History Department Academic Program Review, Georgia State University

Submitted by: Carole Haber, Chair, University of Delaware Jerry Bentley, University of Hawaii Michael Tomlan, Cornell University

January 22, 2008

Section A.

Quality of the instruction, research, and service

Strengths: As the self-study demonstrates, the Department makes an important contribution to the University, not only in the publications and research of the faculty, but also through the enormous amount and level of teaching, and public service to the city, the region, and the nation. The numbers of its majors have increased, and the Department has made an attempt to offer additional upper-level sections to meet this demand. They continue to expand the number of faculty, and have employed young faculty who have brought remarkable enthusiasm and innovative ideas. At every rank, the faculty are productive; they have published extensively and have received important grants. The Department is beginning to convert adjunct faculty into lecturer lines, and has employed well-qualified individuals for these positions. Both the new and more established faculty members have contributed to the University’s national reputation in world history and in historic preservation/public history. The Department has hosted the prestigious World History Association.

Weaknesses: Recent retirements and resignations have led to an uneven balance in faculty ranks with a large number of untenured faculty members. These numbers are likely to grow in the recent future. In order to address this imbalance and provide leadership, the team recommends that the Department target a few hires at the senior level, particularly in the fields of US and world history. Many of the younger faculty also expressed uncertainty about how to navigate successfully through the Department and University. In response, the team recommends the creation of a written handbook for new hires and a more formal mentoring system.

Centrality of the programs to the University

Strengths: The Department is clearly central to the mission of the University. The team was most impressed by the manner in which the History Department provides all undergraduates a basic understanding of the country and the world. Students who choose to major in history are able to gain a true global understanding. Moreover, the Department’s courses prepare students for a variety of career possibilities including law, public history, teaching, and graduate school.

Weaknesses: Surprisingly, while the Department identifies pre-education, world history, and public history/preservation as their three areas of strength, they give far less attention

1 to pre-education in the self-study, and do not identify American history as a focus despite the quality of faculty in the field and the quality and interest of the students. Moreover, although the History Department provides courses for many future careers, such as law and public history, students express a desire for more career guidance and advice.

Viability of the programs

Strengths: The programs in U.S. history and historic preservation are clearly viable. Students enrollments have increased, the number of majors has grown, and the quality of the students has risen. While the program in world history is younger, and has less experience to date, the enthusiasm and broad interests of its faculty are clear signs of its future success.

Weaknesses: The pre-education track, while clearly central to the university and the state and identified as a strength of the Department, has not experienced the growth in student numbers seen by the other programs. Although in the self-study the Department notes that it wishes to make changes to the program, it does not explain what these changes will be, nor was the team scheduled to speak to students in the program.

In addition, while the rise in core credit hours demonstrates the central role the Department plays in the University, it has also placed a great demand on the History Department to meet this need, and has led to a large number of courses taught by graduate students and lecturers. We will discuss this issue in more detail below.

Strategic focus.

Strengths: The Department has done an excellent job in identifying areas of importance to the mission of the University. These foci are in line with the University’s strategic plan that seeks to enhance programs of distinction, both disciplinary and multidisciplinary. The Department offers both options, identifying itself with strong history tracks at the undergraduate and graduate level, and multidisciplinary public history and historic preservation tracks at the graduate level. It contributes to interdisciplinary programs and centers, such as the Middle East Institute, the Asian Studies Center, and Latin American Studies. It provides expertise in writing across the curriculum. The students in pre- education take courses in important allied fields. Members of the Department have also excelled in sharing their expertise with the community.

Weaknesses: The review team found that the stated specialties were at some variance with the teaching activities and actual workload of the faculty. This will be discussed in more detail below. In addition, the Department’s self-study has not directly addressed the issue of diversity identified in the University’s strategic plan. While the student body is remarkable for its diversity, the administration may wish to support the faculty’s attempt to raise diversity among the graduate students and faculty. Finally, we encourage the Department and the University to support the notion of additional interdisciplinary

2 centers, such as European Studies – a new idea raised and endorsed by the faculty – and the World History Center, which was previously outlined in their goals.

Financial resource analysis

Strengths: The growth of the supply budget has increased substantially from $68,000 in 1998 to $81,921, although this budget must now cover a large number of lecturers and visiting lecturers as well as tenure-track instruction. The shift of funds from adjunct instructors to more permanent lines is underway and should be continued to assist undergraduate instruction.

Weaknesses: The Department needs several kinds of additional financial support. Most clearly, graduate stipends are too low to attract the best students or provide resources that would allow them to concentrate on completing their degrees. Such stipends need to fall in the $18,000-23,000 range. At present, time to degree is a problem – one that we believe is directly linked to economic issues. Not only must the University raise stipends for graduate students but might also consider forbidding them from taking on additional employment while holding stipends. One Ph.D. student told us that he taught five courses one semester at GSU and several other local campuses—not an ideal way for a graduate student to work through a complex program in timely fashion. The Department also needs additional funds to support faculty and graduate student research and travel. Such funds would provide the necessary resources to complete research and writing and allow individuals to interact professionally with colleagues in history, in other departments at GSU, and elsewhere in the Atlanta metropolitan area. As noted by individuals in the historical preservation program, their budget remains extremely low and support for adjunct hiring has not risen despite the need to hire professionals in the field.

Section B. History and Current Contexts

B. 1/2 Undergraduate and Graduate Programs

Strengths: The programs of the Department of History are entirely appropriate from the perspective of the larger discipline of History. World history is the fastest growing field of history at all levels of the disciplines. Thus, although the graduate program in world history has begun a bit slowly, it represents an imaginative and constructive initiative with good prospects for much stronger growth in the future. Meanwhile, historic preservation and public history are rapidly growing fields that serve the interests of the larger community in professionally respectable ways. The Department offers a variety of degrees on the graduate level that speaks to the needs of the community, the interests of the students, and their varying levels of preparation. Many of the M.A. students have gone on to obtain Ph.D.s at fine institutions, while many Ph.D. students have found employment at regional institutions and two year institutions. The students in the MHP program have obtained positions in the field.

3 Weaknesses: As the undergraduate population grows, the Department is faced with offering increasing numbers of surveys to meet the requirements of the core curriculum. This demand falls largely on lecturers and graduate students, who handle the majority of credit hours. The Department might want to experiment with different formats for the survey, as suggested by one of the lecturers, in order to deal with their staffing problem. While not all lecturers could or should teach larger classes, some possess the skills that enable them to succeed in such formats.

On the graduate level, as noted above, the team found the graduate stipends to be insufficient. Moreover, it is clear that the doctoral students in history are bearing some of the brunt of the need for lower division teaching to university non-majors. Although it was not a scheduled element in the review team’s agenda, the doctoral students who were interviewed revealed that each taught at least two and some three survey courses, and at least one student admitted taking outside part-time teaching positions at other institutions to make ends meet. While the doctoral candidates understood and appreciated the benefits of having the teaching experience, they also recognized they were shortchanging their research progress. The team believes that this amount of teaching is too demanding of time, hampers research and writing, and is linked to the extraordinary length of time it takes for doctoral candidates to finish. In addition, students suggested having a more formal system of advising as they entered the University. This system, they believed, might better inform them of their required classes and their timetable for completion.

B. 3 Faculty Development

Strengths: The Department is currently engaged in a number of searches that will increase its strength in world and American history. The faculty clearly spend a great deal of time in these searches and have recently hired outstanding young historians. The list of the numbers of articles and books produced by faculty is impressive, and the Department should be applauded for its research productivity. Several faculty members also spend a great deal of time securing outside grants.

Weakness: As the Department has identified world history as one of its three foci, but most graduate students work in American history or on the public history tract, many faculty feel there is an unevenness of workload. As is apparent from the statistics provided, the supervision of dissertations falls largely on historians of America, while the teaching of the MHP graduate program by its small faculty constitutes a large proportion of graduate hours. One historian of twentieth-century America noted that she was currently directing the work of eleven Ph.D. students. As a result, the team detected some tension over this issue, although there is general agreement that the Department is dedicated to expanding its world history program. Three solutions to the uneven workload issue might be suggested. First, the faculty might want to revisit the College’s workload and be more specific about what constitutes a “unit” and how it is measured. Such an analysis might allow for distribution of duties and scheduled course releases. Second, the University might provide more resources to attract master’s students and Ph.D. students in world history. Finally, the Department should be allowed to hire

4 additional tenure-track professors, especially at the associate or full level, who could help redistribute the workload and provide leadership.

A second faculty issue appears to be that the number of tenure-track faculty remains low and there is considerable turnover of those already hired. This continuous re-hiring process demands considerable faculty time and effort and undermines the ability of the Department to build and maintain institutional memory. The goal in the immediate future is to hire four or five new tenure-track faculty. Even with that, the number of core courses taught by tenure and tenure-track faculty will remain a clear minority of history offerings. Not only are lecturers responsible for the majority of credit hours in the Department, but one senior lecturer does the advising for all history majors. To address this imbalance, we suggest hiring more senior faculty, mentoring younger faculty, and revising the advising system.

Third, as noted above, the number of minority faculty is limited, especially in view of the student body. The Department should actively engage the University administration in the process of hiring more minority historians.

B. 4 Relevance of programs

Strengths: From the point of view of the University and College, the Department’s programs are serving the immediate community very well. The Department is mentioned twice in the College Annual Report for having attracted funding for metropolitan area study and for the recent fund established to encourage the retention of assistant professors. Many of the faculty play important roles in the study of Atlanta and its urban development.

Weaknesses: As noted above, the pre-education program has not grown, despite the increase in the general University population. We believe the Department might want to rethink the format of the program and the supervision of the students. Currently, the history/social studies programs are housed in the College of Education – an arrangement that might require reformulation. Moreover, it may want to reach out to current social studies teachers who want education in world history. In addition, while the goal of preparing doctoral candidates to teach in a variety of regional four-year and two-year educational institutions is quite laudable, with the gradual shift in emphasis toward research in a growing urban university context, the doctoral candidates should be encouraged to reach beyond the region, wherever opportunities exist. Both faculty and students felt that their goals in this regard might be too restricted.

B. 5 Peer institutions

Strengths: The choice of peer institutions is based on a close comparison of the existing combination of programs in the Department, limited to some degree by the available information about each comparative program. Peer institutions probably reflect the GSU historians’ aspirations more than their achievements. They have chosen some institutions with excellent programs that can serve as models, wholly or in part, for GSU programs.

5 Arizona State University has strong programs in public history, and the University of Pittsburgh has a young but impressive graduate program in world history.

Weakness: The Department has not listed a peer institution for their third foci: pre- education. We suggest that the Department look at other programs in which a baccalaureate certificate is actually conferred by the College of Arts and Sciences, with the cooperation of the College of Education. One such program can be found at the University of Delaware. Not only does the History Department supervise the history/social studies education of students, but the program is strong in content and has been recognized by the National Council of Social Studies as the suggested model for all other states. As a result, it has experienced a huge growth in student numbers and an outstanding placement record of its graduates.

Section C. Progress toward Goals

Strengths: The Department has addressed three of its stated goals: [a] increase the undergraduate and graduate strengths in Public History, [b] further develop the World History program, and [d] improve undergraduate and graduate programs by converting non-tenure-track lines to tenure-track lines. In the first case, a public historian was hired and other hires connect that program to the broad range of undergraduate and graduate level teaching in the Department. In the second case, four of the five goals for the World History faculty have been achieved. Finally, a significant amount of progress has been made to convert lines to tenure-track positions, and a wide range of benefits has resulted. Overall, then, the Department is doing well to achieve its goals.

Weaknesses: Within the world history program, the fifth goal involved establishment of an interdisciplinary Center of World History and Cultures. To be successful, such a center should be given considerable financial resources in the form of graduate support, postgraduate fellowships, and the like. To begin, the administration should provide history faculty with some organizational resources and encourage them to establish a network of historians and other scholars within GSU and throughout the Atlanta metropolitan area. By doing so, it could create a community of scholars and have conferences, workshops, and presentations on issues of comparative, cross-cultural, and global history. The third goal, furthering collaboration with the GSU School of Education, appears to be the most underdeveloped of the group and this was borne out in the limited discussion with the review team. Some senior members of the faculty attributed the attenuated relationship between the College of Education and the Department to the “dismal leadership” of the other unit, but there was a sense of embarrassment about the limited ability to influence the sister unit. We believe the Department, along with the College leadership, may want to explore ways to improve cooperation and redefine the program.

Strategic Plan

6 Strengths: The College and the University Strategic Plans were not provided to the review team, but the Provost emphasized the importance of interdisciplinary and international initiatives to reinforce Georgia State’s educational contributions. With some degree of pride, the History Department’s programs are both interdisciplinary and international. The international dimensions are being improved with excellent faculty in world history, and the Public History and Historic Preservation faculty are interested in cross-disciplinary linkages wherever they can be found.

Weakness: As noted above, the University Strategic Plan (as found on-line) emphasized diversity. Although the Department did not directly address this issue in the self-study, we realize that it has had some success in this area. This year, they graduated three African-American Ph.D.s and received SREB fellowships for minority Ph.D. students. At present, they have four faculty members of color. Attempts to increase this number have, however, been hampered by competition with other Universities. We urge the administration to support the Department in this goal by providing the necessary resources.

Section D. Curricula Quality

D.1 Undergraduate Curriculum Description and Quality Analysis

Strengths: The undergraduate curriculum analysis contained in the self-study report provides an overview of extensive student satisfaction data.

The recent hires in world history are important, as world views are being reformulated every day. This is particularly true in considering the history of Asia, the most populated continent on the planet. Much more attention should be paid to the changing nature of history as conceived in India, Pakistan, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Southeast Asia, and to understand how ideas of history in post-Mao China are affecting American life. The relationships between Asian countries clearly relevant as so many immigrants are bringing their customs, religions, and life styles.

Curriculum modifications in the Public History and Historic Preservation majors are being realized as new developments in those applied fields are introduced in classroom, studio, and fieldwork courses. For example, the changing nature of federal, state, and local regulatory processes or emerging financial incentives demonstrated by outside lecturers who work in government, private sector, and non-profit organizations. These curriculum modifications introduce current approaches, methods, and products expected by future employers. The evidence for this lies in the variety of positions that recent graduates now hold, throughout the Southeast and Midwest.

Weaknesses: While the content of the curriculum is strong, the faculty discussed the need to examine the skills taught in the various levels of courses. We would support this examination, especially as it pertains to the number and content of the 3000-level and 4000-level courses. We would urge the Department to examine how many 4000-level

7 courses students should be required to take (apart from 4990), and the skill level of these courses. Examining the 4000-level syllabi, we found that while most faculty have a research component in their class, not all do. Moreover, we recommend that pre- education students be required to take History 4990. The omission of this course means that such students may not have a research experience – a skill they should teach to their students and important as they pursue their master’s degrees. As the History Department uses 4990 to assess the students’ mastery of important goals, the history education students are excluded from the assessment process. D.2 Assessment

Strengths: The Department has identified important skills on both the graduate and undergraduate level. These learning outcomes are appropriately divided according to the level of the student. On the undergraduate level, the faculty randomly read papers from History 4990. Their assessments conclude that the “Department is doing a fine job achieving many of its standards, but needs to work harder on others.” The student surveys confirm that those who graduate from the program have obtained many of the skills identified by the faculty.

Weaknesses: On both undergraduate and graduate levels, the assessment process appears to lack some specificity. While the faculty conclude that most students have obtained these skills, they have not provided a rubric for measuring the students’ varied success, nor have they identified specific skills that still need to be targeted. Their notion that the faculty “needs to work harder on others,” should be clarified. A procedure that identified such weaknesses, and then determined the proportion of students who had met excellent, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory expectations in that specific skill would allow faculty to trace increasing (or decreasing) mastery over time. It would also lead to a discussion about specific curricular modifications. Some such changes, certainly, have been suggested. The team supports the notion, suggested by some faculty, the History 3000 also be assessed. We also endorse the self-study’s assertion that students take a required number of research courses (level 4000) before 4990, as research skills cannot be taught in a single course. Similarly, we support the idea that graduate students take research courses before beginning the dissertation. As noted above, we believe all history education students should also take History 4990 in order to learn these important skills and be included in the assessment process.

D. 3 Undergraduate Curriculum Writing

The Department has excelled at insuring writing across the curriculum. They have appropriate writing assignments in their courses and devote a great deal of time to the process. The students have presented their writing at conferences and feel the faculty is attentive to developing the students’ skills.

D. 4 Graduate Curriculum Description and Quality Analysis

Strengths: The History Department offers a variety of programs dedicated to a broad audience. It has recently adopted a non-thesis option for master’s students to allow them

8 to complete the degree in a timely manner. The long-standing Heritage Preservation Program has trained students well for over twenty years. It offers an innovative Study Abroad opportunity. Ph.D. students are required to take 12 courses beyond the MA degree including 7000 level surveys and advanced reading and research seminars. The students to whom we spoke had great praise for the faculty and felt they were well prepared for their comprehensive exams as well as for undertaking their dissertations. They believed that having to prepare for four broad fields gave them considerable expertise that would be useful as they entered the job market.

Weakness:

One clear weakness in the graduate program is the length of time students take to complete the Ph.D. As noted above, this may be due to the students’ need to teach and their part-time status. It also may be tied to the extensive course load. The History faculty may wish to examine other similar programs, and determine whether the 12- course requirement is beyond the standard. In so do, they may also wish to explore the distribution of required courses, in order to insure that graduate students are completing research courses before undertaking their own research, and consider the problem of the limited number of courses dedicated to Ph.D. students.

While the program should be commended for its inclusive nature and its service to the state on the graduate level, one Ph.D. student did assert that the mix of Master’s, TEEMS, and Ph.D. students in a single class seemed to have a negative impact on the level of discussion and the expectations of the faculty.

Section E. Student Quality

E.1 Undergraduate

Strengths: The quality of the undergraduates appears to be improving steadily as the GSU campus environment evolves. More students are completing their degrees. The recent acquisition of housing close to the campus has contributed to the strengthening of the undergraduate students’ academic performance. Although we were not scheduled to speak to students, the one undergraduate who met with us was clearly excited about the education she was receiving and was making fine use of the University’s varied programs.

Weaknesses: The retention of undergraduate students clearly remains a problem, as does the time to degree. The Department may want to look at the GPA of entering students, and see if other Departments are requiring more than a C average in related core courses to be admitted to the major. If so, the faculty may want to consider raising the required GPA. They may also want to interact more with the honors program, and provide enrichment opportunities for their best students. The information about the performance of the undergraduates demonstrates that only a few are going on to graduate school immediately in the region or having their capstone writing projects published. A program that provides undergraduate research stipends, such as has been adopted by the

9 University of Delaware, might address this issue. Finally, while the students express satisfaction with the major, as we noted previously, they seem dissatisfied with the career guidance being provided. We suggest more attention should be paid to what happens during senior year and the years thereafter.

E.2 Graduate students

Strengths: The few graduate students we met sang the praises of the program and the education they are receiving. They have enjoyed their teaching experiences and found the faculty extremely receptive to their needs. In recent years the Department has improved the retention and graduation rates of its students, and has instituted a non-thesis track for masters’ students. It has adopted an enrollment policy to encourage students working on their theses and dissertations to move more rapidly through the program.

The graduate faculty in the Public History and the Historic Preservation programs are guided in what subject areas they must teach, and thus keep in mind the preparation of their student cohorts in yet another fashion. The standards and guidelines of the National Council for Public History and the National Council for Preservation Education are being used, and the instruction utilizes a range of adjunct faculty well qualified to promote professional development, with appropriate connections to museum studies and archives management.

Weaknesses: The self-study identifies several problems with the graduate program. As the report notes, the program often is a back-up for students for whom Georgia State is not a first choice. As a result, the program has a high acceptance rate and rather low GREs for enrolled students. The admission statistics for the doctoral students indicate that there is a small applicant pool; often over 70 percent of the students who apply are admitted. This bears re-examination. Moreover, rates of retention are notably low, and students spend an extraordinary amount of time completing the degree. In part, this comes from the fact that many are part-time students, but it is also linked, as we noted, to the program’s length, the heavy teaching requirements, a lack of sufficient funding, and the relatively limited number of courses exclusively dedicated to doctoral candidates. Although we appreciate the assertion that students entering the job market should be prepared to teach a variety of survey level courses, the students may be able to master these skills without teaching all the surveys repeated times. We believe that one course per semester – or two in one semester each year – would allow them more time for research and writing. We also believe that increased financial support for travel, research, and conference attendance would greatly assist them. In sum, the Department may wish to reevaluate the program in terms of the program’s length, the heavy teaching responsibilities being imposed, the lack of funding, and the relatively limited number of courses exclusively dedicated to doctoral candidates.

Section F. Faculty Quality

Strengths: The caliber of the faculty is uniformly excellent. They express a real dedication to the students and the college and are enthusiastic about the future of GSU.

10 The review team was very impressed by the caliber of the young faculty, who are providing an increasing amount of strength to the college and University. They seemed to engage the students and to be involved in active research programs. They are beginning to publish at an impressive rate. To judge from student evaluations, they are doing a fine job in the classroom. Compared to peer program faculties, the age of GSU history faculty is younger than some. Nonetheless, their potential is extraordinary, and in the future, they may have a program that meets or even exceeds their aspirations.

In contrast, the peer programs in Public History and Historic Preservation are somewhat younger than the contributing faculty at Georgia State University. Professor Crimmins, for example, has served in a variety of professional and academic organizations that bring great recognition to the programs at GSU. In historic preservation alone, none of the program directors at the two other Georgia academic institutions has contributed so much for so long.

Weakness: The youth of the faculty suggests that the University and Department should provide additional financial resources and a mentoring program to insure the success and retention of young faculty.

Section G. Resource adequacy

Strengths: As noted, the Department is in the process of hiring new faculty and working with the administration to turn adjuncts into lecturers. A new staff person has been hired to fill the vacancy left by a death. Such is a replacement is obviously long overdue. Given the size and complexity of the History Department, the three individuals who currently staff the office are being asked to fulfill a multitude of tasks. Nonetheless, they all appear to be extremely efficient and enthusiastic, and clearly deserve the respect and support of the faculty. The space issues appear to have been resolved, as the Department is planning to move into a new building that will be renovated to their specifics and equipped with new furniture. GSU will never have a major research library, but history faculty have been able to make use of other Atlanta-area libraries as well as interlibrary loan services, so the limitations of the GSU library has not been a major problem for their professional work. We would encourage the administration to expand on on-line holdings and purchase the journal subscriptions listed in the self-study to address the limitations of the library.

Weaknesses: Several obvious resources deficiencies exist and work to limit the success of the history department.

Most notably, the amount of financial support provided the graduate programs is clearly insufficient. Even the “flagship” heritage preservation program demonstrates this. It constitutes 55 percent of the total number of graduate students in the Department but only six of the 45 students are supported with graduate research assistantships, putting the program at a serious disadvantage among its peers. The stipend that does exist – $14,700 – does not complete with peer institutions and should be raised to at least between

11 $18,000 - $23,000. Moreover, for this level of support, doctoral students are being asked to teach at least two or three classes at the undergraduate level each year. In response, they are necessarily delaying the completion to degree and seeking adjunct teaching opportunities elsewhere. They lack any additional support for research or travel. As a result, most subscribe to the idea that teaching numerous sections is the only viable means of financial aid.

Similarly, faculty support is rather limited. Like other institutions, GSU has come to experience a severe problem of salary compression, which has potential to corrode faculty morale. Steps taken by the University up to the present have only marginally dealt with this problem. The University must address the inequities generated by faculty salary compression without penalizing starting salaries, which we perceived to be rather low in comparison to other institutions. Other types of faculty support are needed as well. Some faculty expressed the belief that the lack of financial support for research and travel may be contributing to the retention problem.

The University should also continue to support the addition of tenure-track faculty to the Department. As we noted, we support the idea of hiring senior scholars in both American history and world history who can raise the profile of the Department of History, assist in workload issues, and help recruit new graduate students.

Additional attention should also be paid to programmatic resources. The budget for the Historic Preservation program has remained stable. The program clearly needs additional resources for publicity, travel, supplies, and the hiring of professionals as adjunct faculty. Resources should also be dedicated to interdisciplinary efforts, such as the proposed World History and European Centers.

The administration needs to supply technologically up-to-date computers for the GTAs who handle an essential part of the teaching load. In today’s environment, it is essential that they are able to communicate and supply electronic materials. Moreover, the Department needs the technological assistance once provided by the College. According to the faculty, this IT help has been eliminated.

The Department might take steps to expand its small discretionary and foundations funds, especially through contact with alumni. Some steps to increase this part of the budget include reviving the newsletter, establishing alumni awards, and beginning an alumni lecture series.

Section H: Goals and Objectives

Five goals and objectives have been identified by the History Department for the next review cycle. In summary, they are [1] to review the undergraduate major and graduate programs, [2] to rationalize the faculty teaching loads recognizing the large demand for lower division courses and relatively modest needs for graduate courses, [3] to find more contiguous space for offices and common activities, [4] to increase the visibility of the

12 Department on the Internet and find the resources to do this, and [5] to deal with the challenges of developing and retaining faculty.

The review team believes that, in general, the goals and objectives are appropriate, but need to be fine-tuned and reordered to be more effective. Item 3, space, seems to have been met for the immediate future and can be set aside. Some aspects of item 4, Internet and outreach, will be addressed soon by hiring an additional staff member, although it should be recognized that faculty administrative oversight is continually needed to maintain the proper content of the Internet “face” of the Department. This should be given administrative recognition. Hence, item 4 remains fourth in priority.

This leaves items 1, 2, and 5 as the most important. The review team believes that, because of the recent and impending new hires at the assistant professor level, before turning to the specifics of any curriculum, the Department should spend the time to draft a new set of goals and objectives in the next calendar year. This process would have the advantage of accelerating the amount and level of communication between older and recently tenured faculty members with the newer professors. It would also provide an opportunity to introduce the adjunct faculty to the new professors, which is much more essential than might, at first, seem apparent.

The team strongly supports the goal 1.iv of “strengthening the pre-education track.” Other programs should be investigated and links forged with the College of Education and the administration. As little note was paid to the issue in the self-study, this seems an area that needs considerable attention.

The use of the undergraduate and graduate program committee structure is essential to redevelop the linkages between elements of the curricula, but it is more important to allow new faculty members to see where each of their contributions can be valued (Item 5). This brings to light the immediate need to put in place more obvious mentoring activities. Almost to a person, the recent hires indicated that they would have benefited from more guidance. In addition, they supported the idea of a Department handbook, brown bag lunches and other departmental functions that would increase community. Without such measures, questions about the Department’s culture will continue to arise.

As we noted previously, the review team suggests that the Department should consider hiring at least one, and perhaps two, senior, full professor to assist in mentoring the young professors and relieve them of some of the advanced graduate student advising and supervision. As part of the general review of workload (Item 2), some limit should be imposed on the number of doctoral candidates a single faculty member is allowed to handle and tied to the annual review and evaluation of PhD. students, before the next admissions cycle begins. The Department may want to revisit the workload to define clearly what constitutes a unit and create a more systematic approach to loads. They may also wish to revisit the current advising system.

We strongly support the Department’s goal (2.e) of expanding minority faculty and graduate students. While not addressed directly in the self-study, it is essential, given the

13 wonderful diversity among the students at GSU. As such, we urge them to adopt a plan for expanding diversity, and for the administration to supply the necessary resources and support.

The review of the curriculum should be based on a “more protective” view of the doctoral students—a stance in which their teaching is curtailed somewhat and the expectations for their research are increased and supported. The need for a complete re- examination of the doctoral program is mentioned in a previous section.

Additional goals should be considered. Given the data from the student satisfaction survey, the faculty should pay more attention to career counseling. In that regard, the Public History and Historic Preservation faculty can lead the way. Alumni and development affairs officers all agree that it is undergraduate alumni who provide the majority of the gifts and donations to universities. Alumni outreach is essential. Individual graduates should be sought to support the travel expenses and honoraria for guest lecturers world-wide.

14