A University-Level review of “Strengths, Challenges, Opportunities, and Threats” (a “SCOT analysis”).

What bothers me most about the SWOC analysis is that it does not capture the essence of Western’s excellence. The programs used as examples (lines 24-50) are all excellent, but most are frankly peripheral to the university’s central purpose—excellence in undergraduate instruction across the range of the liberal arts and sciences. They are visible and meritorious, but in most cases if they disappeared tomorrow, the overall quality of Western would not be much affected. The true “engaged excellence” of Western lies in the high level of intellectual contact between faculty and student across the curriculum. That is not as sexy as a few named programs, but it is much more important.

The draft continues “We have identified “leadership” as potentially distinguishing what is special about an undergraduate degree earned at Western.” (p.3 line 45) The word “leadership” does not at all define for me what is special about a Western degree, especially right now when the public perception is that our “leaders” in public life and in business have failed us disastrously. I would say rather that what is special is our success in carrying out the traditional mission of the liberal arts and sciences to produce intelligent critical thinkers who can formulate problems, suggest solutions, critically examine those proposed solutions, and draw appropriate conclusions. Perhaps this is what “leadership” is intended to convey, but I will confess that as someone who came of age in the 60’s, I have never seen any reason to question my youthful conviction that “leaders” are mostly folks who like to stand around stroking each others egos and feeling important.

Tom Read
Mathematics

As a newcomer to the staff, I was pleasantly surprised to see a public forum opened up for discussing this analysis document.

In the document itself, I see no mention at all of the Vehicle Research Institute. The VRI Is an asset to the university and represents an opportunity to make real contributions to the US developing homegrown options for more efficient transportation while reducing harm to the environment.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

page 3, lines 42-43:

Please move to pages 4 -5 under opportunities. This item on Graduate Education describes an opportunity not a weakness.

on page 2, line 37 add:

Western has small but nationally recognized graduate programs. The Western Association of Graduate Schools has as members 90 graduate schools from the 15 western US states and 3 Canadian provinces. WWU theses have been finalists in the annual Distinguished Thesis Award competition in twelve of the past fifteen years, and have won the award in five of those years.
 

I love the idea of being a destination university - makes me feel proud, but I've only recently started hearing talk about that,and wonder what it means.  For example:

On Page 3, Lines 14-15, we are comparing our tuition rates to a national average, calling the result a 'strength'.  So that makes me think we are making a claim about "affordability" and/or "value for the dollar".  If so, then it would help my understanding to see it weighted with some additional data such as:

1) ...how our local cost of living compares to the national average.

2) ...what measure of a national school are we?  I.e., if x.yz% of our students come from within 150 miles (Puget Sound), is that figure pertty consistent with other national schools we're comparing our tuition to?

3) ...how does our trend over the past 5 years extrapolated through the next 5 compare to that of other schools?  (Are we going to catch-up to them soon?)

4) ...given Washington's direct-transfer agreement, did we, or should we, add the local community colleges into the national average as well -- are they not similar to WWU if the DTA makes them a viable alternative for BA/BS pursuing students for the first 2 years of their educational goal?

Anyway, I'm wondering if our tuition rate is really a strength or not; seems like we've raised it the maximum amount allowed by law (7%) for several years in a row now, and there are no signs that we'll be able to start avoiding that anytime soon.  Also seems like a lot of BA/BS-headed students might choose a community college over WWU for their first 2 years in order to save money on tuition or expenses.

There are some focused ways we can call our tution a strength - especially when comparing ourselves to schools outside of Washington, and probably the UW or WSU as well.  But if we're making an analysis that hopes to shape our future direction / decision-making, I'd be hesitant to call our tuition a strength, because in order to do that, it seems we'll have to ignore some factors that are not being ignored by our constituents.  I'm sure they are comparing us to community colleges given the DTA, for example.  And I'm also sure that no matter how we stack up to other institutions, our tuition increases of 7% per year are outpacing cost of living increases that our students' parents/benefactors are receiving in their salaries.

I think our tuition is defensible - but maybe it would be better classified as a challenge, instead of a strength.

- dave

  I was surprised not to see the university's general education component mentioned in the SWOC analysis except in Line 46, page 6, under Accreditation visit requirements: "Program assesment especially related to GURs." Both faculty and students  devote an extensive amount of time to a liberal arts education at Western -- including those in the specialized programs that are cited as praiseworthy. The absence of a mention of the GURs as a strength, a weakness, or an opportunity seems like a significant gap, especially when the SWOC analysis may become linked to objectives used for decision-making and budgeting.

  Thanks for the opportunity to read these documents and to comment.

Carolyn Dale, Journalism Dept.

 Carolyn,

I appreciate your attention to our GUR program. As the person responsible for overseeing the quality of our GUR program, I see our GUR program as a current weakness and a current opportunity.

Consider the National Study of Student Engagement (NSSE), a standardized student satisfaction instrument administered to freshmen and seniors. Among seniors, we outscore our carnegie class and other Far West Public Universities on benchmark comparisons for Level of Academic Challenge, opportunities for "Active and Collaborative Learning," "Student-Faculty Interaction," "Enriching Educational Experiences," and a "Supportive Campus Environment." However, we trail our Carnegie class and our competitors on ALL these markers in the freshman year.

These results are triangulated in our own alumni surveys.  In our most recent survey, 86% of our Juniors said they were "mostly" or "very" satisfied with the instruction they received in their major department. However only 45% of these juniors said they were "mostly" or "very" satisfied with the instruction they received in their GURs.

This weakness becomes an opportunity when we recognize that improving the GURS is within our grasp. After all, we know how to teach well--we do it in our majors. NSSE data show that instruction in our majors is engaging, enriching, interactive and challenging. Departmental initiatives and assessment plans further ensure that this is so. We need now to broaden this "engaged excellence" to our GUR program. The first step in doing that is to "see" the GURS, to notice--as you have done--when we have ignored them. People "see" the majors and feel responsible for them. I am, for instance, an English professor. My very title makes me responsible for courses taught in that major. To improve our gurs we must first feel that same kind of collective responsibility for the freshman and sophomore year.

Steve VanderStaay

Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education

I want to reaffirm Carolyn Dale's comment and call attention to the centrality of CHSS core curriculum and majors to a well-rounded liberal education. The CHSS programs should be listed as strengths that WWU provides the community and region.

Thank you,

Marc Geisler, Chair, English