Slippery Rock University MSCHE 2011 Self-Study
Chapter Four: Observations and Recommendations
Observations and Recommendations Large majorities of Slippery Rock University graduates express satisfaction with the education they receive at the university. The aforementioned 2008 survey of Slippery Rock alumni found that 98% rate the quality of education that they receive as either “excellent or good” and 98% also would recommend the university to others. During the last decade, almost all undergraduate programs have been sustained by steady or growing enrollments and, as Chapter Three indicates, assessment of student learning has now become pervasive within those programs, contributing to ongoing renewal of their content and delivery. The following recommendations are meant to build on those prior successes, to further strengthen the programs that have so far led to a resurgence of interest in Slippery Rock University among high school graduates in search of a premier public residential university to attend. •
Slippery Rock University has a remarkably stable faculty, one that is deeply committed to the success of the institution. Clearly, no component is more essential to the success of a university’s academic offerings than its faculty. Thus, the university needs to closely examine the processes involved in faculty recruitment and development and the results manifest in its hiring and retention of faculty. Such results should be compared with similar information from peer institutions and not just the results from universities in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. Why do potential faculty members apply for and then accept positions at Slippery Rock University? What traits and abilities are characteristic of those applicants? What more can be done to attract the best candidates and to keep them at the University once hired?
•
The number of faculty members promoted in rank each year has remained consistent over the past five years with a range of 12 to 16 each year. Applications for promotion have decreased. Is this decrease reflective of the university’s changing sense of itself, resulting in a more competitive milieu for promotion applicants? Is there a greater demand for scholarly output, which some faculty fear may result in many of their colleagues who are strong teachers and engaged in extensive service not being promoted? The university has sought, through detailed guidelines for promotion in rank revised in spring of 2008, to make the process as transparent and accessible as possible. A next step may be to survey the faculty to see if perceptions of unfairness and of a shift in criteria are extensive, which could be addressed in a useful manner. Given the generally accepted value of scholarship as an aid to teaching and curricular renewal, the university should also explore more ways to assist faculty members in their scholarly growth. One suggested approach is to weight travel funding so a greater proportion goes to faculty members at lower academic ranks who are actively seeking promotion.
•
One feature of the recently revised guidelines for applying for promotion in rank is a detailed description of what constitutes effective teaching. Providing that same detailed description in the guidelines for applying for tenure would emphasize the importance of teaching in obtaining 70 | P a g e