We understand that transformations are necessary but often uncomfortable in any context. We understand WVU has no choice but to reevaluate and make changes based on current circumstances, and with that comes sacrifice and discomfort. But it seems like there are some things WVU could have done differently to make its “academic transformation” less painful.
WVU hosted a Campus Conversation July 10 to explain some of the data and reasoning behind the decisions of the provost’s office. It also publicly unveiled the programs and units under formal review. Deans and chairs from each affected school then have from July 11-31 — a grand total of 20 days — to complete the Self-Study Form that will essentially lay out the case for why a flagged program should not be reduced or cut.
Each “unit” (e.g., Eberly School of Arts and Sciences, Statler College of Engineering, College of Applied Human Sciences) gets one Self-Study Form, which must cover all the programs that have been flagged (e.g., English, chemistry, communication studies, civil engineering, school of education, computer science) or, if the entire unit was flagged (e.g., College of Law, HSC School of Public Health), the self-study must address all the unit’s programs.
The self-study is 14 pages of questions with some space for answers. Short-answer questions are limited to 5,000 characters (not words) or “1.5 pages.” (Though there is some additional space provided at the very end of the form.)
This seems like very little time and space to provide evidence of a program’s success (or to explain any failures), especially when the self-study asks for deans to present information the Provost’s Office already knows but chose not to include when analyzing metrics for which units and programs should be put under review.
For example, it was addressed in the July 10 Q&A that the provost’s office did not consider master’s programs that bring in outside funding, though it automatically exempted doctoral programs with over $1 million in outside revenue. The review process also did not include double-majors when counting a program’s enrollment. Nor did it really take into account that certain programs provide general education credits (that metric is supposedly covered by “student credit hours”).
Excluding the former can impact a department’s perceived revenue, while excluding the latter two can negatively impact the perceived student-to-faculty ratio (another metric for review), when the reality is that a department with few majors can serve many students outside the department.
While WVU has repeatedly said being under review does not guarantee cutbacks or layoffs, to the people in each flagged unit and program, it may still feel like being on the chopping block. And it may feel unfair to know the university has metrics in-hand that can easily justify a department’s existence but chose to focus on a narrower data set. And it may feel like salt in the wound to be given so little time and space to plead one’s case, likely using the same information WVU already failed to consider.
