Newsletter Feature Article
An Outside Perspective on Humanities Program Review
By Lee Ann E. Westman, Ferris State University
Part Two
From 9.1 (Fall 2005)
[This article is the second of two parts; the “Insider’s Perspective” provided by William D. Dyer appeared in the spring 2005 newsletter—Ed.]
>Joinpers
IN THE FALL OF 2003, Dr. William Dyer invited me to visit Minnesota State University in Mankato as the outside evaluator for their Humanities Program Review. I agreed, and Dr. Dyer communicated with me regularly to arrange the travel and the specifics of the site visit. In addition, he sent me a detailed and helpful report that outlined the history of the program, provided some feedback from former students, described curriculum and faculty, listed program resources and, most importantly, mapped out for me the challenges that the Humanities Program faces at this time. His report helped me to understand more clearly my own role in program review, and to prepare my own queries for students, faculty, and administrators. In addition, Dr. Dyer arranged for me to meet with a number of students in both their humanities classrooms and in one-on-one interviews, and to visit with faculty and administrative staff. Dr. Dyer was generous with his own office space and time, and I credit his work before and during the program review for any useful observations and recommendations that I am able to make. It would have otherwise been very difficult to learn so much about a program in just two days.
At NAHE’s 2005 conference in Richmond, Dr. Dyer and I reported on the results of our collaboration. As he indicated in his spring 2005 newsletter piece, “For those about to embark on such a process, we’d like to share briefly those recommendations. We claim no special expertise here. However, we think our experience illustrates the importance of preparation and the reflexive relationship between inside and outside program perspectives.”
1. Westman —The Outside Perspective.
In his self-study report, Dr. Dyer pointed out on the first page that the Humanities Program at MSU “has been residing at [a] crossroads for a long time.” He explained that this program review is concerned, in part, with the following question: “[is it better] if the Humanities Program either assumed considerably larger proportions at MSU, remained at its current tiny dimensions, or disappeared, either by being made to go away or by becoming absorbed by its most interested and most supportive parent, the English Department?” He pointed out, as he did in his spring newsletter piece, that the Humanities Program had “no full-time or permanent part-time faculty, save in-load contributions by faculty from the English Department; no independent program status; no real operating budget beyond an $865 for materials and equipment.”
His concern about the program being cut due to lack of funds and support caught my attention right away. Humanities Programs are generally quite inexpensive to run. At my own institution, Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Michigan, the university’s funding matrix shows that programs in communications, foreign languages, English, liberal arts, and interdisciplinary studies are among the lowest-cost programs at the university but attract the most students. In 2003, 644 students were enrolled in so-called “low cost” programs while 365 were enrolled in “high cost” programs such as nursing, optometry, pharmacy, and science technologies (487 were enrolled in “middle cost” programs). I saw that MSU-Mankato had a similar distribution of majors and students, and highlighted this to the faculty and administrators during my meetings with them and in my report.
After meeting with faculty, students, and administrators, my recommendation was to grow the program – what was really amazing about this small program is that it continues to attract devoted students despite its size, lack of resources, and organization. The university has an untapped resource here. Even a well-run Humanities Program is inexpensive, and it is the type of program that attracts and retains students, and provides important general education course work. In many ways, interdisciplinary education itself represents the future of education.
Specifically, I gave the following suggestions to help them to grow the program; as Bill noted in the spring, some will be easier to implement than others:
1. Make Humanities Program a stand-alone program;
2. Return credit hours to Humanities Program;
3. Give director more release time;
4. Make inroads into general education, such as the “Human Diversity” category;
5. Put your best faculty in your introductory courses;
6. Forge relationships with faculty in programs other than English, especially faculty in art history, women’s studies, and music – these are the areas the students would like to see added to the course work;
7. Hire an interdisciplinary Humanities faculty member;
8. Increase Humanities budget so the Program can be more involved in the university;
9. Start a Humanities organization for undergraduate students;
10. Pursue graduate certificate in humanities;
11. Find ways to “bundle” humanities program with other majors;
12. Create a Humanities Faculty Learning Community through the Center for Teaching and Learning.
Other Recommendations
1. Study Abroad
2. Campus Art Gallery partnership
3. Continue sponsoring Interdisciplinary Humanities conferences
