Academic
convocation remarks reflect on accreditation Self-Study Report
Editor's
note: The Rev. Dennis Dease, president, spoke to faculty and administrators
about demographic changes and other issues during the annual academic
convocation Tuesday afternoon, Sept. 2, in St. Mary's Chapel.
Click
here to hear his remarks, or read them below:
It
is a real pleasure for me to welcome today new and returning faculty
and professional staff to the beginning of another academic year.
I also want to offer a special greeting to Monsignor Terrence
Murphy, our chancellor, and to the retired faculty members who
have joined us today: Bernie Folz, Roy Gosselin, Robert Lippert,
Will Salesses and Harry Webb. I know I speak for everyone here
when I say that it is always a pleasure to see you back on campus.
Announcements
- I
would like to inform you that Gregory Roberts, vice president
for student affairs since 1993, has left St. Thomas to accept
an appointment Sept. 1 as executive director and senior operating
officer of the American College Personnel Association. The ACPA
is a Washington-based, 8,000-member association for professionals
involved in college student development. Roberts served this
university with dedication and distinction. We are grateful
for his service and we shall miss him.
- I would like to welcome Mary Ann Ryan, who on Aug. 9
assumed the position, interim vice president for student affairs.
She comes to this post after overseeing the Department of Campus
Life here at St. Thomas. Before that she held a variety of positions
in student affairs at the University of Minnesota and Central
Missouri State University. Please welcome her.
- I also would like to inform you of an announcement this
afternoon in Chicago that Dr. Judith Dwyer, executive vice president
of St. Thomas since 1998, will become the president of Saint
Xavier University in Chicago on Oct. 1. Dr. Dwyer has done an
exceptional job during her five years. On behalf of the St.
Thomas community, I want to thank her for her service, and I
know that you join me in wishing her the best in her presidency
at Saint Xavier. Dr. Dwyer's last day at St. Thomas was on Friday.
I will announce my plans for replacing her by next Friday, Sept.
12. More information about Dr. Dwyer's appointment will be in
a Bulletin Update that will be e-mailed to all of you this afternoon.
- I want to congratulate Dean Thomas Mengler and the faculty
and administrators of the St. Thomas School of Law on receiving
last month from the American Bar Association, after a unanimous
recommendation, provisional accreditation. This means that next
spring the school’s first graduating class will be eligible
to sit for the bar exam in all 50 states.
- I want to welcome Dr. Thomas Rochon, who took up his
duties as vice president for academic affairs on Aug. 1. As
you know, he comes to us after serving as executive director
of the Graduate Record Examinations Program at the Educational
Testing Service. Before that he was at Claremont Colleges where
he held the rank of full professor and served as dean of the
School of Politics and Economics and then as interim provost
and vice president for academic affairs at Claremont Graduate
University. He brings to St. Thomas an impressive record as
a faculty member, scholar and higher education administrator.
Please join me in welcoming him.
Address
Today
I would like to reflect with you on the Self-Study Report recently
completed in preparation for the decennial site visit by the Higher
Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges
and Schools (NCA) scheduled for Oct. 20-22. I will focus on the
university’s mission, and conclude with thoughts regarding
our future direction.
As
you know, we have been working hard for more than two years to
prepare for this fall’s visit. I have read the text of the
Self-Study Report carefully in its several drafts and have
been impressed by the thoughtfulness, balance, insight and candor
with which it chronicles our achievements as well as our challenges.
I want to take this opportunity to thank publicly those who have
given so much of their time and energy to the production of this
impressive self study document: the chairs, Dr. Angeline Baretta-Herman
and Dr. John Kemper, as well as Sister Margaret Wick, Dr. Judith
Dwyer, Dr. Susan Alexander, and Rosemary Miklitsch. I also want
to thank Dave Nimmer, author of the report’s prologue, and
the chairs of the self-study committees.
The
Self-Study Report offers as clear a picture of the state of the
University of St. Thomas today as one might hope to find. I highly
recommend it to you as a rich source of information and reflection
on the nature and mission of this thriving Catholic, urban academic
community. I urge all of you to review it in preparation for the
October site visit, especially the recommendations at the end
of each chapter. This report, and the findings of the NCA accreditation
committee, will have a significant effect on St. Thomas for the
next decade and beyond.
I.
Response to the Concerns of the 1993 Visit
Before
I turn to the mission of St. Thomas as discussed in the Self-Study
Report, I would like to summarize the actions the university has
taken in response to the three concerns raised by the 1993 North
Central visiting team. 1
The
first concern was what it described as the “lack of a relationship
between ad hoc strategic planning and institutional long-range
planning, and the way in which both impact budgeting.” Four
years ago Dr. Judith Dwyer commenced an institutionwide strategic
planning process that has responded specifically to this concern,
and has made us all more conscious of the need to explicitly relate
all types of planning more directly to the university’s
mission and to its budget. This is not something one accomplishes
overnight, and our efforts have been hindered by budget challenges.
Nonetheless, our community has developed a framework and a culture
conducive to comprehensive planning.
The
second concern was what the team described as a “lack of
systematic program review, particularly of graduate programs,
and the resultant confusion of institutional definition and direction.”
In
1996, after an earlier assessment effort had stalled, we established
the “Program Review Process Design Committee.” The
committee developed a program review process that “provides
the opportunity for a program to evaluate its mission, resources
available to accomplish this mission and the degree to which the
program can be considered successful along a wide range of criteria.”
2
In
an effort to address more directly the need to relate academic
programs to institutional definition and direction, in the fall
of 2002 Interim Vice President for Academic Affairs Dr. Susan
Alexander, after consultation with the University Senate and the
Faculty Affairs Committee, established the ad hoc Academic Priorities
Committee. Chaired by Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs
Dr. Joe Kreitzer, this committee made significant strides last
year in:
-
Examining possible methodologies for conducting academic
program review
-
Discussing the significance of Ernest Boyer’s
[1990] work, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the
Professoriate 3, as it relates to recent
trends at the university
-
Discussing the implications of mission on the process
and connecting with the mission component of the accreditation
self-study process
-
Reviewing an analysis of the university’s culture
in the light of the founding mission, and
-
Establishing preliminary criteria and potential measures
to be used in the process of evaluating academic priorities.
4
A
detailed timeline has been developed. The timeline calls for a
community exchange of ideas beginning immediately with department
chairs, deans, directors, the University Senate and other groups.
Implementation is planned for July 2004. These steps, along with
the appointment of a vice president for mission, will enable us
to better define and direct the future growth of the university.
The
third concern of the 1993 site visitors was the decentralization
of significant administrative functions, making it difficult to
monitor the quality of programs and services, especially in “the
virtually autonomous graduate programs.” This concern has
been addressed through the following steps:
- The centralization of marketing communications activities
for academic programs in University Relations
- The establishment of the Office of the University Registrar
- The establishment of a strategic direction on graduate
education
- The creation of the Educational Planning and Policy
Committee (EPPC), and
- The creation of the Graduate Planning and Policy Committee
(GPPC).
The
EPPC is composed of the Undergraduate Planning and Policy Committee
(UPPC) and the Graduate Planning and Policy Committee (GPPC).
As the Self-Study Report states:
This is the first time that a single body has had such oversight
responsibilities for the entire range of undergraduate and graduate
programs.
The university’s historical practice of responding
in a spirit of entrepreneurship to both internal interests and
external requests has fostered a culture of decentralization.
… Capitalizing on the positive aspects of this entrepreneurial
spirit while at the same time assessing effectiveness and efficiency
in a time of limited resources is a significant challenge. 5
This
now must become the proper context within which to proceed with
future strategic planning. The superb work done by those engaged
in the strategic planning process of the last few years has already
begun to change this aspect of our culture, and demonstrates,
therefore, that this new balance can indeed be achieved.
II.
Accomplishments Since the Last NCA Visit
I
would now like to mention briefly some of this university’s
other accomplishments since the last NCA visit. The complete list
is quite impressive, but I will simply touch on some of the highlights.
As
Dave Nimmer states in the prologue to the Self-Study Report:
The University of St. Thomas is not merely surviving. By
almost any measurement, it’s flourishing: The enrollment
is larger; the freshman ACT scores are higher; the capital campaign
fund is bigger; the curriculum scope is wider; the faculty is
stronger; and the community ties are tighter.
[T]he university … has more students of color; the
percentage has nearly doubled in 10 years at St. Thomas, reflecting
the proportional distribution of minorities in the state as a
whole but still not adequately representing the minority population
in the Twin Cities.
The growth in quantity, quality and diversity of the student
body is reflected in the faculty at St. Thomas. In 10 years, it’s
bigger, more diverse, with more high-profile professors who’ve
gained national attention and recognition for their writing and
research. Some of the newcomers are from graduate schools at universities
such as Harvard, Yale, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and
Stanford.
[There
are] a dozen new master’s degree programs from engineering
to English, two new doctoral specialties in education and a juris
doctor degree at the newly opened School of Law. Key teaching
programs in the School of Education and the doctoral sequence
in the Department of Professional Psychology recently won vital
accreditation. 6
The top priority is clear and always has been: Teaching students
– and doing it well – is the most important business
of the university. 7
In
striving to carry out this mission, we have clearly come considerable
distance since our last North Central visit in 1993. As the Self-Study
Report states in its chapter on planning:
By almost any indicator, the University of St. Thomas is
a stronger academic institution today than at any time in its
history. The faculty are more highly credentialed and published,
the facilities are more sophisticated, and the caliber of students
is higher. In addition, the university has become aware of the
need to plan more carefully for the future and to be more conscientious
about connecting planning to budgeting. 8
Regarding
achievements in the physical plant the chapter on resources notes:
The
last 10 years have been characterized by a continual improvement
of physical facilities through new construction, as well as
considerable remodeling of existing buildings to increase functionality
and usability. Construction and remodeling projects have exceeded
$120 million during this time. 9
The
following are some highlights from that list:
-
The Frey Science and Engineering Center
-
John R. Roach Center for the Liberal Arts
-
Opus Hall in Minneapolis, home to the School of Education,
-
The School of Law building in Minneapolis and adjacent
parking ramp
-
Morrison Hall, with its three-level parking ramp
-
Koch Commons
-
Sitzmann Hall
-
The Bernardi Campus, Rome. 10
III.
The Mission of the University
These
various accomplishments, however, are meaningful only insofar
as they contribute to St. Thomas’ mission.
A.
Tensions
The
Self-Study Report identifies certain stresses that exist
within the university regarding its mission. The growth of the
last decade and the Carnegie reclassification of St. Thomas in
2000 from a “Master’s Comprehensive University”
to a “Doctoral/Research-Intensive University,” have
given rise to some specific tensions. 11
The
chapter on mission takes a philosophical approach to the subject
of “tensions” when it observes:
Some tensions may never be resolved, and some should not
be. In fact, some may be integral to the idea of the university
and may, ironically, hold the institution together in dynamic
balance rather than dividing the community into opposing factions.
For example, the liberal arts foundation, especially prominent
in the undergraduate curriculum, is intentionally supportive of
the aspects of career education; likewise, the institution needs
to pursue a “planned and strategic” approach to growth
while taking careful advantage of opportunities as they arise.12
A
Changing Environment
As
Dave Nimmer says in his insightful prologue to the report: “While
St. Thomas is promising to prepare students for a changing world,
the university is also coping with one.” 13 The
Twin Cities area has an increasing racial minority and immigrant
population. There is greater competition among colleges for students,
which will only grow more intense as the 18-year-old population
declines. And in all of this we continue to look for appropriate
ways to express a vibrant Catholic identity within the context of
academic freedom and increased numbers of students from other faith
traditions. 14
Within
this changing context, questions about the university’s
direction naturally arise. As the chapter on planning explains:
[I]t is difficult for many on campus to project very far
into the future because of the many recent institutional changes
and the economic and political uncertainties of the external world.
Some fear that St. Thomas is tempting fate by abandoning directions
that led to previous successes. With a greater emphasis on faculty
research, there is a concern that the institution will be less
faithful to its mission as a teaching university. With moving
undergraduate education into the various school or college “homes,”
there is a concern that undergraduate liberal arts education may
no longer be seen as the center of the university – a concern
heightened by major recent financial commitments to professional
programs in law and business. 15
The
Term “Comprehensive”
Another
tension has resulted from confusion over the use of the descriptor
“comprehensive,” which has a technical meaning in
the parlance of higher education. It has traditionally depicted
an institution of higher learning occupying a place between the
pure liberal arts college on the one hand and the basic research
university on the other. The comprehensive university typically
is comprised of professional programs built around a solid liberal
arts core. Unfortunately, however, the term has not always been
understood in this technical sense, and some have mistakenly interpreted
it to mean that the university must be “all things to all
people.” In the Carnegie reclassification of 2000 the category
“comprehensive” was dropped. Nevertheless, the new
category into which St. Thomas was placed, “Doctoral/Research-Intensive,”
also has led to confusion, prompting some to conclude mistakenly
that St. Thomas has evolved into a research university with substantial
new emphasis on basic research.
Carnegie
plans to revisit its classification scheme in 2005. This university
may well want to contribute to that review.
Teaching
Versus Research
For
that reason, the relative importance of excellence in teaching vis-à-vis
scholarly research represents another tension. Clearly the careful
balancing of teaching and research, within the context of St. Thomas’
mission as an urban university, will continue to require our serious
attention. It is important to note that St. Thomas students, in
their meetings with the self-study team, consistently emphasized
the importance of the quality of teaching, particularly in the core
curriculum.
The
Growth of the University
The
growth of the university has occasioned another tension. Some wonder
whether decisions to develop new programs tend to be driven more
by opportunities and external forces than by careful planning in
the context of mission. Such forces include the desires of donors,
the prospect of new markets, and the requirements of accrediting
bodies. 16 We must direct our efforts toward striking
the proper balance between careful strategic planning and openness
to opportunity, always in the context of a strong sense of our own
academic purpose and mission.
Continuity
These
tensions notwithstanding, the Self-Study Report discerned continuity
in the growth of the university:
Many aspects of the description of what the university does,
and what it does well, have changed little from its earliest days.
The purpose of the College of St. Thomas stated in the catalog
for 1906 is “to prepare young men for universities, seminaries,
technical schools, etc., and for commercial careers.” This
statement is notable for its linkages to the current mission statement
of the university. While there are many ways to evaluate how the
mission is stated and implemented, the mission of the university
itself has not changed a great deal from the days of its founding:
this institution provides a liberal arts foundation, moral and
ethical development, and career education. Continuing to tell
this story – of the original vision for St. Thomas in the
context of a changing university and a changing world –
may be the best way to continue to keep the issue of mission in
the foreground of the daily work at the University of St. Thomas.
17
Professor
Donald LaMagdeleine of our Department of Educational Leadership
wrote a thoughtful background paper to assist the university’s
Academic Priorities Committee in examining the history and future
of this university. 18 As he observes:
If St. Thomas’ original – and admittedly hybrid
– mission of fusing liberal arts education to preparation
for a successful career is to be maintained, the development of
professional schools has been an organic process. . . . [St. Thomas’]
establishing professional schools in at least a few of its largest
undergraduate majors’ concentrations is a clearly implied
result – approximately a century later – of its original
institutional mission of mixing a liberal arts and career-oriented
education. A decision not to develop them would have been tantamount
to deciding to focus exclusively on the former.
Thus,
for example, among fourteen “sister” institutions
considered by LaMagdeleine as a basis for making meaningful comparison
for academic policy at [the University of St. Thomas], all 14
sponsor law schools; 13 sponsor business schools, and 10 sponsor
education schools. 19
B.
The Carnegie Reclassification and the Four Pillars
Not
too long after the Carnegie Classification reclassified St. Thomas
from its Regional Comprehensive category to its Doctoral/Research-Intensive
category, the deans asked whether our reclassification would shift
expectations for faculty.
As
I have observed before, 20 first, it helps to distinguish
the Carnegie Foundation’s Classification from the U.S. News
and World Report rankings. Carnegie reclassified us in the year
2000 from its “Midwestern, Regional University” category
to its “Doctoral/Research-Intensive” category because
we offered sufficient doctoral programs to qualify for reclassification
as a “doctoral” university. As a result, U.S. News and
World Report reclassified us into its “National Universities-Doctoral”
category.
I
believe two misconceptions resulted from that action:
-
The
first is that St. Thomas aspires to become a “national”
university in its scope of service. This is not the case. We
remain an urban university. This means that we are not
only in the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, but of
the cities. This metropolitan area and the larger upper Midwest
region continue to be our primary service area. Our agenda is
set in significant ways by its educational needs. To be an urban
university also means that unlike institutions such as Macalester
College and Carleton College, St. Thomas has no plans to direct
institutionwide programming or institutionwide recruiting to
the nation as a whole.
-
The
second misconception, already noted, is that St. Thomas is evolving
from a comprehensive university into a research
university. This, too, is not the case. Yes, we have become
a “doctoral” university, but not a “basic
research” institution. Our Carnegie category is doctoral
slashresearch dash intensive. Because our doctoral
degrees are conferred just in three areas – education,
professional psychology and ministry – we are designated
“research-intensive” as opposed to “research-extensive”
institutions that offer doctoral degrees across a broad spectrum
of disciplines. I should also notes that our graduate degrees
are mostly of a professional nature. And our doctoral degrees
are exclusively professional degrees. We do not offer
the Ph.D.
Certain
features flow from our nature as an urban university.
-
First, teaching is still our priority, though faculty
are encouraged and expected to engage the profession through
scholarship. This is essential to the maintenance of the quality
and vitality of their teaching. I think it is fair to say that
there is solid support among our faculty for a somewhat broader
definition of what constitutes research and scholarship, along
the lines of the framework articulated by Boyer in his report,
Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities Of The Professoriate.
21 However, since our reclassification by Carnegie
into a Doctoral/Research-Intensive institution, I fear that
resulting confusion has led to a certain “drift”
toward defining scholarship only in terms of basic research.
An
Expanded Definition of Scholarship
The
university recognizes and applauds all scholarly advancement: basic
and applied, pure and pedagogical. The role of a university is the
enhancement of knowledge, understanding and wisdom.
All
of us know that the reputation of an institution of higher
learning results from the evaluation of faculty by peers from other
institutions. We can have impressive new buildings and a successfully
completed capital campaign, but our reputation as an academic institution
ultimately derives from the standing of our faculty. And faculty
know that they are evaluated by their peers from other institutions
on the basis of their published works.
However,
those peers have no way of knowing what kind of teacher someone
is in the classroom. They simply do not have the opportunity to
evaluate the quality of teaching of their peers at other institutions.
The
unfortunate result of this has been that institutions are evaluated
disproportionately on the basis of faculty publications, and what
is more, “scholarship” has been defined almost exclusively
in terms of basic research and its publication.
In Scholarship Reconsidered Boyer argued for an expanded
definition of “scholarship”:
The most important obligation now confronting the nation's
colleges and universities is to break out of the tired old teaching
versus research debate and define, in more creative ways, what
it means to be a scholar. It's time to recognize the full range
of faculty talent and the great diversity of functions higher
education must perform. 22
Boyer
justified the new approach as follows:
… America’s social and economic crises are growing
– troubled schools, budget deficits, pollution, urban
decay, and neglected children, to highlight problems that are
most apparent. Other concerns such as acid rain, AIDS, dwindling
energy supplies, and population shifts are truly global. …
The challenge then is this: Can America's colleges and universities,
with all the richness of their resources, be of greater service
to the nation and the world? Can we define scholarship in ways
that respond more adequately to the urgent new realities both
within the academy and beyond? 23
And
so he proposed a broader definition of “scholarship”:
… The priorities of the professoriate must be redefined
to reflect new realities. 24 … Is it possible
to define the work of the faculty in ways that reflect more realistically
the full range of academic and civic mandates? … Specifically,
we conclude that the work of the professoriate might be thought
of as having four separate, yet overlapping, functions. These
are:
-
The
scholarship of discovery (or “basic research”)
-
The
scholarship of integration
-
The
scholarship of application, and
-
The
scholarship of teaching. 25
I
find gratifying that Boyer’s approach has been well received
by many St. Thomas faculty. All too often excellence in teaching
is simply taken for granted, and the scholarship involved not recognized.
As a professor of mathematics in a comprehensive university put
it to Boyer, “It is assumed that all faculty can teach, and
hence that one doesn’t need to spend a lot of time on it.
Good teaching is assumed, not rewarded. The administrators and many
faculty don’t regard extra time spent with students as time
well spent. This is the most frustrating aspect of my work.”
26
At
the University of St. Thomas the “master teacher” traditionally
has been highly prized. We must continue that tradition. Faculty
assessment must be based on this broader notion of scholarship:
-
The work of “integration,” that is, making
the connections across disciplines through publication or interdisciplinary
teaching
-
The work of “application,” such as when
a faculty member writes a textbook or presses her or his discipline
in service of the community
-
The work of perfecting one’s teaching, such as
the development of new teaching skills, and the creation of
new courses and collaborative projects with students.
The
Four Pillars
As
we examine all of these issues and their application at our university,
we must always keep in mind our mission and how everything we do
must be tied to mission. What is our mission? I have found if helpful
to visualize it as resting on four pillars:
“Catholic”
represents the source of our inspiration – our faith basis.
Urban signifies that we are neither a national nor a basic research
institution. “Liberal arts” identifies our foundation,
our core and our soul. And “career education” represents
our commitment as an urban university to the service of the region
and its professions.
IV.
Thoughts on the Future Direction of the University
Three
Recommendations from the Chapter on Mission
The
Self-Study Report in its chapter on mission concludes with three
recommendations:
-
To initiate a communitywide conversation on mission
-
To examine the wording of the mission statement; and,
-
To more explicitly connect major institutional decisions
to the mission.
1.
A Communitywide Conversation on Mission and Vision
I
enthusiastically encourage all members of the St. Thomas community
to become involved in this discussion. A genuinely authentic “vision”
for our future must emerge from the heart of the university. It
must be faithful to the university’s founding, to its history
and to its traditions, while being responsive to the changing
environment and to the emerging educational needs of this region.
It is my responsibility and that of the board of trustees to elicit
this “sense of the community” – to draw
out the aspirations and dreams of faculty, students, staff, alumni,
and then to articulate these back to this community, as well as
to the broader publics, as the “vision” of this university
at this point in its history. For that to happen, all members
of the community must be engaged – especially senior
members of the faculty who carry so much of the community’s
wisdom and culture within them.
- In this dialogue I would ask the community to consider
whether, as Dr. LaMagdeleine suggests in his background paper
for the Academic Priorities Committee, it would be better for
our own internal, structural self-understanding to draw a distinction
between the “liberal arts” and the “professional
programs,” rather than between the “undergraduate”
and the “graduate.”
- Determine the optimal size for our various academic
programs, and then
- Develop innovative and imaginative recruitment strategies.
-
I would encourage faculty to find ways to facilitate
the admission of transfer students. Our transfer student numbers
have declined steadily for nine years, and especially since
the adoption of the new core curriculum in 1998-1999. And with
this decline our undergraduate African American enrollment also
has shrunk. The major changes to the core that have impacted
transfers include a more stringent foreign language requirement
and the increasing difficulty prospective transfer students
have in receiving credit toward the core for courses already
taken.
2.
Wording of the Mission Statement
The
second recommendation of the Self-Study Report is that the university
examine the wording of the mission statement for possible revision.
I welcome this undertaking. I have long thought that the statement
is too long and complex. A mission statement should be short, even
lapidary. It should be easy to recap. One should be able to take
from it after one reading its essential elements. I have even heard
it suggested by a strategic planner that a mission statement should
fit on the back of a matchbook. That, of course, is not the case
with ours.
3.
Explicitly Connect Decisions to Mission
The
third recommendation of the Self-Study Report is that the
administration and the board of trustees more explicitly connect
major decisions to the mission of the university. I know we can
do a better job at this and also find more effective ways to discuss
the rationale for major decisions. I will work with Dr. Gene Scapanski,
vice president for mission, to develop some concrete recommendations.
b.
Vision
The
mission statement of an organization answers such questions
as, “What does it do?” Or, “What is its purpose?”
The vision statement, on the other hand, answers the questions,
“Where is it going?” Or, “Where does it want to
be in a specified period of time?”
I
become uncomfortable when I hear a university president unilaterally
proclaim his or her vision for the institution – like
Athena springing whole and complete from the mind of Zeus. A genuinely
authentic vision for a university cannot emanate from the psyche
of the president. The president’s job, rather, is to insure
that the community takes sufficient time to listen to its heart,
to sound the depths of its culture and traditions and mission, and
thus discern its best hopes and aspirations for the future. Only
then is the president in a position to articulate a vision for
the university, that is, the “sense of the community”
– faculty, students, staff, trustees and alumni.
I
hear this university community saying that in the future, our
efforts should focus on:
-
Preparing strategically for the demographic changes
now underway in our region.
-
Continuing to develop endowed and current resources
for student financial aid.
-
Continuing to focus on establishing academic priorities,
and strengthening program quality, especially through the building
of endowment. And lastly,
-
Positioning the university to be able to respond quickly
to the emerging educational needs of the community, particularly
at the graduate level.
V.
Conclusion
By
way of conclusion, I must say that I have been enormously gratified
and humbled by the impressive accomplishments of this university
these past 10 years as chronicled in the Self-Study Report.
These achievements constitute a real triumph and bespeak
an enormous compliment to the faculty, students, staff, trustees,
administrators and benefactors of the University of St. Thomas.
What we have done in 10 short years clearly signals the exceptional
vitality of this institution of higher learning, its strength
and its stature, and constitutes compelling testimony to what
can be achieved when talented, dedicated people work together
toward a common end.
End
notes
1 See
“Introduction,” Self-Study Report, pp. 9-15.
2 “Introduction,” Self-Study Report, p. 10.
3 Ernest L. Boyer, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the
Professoriate (The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement
of Teaching, 1990).
4 “ Status Report from the Academic Priorities
Committee” (April 7, 2003).
5 “Introduction,” Self-Study Report, p. 15.
6 Dave Nimmer, “Prologue,” Self-Study Report, pp. ii-iii.
7 “Prologue,” Self-Study Report, p. vi.
8 “Planning,” Self-Study Report, p. 146.
9 “Resources,” Self-Study Report, p. 71.
10 Resources,” Self-Study Report, pp.
71-73.
11 “Mission,” Self-Study Report,
p. 17.
12 “Mission,” Self-Study Report, p.
29.
13 Dave Nimmer, “Prologue,” Self-Study
Report, p. i.
14 Ibid., pp. i-ii.
15 “Planning,” Self-Study Report, p. 146.
16 “Mission,” Self-Study Report, p.
31.
17 Ibid.
18 D.R. LaMagdeleine, “Understanding the emerging
Professional Schools: A Rationale and Blueprint for Understanding
the University of St. Thomas as a Doctoral II Institution”
(April 22,2003).
19 Ibid., p. 11.
20 Dennis Dease, “Remarks,” Meeting of the University
Faculty, December 4, 2001.
21 Ernest L. Boyer, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities
Of The Professoriate (The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement
of Teaching, 1990).
22 Boyer, Scholarship Reconsidered, p. xii.
23 Boyer, Scholarship Reconsidered, p. 3.
24 Boyer, Scholarship Reconsidered, p. 3.
25 Boyer, Scholarship Reconsidered, p. 16.
26 Boyer, Scholarship Reconsidered, p. 32.
|
|
 |
 |
|
Father
Dennis Dease, president of St. Thomas, addressed university
faculty and administrators at
the annual Academic convocation
Sept. 2.
|
| |
|
Related
link
|
|
|
|
