen as a straightforward career path. After general exams, students today should have a choice of several paths. At the beginning of the research phase, departmental advisers should help students to choose among three distinct options: first, to stop with a master's degree, in light of their aspirations and projected employment demand; second, to proceed toward a PhD and a position in research (preferably as a professor); or third, for a student interested in working in non-traditional fields, to design a dissertation that meets high standards for originality but requires less time than would preparation for a career in academic or basic research.
The first option is typically undervalued and the third option often neglected.
Departments, rather than individual professors, must regain the ultimate control of their programs, to ensure quality, breadth, and timeliness of students' progress. Although that is especially important for the sciences and technology, where change has been rapid and where expansion in highly compensated information-based employment is most likely to occur, all university programs should heed that advice. Control by the department can be best exercised during times of admission, course work, and the comprehensive exam, rather than through the thesis or dissertation and its defense.
To what was written before, we added in February that changes in the job market and in academe require that institutions aspiring to prominence must have a means, e.g., ORUs, to respond rapidly to changes in opportunities. The frequency and scale of changes also require that universities not award tenure to the majority of those appointed in ORUs as Researchers. Those few who can contribute significantly to the instructional programs, or might bring with them a large program and list tenure as a requirement for being relocated, can be placed in a probationary status and earn tenure.
We re-emphasize that research and scholarship by students must be incorporated at all levels of a university education. We point out that successful ORUs commonly employ student helpers, and provide adjuncts in many instances of instruction, including contribution to seminars, membership on thesis and dissertation committees, and hands-on instructors about the current "black boxes".
Faculty of ORUs, owing to their greater willingness than typical professors to soil their hands with applied research, will have developed contacts in the private sector. Thus, ORUs will help provide the avenues between academic advising, career planning, and employers predicted to be increasingly important for successful placement in jobs of graduates in future years. The major units of Manoa that can generate extramural funds -- A&S, A-P-H, SILS, and SOEST -- will be best able to react advantageously to the on-going changes both in the job market and in the way universities operate if they have one or more ORUs in their college or school.
This committee's main presentation and recommendations of how Manoa can contribute towards meeting State needs are in two other sections; for a more robust economy on p. 114, and for better public education on p. 118. In addition, the degree of external demand on all units of the university has to be considered in light of other economic factors, and that perspective on demand is the subject of this section.
Consumers and producers in any economy. Hawaii has a large public sector, and is dominantly a service-based economy. There are many consumers and few producers here. Compared to many states Hawaii has relatively few persons or companies creating wealth in manufacturing, farming, mining, generating software for sale, or as other producers of wealth. State income is mainly from tourism and defense, with moderate amounts coming from sponsored research and training, and specialized agriculture.
Is Manoa training people to contribute to Hawaii's net income, or merely to act in a service capacity by shuffling existing money around within Hawaii's economy? Where other factors are more or less equal, priority to survive vertical cuts should favor units that bring new income to Hawaii, either directly through grants or indirectly through the employment of their graduates in wealth-producing companies.
Demand for a professional education. We repeat some comments contrasting demand by students inside the university, and demand by the workplace outside the university. "State needs" refers to demand for graduates able to take up employment in fields where more jobs are open (or anticipated or desired by the State) than there are people capable to fill those jobs. Nursing, special education, and computer programmers fit that category, which should not be confused with the demand by a student to be trained for a high-paying profession in which there is no shortage. That category includes, for example, physicians and lawyers.
As shown in the cost tables, the education of the students selected for Hawaii's professional schools and colleges is highly subsidized through General funds. Ideally at all times but certainly when General funds are restricted, cost and quality have to be weighed against that kind of demand by students and their parents. Where cost is high and quality is low, the University of Hawaii must ask itself if it should not require the professional schools to be self-supporting, or else close them and require the students to seek their professional education outside the state.
To repeat our earlier comments, the phrase used by the Faculty Senate of "special needs of the people and the state" must indeed be special, as for example, engineers and physicians are needed everywhere by people and states. Hawaii's "special needs" are to develop its economy while preserving its natural and social environment.
Demand in the Arts and Sciences
Here we relate (a) demand by students to major in a department, to (b) faculty available in the. department. This considers faculty as individual persons ("Analytical FTE Faculty") and not as earners of salaries ("Dollar Cost per Degree"; Table 32). We first examine Arts and Sciences because a relatively high percentage of general education courses demanded by students are taught there, whereas external demand as represented by job opportunities is relatively low for Arts and Sciences graduates.
Arts & Sciences awards about 1,208 baccalaureate and 281 graduate degrees per year, employing about 689 Analytical FTE Faculty. That is an average of about 1.75 undergraduate and 0.41 graduate degrees per FTE. Programs with the lowest baccalaureate ratios are listed in Table 51.
Drama and Theatre
East Asian Languages and Literatures
English English as a Second Language
With demand so low, requests by these departments for new resources to "aid the undergraduate program" are bogus.
Departments producing fewer than 1.5 but more than 1.0 baccalaureate degree per FTE are Geography, History, Mathematics, and Zoology (borderline). With this level of demand, requests for new resources to "aid the undergraduate program" may be bogus.
The "cost-effective" undergraduate A&S programs in terms of degrees granted per FTE are: Art, Speech, Biology, Communication, Economics, Computer Science, Journalism, Political Science, Psychology, and Sociology.
Programs with the lowest graduate degree ratios are English, Japanese, Mathematics, and Spanish. These departments and programs produced fewer than 0.25 graduate degrees per faculty member. With this low demand, requests for new resources to "aid the graduate program" are bogus.
"Cost-effective" graduate A&S programs in terms of degrees granted per FTE are: American Studies, Botany, Communications, Economics, English as a Second Language, Information and Computer Science, Political Science, and Urban and Regional Planning.
Demand, and the professional colleges and schools Establishment of most of UHM's professional schools was based on the isolation of Hawaii. Not only would students have less expensive tuition, housing, and travel with an academic program in Hawaii than on the mainland, but the faculty of a school here could provide research and service to the State.
Other arguments have become specious in our present age, (1) that we need a Hawaii-specific curriculum, whereas actually we should be training students for competition anywhere in America, the Pacific rim, and the world; and (2) that Hawaii needs spaces reserved for Hawaii's students, whereas actually Hawaii should improve its public schools to allow our students to compete for placement elsewhere. Further, the question of the quality of Manoa's professional schools, and the cost to the state of maintaining expensive but mediocre schools must be considered in any present-day evaluation.
The health and welfare schools (Medicine, Nursing, Public Health, and Social Work) make an interesting set. Nursing is the only one with demonstrated quality, and a state-need demand. Public Health and Social Work require an evaluation conducted from outside the university, about their quality, need in Hawaii, cost-benefit ratios, and alternative methods of training these professionals if a school is closed. Our comments about Medicine are altered after our January report (next paragraphs). In any event, an umbrella college would be appropriate to cover these units, especially if their evaluation recommends reduction or elimination.
The situation of JABSOM: This committee as well as the committee from arts and sciences have recommended closing the medical school under certain conditions. Ours were (and still are) to split the science departments from the clinical ones; put the science ones in SILS; to require the clinical part to be self sufficient or be closed. There never was and there is not now a demand for a medical school in Hawaii except by students who might be admitted, and it is virtually impossible that they could pay the costs of full tuition. There is no programmatic justification to retain JABSOM as it currently exists. The decision to save or close or to find some other arrangement, for example in the private sector or with local hospitals, will be made by the Administration with input from the community. This committee summarizes the following background information that may aid that political decision.
Recommendations to close the clinical departments and to move the basic science faculty of JABSOM into SILS will have the injustice of loss of some productive clinical researchers, but retention of some less productive basic-science faculty. Phasing out the MD program will require that funds be allotted for the continued education of medical students now enrolled in the program, if they can indeed gain admittance to mainland schools. Thus, immediate savings would be slim, and the cost to people of the state of Hawaii for the loss of the MD residency programs at area hospitals will alter substantially their medical insurance premiums, as hospitals are forced to staff their programs with physicians at a higher salary base (earlier comments on that subsidy). Retrenchment of the clinical departments of the medical school will also impact services currently providing to Hawaii's mental health facilities, low-income health clinics (e.g., Waianae and Kalihi-Palama), State Department of Education, and prisons. There is also a potential loss of some clinical research programs that are of particular benefit to the state's populations including diabetes programs, AIDS clinical trials programs, the women's health initiative, macronutrients and blood pressure study, and others, unless these programs are accommodated in the remaining biomedical ORUs or by local hospitals.
Basic science departments in JABSOM have lost over half their staff, damaging their ability to offer graduate programs that are competitive with mainland institutions. This problem is one of the reasons that reorganization is crucial to the survival of master's and doctorate programs in biomedical sciences. The "graying" of the current faculty in JABSOM is a problem not unique to the unit, but will affect the development of biotechnology with direct health-care applications (a rapidly expanding field).
JABSOM's relationship to PBRC and CRCH requires further explanation. It appears that both CRCH and PBRC can continue to perform their missions without the clinical departments of JABSOM, although some extramurally-funded programs in the latter may be at risk. The CRCH requires affiliation with a hospital to retain its core grant but not necessarily with a medical school. The federally-funded Clinical Research Center (~$600K/year administered by PBRC), a collaborative effort of PBRC, JABSOM and Kapiolani Health, will have its funding in jeopardy because the federal program is designed for minority institutions with an affiliated. medical school. Some of PBRC's AIDS clinical research funded by both federal and pharmaceutical funds may be at risk without clinical faculty and the availability of malpractice insurance provided via the medical school These two programs account for about 15% of PBRC's current extramural funding. Thus, inclusion of the biomedical sciences as one of the probable areas to assist UHM to be in the top 50 public universities in extramural training and research funding (The Vision: Manoa in the Year 2007) can be jeopardized if the clinical part is retrenched.
Faculty in CRCH and PBRC participate in graduate training in the biomedical sciences in JABSOM. PBRC faculty also participate in graduate training in other programs -- EECB, CMNS, Zoology, and Psychology -- and presumably would continue to do so in the new SILS. PBRC has a number of faculty with joint or split appointments with other units: 2 with JABSOM clinical departments; 4 with JABSOM basic science departments; 3 with zoology; 1 with botany; 1 with psychology. PBRC also administers two undergraduate biomedical training programs with faculty mentors from PBRC, CRCH, basic science departments in JABSOM, zoology, microbiology and psychology.
Trade-offs that affect students: For each of the professional colleges and schools that might be closed, there must be clear plans of what could be done to provide for our students who would be without the college or school. WICHE, of course, is an obvious choice. In addition, various trade-offs are possible, but basically we believe that some modest part of the savings of retrenching a school should go to help specific programs for UHM students who, after graduation, would go to the Mainland for their graduate work in a professional school. For example, if the law school or the medical school were closed, pre-law and pre-medicine students would be helped by improvements in faculty quality and interest, library holdings, and laboratory facilities in Political Science, Biology, and Chemistry.
Demand rather than centrality has given special status in the Mission for the three professional colleges of Business, Education, and Engineering. Each college has been or should be under review. Each college should have high priority for its undergraduate programs if and when they are revised. Our main recommendations for Education (64 through 67) and Engineering (27 and 61) are elsewhere. Business should react to the findings of its recent external review for accreditation. Internally, we found the accounting of students and costs to be very murky. Are we training graduates to elude the IRS? Is Decision Sciences truly so out of line compared with the other departments? Hard to tell.
Undergraduate programs also exist in Architecture, Medical School (two departments), Nursing (two), Social Work, Travel Industry Management, and Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (ten). We have some comments about demand, costs, quality, venue, and reorganization elsewhere in this report. These undergraduate programs should receive moderate priorities of support, with the specific level depending on the three factors of demand, cost, and quality. Final decisions about support levels might be delayed for CTAHR until its internal reorganization is stabilized and SILS is formed, and in Social Work until the external review we recommend. As for TIMS, it is clear to us that the school's size and stature demonstrate that it should be no more than a department or perhaps a school within the College of Business Administration.
The special schools (A-P-H, SILS, and SOEST) have or will have undergraduate programs, some of which support the language and science parts of centrality.
Extramural funding is not the only off-set of costs otherwise paid from General funds. We believe, for example, that Law, Medicine, Public Health, and Social Work should gain self-sufficiency through tuition, grants, and gifts for endowment, or be cut. We have heard welcome rumors that the law school is close to that goal. [We comment on governance relative to self sufficiency, in JABSOM, p. 149}
Raising tuition is not an option for ORUs, but units with a principal mission to provide a public service should charge the full amount for its services. EC and IRC provide free advice; they should charge for it.
Manoa's G-funds subsidize a number of such activities. For example, JABSOM provides low-cost residents to hospitals; charge the hospitals. The Lab School is free; charge tuition. Land grant and sea grant extension agents give advice; charge the corporations or counties or individuals for it. Perhaps worst of all from the ORU standpoint, R-funds subsidize housing; turn the matter over to the highest-bidding company that manages real estate, or charge full rent ourselves.
UHM has some long-term obligations under federal laws. One aspect of demand might be in the programs that allow UHM to fulfill those obligations.
Land Grant Sea Grant, and Space Grant. The University of Hawaii is a land-grant university. The Morril Act of 1862 gave federal land for partial support of colleges offering agriculture, engineering, and home economics as well as the traditional academic subjects. The training of military officers is also a component of the Act. Later, the Hatch and Smith-Lever acts supported research, experiment stations, and extension work at what have been called land-grant institutions. Certain federal funds accrue to support instruction, research, and service in Land Grant institutions. In Hawaii, instruction, research, and service related to its land-grant status are in the colleges of Tropical Agriculture and Human Affairs, in Engineering, and in the ROTC programs.
Hawaii also is a federally mandated sea-grant and a space-grant institution. Both today are administered within SOEST, and most of the faculty, agents, and affected students are in SOEST. Nevertheless, students or faculty members across the UH system might participate through scholarships or as mentors, reviewers, and principal investigators. According to the directors of Sea Grant and Space Grant, however, no unit outside of SOEST on the Manoa Campus is essential to their programs. An interesting sidelight was the comment that because faculty in Mathematics and Economics in Arts and Sciences have so little interest in applied math and resource economics respectively, that Business, Trop Ag, and SOEST itself provide virtually all of the math and economics resources for Sea Grant.
Further about Land Grant and CTAHR, from our February addendum: CTAHR is nearly finished with a massive internal reorganization. It has 101, 102, and 103 budgets to carry out its federally mandated and other missions. Its instructional program is largely undergraduate, and that undergraduate program is mainly in the departments of Food Science and Human Nutrition and Human Resources, the lineal descendants of the former "home economics" part of the federal mandate.
The College conducts graduate education and research in the basic and applied aspects of biotechnology, in departments of Animal Science, Entomology, Environmental Biochemistry, Horticulture, Plant Molecular Physiology, and Plant Pathology, and in the departments of Agricultural and Research Economics, Biosystems Engineering, and Agronomy and Soils, that also support specialized agriculture (not the plantation agriculture of sugar and pineapple). Generally, these research activities are conducted thorough HITAHR, which is an ORU. The college is debating whether or not HITAHR will continue in the college's new organization.
There is also the service function in the Extension system, that supports farming, families, youth, and communities, to paraphrase its federal mandate. Unlike those in the big Middle Atlantic, Midwestern and Western states, Hawaii's diversified agricultural farms tend to be small in size, and so Land Grant extension services are especially valuable for this part of Hawaii's economy.
Relation to the East-West Center The original concept of the East-West Center was of close cooperation with the University of Hawaii to promote cultural and technical interchange between the United States and the nations and individuals of south and east Asia and the Pacific. For the first 15 years, the UH faculty was strongly involved in the programs of the Center, and several hundred scholarships were used for Asian, Pacific, and US students to study at UHM. The Center's half-dozen or so foci for research have changed over the years, and the involvement of specific UH departments and faculty members have changed likewise. After 1975 the Center became an independent public institution, and has increasingly become a home for superannuated State Department and other federal retirees, coupled with a continuing massive reduction in its federal funding, scope of research, number of scholarships (now down to about one hundred), and UH involvement.
Whether or not the Center will survive its present straits in funding and visionary leadership is anyone's guess. UHM must be prepared for any eventuality:
Hawaii is an anomaly. With the exception of several months in the early 1990s the United States has enjoyed an economic boom for 15 years. Not every American prospered equally or for the full extent of that period, but eventually, enterprise and governments, even in the rust belt, reorganized and down-sized for efficiency and prepared for growth. New industries, new methods of management, a low rate of inflation, and higher productivity fostered by technology pushed up the gross economic product and provided millions of new jobs. American Research Universities and the new knowledge-based industries that sprouted around them fueled much of America's economic rise.
One of the principal reasons that Hawaii remains as the sole state that has not climbed out of the 1990-1991 recession is that very dependence of entrepreneurial growth on research universities (along with a more favorable tax, regulatory, and lending climate). Hawaii's position as a research university has slipped in recent years.
Restoration of our position will be simpler with greater autonomy, but restoration must commence whether or not greater autonomy is given to the University of Hawaii or its powers are delegated to where they can best be used in the University. We are a State University, and so restoration should be focused in areas that can best help to improve Hawaii's economy.
New money is brought here by, for example, tourists, federal defense spending, and federal research grants. That money circulates within Hawaii, paying hotel workers, barbers and plumbers, clerks in state agencies and department stores, to name a few. Money leaves the state to pay for federal taxes, oil, most food, and other goods and services. Few products of Hawaii leave the state; some high-tech, high-value food products, and specialties in clothing, for instance. Whereas the export of sugar and pineapple once dominated conversations, lately one hears laments because of the export of our bright youth who seek elsewhere for a higher income or a lower cost of living.
For years Hawaii has searched for new non-polluting and well-paying industries to offset its growing dependence on tourism for the state's income. The search is now desperate as Hawaii continues in the doldrums. Late in 1997, however, three major reports suggested ways to renew Hawaii's economic footing.
Those two have much in common with strengthening of Manoa for a technological future and to act with private enterprise.
These ideas aren't new, but they have been difficult to bring to fruition. Accreditation teams have scolded Hawaii for years, claiming that UH is tied to the short-term whims of the Legislature and Governor. Small businesses claim it is difficult to be successful in Hawaii's business climate. They have also claimed that they cannot find local funding through bank loans, or local talent on which to call for expertise, or a local work-force sufficiently educated to work in a high-technology setting.
Sometimes the State works at cross purposes; one of the VC Committee members recalls being appointed as Hawaii's representative to a "high tech" workshop being run by WICHE, back when high tech was a new buzz word, but a freeze on State travel owing to a budget problem left Hawaii unrepresented.
The rest of the nation began its recovery early in 1991, but seven years later Hawaii is still in recession [May 1998 note: Hawaii is now the sole state with an unresolved revenue problem forcing cuts in spending.] Time is ripe for the Legislature to empower UH, and for Manoa to help build Hawaii's long-term economy. In this section of our report we show what is needed for Manoa to contribute to Hawaii's economic future, by targeting areas on which there is strength to build. Targets are the already-productive UHM units, and the potential in the basic and applied fields of biotechnology, environmental technology, health care, additional extramural research, and software.
An article by Jeff Bloom in the Advertiser of December 7, 1987, claims that 5,000 technical jobs in Hawaii could be filled within the next two years. How do we get started?
Research Universities and Private-based Enterprise The report on Science and Technology advanced the proposition that research-based technological innovations will generate the industries of the future. These knowledge-based industries require a first-rate research university working with a private-based entrepreneurial guide. Innovative research requires an excellent faculty, and that faculty must be allowed to contribute in privately-based, small- to medium-sized start-up enterprises. The organization and actual wording of this section is based heavily on that report.
Many of the UHM faculty will need changed attitudes and new skills to meet the future. The German research university combined government-sponsored pure research and industry-sponsored applied research. That model gained acceptance in various first- and second-world countries, but has generally been lacking in the US. On the other hand, starting within this century with its first big boosts in the New Deal and WW II, it became academically acceptable for professors to consult with federal, state, and local governments. It is, however, generally not acceptable today to work with the military, and it is uncommon to work with private industry. Many US academics cannot deign to soil their hands with joint projects or in consultation with private industry. That general attitude, which exists right now with some faculty in Manoa, even in such entrepreneurially oriented units as SOEST, must be eliminated if we are to search for cooperative work with the private sector.
As the Taskforce showed, when Stanford, Texas, and San Diego developed policies to encourage faculty to work with enterprise, the areas around the universities bloomed. At present, however, there is no UH policy explicitly designed to hire in fields where commercial expansion might exploit UHM research, nor is there incentive for existing faculty to assist.
The proposal is for Manoa to target areas of growth potential where there is both strength on which to build and where a special advantage exists.
Strength on which to build The economic development report lists the best nationally ranked graduate-degree programs, the most productive units as measured by federal research funding, and several specific bright spots in research. We mention them below, and in the specific recommendations.
Manoa is asked to hire outstanding faculty in these five described below, which already have certain strengths as well as advantages for future entrepreneurial growth.
Biotechnology Although biotechnology has great commercial growth-potential for the coming decades, Hawaii is too far behind to compete across the board with the great university research centers elsewhere. We can however lead can in marine biotechnology, marine natural products, and applications of biotechnology to agriculture. Hawaii needs to strengthen its basic instruction and research in molecular biology, and to develop further its applied research and industrial ties in these marine and agricultural areas.
Environmental technology Environmental technology is a giant global business, and growing. Hawaii has advantages in current faculty research in a number of fields including, for example, sensors to detect and monitor pollutants, analytic facilities, biological waste-treatment, alternatives to pesticides, and biomass energy-conversion. UHM also has existing academic strengths in environmental science and engineering, and is adding more. UHM should invest in innovative faculty with a track record of cooperative ventures in environmental technology.
A primary aim is to integrate UHM's environmental research both within Manoa and with the environmental business community in order to form ad hoc teams that can enter bidding on giant international projects. Although not an aid for economic development, there is also an aim to have environmental research available for Hawaii's quality of life and tourism.
Health care Health care is considered by many as a potential non-polluting growth industry. The hospitals have excellent facilities, and Hawaii's surroundings are beautiful and relaxing. The medical school, however, does not have the reputation to attract either excellent practitioners nor wealthy patients. One strategy to build international reputation might be to strengthen both the clinical and the non-clinical components of the medical school. Another might be to build reputation by strengthening the research conducted in the present non-clinical parts, which could be in conjunction with ORUs and private physician groups, hospitals, and clinics (further on the medical school in subsequent sections).
Additional extramural research Hawaii is in the lower one-third nationally in the per-capita investment of State funds in university research and development. Moreover, that small investment has suffered cuts in the past few years of Hawaii's recession, for example, through the termination of special equipment funds, and siphoning off "overhead return" into financially strapped parts of the university that do not contribute to building research. Return on investment remains strongly positive in the departments and institutes of SOEST, CRCH, PBRC, and IFA, stemming mainly from their comparative advantage.
Preparation of the base for stimulating growth of high-tech business in Hawaii, including both the necessary cutting-edge research and the training of a technological work-force, is about the same as cultivating more extramural research at Manoa. Improved funding of the basic and applied sciences at Manoa, and adequate compensation for their best practitioners, is absolutely required for any of these strategies for stimulation of business. Stronger Chemistry, Molecular and Cellular Biology, and Physics are essential. Nearly so are Astronomy, Conservation Biology, Geology and Geophysics, Meteorology, Oceanography, as well as Information and Computer Science, applied mathematics, engineering, and certain fields in agriculture. Currently these range widely in their quality, ability to attract funds, and to train students. Even the best of them need improvement, and the worst need substantial infusion of stellar faculty (and strong controls on tenure and promotion).
Software Key academic departments for this area of potential growth should be Information and Computer Science and Electrical Engineering. Both need help.
We must emphasize that software development continues to be an integral part of instruction and research in UHM departments and institutes based on the physical sciences or technology, for example, Astronomy, Civil Engineering, Chemistry, Geology and Geophysics, Mechanical Engineering Meteorology, Oceanography, Physics, HIGP, HNEI, and IFA. Other departments are beginning to use sophisticated software, e.g., computer graphics in Art, a process that should lead to software development. Autonomy for UHM must include the flexibility to respond quickly to suddenly opening opportunities, whether in ICS, EE, or indeed any department or institute.
Further comments In the recommendations given above, the material resources required are relatively small considering the size of the programs and the potential importance to Hawaii's economic base. Many research teams will be largely self-sustaining through grants. "Administrative resources" will be of great importance; allowing units to hire off-scale and to base salary on merit; to return RCUH to be once again a helpful organization; to return the greater part of R funds to the units generating them; to put space to better use, and so on. Administrators and legislators should study the example of other areas, such as Silicon Valley, or even an entire small state, Utah, as described in Appendix 10.
Reform of the College of Education is a win-win situation. Secondary and probably primary education in Hawaii's public schools would be vastly improved, and the University of Hawaii would free large and immediate resources for redistribution to high-priority programs.
The present status is poor. We introduce this section with findings from a long but typical report on public education, the November 1993 article in The New York Times, reviewing a report by the U.S. Department of Education. The Times article was widely quoted, and included:
The same situation exists locally. The lead sentence of an extensive article in the Sunday Advertiser for December 15, 1996, expresses what has been said for many years and is still said today: "Hawaii's public school system is one of the worst in the country." Front pages of the January 8, 1988, morning Advertiser and evening Star-Bulletin proclaim the same; Hawaii's public schools are at or near the bottom of the states in indicators of education quality. The Sunday January 18, 1998, Advertiser describes the "lackluster" results of programs intended to improve the situation.
Theories abound of how Johnny got into this situation where he can't read, write, think logically, or count. Here is one that is difficult to refute: Johnny is in dire straits because, on average, his teachers are inadequate, and so are those who manage the teachers and teach the teachers. Public school teaching historically has been women's work, and historically women have
been severely discriminated against with respect to salary. Therefore, teaching has been a low-paying profession. Women (and men) of college age who thought they could prepare themselves for a better income than that of a teacher, typically chose majors other than education. In time, as test scores have shown for 70 years, colleges of education, on average, filled with the students only marginally equipped to be in college at all. Furthermore, the bureaucrats in departments of education, and professors in colleges of education, came from the same stock. For job security teachers joined unions. Groups attempting reform often bring in professional "educators", also products of colleges of education. E.D. Hirsch, in The Schools We Need, 1996, shows the history since WWII of futility of reform; very little has been proven effective.
Teachers Colleges as Part of the Problem: As background we present and discuss several aspects of public education in Appendix 9. Some points are summarized in the following paragraphs; see the appendix for details.
Teachers in today's public schools fear the competition of other college graduates for jobs. Professors of education are even more vulnerable, because they supply a product held in disrepute and whose demand is due mainly to laws and policies that compel individuals to enroll. There is no evidence of the value of education courses (especially postgraduate ones) in the actual teaching process.
Teachers, colleges of education, and boards of education resist change. Teachers are not rewarded for observed competence in an evaluation by their front-line administrators, but rather by the professors who give graduate courses in a nearby college of education. The total lack of correlation between academic achievement and self-esteem in children, and between academic achievement and dollars spent per pupil, show that "All we need is more money" is false. Actually, for the past 25 years inflation-adjusted spending per pupil has risen 83 percent and the student-teacher ratio has declined 22 percent, but test scores remain flat. The local cost of the public schools, per student per year, is higher than the tuition at some parochial schools. Private and parochial schools are expensive, but proportionally more goes into the classroom for teacher salaries, supplies, and equipment rather than overhead.
The level of intellectual abilities of the average teacher, with the pay scale and esteem that result, is only one problem in the public schools (discipline, little parent interest, etc.), but these problems would be alleviated with more intelligent teachers:
To get better teachers, society will need to educate them better and pay them better. When teachers are producing a better product, taxpayers should be willing to pay more for it. School-teaching is the lowest paid and the lowest in the social pecking order among the common professions. Most teachers score poorly on standard tests; nevertheless substantial numbers of them are competent and dedicated, but there are many other competent and dedicated citizens who select other vocations --- with larger paychecks. Salaries for public school teachers will not rise until frustrated employers, parents, grandparents, readers of statistics of poverty and crime, and the rest of the general public are confident they will get their money's worth. That will need, first, retraining of present teachers and training of new teachers to provide more of the competent ones, and therefore will require the incentive of higher salaries to attract better teachers. Second, there must be ways to evaluate teachers and administrators fairly, and to remove the incompetent ones.
Courses in colleges of education must be geared to the level of intelligence of their students, a level recognized as low through nearly 80 years of various kinds of testing. Teachers must provide substance for the ages of 9 through 11, when children are increasingly able to reason, and on through 12th grade. Teachers should be trained mainly in the fields they will teach, and at that time they will deserve better pay for their better product.
Some voices over the years have called for restructuring colleges of education, rather than abolition. See Appendix 9, which includes, for example, an early proposal by James B. Conant, that about one-half of the curriculum of prospective teachers be in general education, taught in the College of Arts and Sciences, about one-quarter would be in a major concentration in Arts and Sciences (with exceptions for elementary education where the major would be in Education but with most specific courses in A&S), and about one-quarter would be in "professional" courses, those specifically needed for teaching. Some required study in child development and educational psychology would be in A&S Psychology. The most important part of the "professional" work would be practice teaching with increasing degrees of responsibility under the direction of a cooperating teacher and the supervision of a clinical professor.
Not all students are equally able to learn, and that has led to laws and regulations for special education for the mentally and physically challenged. Schools and rules pay much less attention to the gifted, even though through their lifetime, the unusually intelligent persons will probably benefit society, on a per capita basis, much more than the average and retarded ones.
Hawaii's economy had been based on abundant low-skilled jobs in agriculture, tourism, construction, military-support services, and government services, with minimal needs for high-school and college education. Time has now overtaken Hawaii. The economic successes on the Mainland and in much of Asia have shown the importance of an educated population. Individual citizens have realized the problem, but have been forced to turn to private education. About one-quarter of children on Oahu attend private schools, well above the national average of about 10%.
UHM and its College of Education must help to end low performance and low expectations in public education. Economic recovery in Hawaii is dependent on a shift from our service-based economy to one with major high-technology and information-based components, a shift that requires high quality education at K-12 and on through University levels to provide the specialized work force. [end of abstract from Appendix]
There is demand for teachers in Hawaii and nationally. Hiring here is through the Department of Education. Some new teachers come from the UHM College of Education and some come from the Mainland. How can UHM provide better teachers for the DOE?
Greater quality control for primary teachers In kindergarten through fifth grade, empathy with children and a love of teaching are much more important than detailed command of a single discipline. These teachers need a broad background in the arts and sciences, and a pedagogical emphasis on the basic "three Rs".
But more than that is needed: a level of aptitude that allows the teacher to absorb the broad background and to be comfortable with the complexities of society today. That is especially important for 4th and 5th grades. Technologies evolve to aid education. Student bodies include a greater range of backgrounds and cultures. New findings about the development of children's minds need to be absorbed, evaluated, and used in the classroom. Ignorance leads to fear, and so many teachers of today avoid complexities. Our world will not stay the same or become simpler, so teachers will have to be able to adjust for the future.
A higher level of average intelligence is required for the average teacher of all grades, including the primary grades. Admission requirements and course-grading must be raised sufficiently high that the teachers who graduate from the College of Education will have a better chance to be successful.
With better students on average than now, the college can condense what have been termed its mind-numbing professional courses into fewer but more rigorous courses. Majors in elementary education can put the freed credit hours into greater breadth and depth in A&S courses. The teacher candidates will be better able to master that breadth and depth of course work owing to their better average aptitudes - a boon for our children who will be their pupils.
Intermediate and secondary teachers trained in their subject matter: One way to improve grades 6 through 12 is for the DOE to require that teachers be trained in their subjects. The November 21, 1997, Advertiser had the headline "Hawaii last in U.S. for full credentials." More than one-third of Hawaii's teachers lack full certification in the academic field they teach; we are lowest in the nation.
If Manoa ceased allowing the College of Education to train teachers as it does, and instituted a system similar to the one espoused by Conant or one of the other reformers, then DOE would be forced to take the graduates of Arts and Sciences and the Manoa special schools, with their year of professional courses and practice teaching in the greatly reduced College of Education. DOE would also be forced to pay them more, as initially there would be a shortage. All in all, a win-win situation, because to balance its budget, DOE would have to cut its bureaucracy (which has one administrator above principal for every 834 public school students).
Moreover, virtually all of the funds saved at UHM by reducing its College of Education can be redirected for higher priorities; few funds are needed to supplement appropriate UHM majors because most of the courses and instructors are in place. For example, with no increase in its funds, one science department has already implemented the first curricular program at Manoa to allow its graduates to apply for certification in intermediate or high school science teaching from the National High School Teachers Association.
Or DOE could continue to hire from the Mainland, but many of those teachers leave after a year or two. With the main supply of better-trained teachers coming from improved teacher training in Manoa, leading to better learning in Hawaii's students, the Board of Education, Legislature, and Governor would look more kindly at salary issues, whether or not a union existed.
A complementary solution, using existing college graduates Another valid method available for attracting better qualified persons into teaching is to retrain as teachers those who have graduated with baccalaureate degrees, whether their graduation was recent or years earlier. This can be an especially important source of teachers in Hawaii, where the unique ethnic and cultural mix in the public schools places a premium on locally attuned teachers. The maturity of the returning students benefit both the UHM program and the school students of the teachers it produces.
Retraining can be years after the baccalaureate degree. Individuals who did not consider the teaching profession may now be attracted to it if changes in personal situations make the salary acceptable. Nontraditional students require greater flexibility in degree programs and course offerings to accommodate their individual situations.
Over time the State's Department of Education has worked with various partners to provide retraining programs as a source of teacher education. The UH Manoa College of Education has participated in such programs. Some College of Education policies clearly limit the effectiveness of these programs. Requirements that students attend full-time, or attend day-time classes as members of "pods", can exclude candidates unnecessarily.
The charge to this Committee is to identify areas that might be cut from the University, but areas that do have some natural advantage compared to others should be maintained or strengthened, not cut. Not all programs of UHM have used their comparative advantage wisely, and so they are candidates for trimming parts of the programs and refocusing the remnants to strengthen broader programs. In this section we comment about reorganizing, building, and nurturing these programs of "comparative advantage", so that Manoa can make a more efficient use of its resources.
We assume that UH will want to have some programs of high visibility, for "bragging rights" to impress prospective students as well as the taxpayers, Legislature, foundations, and private donors who support this University. The vision: Manoa in the Year 2007 expresses that aspiration. It is easier to build a program if there are natural advantages to attract good faculty and outside funding, than if no advantages exist. But knowledge is not static; neither are faculty interests. Once a program has earned national recognition, the University must not only maintain the program, but also must allow the program to meet additional challenges in order to improve its competitive edge. At the same time, the University must provide resources and oversee any reorganization necessary to assist now-dormant programs in reaching their potential of exploitation of the local advantage.
Because of their location in Hawaii, certain UHM schools, departments, institutes, and programs that we identified enjoy an advantage, compared with others, to attract good faculty and students as well as funding from private and public sources. Those units, however, have not been equally successful in exploiting that advantage.
We found it constructive to compare tables 51 (p. 92) and 21 (p. 33). Table 21 shows that departments in the astronomical earth, and marine sciences exploiting the physical environment have been more successful in the quest for quality than the ones pursuing the advantage in Hawaii's biological environment. As for the societal or human advantages, a school with a mission to lead is in place, but it does not yet have the size and talent to be effective in building a reputation for Hawaii. Much of the expertise is in individual departments and individual faculty members outside the school, but may be lost within the overall reputations of those units.
We are pleased to point out that Psychology has earned success relative to departments at UHM and to Psychology departments across the US without the benefit of any comparative advantage.
Success in extramural support Under criterion 2, Comparative Advantage, we used Table 21 to show that our natural advantages are recognized by agencies outside UHM. We explained the crude groupings and the caution required when reading the table. Nevertheless, under criterion 5, Effectiveness, we showed that some advantages were used more effectively than others, if extramural funding represents one aspect of success.
These data suggest that, overall, the physical and biological programs are doing well with respect to the rest of the university in utilizing their competitive advantage. Programs that should be able to exploit the societal or human advantages are not doing so; they may believe that G funds alone suffice for their needs.
The natural physical and biological environment is being exploited by a number of institutes, departments, graduate fields of study, and one special program. Although they are organized in different ways, these units all have expertise based in natural science:
No instructional field at UHM truly has what the National Academy (NRC, 1995) terms a "distinguished faculty" or an "extremely effective" doctoral program. Nevertheless, the cluster of Astronomy, Oceanography, and Geology and Geophysics currently are very close, with the best national recognition of any Manoa field of study. Many years of effort went into developing those three programs. They are close to the highest rank, and represent UHM's best prospects for reaching top rank when Manoa's resources allow. In hard times they will have to be nurtured and maintained even if it requires reprogrammed funds. They do considerably more than merely "pay their own way" in grant income, and so it behooves UH to be flexible with them with respect to returning positions of retirees, awarding bonuses for especially valuable contributions, allowing merit pay increases, and maintaining supplies, equipment, and instructional aids that cannot be charged to grants.
EECB is the next closest of any other Manoa program to high national recognition [with Psychology close to it]. The EECB special program is formed by faculty members in some of the life sciences units. Currently, the faculty is from the departments of Zoology (11; A&S), Botany (8; A&S), Entomology (6; CTAHR), Genetics and Molecular Biology (4; JABSOM), Anthropology (1; A&S), and Agronomy and Soil Science (1; CTAHR); much of the initial thrust for conservation biology came from the director and faculty of PBRC. The number of faculty in each college (given parenthetically) may vary from year to year. Hawaii's immense natural advantages and present level of recognition in ecology and evolutionary biology indicate that moderate resources added to the departments listed here are likely to add to Hawaii's reputation if the areas of specialization are carefully selected. If these life-science departments do not yet "pay their own way though grants", the UHM fiscal situation would be eased if recruitment favors candidates able to bring strong grant-supported research programs.
PBRC, CRCH, HIGP, HNEI, JIMAR, HIMB, WRRC and Lyon Arboretum are research units with strong to moderate degrees of exploiting Hawaii's natural setting. Meteorology, Ocean Engineering, Agronomy and Soils, Entomology, Horticulture, and Plant Molecular Physiology are fields that do not graduate a sufficient number of Pills to be listed in the NAS doctoral report, but in Hawaii they also take advantage of the local setting. Although some recombination (e.g., HNEI plus OE) or reorganization (e.g., our proposal for the biological sciences) may assist, these research units and departments should be able to bring in enough grant funds to "pay 'their way", and those institutes and departments that have already been putting forth effort deserve nurturing.
The set of advantages afforded by the societal environment, is also being exploited, by departments and programs in the social sciences and humanities. Development bf our Asian, Pacific, and Hawaiian focus is not only to enhance the reputation of this university and support Hawaii as an economic node, but also to further our appreciation of the culture of our land and of the lands from which our populations came.
The UH Mission Statement claims that students have special opportunities for Asian, Pacific, and Hawaiian educational experiences. We would argue, however, that their scope, level of quality, and organization and flexibility to grow and to meet future opportunities all lie well below the set based on advantages in the sciences. If the "natural advantage" for A-P-H affairs is to be pursued further in Hawaii (and we believe it must be), the administration and faculty will have to decide first, if it will be mainly in SHAPS, and second, what the details of improvement will be, whether or not through SHAPS. Our concern about our Asian-Pacific-Hawaiian focus is given in this report, with our recommendations.
One component of effectiveness is the extent to which the units at UH Manoa have made use of their comparative advantage in physical, biological, or human resources, relative to other universities. In some fields the comparative advantage is so compelling that the University has established a related research unit, in parallel with the academic unit. Some examples of parallel units are Institute for Astronomy with Physics and Astronomy; PBRC and CRCH with biology programs; and until 199O, HIG with Oceanography and Geology and Geophysics.
Over time, the research units have brought in large sums of extramural funding and supported numbers of graduate students. In addition, in some ways the research FTE have subsidized the academic programs. Normally, numbers of R faculty share a single I FTE, and end up teaching more (in total) than a single I faculty member. In most cases, however, the growth of the research unit far exceeded that of the academic unit. As a result, that academic unit did not use its comparative advantage effectively.
The impact on the academic units has several aspects. First, the academic unit does not adjust its focus to cooperate with the research unit to the best advantage of both. Rather, there is a tendency to "compensate" by avoiding overlap with the research unit, thus driving the units apart. Given the limited resources available to the academic unit, this greatly narrows its potential scope. In turn, a narrow scope can leave a department unable to respond to changes in intellectual and funding opportunities.
Second, the academic unit remains small, with limited course offerings and degree-major offerings. Undergraduate majors that require a number of faculty members in the advantaged field may not be offered. The faculty in the research unit often participate in teaching, but with a focus on graduate students and large service courses so that the upper-level undergraduate courses are neglected.
Third, the unit misses the opportunity to build on the quality of the research faculty and enhance the quality of the faculty and facilities in its broad range of areas. Without a strong undergraduate program, it is difficult to attract the highest quality students. The narrow focus of the two separate units discourages innovative research and teaching initiatives. Competition between the academic and research units for graduate students can cause friction, as the students will be drawn to the more lucrative and stable source of assistantships.
We cannot fault the program chairs, or department chairs, or the Dean of Natural Sciences for failing to contest successfully with the numerous research directors and deans for resources. In the UH Manoa organization, it is only at the Vice-President level that there is parity between the academic and research branches of UH Manoa. We ask that a more effective distribution of resources devoted to using comparative advantage be established at that level, to permit the academic units to participate fully. Alternately, the related academic and research units can be integrated into single schools, with the dean of each school obligated to maintain a balanced resource allocation. Universities grow in quality by using effectively the comparative advantages that they enjoy. UH Manoa has not maintained the balanced resource distribution that it needs to use its advantages most effectively.
One example of a process to balance resource distribution is joint appointments. Joint IR hiring over many years were coordinated between HIG and Oc and GG that led to growth in both the institute and the departments. By no means was that situation perfect, and with coordination within SOEST it is no longer necessary, but over a period of many years it did help instruction, research, and the University. Our point is not that joint appointments must be used again, but that there be an obligation to find ways to maintain balanced resources for the good of both departments and institutes.
Besides a focus specifically on Asian-Pacific-Hawaiian studies that we have proposed, the set of human or societal advantages is also exploited by the creative arts and performing-arts departments (example, ethnomusicology; Chinese art; theatre and dance of Southeast Asia) and by the Cancer Center (example, ethnic-based population samples and epidemiology). Extramural funding from NIH, local business, and foundations should help these units improve their quality. If they lose faculty with an A-P-H specialty, they must be allowed to rehire within the A-P-H arena.
The Mission Statement highlights UH's continued thrust into Asian, Pacific, and Hawaiian educational experiences. Undoubtedly, many departments will attempt to climb aboard that bandwagon, in the hope of getting new positions. We see no reason to give new positions to departments with past performances that have been mediocre. If they wish to gain a Pacific focus, that can be in the course of normal hiring when their "non-Pacific" faculty members resign or retire.
More or less the same is true for those programs with a component for which location in Hawaii is important. College of Business Administration and School of Architecture are good examples with respect to trade, business, and professions. They and perhaps other professional schools can strengthen their A-P-H components through outside funding and through planned redirection as faculty leave.
Departments and institutes successful in using their comparative advantage are Hawaii's stars. Their doctoral programs are recognized nationally for the quality of their faculties and the effectiveness of their training. They contribute to undergraduate instruction. They have been productive in attracting State, Federal, and private sources of funding, and indeed are cost-effective in using State G-funded investments to leverage the extramural funds. Some units, however, may require resources, reorganization, and new attitudes to achieve success. All units must receive an equitable distribution of research and instructional resources to make optimal use of their advantage.
Aspiration 2 in Manoa at 100 is to have at least five academic programs ranked among the top quartile in nationally recognized surveys and an additional five in the top half. That will require nurture and maintenance of the departments and institutes most successful to date, even if it requires adding reprogrammed funds in times of stable or declining resources. Most of them have a strong comparative advantage in Hawaii.
Table 51 shows that the five fields with the best chance of reaching the top quartile (above 25th percentile) are those now in the top one-half. They are listed with their present "quality" percentiles; their "effectiveness" percentiles are close to their quality ones: Oceanography (27), Geology and Geophysics (30), Astronomy (33), Psychology (42), and Ecology, Evolution, Conservation Biology* (48).
The following seven fields have the best chance of reaching the top one-half (50th percentile) or perhaps top one-third (listed with their present "quality" percentiles): Political Science (51), Physics (56), Chemistry (57), Anthropology (59), Linguistics (61), History (62), Molecular and Cellular Biology* (63 and 68).
[* assumes formation of a school of integrated life sciences, with present scores of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior (48), Physiology (63), and Molecular and General Genetics (68) be supported in their attempts to reach higher levels of quality and effectiveness]
To further their improvement, these departments and their associated institutes require the flexibility to fill vacant positions and to reward merit through raises and bonuses. Their instructional and research facilities must be maintained, and their resources must be distributed in a way that allows academic units to participate fully. Included are
We repeat our urging that units with special biological and social advantages be reorganized into special schools, along the general lines of SOEST. These would be a School of Integrated Life Sciences and a school with major Asian, Pacific, and Hawaiian content. The latter is required, we believe, in order to reach Aspiration 3 in Manoa at 100, attaining international preeminence in Asian scholarship.
If the two newly established schools show good progress towards a better use of their natural advantage, they and SOEST must be delegated flexibility in personnel matters and provided with adjustments in space. The dean of each school would be obligated to maintain a balanced resource allocation between instruction and research or scholarship. The schools must be maintained even if it requires adding reprogrammed funds in times of declining resources.
If the reorganization and strengthening of the life sciences is less complete than we propose, Manoa should ensure that any reorganization in no way diminish the present effectiveness of EECB, because of EECB's basis in comparative advantage. Nor should reorganization adversely affect UHM's truly "tropical" aspects of agriculture and medicine, which receive substantial outside recognition and funding.
At places in our report we recommend elimination of departments (vertical cuts), or of such parts of departments as doctoral programs (horizontal cuts). Here we repeat our plea that we do not thereby lose any of our good Asian-Pacific-Hawaiian scholars. That is to say with respect to comparative advantage, retrenchment, or reorganization, faculty members who built a reputation in Asian, Pacific, or Hawaiian aspects of their disciplines by virtue of their superior teaching record or scholarly abilities, must not be lost. Rather, they should be placed in Manoa's new A-P-H school.
Some departments enjoying comparative advantages are in fields NRC did not consider, and so there is no outside evaluation of quality. If they are reasonably cost-effective, departments in schools stressing the physical, biological, and societal advantages should be allowed to develop to the extent their dean agrees, within the dean's resources, until outside reviews of faculty quality and doctoral efficiency are available. Examples are Entomology and Meteorology.
This topic was not a part of the Vertical Cuts Committee's original charge. Recently, however, we read Dr Smith's 2 December memo and its attached draft "vision" statement. Page 4 of the statement, titled The Vision: Manoa in the Year 2007, listed six aspirations. We realized that we had gathered information that would help to guide the campus toward attaining visions number 2, improving quality rankings, number 3, gaining preeminence in Asian scholarship, and number 4, Membership among the top 50 public universities in extramural training and research funding. We made appropriate recommendations in our report.
In February we were to look at all ORUs and other budget-l02 programs, which has led to Table 49 and additions to strengthen this present section.
The value of extramural funding to the University is not the cash flow. Rather, it is the ability to accomplish the mission of the University more fully. A large flow of extramural funding helps maintain a larger faculty and staff with more diverse skills and interests and helps maintain a more modern and powerful physical infrastructure.
These in turn enable the University to pursue projects, programs, and opportunities at a higher level than fewer state-funded personnel and facilities would permit. To push the University to higher levels of extramural funding requires the commitment of faculty, administration, and the State.
Rewards: Many current policies are not supportive of entrepreneurial research activity. Principal investigators suffer in many ways from what they believe is the myopic vision and illogical policies of administrators. Among the worst practices here is the lack of tangible rewards for entrepreneurial faculty. The University must work with the faculty union to establish the principle and practice of rewards for faculty who secure extramural funding.
Faculty must engage in instruction, research, and service. Those faculty who bring in funding to enable themselves and the University community to perform those endeavors better should be rewarded. Some form of financial bonus related to the faculty member's current level of extramural funding would be an appropriate recognition of the value of the faculty effort.
R funds: Use of research-overhead returned to the University is abused. The University must ensure that overhead funds charged on extramural funds be spent on the needs of the of the funded areas. The State has given the University full return of overhead funds; the University must not intercept those funds at every administrative level to solve financial problems unrelated to sponsored research.
Virtually every PI on campus pleads that the Return on Overhead be used to better advantage. Now too much is used for academic welfare and to cover past fiscal mistakes in the university, rather than used for its original intent.
There must be a more careful analysis of the annual report by the University Research Council on the PI use of seed money for bringing in more federal aid now looks like a Public Relations document rather than an evaluation of the level of success, as it seems to list every extramural grant the PI had in recent history, whether or not there was a connection to the URC grant.
A better facilitation of research would be to direct the greatest portion of R funds to the generator. Deans and directors and their faculty committees, and individual PIs conducting and proposing new research know better than URC where the greatest opportunities lie.
Technology transfer and university housing must be weaned from their R-fund subsidy. Moreover, the direct and automatic R-fund subsidy to RCUH must be ended. R funds can become a true management fee if they pass from the user (PI) to RCUH. RCUH must once again serve the university usefully.
Managerial problems: Many University administrators, from department chairs on up, are poor leaders and poor managers. One of the most important advantages of reorganization and consolidation is that far fewer administrators are needed, so that on average their quality can rise.
University administrators must be chosen for their skills at managing people. It is faculty members who create the ideas that attract extramural funding. Good personnel managers can help and inspire greater faculty creativity and productivity. Administrators who focus on politicking up the chain of command are unlikely to do so.
Fiscal administration: The University must reorganize its fiscal administration, which currently gives poor support for entrepreneurial research activity. The fiscal administration should be subjected to a review similar to that which both the instructional and research units are now under. Our experience suggests the following items are most critical.
The faculty and the fiscal administration often are in conflicts that could be avoided. Policies get devised and carried far along the process to implementation before it is realized that, although they may be administratively convenient, they impact negatively on the instruction, research, and service missions of the university.
Much of the down-sizing in the private sector nationally in the recent past has been among white collar, middle-level administrators. That reduction in overhead has been a result of better training, better tools, and higher productivity of the remaining people. It has not caused net unemployment and wage drops, but led to greater employment and wage gains as the economy boomed - on the Mainland.
Changes in the near future: New policies described above will allow the following changes in research as a component of academic life at Manoa.
The Manoa this committee envisions will have more research and scholarship at the undergraduate level, even though there will be a lesser range of fields training PhD researchers. Extramural research has an additional academic dividend in the excitement of students working with active researchers, using state-of-the-art equipment obtained from research grants.
Manoa must make a greater attempt to work with industry, and in particular with small entrepreneurial high-tech and information-based industry, both for their own long-term funding opportunity and for the development of a better economic base for the state.
Longer-term opportunities: In the time-span of the next 15 to 20 years, the balance between research funding sources and research opportunities based on comparative advantages will remain strongly in Hawaii's favor. In the natural physical advantages, IFA and SOEST will continue to increase their sponsored research at whatever the rate is of new State resources given to them to seed new growth. Opportunities based on the biological sciences should show a spurt in growth when the life sciences are integrated and have a strong leader in their new school. Shortly, however, they too will be restricted to whatever rate they receive an investment in new resources.
Opportunities in the basic physical sciences and in engineering already appear to be limited by the aspirations of the faculties who are already here. As their hiring opportunities arise, those departments should increase the proportion of faculty willing and able to generate funded research.
In the time-frame beyond 20 years, research in the social sciences (and in joint science-social science) will be aided by changes in the source of funding. Predictions are that federal funding will shift more towards addressing societal issues, and so also there are predictions for a new wave of private foundations as the new generation of wealth from the information explosion is returned to society.
Opportunities require investment: The central administration, not just the SVPRGE alone, must realize that in research as in anything else, an investment in greater productivity must be made in order to increase a given level of returns. Greater productivity can come from additional or more active people, more funds, newer equipment, changed regulations, and other factors.
Individual PIs, with their technicians, secretaries, laboratories, and facilities, reach a saturation point beyond which they can take on no new obligations. To be able to do more, the university needs either to provide the present researcher with more funds, or add more researchers and staff, or both. That is to say, there has to be a new investment of capital in the form of people and things, in order to propose new projects and thereby reach a higher level of extramural funding. Again, we urge readers to look at the Utah example in Appendix 10.
When the decision to invest is made, the university has to follow through on its commitments
Institutional factors regarding research Duplication: Research is expensive, and the UH System cannot afford to duplicate Manoa's research in the 4-year and community colleges. Besides their expense, it takes time to duplicate libraries, laboratories, and other infrastructure -- a time that may allow an opportunity to pass by us. If a field at Manoa has bungled its research and training effort and some group at, say, Hilo or West Oahu, is qualified and has a good research plan, move that faculty to Manoa and move out the failed Manoa unit -- but don't duplicate!
Autonomy (if and when it trickles down): The university should obtain its own legal counsel, who we hope is sufficiently familiar with the private sector so as to be able to advise us in joint industry-university enterprises (see below, Cooperative research with industry).
The personnel matters proposed elsewhere in this report, with respect to attaining quality in instruction [recommendations 30 and 32], will be important in obtaining, rewarding, and keeping the kind of faculty and technical staff required to propose and conduct extramural research. So will be the rewards for successful research proposers, for example, through a high but fractional base salary that can receive a large fraction from grants, which HIG began in several years ago and SOEST uses now.
Recent fiascoes demand that DAGS and UH Facilities Management be removed from the direct communications between the proposers and intended users of a research facility and its architect. A more complete statement is on p. 140-141. Autonomy will truly save money and tempers.
Deans, Directors, and Chairs: Whether or not we have an autonomous university, resources and responsibilities should be delegated to the level where they will be most effective, from the central administration to deans and directors, and from deans to chairs. As virtually every study shows, central planning does not advance research; individual researchers do, and the person closest to the researchers knows best how to allocate what resources are in hand.
The faculty Deans and Directors Review Committee, along with annual reviews at times of contract renewal, should lead to deans and directors who will benefit the university. Reviews should include an evaluation of how effective a unit is in capitalizing on research opportunities. A proposed method to attract better deans and directors is on p. 139.
We endorse Dr. Smith's proposal for outside reviews of graduate fields of study, as internal ones have little value. Here too, reviews should include an evaluation of how effective a unit is in capitalizing on research opportunities.
Research Corporation: Fiscal and personnel policies at RCUH are growing more like those of UH with every passing year. With reform of the UH fiscal administration as outlined above, and with an autonomous university, there would no longer be a need for RCUH. Personnel contracts and other purchasing can be handled as in the private sector. If, however, that goal isn't reached, then the university administration must return RCUH to its original role of facilitating funded research, as limited only by law, not by convenience or political attitudes.
Management fees extorted by RCUH must be under the control of the unit that service-orders a project to RCUH, so that if RCUH does not perform in the best interests of the PI and the granting institution, the fee can be withheld until RCUH is in compliance.
If UHM progresses towards cooperative work with the private sector, which a Governor's task force (and we) recommend as an aid towards Hawaii's economic development, then numerous practices of the university will have to change or be modified. There would have to be agreement on ownership of intellectual property and on proper response time, flexibility in personnel matters, contract language, and proprietary information, and agreement on costs.
Nevertheless, we have recommended that the university actively pursue joint UH-industry relationships, with an emphasis on those in emerging highly technical fields.
These are the parts of the University that should be its main effectors of extramurally funded research. Many are aided by special facilities and a range of IR, R, S, and APT positions, but not all are performing equally well for UHM, as Table 49 reveals. Although all units raise some concerns, with the higher-ranked ones the concerns are how the units can continue their advance without the kinds of changes in University policy that we have already discussed.
Those units in the middle and at the lower end would also be helped by policy changes, and probably also by some other changes to make them more useful in facilitating the research of an appropriate college. We commented upon and made recommendations about SSRI with respect to splitting it, in order to aid both the A-P-H focus and the College of Arts and Sciences. Similarly, CRDG would be important in shaping the proposed smaller new College of Education.
Schools and Colleges: For units headed by deans, we have already discussed reorganization of CTAHR and JABSOM under Demand and other factors (p. 113 and 111). Departments and ORUs within SOEST range in attributes (Table 49). One might argue that Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology has the best facilities site and tradition of any ORU in Hawaii. There is, however, a bimodal distribution of productivity within its faculty. Costs of operations and upkeep are other concerns. SOEST (and Manoa) must decide what the future holds for HIMB, and how to attain that future.
Ocean Engineering, like Korean and perhaps some other programs, ranks high in Table 48 because it has high marks in some attributes and a normalized score where outside information is lacking. OE's history of the past decade is disturbing. The department suffers from a number of problems, including declining enrollments and extramural funding, and a loss of vacant positions. With only four faculty members and little chance for more in the near future (the SOEST departments GG and Ocean have also lost several positions each), OE should be merged into some larger unit, analogous to our proposals for consolidating small units within A&S, SILS, and Education.
ORUs: Research institutes are vital, but vary in mission, size, and other aspects. Each should be examined as to how it can facilitate research best. Is it used mainly to aggrandize its director? Depending on its size and mission, does it and its director belong properly under a vice president, a dean, or a chair?
In addition, the existence of each ORU should be reviewed periodically to determine if its university mission and comparative advantage still exists. If not, the ORU should be dissolved and its resources committed to more timely research areas.
We endorse the other committee's comments against legislative mandates. Activities of the Environmental Center and IRC fall outside UHM's mission. They should charge to cover their expenses, or be retrenched.
Two additional ORUs, CRDG and WRRC serve specific State and Pacific needs, but costs of providing the service are not fully recovered. The units should be examined to see if they can charge to cover their expenses, or each one's organization and mission should be changed, or they should be retrenched. Probably all or most of CRDG can become the research arm of the smaller College of Education, and WRRC moved into Engineering (Civil) or SOEST (GG).
Our attitude about small departments is the same for the small ORUs, Environmental Center and Industrial Relations Center. They should be combined with some larger ORU or perhaps placed under a college or department, such as the former in SOEST and the latter in Business. In any event, they should charge for their services [additional comment later, concurring with the arts and science committee's report].
Lyon Arboretum and Waikiki Aquarium are not properly research units; they are mainly service and educational units. We recommend that they formally become such, probably in SILS.
We affirm our belief in the inseparable nature of research and graduate education. Regaining lost ground in extramural funding will require attracting good graduate students and treating them fairly so that their word-of-mouth will assist future recruitment.
Here we repeat some points we made in earlier sections of our report. Evolution of America's job markets show that the MS or MA rather than PhD should be the limit for many fields of study. To improve the quality of those students going beyond the masters degree, we recommended that the Comprehensive Examination be the responsibility of, and given by, the field of study rather than by the PhD committee and its mentor-chair.
A review of the doctorate programs in Engineering should be the first use of outside reviews, as the SPVRDGD has indicated would start.
It was obvious to us that many problems we encountered have roots in administrative practices, or in parts of the university whose budget lines are neither 101 or 102. Although we never were given a direct charge to examine them, in response to a question at the Faculty Congress-Faculty Senate of February 18, 1998, Dr. Smith said that the two committees actually were examining all aspects of Manoa, not 101 and 102 alone.
Therefore we have assumed that to be true, and in this chapter we not only place some earlier recommendations in the perspective of the Administration, but also justify and give several new recommendations, including some for cuts. We examine administrative duties and policies, some of which may be affected by our requested autonomy, and also examine some functions outside the academic (101) and research (102) lines of the budget.
The Administration must bear in mind that students, the public, and a majority of the faculty will be more likely to accept changes at UHM if the three principles of "students first", "fairness in commitments", and "restoration of infrastructure" are followed.
Students: Our report is written in terms of six given criteria, and the academic triad of instruction, research or scholarship, and service. We were not asked to write in terms of the triad students, faculty, and administration. Yet students are cardinal to a university; it is our responsibility as a faculty committee to recommend that they remain so; it is the responsibility of the administration to ensure that they remain so.
We quoted Donald Kennedy about putting students and their needs first, and we believe that our advice must be viewed in that context of the student rather than in such contexts as what is easiest for the faculty or most politically expedient for the administration. For example, courses and curricula ought to be designed with one or the other or both of these purposes foremost (a) for the enculturation of the student, and (b) for training for a career for the student. Adding requirements merely to keep faculty occupied is reprehensible.
We reviewed and endorsed the concept that research be included as an integral part of undergraduate education at Manoa, as it already is in graduate education (p. 102; 162).
Immersion in research (or scholarship or creative activity) provides intellectual stimulus in liberal education, and gives practical training for employment in this present era.
The issue of general education and the "core" should be revisited by an appropriate faculty committee with the aim of providing the strongest college experience for the student, not "something for every department" as seems to be the case now.
"Fairness". Students and fairness are tied together, with respect to retrenchment, in at least these two ways. There is the often-stated commitment that if a program is eliminated, students already in the program will be allowed a reasonable time to complete their studies. It has not been stated by Manoa administrators, but it should be equally fair that if a student enrolls at Manoa based on what he or she reads of programs here, that the student (and the parents and taxpayers) deserves the breadth and depth of instruction that was described. Our continuing budgetary problems of recent years means that now we are lying to our students. Fairness for the majority of students will return if some programs are eliminated and their resources used to return other programs to their former condition, at least pre-1992 and preferably pre-1985.
Administrative fairness in retrenchment takes several forms, starting with receiving and considering fair advice. We trust that decisions will be based on programmatic academic criteria, such as those of centrality, etc. that we have been asked to use, and not on personal bias or political pressures. We believe we have been objective in the materials we collected and presented, and trust we have been objective in our recommendations. Nevertheless, the Administration will need to entertain recommendations from several perspectives. We expect that the recommendations will become public, for fair debate by the faculty and commentary from outside the University.
We have heard that a larger proportion of budget cuts will fall on Manoa than on other parts of the System. We trust that is not because Manoa might charge higher tuition or receive returns on research and training overhead. Savings from reorganization and retrenchment at Manoa must stay at Manoa and not be distributed to other parts of the University of Hawaii system. Otherwise, it will be impossible to fulfill the Manoa 2007 vision. Fairness also demands that the income of tuition charged or of extramural-overhead returned, beyond some norm, remain with the unit that generated it. Included, for example, would be special tuition in medical and law schools, evening and summer tuition in Arts and Sciences, Business, and other contributors to non-traditional education, and overhead return in departments and ORUs with successful PIs.
The Administration must adhere to the mission designation of Manoa as the research campus of the System, so that valuable resources not be frittered away to the community colleges and four-year colleges to replicate expensive programs in graduate education and research. Finally, it is unfair to groups both within and outside this university if public commitments of resources are not acted upon in a timely fashion, or if they are reneged altogether.
Infrastructure: Administrative policy in recent years has been to defer library and equipment acquisitions, and repairs and maintenance. The duration and depth of budget cuts suggests that the policy may have been short sighted, because it not only had produced an immense backlog but also has allowed the university to evade the initiation of vertical cuts. If the economy had recovered or if vertical cuts had been made after one or two years, the situation might not have been so difficult to rectify.
Now, however, restoration of the level of support and the great expense of removing the 6-year accumulation of neglect are both required, if Manoa is again to be useful (and fair) to so many of her students.
Morale of students and faculty alike sags when forced to work with obsolete AV, computer, and laboratory gear, to study without new journals, and in shabby buildings. Faculty members travel, and Manoa is reminding them of Third World universities with their initially splendid buildings now crumbling under neglect.
Personnel matters: In personnel issues, the aim to improve the quality of the university should be the prime motivation on the side of UH during bargaining. Legal council independent of the Attorney General's office may be required in some instances [May 1998 note: perhaps we will have that]. Personnel issues and proposed solutions we have presented in earlier sections include ways to reward achievement in instruction, research and research administration, and public service, preferably by a bonus system, but by merit raises in exceptional cases (recommendation 32). Also, a change in work load and duty time, apportioned over a full year rather than in two conventional semester periods, would provide faculty members, chairs, and deans with flexibility.
The nine months of duty (in a combination of instruction, service, and research) would be scheduled by the Chair as best to fit the needs of the faculty member and the department's total needs, without pay of overload in summers and evenings, or for such assignments as student advising if the Student Services offices are closed. Chair assignments of workload would be expected to cover service aspects as well as new duties in TV and other means of distance learning, evening and summer courses, and other instruction as required by the department for traditional and non-traditional students (recommendations 34 and 35).
Among changes strengthening the probationary process, we suggest emphasis in the dossier be shifted from self-generated descriptions of activities to a more intensive peer review of them. The central issue must be, will the quality of the university be improved by awarding tenure? Similarly, we suggested changes strengthening the post-tenure review of faculty (and also, we now suggest the review of other university employees). Fairness asks for change in the 10-year vestment time and for portability of retirement contributions, so that dismissal of a faculty member or dean who is performing poorly will not be so traumatic for the individual.
Green-eyeshade budgeting and detailed worker-classifications are mechanisms of central control obsolete in the electronic workplace. Flexibility in workload and budgeting will be aided immensely by removing specific budget identification (101, 102, 103...), specific faculty classification (I, IR, R, S...), and specific work-time and work-load regulations. Set goals with deans, directors, and chairs, allow them flexibility in meeting those goals within their resources, and replace these leaders if they fail. Deans and directors are so important to UHM that we feature them in the next paragraphs.
Leadership at intermediate levels of management: Deans and Directors: Autonomy and flexibility, including delegation of both responsibility and authority, will allow deans and directors to use their resources of vacant positions as well as tuition income and returned overhead to reduce the impacts of cuts, maintain quality, and plan for future changes. The President retains control over their appointment, and now that there is a D&D review committee the faculty also has a voice in reviewing performance. Central vision and direction is essential, but central micro-management is fatal.
Improving quality at UHM will depend in major part on improving the resourcefulness, candor, and overall quality of deans and directors. A way to accomplish that is to institute a five-year, biennial review, faculty-fall-back, vested-retirement, rolling-contract method of appointment. That would start with an initial appointment for five years, based on a written agreement of duty, authority, and compensation. Performance would be reviewed after two years, with one of three outcomes: (a) Successful performance would be rewarded with a new (rolled over) five-year contract with any new or continued duties, authority, and compensation. (b) Moderate performance would result in a continuation of the first contract, with the next biennial review at four years total term. (c) Poor performance would mean transfer out of the managerial position into a faculty one for the remaining three years (or one year), but retaining the original salary. Immediate and portable vesting, such as in TIAA-CREF, would replace the State Retirement System, which is a poor vehicle for managerial development.
Business activities: Fiscal administration and policies were addressed on p. 131. UHM fiscal practice must follow good business practice, which includes timeliness and courtesy with respect to paying invoices, moving ahead on bidding on equipment contracts, arranging a travel policy shaped to the needs of the traveler rather than to an accounting office or a favored travel agency, and carrying over funds from one fiscal year to another for flexibility.
We repeat the need to change fiscal policy to allow existing PIs more time to work on existing research and to encourage PIs and Directors to propose additional research (recommendations 80, 81, and 83: reward faculty who secure extramural funding, choose UH administrators more carefully, reorganize fiscal and personnel administration, adopt principles of productivity that are in concert with the most productive methods of other Research I Universities, etc.).
Reorganizations and policy changes can be immediate and provide modest savings. Of greater importance is that they set the stage for a more vigorous future. Cuts in the administration, academic support, and facilities support can give immediate additional savings. The majority of the changes would benefit the university in the long run rather than harm it.
Redundant campuses: Only autonomy, in the face of political opposition, would allow the Regents to consider closing one of the four Oahu community colleges or West Oahu. Now that "Something for all" is being replaced by "Poor quality for all", the Regents should nevertheless ask themselves the basic question of, Why, in a rational world, does this small island require five campuses to ease the transition from high school to college (as the University catalog terms it)?
Retrenchment: Announcement of retrenchments can be immediate, but immediate savings are unlikely, owing to students in the pipeline and the 13 1/2-month UHPA delay. Nevertheless the decisions must be made and the clock started as soon as possible.
Reorganization and focusing resources: Elsewhere we have proposed reorganizations within a single College of Arts and Sciences, to improve quality in the most central disciplines of the university. Improvement of quality in areas of natural advantage will follow upon UHM's abilities to reorganize and establish of two special schools, one in which instruction and research in the biological sciences can be integrated, and the other in which instruction and scholarship in our Asian, Pacific, and Hawaiian interests can be consolidated. Overall, these proposals will save funds.
Administration: In the years when Albert Simone was President, enrollment at Manoa decreased while the number of faculty and number of courses offered increased significantly. Fat. Administration increased most of all, at 44%. Fat City. Moreover, we have shown in Table 5 that Manoa has more organizational units than nearly all of its peer institutions. Super fat. In the past few years, however, Administration has been cut about 19%. Start of a diet.
Common sense in management indicates that considerably more of the University administrative structure must be pruned severely; our present fiscal situation demands it; faculty in units to be cut would also demand it. Fortunately, many of the consolidations we recommend will not adversely affect the progress of enrolled students. Pruning and consolidation is required at all levels, and our Recommendation 95 for that is set at arbitrary percentages. We have opinions, but realize that other advisors have opinions, and so do Administrators and Regents.
One proposal that seems counter to consolidation may, however, be more effective and cost-effective than Manoa's present situation. The issue of a separate Manoa chancellorship or provost should be revisited by a joint faculty-administration committee to evaluate the pros and cons.
Would costs be increased or decreased, relative to the better results, if the speed and flexibility at and below the level of the chancellor is compared against having Manoa's issues decided at the highest level of the UHM administration?
Manoa has accrued considerable adverse publicity from what casual observers, and newspapers, consider examples of gross mismanagement. Appropriate faculty members might be placed on committees dealing with many of the issues that hitherto fore have been handled within Bachman, but that seem to end up costing UH more than anticipated in dollars and notoriety, or even raise cries of impropriety.
The Faculty is a great source of knowledge in many technical fields, including engineering, information handling, architecture, and finance. A change in what is workload and public service, as we recommend, would facilitate faculty inclusion.
Ill-conceived memos emanate from Bachman Hall at a rate that is disturbing. Apparently, a staff member prepares something he or she does not understand fully, it is signed before having been read carefully, and the uproar that ensues is followed by explanations, partial denials, retractions, bad feelings, and distrust. Again, faculty members and deans are good sources for advice on matters where they have knowledge, and can be asked to review drafts.
Academic support: Manoa can no longer afford every one of its myriad programs for the development and support of its faculty and students. The Administration should decide which few are the most important to keep, and chuck the rest. We must keep Admissions and Records, for example. For many others, however, goals can be met in alternative ways. As a different example, savings would be large, with no adverse effect on the student, if academic advising is changed. The A&S Student Academic Services Office, and smaller equivalents in the other colleges, can be eliminated, and advising be required as a normal service duty of regular faculty either in a pool or Board for Freshmen and Sophomores or in the department for declared majors. That arrangement is common at universities. We could, for instance, return to the 1960s model for UH when all junior faculty were required to spend the full 2 or 3 days advising at registration time (unfortunately, now we are in the speedy computer age, and registration takes longer), or if our recommendation for year-around rather than two-semester duty period is accepted, advising can be assigned by a chair as part of workload.
Manoa's principal facilities: Capital improvement projects, repairs and maintenance, facilities, and auxiliary operations all have great potential for savings, if changes are made in policy and in hiring and retaining personnel.
Potential users of a planned building or other structure at Manoa must be put in direct communication with the architect. The filtering process that causes delays and breeds the transfer of misinformation by Facilities Management and by Department of Accounting and General Services has been utterly disastrous. Because of the State ethos, those people are never reprimanded, much less fired for malfeasance, so they must be circumvented. Direct contact would ensure that the architect's design accommodates the most important purposes of a building (or of a softball stadium). If there are delays, a chronic problem with public construction in Hawaii, the users will be able to decide the priority according to their requirements and the available funds. Direct contact of a project's architect with persons sensitive to the concept of the university as a harmonious place to enhance learning, would also ensure that planned buildings fit with the campus master plan, e.g., walkways for the new structure aligned with existing walkways and placed to facilitate campus flow patterns, harmony of plantings, opening and preservation of vistas, and so on. Autonomy should be used to restrict the roles of DAGS and Facilities Management to the bidding and oversight phases of actual construction, and not include the planning.
With respect to repairs and renovations, when granting agencies require their own approval of plans, the university must be able to overrule incorrect architectural design in order to save the time and eventual expense of re-negotiations.
Alternate methods of providing services and savings on utilities should be explored along with many other matters involving the management of facilities and auxiliary service units. Examples are privatization of transportation and security, and incentive contracts to private firms to retrofit air conditioning. Allegations of "sweet-heart contracts" for telephone services, fiscal management, and food services, mean that any future reopening must involve carefully scrutinized bidding and acceptance procedures.
Duty of the Administration: Major savings can come only through retrenchment. Modest savings can come from consolidation beyond what we proposed for immediate action, and from further horizontal cuts, for example, of poor doctoral programs.
After the Administration selects among the recommendations of its advisors including this committee, it should commence its program of deep cuts as soon as it can. We emphasize that there are really only two opportunities when a university -- or a family, a business, or a state - can change direction quickly and radically. One is when resources are exceptionally abundant, the other is when they are exceptionally scarce.
We had several years in which to plan for all that seemed desirable; now we must plan for what little we can afford.
As the specific decisions about cuts are announced, Graduate Admissions, Library Acquisitions, and other involved units can act appropriately.
Undergraduate quality. There is no easy fix for improving the quality-ranking of UHM at the undergraduate level, but these actions should help:
The symbiosis of grade inflation and pandering to students' short attention spans spurted during the Vietnam war, when university instructors acted to keep their students enrolled in colleges rather than allowing them to be drafted like the class of young men that was less fortunate in getting to college.
The grading system here for courses should include pluses and minuses (e.g., A-; C+). It is absurd when grade-point averages are calculated to three significant figures that the instructor is restricted to using only one. Allowing the instructor to mark at or close to the actual grade earned should reduce grade inflation, as would restricting the students' ease of withdrawing or requesting an Incomplete.
Three or four decades have seen changes at Manoa in teaching evaluations. Instructors then asked students -- usually the better ones but sometimes all -- how the organization and presentation of a course could be improved. Meanwhile, the Chair and occasionally tenured faculty of the DPC would "sit in" on lectures and examine the syllabus to ensure that the content of the course was of high caliber. Today, student evaluations are formalized and given great importance in promotion and tenure decisions. The worth of requiring such evaluations is now being questioned in newspaper critiques of the effectiveness of the university classroom -- is it a place to guide students or to entertain them?
Improving graduate quality: A number of earlier recommendations, especially numbers 30 - 32, are aimed at improving the quality of education at all levels. See recommendations 25 - 27 for improving doctoral programs.
These actions will commit a modest level of resources, but they are required for long-term cost-effectiveness, instructional effectiveness, and quality.
Reallocated resources: As precious reallocated funds become available, they must be directed towards immediate highest priority use for the long-term well-being of the State of Hawaii and its University. Any realistic appraisal of the present situation of Manoa and the State would conclude that between now and the benchmark date of The Vision: Manoa in the Year 2007, amounts of reallocated funds will depend on the fortitude of Administration and Regents, restored funds to the early 1990s level will depend on major improvement in the State in the next several years, and truly new funds will depend on a decade of improvements.
Some problems can't wait years for a perfect resolution. Funds reallocated to repairs and maintenance and to library and equipment acquisitions should be restored to a level that will allow the back-log of neglect to be remedied within the next 6-year period.
Solutions for the most important academic problems must also start at once, which means they will require reallocated resources. Of special importance is that increased support be given to proposals offered by departments that ranked high in centrality. Proposals for improving 1) general education courses, 2) undergraduate curricula that include better integration of research, creative activity, or scholarship by students, and 3) tracks for future employment in schools and in high-tech private enterprise, would receive highest priority.
A third area requiring the immediacy of reallocated resources is to increase support for proposals by colleges and schools that can contribute to the economic base of Hawaii, in particular towards 1) biotechnology, 2) environmental technology, 3) medical care -health care, 4) extramural research, and 5) software (recommendations 60 and 61).
Restored and new resources: This report has many recommendations of how to attain the aspirations in Manoa 2007, other issues of the Mission, and State needs. Rather than to repeat all of them here, we discuss CIP because that kind of new resource travels an avenue different from the main stream of university budgeting.
According to a study a few years ago, the effective life of a modern laboratory building is perhaps 15 to 20 years after conception. Then, complete renovation can add another 15 to 20 useful years. Beyond that time, new construction becomes more cost-effective. UHM has about a dozen important laboratory buildings. Many of them need replacement or major overhaul. No matter whatever the state of the economy is, or what classrooms and athletic facilities are also being proposed, Manoa must plan on building one new laboratory and renovating one existing laboratory every 5 to 6 years. To make specific what is in recommendation 3, the next laboratory should be built to support an integrated school of life sciences, in replacement of the obsolete Edmondson and Snyder Halls. The following laboratory building should be designed for applied science and engineering, especially as it might support new industry in Hawaii.
We examined a number of problems besetting the University of Hawaii or the State of Hawaii, and proposed solutions that involved the restructuring of UHM. In this section we assemble recommendations with respect to individual units of the University rather than to individual problems. Numbers in brackets, e.g., , refer to the earlier recommendations.
These parts of Manoa are not in the academic (101) and research (102) lines of the budget.
We have a basic belief that the University should plan and act towards "fewer but stronger" personnel and programs. Their numbers should be reduced to the point that the available funds can attract excellent persons and sustain the highest-priority programs.
It appears that some elements of the University cannot accept the inevitability and consequences of reorganization and retrenchment, or that cuts must be sufficiently extensive not only to cover reduced G funds but also to provide reallocations for activities of highest priority.
Raising quality in times of budget restrictions is a tough assignment.
For greater facilitation of research,
Our recommendations are, by college:
Response to the arts and sciences committee's draft about the College Education is on p. 149.
Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources
Our recommendations are, by school:
5. Public Health
6. Social Work
7. Travel Industry Management
Our recommendations are:
1. School of Integrated Life Sciences
2. Asian-Pacific-Hawaiian School (or SHAPS successor)
3. School of Ocean and Earth Sciences and Technology
On January 29, 1998, the Vertical Cuts Committee was asked by Interim Senior Vice President Dean Smith to expand its scope of inquiry and recommendations to include the Organized Research Units (ORU) of the University, and, in fact, all units under the administration of the Senior Vice President for Research and Graduate Education. An initial evaluation of those units had been submitted October 17, 1997, by a committee whose faculty members are from the arts and sciences.
Each committee was to hold confidential the reports, read the other's report, and reconsider applicable parts of its own report in light of the other one. The two committees were to be combined as one Manoa Prioritization Committee, with the hope they would be able to reconcile any differences.
At the request of Edward Laws, chair of that Manoa Prioritization Committee, and in light of a rapidly deteriorating budget situation, we of the VC committee were also to summarize our opinion of essential programs and priorities to preserve, and attempt to identify where cuts of more than $16 million could be realized on short notice. Much of the ensuing discussions centered on JABSOM.
Since our January report we have seen new information, which we have placed in Appendix 12. Included are:
1. Enrollment data from the Graduate Division's report for the Graduate Council, November 20, 1997. From it, relative health of admissions to graduate fields can be inferred (Table 58). About one-half of UHM's graduate programs appear to be in serious trouble.
2. New rankings of 13 graduate and professional programs by US News, (Table 59). The great improvement of the Law School and, on the other hand, the fact that very few other Manoa programs are listed (13 total out of dozens of categories) are the important pieces of new information.
3. Continued broadsides against the state of public education; in particular, about the failure of "teachers of teachers. "
4. A report of a congressional hearing on graduate programs in science and technology. The need is recognized by the public, Congress, and some in academe to prepare more for industry and fewer for professorships.
5. Two brief comments on state universities as engines for economic recovery.
No Reconciliation: Attempts to reconcile the two reports were futile.
Criticism of methods and results According to the other committee, and to what we have heard on campus and in Bachman Hall, alleged faults with our January report include: 1) the proposed reorganizations are unnecessary, 2) too much of the university is identified for possible cutting, 3) we shouldn't have used the opinion of newspaper columnists, 4) we did not use self-evaluations by units for the criterion of quality, 5) we did not distinguish clearly between missing information about quality and quality so poor that a unit's rank was not published, and 6) better or more recent information was available.
We revised the earlier calculations for quality (p. 72-72), as well as for cost and demand. Changes between the January matrix and ranking and this one are, however, very minor. In Appendix 11 we comment on the other five objections.
The two committees
This may be a premature comment, as we have yet to see any recommendations for actual cuts beyond one for the clinical part of the medical school. Nor, except for JABSOM, have we seen any reflection of the committee's name, as we have seen no prioritization by that committee of any units at Manoa, whether in Arts and Sciences, the professional schools, or others.
Nevertheless, on the basis of their draft about the four units listed below, it appears to us that the committee with faculty from Arts and Sciences recommends reorganization that enlarge Arts and Sciences, while our committee of faculty from 102 units recommends reorganization to preserve various missions of the university.
JABSOM: We recommended that CRCH and PBRC not be placed in JABSOM in some futile attempt to have their leveraging offset the JABSOM hemorrhage. We don't know the other committee's opinion on this issue.
Both committees agree that the clinical and basic-sciences parts of JABSOM must be split and basic sciences placed under some other unit.
In a sense, both committees also recommend the retrenchment of the clinical part of the medical school. On page 111 we note several ramifications if and when that proposal would take effect. Our recommendation was that if it became self-sufficient through tuition, endowment, and other funds it should stay. Recognizing that there is no shortage of physicians in Hawaii or the United States, and having read the economic analysis by the arts and sciences committee about the staggering rate of its tuition if the medical school is to be self-sustaining*, clearly we recommend cutting the clinical part of the medical school as one of the largest near-term measures for meeting a reduced University budget. [*note the issue of governance of a self-sufficient unit. The dean and other E&M administrators must be paid out of state funds, in order for the university to ensure compliance with UR goals. Note the Athletics Department example].
The committees differ in their proposals for placement of the basic sciences. The arts and sciences committee would add them to arts and sciences. We believe, however, that our solution of placing them in SILS has more foresight with respect to the UHM mission and resources. Our solution would hold whether or not the clinical pert is retrenched. We recognize and regret individual injustices if all basic scientists are retained and all clinicians are dismissed
College of Education: Both committees agree to a reduction in the number of units in the College, with two main departments dividing elementary from secondary education, and with a research component.
Both recognize the importance of Special Education, and that CRDC should return to the college. Both recognize the abysmal state of public education in Hawaii. Beyond this, the differences are profound.
Differences are that apparently the arts and sciences committee hopes for new resources and gradual improvement. It assembles two large teacher-education and educational-administration departments from the existing departments and divides them at the conventional K-6 and 7-12 break; a third large department is Research and Evaluation.
The Vertical Cuts Committee hopes for reform in Public Education while redirecting existing resources to places of greater need on campus. It would retrench all Education departments, which would be one of the larger measures for meeting a reduced University budget in the near term, and start two new ones (estimated budget of about $1M each). One would train higher quality elementary teachers (subdivided K-3 and 45), and one would provide teacher-training for Arts and Sciences majors for disciplines in 6-12. Distinct education for the K-12 gifted would be included (as well as "special" education), and CRDC would be the research arm of the smaller college.
Asian-Pacific-Hawaiian: There are no similarities in drafts we have seen. One committee would break up SHAPS, return units to Arts and Sciences, and disperse them there. Our committee would take some stronger units from Arts and Sciences, and, with SHAPS, form a new school tasked to achieve the mission's goal of prominence in scholarship and instruction in an area of comparative advantage.
Arts and Sciences: Again, there are no similarities, except that apparently both believe in the importance of Arts and Sciences to a University. The committee with arts and sciences faculty seem to defend against reuniting the colleges of Arts and Sciences by proposing to gather in yet more units from JABSOM and SHAPS.
The committee from 102 units believes that even though liberal enculturing education is in itself important, so also are provisions for making the best use of comparative advantages and thereby enhancing the reputation of the university and providing for job demand. When SILS and A-P-H focus are started, and if the Administration concludes that Arts and Sciences resources should be concentrated mainly in its most central departments] we believe that a single College of Arts and Sciences is quite appropriate. We urge Manoa to recruit a strong dean for what should be its largest and most fundamental college.
102 Units in the October 17, 1997 Report: Except that we disagree with the placement of basic-science parts of the Medical School into Arts and Sciences, we support the all-too-brief conclusions of the October report, which were about SOEST, CTAHR, CRDG, JABSOM, IRC, SSRI, and the Office of SVPRGE.
As requested, we summarize our opinion about where cuts might and should not be made. We also comment about the extent and mode of planning.
In Spring 1998 the administration, faculty, and students of Manoa are reacting to a potential $16 to $20 million decrease in G funds, Most planning appears to be in the acute-crisis mode. In actuality our problem is chronic and is likely to remain so. Therefore our planning ought to reflect the long-time nature of our problem. Indeed, planning should have started years ago. Until there is a major change in Hawaii's economy, we must recommend as strongly as possible that the University of Hawaii develop four kinds of plans for "cuts" and repairs. All must start and continue at the same time, not sequentially. In fact, it might be thought of as four components in one overall six-year master plan.
1. A plan to catch-up: The University must plan to repair Manoa's most critical damage to salaries, positions, operating funds for academic activities, equipment, library holdings, and campus repairs and maintenance since FY 1991 - 1992, or preferably, since the slide in quality started a decade earlier.
2. A plan to meet a reduced FY 98 budget: Right now, a plan is required to meet the likely $16 - $20 M decrease for the next FY. It can have no retrenchment of faculty or dismissal of students, and must cause no further damage to programs to be preserved.
3. A plan for future budget cuts: Manoa needs to plan for vertical cuts and retrenchment for the following year, and more following years, until the ratio of economic growth to the cost of government services (including higher education) will again allow Hawaii's taxpayers to consider restoring resources to their university.
4. A plan for Manoa's future: Finally, the University must move to reduce programs beyond the minimum to effect these plans, in order to have the flexibility to meet important future requirements of higher education. Manoa must plan its future, and not just have its future determined by random events.
The impossibility of making large cuts on short notice is well recognized, even if the Governor declares a state of fiscal exigency. But a start is required. Many models are possible. Here is one we can recommend. Action should start at once.
1. Commence reorganizations and empowerment
2. Give notice of impending retrenchment If the Administration's analysis is similar to ours, the Administration should notify these units of impending retrenchment, which would take effect with due consideration of students in the pipeline, and collective bargaining rules. Civil Service employees from these units can be placed where best to assist UHM.
3. Commission reviews of marginal programs Outside reviews of the following should be started at once, for a decision within the year on their continuation or removal, based on demand by students, job-market demand, and quality. Existing evaluations that we report suggest that these programs are marginal, and specific in-depth reviews from outside UHM are necessary for a well-informed decision.
4. Commission reviews of little-known programs Outside reviews of the following should be started at once, for a decision within the year on their level of support, based on demand, quality, and other criteria, and for which we lacked outside evaluations:
Without planning in advance for fiscal emergencies, important programs will suffer, on average, as badly as less vital ones. In fact, random circumstances such as the recent loss of several Chemistry faculty members at one time may hit some programs much harder than others. Such across-the-board reactions as sweeping positions, canceling recruiting, and percentage-cutting of operating and equipment funds may be expedient but they are death to any attempt to build a better university.
Here we place ORUs in the contexts of the planning mode and of our earlier, more complete, recommendations. What we believe should be preserved means not only faculty, but also library holdings and lab facilities, APT and CS staff, TAs and student help, special equipment funds, and G funds of the units.
We recommend that Manoa have plans for the maintenance and improvement of these programs:
1. Undergraduate programs central to the university
[* Preservation of these master's programs is little more costly than preserving the undergraduate ones, and we so recommend.)
2. Doctoral programs of high quality
3. Research programs of high leverage
4. Programs of broadest service to the Community and the University
5. Schools aimed for better use of Hawaii's natural advantages
6. Professional colleges and schools that do or should meet high demand
7. Professional colleges and schools with better reputations
Times are tough. Decisions about where the University will go are tough.
We sincerely hope that the Administration and Regents choose the right road.
We wish them well.
26 June 1998