Graduate Theological Union

CAPACITY AND PREPARATORY REVIEW REPORT

Submitted to The Western Association of Schools and Colleges and The Association of Theological Schools

August 15, 2005 Berkeley, California Introduction

The Graduate Theological Union (GTU), located in Berkeley, California, is regarded as the model for a successful theological consortium in the United States, offering education for academic and denominational leadership within a unique ecumenical and interreligious context. Founded in 1962, the consortium now consists of nine theological schools representing Catholic, Protestant, and Unitarian Universalist traditions, institutes of Jewish, Buddhist, and Orthodox Christian Studies, and several other affiliated research and teaching centers. The GTU works collaboratively with the University of California, Berkeley, and is the home of the Flora Lamson Hewlett Library, one of the largest theological libraries in the country.

The nine fully accredited member schools of the GTU individually train religious leaders in their respective faith traditions while uniting to grant common doctoral and master’s degrees in theology and religious studies. Those who teach and study at the GTU learn to live, study, and do theological reflection amidst religious and cultural pluralism.

The GTU produces scholars and religious leaders of distinction in the U.S. and around the world. GTU graduates teach and do research in leading universities and theological seminaries. They hold posts and ministries in churches, synagogues, and temples. They lead organizations such as the International Association for Religious Freedom in Frankfurt, Germany; the United Nations World Food Program in Lima, Peru; and the Museum of Contemporary Religious Art in St. Louis, Missouri. They write books, direct films, and create works of art. According to the Survey of Earned Doctorates for 2002, the GTU produced 4.6% (24 out of 521) of all earned doctorates in theology and religious studies granted by institutions in the United States. A recent survey conducted by the Auburn Institute reported that in 2001 the GTU ranked tenth (up from twentieth in 1991) among supplier programs granting academic doctorates to full-time faculty teaching in the member schools of the Association of Theological Schools.

An Overview of the Report

This Capacity and Preparatory Review Report is presented to the Association of Theological Schools (ATS) and the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) in order to show that the Graduate Theological Union meets the Core Commitment to Institutional Capacity and is prepared to undertake the Educational Effectiveness Review that is the next stage in the Institutional Review Process. The report is organized in relation to the four WASC Standards, with reference throughout to the specific Criteria for Review (CFR) and the corresponding ATS General Institutional Standards and Degree Program Standards (DPS).

The initial draft of this report was prepared by the GTU Executive Team comprising the President, Dean and Vice President of Academic Affairs, Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students, Vice President for Administration and Finance, Vice President for Advancement, and Library Director. Subsequent drafts were reviewed in spring 2005 by the Council of Presidents, Council of Deans, Faculty Council and Core Doctoral Faculty, Rostered and In-Residence Faculty, Student Advisory Committee, the entire GTU staff, and GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 2 the Board of Trustees. A draft was made available to all GTU M.A. and doctoral students, who were invited to comment on the report. Revisions were made on the basis of comments and suggestions from all of these groups, and the final draft was completed in July 2005.

This introduction will describe changes in the institutional context that have arisen since the approval of the Institutional Proposal in fall 2003. Accompanying the CD-ROM version of this report (with hotlinks throughout the text of the report itself) is an Institutional Portfolio of exhibits and data displays selected as pertinent evidence of the GTU’s Commitment to Capacity. Four reflective essays, one in regard to each Standard, discuss the exhibits and the issues they raise. An appendix documents the GTU’s response to previous concerns identified in the last accreditation review in 1996 and a subsequent focused visit in 1999.

Changes in Institutional Context since the Proposal

Since the Institutional Proposal was submitted in October 2003, there have been a number of developments in planning, and several important changes in personnel and program at the Graduate Theological Union. In consultation with numerous consortial bodies, the Executive Team prepared an update and revision of the 2001 strategic plan that was reviewed by the Board of Trustees in May 2005; a final version will be presented for Board approval in October 2005. A planning process conducted at a Board retreat in October 2003 led to the initiation of a capital campaign (now completing the planning phase) in order to raise substantial funds for library restoration, scholarships for doctoral students, Jewish Studies, Asian Christian theologies and Asian cultures, and Islamic Studies. In 2004-05, the Advancement Office conducted an integrated marketing project, including extensive research and analysis by an outside consultant, leading to the development of new messages and materials for recruitment and fundraising.

Personnel changes include the hiring of a new Vice President for Advancement in spring 2004 and the resignation (effective July 1, 2005) of one of three professors in the Center for Jewish Studies, who is leaving to teach at another school. Three out of nine member school presidents (representing the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology, the Franciscan School of Theology, and the Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary) were installed in the 2004-05 academic year, and in fall 2005 there will be four new member school deans, as well as two acting deans. In May 2005, the GTU Board of Trustees appointed James Donahue to a second five-year term as President through the academic year 2009-10.

A personnel change with programmatic implications came in summer 2004 with the promotion of the former Associate Dean for the Doctoral Program to a new position as Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students, with responsibility for enrollment management and the administration of consortial academic services such as registration, financial aid, and institutional research. This move effectively restructured the Dean’s Office to create two separate departments of Academic Affairs and Student Affairs, both headed by vice presidents reporting directly to the president. The intent was threefold: to build capacity for the GTU President to more fully and effectively engage in the institution’s capital campaign by shifting responsibility for centers and affiliates from the President to the Dean; to provide capacity for the Dean to address these new responsibilities by shifting supervision of student affairs to the newly created Dean of Students; and to provide increased focus on

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 3 enrollment management in light of both the GTU’s dependence on doctoral student tuition as a source of revenue and its commitments to student diversity and success.

In other programmatic developments, the Council of Deans approved Orthodox Christian Studies as a new area of concentration in the M.A. program offered in collaboration with the Patriarch Athenagoras Orthodox Institute. The M.A. in Applied Theology, offered in collaboration with the School of Applied Theology, has not been admitting new students since 2003, and that program will be discontinued after the remaining students graduate. In December 2003, the GTU received a three-year grant from the Henry Luce Foundation for a project now entitled “Partnerships in Transforming Theological Education in Asia, the Pacific, and North America,” which is being carried out in partnership with the United Board for Christian Higher Education in Asia; an anonymous donor has provided an additional challenge grant for this project. The Center for Women and Religion closed at the end of 2003, prompting a Board-mandated study of women’s and racial/ethnic issues in relation to academic programs. A committee of women faculty is now developing a proposal for a new academic program unit that will offer a Certificate in Women’s Studies in Religion. A Task Force on Islamic Studies now coordinates curricular offerings in this field and hosts conferences, symposia, and cultural events. Finally, the Dean of Students has implemented a Doctoral Student Professional Development Program to help students perform successfully within the GTU and to develop the skills necessary to support transition to professional careers within and beyond the religious studies academy. Essay 1: Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives

The first section of this essay (“Institutional Purposes”) shows how, through the collaborative development of several recent agreements and planning documents, the GTU has achieved a high degree of alignment of its consortial purposes, mission, educational objectives, and strategic goals and initiatives. The second section (“Integrity”) deals with the GTU’s demonstrated commitments to academic freedom, fair and equitable treatment for all, sound business principles, and diversity.

Institutional Purposes (WASC CFR 1.1, 1.2, 1.3) (ATS 1.1.1, 4.1, 4.2.0.1, DPS sections 1 and 2, 8.0)

The two fundamental purposes of the Graduate Theological Union are set forth in the Common Agreement that has served as the consortium’s primary governance and administration document since its ratification by the GTU Board of Trustees and the boards of all the member schools in 2001:

• nourish ecumenical and interfaith encounter and dialogue within and beyond the consortium; • share educational resources in an ecumenical and interfaith environment, preparing women and men for vocations of ministry and scholarship.

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 4

As the Common Agreement goes on to state, the member schools have established an administrative structure (the GTU common enterprise) to carry out four core commitments: graduate degree programs (M.A., Ph.D., Th.D.), a common library, relationships with the University of California, Berkeley and several affiliates, and consortial programs and services including common registration.

The process of drafting, re-drafting, and ultimately adopting this Common Agreement challenged the consortial leadership to articulate a common vision and to clarify the complex relationships among the various constituents in the consortium. Articulating a common vision proved to be relatively easy; achieving structural clarity was considerably more difficult. The latter was achieved through the forging of consensus around three key principles:

• The GTU is both a consortium of nine schools and a common enterprise that has its own institutional authority and purpose. • Governance at the GTU is shared between two sets of consortial bodies, each of which has primary responsibility for some aspects of consortial operation and secondary responsibility for others. The bodies headed by the GTU Board of Trustees have primary responsibility for maintaining and developing programs in support of the four core commitments, while the bodies headed by the Council of Presidents (the presidents of the member schools and the President of the GTU) have primary responsibility for most other matters. • In most cases it is necessary for the body with primary responsibility to seek consultation with the other body, but certain important decisions require concurrence as indicated by a deliberative vote on the part of the body with secondary responsibility.

The current Mission Statement of the GTU (adopted in 1995) provides fuller expression to the covenantal purposes of the consortium for the contemporary context. The mission of the Graduate Theological Union is to:

• educate women and men for vocations of ministry and scholarship; • equip leaders for a future of diverse religions and cultures; • teach patterns of faith which nurture justice and peace; and • serve as an educational and theological resource for local communities, the nation, and the world.

Working from this mission statement, the faculty has established the purposes, goals, and learning outcomes of the doctoral program and the Common M.A. program. Both of these documents are congruent with overall institutional purposes insofar as they call for scholarship in theology and religious studies that appreciates ecumenical and interreligious diversity, draws on a wide range of disciplinary perspectives, and engages the issues and concerns of contemporary religious organizations and the wider society. Each of these emphases represents an aspect of the distinctiveness of the GTU academic degree programs within the field of theological and religious studies. The GTU takes pride in encouraging innovative scholarly work at the crossroads where religious traditions meet, on the boundaries of academic disciplines, and at the intersection of theory and practice.

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 5

Increasingly, the faculty is using these statements of educational objectives to guide the evaluation of individual students, academic programs, and overall institutional effectiveness. The Educational Effectiveness Review will offer examples of this kind of evaluation in regard to four key topics that are evident in these statements of degree program goals: 1) ecumenical, interreligious, and multicultural diversity; 2) interdisciplinarity; 3) engagement with contemporary issues in religion and society; and 4) preparation for vocations of teaching and scholarship.

The specific programmatic and operational priorities for the GTU for the next five years are set forth in the Strategic Plan that will be presented to the Board of Trustees for final approval in October 2005. This plan (which provides an updating and clarification of an earlier plan developed shortly after President Donahue’s arrival in 2000) identifies four strategic goals: 1) strengthen academic programs, in particular those most correlated with its core mission in ecumenical and interfaith studies – Jewish Studies, Asian Theologies and Religions, Islamic Studies, 2) build financial support necessary to attract the best students and to fund its signature programs, 3) repair and renovate the Flora Lamson Hewlett Library and develop the capacity for the library’s collection and technology needs, and 4) develop a new consortial model for the GTU that is appropriate to address its future organizational and financial challenges.

While these rather general goals may well be characteristic of nearly every educational institution, the specific strategic initiatives detailed under each goal are directly linked both to the GTU’s current context and to its particular mission as an ecumenical and interreligious school providing graduate degree programs in theology and religious studies. For example, the strategic initiatives under “strengthen academic programs” call for the GTU to focus attention on three particular topics: Jewish Studies, Asian Theologies and Cultures, and Islamic Studies. There are certainly many other important topics worthy of attention from an ecumenical and interreligious consortium committed to justice and peace in a multicultural world, but the Strategic Plan is intended to provide a clear set of current priorities to facilitate planning in light of both present opportunities and the very real limitations of the GTU’s resources. Moreover, this plan emphasizes those initiatives that are judged most appropriate for pursuit through the agency of the common enterprise, recognizing that the GTU’s member schools and affiliates carry on many other worthwhile programs through their own independent structures.

Integrity (WASC CFR 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9) (ATS 3.2.2; cf. 6.1.2, 2.5, 8.1.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.1)

The GTU Statement on Academic Freedom begins with the important note that each of the member schools in the consortium “has its own statement on academic freedom, reflecting its distinctive heritage, history and values.” The GTU statement, then, applies to the Rostered and In-Residence Faculty (i.e., those employed by the common enterprise or connected with a GTU affiliate) and to all faculty in their roles within the doctoral and Common M.A. programs, which are under the guidance of the GTU Dean. As is appropriate for an educational institution in which religious diversity is not just part of the context, but an integral part of the content of instruction, this statement makes reference to the religious

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 6 foundation of the consortial commitment to academic freedom: “The apprehension of divine or transcendent reality which we seek as scholars of religion inspires an awareness of richness and complexity, and compels an opening to new paths of thought and spheres of feeling, study, and action.”

Although the GTU’s constituency includes people and institutions from a variety of religious traditions, core values such as integrity, inclusiveness, diversity, and excellence are widely shared and deeply held across the consortium. The very structure of the GTU ensures the autonomy of institutional governance arrangements, since representatives of the nine member schools comprise approximately half of the members of the Board of Trustees, and the other half of the Board consists of members-at-large.

The GTU maintains and employs all the usual policies and procedures appropriate for an institution of higher learning, such as grievance procedures for faculty, staff, and students; polices on refunds; protocols for the use of human subjects in research; and policies concerning the awarding of academic credit. The GTU conforms to sound business practices in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices (GAAP) and its finances are audited annually by an independent accounting firm.

Diversity—especially with regard to race, ethnicity, and gender—has long been an active concern at the GTU. A Statement on Diversity adopted in 1995 declares in part that the GTU, as an academic and faith community, is “committed to valuing difference, affirming individual uniqueness, and encouraging alternative points of view within an educational and working environment of mutual respect and discipline.” In 1997-98, the Council of Deans commissioned a Task Force on the Status of Women Faculty, which produced a report with recommendations for policy and action. A Consortial Faculty Hiring and Development Agreement adopted by the boards of the GTU and all the member schools in 1999 acknowledges the shared responsibility “to maintain a pool of full-time faculty whose composition reflects diversity of competence, race, gender and ethnicity.” In 1999-2000, with support from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the consortium developed a GTU Diversity & Community Resource Guide that provided an audit of diversity concerns at the GTU and its member schools, program units, and affiliates.

Most recently, in February 2004 the GTU President and the GTU Dean presented an assessment entitled Women’s and Racial/Ethnic Concerns at the GTU in response to a mandate from the GTU Board of Trustees. This report collated and analyzed data regarding the composition of the GTU faculty, the composition of the consortial student body (including students in all programs in the GTU and the member schools, but with particular attention to the doctoral program), and curriculum. Whenever possible, comparative data were drawn from the folio on Diversity in Theological Education compiled by the Association of Theological Schools and from information on thirteen seminary-related doctoral-granting institutions that belong to the Council on Graduate Study in Religion.

This report indicated that while by most measures the GTU is at least as diverse as the average of its peer institutions (and on some counts considerably more diverse), there is still much work to be done in order to achieve the diversity to which the GTU aspires. For example, although the percentage of women on the Core Doctoral Faculty increased from

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 7

28% in 1997 to 40% in 2004, racial/ethnic representation decreased from 15% to 12.5% (the latter figure represents three African Americans, three Latinos, three Asians—all men). The report includes a number of recommendations for action, nearly all of which have been implemented in the course of the subsequent eighteen months, as shown in a current status report. The recent appointment of a Japanese-American woman as Assistant Professor of Art History and Religion (a joint appointment between the GTU and the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley) means that in January 2006 the Rostered Faculty (tenured and tenure- track faculty employed directly by the GTU) will comprise four women and one man. Also in response to concern for diversity, in 2003 the Office of the Dean of Students developed an annual workshop on intercultural learning that now forms part of the required orientation for all new doctoral students.

Summary Reflections

The GTU is still a relatively young institution (founded just forty-three years ago) that comprises nine member schools and six affiliates, each with its own particular mission and constituency. After the initial bold and creative moves that brought the consortium into existence, several successive generations of consortial leadership have worked to document existing agreements, clarify lines of authority and responsibility, and focus the creative energies of the GTU community on realistic goals that are both consistent with the GTU mission and appropriate for its distinctive role in graduate education in theology and religious studies.

Lively discussion and debate continue about many important issues: the connections between academic research and professional ministry, the relationship of ecumenical Christian dialogue to the wider interreligious conversation, the proper balance between sharing consortial resources and preserving the institutional integrity of the individual member schools. Throughout the consortium, there is widespread agreement that these discussions are not distractions from the mission of the GTU, but essential elements of that mission. The GTU has a clearly defined sense of purpose and a commitment to scholarship that makes a difference in religious communities and in the world at large. Essay 2: Achieving Educational Objectives Through Core Functions

The Graduate Theological Union develops and sustains graduate and academic certificate programs that provide solid educational experiences in many fields. The doctoral program offers Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) and Doctor of Theology (Th.D.) degrees reflecting ten distinct “areas” of study (which function in a manner similar to departments in some other institutions). All nine member schools of the consortium and the Center for Jewish Studies, the Institute for Buddhist Studies, and the Patriarch Athenagoras Orthodox Institute collaborate to provide the Common Master of Arts (M.A.) degree where students can focus on one of fourteen different areas of concentration. (The M.A. in Applied Theology formerly offered in collaboration with the School of Applied Theology has been discontinued.) The School of Applied Theology and the Center for Jewish Studies each award certificates of concentrated study in specific areas.

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 8

This essay provides illustrative examples of three domains in which the GTU fulfills its mission: 1) teaching and learning; 2) scholarship and creative activity; and 3) support for student learning.

Teaching and Learning (WASC CFR 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7) (ATS 4, 6.1, DPS section 4, 4.2.1.1, 4.2.2.1, 4.2.3.1, 4.2.4.1, DPS sections 3.1 and 4, 4.1 and DPS sections 1 and 2; cf. 6.3, 3, DPS section 5, 3.1.4, DPS section 5)

The GTU doctoral program introduces students to the life and practice of intellectually and methodologically rigorous scholarship that prepares them for a diversity of occupations and vocations. The Mission of the Doctoral Program, published in the GTU Catalog and Doctoral Program Handbook, acquaints students with what the faculty intends for them to learn. These goals are universal, applying to each and every student in the program. The Catalog and Handbook also explicate student outcomes associated with these goals, used to guide the design and evaluation of program expectations and requirements. Admission requirements (including baccalaureate and master’s degrees in appropriate fields) and program-level requirements, as well as competencies for graduation, are “visibly structured” and thoroughly described in the Catalog and Handbook in the form of both a summary grid and a comprehensive description of each requirement.

Curriculum design and delivery for the doctoral program is delegated to the Core Doctoral Faculty through formally structured disciplinary areas. The GTU Catalog provides area descriptions showing that areas are appropriate in content, standards, and nomenclature for the degree awarded and are staffed by sufficient numbers of faculty with the expertise appropriate to the curriculum offered. In addition, each area produces an area protocol that describes goals, intended outcomes, content, and standards in greater detail.

The doctoral program’s requirements reflect consistency with the purpose and character of the GTU. A second year evaluation of readiness to do research, comprehensive written and oral exams, and a dissertation prepare students for a variety of scholarly vocations. Examination and dissertation committee structure, requiring GTU faculty members from two different schools in the consortium, often encourage ecumenical and interfaith encounter and dialogue. A cross-registration agreement and outside committee reader requirement promote intentional relationships with faculty from the University of California, at Berkeley. Administrative policies and procedures for joint degree programs in Jewish Studies and Near Eastern Religions offered in collaboration with UCB are governed by a Memorandum of Understanding.

The expectations of the doctoral program are clearly described in the GTU Catalog, Doctoral Program Handbook, and area protocols. Relevant constituents, including faculty, students, staff, and external stakeholders, have much of this material on the GTU web site. Prospective students are provided with paper copies of the catalog and pertinent area protocols upon inquiry. When students matriculate into the program, they receive paper copies of the Handbook. To make sure that students have accurate and up-to-date

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 9 information, revisions to the Handbook and area protocols are posted on the web and students are notified about the revisions by electronic mail.

Standards, or levels of attainment for the doctoral program, are articulated in a variety of ways. The Core Doctoral Faculty is currently engaged in a process of revising area protocols and course syllabi to incorporate explicit learning outcomes and link them with evaluative measures. A workshop to help advance faculty work on outcome-based syllabus design is scheduled for October 2005. Currently, course syllabi provide specific course expectations and requirements. The Doctoral Program Handbook clearly describes the criteria and standards used by a standing Modern Foreign Language Committee to evaluate language proficiency. The Handbook and Research Readiness Review evaluation form delineate characteristics of academic writing with clear accompanying standards. Multiple constituencies, including course professors and the student’s advisor and area faculty, judge a student’s readiness for academic research. Comprehensive examinations and a dissertation assure that students are actively involved with the literature of the field and regularly engage in academic research. The Handbook lists the standards of performance associated with the exams and dissertation.

The normative time to degree for the doctoral program is seven years, and the normative time schedule for completion of degree requirements is clearly outlined in the Handbook. The GTU has made considerable progress in decreasing the actual average time to degree since the last accreditation visit, from 8.4 in 1996 to 7.6 in 2004.

The GTU has a set of relevant quality control measures, grounded in a variety of institutional policies, to ensure that the curricular goals of Standard 2 are met. The GTU Admissions Office produces faculty load studies annually with a suggested number of admitted students per area in order to yield a number of students suitable to the capacity of the faculty in each area and the program as a whole. In February 2003, the Academic Committee of the Board of Trustees affirmed the administration’s current target of enrolling thirty new students in the doctoral program (Ph.D. and Th.D.) each year, which would eventually reduce the size of the doctoral student body to just under 200. Due to higher than anticipated yield rates (enrollments to acceptances), the actual number of new enrollments has been higher than the target in some recent years: 33 in 2002, 39 in 2003, 29 in 2004. Nevertheless, the size of the doctoral program has been intentionally reduced by 16% (from 247 in 1999 to 208 in 2004) in order to reduce stress on faculty resources and to enhance educational quality.

In 2002, the Core Doctoral Faculty instituted a Faculty Council consisting of eight elected faculty representatives charged with overseeing doctoral program policy development and addressing policy gaps and inconsistencies in implementation across areas. In its first three years of existence, the Faculty Council has revised the Research Readiness Review form and procedures to clarify expectations and add a summative evaluation; added a comprehension component to the Modern Foreign Language Examination that was formerly purely a translation exercise; revised the Doctoral Course Evaluation form to provide quantitative measures as recommended by the last ATS/WASC visiting team; and reduced the size of the Doctoral Council that reviews dissertation proposals, while retaining its function.

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 10

Area faculties review individual course offerings annually to assess the fit between course content and delivery and program commitments. The Council of Deans also reviews course descriptions annually as a part of the GTU course scheduling process to eliminate redundancies and ensure that courses are being offered at all levels for all programs. The Consortial Registrar’s office manages the common registration process and provides course schedules (both print and online versions) that list more than 600 different courses each year. The cross-registration agreement makes all of these courses available to students in the GTU and its member schools without additional charge beyond the tuition they pay to their own schools, providing students with a vast array of educational opportunities from which to choose in planning their academic programs.

GTU areas are reviewed approximately every five years on a rotating basis. The review process includes self-study, evaluations by internal and external faculty teams, and reviews by the GTU Dean, Faculty Council, and Academic Committee of the GTU Board of Trustees. The process assesses the area’s currency with a research discipline that has relevancy to a curricular division within the boundaries of theology and religious studies, its effectiveness in helping students complete the program and prepare for appropriate positions after graduation, and its capacity to sustain its commitments to the program. (A revised area review process will be tested on an experimental basis with two areas in 2005-06.)

The GTU M.A. program is administered jointly by the GTU Dean and the Council of Deans. The GTU Catalog and M.A. Program Handbook clearly describe learning objectives, degree requirements, and administrative procedures for this program. Each M.A. student has a school or center of affiliation that supplies the primary advisor; provides many support services; offers a social, intellectual, and spiritual community; and administers the common program policies and procedures. The GTU Dean’s administrative assistant serves as the M.A. Coordinator in order to ensure appropriate tracking of students and consistency in procedure and administration.

In spring 2003, the Council of Deans engaged the faculties of all the member schools in discussion and analysis of the general nature of the M.A. program, with particular attention to its areas of concentration, which to a large degree reflect the structure of the doctoral program. The deans reviewed enrollment patterns over recent years and compared the purpose, structure, and requirements of the GTU program with those offered by a number of peer institutions. Since many of the member schools offer their own M.A. or M.T.S. programs, or the M.A. in some form of specialized ministry, the Council of Deans considered a wide range of issues about the GTU M.A. program’s distinctiveness of purpose and focus. The unanimous decision was that the GTU M.A. program plays an important role in the consortium as the principal academic program specifically designed to prepare students for doctoral study in theology and religious studies. For this reason, the deans reaffirmed the key components of the program: the specification of an area of concentration, demonstrated competence in a modern foreign language, and a substantial thesis with oral defense.

Until recently, the GTU has assumed that the ATS standard for the M.A. degree provided sufficient clarity of purpose for this program. But heightened appreciation of the value of clearly articulated learning objectives and outcome-based program review prompted the

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 11

Council of Deans in 2003-04 to develop a statement of purpose, goals, objectives, and assessment measures for the M.A. program. While the ATS standard continues to serve as the basic framework, the new statement emphasizes the ecumenical and interreligious character of the GTU degree and stresses the development of research skills requisite for advanced graduate study. This statement will now provide the basis for a thorough program review in fall 2005, which will be reported on as part of the Educational Effectiveness Review.

Scholarship and Creative Activity (WASC CFR 2.8. 2.9) (ATS 3, cf. 6.4, 3)

Annually, doctoral students are asked to report on their teaching, publications and paper presentations at regional and national professional conferences as a part of the satisfactory academic progress process. Scholarly activity is published in a Student Achievements booklet that is distributed at the annual GTU Fall Convocation. In addition, the Dean provides funding to cover travel expenses for students presenting conference papers throughout the academic year and sponsors a competitive travel grant program for students who have papers accepted for presentation at the annual meetings of the American Academy of Religion, the Society for Biblical Literature, and other scholarly organizations.

Newhall fellowships are awarded on a competitive basis to students for work with GTU Core Doctoral Faculty on teaching or research projects. A professor-student team collaborates on the Newhall application, and the student submits a written report at the end of the year. Newhall projects provide opportunities for mentorship and professional collaboration. In addition to providing students with valuable teaching experience, this innovative fellowship program has stimulated the development of many new courses and encouraged faculty to expand their own competencies and research interests.

Faculty throughout the consortium, including the Rostered Faculty employed directly by the GTU rather than by one of the member schools, typically have a teaching load of two courses per semester, which is intended to provide time for scholarly research and publication appropriate to graduate and professional school faculty. Both the Rostered and In- Residence Faculty Handbook and the Core Doctoral Faculty Handbook indicate that scholarship in various forms is an expectation for appointment and continuance of faculty. Many GTU faculty are prominent in leadership roles in professional scholarly organizations.

The GTU Dean administers a Faculty Research Fund that provides financial assistance to enable Rostered Faculty and Core Doctoral Faculty to present papers at scholarly meetings, engage the services of a research assistant, or purchase books and equipment needed for their research. Rostered Faculty are encouraged to apply for sabbatical study leaves, and like their colleagues throughout the consortium they have been quite successful in obtaining external grants in support of their scholarship and creative pedagogy.

Each November the GTU honors a particular faculty member who is invited to give the Distinguished Faculty Lecture. Nominations for this honor come from the individual school faculties, and the Council of Deans makes the final selection. At commencement in May, the

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 12

Dean announces the recipient of the annual Excellence in Teaching Award, which carries a monetary prize funded by a grant from the Sarlo Foundation. For this award, the Appointments and Review Committee of the Core Doctoral Faculty makes the selection from among nominees recommended by faculty and students in the doctoral program areas.

Support for Student Learning (WASC CFR 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14) (ATS 7.2.3, A.3.1.4 and parallels in other DPS, 7.3.3, 7.3, M.2)

The GTU annually produces and disseminates a GTU Doctoral Student Demographics report, which it uses to help determine curricular design and delivery and provide support services structured to promote student success. The average age of GTU doctoral students is nearly 41 years, while 23% of the student body is comprised of international students. Data collected from financial aid applications and annual student satisfactory academic progress reports indicate that approximately 75% of GTU doctoral students need to work at least 20 hours a week to finance their education.

As part of an integrated marketing project during the academic year 2004-05, the GTU conducted a survey of current students and alumni about their student experience and satisfaction with the program. The survey report indicated that while students and alumni generally have a very positive view of their education, they stress the need for additional financial support and professional development activities to succeed in the program and, subsequently, secure employment.

The GTU responds to such diverse needs with a variety of programs to support success. The GTU provides a two-and-a-half day orientation to introduce new doctoral students to the challenges and opportunities of doctoral study, and includes a half-day “check-in” session with these same students between their first fall and spring semesters to help assess student need. In addition, incoming students are assigned a “buddy” (a continuing student in the student’s area of study) to serve as a mentor during the first year of study.

The Research Readiness Review process is designed to assess a student’s ability to pursue advanced academic research and writing. Areas use this information to identify students in need of remedial work or interventions to help them develop their writing and research skills.

The Office of the Dean of Students oversees an elaborate satisfactory academic progress review process (SAP) each year that gauges student progress in the doctoral program. Students submit a self-evaluation that outlines their involvement with coursework, program requirements, faculty-student interaction, and extra-curricular activities including teaching, publications, and presentations at professional conferences. Faculty advisors review their advisees’ self-evaluations to help construct their own assessment of the quality of the students’ work and progress in the program. These assessments provide timely, useful, and regular information for students and faculty to use in assessing performance and establishing objectives for the following year.

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 13

In 2003, the Office of the Dean of Students developed the Doctoral Student Professional Development Program (PDP) to support students’ transition to a graduate academic setting, particularly as this is affected by intercultural and adult learning issues. The program helps students to perform successfully within the GTU and to develop the skills necessary to support transition to professional careers within and beyond the theology and religious studies academy. Program resources are developed with input from the Faculty Council, the Student Advisory Committee, an ad hoc faculty focus group on international students, and an ad hoc international student focus group. A PDP program brochure describes a variety of workshops and activities, while other resources are available on the PDP Blackboard site. The PDP’s four program streams include: 1) intercultural learning, 2) navigating the GTU doctoral program, 3) teaching preparation, and 4) career development. A survey of current students conducted at the end of the academic year 2003-04 found a high level of appreciation for and satisfaction with the Professional Development Program.

Support for intercultural learning particularly focuses on the success of international students. PDP offers a full day workshop in September each year for all incoming doctoral students to help them explore the challenges and opportunities of diversity in the classroom, and to provide them with tools to help each student become aware of and respectful of different ways of knowing. A separate Blackboard site provides students with information about visa requirements, employment, and federal tax regulations and filing obligations. The Dean and Dean of Students have collaborated to offer a course in writing and speaking for non-native English speakers.

The GTU Library’s instructional and reference program directly supports the research interests and needs of students and faculty. Each semester the Library offers a curriculum of workshops that teach basic research skills, such as Getting Started in Research, How to Find Journal Articles, and How to Find Biblical Resources. This program has exhibited steady growth over the past five years, from 57 workshops and 125 attendees in 2001-02 to 48 workshops and 251 attendees in 2003-04. In addition, a faculty member may arrange to bring a class to the Library for a special instructional session on library resources that is specifically tailored to the research needs of that particular class. This activity has also shown steady growth, from 12 classes (85 individual students) in 2001-02 to 26 classes (402 students) in 2003-04. Classes range from introductory doctoral seminars to classes for incoming students, but the Library has chosen to focus its promotion and outreach energies particularly on classes for first-year students.

Despite the proliferation of easily-accessible (though not necessarily high quality) information available on the Internet, the Library’s point-of-need assistance at the Reference Desk continues to respond to requests for research assistance at the relatively steady rate of approximately 5,500 reference questions each year. In addition, the Library’s print and web publications guide students to high-quality research materials. Information guides that have been developed in recent years include: Judaica Resources in English, Systematic Theology Resources, Resources on the Middle Ages, Statistics Resources, and How to Search the ATLA Religion Database via the EBSCO Interface.

In 2000, the Library received grants from the Hewlett Family Foundation and the Lilly Endowment to construct an electronic Teaching Lab, providing hands-on access to online

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 14 resources under the guidance of a teacher. It was created to enable instruction in the use of resources used for teaching and research, including library research; classroom instruction and class presentations; and instruction in the use of computer applications used for administrative functions at the GTU. Well over 100 sessions have been held in the Teaching Lab each year, including the workshops noted above and other examples such as: How to Search the GTU Library Online Catalog, PowerPoint for Beginners, Multicultural Ministry, UCC Church History, Doctoral Seminar in Liturgical Studies, and training for GTU school registrars in the use of the new Colleague database system.

The Library is collaborating with the Office of the Dean of Students to offer students a certificate in Teaching, Learning, and Technology based on their participation in a combination of Library and PDP workshops.

The GTU Bookstore is one of the largest theological bookstores in the country, with more than 14,000 titles in stock. The stock ranges from scholarly works to books that serve pastors and congregations, as well as general interest titles in religion. In addition to providing textbooks for courses, the Bookstore handles special orders and serves an important academic function through its display of new titles and those of particular interest to the GTU community. Like all academic bookstores, the GTU Bookstore faces the challenges of competition from online booksellers and large discount chains. Following an analysis by an outside consultant in spring 2004, the Bookstore has implemented a new business plan that has reduced operational costs and closed the branch store in San Anselmo. A new pricing policy has lowered the dollar volume of sales but increased the number of items sold in order to secure better financial positioning for the future.

The GTU Financial Aid Office, with three full-time staff members, is funded by the consortium as a whole and serves as the financial aid office for eight of the nine GTU member schools, in addition to the GTU. With respect to institutional aid, each member school has its own institutional funds that provide for grants and scholarships. The GTU provides financial aid to doctoral students through institutional grants and scholarships, Federal Work-Study, the Federal Perkins Loan program, and the Federal Stafford loan program, in addition to the Newhall Fellowships awarded through the Office of the Dean. The Financial Aid Office offers counseling for individual students, as well as workshops on topics such as scholarship searches, financial management, and loan consolidation. In addition, the Financial Aid Office manages a scholarship listserve providing weekly e-mails regarding scholarships available from outside organizations.

Institutional gift aid for doctoral students is calculated in terms of a tuition discount rate based on doctoral tuition revenue, which has held steady at 48.2% since the 2002-03 academic year. The goal of increasing the tuition discount rate by 2% each year has not been met for the past two years due to budget constraints. Institutional gift aid consists of both need-based and non-need-based awards. The primary need-based aid category is the GTU Grant-in-Aid program, which is based on a tiered system of awards (ranging from 20% to 100% of tuition) in which the grant amount is determined by the level of financial need. The primary non-need-based awards are the Presidential Scholarships, which provide for full tuition and a $5000 stipend for the first two years of the doctoral program. These awards are determined by the Admissions Office as part of the admissions process. The Admissions

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 15

Office also determines recipients of Dean’s Awards and President’s Awards, special one-year awards given primarily to first-year doctoral students. In addition, there are several named scholarships that have a need component as well as a non-need component.

Due to the higher tuition in the first two years of the doctoral program, the majority of institutional gift aid for doctoral students is distributed to students in those years. For 2005- 06, approximately 75% of the institutional gift aid will be awarded to the first- and second- year doctoral students. Also, following a directive from the GTU Board, institutional gift aid has increasingly shifted from need-based to non-need-based aid over the past few years. The current system of administering institutional gift aid will be reviewed in the fall 2005 as part of an enrollment management project that will look at the effectiveness of the current aid policy and its alignment with GTU’s strategic objectives.

Most GTU doctoral students work during their course of study, and the Federal Work-Study Program helps to fund employment for students on-campus or at non-profit organizations off-campus. The Perkins Loan and Stafford Loan programs offer low-interest student loans to help students finance their educational costs, defined as tuition together with living expenses. The rising level of student loan debt is of increasing concern, particularly with respect to doctoral students. Many students enter the doctoral program with substantial loan debt from previous studies and add to their loan debt by borrowing during the doctoral program. Students with over $100,000 in student loan debt are not uncommon, and some students reach the Stafford Loan lifetime limit of $138,500. The Financial Aid Office offers debt management and loan consolidation information and workshops and is exploring the possibility of offering services specifically for high-debt borrowers.

GTU M.A. students, except for those in Jewish Studies, receive institutional funding through their member schools or affiliated institutes. Institutional aid for member schools is awarded through the GTU Financial Aid Office, which also reviews M.A. students’ eligibility for Federal Stafford Loans and Federal Work-Study. Institutional gift aid for M.A. students in Jewish Studies is provided through funding from the Osher Foundation and the Koret Foundation, with awards determined by the Director of the Center for Jewish Studies in consultation with the GTU Financial Aid Director. Currently, these awards are not need- based, and in 2004-05 the grant awards provided for almost 50% of tuition for those Jewish Studies M.A. students applying for financial aid.

The Financial Aid Director publishes clear policies and guidelines for the administration of financial aid at the GTU and works closely with the various business offices, registrars, admissions offices, deans, and other personnel to ensure the proper administration of financial aid. Doctoral and M.A. students are informed of financial aid policies and procedures through their respective program handbooks.

The Office of the Dean of Students provides many other services and programs to enhance the quality of student life and to complement academic work. This office collaborates with the GTU Business Office to manage eighteen student apartments on the GTU campus. It also secures and manages a cost-effective student health insurance program, provides counseling, and sponsors social activities like a monthly gathering at a local café to help build community. Students with disabilities and other special needs get support from the Office of

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 16 the Dean of Students. Students often find community through GTU-sponsored student groups including TREES (Theological Roundtable for Ecological Ethics & Spirituality), ERT (Evangelical Roundtable), and KSA (Korean Students Association).

Summary Reflections

The GTU has clearly established and readily accessible program goals and student outcomes that are used at the course and area levels to shape curricular offerings. These goals and outcomes are effectively linked with the overall purpose and character of the institution. Systematic curricular and area reviews, as well as articulated levels of attainment and criteria and standards used for evaluation, assure a quality educational experience for our students.

The scholarly achievements of GTU faculty are evident in their extensive publications and scholarly presentations, their leadership in professional scholarly organizations, their service on editorial boards of scholarly journals, and their recognition in the form of numerous awards and grants. Selected faculty publications are listed on the faculty pages of the GTU website, and faculty curricula vitae will be available to the visiting team as an exhibit.

Resources to support the full range of the GTU’s endeavors at the quality levels the institution insists upon are increasingly problematic within tight budgets. At the same time, and in response to current student demographics and a recent self-satisfaction study, the GTU continues to leverage resources to provide appropriate support programs and services. The Research Readiness Review and annual satisfactory academic progress process assure regular student-faculty interaction and timely and useful feedback about each student’s performance throughout the duration of the program. The Professional Development Program is designed to support students in a variety of ways throughout their program to help increase the value of their education. A wide range of instructional programs assists students in making use of the GTU’s extraordinarily rich library resources. The financial aid program, which is efficiently administered by professional staff, serves a diverse student body by allocating available funds in accordance with current strategic priorities. Essay 3: Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational Structures to Ensure Sustainability

Any consideration of the resources of the Graduate Theological Union must attend to the distinctive character of the institution as both a consortium of nine theological schools with six independent affiliates and a graduate school offering master’s and doctoral degrees in its own right. These are not two separate identities, but two aspects of one complex institutional reality. Many of the human, fiscal, and physical resources of the GTU are not “owned” by the common enterprise, but are committed to common consortial purposes by the member schools and affiliates and managed by the GTU administration. Conversely, there are many resources (most significantly, the Flora Lamson Hewlett Library) that are indeed “owned” by the common enterprise but deployed in service of the various academic programs of the member schools, as well as those of the GTU.

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 17

In light of this unusual but now well-established organizational structure, the GTU appreciates the WASC Commission’s statement that as a “key value” for the accreditation process it will “focus on institutional purposes and results, not on specific structures or methods for their accomplishments” (WASC Handbook of Acrreditation/2001, p. 4). Proud of its reputation as “the consortium that really works,” the GTU may not always do things in conventional ways, but it has agreements and procedures in place to assure the effective advancement of its mission.

Faculty and Staff (WASC CFR 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4) (ATS 9.1, 6.1.3 and relevant parts of DPS section 4.2, 6.2.5, cf. 9.1.3, 6.4, especially 6.4.2, cf. 6.1.7 and 6.2.3)

Faculty. As of fall 2004, the consortial faculty of the Graduate Theological Union comprised 150 regular faculty (FTE 129), plus an additional 186 (FTE 55.625) faculty classified as visiting or adjunct. Among the regular faculty, 91% hold the Ph.D. or equivalent, while 7% hold the D.Min.; the rest hold the M.Div., M.A., or other master’s degree as the highest degree attained. This consortial faculty serves a combined student body of 1,264 (FTE 1,117), for a consortial student to regular faculty ratio of 8.4 to 1. Class sizes seldom range over fifty, and many classes are taught in seminar format, allowing for intensive student- faculty interaction.

All faculty appointments throughout the consortium are made in accordance with the Consortial Faculty Hiring and Development Agreement, which was adopted by the boards of the GTU and all its member schools in 1999 in response to concerns about faculty resource planning raised by the ATS/WASC visiting team in 1996. This agreement provides for an annual assessment of faculty resources, collaborative planning for faculty development, and the inclusion of a faculty member representing the appropriate doctoral program area on every faculty search committee. Five years into the implementation of this agreement, several appointments have brought to the GTU new faculty with expertise in fields that were noted as critical needs in the special report prepared for the ATS/WASC focused visit in 1999: sociology of religion (Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley, 2000; Pacific School of Religion, 2004), feminist theology and critical theory (Church Divinity School of the Pacific, 2001; Starr King School for the Ministry, 2005), and Islamic Studies (as secondary competence, Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology, 2005). For several years, the annual assessment has indicated that recent and impending retirements in Biblical Studies have put strain on the doctoral faculty resources in that area; several member schools have already conducted or plan to conduct searches in this area, but in some cases budgetary constraints have delayed appointments. As these examples show, the faculty hiring agreement does not permit the doctoral areas or the GTU administration to dictate specific appointments in the member schools, but it does provide for a systematic process of consultation that is having positive effect.

There are currently seventy-one active members of the Core Doctoral Faculty who serve as primary advisors for all doctoral students and, with the GTU Dean, set policies and requirements for the doctoral program. An additional eleven retired members continue to advise doctoral students and occasionally serve on faculty committees on a volunteer basis. The GTU’s consortial faculty is more than twice as large as that of any of its thirteen

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 18 seminary-related peer schools in the Council on Graduate Study in Religion.1 Within this same group of fourteen schools, in 2002 (the latest year for which comparative figures are available) the GTU Core Doctoral Faculty had the fourth highest percentage of women, and the second highest percentage of racial/ethnic minority members.

GTU policy states that each area of study within the doctoral program must be supported by at least four Core Doctoral Faculty members with expertise in that field, and this holds true for all ten GTU areas currently admitting new students. Two joint degree programs offered in collaboration with the University of California, Berkeley are supported by ample faculty resources drawn from both institutions.

Admission to the Core Doctoral Faculty is by application of the faculty member, with a supporting letter from the dean of that person’s school (or director of an affiliate) indicating that the school (or affiliate) will release a portion of the faculty member’s time (usually 25%) for service to the doctoral program. An elected Appointments and Review Committee composed of Core Doctoral Faculty members and chaired by the GTU Dean reviews the applicant’s qualifications, with particular attention to scholarly publications and service in appropriate professional societies. Positive recommendations are subsequently vetted by the Core Doctoral Faculty in a plenary meeting and approved by the Academic Committee of the GTU Board of Trustees. Core Doctoral Faculty members are reviewed by the Appointments and Review Committee every five years; these reviews include consideration of student evaluations of teaching as well as research and service. Their responsibilities are described in the Core Doctoral Faculty Handbook and a Convener Handbook that pertains to the faculty who serve as conveners of the individual doctoral program areas.

The Rostered Faculty employed directly by the GTU rather than a member school or affiliate provide resources in fields that are not likely to be covered by faculty appointments in the member schools: currently, two faculty in the Center for Jewish Studies, one in Orthodox Christian Studies, one in Art History and Religion (a joint appointment with the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley), and one in Chinese and Comparative Religions. Three of these positions (one Jewish Studies position, along with those in Orthodox Christian Studies and Art History and Religion) are supported by endowments for faculty chairs. Several “In-Residence Faculty” employed by GTU affiliates are supervised in their teaching by the GTU Dean and make valuable contributions to the consortial academic programs in fields such as Theology and Science, Buddhist Studies, Sociology, and Orthodox Christian Studies. The policies governing these two groups are set forth in the Rostered and In- Residence Faculty Handbook.

Staff. As of fall 2004, the GTU had fifty-six budgeted, regular benefited, non-faculty positions, six fewer than the previous year. Approximately 63% of those positions are filled by women and 27% by non-white minorities. Staff positions, including executives, have decreased by eight from the peak of sixty-four in the fall of 2002, as the GTU has had to reduce costs to balance operating budgets and, in some cases, has reduced the contracted services, such as accounting, provided to member schools.

1 Boston University, Claremont Graduate University, Drew, Duke, Emory, Harvard Divinity School, Princeton Theological Seminary, Southern Methodist University, Union Seminary (NY), University of Chicago Divinity School, University of Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, Yale.

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 19

In an effort to balance a difficult budget in fiscal year 2003-04, the GTU did not provide any salary increase that year and began asking employees to pay a portion of dependent medical insurance premiums. The GTU conducts an annual study benchmarking salaries in relation to member schools, other comparable schools in the Bay Area, and schools in the Association of Theological Schools. On the basis of that study, the administration believed the changes were justified and would not compromise the GTU’s ability to attract and maintain a highly qualified staff. Understandably, this decision was highly unpopular, and many staff felt that GTU administrators did not communicate budgeting options to them sufficiently in advance.

In response to these staff concerns, the GTU created a mid-level managers team that meets monthly. Its purpose is to provide better communication between the President’s Executive Team and the rest of the staff, to inform important managers of GTU issues, and to obtain their counsel. The GTU also instituted monthly all-staff meetings to provide better communication and consultation. Meetings of both groups have resulted in increased awareness of the resources and challenges at the GTU, as well as a climate of greater cohesion.

The GTU regularly updates the Employee Handbook that contains workplace policies, employee benefits, guidelines for personnel evaluations, and other important employment information. The latest update was the product of work by GTU’s mid-level managers, led by the Personnel Director, and was completed in 2005.

Fiscal, Physical, and Information Resources (WASC CFR 3.5, 3.6, 3.7) (ATS 9.2, 9.3, 5, 9.4)

The distinctive character of the Graduate Theological Union as a consortium of nine theological schools with six independent affiliates and a graduate school offering master’s and doctoral degrees in its own right is reflected in its financial structure and planning, just as in its academic programs and organizational structure. From straightforward beginnings of cooperating to offer a doctoral program in theology, the consortium has grown into a complex institution that not only shares academic programs and resources, including one of the largest theological libraries in the country, but many administrative and physical plant resources as well. The consortium considered as a whole (including the common enterprise and all nine member schools) has an annual operating budget of approximately $40 million and total assets approaching $250 million. The GTU itself has an annual operating budget of $8.5 million and total assets of $40 million.

In the forty-three years since its founding, these programs and services, and the financial arrangements that guarantee their success, have grown both in scope and size. As they have grown, the GTU has endeavored to make sound and prudent business and financial decisions and implement practices that ensure its ability to provide high quality academic and service programs.

Financial Resources. The GTU works closely with the presidents, deans, and business officers of the member schools to make sure that adequate resources are allocated to its academic programs. Most of these resources do not appear in the GTU’s financial statements, since

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 20 the member schools and affiliates provide the vast majority of the courses and academic advising for the M.A., Ph.D., and Th.D. programs. Instead, the GTU coordinates with deans and faculty to determine course offerings, advising workloads, and committee assignments.

Since most of the faculty resources for the doctoral programs are provided by member school faculties, the GTU does not have the financial burden of maintaining a large doctoral faculty. Thus while the GTU annual operating budgets for the most recent five years include fewer overall resources for Instruction, its ability to provide faculty and academic support for its degree programs has not been compromised.

The GTU also provides a large number of consortial services for the member schools for which it receives payment. Most of these services are for the benefit of GTU programs as well as those of member schools. The common Library is the largest and most successful of these services. Operating a library in common allows each school to have access to a larger and higher quality library at a lower per student cost that it would have if it had to operate on its own, as is evident from a comparison of the cost of the GTU Library to that of other schools in the ATS. Costs of the operation of the Library are shared according to a formula that is based on student and faculty FTE.

The GTU shares the operating cost of other services with member schools. Each of the services has a unique method of cost sharing based on the types of activity. For example, costs for the Consortial Registrar are based upon student registrations, while accounting costs are based upon time and materials. The quality and cost of these services are discussed with the presidents of member schools at the beginning of each budget cycle.

The GTU has been working to integrate its planning and budgeting process into complementary processes. Annual budgets are prepared beginning in September by the President’s Executive Team. Department heads and others prepare draft departmental budgets, which are then assembled and evaluated in terms of how well they reflect the strategic plan and direction of the GTU.

An example of the GTU’s efforts to align strategic planning and the allocation of resources may be seen in the increase, as a percentage of total expenditures, of financial aid awarded to doctoral students. Even though the GTU has not been able to increase the tuition discount rate each year as previously planned, in the five most recent annual budgets, the share of total expenditures allocated to financial aid has increased from a low of 11.7% to 12.7%. This change is the result of a conscious decision about the relative importance of financial aid in attracting the best students in comparison to other possible expenditures, and is responsible for an additional $86,000 in aid (this does not count increases in aid due to other factors). The strategic decision to increase financial aid is expected to be implemented in future budgets, although the GTU’s ability to do so will depend on available resources in future years.

Another example of GTU’s success in aligning strategic planning and the allocation of resources may be seen in its commitment to the support of a common library. The Library is considered the most important of the consortial services provided by the GTU to the member schools. Resources allocated to the Library have increased an average of 3.6% in

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 21 each of the past five budget cycles, providing an additional $350,000 in annual support for this important program. While these increases may not be as large as any school would like, they must be viewed in the context of declining enrollment and budgets in some of the member schools that support them.

The GTU prepares five-year projections of expected revenues and expenditures each year. The GTU is cautious about committing resources to new or expanded programming, and the baseline five-year operating projections help in planning. These projections indicate that operating budgets will be stressed in future years and the GTU will be hard pressed to initiate any new commitments, or even maintain existing programs, without additional revenues. The fragility of the GTU’s financial situation is exacerbated by financial difficulties in the member schools, most of which are facing declining enrollments and are struggling to raise sufficient funds to meet their own annual budgets. Since the Board of Trustees has instructed the GTU administration to submit balanced operating budgets each year, without the transfer of reserves, the GTU will not initiate new or expanded programs without additional resources.

A capital campaign, currently in the early planning stages, is seen as providing the most likely source in the short term of the additional revenues the GTU will need to implement the programming outlined in its strategic plan. However, both the GTU administration and the Council of Presidents have recognized that current financial challenges make it prudent for the GTU and its member schools to give serious attention to the overall health of the consortium and to seek collaborative solutions to common problems. To that end, the GTU administration has compiled a comprehensive consortial data report, and the Council of Presidents and Council of Deans will address this issue as a major topic at a planning retreat in August 2005.

Physical Resources. One of the clear advantages of a consortium is the ability to share physical resources, including office and instructional space. As a member of the consortium, the GTU both provides academic and administrative space and uses space provided by member schools. The GTU itself owns and maintains just 89,600 square feet of building space, including the Library. But it has access to more than 750,000 square feet of additional space throughout the consortium. Classrooms and computer laboratories are spread throughout the GTU and member schools, and instructional space at all schools is available to any school. In fact, the GTU itself provides only one small classroom for regularly scheduled courses; almost all classes are held in space owned and maintained by member schools.

Most of the GTU space is either of fairly recent construction or recently renovated, and the GTU has made efforts to make sure modifications are made to better accommodate persons with disabilities. The Hewlett Library is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as a result of a 2005 renovation, as is the other main GTU office building located on LeConte Avenue.

The GTU has also made improvements to classrooms and other academic space to incorporate current technological resources into state-of-the-art instruction facilities. In 2001 the GTU created a computer classroom located in the Library that is used extensively for instructional purposes. As part of this $1.2 million project, funded by a grant from the Lilly

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 22

Endowment, the GTU also created a fiber-optic based, wide-area network linking the GTU and six member schools; installed a new computer network and telecommunications infrastructure in all GTU facilities; and created four “wired” classrooms at member school locations. Resources to maintain GTU telecommunications and classroom facilities are included in annual operating budgets and the GTU, along with member schools, contributes to the support of the network. A list of common facilities includes classroom space.

Despite these improvements, the GTU has a number of significant facilities needs. The Library is effectively at capacity and needs additional space for expansion. The GTU conducted a year-long study of library facility needs in 2002 and determined that it requires approximately 11,000 square feet of additional storage space to accommodate collection development needs over the next twenty years. The estimated cost of this expansion is $12- $15 million, which is currently beyond the GTU’s capacity. Tentative plans now call for temporary, off-site storage of library materials until a fundraising campaign for library expansion can be undertaken, perhaps in 2010.

The Library building itself was designed by the well-known American architect Louis Kahn. Although it is only twenty years old, the building has failing waterproofing systems on the exterior decks. The GTU has undertaken an extensive repair and refurbishing of the exterior beginning in May 2005. This $4 million project will restore the waterproofing integrity of the building, return the exterior to like-new conditions, and preserve the original features of Kahn’s design.

In 1999 the GTU acquired and refurbished an eighteen-unit apartment building located near campus for graduate student housing. Demand for student housing rises and falls with the housing market in general, but was quite strong in 1999. The demand has fallen somewhat since the rental market in the Bay Area has softened, but the GTU is still able to fill its housing with incoming students. The GTU subsidizes the rents for its student housing by charging below-market rents. The current estimate of the amount of this subsidy is more than $158,000 per year for the eighteen-unit building.

In 2005-06 the GTU will spend approximately $6.11 per square foot on maintenance of facilities, not including any capital projects. This is 23% more than the GTU spent in 2000 and is about 6.4% of the entire budget for operations. This is lower than the annual expenditures of many other schools (ATS average for 2003-04 was 10.2%) and is the result of the GTU’s fairly new construction and recent major renovations. The 2005-06 capital budget provides for more than $4.3 million in improvements, funded by debt and the use of reserves for renewals and replacements.

Information Resources. As aptly described in the GTU’s Common Agreement, “the Flora Lamson Hewlett Library, the common library of the consortium, symbolizes the collaborative enterprise of the consortium. It exists as a central, historic embodiment of the consortium’s will to affect its mission of educational excellence. The Library’s mission is to develop and maintain resources of superior quality for teaching, learning, and research in the disciplines of religion and theology for both professional and academic degree programs.”

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 23

The GTU’s Flora Lamson Hewlett Library maintains high professional standards in the quality of its staff. Nine members of the Library staff have advanced degrees in Library and Information Science, one with a Ph.D. The professionals on the staff, most of whom also have a second master’s in a theological field, represent a wide range of language competencies. Support staff are similarly notable for their knowledge and expertise as well as an array of specialized skills essential to the Library’s operation, such as book conservation, copy cataloging, acquisitions, and public service. All Library staff are reviewed annually, with close attention to evaluating goals in accord with the Library’s mission statement. The Library budget provides sufficient funds for ongoing staff development at all levels as well as for librarians to attend at least one major professional conference each year.

Recent revisions of policy documents relating to Librarians (Ranks and Promotions for Professional Librarians and Continuing Appointment), together with a new provision for research leave, ensure ongoing support for quality appointments and performance.

Over the past five years, the Library support staff has been reduced by two half-time positions, one in cataloging and one in circulation services, plus an $11,000 temporary position in support of retrospective conversion. These cuts have led to a slower pace of retrospective conversion (with approximately 20,000 titles yet to be done) and have called for greater efficiencies in access services.

The Faculty Library Committee, composed of a faculty representative from each of the member schools and a doctoral student representative, meets with the Library Director monthly during the academic year. This committee provides useful advice for Library operations and policy, oversees archival acquisitions, and serves as a communication conduit for school faculties. The GTU Board of Trustees’ Library Committee is charged with establishing goals and policies for the Library. It meets at least three times a year in conjunction with Board meetings.

Initially formed in 1969 from the consolidation of the member schools’ individual libraries, the GTU Library has continued to build on that ecumenical and interreligious heritage, making it one of the most comprehensive theological libraries in the nation, as well as one of the largest. The breadth of the ecclesial and denominational spectrum of the member schools has provided the foundation of the collection’s strength. Few libraries attempt to collect Anglican, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Congregational, and Unitarian Universalist scholarship in a single collection. At the GTU, theology, biblical scholarship, worship, Christian history, and practical theology have been collected from a variety of denominational perspectives for well over a hundred years.

As the Collection Development Policy demonstrates, close attention is paid to the programmatic needs of the GTU at the doctoral and M.A. levels, as well as the ministry programs at member schools. In accord with these programs, the Library concentrates its collection building efforts on subjects that fall within the BL-BX (Religion) classification of the Library of Congress Classification Scheme, with supporting collections in other areas. The collection of the GTU Library characteristically represents the Northern European/North American theological interests of Christianity. Greater attention is being paid to Southern Europe, Latin America, and Asia as these areas grow in importance to the GTU community. Jewish

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 24 and Christian traditions are very well represented in the collection. Of the other great religions, Buddhism has general coverage; Hinduism and Islam have traditionally received somewhat less coverage. As sustained interest in these areas continues to develop, collection strengths will also be developed. The approach to the religions is primarily textual or literary, then historical, then theological and philosophical, and finally from other disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, and mythology.

The Library has a long-established reciprocal borrowing arrangement with the University of California, Berkeley, providing GTU students and faculty access to one of the finest libraries in the world. In 1999, the GTU Library entered into a Cooperative Collection Agreement with UCB, formalizing collection development practices that had been followed for some time. The agreement, reviewed and reaffirmed in 2003, is currently reviewed annually in a joint meeting between GTU and UCB librarians, with continuing benefit for informed selection and good fiscal management of acquisition funds.

Through the Library’s online catalog, patrons also have access to the library collection of the Swedenborgian House of Studies, affiliated with the Pacific School of Religion, one of only three such collections in the world. A grant proposal was recently submitted to the California State Library for cataloging the approximately 4,000 titles in the several rare book collections still retained by member schools in order to ensure that all resources at the GTU are known and accessible.

Including its branch at San Francisco Theological Seminary, the Library’s current holdings include more than 440,000 volumes and 290,000 microforms, audio and videocassettes, and other media. It subscribes to 1,554 current periodicals as well as to 67 key research databases. The collection includes over 6,000 rare books and more than 900 linear feet of archives and manuscripts.

The consortial budget for the Library has increased approximately 4% per year for the last five years. While acquisition costs have increased at a higher average rate, economies in other areas have enabled the Library to keep pace. The Library adds an average of 6,000-7,000 titles per year. The transfer of the Patriarch Athenagoras Orthodox Institute’s collection in 2004-05 brought about 6,000 additional volumes. A grant from the William Randolph Hearst Foundation for 2005-06 has enabled purchase of several groups of special research materials. The value of the Library’s collection is borne out in its use: 25% of the collection is actively used each year. The Library loans nearly three times as many books through Interlibrary Loan as it borrows. A Community Needs Assessment conducted in 2002 as part of the library expansion planning process indicated that 66% of respondents used the Library at least once a week and 47% of all full-time students reported using the Library more than once a week. When asked to evaluate the Library’s collections, 84% rated them at adequate or above, with 59% rating them as excellent.

With the rapid development of technology in the past ten years and the huge impact on libraries everywhere, the GTU Library has stayed on the leading edge among theological institutions. In 2000 the GTU installed a completely new network infrastructure. This work included the GTU Library, thereby enabling the Library to increase the number of public workstations from ten to sixteen, and to install the Teaching Lab. During summer 2005, the

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 25

Library is enhancing the security of the network by installing a server that supports only the public workstations and separates public uses of the network from staff uses.

In 2003 the Library implemented a major upgrade of its integrated library system. Innovative Interfaces’ Millennium Silver is known in the library profession as one of the very best systems available. The system plays an indispensable role in managing the GTU Library’s collection and nearly all of its operations. Millennium supports the Library’s circulation, acquisitions, serials, and cataloging operations, and serves as the library catalog that the public searches to see what the GTU Library owns.

Membership in the Statewide California Electronic Resources Consortium (SCELC) has enabled the Library to subscribe to a growing number of databases essential to its mission. Starting from a mere handful five years ago, the Library’s electronic resources now include subscriptions to nearly seventy databases. These licensed databases enable students and faculty to search for library resources remotely (from home or office). Many of these electronic resources include the actual text of journal or encyclopedia articles (“full-text databases”). Access to these resources is from the Library’s web site at http://library.gtu.edu/databases.html, which also serves as a list of available databases.

Moreover, the Library also has a pro-active instructional outreach program, utilizing the Library’s electronic Teaching Lab, to help students and faculty gain full access to the riches of the collection through these electronic tools. In 2000, the GTU received a three-year Lilly Endowment grant, “Information Technology for Theological Teaching,” designed to increase faculty understanding and use of technology in teaching as well as to enrich the learning experience for students through technology in the classroom. It also provided facilities where the use of technology in teaching could take place, such as smart classrooms and the Teaching Lab in the Library. As part of the project, the Library’s Center for Teaching and Learning trained “technology TAs,” supported faculty/student teaching technology projects, implemented the Blackboard course management system for the consortium, and offered an array of workshops and services to increase technology expertise across campus. Although the Center is no longer separately funded and the director’s position has been discontinued, the technology momentum continues through the ongoing availability of Blackboard, the instruction and support provided by the Library reference staff, and the ongoing productive use of the Teaching Lab.

The critical need for the Library now is increased space for collections, as indicated in the above section on “Physical Resources.” In 1997 a study of the Library collections revealed that the shelves on Level 1 were 87% full and those in the basement storage area were 92% full. By standard practice, a library is considered full when it reaches 85 % of capacity. In 2000-01, with funding from the Hewlett Foundation, compact, moveable shelving was installed on Level 1, providing shelf space for approximately 60,000 additional volumes and eight to nine years of growth. In 2004-05, the Library was in the seventh year of this growth, with the addition of the Patriarch Athenagoras Orthodox Institute’s collection consuming an additional year. In 2002-03, a year-long planning project, led by the Trustee Library Committee, identified future expansion needs and formulated recommendations. This has provided the basis for a case statement for the Library’s needs in relation to the current capital campaign. Faced with a Library that is once again at capacity, the GTU is actively

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 26 exploring short-term storage possibilities, including participation in the University of California’s Northern Regional Storage Facility and storage in the former stack area at a member school.

Organizational Structures and Decision-Making Processes (WASC CFR 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11) (ATS 8, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.3.2, 8.3.3)

The structure of the Graduate Theological Union as a consortium is reflected in the organizational chart included in the GTU Catalog, which indicates the relationships among the GTU common enterprise (including the Library), the nine member schools, and the two program units and six affiliates, as well as the collaborative relationship with the University of California, Berkeley. As previously stated in Essay 1, the Common Agreement describes governance at the GTU as shared between two sets of consortial bodies, one headed by the Council of Presidents (the presidents of the member schools and the president of the GTU) and the other headed by the GTU Board of Trustees, with each body having primary responsibility for some aspects of consortial operation and secondary responsibility for others. These primary, secondary, and shared responsibilities are described in the “Governance” section of the Common Agreement.

The organizational structure of the GTU as common enterprise is shown in a chart depicting the GTU Board of Trustees, the President, and five departments headed by the members of the Executive Team. The GTU Bylaws state that the GTU Board is comprised of not more than fifty trustees, including: the GTU President; the presidents of each member school; an additional representative nominated by each member school board; faculty, student, and alumni/ae representatives; and up to twenty-four trustees-at-large. The Board of Trustees appoints the President, in consultation with the Council of Presidents. The President appoints the Library Director and the Vice-Presidents; in the case of the Dean, this appointment requires consultation with the Council of Deans and Council of Presidents, the concurrence of the Core Doctoral Faculty, and the approval of the trustees. Every GTU employee reports either directly or indirectly to the Library Director or one of the Vice Presidents, all of whom report directly to the President. All employees are reviewed annually by their supervisors, including the Library Director and the Vice Presidents, who are reviewed annually by the President.

The GTU Board, which normally meets three times a year (October, February, and May), carries on much of its work through standing committees: Academic, Advancement, Audit, Finance, Library, and Nominating and Membership. An Executive Committee consisting of the Chair of the Board, the President, the chairs of the standing committees, and several other members, meets at least three times a year and is empowered to supervise the management of the property, finances, and administrative affairs of the GTU between meetings of the Board. The membership, roles, responsibilities, and procedures of the GTU Board are set forth in the Bylaws of the GTU, which were last amended in 1998. A manual for trustees (updated each fall) contains a detailed statement of trustee roles and responsibilities.

In the past two years, the GTU has improved its approach to identifying and selecting new board members. Detailed goals and procedures for nominating new members have been

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 27 distributed to the Advancement Committee and to the entire Board. Three key characteristics were identified in the board selection process: 1) interest in the mission and values of the GTU, 2) professional, gender, and ethnic diversity to best represent the GTU’s varied students and constituents, and 3) ability to contribute financially. The new selection process is longer and more comprehensive than in the past. The candidate has several meetings with GTU board members, and his or her interest must be clearly spelled out by the last meeting. Prospects who are not appropriate for the Board are encouraged to participate in the GTU in other ways, such as non-trustee committee work, attending events, and building relationships.

In order to ensure that new and existing trustees understand GTU processes and procedures, an annual orientation (open to existing and new members alike) has been enhanced. The orientation covers major areas of management of the GTU including academic programs, finance, admissions, and fundraising. In addition to the orientations, the leadership meets with board members individually on a regular, rotating basis to provide a place for input and discussion about particular initiatives. The expected result of this focus on board development is an educated Board that is willing and able to support the GTU priorities and capital campaign through personal contributions, fundraising, appropriate program oversight, and financial accountability.

The Core Doctoral Faculty is responsible for establishing academic policies and standards, which are then approved by the GTU Board. The Core Doctoral Faculty meets in plenary session three times a year to approve the granting of degrees, elect members of its standing committees and its representatives to the Board of Trustees, discuss important consortial issues, and participate in programs of faculty development. A Faculty Council of eight members elected by the Core Doctoral Faculty meets six times a year to oversee academic planning, review protocol changes in the areas, develop doctoral program policies in consultation with the membership, and oversee reviews of areas and individual faculty. The Dean, in consultation with the Core Doctoral Faculty and the Council of Deans, implements the decisions of the Core Doctoral Faculty and Faculty Council.

Summary Reflections

Within the consortium, the GTU has an impressive array of personnel, fiscal resources, buildings, and information systems. However, all of these resources have to serve multiple constituencies and are often subject to multiple levels of decision-making. As is often noted, the consortial structure of the GTU is at once its greatest strength and its greatest challenge. The GTU will not—and should not—change this fundamental aspect of its character. But it must continually strive to coordinate the various institutions and programs that constitute the consortium. Doing so requires regular and open communication, and the continual re- articulation of the common vision and purpose that brought the GTU into existence. Essay 4: Creating an Organization Committed to Learning and Improvement

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 28

The first part of this essay describes the process and the results of recent strategic planning efforts at the GTU. The second part deals with quality assurance processes, program reviews, and institutional research capabilities that facilitate continual improvement.

Strategic Thinking and Planning (WASC CFR 4.1, 4.2, 4.3) (ATS 1.2, 9.4)

During the first five years of James Donahue’s tenure as President, the GTU has planned and is currently implementing a number of strategic initiatives. When President Donahue first took office in 2000, he immediately began to refine and collate the work of previous planning groups in order to focus consortial attention on the distinctive relevance of the GTU today and its role as a union of seminaries and affiliates. The result was the Board’s adoption in fall 2000 of a strategic plan entitled Educating Theological Leaders for an Interreligious and Interdependent World. This document laid out a broad vision for the direction of the GTU and identified seven priorities: academic programs (including Jewish Studies, Asian and Pacific Rim theological education, and Islamic Studies), financial support, infrastructure support, library, facilities, technology, and fundraising.

Through regular and ongoing meetings with various constituencies, the President gathered input and developed processes and procedures to further the vision. Input from GTU member schools was gathered through monthly meetings of the Council of Presidents and Council of Deans. Weekly executive staff meetings provided insight into the management of the strategic initiatives, and consultation with faculty, students, community members, and others provided context for the “real world” implications of the GTU’s direction. In fall 2003 the strategic planning process was moved forward at the biennial Board of Trustees retreat where the Board affirmed the honing of the list of seven priorities into five. A case statement or strategic program plan has been developed for each of the five priorities: Library, scholarships for doctoral students, Jewish Studies, Asian Theologies and Cultures, and Islamic Studies.

The organizational commitment to these five priorities required a planning process focused on raising funds through both contributions and operational revenue. At the fall 2003 retreat, the Board initiated plans for a comprehensive capital campaign. A Pre-Capital Campaign Planning committee was convened, including representatives from the outside community, member schools, executive staff, and faculty. The committee met monthly to study the organizational readiness for this ambitious venture and began the action steps required to implement a successful campaign. The Board of Trustees formally ratified the capital campaign in 2004, and in July 2005 the campaign began the “quiet phase,” with the “public phase” anticipated to begin in 2008 and the campaign to conclude in 2010.

The decision to embark on a capital and endowment campaign necessitated a fresh look at the marketing and fundraising potential of the GTU. An integrated marketing project began in fall 2004 with the convening of a marketing team that included representatives from various departments and constituencies of the GTU, including executive and key administrative staff, a center director, a board member, and a school president. A marketing firm was hired to manage the process, conduct research, and present a comprehensive

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 29 analysis report. The research included a systematic examination of the GTU’s reputation and perceived value among audiences including donors, alumni, students, friends, and influencers. Focus groups and surveys were conducted along with informational interviews. This analysis served as the foundation for the development of a set of compelling new messages about the GTU’s vision and relevance, a communications plan for their dissemination to various audiences, and a new GTU design for communications materials. These messages and materials support an integrated marketing-based approach to increasing overall revenue. The expected result will be an increase in tuition, fundraising, and other funding for GTU programs.

The GTU has also hired a public relations consultant to broaden visibility for the GTU through pro-active outreach to media by actively seeking ways to integrate faith and values into public discourse, with a particular focus on James Donahue as the GTU President. Primary themes include faith/religion in public life and interfaith understanding as a means of advancing peace domestically and internationally. The goal is to increase contacts and expertise in order to extend the GTU’s media presence beyond the Bay Area to the national scene. Activities have resulted in increased media coverage and are serving to raise the GTU’s profile and accessibility among a wide range of media outlets. An increased profile in the media will ultimately enhance the GTU’s fundraising abilities.

In recent years, the GTU has undertaken a broad review of organizational policies, procedures, and evaluation in an effort to be optimally positioned for the future, both academically and financially. The WASC/ATS accreditation review in 1996 resulted in the implementation of a number of academic review and data collection strategies that have been implemented, revised when needed, and utilized for the past several years, resulting in a more thoughtful and thorough approach to program evaluation and planning. The President begins each meeting of the Board of Trustees and its Executive Committee with an update and progress report on the current strategic initiatives.

The Common Agreement established a new consortial body known as the Strategic Planning Steering Committee, which is comprised of the GTU President, the Chair of the GTU Board, the Convener of the Council of Presidents, the GTU Dean, and the Convener of the Council of Deans. This group is charged with determining the planning needs for the consortium and making sure that strategic planning is being carried on effectively and with regularity. Most of the actual work of strategic planning is managed by the four groups represented on this committee (the Board of Trustees and its committees, the Council of Presidents, the Council of Deans, and the Faculty Council), but from time to time special task forces or planning groups are convened for this purpose. A recent example of the latter would be the Advisory Council for the Center for Jewish Studies, which has recently participated in the development of the strategic plan for that program unit.

Commitment to Learning and Improvement (WASC CFR 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8) (ATS 1.2.2, 9.4, 1.2, cf. 3.1.2.3, 3.1.4, 6.3, 3.2.3)

The process that the GTU uses to review the areas of the doctoral program has been described above in relation to “Teaching and Learning” in Essay 2. Six of the areas have

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 30 been reviewed twice since the last accreditation visit in 1996; the others have been reviewed once and are scheduled for review in the course of the next two years. The two joint doctoral degree programs are reviewed regularly in collaboration with the University of Californa, Berkeley, using the procedures established by the university. The most significant results came with reviews of the two areas that the 1996 visiting team noted as lacking coherence: Worship, Proclamation, and the Arts divided into three separate areas (Art and Religion, Homiletics, and Liturgical Studies), while Religion and Psychology is no longer admitting new students. The other areas have also benefited from their self-studies and from the recommendations of external and internal reviewers; the principal outcomes are summarized in the data display entitled Inventory of Educational Effectiveness Indicators.

The current area review process has generally worked well, but areas being reviewed for the second time often noted that much of the data collection was repeated needlessly, and that the process seemed to require more reporting than analysis, leaving little corporate energy available for subsequent action. As the GTU and many of its member schools have been introduced to the new WASC accreditation model, there was also a recognition that the area review process focused primarily on “capacity” issues, with insufficient attention to student learning outcomes. Moreover, additional specific periodic review processes have now been developed in relation to important capacity issues, such as the annual Faculty Needs Assessment conducted by deans and area conveners and the five-year review of individual Core Doctoral Faculty members. Thus the current Dean has moved to revise the process in order to: 1) simplify the reporting of data, 2) focus on key indicators comparing the area’s students and graduates to those in other areas, 3) incorporate an inquiry-based approach to the review, 4) encourage the use of relevant evidence, criteria, and standards to evaluate the appropriateness of stated student learning goals and assess the area’s effectiveness in facilitating achievement of these goals, 5) include a portfolio review of selected recent graduates, and 6) provide for periodic review of the doctoral program as a whole. The review of the Christian Spirituality area, completed in spring 2005, was used as a pilot for some aspects of this new model. The revised model has been approved by the Faculty Council and will be implemented with two reviews beginning in 2005-06.

Although the GTU has had a plan for reviews of program units and affiliates since 1992, only one such review had been completed by 2002. In 2002-03 the Dean revised the review instruments for affiliates and program units and established a schedule for periodic reviews. All four program units were reviewed in 2002-03, resulting in the eventual closure of the Center for Ethics and Social Policy and a staffing reduction that ultimately led to the closure of the Center for Women and Religion. A review of the six affiliates in 2003-04 reaffirmed affiliation in each case and identified issues and opportunities for further exploration in the next round of reviews, which will be staggered so that two affiliates are reviewed every other year. Reviews of both program units and affiliates are conducted by two consortial faculty members and one member school dean. They make their report to the GTU Dean, who makes recommendations to the Academic Committee of the GTU Board after consultation with the Council of Presidents, Council of Deans, and Faculty Council. Final decisions are the responsibility of the Academic Committee of the Board of Trustees.

The Office of the Dean of Students includes a Coordinator of Institutional Research who is responsible for much of the GTU’s data collection and management. A number of reports

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 31 used in institutional planning are generated annually, including IPEDS, the Doctoral Faculty Workload Report, Cross-Registration Statistics, Opening Fall Enrollment Report, and Registered Student Counts. Other reports are generated as requested by administration or faculty. Faculty and administrators throughout the consortium have direct and immediate access to a wealth of up-to-the-minute data through the Colleague database, which provides information about course enrollment, advising loads, and student academic records.

The GTU makes extensive use of comparative data from peer institutions available through the ATS Fact Book on Theological Education, the Graduating Student Questionnaire from the ATS Student Information Project, the Strategic Information Report compiled biennially by the Auburn Center for the Study of Theological Education, the Survey of Earned Doctorates, the biennial survey of graduate programs in theology and religious studies conducted by the Council on Graduate Studies in Religion, and the graduate department survey portion of the American Academy of Religion’s Census of Religion and Theology Programs. This data is used in both financial planning (e.g., faculty and staff salaries, tuition, and financial aid) and academic planning (e.g., admissions and recruitment, definition of areas, professional development and placement for doctoral students).

In 2000-01 a committee convened by the President to assess the functioning of the GTU Board issued a report with recommendations regarding the Board’s role, mission and vision, business practices and organizational structure, and criteria for membership. The entire Board discussed the report at length in May 2001, and many of its recommendations have been adopted into practice. In preparation for the biennial Board retreat in October 2003, Board members participated in a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis of the GTU that also included reflection on the operation of the Board of Trustees and their own membership in that body.

Summary Reflections

The GTU has in place processes of strategic planning and evaluation that lead to the determination of agreed-upon consortial priorities and plans for actions. Data collection is systematic and includes both internal and external sources. Decisions about strategic directions are made on the basis of the analysis of multiple sources of evidential data, and the GTU uses what it learns from review processes to improve those processes themselves, as well as the programs under review. Planning and evaluation has been a weakness for the GTU in the past, but in recent years this has become a significant strength.

Concluding Essay

The purpose of this Capacity and Preparatory Review Report, including the prescribed and institutionally selected exhibits and data displays, is to demonstrate that the Graduate Theological Union fulfills the Core Commitment to Institutional Capacity because the GTU “functions with clear purposes, high levels of institutional integrity, fiscal stability, and organizational structures and process to fulfill its purposes.” This concluding essay will review the case that has been made, highlight significant strengths and weaknesses, and propose recommendations and follow-up steps in relation to each of the four preceding

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 32 essays. A final section will comment on the GTU’s readiness to undertake the Educational Effectiveness Review.

Essay 1: Mission and Diversity

The drafting and ratification of the Common Agreement has provided the GTU with a much- needed clear articulation of its structures and decision-making processes. In comparision with previous planning documents, the 2005 draft Strategic Plan is notable for its focus on a limited number of achievable goals and its specification of measurable objectives. There is widespread consensus throughout the consortium about the importance of the GTU’s ecumenical and interreligious mission, but there is still some debate about the degree of emphasis that should be put on interreligious programs, and how they should be related to the GTU’s original ecumenical Christian agenda. With respect to diversity, the GTU’s demonstrated commitment has produced some positive results: excellent gender balance among students, increased representation of women on the consortial and Core Doctoral faculties, a substantial contingent of international students, and the annual workshop for doctoral students on intercultural learning. While the overall percentages of racial/ethnic faculty and students at the GTU are comparable to the averages among peer institutions, some notable problems remain: a critical lack of women of color on the Core Doctoral Faculty, under-representation of African Americans on the faculty and in the student body, and the need for more effective faculty mentoring of racial/ethnic students.

Recommendations:

• The draft Strategic Plan (with any revisions deemed necessary) should be formally adopted by the Board of Trustees in October 2005, with a timetable for continual assessment and review. • The GTU should engage in a consortium-wide discussion about models of interreligious conversation and learning appropriate for its current and future contexts. • The recommendations of the 2004 report on Women’s Concerns and Racial/Ethnic Concerns should continue to be implemented and closely monitored.

Essay 2: Assessment and Support for Student Learning

There has been a noticeable shift at the GTU toward a focus on student learning outcomes as the primary indicator of institutional success. Educational objectives have been established at the program level, and within the doctoral program at the level of the individual areas. Multiple processes are in place for the assessment of both individual student progress and program effectiveness. The next step will be to carry this emphasis systematically into the level of course syllabi, grading, and the construction of examinations and writing assignments. (Some GTU faculty who have been exemplary in this regard can serve as resources for their colleagues.) The Doctoral Student Professional Development Program and the instructional programs of the Hewlett Library provide excellent support for student research and career planning. As has long been the case, the limited amount of money available for doctoral student scholarships continues to make it difficult for the GTU

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 33 to compete for students with the elite major universities that comprise its academic peers, and also puts a heavy financial burden on those students who come to the GTU.

Recommendations:

• Drawing on resources from among its own faculty and from outside the consortium, the GTU should continue to engage faculty in the process of articulating and assessing student learning outcomes at all levels through a systematic program of workshops and peer consultations. • The M.A. program review scheduled for 2005-06 needs to address a number of issues related to the largely decentralized structure of this common consortial academic program: systematic and consistent data collection on graduates, curricular “fitness for purpose” with intended and actual student placements, unequal distribution of faculty resources among member schools, and the equity and effectiveness of current financial arrangements for the program. • In order to determine the most effective strategies for maximizing the use of institutional resources in support of student learning, the GTU should undertake a comprehensive study of its tuition pricing structure, financial aid policies, and enrollment management practices.

Essay 3: Management of Consortial Resources and Contingency Planning

The resources that ensure the sustainability of the GTU are derived from a number of sources in addition to the GTU’s own substantial assets in the form of endowments, buildings, library, faculty, and staff. Of foremost importance is the collaborative relationship with and among the nine member schools, who provide most of the faculty who teach in the academic programs of the GTU, nearly all of the classroom space, nearly half of the membership of the Board of Trustees, and approximately 35% of the funds needed to support the annual operating budget. Over the years, elaborate structures and agreements have been developed in order to ensure that these shared resources are available to the consortium on a consistent basis, at a dependable level of high quality, and without placing an undue or unfair burden on any member school.

As Essay 3 shows, these arrangements have worked reasonably well historically, and are working even better now that the Common Agreement is firmly in place. It used to be said that the GTU operated on the basis of a series of handshakes and a lot of good will. The handshakes have now been replaced by formal written agreements, but the good will continues, as does a strong common commitment to the inspiring and compelling mission of the GTU as an ecumenical and interreligious consortium. Increasingly, however, many of those in leadership at the GTU are recognizing that the structure and operating assumptions of the consortium assume the fundamental health and sustainability of the member schools themselves—an assumption that has been repeatedly called into question during the last decade. Perhaps the greatest challenge for the future will be for the GTU to find ways to adapt its established structures and processes in light of dramatic changes in both the economics of higher education and the relationship between theological seminaries and their religious communities.

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 34

To be sure, there will be no single solution to the manifold problems that beset any institution with limited resources and a bold expansive vision. Rather, the GTU will need to pursue a prudent combination of vigorous actions designed to contain costs, enhance revenue, and take full advantage of consortial collaboration. The current capital campaign aims to raise endowment funds that will secure and expand long-existing programs (Library, scholarships, Jewish Studies) and provide for the development of other programs that are just getting underway (Asian Theologies and Cultures, Islamic Studies).

Recommendations:

• The GTU must continue to exercise restraint in discretionary spending and to use its Strategic Plan to be highly selective about which goals and programs it pursues. • The Council of Presidents should actively explore opportunities for collaborative planning and deployment of resources in pursuit of economies of scale. • The GTU should explore the development of additional revenue streams in the form of new and expanded academic programs. • The current capital campaign needs to succeed in securing endowment funds in support of the five priority initiatives (Library, scholarships, Jewish Studies, Asian Theologies and Cultures, Islamic Studies). • The Council of Presidents should develop a contingency plan to deal with the possibility that one or more member schools would no longer be able to function independently within the current consortial structure.

Essay 4: Planning and Improvement

In recent years, planning at the GTU has been systematic, periodic, and in direct relation to established priorities derived from the mission of the institution. The current capital campaign and the integrated marketing project are clear examples of the focused and productive action that has resulted from this new emphasis on planning. In the arena of academic affairs, periodic doctoral area reviews have continued to produce demonstrable effects, and a long-dormant review process for affiliates and program units has been implemented. Both of these processes are currently being revised on the basis of feedback received from participants, and in both cases the new process will put greater emphasis on lively interaction around evidence concerning measurable outcomes. An annual assessment of faculty needs and periodic reviews of Core Doctoral Faculty members have become regular features of consortial evaluation. The GTU collects and publishes extensive data in direct relation to its various planning and evaluation processes, and it makes good selective use of data from a wide range of agencies that report on current issues and trends in higher education.

While the planning and review processes described above are now well established, other other aspects of the GTU’s instructional program and governance are in need of similar concerted attention, as indicated in the recommendations that follow.

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 35

Recommendations:

• Following the M.A. program review planned for fall 2005, a periodic schedule for future reviews needs to be established. • A program review of the doctoral program as a whole should be undertaken on a periodic basis as a complement to the area reviews; this may be a more appropriate level in which to engage external reviewers, perhaps with a site visit. • The Board of Trustees is actively engaged in strategic planning and has engaged in several evaluation exercises in recent years, but there is still a need to systematize and regularize periodic assessment for the Board, both as individual members and as a group. • The GTU should collate the key indicators it uses to assess effectiveness in various aspects of its work (admissions, student achievement, financial stability, fundraising, etc.) into one comprehensive chart that could be monitored and analyzed on an annual basis.

Preparedness for Undertaking the Educational Effectiveness Review

The various constituencies of the GTU have continued to express enthusiasm and interest for the four themes selected for research-based studies concerning the GTU’s effectiveness in preparing students for vocations of ministry and scholarship: 1) ecumenical, interreligious, and multicultural diversity; 2) interdisciplinarity; 3) theology’s public voice; and 4) professional development of students. The Board of Trustees, the Student Advisory Committee, and the Core Doctoral Faculty have all devoted portions of their meetings to one or more of these themes, so that lively conversations on these topics are well underway.

Leadership for each of the four research-based studies will be provided by a faculty person serving as chair and a small group of faculty and student colleagues. There has been some difficulty in recruiting chairs and team members because several of the GTU member schools are in the midst of preparation for their own reaccreditation reviews, and faculty are being asked to undertake similar work at their home institutions. However, the GTU Dean and Dean of Students anticipate having all of the teams in place and at work by the time of the Capacity and Preparatory Review campus visit in October.

As noted in the Institutional Proposal, assessment using evidence of student learning outcomes requires the GTU to develop and maintain a more comprehensive database of information on the placement and achievements of its graduates. Beginning with the most recent graduates and working backwards in time, this project has produced a much more complete list of recent graduate placements than was previously available. In conjunction with the existing database of graduates, advisor, and dissertation titles, this list will provide the research teams with very useful information that can be analyzed in a variety of ways.

All of the GTU constituencies that have been involved with the Capacity and Preparatory Review will also participate in the Educational Effectiveness Review, but the primary leadership roles will shift from the GTU Executive Team to the research teams led by their faculty chairs. As stipulated by ATS staff, the Educational Effectiveness Review will also

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 36 include evaluative reports on the three degree programs (M.A., Ph.D., Th.D.) that are accredited by ATS. The faculty, staff, administration, trustees, and students of the GTU look forward to the next stage of the reaccreditation process as an opportunity for further improvement and enhancement of this bold experiment in ecumenical and interreligious learning. Appendix Response to Previous Team and Commission Concerns

Following the last joint comprehensive evaluation visit in fall 1996, the ATS Commission on Accrediting and the WASC Accreditation Commission identified five areas of concern that were the subject of a focused visit in fall 1999. Since the GTU submitted a large quantity of documentation in preparation for that focused visit, the institutional response to the 1996 team and commission concerned will be briefly summarized here. Then the response to the further recommendations and suggestions of the 1999 visiting team and further subsequent Commission actions will be described.

Response to 1996 Comprehensive Visit Concerns

Institutional purpose and integrity. The GTU was asked to clarify the relationship of the University of California, Berkeley to the GTU doctoral programs, and to present that relationship accurately and clearly in its official publications.

In response, the GTU President and Dean met with the UCB Chancellor and Vice- Chancellor and with other UCB personnel, all of whom reaffirmed the commitment to strengthen and formalize relations between the two institutions. Since the 1999 focused visit, the GTU and UCB have signed a joint Memorandum of Understanding governing the two joint degree programs, and the former UCB Chancellor Robert Berdahl has accepted election as a member of the GTU Board of Trustees.

The description of the relationship in the GTU catalog was revised (and further revised in response to a suggestion from the 1999 focused visiting team) in order to make it clear that GTU Ph.D. students not in the joint degree programs are not admitted to UCB, but are reviewed by the Graduate Division to ensure they meet the academic standards for graduate course work at the university.

Planning. The GTU was challenged to set institutional priorities for development and fundraising; to improve academic planning, especially in regard to enrollments and educational quality in the doctoral program; and to develop a strategic planning document for the library addressing issues of space, staff, collection development, preservation, automation, fundraising, and other issues identified by the library administration in consultation with the Library Committee.

In response, the GTU developed an intensive strategic planning process that led to the ratification (by the GTU Board of Trustees and the boards of all nine member schools) of a new consortial governance document known as the Common Agreement. Soon after the arrival of James Donahue as the new GTU President in 2000, the Board of Trustees adopted a

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 37 strategic plan entitled Educating Theological Leaders for an Interreligious and Interdependent World that was submitted to ATS and WASC in 2000. An updated revision and refinement of that plan will be presented to the Board of Trustees for final approval in October 2005. As described elsewhere in this report, the strategic plan identifies five priorities that constitute the components of the capital campaign now underway.

Through academic planning, the GTU has determined that the optional size of the doctoral program will accommodate approximately thirty new students each year, and the implementation of this enrollment target (along with more stringent attention to review of student academic progress) has resulted in reducing the number of doctoral students from 247 in 1999 to 208 in 2004. A new financial aid policy implemented in 1999 provides for some Presidential Scholarships (full tuition plus stipend) awarded solely on the basis of merit, with other grant-in-aid awards taking both merit and need into consideration. Both the newly-instituted reviews of Core Doctoral Faculty and the periodic reviews of the doctoral program areas regularly address issues of educational quality.

The Library has developed both short-term and long-term plans for meeting its needs for space, as well as documents guiding collection development, technological services, and cooperative arrangements with UCB. The Library has carried out all of the other actions mandated by the ATS and WASC Commissions in 1996, as certified by the team for the 1999 focused visit.

Evaluation. The GTU was directed to engage in a comprehensive review of procedures for the evaluation of trustees, Core Doctoral Faculty, and M.A. students.

The GTU Board of Trustees engaged in various self-assessment and evaluation exercises in 1997, 2001, and 2003. Board leadership has clarified the criteria for the selection and satisfactory performance of Board members. The selection process has become more comprehensive, involving a good deal of personal interaction. There is an annual orientation session for new Board members.

In 1998, the Core Doctoral Faculty established a periodic review process for all its members, with approximately a fifth of the membership being evaluated each year by the Appointments and Review Committee. A special doctoral-level course evaluation form is now administered in all doctoral level courses and used by the GTU Dean as part of the periodic review process.

Since 1997, the GTU Dean’s administrative assistant (in her role as M.A. Coordinator) has used a checklist to track the progress and remaining requirements for all students in the Common M.A. program. This procedure, which is in addition to monitoring and advising that takes place in the school or center of affiliation, has helped to ensure consistency of standards and encourage timely completion of the program. The Council of Deans has a Subcommittee for the Common M.A. Program that meets regularly to consider policy issues or recurrent problems so that it can recommend changes to policy or procedure for adoption by the Council of Deans as a whole.

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 38

Internal administration. The GTU was asked to conduct a review of staff policies and procedures to deal with morale issues among the staff, to review the Financial Aid Office; and to review and policies and procedures for student advising.

A staff relations committee formed in response to concerns about staff morale was effective for a time, but it has now been succeeded by an arrangement in which the entire GTU staff meets monthly, as does a team of mid-level managers.

The Financial Aid Office was completely reorganized shortly after the 1996 visit. Several successive directors have implemented new policies for awarding financial aid, established a scholarship listserv, and developed new programs to assist students with securing outside scholarship assistance and managing debt.

In regard to student advising, the GTU Dean updated the Doctoral Program Handbook to clarify appropriate expectations between students and their advisors. Faculty members’ work in advising is a subject for evaluation at the time of the periodic review of Core Doctoral Faculty members. The Admissions Committee only admits students to the doctoral program if appropriate advisors are available on the faculty and have not already reached their capacity to take on new doctoral students.

The team for the 1999 focused visit reported that they found “no evidence of the staff morale problems which had been of concern to the 1996 visiting team.” Furthermore, they determined that “Appropriate policies and procedures have been put in place to deal with personnel, financial aid, and student advising issues on an ongoing basis.”

Doctoral program. The GTU was to clarify the character and limits of the flexibility of doctoral program requirements; evaluate the various areas of the doctoral program; and review the conceptualization of the program as a whole, with special attention to two areas (Religion and Psychology; and Worship, Proclamation, and the Arts).

In response, the GTU revised the description of the doctoral program to emphasize its openness to interdisciplinary scholarship while maintaining requirements for demonstration of competence in a particular field of study. Provision was made for doctoral students to certify competence in an “allied field” in addition to their primary area of concentration. The Ph.D. and Th.D. have been clearly distinguished by statements in the Catalog to the effect that Th.D. students locate their field of specialization within the broad discipline of theology and do not necessarily make use of “secular” disciplines in their study, whereas Ph.D. students do their work in theological or religious studies in the context of the university research disciplines and have specific requirements in that regard.

Concern about the GTU’s ability to ensure that it will be able to maintain adequate faculty resources to support the doctoral program led to the adoption of a Consortial Faculty Hiring and Development Agreement that has been in effect since 1999. The 1999 visiting team encouraged the GTU to consider the need for a sociologist of religion as a test case for the new agreement’s effectiveness; similar points were made about feminist theology and Islamic Studies. As noted in the section under “Faculty and Staff” in Essay 3, recent appointments made by member schools have helped to address all three of these critical needs.

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 39

The 1996 visiting team was concerned that only two area reviews had been completed between 1988 and 1996. All of the then-existing doctoral program areas were reviewed between 1996 and 2000. Since 2000, a second cycle of reviews has been completed for Interdisciplinary Studies, History, Ethics and Social Theory, Systematic and Philosophical Theology, Biblical Studies, and Christian Spirituality. As the result of a special internal review of faculty resources in Religion and Psychology, that area has not admitted any new students since 2001. Reviews of the two areas (Interdisciplinary Studies, and Cultural and Historical Studies of Religions) that will begin in 2005-06 will use a new experimental format with increased focus on assessment of student learning. After that, the second cycle of reviews will be completed with review of the three new areas (Art and Religion, Homiletics, Liturgical Studies) that were created in 1999 to replace the former area of Worship, Proclamation, and the Arts. The two doctoral programs administered jointly by the GTU and the University of California, Berkeley are reviewed on a schedule established by the university, with the review of Near Eastern Religions completed in May, 2005 , and the review of Jewish Studies completed in August, 2004.

In addition to the previously mentioned reconceptualization of the doctoral program with regard to the interplay of interdisciplinarity and disciplinary focus, the governance of the program as a whole has been revised through the creation of a Faculty Council of eight members (in addition to the GTU Dean and Dean of Students, who are ex officio). This group is elected by the Core Doctoral Faculty and charged with responsibility for general oversight of quality control and for dealing with specific policy issues as they arise.

Response to Recommendations of the Visiting Team from the 1999 Focused Visit

The visiting team for the 1999 focused visit made a number of recommendations, to which the GTU responded as follows:

Strategic plan. The GTU was to adopt and submit a strategic plan in fall 2000. As noted above, this was done. That plan has served the GTU well, but as indicated in the plan itself, there has been an annual review not only of progress but of the plan itself. The revised strategic plan that will be considered by the GTU Board of Trustees in October 2005 focuses on a smaller number of initiatives, with more realistic expectations about the GTU’s fundraising capacity as indicated by the research done in preparation for the current capital campaign.

Student course evaluations. The GTU was asked to develop a course evaluation form that includes quantifiable responses. There was initial resistance to this action on the part of faculty, some of whom believed that the open-ended questions of the previous form encouraged students to give more useful feedback. However, as many of the GTU member schools have moved to adopt some quantifiable evaluative tools, and with the reopening of this issue by the current GTU Dean, the Faculty Council has adopted a new form including both quantifiable indicators and open-ended questions, to be used beginning in fall 2005.

Catalog description of doctoral student status at the University of California, Berkeley. The visiting team thought that the initial revision of the language used in the Catalog was still unclear, so the GTU was asked to make further revisions. As noted above, this was done and the new unambiguous language has been in place since the 2001-03 edition of the Catalog.

GTU Capacity and Preparatory Review Report – page 40

Consortial Faculty Hiring and Development Agreement. The GTU Dean was urged to hold the deans and presidents of the member schools accountable to the terms of this agreement, and to work with the deans to keep new faculty from being asked to take on too much responsibility in the doctoral program too soon, which would adversely affect their own professional development. Both the past and current Deans have made the implementation of the hiring agreement a major priority, and recent faculty appointments have been of high quality and appropriate for a doctoral degree-granting institution. New faculty are discouraged from applying for admission to the Core Doctoral Faculty until they have successfully passed a first review at the member school, attended area meetings for a year, and established a substantial record of publication (a scholarly monograph or the equivalent).

Response to 1999 Commission Action Letters

In a letter dated June 25, 1999, Daniel Aleshire reported that the ATS Commission on Accrediting had extended the GTU’s accreditation to spring 2006. That letter requested that the GTU submit the strategic plan to ATS by November 15, 2000, clarify the catalog wording about doctoral student’s status at UCB, and adhere to the Consortial Faculty Hiring and Development Agreement. The GTU response to all of those issues has been described above.

In a letter dated July 6, 1999, Ralph Wolff reported that the WASC Accrediting Commission had reaffirmed the GTU’s accreditation and asked for a progress report on planning, the consortial governance agreement, and the evaluation of doctoral faculty. This progress report was submitted in March 2001. The GTU response on the first two issues has been described above. The evaluation of doctoral faculty has continued steadily, with approximately ten faculty members reviewed each year since 1999, so that some have now been reviewed twice. Following the review by the Appointments and Review Committee, the GTU Dean writes a letter to the faculty member either renewing the appointment, recommending a leave for a specified period, or removing the person from the Core Doctoral Faculty. This letter, which is copied to the dean and president of the faculty person’s member school, also provides a detailed assessment of perceived strengths and weaknesses, and makes recommendations for future action.