State of the College 2009
The State of the College of Arts and Sciences 2009
September 11, 2009
J. Blaine Hudson, Dean
Good afternoon and welcome to the 2009-2010 academic year.
Under our By-Laws, the Dean must present an overview of the “State of the College” of Arts and Sciences at a meeting of the A&S Faculty Assembly that inaugurates each new academic year. This is my sixth opportunity to deliver such a message—and, this year, at a time when the College faces both familiar challenges and some unexpected opportunities.
The past two years have been a difficult passage, to say the least. By mid-year in 2007-2008, a seriously unbalanced state budget threatened the short-term future of the University. And, in 2008-2009, this state problem was compounded —and confounded—by a national economic crisis unlike anything witnessed since the Great Depression.
As a consequence, we are beginning this new academic year, as we did the last, with a bit less of everything—but with our core programs and, our most valuable resource, our faculty and staff, still intact. With your support and input, I believe that we have made prudent decisions at a difficult time. We have done more than just survive; we have moved forward, albeit more slowly, as a large, vital and complex “community of scholars” and staff and students.
I will speak at much greater length about “where we are,” but, first, it is important to describe “who we are” as a College at the beginning of this new academic year.
Any living community has its own distinct life cycle. Ours is no different and, in 2008-2009, these long-time colleagues retired:
- Riffat Hassan, Humanities
- Robert Meyer, Psychological and Brain Sciences
- Karen Mullen, English
- Stanley Murrell, Psychological and Brain Sciences
- Wayne Usui, Sociology
We commend them for their many years of dedicated service and wish them well in the next phase of their lives. They will be missed.
Despite a continuing hiring freeze, we have added six outstanding scholars to our ranks.
New Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty
- Jason Abbott, Political Science (July 2010)
- Melissa Merry, Political Science
- Deborah Potter, Sociology
- David Reed, Biology
- Alicestyne Turley, Pan-African Studies
- Daniel Vivian, History (July 2010)
We welcome these new colleagues—and look forward to working with them for many years to come.
Some in our ranks were promoted to associate professor with tenure, a singular achievement in a profession in which we must serve a very long apprenticeship:
Promotions to Associate Professor with Tenure
- Robert Carini, Sociology
- Ryan Gill, Mathematics
- Brian Leung, English
- Denise Martin, Pan-African Studies
- Gabrielle Mayer, Fine Arts
- David Owen, Philosophy
- Wei Song, Geography and Geosciences
- Clare Sullivan, Classical and Modern Languages
- David Swanson, Mathematics
- Pavel Zahorik, Psychological and Brain Sciences
Congratulations to all of you.
Others were promoted to full professor, in recognition of their outstanding achievements over time and their stature in their respective disciplines:
Promotions to Full Professor
- Julie Bunck, Political Science
- Paul DeMarco, Psychological and Brain Sciences
- Margaret D’Silva, Communication
- Michael Fowler, Political Science
- Paul Griner, English
- Ricky Jones, Pan-African Studies
- Martin Klotz, Biology
- Bingtuan Li, Mathematics
- Bronwyn Williams, English
Congratulations to all of you.
Academic self-governance requires the dedication and informed participation of faculty and staff in the life and leadership of the College. In A&S, we have nearly as many academic departments as can be found in the rest of the entire University—and chairing such a unit is a demanding and critically important role. This year, the following colleagues assumed this responsibility:
- Chakram Jayanthi, Department of Physics and Astronomy (January 1, 2010)
- Tracy K’Meyer, Department of History
- Suzanne Meeks, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences
- David Simpson, Department of Urban and Public Affairs (January 1, 2010)
We commend their willingness to serve the College.
Others have begun this academic year in new capacities.
New Roles for Dean’s Office Staff
- Nefertiti Burton, Associate Dean for International Programs, Diversity and Outreach
- Wendy Pfeffer, Assistant Dean for Graduate Education
As Professor Burton assumes her new responsibilities, I would like to thank Professor David Anderson for his many years of service as Associate Dean for Diversity and Outreach.
And many others have joined our support staff in departments and programs throughout the College.
But, beyond these arrivals and departures and changes in rank or status, where do we stand as a College—with the same mission but no new funds? To answer that question, I would like to present a somewhat more detailed “snapshot” of the “State of the College” in objective terms—and discuss our plans for 2009-2010 and beyond.
Not to belabor the obvious, our College budget is slightly smaller this year than last. Please note that the figures below exclude extramural funds and that the apparent increase between 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 reflects a change in fringe benefit accounting, not an actual increase in our budget.
A&S Budget Comparison
|2005-2006 ||2006-2007 ||2007-2008||2008-2009||2009-2010 |
|$46,393,482||$53,635,059||$58,079,457 ||$60,399,016 ||$60,023,034 |
|+15.6% ||+8.3% ||+4.0% ||-0.6% |
In A&S, we take pride in being the heart of the University—the core and, perhaps, even the foundation of what it means to be an institution of higher learning. And this statement is far more than mere self-serving and reassuring rhetoric at a difficult time.
We can justify our claim to centrality in abstract terms by invoking the value of the liberal arts and sciences—our role in preserving and interpreting the past, and in creating new knowledge for the present and future. For a person to be truly educated, he or she must learn something—ideally, a great deal—of what we study and teach. All of this is true and all of it important.
But we can also justify our claim in eminently practical terms. First, we remain the University’s largest and most diverse academic unit—and, in my view, the unit with the broadest and most complex mission. Enrollment is one measure.
A&S Fall Enrollment Breakdown and Comparison
|2006-07 ||2007-08 ||2008-09 ||2009-10|
|Undergraduate ||7878||7833 ||7795||7843|
|-1.1% ||-0.8% ||+0.9%|
Because we offer nearly all general education courses, A&S serves the entire undergraduate population of the University and our role, unlike that of our sister academic units, extends far beyond the mission of educating our own students.
Consequently, the most accurate measure of our centrality—and our impact—is not enrollment in A&S, but enrollment in A&S courses—which translates into credit hour production. By this measure, we generate more credit hours than ALL other academic units combined—nearly 52 percent of all University credit hours and more than 60 percent of all undergraduate credit hours.
Credit Hour Production by Academic Unit: 2008-2009
Still, accommodating roughly the same number of students and maintaining the quality of their academic experience—with fewer resources in real dollars—is a daunting challenge. As shown in Table 13, no academic unit can lose nearly $1 million dollars and conduct business as usual.
|N of Courses||1141||1115|
|Class Size||31.8 ||32.1|
|% Taught by Full-Time Faculty||81.7%||80.9%|
Put simply, we now offer slightly fewer courses (-2.3%), in slightly larger sections (+1.0%)—fewer (-4.3%) of which are taught by full-time faculty. Student satisfaction levels have not declined. We have minimized the adverse impact, but, needless to add, we cannot shift—or drift—much farther in this direction without degrading our instructional mission.
Not surprisingly, given our budget reduction strategy, our overall operating expenses budget —particularly under A&S administration—has suffered the most significant loss in recent years.
Operating Expenses (General Funds)
|2005-2006||2006-2007 ||2007-2008 ||2008-2009 ||2009-2010|
|+52.3% ||-1.3% ||-27.4% ||-25.3%|
Of course, the impact of reductions in operating expenses has varied from department to department. Still, while the overall loss of funds has been significant, it has been more than offset by new sources of one-time funds—the most important of which has been revenue from distance education.
Distance Education Revenue
|2004-2005||2005-2006 ||2006-2007 ||2007-2008 ||2008-2009|
|+49.4% ||+27.0% ||+35.0% ||+27.7%|
I should note that the amount by which distance education revenue increased from 2007-2008 to 2008-2009 was roughly equal to the amount by which we cut our budget during 2008-2009.
Our summer revenue sharing experiment has also become a permanent, albeit somewhat unpredictable, supplement:
Summer Tuition Revenue Sharing
|2005-2006 ||2006-2007 ||2007-2008||2008-2009 |
|+52.0 % ||-43.7% || -0.9% |
As you know, increasing the number of tenured or tenure-track faculty in A&S is the centerpiece to our Strategic Plan—the goal that, if achieved, will make possible the achievement of most others. Hiring freezes in 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 have certainly slowed our progress:
Number of Faculty Comparison
|2005-2006 ||2006-2007 ||2007-2008 ||2008-2009 ||2009-2010|
|367.6 FTE||380.4 FTE||391.04 FTE ||400.91 FTE||394.06 FTE|
|+3.5% ||+2.8% ||+2.5% ||-1.7% |
I should note that this slight decline does not reflect the loss of tenurable faculty lines—only the loss of lecture lump sum funds to the recent budget reduction(s). Still, roughly thirty tenurable faculty lines are vacant due to the recent hiring freeze(s) and I should also note that, this year, we are moving forward with searches to fill over twenty (20) of those lines.
Along with bearing a heavy responsibility in the domain of teaching, A&S faculty members remain extremely productive in their scholarship. In traditional terms, our faculty average nearly two refereed publications (N = 649) per faculty member per year across the College. And this is a slight increase, even at a time when the demands on faculty are especially heavy.
Faculty Scholarship: 2008
|Refereed Publications: Books ||30|
|Refereed Publications: Book Chapters||92|
|Refereed Publications: Articles||406|
|Other: Exhibits, Performances, et al.||121|
|Refereed Conference Presentations||484|
In addition, our faculty members have been extremely successful in attracting extramural research funding—although funding levels are fluctuating rather dramatically due to the vagaries of federal and other funding sources:
| 2004-2005 ||2005-2006||2006-2007 ||2007-2008||2008-2009 |
|$12,804,485||$10,966,772 ||$13,866,320||$8,472,228 ||$11,009,153|
|-14.4% ||+27.4% ||-38.9% ||+29.0%|
Along with securing extramural funding, A&S faculty members are increasingly productive in another domain—and one related to our massive instructional mission. To elaborate, some would contend that faculty members with external funding are more productive—and, by implication, more valuable—than those who only teach and publish, exhibit or perform. However, if that was ever true, it is certainly not true now.
Because tuition has increased so steeply in recent years, faculty in the Humanities and many of the Social Sciences can no longer be mischaracterized as “consumers” of University resources. Rather, today, they are the primary “producers” of the tuition revenue on which the University has become increasingly dependent.
|2009-2010 Tuition (undergraduate, Kentucky)||$ 430.30 credit hour |
| Tuition produced by a 3 hour course ||$ 1,290.90 per student|
|Tuition revenue from a 3 hour course, 25 students enrolled||$ 32,272.50|
|Revenue produced by a faculty member teaching a 2-2 load||$ 129,090.00|
| Minus 20% for fees and 28% for fringe benefits||$ 80,680.00 net|
As this Table suggests, a typical faculty member teaching four courses per year—and, incidentally, courses smaller than our average class size—will generate sufficient net revenue, even at the in-state tuition rate for undergraduates and after University fees and fringe benefits are factored in, to pay for him or herself. As they say, “just do the math.”
Further, along with generating tuition revenue, A&S plays a central role in retaining and graduating undergraduate students. Put simply yet again, if we serve our large student population effectively, institutional retention and graduation rates rise and the national stature of the University is enhanced. Also, it has been estimated that every percentage point increase in graduation rate is worth between $300,000 and $500,000 to the University—in savings resulting from a more efficient educational pipeline, on one hand, and increased giving from satisfied and successful alumni, on the other.
Retention and Graduation: Students Remaining in A&S
Matriculated Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
2002 (N = 1233) 69% 52% 44% 29% 33%
2003 (N = 1171) 70% 52% 45% 32%
2004 (N = 1288) 69% 52% 45%
2005 (N = 1119) 71% 50% 45%
2006 (N = 1160) 71% 53%
2007 (N = 12740 68%
Retention and Graduation: A&S Who Transfer to Any School at U of L
Matriculated Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
2002 77% 63% 57% 38% 44%
2003 78% 66% 61% 43%
2004 77% 65% 60%
2005 79% 64% 60%
2006 78% 66%
We have reduced our advisor-to-student ratio from roughly 1-to-900 in 2003-2004 to roughly 1-to-300 in 2006-2007—with further reductions being planned.
We have also made significant progress in the international arena. Increasing numbers of A&S students are visiting other countries and our Office of International Programs is exploring even more opportunities for exchange and study abroad.
In 2008-2009, we continued to lead University diversity and outreach efforts. Programs such as the Saturday Academy, NETWORK and U of L at the Yearlings Club have established themselves over the past several years. Furthermore, at the request of the President and Provost in 2007, we have led University efforts to forge partnerships with most local museums, historic homes and cultural institutions. The resulting “Arts and Culture Partnerships Initiative” network is growing in numbers and impact—and has the potential to become a regional model.
We remain effective in our fundraising efforts—which, frankly, are another key to our future growth. In 2008-2009, while we had fewer major gifts, our Annual Fund and other giving campaigns garnered nearly $3.5 million—roughly a 40 percent increase over 2007-2008. Thus, our initial efforts to broaden the base of alumni involvement and giving have proven very successful—and will continue in the coming years. While A&S is an academic unit, we depend on the skills and dedication of a large contingent of support and administrative staff members:
| 2005-2006 || 2006-2007 ||2007-2008||2008-2009 ||2009-10|
|147.55 FTE|| 164.50 FTE ||170.80 FTE|| 184.80 FTE ||185.32 FTE|
One of our colleagues, Jessica Kidd, Program Assistant Senior in the Department of Political Science, is a recipient of the University’s 2009 Outstanding Performance Award for Staff. We commend her on her stellar performance.
These data confirm—once again—that, by any reasonable national or international standard, we remain a “very good” college of the liberal arts and sciences. But, to what ultimate purpose? For the past few years, much of our attention has been focused on weathering a financial crisis unlike anything our nation and world have experienced in three generations. Funding from the state has, first, flattened and, then, decreased in constant dollars. The national economy has faltered dramatically and, although we may have “hit bottom,” no one can predict when full recovery will occur or even what full recovery will mean. Our budget for 2009-2010 is almost exactly the same as our budget for 2008-2009. Your salaries and mine are only $700.00 greater than three years ago. Our retirement accounts have lost 30, 40 or 50 percent of their value—as have the University’s endowments and the personal fortunes of our wealthiest benefactors.
This crisis may be more than a proverbial “bad patch.” It may be a fundamental transformation that reshapes the national and global political economy for decades to come. And, if so, the implications for higher education are far-reaching. How did we reach this point? What are those implications? And, why is there “no way back” to where we were only a few years ago—or, at least, to where we thought we were? In other words, why must we prepare for a future that may be fundamentally different from the past?
After World War II, American unskilled and semi-skilled workers became progressively less competitive with their counterparts in other parts of the world— a world then entering the post-industrial and post-colonial eras. At the time, this loss was not considered cause for serious concern since, on one hand, generously paid unionized workers were also consumers whose spending fed the national economy and, more importantly, the United States enjoyed a tremendous advantage in occupations dominated by skilled and educated workers.
In my lifetime, if any nation led the technological revolution, the United States was that nation. But, while the economy “boomed,” even during the Cold War, other nations were catching-up and learning to play in the global economic “sand-box” that the U. S. and its “friends” created. In some cases, they did so by changing the terms of trade for energy—which the U. S. and Europe consumed in vast amounts—remember the Arab Oil Crisis of the early 1970s. In others, those nations with the vision, resources and freedom of action began working to acquire the resources that made U. S. economic supremacy possible—not the material resources, but the human resources, i.e., in other words, “educated people.” Some of you may remember when, in the 1950s and 1960s, “made in Japan” meant cheap transistor radios, and tacky Godzilla and science fiction movies. Yet, by the mid-1980s, “made in Japan” meant Toyota, Sony and business strategies derived from Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. How did that happen?
They sent their children to school in ever-greater numbers. They sent them to college in ever-greater numbers both in their countries and abroad, often in ours—and, as they grew more prosperous, they invested in expanding and upgrading their educational systems. Despite the devastation of World War II, Japan still had a rather long head-start—dating to the latter third of the 19th Century. But, by 2000 or so, even though the college educated segments of nations such as China, India and South Korea were still comparatively small, they could boast a remarkable surge in the sheer number of college educated people, particularly in the STEM disciplines, because their national populations were so large.
And, this is where matters become far more interesting—their educated workers would work for much lower salaries than ours.
Although the world has not become as “flat” as some have declared—given the massive inequalities within and between nations—the U. S. is losing, if it has not already lost, its competitive advantage in this key sector as well. Since the Reagan era, this more fundamental problem has been masked by financial manipulations (e.g., junk bonds, predatory lending, globalizing the American economy to tap cheap labor and new markets), technological innovations such as Microsoft and the Internet (e.g., the “dot.com” revolution) and the concentration of more and more wealth in fewer and fewer hands. However, after 9-11, these forces and their effects became far more visible and the business strategies of the 1980s and 1990s became less and less effective—until the perfect storm that brought near economic collapse last year.
Thus, we have two seeming paradoxes: first, in the foreseeable future, more people in more places will need more education more often in the course of their lifetimes; and second, although higher education will become more necessary, the rewards may not be as great.
There is persuasive evidence that the American educational system is singularly ill-equipped for this task.
First, we do not fund it adequately, at any level—which makes a good education, in practical terms, something that money can indeed buy, e.g., students from affluent families, but with average ability, are up to four times more likely to graduate from college than students with high ability from poor families. This “status quo” is anything but a meritocracy, but it works quite well for folks like us—who have the financial resources and knowledge of the inner-workings of schools needed to maximize the opportunities available to our children.
But, second, if we need to double the number of college graduates in Kentucky and expand the base of educated people in our nation, from what source do we expect these new graduates to come? Once again, it is a simple matter of arithmetic. They can only come from what will soon be the new American majority, i.e., students who are more diverse by race, ethnicity and class than are college students today—the same students who are least successful in American colleges and universities today. This is why our commitment to diversity and equality must be far more than the stuff of platitudes and public relations. This is why our first instinct—to protect our selfish, personal interests—is so dangerous and misguided, why preserving the “status quo” not only works against the long-term interests of our community and nation—but, ultimately, against our individual interests as well. This is why we must invest in opportunity.
Third, for this investment to pay dividends, we must revisit our understanding of the relation between academic ability and academic achievement, not based on political theory or ideology, but based on empirical research findings regarding how children and adults learn. We are members of a community of scholars, after all. We admit and serve students based on the assumption that academic ability is something innate, that it can be measured by tests and reduced to a magic number—above which students are worthy of the privilege of higher education and below which they are not. In the same vein, we assume that a relationship exists—the higher the average SAT or ACT scores, the worthier the students and, by extension, the “better” the institution.
Decades of educational research yield a somewhat different perspective. Specifically, tests that purport to measure ability or intelligence are, in effect, achievement tests that take a “snapshot” of what students have learned and can demonstrate at one particular point in time. Not surprisingly, students who have the best opportunities to learn will usually outperform students who lack those opportunities. Families with at least moderate financial means and, even better, one or two college-educated parents, are best equipped to provide such opportunities for their children—at home, but, more importantly, in public or private schools that are better funded and staffed with more qualified teachers than those attended by most students from poor families and most children of color. In other words, academic talent is not a fixed quantity of some mysterious g-factor with which one is born, but is, instead, the ability to perform certain intellectual tasks and navigate school culture.
This ability can be developed and cultivated. The end result is not that every student will be the same. Individuals are individuals, after all. Rather, the end result is that every student will have a true opportunity—not just the opportunity to try and fail to succeed at impossible odds, but to develop to his or her fullest potential.
If you will indulge me, I would like to share one simple example of how this perspective works. Nearly four years ago, I visited China to renegotiate a few of our relationships there. At the end of my trip, I was joined in Beijing by the Deans of the Graduate School and the School of Engineering, and representatives of roughly thirty other American universities at a “Graduate School Fair” for Chinese students wishing to pursue doctoral studies in the United States. This was a very important occasion and students had traveled hundreds of miles just to stand in endless lines before our tables.
At one point, there were seven or eight students standing in front of me—each with a perfect score on the GRE. I was fascinated and nudged Dean Wilhelm who was similarly impressed. I complimented the students and asked them to what did they attribute their stellar records. They certainly had the “magic numbers” and, in our society, we would assume that these numbers had a great deal to do with their genes. But, do you know what those students said? They said: “I had good teachers and I worked hard.”
And that, my colleagues, is precisely the relationship between academic ability, that is developed, and achievement. That is why nations that organize their educational systems along those lines do not limit the human potential of so many of their people. That is why we should take China very seriously.
Incidentally, Alfred Binet, who invented the intelligence test over a century ago, understood that it could only be used as a very blunt instrument—useful only in making distinctions between children who were educable and those who were not. It was only in the hands of American psychologists that IQ tests and others in that same family were used to make fine distinctions that could change lives based on a point or two, in one direction or the other. So, obviously, the numbers mean something. But, if we confuse measures of achievement with measures of ability, we deny opportunity to millions of students AND reinforce centuries-old racial, gender and class stereotypes that persist in the murky depths of our culture—despite having been proven wrong countless times. And, ironically, we are left with numbers that do not predict future academic performance particularly well and have no power to predict long-term success in life at all.
In my view, if our nation is to survive and prosper, the university of the future must remain a citadel of knowledge, but, beyond surface similarities to the university of today, it must be different in at least three other ways:
- Our students must reflect the diversity of their community and state of origin.
- We and our successors as knowledge workers must reflect the diversity of the nation itself.
- There must be no differences in student achievement—i.e., grade patterns, retention, satisfaction, graduation—based on race, ethnicity gender or class.
I might add that the university of the future will differ in three other dimensions as well.
- How we work with information will change as technology continues to evolve.
- The physical relation between campus and faculty and students will become highly variable, e.g., folks will not need to be “present” to teach or learn or collaborate.
- The financial relationship between universities, government (state and federal) and the corporate world will become highly variable—as will the meaning of institutional autonomy and academic freedom.
As a College of Arts and Sciences, located in a state near the bottom of nearly every conceivable ranking of economic health and educational attainment, we can and must play a major role in making this investment in opportunity—to ensure, insofar as we can, that all of our students can state proudly that “they had good teachers” and, if they “worked hard,” they met high standards and were successful. In my view, this is not only the “smart thing to do”—it is the “right thing to do.”
A commitment to this principle is stated clearly as the second overarching priority in the A&S Strategic Plan (November 2007: 5-6).
A&S Strategic Plan (Nov. 2007: 5-6)
- Priority 1: Improving the quality, diversity, depth and breadth of A&S academic programs . . .
- Priority 2: Improving the quality of the academic experiences of and the outcomes achieved by students enrolled in and served by the College.
- Priority 3: Continuing to build the A&S research mission and increase extramural funding . . .
We have been guided by this and the other priorities for the past several years—and, despite our budget problems, have made significant progress. As we prepare to update our Strategic Plan in Fall 2009, we will build on this foundation.
For example, our curriculum now resembles much more closely that of our benchmarks and we no longer have any departments that do not offer at least a master’s degree.
New Graduate Programs: 2005-2009
- Ph.D. in Physics and Astronomy (Fall 2008)
- Ph.D. in Applied Sociology (Fall 2009)
- M. A. in Bioethics (interdisciplinary with School of Medicine, Fall 2007)
- M.A. in Communication (Fall 2007)
- M.S. in Applied Geography (Fall 2009)
- M.A. in Anthropology (Fall 2009)
- Southern Police Institute Graduate Certificate (Spring 2006)
- Medieval and Renaissance Studies Graduate Certificate (Fall 2008)
- Asian Studies Graduate Certificate (Fall 2009)
- Public History Graduate Certificate (Fall 2009)
- Real Estate Development Graduate Certificate (approved by A&S Spring 2009; implementation deferred)
New Undergraduate Programs: 2005-2009
- B.S. in Atmospheric Science (Fall 2008)
- Post-Baccalaureate Pre-Medical Certificate (interdisciplinary with School of Medicine, Fall 2008)
- Minor in Greek (Fall 2006)
- Minor in Jewish Studies (Fall 2006)
- Minor in Russian Studies (reactivated Fall 2006)
- Minor in Latino Studies (Fall 2007)
- Minor in Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies (effective Fall 2007)
- Minor in Asian Studies (Fall 2008)
- Minor in African Studies (effective Fall 2009)
- Minor in Caribbean Studies (effective Fall 2009)
Our agenda for 2009-2010 reflects our guarded optimism. We have several key priorities:
A&S Priorities: 2009-2010
- Phi Beta Kappa (application due November 2009)
- Revise and Update Departmental Diversity Plans
- Revise and Update A&S Strategic Plan
We will continue to implement the existing Strategic Plan, even as we revise it. Consider the new programs that we hope to move forward this year:
A&S Strategic Plan Implementation: 2009-2011
- Minor in Legal Studies
- B.A. in American Sign Language Interpreting Studies
- B.S. in Digital Forensics
- Graduate Certificate in Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies
- Graduate Certificate in Translation
- M.F.A. in Fine Arts
- Ph.D. in Justice Administration
- Ph.D. in Pan-African Studies
The challenges before us remain daunting. But, to be the “next great college of the arts and sciences in the United States,” we must be an A&S of the future, not an A&S of the past. As I stated last year: We have not resorted to gimmicks or promoted “quick fixes,” but have worked to build a stronger and better College by concentrating on first principles and fundamentals. And the seeds planted in recent years are beginning to sprout—some, impressively so.
None of this would have been remotely possible without your efforts. So, let me conclude by thanking all of you for your outstanding work in moving the College forward—and for the support on which I have depended for the past five and a half years. All of you—and our thousands of students, alumni and other supporters—are the College of Arts and Sciences, a living and ever-changing community of scholars in the finest sense. Working with you has been a privilege and an honor. Once again, I thank all of you.
Please join us for a reception in the Hite Art Galleries in Schneider Hall. Thank you and good afternoon.